Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud?

No scientist has abused the court system like Michael Mann. Penn State’s controversial alarmist climate professor has not only politicized the science but has resorted to repeated court action to silence his critics.

Mann’s most shocking legal gambit was stooping to sue for libel 79-year-old retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball. Ball, although a pensioner, remains a staunch and popular critic of climate alarm. For almost two decades Ball has been in the vanguard of independent scientists calling out Mann’s secret science; science bought and paid for with our tax dollars. When asked to show his disputed code Mann’s response was:

““I have made available all of the research data that I am required to under United States policy as set by the National Science Foundation…. I maintain the right to decline to release any computer codes, which are my intellectual property…”

So much for saving the planet from catastrophe, Mikey!

In the seven years this ridiculous, multi-million dollar SLAPP suit has run Mann has stooped to every trick to prevent open court examination of crucial equations that created his iconic ‘hockey stick’ graph. While Mann is personally wealthy and extremely well funded behind the scenes by deep-pocketed Big Green fanatic, David Suzuki, Dr Ball has relied on global grassroots backing from ordinary men and women sick of government corruption.

Tim Ball insists the reason Mann keeps “his intellectual property” hidden is because to show it would prove Mann’s criminal intent to deceive and defraud millions in US federal grants. Below is a graphic comparison of Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph created using Mann’s secret math technique, beneath it is Tim Ball’s version using conventional methods applied to publicly-available data.

Readers should note that while Mann’s pronounced ‘hockey stick’ shape graph (relied on by the UN IPCC’s 2001 report) shows a flatline from the 10th Century until a big uptick in the late 20th Century, it is very conspicuous that the graph relied on by the UN IPCC’s 1990 report (shown below) is similar to Tim Ball’s and depicts the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) as  significantly warmer than today.

Clearly, from 2001 the UN IPCC and many policy makers took a hugely bold step in buying into Michael Mann’s re-writing of the historical temperature record. Mann had been a totally unknown scientist at that time and had only received his PhD in 1998 (and in somewhat odd circumstances).  Was consensus climate science altered to fit a political agenda? Let’s examine the key issues so that readers may make a more informed judgement as to culpability.

“Most Iconic Symbol” of Man-made Global Warming

Scientific American typifies the consensus view about the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, writing: “Michael Mann introduced a graph that became an iconic symbol of humanity’s contribution to global warming.” [1]

Scientific American touts that Mann’s famous graph proves that globally:

 “temperature remains essentially flat until about 1900, then shoots up, like the upturned blade of a hockey stick…. Proponents see it as a clear indicator that humans are warming the globe.”

In 2001, to huge media fanfare, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change prominently featured the hockey stick in its Third Assessment Report.

Subsequently, independent statisticians have shown that Mann’s graph is fake – the data Mann did release reveals that hockey stick-shaped graphs appear WHATEVER numbers are used. Such anti-science trickery should now be recognised as the iconic symbol – cornerstone of the biggest financial fraud in history. The astronomical sums of money involved means the global warming scare industry dwarfs the sub-prime mortgage scam of 2007 – a crisis that brought world banks to their knees.

It is no secret that the Trump administration is intent on rolling back climate alarm at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To that end ‘EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Moves to End Reliance on ‘Secret Science’ (April 24, 2018).

Pruitt boldly announced:

“The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end,” Pruitt said. “The ability to test, authenticate, and reproduce scientific findings is vital for the integrity of the rule-making process. Americans deserve to assess the legitimacy of the science underpinning EPA decisions that may impact their lives.”

Pruitt and senior Trump officials are fully aware of Michael Mann’s shenanigans. For two decades skeptics have insisted Mann’s misfeasance was an intentional fraud that scooped millions for him personally and set in train an ideological anti-industrial dystopia bringing misery to billions.

Scientific American continues explaining the cleverness of the scam:

“….. global mean temperature began to rise dramatically in the early 20th century. That rise coincided with the unprecedented release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the earth’s atmosphere, leading to the conclusion that industrial activity was boosting the world’s mean temperature. Other researchers subsequently confirmed the plot.”

The trick was to make it appear there was a clear correlation between temperature rises and levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The scientifically uneducated simply accepted that human emissions of CO2 were causing rising temperatures.

But statistical analysts put Mann’s work under the microscope and uncovered the key to what looks like intentional fraud. They say the smoking gun is probably in Mann’s working out, which he has always kept hidden.

Math Teachers Teach us to Show our Working Out

It is a matter of public record that Mann’s proxy reconstruction method was made by lining up his tree ring data with measured temperatures in the 20th century to calibrate the scale. In the process Mann used a statistic called the r-squared correlation coefficient.

Remember at school when the math teacher told you to show all your workings out?

That ‘working out’ part of solving a statistical problem is the key. It reveals how you achieved your result – by fair means or foul.

We also know, from evidence in the public domain, that Mann found that over most of the reconstruction there was essentially no match (in other words the r-squared data was telling Mann his graph was junk).

