Dr. Tim Ball Defeats Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann’s Climate Lawsuit
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against skeptical Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Full legal costs were awarded to Dr. Ball, the defendant in the case. The Canadian court issued its final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed May 2019 by Dr. Tim Ball’s libel lawyers. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. IPCC 2001 climate report. >click to read<15:07
Mann’s lawyer has a MUCH different version of events. Ball requested the case
be dismissed. There was no finding Mann withheld data or did anything fraudulent,
and Ball’s own lawyer said he (Ball) had no credibility.
Mann’s lawyer’s statement:
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1165689301021204480
(Please right click to open in another window. Thank You, Moderator)
Mann refused to submit data that the court had ordered, and so his case was dismissed. The only fair and reasonable conclusion is that Mann had no case, no matter how hard he tries to spin it.,
Dave Appell, THINK about it for a moment. The FACTS are that the defamation case Mann brought against Dr. Ball was scheduled to go to trial on February 20th, 2017. In lieu of that trial, it was Mann who requested an adjournment, most likely because the Canadian court would require him to produce his ‘hockey stick’ R2 regression numbers and code – which would then become public. The court granted Mann’s request for adjournment – but it did so with ‘conditions’ – of which were that Mann was required to produce those R2 regression numbers and code to Dr. Ball, and set the deadline at February 20th, 2017.
This is where you have to stop listening to Mann, and start listening to facts and logic: If Mann had complied with the conditions (that he agreed to , mind you) (i.e. producing all documentation required by the court) then the case would have ended on February 20th 2017. There would have been NO logical reason for Dr. Ball to seek a dismissal back in May of 2019 if Mann had actually complied back in 2017, as he says he did. The ONLY logical conclusion one can make is that Mann NEVER complied with the conditions set forth in the adjournment agreement.
It also stands to reason that the ONLY reason the court awarded Dr. Ball with both the dismissal AND court costs to be paid by Mann is because Mann failed to comply, and was technically in contempt of court in failing to do so.
Mann says that he and his lawyer will appeal (they have 30 days to do so). Let’s see how that plays out – because if he did, in fact, fail to comply with the requirements of the adjournment, then the court will deny his appeal on grounds of the contempt issue. That is, if Mann even bothers to appeal, knowing that he failed to honor the agreement, and that his ‘hockey stick’ is actually fraudulent – which is what caused all of this nonsense to begin with.
If you cant grasp the basics of the ruling in a simple court case, how can you possibly understand the complexity of climate science
if you cant grasp that Mann’ & his lawyers are grossly misrepresenting the facts and proceedings in the court case, How can you possibly recognize any of Mann’s other misrepresentations?
HOW are Mann & his lawyer “grossly misrepresenting” the facts and proceedings? How?
Oh really? Mann’s lawyer sees it differently even though he is wrong? What a shock.
Rich, if the hockey stick is fraudulent, why has it been reproduced by many different groups by now using different mathematical techniques, including directly using the MBH data & methods and including just last month another paper from PAGES 2k that used seven different statistical techniques and found the same hockey stick as everyone else?
https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/MBH_reevaluation.html
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0
David,
How come in each case they erase the MWP???? When you start with ‘homogenized’ data, you get a ‘homogenized’ result.
Mann’s hockey stick is fraud because the data used to create it is fraudulent – and he knew that (he even stated as much in the CRU email leaks).
However, NONE of that matters in the outcome of Dr. Ball case – the question is STILL unanswered: If Mann complied with the conditions of the court granted adjournment (again, the adjournment that Mann himself requested), then why didn’t the case end on 2/20/17?
The fact that Dr. Ball had to request a dismissal a full 2 years AFTER that deadline is a CLEAR indication that Mann FAILED to comply with the court ordered conditions for the adjournment. WHY??? Why would the court grant Dr. Ball a dismissal PLUS court costs if Mann had complied as he claims??
There is only ONE logical reason for Mann to intentionally fail to comply: his data/methodology/computer program code would have become public – available for legitimate public review. It is obvious that he didn’t want that to happen, so again – WHY???
If everything a person claims is on the up-and-up, then why would they need to hide anything? You don’t put yourself in a position of contempt of court by refusing to produce requested documentation if you have nothing to hide.
This case had the outcome it did for very specific reasonings – and NOTHING that the Mann team is currently publicly stating regarding that outcome makes sense given what we know. Their responses are simply not logical given the circumstances. There’s no two ways about any of this.
“Mann’s hockey stick is fraud because the data used to create it is fraudulent – and he knew that (he even stated as much in the CRU email leaks).”
HOW are the data fraudulent? How?
Prof. Mann released the first phase of his chart in 1998 and the final chart in 1999. That was shortly after the US Senate passed the Bryd-Hagel resolution by a 95-0 vote stating the US would not be taking part in the Kyoto Protocols in 1997.
Coincidence?
The question asked back then was how did he take a few new tree ring samples and come up with a new version of the prior 1,000 years of climate history which eliminated both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, both of which are well documented in art, literature, history and science?
The 2009 Climategate email release showed it was political, not science based.
They’ve all found the MWP wasn’t a global event. What data once said it was?
No answer?
