Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit!
Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.
The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers. View the Judge’s Decision here.
The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.
Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.
On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:
“Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.”
A more detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.
Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action on March 25, 2011 for Ball’s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” The final court ruling, in effect, vindicates Ball’s criticisms.
Previously, on Feb, 03, 2010, a self-serving and superficial academic ‘investigation‘ by Pennsylvania State University had cleared Mann of misconduct. Mann also falsely claimed the NAS found nothing untoward with his work.
But the burden of proof in a court of law is objectively higher.
Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the 8-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.
This extraordinary outcome will likely trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to alarmist climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.”
According to the leftist The Guardian newspaper (Feb, 09, 2010), the wider importance of Mann’s graph over the last 20 years is massive:
“Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics.”
Under court rules, Mann’s legal team have up to 30 days to file an appeal. [update October 09, 2019: Dr Mann did NOT seek to formally appeal the Decision]. The Judge’s Decision is here:
https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/mann-judgement-canada.pdf
‘Hockey Stick’ Discredited by Statisticians in 2003
In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.
So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.
But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?
No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily – or face severe consequences for not doing so – that is, until Dr Ball came into the picture!
Evidence in Legal Discovery and the Truth Defense
Dr Ball’s legal team adroitly pursued the ‘truth defense’ such that the case boiled down to whether Ball’s words (“belongs in the state pen, not Penn State”) after examining the key evidence (R2 numbers) fairly and accurately portrayed Mann.
The aim was to compel the plaintiff (Dr. Mann) to show his math ‘working out’ to check if he knowingly and criminally misrepresented his claims by resorting to statistical fakery (see: ‘Mike’s trick‘ below).
In the pre-trial Discovery Process the parties are required to surrender the cited key evidence in reasonable fashion, that they believe proves or disproves the Claim.
Despite Ball’s best efforts over 8 years, Mann would not agree to surrender to an open court his math ‘working out’ – the R2 regression numbers for his graph (see Mann’s latest obfuscating Tweet in the ‘update’ at foot of this article).
But throughout 2017 and 2018 any reasonable observer could see through such endless delays from the plaintiff – all just attritional tactics.
The Penn State professor had persistently refused to honor the binding “concessions” agreement he made to Ball which ultimately gave his legal team the coup de grace to win the case for the defendant due to Mann’s ‘Bad Faith’ (see: legal definition here).
Dr. Ball always argued that those numbers, if examined in open court, would have conclusively prove Mann was motivated to commit a criminal fraud. It was at this point legal minds could discern Ball was closing in on victory – a triumph for ‘David over Goliath.’
And Mann certainly is a science ‘Goliath.’ Ever since featuring so famously in the UN IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) Mann’s graph has been an iconic image cited relentlessly by environmentalists clamoring for urgent action on man-made global warming.
For the past two decades the biased mainstream media has acclaimed Mann as “a world-leading climate scientist” and last year he was heralded as their champion to help dethrone “climate denier” President Trump.
Indeed, not just a fawning MSM, but many hundreds of subsequent climate studies have relied on Mann’s findings. Mann’s reputation was such, that most climate researchers merely accepted his graph, a typical example of groupthink.
Dr Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those ‘scientists’ at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.
As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Mann’s version top, Ball’s below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the respective findings.
Above: contrast and compare Dr Mann’s dodgy graph with Dr Ball’s more reliable version (based on that of the renowned H. H. Lamb) and see how Mann fraudulently altered the proxy climate date with a ‘hockey stick’ shape to falsely show the dramatic uptick with modern temperatures rising ‘catastrophically’ to fit the fake UN IPCC doomsaying narrative.
Have Skeptics Ever Proven that Mann’s Graph was Deliberately Faked?
Answer: No. This is because Mann has always refused to release his R2 regression numbers for independent examination.
He claimed his secrecy was justified because he held “proprietary rights” over them (i.e. personally valuable intellectual work product, you see). So “valuable” to Mann was the secrecy of his metadata that losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit and his reputation was the ultimate price he was prepared to pay.
While steep, I guess, that’s preferable to serving a long federal prison stretch, right?
Before Ball’s glorious court victory, little more could be conclusively proven other than the hockey stick graph uptick stupidly (and unscientifically) relies on the proxy evidence from the tree rings of a single Yamal larch!
Mann could thus sleep safe in the knowledge that as long as statistical experts remain deprived of any conclusive proof of his intent to defraud, they could only find him guilty of incompetence.
Putting Mann’s Fraudulent Graph Under the Microscope
For an easy-viewing summary by Tim Ball please watch the video:
Mann’s goal was to make the Little Ice Age (LIA) disappear, as we explained in our previous article on this issue. The LIA was an especially cold era that ended around 1840 and since then global temperatures have gradually risen. But government ‘experts’ like Mann have sought to use statistical trickery to make such natural variation appear as ‘man-made’ warming.
Apart from playing with statistics Mann made his proxy fit the thermometer data by adding thermometer values to the proxy values known as “Mike’s trick” in the climate gate email scandal.
From the emails released during the Climategate scandal Professor Phil Jones, Britain’s top climate scientist at the University of East Anglia was shown to have written the following to his alarmist colleagues (some analysis here).
The email, sent by Prof Phil Jones of the CRU in 1999, states:
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.Cheers
Phil
This has the Hockey Stick Graph showing the same cooling from 1942 to 1975 as the HadCRUT3 data as posted in the IPCC 2001 AR3
In 1942 there was just 4.0Gt of emissions increasing to 17.1Gt by 1975 but since this 425{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} increase in CO2 emissions didn’t cause any global warming during this 33 year period; the conjecture of CO2 emissions induced (catastrophic) global warming was proven false.
Readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding of what is likely to eventually be exposed as a criminal conspiracy between Mann and other ‘elite’ researchers should see “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford.
Victory that Comes at Great Personal Cost
Behind the scenes, gathering the resources, mental, scientific and financial, there is an untold burden of defending these cynical SLAPP suits.
Lest readers forget, it is mostly in the service of misguided public policy, with massive funding and connivance from political operators in play, that fake scientists like Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver acquired such esteemed public positions.
They are not only despicable human beings they are a disgrace to all decent scientists.
