• Home
  • Current News
  • Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse

Michael Mann Faces Bankruptcy as his Courtroom Climate Capers Collapse

Written by

Massive counterclaims, in excess of $10 million, have just been filed against climate scientist Michael Mann after lawyers affirmed that the former golden boy of global warming alarmism had sensationally failed in his exasperating three-year bid to sue skeptic Canadian climatologist, Tim Ball. Door now wide open for criminal investigation into Climategate conspiracy.Mann arrest photo

Buoyed by Dr Ball’s successes, journalist and free-speech defender, Mark Steyn has promptly decided to likewise countersue Michael Mann for $10 million in response to a similar SLAPP suit filed by the litigious professor from Penn. State University against not just Steyn, but also the National Review, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg. Ball’s countersuit against Mann seeks “exemplary and punitive damages. ” Bishop Hill blog is running extracts of Steyn’s counterclaim, plus link.

Mann’s chief undoing in all such lawsuits is highlighted in a quote in Steyn’s latest counterclaim:

“Plaintiff continues to evade the one action that might definitively establish its [his science’s] respectability – by objecting, in the courts of Virginia, British Columbia and elsewhere, to the release of his research in this field. See Cuccinelli vs Rectors and Visitors of the University of Virginia…”

At last, after 3 years of legal wrangling, it is made clear why I was so bold as to formally undertake an indemnity to fully compensate Dr Ball for my own actions in the event Mann won the case.  Respected Aussie climate commentator, Jo Nova was one of the few to commend my unparalled commitment to Ball’s cause.

Steyn’s legal team, aware of the latest developments from Vancouver, have correctly adduced that Ball has effectively defeated Mann after the Penn. State pretender’s preposterous and inactive lawsuit against Ball was rendered dormant for failure to prosecute. Under law, Mann’s prevarications, all his countless fudging and evasiveness in the matter, establishes compelling evidence that his motive was not to prove Ball had defamed him, but more likely a cynical attempt to silence fair and honest public criticism on a pressing and contentious government policy issue.

The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs “in the state pen, not Penn. State.”  In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.

Where Do We Go From Here?

It will likely be open season on Mann. Anyone may now freely dismiss him in the harshest terms as a junk scientist who shilled for a failed global warming cabal. Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.

Being that Mann’s suit in the BC court was filed 3 years ago before he filed against Steyn, it appears Dr Ball will be first in line with his counterclaims and pipping Steyn for the well-deserved $10 million compensation prize. That’s if Mann’s financial backers (most notably, the David Suzuki Foundation) aren’t bankrupted first.

Woe for Weaver, too

But the more savvy climate analysts will note something here that is far more important scientifically than just Ball’s sensational legal victory over Mann. That is Ball’s more telling concurrent court triumph over Professor Andrew Weaver, “climate scientist” at the University of Victoria, BC, Deputy Leader of the Green Party of British Columbia, and a member of the British Columbia Legislative Assembly. Weaver has also established himself as the IPCC’s lead climate modeler.

Long-time readers may recall that Weaver also sued Ball for libel in February 2011, some months before Mann took a punt at it.  David Suzuki’s mouthpiece, desmogblog.com made huge fanfare of it at the time. Both Ball and I suffered the ignominy of having all our online articles removed from the Canada Free Press website after CFP caved into the bully boy tactics masterminded behind the scenes by the deep-pocketed David Suzuki and his Desmogblog cronies, who thereafter smeared my name, too).Suzuki

Weaver’s libel suit against Ball has also now been rendered dormant due to failure to prosecute because Weaver, like Mann, won’t disclose his (similarly dubious) metadata. Both these prominent men have been expensively represented by one of Canada’s top libel experts, Roger McConchie, who claims he “literally wrote the book on “Canadian Libel and Slander Actions.””