As Scientific American admits:

“Take down Mann, it seemed, and the rest of the IPCC’s conclusions about anthropogenic climate change would follow.”

Mann is nothing if not conceited and bullish. His response to skeptics is:

“From an intellectual point of view, these contrarians are pathetic, because there’s no scientific validity to their arguments whatsoever.”

On realclimate.com Mann and co-conspirator NASA’s Gavin Schmidt write:

“There is no case for casting doubt on the scientific value and integrity of the studies by Mann et al. – they have been replicated by other scientists, the data and the computer code are available in the public domain (including the actual fortran program used to implement the MBH98 procedure).”

But nowhere in the fortran program or elsewhere will you see Mann’s actual working out. While the very-detailed U.S. Congress Wegman Report cast grave doubts on those ‘replications’ finding:

“…we found that at least 43 authors have direct ties to Dr. Mann by virtue of coauthored papers with him. Our findings from this analysis suggest that authors in the area of paleoclimate studies are closely connected and thus ‘independent studies’ may not be as independent as they might appear on the surface.” [3/91) [2]

On the key issue of Mann refusing to show his secret science calculations Wegman lamented:

“We were especially struck by Dr. Mann’s insistence that the code he developed was his intellectual property and that he could legally hold it personally without disclosing it to peers.”

We say Mann will not release “the code”-  those hidden r-squared numbers – because they are the smoking gun to his crime. In legal parlance the hidden code is the mens rea – or “guilty mind” component proving intent to defraud.  We saw how Mann had his Penn State University employers spend upwards of a million dollars pulling every trick in the book to block open public access in the Virginia courts to his top secret  ‘working out.’

Even Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia Attorney General at the time, could not prevail in getting Mann to release his hidden data. [Google: ‘Ken Cuccinelli Virginia versus Michael Mann (2010)].

We know Mann did, indeed, perform this important due diligence test because he let on that he got r-squared results for the one part of the data where there was a weak match. We also see it in the code he eventually was forced to publish (McIntyre and McKitrick (2005a, 2005b))

McKitrick, McIntyre, Ball and myself all concur that Mann lied when he proudly boasted to journalists that his graph had passed the tests (it hadn’t).

He got away with that hubris for a while because he very carefully didn’t publish most of the r-squared numbers themselves. These original, unpublished r-squared numbers are what Tim Ball wants to see examined in open court and what Steve McIntyre and others have repeatedly asked Mann to release.

Mann’s defenders either are ignorant or complicit in Mann’s data cover up. For example:

“Scientific debates should be played out in the academic arena,” insists University of Virginia environmental sciences professor David Carr. “If Michael Mann’s conclusions are unsupported by his data, his scientific critics will eventually demonstrate this.”

Carr and 809 scientists and academics from the Union of Concerned Scientists signed a petition defending Mann’s stubborn secrecy. These academic apologists for climate fraud SUPPORT public policy being formed on the whim of unaccountable secret science.

It seems it needed a ‘denier’ like Dr Tim Ball to seek courtroom justice and compel rightful access to Mikey’s secret science – science funded by taxpayers and upon which trillion-dollar climate policies are premised.

Mann believed the stunt he pulled in the US would also work when he sued Tim Ball in Canada.

But sadly, for Mikey different rules apply over the border. Under the vigorous and exacting ‘truth defense’ in British Columbia Ball is entitled to have open court examination of ALL Mann’s r2 regression numbers.

Mann signed an undertaking with Ball in February 2017 that in exchange for Ball giving Mann more time, in return Ball would finally get access to that data. But the crooked Mann breached that written agreement.

In fact, the r-squared numbers are what the ‘dirty laundry’ comment in the Climategate emails was about. Mann won’t release the r-squared data to Ball to pick apart in open court and would rather lose the case. I detailed here the two important legal issues in Mann-v-Ball as (1) The ‘truth defense‘ and (2) Doctrine of spoliation (intentional withholding of evidence during trial). [4]

We say Mann chooses not to comply with court rules because if he did release the numbers he will be exposed for intentional fraud – a very profitable crime. McIntyre and McKitrick’s analysis shows Mann’s procedure was bad (ie it created ‘hockey sticks’ whatever numbers were fed in, and Mann knew it).

In fact, statistics expert, Steve McIntyre (performing 10,000 simulations) and others have publicly demonstrated that Mann’s methods churn out ONLY hockey stick-shaped graphs whatever data is fed in. This is why every ‘scientist’ who follows Mann’s procedure also gets ‘hockey stick’ graphs. It’s ALL you get using Mann’s mendacious methodology.