Readers will be aware that this author has been a staunch friend and ally to Tim throughout the hardships of this protracted 8-year legal battle.
Our reputations were routinely trashed by our enemies, so it is sweet justice that the court has now given legal credence to Tim’s famous words that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” a comical reference to the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.
[Author Note: Being very much a party to these legal proceedings (having provided Dr Ball with the financial security of a legally-binding indemnity in the event Tim lost) it is a monumental vindication of my faith in Tim’s cause. In effect, I ‘bet the farm’ on Tim winning, as graciously reported by Jo Nova (below)]
Knowingly Fraudulent and Corrupt
During 2o18, while Tim Ball’s hard work was winning “concessions” from Mann’s legal team in Canada, south of the border, (on April 20) a shameless Mann wrote in Scientific American thus utter nonsense:
“Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies, again and again, have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium.”
Gullible and brainwashed greens and the many self-serving politicians swallowed up this garbage.
Dr Ball Expresses Gratitude to Principia Scientific International
Speaking in this 2018 video on the gravity of what some scientists have called “The science trial of the Century,” Dr Ball revealed his gratitude to his colleagues at Principia Scientific:
Dr Tim Ball:
I know John O’Sullivan who set up the Principia site and I know I wrote a foreword and a chapter in one of the books they produced called Slaying the Sky Dragon.
John O’Sullivan comes from his anti-government [stance], very legitimately and unfortunately, it’s not until you’ve actually directly personally experienced that; challenging the government – that you realize how nasty they can get. So John knows very well how nasty these things can get – that anyone that dares to challenge the authorities.
And so, Principia was set up for that reason, and John was the one that helped me set up the PayPal so people could help me financially so, that’s my disclaimer with that.”
As Jo Nova reported on the joannenova.com.au blog:
“John O’Sullivan is putting in above and beyond what any single skeptical soul ought to.
He’s already been a key figure helping Tim Ball in the legal fight with the UVA establishment, which has spent over a million dollars helping Michael Mann to hide emails. The case was launched by Michael Mann, but could turn out to do a huge favor to skeptics — the discovery process is a powerful tool, and we all know who has been hiding their methods, their data, and their work-related correspondence.
Tim Ball and John O’Sullivan are helping all the free citizens of the West. The burden should not be theirs alone. There are many claims for help at the moment, but that is a sign that the grand scam is coming to a head. Jo”
Two out of Two Major Court Wins By Ball Versus Junk IPCC Scientists
Dr Ball, now affirmed as a courageous champion of honest science, has assured his place in the annals of real climate science. His gift to the world was sacrificing eight of his senior years, when he could have been enjoying his retirement, to exposing key players in the biggest science fraud of all time.
People too easily forget Dr Ball has defeated in expensive legal battles not just one top UN IPCC climate scientists, but two!
This latest victory is the second this champion of climate skepticism has enjoyed in the last 18 months in this same jurisdiction – both for “defamation,” both multi-million dollar climate science claims.
We reported (February 15, 2018) on Dr Ball’s first crucial courtroom win against Dr Andrew Weaver (photo, above), another elite junk scientist (a UN IPCC Lead Author in climate modeling) and British Columbia Green Party Leader.
Pointedly, at the time, Dr Ball wanted to emphasize an extremely salient fact:
“While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer,Roger McConchie, (photo, left) in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”
In effect, there is more than mere coincidence that Dr Ball, a world-leading skeptical climatologist, was systematically targeted for legal retribution time and again by political groups such as the unscrupulous Climate Science Legal Defense Fund .
As a retired scientist in his 80’s, Tim was a ‘soft target’ and the stress of these lawsuits put an enormous toll on his health.
Not to be outdone, Tim has used his time wisely to write a damning book of the 30-year back story of the great climate fraud titled ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ and I heartily recommend that interested readers buy it.
It is also not often reported that the funding in Canada for these extravagant SLAPP lawsuits is believed to be from the David Suzuki Foundation, a hot house for extreme environmental advocacy and Big Green policy promotion.
What is a ‘Strategic lawsuit against public participation’ (SLAPP Suit)?
Wikipedia offers a fair definition:
“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.
In the typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”
Update (August 24, 2019):
Dr Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article:
Mann’s statement is here: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568
In short, Mann’s ugly responsive legal statement is (a) stark admission he lost fair and square, and (b) a disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in timely fashion.
Well, Mikey, You Are The Plaintiff And Tim Gave You Over 8 YEARS To Get Your Case Together!
On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it we offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:
“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.”
As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.
AN APPEAL
Assisting Dr Ball has been a huge honor for me and probably one of the greatest achievements of my life. But Tim only won this famous courtroom battle thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support.
We can only continue to fight these protracted lawsuits with your kind support. Please give generously to ensure we can take on more crucial cases, such as this.
[WWG1WGA]
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
“The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford exposed the Mann tree ring trick. To eliminate the pesky Medieval WARMING Period, Mike chose three bristlecone pines out of a world of contradictory evidence, claiming narrow rings showed cold temperatures. The first factor in ring width is precipitation, independent of temperature. Second factor is predation by disease, insects, grazing animals, all independent of temperature. The third factor is temperature, which is a BELL Curve, with one maximum growth point, but TWO points for higher or lower than optimum temperature. Whether ring width is do to higher or lower temperature is subjective. More on this Bad Penn Mann see….
“Hockey Stickery Doc” and “Penn Panel Limbos Under the Hockey Stick” > both at CanadaFreePress(.)com
Reply
Alan Stewart
| #
SUPERB NEWS. Truly on more step for Mankind. Next is to get Mark Steyn to win his suit and drive another stake into the vampire Mann and all the Alarmists.
Reply
Chelsie
| #
A lawsuit dos not necessarily result in better science – RE: recent RoundUp suit results.
Whilst Mann didn’t win the defamation case against his detractors, the fact remains that multiple analysis of his data and data taken subsequently comfirm the validity of his “hockey stick” graph.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Actually, Chelsea, the “hockey stick” graph has never been confirmed. Moreover the atmospheric sciences are completely dominated by dumbed down models. For example, did you know that the convection model of storm theory is based on nothing more than a strained analogy to a pot boiling on a stove:
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
Reply
David Appell
| #
Wrong. The hockey stick has been confirmed a few dozen times:
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
Reply
Jerry
| #
Go away troll. The idiot won;t release his data so it is not even possible to confirm it. You are transparent in your lie.
