Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.

The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

As can be seen from the graphs below; Mann’s cherry-picked version makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ‘tick’ in the late 20th century (the blade of his ‘hockey stick’). But below that, Ball’s graph, using widely available public data, shows a much warmer MWP, with temperatures hotter than today, and showing current temperatures well within natural variation.

Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider is a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph data, relied upon by the UN’s IPCC in the iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’

As first reported in Principia Scientific International (February 1, 2017), the defendant in the case, Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball, had won “concessions” against Mann, but at the time the details were kept confidential, pending Mann’s response.

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr. Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr. Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called “climate deniers” like President Donald Trump and his EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt.

As Dr. Ball explains:

“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

Punishment for Civil Contempt

Mann’s now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball’s statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State” is a true statement of fact. This is because under Canada’s unique ‘Truth Defense’, Mann is proven to have wilfully hidden his data and the court can rule on this because it is fake. As such, the court must dismiss Mann’s entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

The spectacular rise and fall of climate alarmism’s former golden boy is a courtroom battle with even more ramifications than the infamous Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. To much fanfare at the time, Mann had sued Ball for daring to publish the damning comment that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State.” Dr. Ball brilliantly backed up his exposure of the elaborate international money-making climate fraud in his astonishing book, ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’.

Dr. Ball has been unswerving in his generation-long war against those who corrupted the field of science to which he had selflessly dedicated his life. Now aged 79, Ball is on the cusp of utter vindication. Dr. Ball has been at the forefront of those scientists demanding more openness and transparency by government-funded researchers.

As Ball explains:

“We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Likely Repercussions for Science & Climate Policy

A bitter and embarrassing defeat for a scientist, self-styled as a ‘Nobel Prize winner’ and the epitome of virtue, this outcome leaves not only Michael Mann, but the climate science community in crisis. Mann has always been a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics who called him out for fakery.

But it gets worse for the litigious Michael Mann. Close behind Dr. Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. Steyn also defends himself against Mann’s Washington DC SLAPP suit and claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr. Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann.

But at a time of clamor about ‘fake news’, it seems climate scare stories will have a new angle now that the United States has officially stepped back from the Paris Climate Treaty. President Trump was elected on a mandate to weed out climate fraud so his supporters will point to this legal outcome as vindication for a full purge. It makes a mockery of statements made by Mann last February when PSI’s Hans Schreuder and John O’Sullivan publicly backed their colleague, Dr. Ball and endorsed the revelations in Ball’s book. Mann reacted by moaning:

“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”

The perpetrator of the biggest criminal “assault on science” has now become clear: Dr. Mann utterly damned by his contempt of the court order to show his dodgy data.

There can be little doubt that upon the court in Canada ruling that Mann did commit data fraud, then over in Washington DC, the EPA’s Scott Pruitt will be under intense pressure from skeptics to initiate a full investigation into Mann, his university and all those conspiring to perpetuate a trillion-dollar carbon tax-raising sting on taxpayers.

With the scent of courtroom victory invigorating pensioner Ball, he reveals he is just as determined to win in court again as he faces a similar libel lawsuit served against him by fellow Canadian climate scientist, Andrew Weaver.

On that case Tim reports:

“The second defamation lawsuit involves Andrew Weaver and is scheduled for court in October 2017. We are not sure what will happen as Weaver, who was a lead author for the computer model chapter of four IPCC Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, and 2013), became a politician. He ran for and was elected leader of the British Columbia Green Party and is a sitting member of the provincial legislature. We must continue to prepare for the trial, but it is the prevailing view in the court system that if a scientist becomes a politician their scientific objectivity is compromised – it is considered the bias of a ’noble cause’.”

As a career-long defender of the scientific method, embracing open and transparent verification of important government research, Ball makes this promise to his loyal supporters:

“Regardless of the outcomes, I am planning a major campaign to expose to the world how they used the court system to silence me because I dared to speak out against their claims and actions. I am not particularly bright but I had two major threats: I was qualified and I had an ability to explain in a way the public could understand. These latter abilities were honed in teaching a science credit for art students for 25 years.”

Saving a final word for his friends and colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI) Dr. Ball concluded:

“It goes without saying that I could not have done any of this without the support of people like [like Gregg Thomspon] who gave money and John O’Sullivan who gave superb advice from a legal and life experience perspective.”

Dr. Ball and his PSI colleagues are among those now calling for governments to set aside funding for ‘blue team’ scientists and experts capable of critically examining claims made by so-called ‘experts’ where they impact public policy.

To that end, Australian Astronomer and entrepreneur Gregg Thompson has been crucial in providing resources that helped establish PSI as a registered UK charity devoted to this noble cause. PSI is urging more charitable donations from ordinary citizens to help further the cause of creating more ‘blue team’ initiatives devoted to monitoring government science and prepared to bravely expose negligence and intentional misconduct on the public dime.


Read more from Dr. Ball at his website: drtimball.comBuy on Amazon Dr. Tim Ball’s ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘.