Paul Driessen summed up the skeptic position:

“We have a right to insist that the research be honest and above board. That the work products stay in the public domain, available for scrutiny. That researchers share their data, computer codes and analytical methodologies, and engage in robust debate with skeptics and critics.” [3]

In 2011 I, John O’Sullivan, Tim Ball’s friend and colleague, signed a legally-binding indemnity holding me as author of many such critiques of Mann liable to pay high costs in the event Mann wins against Ball. As such, I do not speak lightly. In 2010 I wrote a similar article and quoted a top legal scholar Susan Kuzma (1992):

“In the long run, the more corrosive force [of scientific misconduct] is the undermining of public confidence in an important public institution and the engendering of a cynical perception that the reporting and the funding of scientific research is a rigged game. Criminal prosecution plays a valuable role in demonstrating a commitment to absolute integrity in this important arena.” (5.)

Those eight years ago I had already concluded:

“Unless the dodgy Penn. State professor divulges his computer codes that underpin his junk science no civil court will entertain him. Barking out his toothless threats scares no one. This fraudster is now a figure of ridicule and is set to go down in history is one of science’s worst abominations. I’ll call Mann a climate crook all day long: let him sue me, I’m game. “

Mann just dismisses my claims as “nonsense” inside his Facebook echo chamber:

During the Mann-v-Ball court case Tim Ball won important “concessions” from Mann in February 2017. At that time Tim Ball announced:

“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.

The case continues.

Based on Mann’s continued hiding of his data I am in no doubt he keeps his numbers hidden to cover up his crime to fleece millions in grants from the US federal government. He has abused the court systems in the US and Canada with his SLAPP suit cover ups and should financially compensate Dr Ball. In the US Mann needs to be prosecuted and deserves to spend a long time in jail.


[1] David Appell, ‘Behind the Hockey Stick’ (March 1, 2005), Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/

[2] AD HOC COMMITTEE REPORT ON THE ‘HOCKEY STICK’ GLOBAL CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  https://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/WegmanReport.pdf

[3] Paul Driessen, ‘Ken Cuccinelli v. 810 academics’ (May 29, 2010) https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2010/05/29/ken-cuccinelli-v-810-academics-n834760

[4] Spoliation doctrine – intentional withholding of evidence – British Columbia Law Institute – Report on Spoliation of Evidence (2004) https://www.bcli.org/project/spoliation-evidence Under British Columbia law the evidentiary presumption is that if withheld/hidden evidence had been available at trial it would be harmful to the spoliator’s [Michael Mann] case. Sanctions include dismissal of the action and/or fine, imprisonment.

[5] Sovacool, B. K., ‘Criminalization and Due Process to Reduce Scientific Misconduct,’ The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 5, Issue 5 September 2005

 

Comments (8)

  • Avatar

    John Doran

    |

    Mikey “hockey stick fraudstar” found guilty, ordered to pay Dr. Tim compensation & banged up in the slammer?
    Dream on, John. 🙂

  • Avatar

    Stephen J. Crothers

    |

    Perhaps Mann’s hockey stick should be graphed against his bank account over the same period.

  • Avatar

    tom0mason

    |

    Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud? you ask…
    YES!! Of course.

  • Avatar

    William Masters

    |

    As I have been saying for years, any persons who raise money in interstate commerce must tell the truth. People whole and defraud others to get money out of them, whether it is selling something or a phony charity, is guilty of fraud.
    The RICO Act is the best way to go after these climate Warmers.
    Here in California, if you say something as a fact rather than as your opinion, then you must be right. If it is found later that you were wrong, even if you thought you were right, that is fraud, and you are as guilty under the law as if you knew all along that you were wrong.

    • Avatar

      Bart van den Broek

      |

      Zooming in on a part of your comment, there should be difference between “if you thought you were right” vs “if you knew all along that you were wrong” in the eyes of the law. Simply because it is reasonable. People are not perfect and make mistakes. When people cooperate in solving a mistake when found, they are reasonable.

      • Avatar

        Stephen J. Crothers

        |

        Point to a single example of an AGW alarmist cooperating in reasonable discussion of the science with an AGW non-alarmist.

  • Avatar

    Robert Tetrault

    |

    Regardless of the hockey stick’s artifice, refuting the ongoing and increasingly obvious trend of climate change observations is another project entirely: Who ya gonna believe? Hockey stick graphed abstractions or raw data?

  • Avatar

    Alan Stewart

    |

    It seems that Mikey has an aversion to Canucks as he is also in a SLAPP suit with Canadian born author Mark Steyn. Why he is not suing McIntyre and McKittrick (also Canadians) who actually revealed his duplicity is odd.
    But, what I don’t understand is his stance on his codes. If they are, as he says, IP, then one would logically assume they are Patentable, i.e. theft proof to the limits of patent protection. I’m sure a patent search would come up blank. Are his codes are of value to other researchers, possibly a new research methedology?? If so patent protection would make sense.
    It is also to be noted that patent applications are examined by the patent office by reviewers as is termed, ‘Skilled in the Art’ of each area of the particular applications. This is a very good NOT to apply if the mechanics of his codes are in error.
    This is a chain of thinking possibly worth pursuing.

Comments are closed

Share via