Finrod
| #
Wrong. Iowahawk recreated the “hockey stick” graph nearly 10 years ago, and also showed how incredibly brittle it is dependent on the initial assumptions:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/12/fables-of-the-reconstruction.html
Reply
Kevin C Williams
| #
Thanks for that Iowahawk link. It took a while to go thru but basically what it says is that if you accept all of the proxy data (provided by Mann et al) for period from before 1856 and run a bunch of “industry standard” statistical functions on it which I didn’t quite understand to convert it to temperatures (based on period 1856-1980 where we have both ostensible measured temperatures and proxy data), you do get the hockey stick (although the proxy data didn’t track super well with the 1856-1980 measured values in my opinion). However, if you don’t do it exactly like that (if you for example use only some of the columns of proxy data) you can get a different result where for example temperatures in 1400s are higher than today (per above, not robust indication of the hockey stick, proof of the hockey stick if you hold your mouth just right). He also brought into question whether the original data was manipulated (no detail, only a link to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/08/the-smoking-gun-at-darwin-zero/ about Climategate). I thought Mann lost his case because he wouldn’t provide the complete story of how he came up with his data and how he used it to come up with the hockey stick curve. Maybe he did provide the numbers but not the background or something as Iowahawk somehow has them.
Reply
AlanB
| #
The unrelenting derogatory dissembling against Prof Mann and the whole field of climate science means that the public will have to become fully literate in the fundamentals so the dishonest fossil stooge propaganda can be seen for what it is.
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Humbled and honoured to read this. Congratulations to Dr Ball and his Support team.
Dr Tim should be a designated world treasure.
John OSullivan, you done good, son.
Now to wipe my eyes.
Kind Regards.
Reply
Jim Simpson
| #
Congratulations Tim!! An outstanding & well deserved outcome, not only for you, your family & immediate Team of those helping behind the scenes in Canada & the USA (including many of your supporters in far off places like those of us Down Under where you have visited & spoken!), but especially for science.
Now perhaps there might be a glimmer of hope for return to The Scientific Method where scientists can progress their trade without fear of being demeaned & demonised because they have the temerity to find fault with, & challenge, the so called ‘science is settled’ mantra that pervades the climate change/global warming debate. A return to real science can not come too soon!
Hope to see you back Down Under where you will be a most welcome guest.
Regards, Jim Simpson, Convenor
Climate Realists of Five Dock
“De Omnibus Dubitandum” – Question Everything!
Join us for dinner at Barnwell Park Golf Club most Thursdays from 6:30pm
551 Lyons Road West, Five Dock NSW 2046, Sydney, Australia
YouTube Channel
Mobile: +61 (0)417 285 884
Celebrate CO2! We’d be dead without it!
Reply
tomwys
| #
Tenacity in the face of monstrous adversity! Tim Ball helps define the role of “Climate Realist” and deserves our thanks for doing so!
THANKS, TIM!!!
Reply
Michael Spencer
| #
May I heartily endorse the comments from Jim Simpson! Unfortunately, I did not have the pleasure of meeting you when you were in Australia with Tony Heller, but perhaps there might another opportunity.
That you have been able to score this hit against this dishonest charlatan is surely a blow for the ‘climate change’ fraudsters. Hopefully, this will be a precedent for Mark Steyn’s case. It’s long overdue for the ‘Penn State/State Pen’ idea to come to fruition!
Reply
Sunsettommy
| #
Here is a what Dr. Mann states in his tweets, there is a big lie in it:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay.774325/#post-22980951
Reply
Julian Fell
| #
Most satisfactory outcome. Very pleased and relieved.
Reply
Colin Barton
| #
Well done Tim for never-giving-up despite the slings and arrows of the building crescendo of “climate emergency” declarations led by climate “experts” like Al, Greta, Leonardo and the like.
Reply
Sunsettommy
| #
“The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.”
Link for the motion?
Reply
Sonny Thorgren
| #
Very glad to hear this, it gives hope for the future of science.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Congratulations to Dr. Ball and all involved. You have made a great contribution to all science by preventing profiteers from turning it into a money making religion.
Best wishes on continued success in the fight,
Herb
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, Herb. We most definitely will continue the fight and we much appreciate your involvement in assisting us.
Reply
John Leonn
| #
I am so pleased ,,, I was so worried that DR Tim would pass on before this was settled..and the SLAPP lawsuit would achieve its purpose of obfuscation and lies… Remember , Mann had the financial backing of University of Pennsylvania behind him … As stated , Dr Ball spent 8 – 10 years of his retirement fighting this battle, at great expense …… I have read both his books , and congratulate his courage , fortitude and intellectual strength …I have been a monthly donor to Principia-Scientifica for a couple of years now , and appreciate what was accomplished ….I was hoping to read that a hefty punitive fine was in progress…
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thank you, John. Your support in both kind words and with donations has been a great help to us.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
John Leonn: it is Penn State University a state run/financed school. University of Pennsylvania is a different institution although equally liberal. Although private, they also receive Pennsylvania taxpayer funding which I never understood.
Reply
Patrick Hunt
| #
While I never doubted Tim was a on solid ground scientifically, I kept my fingers crossed that the judge could follow the fACTS not the THEORIES. Delightful news. Congratulations to all his supporters, and especially to Tim who could not be blamed if he had just rolled over 9 years ago and decided not to fight the Mann slander charge. That took courage and it paid off. I wonder who is paying for Mann’s legal fees?
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Tim nearly every reader of PSI is grateful for what you have endured for the last 8 or so years. Thank you.
Thanks to John O’ also.
We are hopeful that with the Canadian Federal election coming up in October of this year, that the Liberals will be turfed out, and the Conservatives can reverse all the false the AGW legislation that was put in place by Liberals.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Cheers, Al. Roll on those elections!
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
Wow, John O’Sullivan, you are a true hero!
-Zoe
Reply
Albert Spork
| #
As if I’m going to believe a publication that can’t even use “it’s” correctly.