Read more at Principia-Scientific, Intl.

Trackback from your site.

Comments (24)

  • Avatar

    mark

    |

    Do you really think this will make headlines or Mann will do time? The rabbit hole is much deeper than that.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Russell Seitz

      |

      An actual member of the bar begs to differ :

      Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.
      No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

      Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

      Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

      In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

      Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

      If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

      O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

      The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

      So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

      Roger D. McConchie
      Lawyer

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Tom Martin

    |

    Looking for exact court – date and case identifiers for independent corroboration.
    Frankly after a decade + of their refusal to debate, and 8 years of Big Brother Obama worshiping any excuse to extend taxes and control – this sounds too good to be true.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    2008, M.Mann was exposed as a fraudster in the book “The Deniers” . Three Canadians get credit. Author Lawrence Solomon, geologist Stephen McIntyre and economist Ross McKitrick . Since then Climategate emails confirmed that fraud was afoot. That should have been the end of it, but politicians have kept the crime of the century going. A losing streak in these court cases should put thousands of climate change promoters out of business.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    BillD

    |

    This whole op ed is fake news. There is no evidence anywhere that Mann’s work is fake or fraudulent. In fact his original 1998 study has been confirmed and supported by more than 20 more recent studies. Mann is a distinguished professor at the Penn State. Anyone think that he could carry on in his position if any of this talke of fakery and fraud was true?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      He is distinguished, alright.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Al Shelton

      |

      @BILLD…..
      If his evidence is not fake why doesn’t he show it, or release it to the deserving taxpayers, and skeptics?
      He is acting like he knows it will not stand up factually, to anyone but his “pal” reviewers.
      BILLD.. you are either an ignorant fool or are aiding and abetting the AGW fraud.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      richfisher

      |

      “There is no evidence anywhere that Mann’s work is fake or fraudulent.”

      See first graph above.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Bill would not recognize evidence, even if it gave him frostbite.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Please provide links to these “20 more recent studies” drewski.
      ” Anyone think that he could carry on in his position if any of this talke of fakery and fraud was true?” Well considering he was “cleared” by the same guy who “cleared” Sandusky… Yes?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      Even fellow cLIEmate alarmist Muller eviscerates Mr Fraudy Pant’s fake graph. LOL…

      Reply

      • Avatar

        amirlach

        |

        If Mann’s Graph is so solid and has “been confirmed and supported by more than 20 more recent studies”. Why has the IPCC quietly removed it from all “more recent” reports? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfafW_3oJ3Q

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Dr. Ball played the long game and the long reach of the law is going to
    snap the scientific fraud that was a hockey stick .
    Why is Michael Mann so afraid of producing his data ? Hide the decline and hide the data . Two sides of the same coin .
    A real scientist shares their assumptions and data not hide it
    behind some goofy excuse .
    At this point Mann will want this case to just disappear .
    Saber rattling done and like the Wizard of Oz there is nothing but a trembling bluffer behind the curtain which has now been pulled back .
    If Mann won’t show his work and committed to deliver it as a condition of a retrial agreement he can expect in coming .
    Wasn’t the hockey stick already debunked anyway ?
    Duke University has science fiction issues that amount to tax payer theft if confirmed. How much tax payer money has been funneled to science fiction writers to facilitate the manipulation of public policy at the EPA ? How many sue / settle scams were pulled by the EPA and their lobbyist backers . We are about to fine out .
    Any” scientist ” that refuses to back up their hypothesis is a promoter .
    Enough excuses .

    We are at the tip of the iceberg no doubt .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      steve

      |

      Truth is self evident, and doesnt need to be hidden.
      Truth stands alone and defends itself by its own simple reality.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    JayPee

    |

    Why is honorably extolled
    professor Mann
    hiding his conclusive dissent destroying proof ?

    If we can get the criminal lying MSM to print any of this,
    professor Mann’s reputation and credibility will be destroyed
    And as well with the media complying idiots
    WHO DEFENDED HIM
    without an
    IOTA OF PROOF !

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      Mann ‘s strategy of suing his critics in order to silence them worked for awhile. The glacial pace of justice bought him some time. Congrats to Tim Ball and Mark Steyn for digging in. The ink on the mastheads of the MSM will be smudged forever.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    AntiBanshee

    |

    Hiding data. Reminds me of Hillary Clinton’s emails. Mann and Clinton are of the same ilk. Lying liars.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    What kind of skeletons lurk in Mr Mann’s closet what dark secrets dose he have to hide? THE PLOT THICKENS MY DEAR WATSON and Mann as well as Gore need to be exposed as the con men they are and phonies like DiCaprio as well

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Dave Litheveder

    |

    Seems premature, though accurate. “Don’t count your chickens ‘fore they’re hatched,” applies here. Eagerly awaiting the judge’s ruling.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      Yes, there is much speculation in this article. Same as Mark Steyn’s case with Mann, there seems to be no urgency. Meanwhile, Earth couldn’t care less.

      Reply

Leave a comment