Mann et al’s data have been available for well over a decade:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
Scientists have independently reproduced all of the results using the data available in the public domain:
https://ral.ucar.edu/projects/rc4a/millennium/MBH_reevaluation.html
Again, Mann requested an adjournment of the case before it went to the trial phase. That adjournment was granted by the court – WITH CONDITIONS that Mann produce the ‘hockey stick’ data & computer code requested by Dr. Ball. Mann agreed to these conditions, yet the case did NOT end at the required deadline – WHY? Why did Mann refuse to comply for 2 years – until Dr. Ball finally requested – and was granted – a dismissal last week – with Mann being responsible for court costs???
If the data and computer code requested by Dr. Ball and the court were already in the public domain – then why would the court put conditions of producing said data and code on Mann’s requested adjournment? Why wouldn’t Mann have just provided the data/code right there and then if it was already available – in fact – why would Dr. Ball have had to ask for the data/code he was seeking if it was already available ??
Again, there’s something missing here – what was it in specific that Mann failed to provide in order to satisfy the court in the adjournment??
It is OBVIOUS that Mann is hiding something related to his hockey stick, and we also know that NOAA, CRU (HadCRUT) data sets have all admittedly been “homogenized”, so we can argue all day long regarding results, but the subject at hand is this court case, who “won”, and WHY.
I can reproduce a Ford Pinto using a hundred different manufacturing methods, but at the end of the day I’m still left with a dangerous and unreliable car when all is said and done, am I not? Start with the same building blocks, and no matter how you assemble them, you’re still left with the same base material in the end.
I’ll remain focused on the Mann v. Ball case, its internal workings, and the outcome for now. I’m not into goalpost moving and Gish Gallup-style distraction techniques.
You brought up the MWP. What data, before MBH, showed it was global? I’ve asked people this before and have never gotten an answer.
So, then you have no interest in discussing the POINT of this entire thread (Mann v. Ball – Mann loses)????
You instead wish to focus on the MWP instead?
Just to be clear….
Seems like you’re more interested in deflecting attention from the subject at hand than anything else.
Yes I’m interested in the case. But you brought up the MWP, as it seems to be the basis for your (and other’s) determination that MBH was fraudulent. So I am asking what made you think the MWP was every global?
There are over 100 scientific papers that point to the existence of the MWP. It wasn’t until Mann et. al. decided it “needed to go away” that anyone started questioning the fact that it was global.
What evidence do you have that shows it WASN’T?????
What are those 100 papers?
Start here – the graphs are all products of these studies:
http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.htmx
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/medieval-warm-period
Are all these studies over the same time period? Do they have the same time resolution? (important questions)
In an earlier paper PAGES 2k wrote:
“There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age….”
— “Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia,” PAGES 2k Consortium, Nature Geosciences, April 21, 2013
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html
They divided time into 25 year periods and found this:
https://andthentheresphysics.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pages-2k-temperature-grid.jpeg
showing there was no simultaneous global warm period around 1000 CE.
Just throwing up a bunch of graphs on a Web page doesn’t cut it.
For the record……
Emails from ‘climategate’
Man-Made Warming Controversy
“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple.”
—Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
“Keith’s [Briffa] series…differs in large part in exactly the opposite direction that Phil’s [Jones] does from ours. This is the problem we all picked up on (everyone in the room at IPCC was in agreement that this was a problem and a potential distraction/detraction from the reasonably consensus viewpoint we’d like to show w/ the Jones et al and Mann et al series).”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Sep. 22, 1999.
******“…it would be nice to try to ‘contain’ the putative ‘MWP’ [Medieval Warm Period]…”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, June 4, 2003**********
“By the way, when is Tom C [Crowley] going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Aug. 3, 2004.
“I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.”
—Dr. Michael Mann, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, May 30, 2008
“Well, I have my own article on where the heck is global warming… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
—Dr. Kevin Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Oct. 12, 2009.
Manipulating Temperature Data
“I’ve just completed Mike’s [Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s [Briffa] to hide the decline.”
—Dr. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Nov. 16, 1999.
“Also we have applied a completely artificial adjustment to the data after 1960, so they look closer to observed temperatures than the tree-ring data actually were….”
—Dr. Tim Osborn, Climatic Research Unit, disclosed Climategate e-mail, Dec. 20, 2006.
“If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s warming blip (as I’m sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say 0.15 deg C, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip….”
—Dr. Tom Wigley, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, on adjusting global temperature data, disclosed Climategate e-mail to Phil Jones, Sep. 28, 2008.
“We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (i.e. quality controlled and homogenized) data.”
—Climatic Research Unit web site, the world’s leading provider of global temperature data, admitting that it can’t produce the original thermometer data, 2011.
Now who’s doing a Gish Gallop….
YOU ASKED. Or are you now complaining because you don’t like the answer???
These climategate emails say nothing, and there’s no evidence any of that private whining affected published journal papers.
Several you take out of context. Go see Trenberths’ web site for his clarification on how his quote was exploited.
Re: “hide the decline” — do you know what that referred to? What was declining?
Now, can we get back to the Mann v. Ball case specifics please??
What about it?
Dome C
Law dome
just a few with ex post selection exclusion
What does this refer to? Please quote the original, since so long has passed.
Has Mann produced his data & code – the answer is both yes and NO
A large bulk of the data and code have been produced, but the R2 regression results have not been produced.
I think I’m now blocked.
I guess not.
Tim Ball didn’t need the R2 numbers to deny the hockey stick and denigrate Mann.
So why did he need them in court?
PS: Tim Ball said he knew “immediately” that the hockey stick was wrong:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/09/tim-balls-video.html