Reply
Jerry
| #
But you believe fake science based on manipulated numbers, disproven data, email trails proving fraud, models that fail in reality, and alarmist claims that have never come true. Glad your priority is on punctuation because everyone knows bad punctuation discredits a claim more than falsified data.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Albert, Great to see you’ve got your priorities in order.
Reply
richard
| #
Congratulation, John O’Sullivan, well won!!
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks, Richard!
Reply
Denis Ables
| #
John: That global meta-study might have been helpful in proving fraud, whether or not Mann delivers his “work”. As you know, it conclusively demonstrates that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now. That, in itself, could be the basis for lawsuits that show Mann’s hockey stick to be either based on intentional “error” or due to gross incompetence.
Incidentally, wasn’t at least some of Mann’s work supported by government funds? If so, cannot it be demanded that his “work” be made available to the public?
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Denis, Thanks, yes, totally agreed on all points! After the 30-day period allowing Mann time to appeal is over, we can look at going on the offensive possibly by having Tim’s judgment ‘domesticated’ in a US federal court along with a fresh filing for Mann’s fraud against taxpayers. There are also RICO racketeering issues the federal authorities may wish to consider.
Reply
Matt Holl
| #
Hi Denis Ables,
“Incidentally, wasn’t at least some of Mann’s work supported by government funds? If so, cannot it be demanded that his “work” be made available to the public?”
My understanding is in an earlier case the court supported Mann’s contention/argument that even though paid for with public/government money his work was his intellectual property and therefore confidential, or non disclosure took precedent.
This fact underlines the courage of Dr Ball in attempting to force disclosure if Mann wanted to prove libel.
Regards
Reply
Assweasel
| #
There is am error in the Article.
It links to the wrong court for searching the judgment yourself.
“For readers interested in accessing the court website directly, use this link.”
That link leads to the Court that handles the civil cases under $10,000
This is the proper link
https://www.bccourts.ca/search_judgments.aspx
The judgment is not posted yet.
Could take a month before it is.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Thanks for spotting that and for the correct url.
Reply
sycomputing
| #
“The judgment is not posted yet.”
By “judgment” do you mean something other than the order, e.g., a written explanation of the order by the presiding judge?
I have this (I paid the fee to access the order) from here: https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840
Hearing Date: 22Aug2019
Hearing Time: 10:00 AM
Hearing Location: Vancouver Law Courts
List Type for the Hearing: Supreme Court Civil List
Terms of Order
Order
1. Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
2. Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed
Reply
David Appell
| #
SyCom, care to share? [email protected]
Reply
sycomputing
| #
Well, I thought I just did Dave?
Go here: https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840
Then start paying the Canadian courts like I did 🙂
Reply
David Appell
| #
Is there some independent confirmation of this court decision?
Reply
Sunsettommy
| #
Ha ha ha,
You don’t think this is good enough for you?
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840
Reply
David Appell
| #
Has Ball ever published any proof or evidence that the hockey stick is false or fraudulent? What were his claims based on? Because the hockey stick has been verified a few dozen times by now, most recently by PAGES 2k in June….
Reply
John Ball
| #
By verified, does that mean discredited too many times to count? We’re all dead at the next 100% increase and yet 110% later, not only still here but here with negligible temp increases. Do you have a working email address for Michael Hoax Mann. Many are curious why he chose to lose instead of presenting his evidence.
Reply
David Appell
| #
So is that a no, Tim Ball has never published any papers on the hockey stick?
Reply
Sunsettommy
| #
Notice that David Appell, ignored me and John Balls statements?
David, is one of the remaining holdout in defending a bogus paper that contradicted far better research papers in several fields of study, that were developed over the decades.
The North Report, and the Wegman report effectively shattered the delusions that Manns paper was statistically sound, and Mc Intire et all showed that you can generate hockey sticks at will using Manns silly set up.
Your PHD is still in your back pocket, being sat on on over and over, what a waste of your career!
Reply
David Appell
| #
What statement? I wouldn’t consider any “statement” from you to be relevant or meaningful.
James McGinn
| #
David Appell
Has Ball ever published any proof or evidence that the hockey stick is false or fraudulent?
James McGinn
Mann’s claims are not falsifiable. It’s like people who claim to have seen bigfoot or ghosts.
David Appell
What were his claims based on?
Ball made no claims. He just pointed out that (as had already been thoroughly established by the owner of the website Climate Audit) Mann’s claims had to do with Mann’s willful (deliberate) ignorance of standard statistical methods.
David Appell
Because the hockey stick has been verified a few dozen times by now, most recently by PAGES 2k in June….
James McGinn
Many people claim to have seen ghosts too. I think you should look into getting some education on the scientific method.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoefs
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=195
Reply
George
| #
For a PhD in Physics, why are you so ignorant on the scientific method? Dr. Berry has schooled you so many times on that topic, one wonders if your “education” is that meaningful?
Reply
David Appell
| #
Do you mean the Ed Berry who thinks the carbon cycles works like a bathtub?
Reply
George
| #
Yes, the Ed Berry who has made you look like a fool. You never could refute his model.
Reply
David Appell
| #
Everyone should know that the carbon cycle cannot be modeled as a bathtub. See:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/05/a-bad-assumption-in-ed-berrys-model.html
richard
| #
Or Greta Thurnberg who can see CO2 molecules and is celebrated by the MSM who must believe her delusion.
Reply
David Appell
| #
Greta Thunberg, 5/4/19:
“The latest – and perhaps most entertaining – spin is that ”I can see CO2 with my own eyes”.
This is of course a metaphor from a book taken out of it’s context, taken from a German newspaper.
No one has said that I can literally see CO2… that is beyond stupid.”
https://www.facebook.com/gretathunbergsweden/posts/of-course-the-ongoing-hate-campaigns-never-rests-there-is-at-least-one-new-consp/823189474715541/
David Appell
| #
I’m looking for an email address for Tim Ball — drtimball.com seems to no longer work. Any help appreciated.
David Appell
freelance science journalist
[email protected]
http://davidappell.com
Reply
David Appell
| #
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
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Mr Appell, you are a delusional shill of the climate racketeering network. Now that there is civil legal validation that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State” we are upgrading our mission to have implemented a full US RICO criminal investigation.