This is an epic double whammy for Ball. As an inadvertent courtroom martyr for climate skeptics Dr Ball has destroyed the credibility of both the IPPC paleoclimate record (Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph ‘science’)  and all those IPCC  computer model ‘projections’ of a dangerously warming climate (Weaver’s ‘science’). And all achieved in the most important ‘peer reviewed’ venue possible – a government court of law. The threat of the cold light of truth being shone on their “secret science” was a step too far for Mann and Weaver. As such,  the alarmist (false) claims of a cooler past climate presented by Mann, and doomsaying computer model projections of a dangerously warming future climate, presented by the still hugely influential Weaver, would not stand up in court.

So, forget Steyn’s case – the court victories that count, in terms of the scientific (and political) consequences, are entirely due to Tim Ball. By tenaciously and bravely defending his actions for three long years the mild-mannered septaugenarian has single-handedly proved that the very core of government climate science is junk. Thereby, this instance of ‘science on trial’ is no less significant, in the broadest sociatal context, as the infamous Scope’s Monkey Trial of 1925. 

But was the “evidence” for global warming intentionally and illegally concocted? By their persistence in hiding their data we may think so, as far as Mann and Weaver are concerned; while Dr Ball’s latest sensational book,”The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science;’ detailing the Climategate shenanigans, is a ‘must read’ as to culpability. But only a full criminal investigation will be determinative of all that. The question now is, will the U.S. and Canadian governmental authorities have the stomach to delve deeper?

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

Comments (305)

  • Avatar

    Miner49er

    |

    Ned Ford,

    Your statements are simplistic and specious. First, temperature is the independent variable (cause), and ambient CO2 concentration is the dependent variable (effect).

    It is known from the temperature record (corrupt as it is) that changes in temperature preceded changes in ambient CO2 concentrations. Further, since 95% of CO2 air emissions arise from rotting vegetation, it is logical that increased emissions from this source would result in a new, higher equilibrium ambient CO2 level.

    Seawater, soils, and vegetation are relatively small and short-lived CO2 sinks/sources (Measured in months or years or tens of years), compared with fossil carbon deposits and the carbonates in the lithosphere.

    Once the CO2 is converted to carbonate, it remains in that form for millions of years. The mean residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is five years.

    So, while the quantity of CO2 stored in seawater, soils and vegetation is important, it is of little consequence as far as establishing equilibrium levels.

    It’s evident that the patience of profound intellectuals such as yourself is sorely tried when ordinary people point out the flaws in your reasoning. Your lack of courtesy in stating that I am a “grease spot” and imputing ignorance to me because I disagree with you, is forgiven.

    You still may have a short time to amend your views and admit that the theory of CO2-driven climate change is a false premise for any change in the practice of power generation.

    If you do not do so, you will be publicly pilloried as a gullible and self-seeking fool.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Miner49er

    |

    Humans’ use of fossil fuels, and the resulting carbon dioxide air emissions, has no material effect on climate. Human activities cause only about 3% of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions to the atmosphere. Most of the rest are the result of decomposing plant material. CO2 is in equilibrium. It is a weak greenhouse gas in theory, but its actual climate effects are nullified by stronger forces, particularly the formation of mineral carbonates from atmospheric carbon dioxide.

    The theory of fossil fuels-caused climate change is a false premise for regulation.
    1. CO2 does not materially affect the Earth’s climate;
    2. Nature already effectively captures and sequesters CO2 as mineral carbonate;
    3. Climate cycles are natural, and caused by forces other than CO2;
    4. The average residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is 5 years;
    5. Human activities generate only about 3% of CO2 emissions. Most of the rest are from rotting plants.

    Anyone who passed 10th grade chemistry can know this using public information. Limestone and marble are the most familiar forms of mineral carbonate. CO2 is an essential component of mineral carbonate (CaCO3, for calcium). Carbonates are the ultimate repository of atmospheric CO2. Carbonates form in seawater and soils through biological and chemical processes. The formula is CO2 + CaO => CaCO3.

    Virtually all carbonates are formed from atmospheric CO2 that is taken up by seawater or soils. You can make magnesium carbonate in your kitchen by mixing carbonated water with milk of magnesia. See the paper sttp://www.co2web.info/ESEF3VO… researcher Tom Segalstat. “.)