Reply
richard
| #
oh the joy, just gets better.
Reply
John
| #
It should be noted in all of this that Penn St’s behavior is almost identical to their handling of Jerry Sandusky. Although Mann and his department are not on par with the football team in the fund raising department. Thanks to the hockey stick, his department went from a liability of the university to an asset. Penn State University is undeniably complicit.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
There is a difference between the two cases. Sandusky was not an employee of Penn State when his crimes occurred, just using their facilities. Mann is an employee and under the control of the university.
Herb
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Herb, Indeed, good point – thus making Penn State even more culpable for the offenses.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
We all know that the real perpetrators of the fraud, Al Gore and the politicians, will never be held accountable in the courts. The problem is that when a politician pleads ignorance nobody can dispute it.
Herb
HerbRose
| #
Hi John,
I do not believe that the legal system could find Penn State culpable. You could not expect administrators to know more about a subject than the experts they employ. They have been duped just as others have by Mann’s deceit. They hired him believing he was a top scientist in the field and will find out he is not a scientist at all but a con man. They will suffer the embarrassment of him making a fool of them, which any university that employed him would suffer, but no legal consequences for being a victim.
Herb
David Appell
| #
Mann’s lawyer wrote:
“The BC Supreme Court has never made any finding, directly or indirectly, that you failed to produce your data….”
“In summary, the Court’s brief ruling on August 22 made no finding whether your claims were valid or whether Bell’s pleaded defenses had any merit.”
How much clearer can that be?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Likewise, David, the court made no finding on any claims that you still beat your wife.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
“The energy of storms has nothing to do with gravity (buoyancy, convection). And it also has nothing to do with electricity. It has to do with aerodynamics.”
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16661#p118753
Reply
David Appell
| #
That doesn’t mean I beat my wife, which everyone here is in effect assuming about Mann.
James McGinn
| #
Right. Likewise the court did not exonerate Mann. Whether or not Mann deliberately mislead the public by “hiding the decline” is still an open question according to the court.
Mann sued Ball for slander. Ball didn’t settle. He stood up to the bully, in effect saying “show us your evidence.” LIke the coward he is, Mann never provided the data and didn’t even show for court dates. Consequently the case was dismissed by the judge. Mann’s claim that he was slandered by Ball was not upheld. And Ball’s assertion that Mann is a fraud was not disputed.
David Appell
| #
What was in “decline” that Mann was “hiding?”
PS: Mann’s lawyer said it was untrue they failed to provide material to the court — that there was no such order:
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1166711465597968384
James McGinn
| #
DA: What was in “decline” that Mann was “hiding?”
JMcG: The “decline” involved data that contradicted claims of strong correlation between increase in atmospheric CO2 and increase in atmospheric temperature in the 20th century. Google it.
DA:
PS: Mann’s lawyer said it was untrue they failed to provide material to the court — that there was no such order:
JMcG:
Likwise, no court would expect you to bring evidence that you no longer beat your wife.
David Appell
| #
Completely wrong, James.
1) Mann’s study used or implied nothing about CO2 or temperature’s link to CO2.
2) So the MBH study used on “correlations” between temperature and CO2. None. Zilch.
3) “the decline” was in some post 1960s proxy at at high northern latitudes. These proxies had stopped tracking temperature and were instead in decline. But we know global temperatures weren’t declining then by direct measurements. The decline in some proxies is called the “divergence problem” and you and read about it here:
“On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
tree-ring evidence and possible causes,” Rosanne D’Arrigo et al, Global and Planetary Change 60 (2008) 289–305.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~liepert/pdf/DArrigo_etal.pdf
You have no idea what the MBH study was even about, yet you’re sure it’s all wrong. Eye roll.
James McGinn
| #
1) Mann’s study used or implied nothing about CO2 or temperature’s link to CO2.
Mann’s study/propaganda was an attempt to dismiss the medievil warming period so that the warming during the 20th century could look dramatic in comparison. Him and his co-conspirators did this at the behest of the IPCC who had, essentially, put the word out that anybody who could convincingly dramatize 20th century warming would earn a big reward through grants and job opportunities.
2) So the MBH study used on “correlations” between temperature and CO2. None. Zilch.
Right. Why would we expect them to tip their hand? Does a bank robber call the bank ahead of time and ask whether the guard has called in sick? Besides, the IPCC already had this part figured out. The only problem was the medievil warming period (See below).
3) “the decline” was in some post 1960s proxy at at high northern latitudes. These proxies had stopped tracking temperature and were instead in decline. But we know global temperatures weren’t declining then by direct measurements. The decline in some proxies is called the “divergence problem” and you can read about it here: “On the ‘Divergence Problem’ in Northern Forests: A review of the
Right. It’s important to understand that the “divergence” problem was really only a problem if you have an agenda that tree growth (as recorded in tree rings) must/should correlate to temperature alone. This assertion might seem reasonable on its face (thus the reason they might have expected to get away with it). Higher temps should correlate to more cloudless days, more sunshine and, therefore, more tree growth. But there’s a problem with this. And if you lived in higher latitudes you would realize that often in the winter (and fall) the opposite is the case. Cloudy days can often have higher temperatures than clear, sunny days. And there is another problem in the summer months when tree growth may have more to do with rainfall than insolation (sunshine) and rainfall would also moderate the temperature due to subsequent evaporation. So, the divergence showed that tree rings were not a good proxy for temperature. And this was a problem for them because they wanted to use tree rings as a paleothermometer to get rid of the medievil warming period and reap the reward being offered by the IPCC. (From its inception in 1988 the IPCC’s goal was to link 20th century warming to 20th century increase in CO2. This was literally their charter.)
One more question, David. Have you ever wondered how/why a polar molecule oould have such low viscosity as we see in liquid H2O?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=240#p122435
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
David Appell
| #
James: show me the data that, before MBH, showed a globally synchronous MWP.
—
“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
James McGinn
| #
There’s no data. Just anecdote and imperfect historical accounts.. There is no clear signal.
Just nagging uncertainty.
Accounting For Lorenz’s Missing Lubrication in the Atmosphere
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16430
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
David Appell
| #
James, you didn’t show the data that, before MBH, showed the globally synchronous MWP you’re so sure existed.
Where’s it at?
James McGinn
| #
DA:
James, you didn’t show the data that, before MBH, showed the globally synchronous MWP you’re so sure existed. Where’s it at?
JMcG:
Don’t put words in my mouth, you vague nitwit.
David Appell
| #
James, up above you wrote,
“Mann’s study/propaganda was an attempt to dismiss the medievil warming period”
So I didn’t put words in your mouth — I simply asked what prior data showed a global MWP.
But clearly you don’t have any such data. So I think I’ve made my point.
James McGinn
| #
Global warming is a boringly stupid subject. David, why don’t you show us your expertise on a fresh controversy. At this link (see link below) we have have a hot argument. It is me against two university trained chemists. I’m saying modern chemistry has made a huge error. Watch the video then read the highly emotional comments that follow:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfNuWJDJvRw
James McGinn / Genius
David Appell
| #
Yet again it’s clear James’ claims about the MWP were based on nothing at all.
We can close that chapter.
John O'Sullivan
| #
Michael Mann’s lying, crooked lawyer, Roger McConchie, was the author of the binding undertaking that his client signed compelling him to release the hidden r2 regression numbers that would prove Mann committed a crime. Mann unlawfully broke that agreement.
As such, McConchie faces severe sanctions from the court, including being disbarred.
Reply
David Appell
| #
If Ball didn’t need any of Mann’s files to accuse him of skullduggery, why did he need them in court?
John O'Sullivan
| #
Mr Appell, you are either ignorant or dishonest. In Feb 2017 Mann signed a binding undertaking – a legal contract – compelling him to release his r2 regression numbers within 21 days – it is the “concessions” referred to above. Mann unlawfully breached that undertaking and lost the case, millions of dollars and what shred of respect he still had. All that to protect his “intellectual property” – or more like hide the crime of intentionally rigging his numbers?
Reply
David Appell
| #
Where can I read this document Mann purportedly signed for the court?
David Appell
| #
I’m delusional?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/affidavits-in-michael-man_b_1711581
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Yes, you are delusional. You rely on a discredited and false Huff Post (‘fake news’) statement by the proven liar, Andrew Skolnick, fired from his position as assistant editor at JAMA for faking incriminating evidence – just like he did against me. Mr Skolnick was last reported working on the checkout of PetSmart.
Reply
David Appell
| #
Do you actually have a law degree? And if so, from where?
David Appell
| #
Should I take your lack of response as a “I’d rather not talk about this?”
David Appell
| #
As if you’re going to find a prosecutor in the US who will want to bring charges about a 20 year old study that has been replicated many times and which the scientific community agrees about on the words of someone who never even published in the field and who has no standing in the scientific community.
Reply
John O'Sullivan
| #
Are you still lurking here? Those of us who are successful at defeating climate fraudsters in court have better things to do, such as working with our associates in DC to progress a RICO investigation.
Reply
David Appell
| #
Do you actually have a law degree, and if so, from where and when?
Are the Huffpost’s claims about your teaching past true?
John O'Sullivan
| #
Appell, you are a liar – show your evidence.
Reply
David Appell
| #
Evidence of what???
All I’ve done is quote what Mann’s lawyer said, via Mann. And for that you call me a liar.
Reply
David Appell
| #
James, why do you so casually dismiss about three dozen published studies that all find all find hockey sticks, using many different mathematical methods?
http://www.davidappell.com/hockeysticks.html
It’s easy to show the hockey stick is required by basic physics:
temperature change is proportional to forcing change.
CO2 forcing change is proportional to ln(CO2).
CO2 has been increasing exponentially.
=> hockey stick.
Reply
Gilbert K Arnold
| #
No David: CO2 does NOT increase exponentially! It increases logarithmically!
Reply
Gilbert K Arnold
| #
No David: CO2 does NOT increase exponentially! Temperature increase from CO2 is logarithmic!
Reply
David Appell
| #
But since atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially over the industrial era, temperature change (before feedbacks) is linear. That’s the “blade” of the hockey stick.
The “shaft” of the stick comes in the many centuries before the industrial era, when atmospheric CO2 was essentially constant so the temperature change was essentially zero.
Shaft. Blade. The hockey stick is required by simple, basic physics.
QED.
Reply
David Appell
| #
Yes, atmospheric CO2 is increasing exponentially:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve#/media/File:Mauna_Loa_CO2_monthly_mean_concentration.svg
Reply
richard
| #
“CO2 has been increasing exponentially”
And the planet and deserts are greening from the increase.
Oh and this year, in supposedly the hottest, on reduced production, it is another record harvest for grains worldwide.
Reply
David Appell
| #
“Earth Stopped Getting Greener 20 Years Ago – Declining plant growth is linked to decreasing air moisture tied to global warming,” Scientific American, 8/15/19.
Reply
richard
| #
https://notrickszone.com/2019/01/16/700000-square-kilometers-of-added-green-vegetation-climate-change-shrinks-sahara-desert-by-whopping-8/
Oh and did I say , this year is a record year for grain harvest , worldwide, even on reduced production.
Reply
David Appell
| #
Better technology, more forests chopped down, more acres planted, more fertilizers, more sprayed toxins, longer growing seasons, CO2 fertilization.
But global warming itself has a negative impact on some major crop yields:
“For wheat, maize and barley, there is a clearly negative response of global yields to increased temperatures. Based on these sensitivities and observed climate trends, we estimate that warming since 1981 has resulted in annual combined losses of these three crops representing roughly 40 Mt or $5 billion per year, as of 2002.”
— “Global scale climate–crop yield relationships and the impacts of recent warming,” David B Lobell and Christopher B Field 2007 Environ. Res. Lett. 2 014002 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/2/1/014002
“Crop Pests Spreading North with Global Warming: Fungi and insects migrate toward the poles at up to 7 kilometers per year,”
— Eliot Barford and Nature magazine, September 2, 2013
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/crop-pests-spreading-north-climate-change/
General Mills CEO Ken Powell told the Associated Press:
“We think that human-caused greenhouse gas causes climate change and climate volatility, and that’s going to stress the agricultural supply chain, which is very important to us.”