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Ned Ford

      |

      So when I make a mistake, I admit it and try to move on. When you make a mistake you just repeat it louder? Why do you say human emissions are only 3% when atmospheric levels have risen almost 40%?

      I know you are comparing it to the natural annual ebb and flow, but the atmospheric levels would not have risen if something was not out of balance.

      So what’s relevant? The volume of you as a grease spot on the surface of the Earth compared to the volume of the Sun? Or something which might actually contribute to your understanding?

      In less than a century atmospheric CO2 has risen to levels higher than seen in millions of years. At no time in those millions of years has a similar magnitude change occurred in less than 30,000 years.

      I pointed out before that if the CO2 residence in the atmosphere was 5 years then we would not have seen this increase. So rather than repeat the incorrect statement, why don’t you try to understand what you are missing?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Alder

        |

        Reply to Ned Ford:

        CO2 in the atmosphere comes from humans (about four percent), natural processes such as vegetation decay, and release from oceans (and see Miner49er’s post). There are a number of natural processes that remove it from the atmosphere. The rate at which these processes work depends on amounts available. Amounts held in oceans primarily depends on temperatures as sea water absorbs more at low temperature. All this is well known and accepted.
        Over the past 200 years, temperatures have increased as the earth came out of a cold spell, and is now re-entering a period of cooling. All this is well accepted apart from those who cannot accept temperature proxies, or those whose religion is climate alarmism. In these global temperature changes, CO2 has no effect. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere tracks this fairly well – most of the increase is coming from oceans, little from humans. Changes in global temperatures are explained primarily by changes in incident radiation, this site has reported on a number of models which track variations better than IPCC carbon models. (These would never have been taken seriously if they did not support spending even more other peoples’ money).

        If the carbon alarmists and looters get governments to spend astronomical amounts on reducing CO2, it can be done, it is only -some one else’s- money, there will be a drop in food production and mass starvation. A major drop in human population is exactly what the green movement want. Global temperatures will decline, as they have started to do, uninfluenced by ‘carbon’.

        ‘ISIS, refugees, wars, and so forth, has roots in crop failures and drought’ An astonishing statement, world food production has never been as high as is it now is, thanks partly to increased CO2. Much of that bad stuff is due to the unfortunate human characteristic to believe in myths and follow the charlatans who create them.

        CO2 at record highs, rate of change the highest, etc – false, easily seen from charts of proxies, while the data is poor, this works both ways.

        ‘Out of balance’ the earth and its ecology is not in balance, has never been, and cannot be in balance, it is what is called a complex dynamic system.

        Red herrings: grease spots, the ownership of Fox etc.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Ned Ford

          |

          Responding to “spending astronomical amounts”: If you care about costs, why are you defending the status quo? Solving climate change depends on increased efficiency, and renewable electricity. Efficiency is obviously cheaper than anything else. Whether or not you are familiar with the price trend of renewables, they are cheaper than fossil fuels in many places and will be hands down cheaper almost everywhere, by about the end of this decade.

          I regret that you folks don’t seem to have understood the spirit in which I offered the “grease spot” comparison. It wasn’t an insult, just one of several examples which show that volume doesn’t confer impact. I don’t mind hurting your feelings, but I do wish this was more of a dialogue.

          I agree that humans are near the peak of global food production. We’re not very good at distributing it though, and I know that some of you know the CIA has been using crop failure and other environmental disaster as a predictor of military conflict for several decades.

          Your comment about population makes no sense. If the green movement wanted to be responsible for an involuntary population crash as you suggest, there could be no better means than to simply ignore climate change and let it happen.

          We have our own wing-nuts, and there are some things which are done in the name of environmental concerns which aren’t really appropriate. The ethanol fuel standard is a great example of this. It takes about 40% of the U.S. corn crop to produce about 10% of our gasoline-equivalent, exept that in terms of energy it is only about six percent of our gasoline, or a little less than three percent of our petroleum.