8/30/15
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-general-mills-greenhouse-gas-cuts-20150830-story.html
richard
| #
It’s a record year for grains on REDUCED PRODUCTION on top of the year on year bumper harvests year on year!
CO2 fertilization- yep, the planet and deserts are greening and tropic forests greening more from the increase in CO2-
oh and of course benign weather is leading to bumper harvests year on year.
Agriculture yields are up- https://ourworldindata.org/yields-and-land-use-in-agriculture#yields-since-1960.
Poverty has decreased- https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts.
Life expectancy has increased- https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy.
Deaths from weather related disasters have declined- https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/natural-disaster-death-rates?time=1900..2018.
Oh and the planet and deserts are greening from the increase in CO2- https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth/
Reply
richard
| #
increase in tropical forests flowering….
richard
| #
Don’t worry –
“Shipping losses declined by a record level of more than 50% year-on-year from 98 in 2017, driven by a significant fall in hotspots around the world and weather-related losses halving after a quieter year of hurricane and typhoon activity. The 2018 loss year is exceptional compared with the rolling 10-year loss average of 104 (down by 55%)”
https://www.marinelink.com/news/shipping-losses-declines-466912
Reply
David Appell
| #
And none of that has anything to do with climate change. At all.
richard
| #
Yep because there is no climate change. If there was the marine industry would be posting increase in losses and the world data would be –
Yields down-
Poverty increasing-
Life expectancy decreasing-
Deaths from weather related disasters increasing-
oh and the planet and deserts not greening-
and to add to the woes of the alarmists-
“NOAA: ‘It is premature to conclude…that global warming has already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity’ – U.S. landfalling hurricanes ‘show a slight negative trend’ since ‘late 1800s’”
richard
| #
Should add that if there is climate change it has been hugely beneficial as seen in the increase of the world’s population especially in the far hotter 3rd world countries.
David Appell
| #
Uh, what’s the evidence population increase in the developing world is due to climate change, as opposed to myriads of other potential factors?
David Appell
| #
RIchard, if there’s no global warming, why is so much ice melting and the ocean rising?
PS: You need to learn about functions about many variables. Rarely is something in the real world due to one factor alone. Global warming can be suppressing yields at the same time that other factors, such as more technology adaptation and increased acreage are increasing them.
richard
| #
“why is so much ice melting and the ocean rising?”
It’s the same as the past – what is your point?
“Uh, what’s the evidence population increase in the developing world is due to climate change”
In the past, climate change, wiped out civilisations. Today they are increasing. By your own comments if there is climate change then populations are increasing because of it, or, if there is climate change and they not increasing because of it it is of no consequence. Take your pick!!
“Accounts from 19th-century
Canadian Arctic Explorers’ Logs
Reflect Present Climate Conditions”
https://seagrant.uaf.edu/nosb/2005/resources/arctic-explorers.pdf
Back in the 19th century the sailing ships were a few hundred HP , reliant on the wind, today they can run 24/7 and are 25,000HP with all mod satellite , ice breaking, and underwater solar.
richard
| #
if there is climate change and they ARE increasing because of it it is of no consequence. Take your pick!!
David Appell
| #
WHY is the ice melting and the ocean rising?
It doesn’t happen willy nilly. What’s causing it? The ice was there for many millennia. The ocean rose only 1 meter in the 5000 years before the industrial era — an average of 0.2 mm/yr. Now it’s rising at 4 mm/yr, and accelerating.
What’s causing that??
PS: Your population hypothesis isn’t convincing.
Zoe Phin
| #
David you forgot to add a key detail:
“three dozen published studies that all find all find hockey sticks” using Mike’s nature trick.
Reply
David Appell
| #
Zoe: do you even know what was meant by “hide the decline?”
Decline in what, for instance?
Reply
Squidly
| #
Are you really this stupid? .. really?
Reply
David Appell
| #
What do you think was declining?
Edward Schultz
| #
The many Agrologists serving Canadian Agriculture salute and thank Tim Ball for long service and hard work, We now hope he can at last enjoy a well earned retirement. We are very pleased with the end result of this very silly court action – a ‘win for Tim’ and for science.
Reply
Pierre R Latour, PhD ChE
| #
Congratulations Tim! Finally some vindication.
Thanks to John O’Sullivan too.
I admire you both. Fellow skeptics.
CO2 is green plant food after all.
Reply
Caleb Shaw
| #
This is very good news, which the lamestream media will not report. The degree to which certain individuals are willing to go, basically to perpetuate a collection of bald-faced lies, continues to amaze me. And also perplex me. I am perplexed because Truth is beautiful, and anyone who prefers something else seems strangely demented.
I admire Dr. Tim Ball greatly. He is a man who could have just rolled his eyes and given the younger generation the “finger”, and retired. Instead he sacrificed his retirement to fight falsehood, and to attempt to rescue the younger generation from purveyors of falsehood.
I hope he lives to be 110 years old and never retires.
(He is an inspiring example to me, and puts me to shame, for I am only 66, yet sometimes am tempted to give the younger generations the “finger”. He makes me resist this temptation, and instead to try to rescue the young and naive from “Fake News”).
Reply
Buddy Larsen
| #
https://www.khanacademy.org/math/algebra2/x2ec2f6f830c9fb89:logs/x2ec2f6f830c9fb89:log-intro/v/plotting-exponential-logarithm
–trying to help David Appell
Reply
David Appell
| #
How so?
Reply
JEE
| #
In light of recent events concerning J. Epstein and his alleged connections to Mossad and blackmail and the connection to PSU concerning this same topic, folks should look for other more obvious connections as to how Mann might have been recruited for the assignment of the hockey stick.
These documents illustrate clearly how this was a concern that seemed to magically disappear.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=lavender+scare+and+red+scare&t=ffcm&ia=web
The song remains the same. They stick with what works.
https://www.mintpressnews.com/mega-group-maxwells-mossad-spy-story-jeffrey-epstein-scandal/261172/
https://www.mintpressnews.com/shocking-origins-jeffrey-epstein-blackmail-roy-cohn/260621/
Reply
David Appell
| #
Conspiracy mongering.
And who recruited all the other scientists — hundreds of them — whose research has reproduced the hockey stick since then??
Reply
Zoe Phin
| #
I thought the nature trick was gluing global temperature trend to local peoxy data. What conspiracy? It just looks like a bunch of stupid copy cats, possibly fan boys, possibly just stupid.
Reply
David Appell
| #
JEE wrote above, “…his alleged connections to Mossad and blackmail and the connection to PSU concerning this same topic, folks should look for other more obvious connections as to how Mann might have been recruited for the assignment of the hockey stick.”
He’s just trying to start a conspiracy. There is, of course, no evidence Mann was “recruited” — he was just a scientist doing (good) science.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
Ross McKitrick
2005
(This was 15 years ago!)
https://climateaudit.org/2005/04/08/mckitrick-what-the-hockey-stick-debate-is-about/
Abstract
The hockey stick debate is about two things. At a technical level it concerns a well known study that characterized the state of the Earth’s climate over the past thousand years and seemed to prove a recent and unprecedented global warming. I will explain how the study got the results it did, examine some key flaws in the methodology and explain why the conclusions are unsupported by the data. At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing process. In view of the massive global influence of IPCC Reports, there is an urgent need to bias-proof future assessments in order to put climate policy onto a new foundation that will better serve the public interest.
Introduction:
Excerpt (Edited by myself for brevity).
“. . . in light of the enormous trust placed by governments around the world in the IPCC, we should expect they took some pains to ensure the graph’s validity. IPCC leaders have boasted at length about their rigorous multi-stage review process, they have urged world leaders to place the greatest trust in their report, and they have summarily dismissed criticism on the grounds that their assessment contains the “consensus” view of all qualified climate scientists around the world.
As I will show, the hockey stick paper was deeply flawed and it contradicted other credible evidence then appearing in the scientific literature. The flaws could have been discovered during the review process under even the most elementary fact-checking. Yet the review process not only allowed this paper through, but made it front-and-centre in the final Report. The question then is not whether the IPCC review process is flawed: we can no longer conclude otherwise. The question . . .”
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
What You Don’t get about science and truth
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=17161
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I had vowed to not write any comment to you any more. But I must compliment you for reviewing for PSI readers that someone, besides myself. considered about 7 years before PSI was formed that actual valid data was critically important in what is known as science.
And just as I had never read about the SURFRAD, the SCAN, the RAWS, and the USCRN projects’ data until a couple three years ago, I had never read the name Ross McKitrick.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
David Appell
| #
James, the hockey stick has been reproduced many times by now. What has McKitrick said about that? How can the original HS be in any way wrong or fraudulent if hundreds of researchers since have reproduced it using different techniques?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
DA:
“How can the original HS be in any way wrong or fraudulent if hundreds of researchers since have reproduced it . . .”
JMcG:
Well David, have you heard of the phenomena of “rock soup?” (If not look it up on Wiki or Google.) Here is something that not everybody knows about this phenomena. It doesn’t involve just one rock or even one type of rock. It works on just about any rock that is small enough to fit into a pot. Sedimentary, igneous, or metamorphic, it makes no difference. Color too makes no difference. Red, white, black, gray, or brown, they all produce the same aromatic, delicious, and nutritious result. MMMMM
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=360#p123034
Well, David,
Reply
David Appell
| #
The HS results aren’t random — they come from calculations using proxy data.
If you’re a geologist then you know that reproducibility is the gold standard in science. Yet here you reject it, for no scientific reason at all — in fact you don’t even understand what the HS was about (see above re: “hide the decline) — just because for some reason you don’t like the result.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
David, my point in what I wrote above is that referencing the multiplicity of a lunatic belief is not a sound scientific practice. Along these lines, here is something you don’t know about the atmospheric sciences in general and climatology in particular:
Much like aspects of meteorology (especially the “storm theory” aspects of meteorology) from which it obtained its methodological traditions, climatology is a conversational science. They don’t do experiments. Validity is determined through discussion. The more something is discussed the more it is accepted and the more it is accepted the more it is discussed. Accordingly they arrive at models of what seems most reasonable–most agreeable. In conjunction with the fact that their audience, the public at large, has no interest in technical details or mundane facts, these models effectuate a fortress the lofty heights from which they casually dismiss any problematic observations that inevitably emerge with what is in actually such a blatantly non-empirical process.
More on this theme here:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=270#p122469
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
David Appell
| #
Climate science is an observational science, just like geology, astronomy, medicine, and others.
Yes, you can’t do direct experiments in climate science, because there is no control Earth, but there is a huge amount of observational data that is and can be done. Here’s just a few examples:
“Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997,” J.E. Harries et al, Nature 410, 355-357 (15 March 2001).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
“Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,” R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339–343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
David Appell
| #
Re: lunatic belief
So do you think CO2 doesn’t absorb infrared radiation, or do you think the Earth doesn’t emit any?
James McGinn
| #
DA:
there is a huge amount of observational data
JMcG:
Right. And you are wanting us to believe you see a problem in this data. You want us to believe you can see the signal in the noise. You claim to see a problem. Atmospheric warming. I don’t see it. You claim to see the cause. Carbon dioxide. I don’t see it. And you can’t explain it to me. All you do is point me to more data. More noise. No signal.
This is the way religions work. If you go to a priest or pastor and tell them you are losing your faith they will often direct you to read the bible. When the human mind is overwhelmed with information we lose our ability to be skeptical.
You don’t believe it because you understand it. You believe it because you believe it. If you understood it you’d be able to explain why you believe it. But you can’t because you yourself don’t know why you believe it.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Did you ever wonder why a snowflake is flat?
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329&start=240#p122413
Bryan
| #
Thank-you Dr. Tim Ball, your sacrifice has not gone unnoticed.
Thank-you Mike Adams and Natural News. You have done the world a great service by shining a spot light on this travesty.
Cheers,
Bryan
Reply
Bryan
| #
Thank-you Dr. Tim Ball, your sacrifice has not gone unnoticed.
Thank-you Mike Adams and Natural News. You have done the world a great service by shining a spot light on this travesty.
Cheers,
Bryan
Reply
Leo Regehr
| #
Penn State is justified in launching a recovery action on Dr. Mann for soliciting and using government funds for improper purposes. These funds should be found to be overpayments. Ditto for all grantors and donors to his cause.
Reply