          You just post another message to this list when your cooling trend resumes, will you?

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Ned Ford

          |

          Responding to “spending astronomical amounts”: If you care about costs, why are you defending the status quo? Solving climate change depends on increased efficiency, and renewable electricity. Efficiency is obviously cheaper than anything else. Whether or not you are familiar with the price trend of renewables, they are cheaper than fossil fuels in many places and will be hands down cheaper almost everywhere, by about the end of this decade.

          I regret that you folks don’t seem to have understood the spirit in which I offered the “grease spot” comparison. It wasn’t an insult, just one of several examples which show that volume doesn’t confer impact. I don’t mind hurting your feelings, but I do wish this was more of a dialogue.

          I agree that humans are near the peak of global food production. We’re not very good at distributing it though, and I know that some of you know the CIA has been using crop failure and other environmental disaster as a predictor of military conflict for several decades.

          Your comment about population makes no sense. If the green movement wanted to be responsible for an involuntary population crash as you suggest, there could be no better means than to simply ignore climate change and let it happen.

          We have our own wing-nuts, and there are some things which are done in the name of environmental concerns which aren’t really appropriate. The ethanol fuel standard is a great example of this. It takes about 40% of the U.S. corn crop to produce about 10% of our gasoline-equivalent, except that in terms of energy it is only about six percent of our gasoline, or a little less than three percent of our petroleum.

          You just post another message to this list when your cooling trend resumes, will you?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Alder

            |

            The latest, five paras, comments pertain to them in sequence-

            1. Spending. The fallacy here is in ‘solving climate change’. There is no problem to solve, unless perhaps it is the growth of superstition requiring high government spending for no benefit. Renewables- like trees chopped down to replace coal in power stations? Or maybe bird slicers that are profitable for land owners and looters but produce negligible power?
            I have no objection to renewables provided that they get no subsidy or biased purchase contracts.
            2. Grease spot. Understood, when defending the indefensible it is easy to get over-excited.
            3. Peak food production. That it has never been higher is not the same as having peaked. It will get higher still as long as CO2 increases. However, if temperatures drop, grain growing areas in North America and Eastern Europe will suffer badly.
            4. Prominent speakers in the green movement all want lower human population.
            Maybe I can agree with the ignoring part, as there is evidence of cooling it would be foolish not to make greater use of coal, oil and nuclear energy. But the ‘climate change’ to which you refer, human induced via CO2 does not exist.
            5. Yes. Agreed. I have seen some attempt at quantifying human fatalities due to the increase in the price of food, some hundreds of thousands. The problem is that the alarmist wing-nuts are not on the wings but front and center in control.
            6. Trends in further cooling of Antarctica, the growth in the Arctic ice sheet, records lows in North America and so on are evidence. The plateauing of global temperatures over the past ~18 years, given that CO2 continues to increase, falsifies the alarmist CO2 temperature proposition.
            All the great civilizations in human history flourished at times when temperatures were high. But you will not see this if you look at Michael Mann’s hockey stick (this is where we came in) which flattened out temperature. A warming globe is benign, cooling however will be a challenge. Keep the UN out of it and we will be ok, the market will respond.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Alder”]The plateauing of global temperatures over the past ~18 years, given that CO2 continues to increase, falsifies the alarmist CO2 temperature proposition.[/quote]

            No, it does not.

            First of all, their “global warming” is supposed to be a long term trend, not a short term one. Look again at their cartoons, you’ll find also periods of cooling there. This “plateauing” thing simply misses the target. It contradicts some predictions of warming though, but this is a minor issue. Besides, this kind of argumentation legitimizes the “global temperature” nonsense.

            At the same time fake skeptics continue fooling people with the “greenhouse effect”, look at JoNova blog e.g. This is their main tool.

          • Avatar

            Newsel

            |

            Interesting Video and findings on long term cooling trends…:-)

            “We live in the coldest period of the last 10,000 years” , says glasiologist, Jørgen Peder Steffensen who take us back in time to the Greenland ice cores and reveals the secrets from the past. https://vimeo.com/14366077

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            All crap. They can not know.

          • Avatar

            Ned Ford

            |

            This isn’t supportable. If so, we would not have any ice in glaciers which came from the last ten thousand years, except in the Arctic. But we have thousands of glaciers which have excellent ice records going back that long, and much longer. Many of those are vanishing though.

            If you look closely you will see that the graph which Steffensen is pointing at has a publication date of 1998. That means the data there is a couple of years older than that at least. Prior to all of the hottest years on record. The entire modern trendline will show us close to or above the medieval warm period, and if you know about this stuff you know that the medieval warm period was highly variable, both in time and temperature around the globe. It was warmest in northern Europe.

            This stuff is fascinating, but it doesn’t disprove warming.

            To answer Alder, the “plateau” of atmospheric temperatures, which isn’t all that much of a plateau, needs to be viewed in light of the relatively recently identified substantial warming of the ocean surface waters. The data was collected during the 1990’s, but only published around 2000, and substantially beefed up in the ensuing years.

            Jim Hansen and a fellow named Sun wrote a study in 2002 which showed that this data greatly improved the ability of the computer models to replicate the observed temperature trends of the last century. I know you guys like to mock the models, but if you want to talk about the science, this is the real stuff. The models are just ways of doing a reality check on the interpretation of the observations.

            Prior to 2002, no one actually had much details about the oceans in their models. Since then the modelling of ocean thermal response to warming has become quite sophisticated, and the models are much more accurate than before.

            But the point remains, that the warming atmosphere is slowing heat transfer from the oceans to the atmosphere and then to space. Therefore the oceans are warming – only the several hundred feet at the surface are affected so far, but that is more than adequate to offset the atmospheric trend – for a while.

            I’m not alarmed by what has happened to date, but you guys don’t have an explanation for it, and the greenhouse explanation makes this just the very beginning of the impacts. Thermal momentum is enormous, both in slowing the effect of the greenhouse change, and making it much more substantial in the long run.

            Humans aren’t very good at dealing with issues which take a very long time. I hope we’re good enough to avoid screwing this one up, because it will really hurt if you are wrong.

          • Avatar

            Newsel

            |

            There are none so blind: rather than regurgitate the obvious I’ll forward this link.

            Lots of verifiable data and reading material for those that wish to seek the truth rather than bury their heads in the “snow”.

            http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/

          • Avatar

            Alder

            |

            Newsel: Good link thank you.
            It demolishes the long boring post above.

            In that we got the words ‘beefed up’.
            In journalism it would be- sexed up.
            In statistics it is -homogenized.
            “Thermal momentum’ is a new one to me. Maybe something like self-destructive beliefs which do not wipe out the believer immediately but hang around like a bad smell.
            So what happened was a widespread belief in more heat coming in, it could not be found, so there are a number of approaches:
            1. Homogenize the data to reduce past temperatures. This takes a while as there is the pretense of objectivity, then the original data and the methodologies have to get ‘lost’ before conclusions are published.
            2. Claim that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans as it can not be found at the surface. The latest, it cannot be found even there – hence more effort on homogenization and more scare publicity about climate extremes.

            Newsel: the linked article refers to the Little Ice Age. We may recall this was flattened out by Mann’s Hockey Stick. Even the IPCC have dropped the Hockey Stick, but the techniques survive in climate ‘science’, an example of thermal momentum.

          • Avatar

            Greg House

            |

            [quote name=”Newsel”]Lots of verifiable data and reading material for those that wish to seek the truth rather than bury their heads in the “snow”.

            http://www.isthereglobalcooling.com/%5B/quote%5D

            Wamists Salby, Monckton, Lindzen as recommended reading? No, thanks.

          • Avatar

            Newsel

            |

            There are over 100 Hyper Links in the pdf version to various articles etc…not all (obviously) are those authored by those you mention. You are in denial..

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.