Skip to content

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

July 6, 2017

By Paul Homewood


Is the Michael Mann/Tim Ball case coming to a head?


John Sullivan writes:


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

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

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

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

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

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

As Dr Ball explains:

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

Punishment for Civil Contempt

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

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

In his books, articles, radio and television appearances, Dr. Ball has been resolute in his generation-long war against those who corrupted the field of science to which he had selflessly dedicated his life. Now aged 79, Ball is on the cusp of utter vindication. Despite the stresses and strains on himself and his family, Tim has stood at the forefront of those scientists demanding more openness and transparency from government-funded researchers.

As Ball explains:

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

Likely Repercussions for Science & Climate Policy

A bitter and embarrassing defeat for the self-styled ‘Nobel Prize winner’ who acted as if he was the epitome of virtue, this outcome shames not only Michael Mann, but puts the climate science community in crisis. Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann’s work, which is now effectively junked. Despite having deep-pocketed backers willing and able to feed his ego as a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics, Mann’s credibility as a champion of environmentalism is in tatters.

But it gets worse for the litigious Penn State professor. Close behind Dr Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. Steyn also defends himself against another one of Mann’s SLAPP suits – this time in Washington DC. Steyn boldly claims Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Esteemed American climate scientist, Dr Judith Curry, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae legal brief exposing Mann. The world can now see that his six-year legal gambit to silence his most effective critics and chill scientific debate has spectacularly backfired.

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

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

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

  1. quaesoveritas permalink
    July 6, 2017 10:18 am

    Hmm, why has none of this appeared on the BBC?

    • Old Goat permalink
      July 6, 2017 11:15 am

      I think we ALL know the answer to THAT one…

    • Gerry, England permalink
      July 6, 2017 12:36 pm

      Need you ask? lol

    • dbeyat45 permalink
      July 7, 2017 3:15 am

      From Mann’s lawyer on Mann’s FB:
      A response from my attorney Roger McConchie w.r.t. the latest spurious claims by John O’Sullivan (info about O’Sullivan here:…)


      Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

      No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Roger D. McConchie

  2. AndyG55 permalink
    July 6, 2017 10:28 am

    I hope its not just another one of John’s over-statements.

    I hope Tim will surface somewhere and confirm this,

    or the actual court decision becomes available so the in-forum lawyers can interpret it.

    • July 6, 2017 4:51 pm

      Indeed. Having an O’Sullivan’s narrative is like not having anything at all.

  3. Athelstan permalink
    July 6, 2017 10:57 am

    Mann exposed as the charlatan he undoubtedly is……………..

    As the sun rises in the morning, some stuff is just a given.

  4. July 6, 2017 11:10 am

    Michael Mann has positioned himself as the poster child for Proverbs 16:19– “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall.”


  5. Joe Robinson permalink
    July 6, 2017 12:03 pm

    Finally the First step to Justice, I hope it moves to the Courts in Washington D.C.!

    • Gerry, England permalink
      July 6, 2017 12:36 pm

      It will with the Mark Steyn case.

  6. pesadia permalink
    July 6, 2017 12:37 pm

    Nothing on Tim Balls website, posted on Climate Depot but not highlighted. Nothing on WUWT or Jo Nova or No Tricks Zone. I just don’t trust John Osullivan. This needs verifying somehow.

    • Mike Jackson permalink
      July 6, 2017 9:27 pm

      My thoughts exactly, pesadia. Can we all calm down a bit, please, and remember just to what extent we have ever trusted principia-scientific and/or Sullivan. The phrasing of the report sounds too much like wishful thinking for my liking.

      “The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball (above, right) is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions,” — so perhaps it might be a good idea if we waited until Ball decides what he is going to do, does it, and gets a ruling from the court.

      I’ve seen too many “lights at the end of the tunnel” in this business that turn out at best to be stars in people’s eyes and at worst oncoming trains.

      Cool it.

      • Old Englander permalink
        July 7, 2017 7:59 am

        If a court makes a ruling, the judgment should be public, so let’s see it please.

  7. Gerry, England permalink
    July 6, 2017 12:38 pm

    This could be a moment in history where the tide turns with a defeat in battle – or a victory in our case. Stalingrad or El Alamein for the warmists. No wonder warmists always avoid court battles and were not happy with Mann bringing these cases.

  8. Malcolm Bell permalink
    July 6, 2017 12:50 pm

    I hope against hope that this holds up. Please let the search for truth win soon.

    I am deeply troubled that my beautiful world of Science includes a monster like Trump in its defence.

    • Tom O permalink
      July 6, 2017 1:26 pm

      I must admit, YOU are a mystery to me. If bovine droppings is your “beautiful world of science,” you have a very fertile mind., I just can’t seem to connect your two paragraphs.

      • Malcolm Bell permalink
        July 6, 2017 3:56 pm

        That is interesting Tom.

        Where did you get Bovine droppings from? Checking carefully I see no mention of them. Had I spoken such vulgarity them you would be right.

        However, without your imaginary cows my comment is a perfect sequitor.

  9. CheshireRed permalink
    July 6, 2017 1:52 pm

    Promising, but there’s still plenty to do yet. The court needs to pass judgement and no doubt that’d be subject to appeal.
    However THE take-home here is that Dr Mann (the guy who brought the case, remember) has flat-out refused to provide his own data for scrutiny before the court. That alone is both inexcusable arrogance and scientifically indefensible, and in a fair world would see him dismissed from hereon in as a parody, a comedy figure. We’ll see.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      July 6, 2017 1:57 pm

      Btw….when you have to write an entire article explaining how best to ‘sell’ your theory then you know your scientific case must be on the weak side.

  10. Nigel S permalink
    July 6, 2017 2:05 pm

    I hope this is true but if Canadian civil courts are anything like English civil courts they’ll just prevaricate.

  11. July 6, 2017 2:11 pm

    Reblogged this on ajmarciniak.

  12. July 6, 2017 2:20 pm

    Reblogged this on Patti Kellar.

  13. July 6, 2017 2:31 pm

    Won’t turn over his data, huh? It just keeps getting better and better.

  14. markl permalink
    July 6, 2017 3:14 pm

    It’s not over ’till the fat lady sings.

  15. andy mckendrick permalink
    July 6, 2017 4:55 pm

    Any one notice Charlie and Nagy on BBC news this morning discussing why it is that tennis courts appear much greener than they did in the seventies….maybe something to do with that wee bit extra co2 in the atmosphere.

    • July 6, 2017 8:07 pm

      The BBC still broadcasts in B&W, my favorite episode of Coronation Street had Hilda and Stan watching snooker with a green filter over their Black and White TV set given to them by Benny(1979 I think). We were watching on a B&W set as were most. It is not very hard to remember greener TV grass in the 1970’s. Even the first photographs in newspapers were not colour until 1996 when Eddy Shah launched Today.

      • July 7, 2017 9:35 am

        “The BBC still broadcasts in B&W”
        What do you mean by that?
        Coronation Street wasn’t on the BBC and I think Benny was in Crossroads, not Coronation Street.

  16. Lance permalink
    July 6, 2017 6:09 pm

    If it’s true, they (Media) will portray Mann as the ‘victim’….

  17. Roger Simms permalink
    July 6, 2017 6:40 pm

    For climate denier, read climate change realist, the climate all ways changes, without any help from earth dwellers, climate change data does not need to be adjusted by false Nobel prize winners, or is that to kind, maybe fake NOBEL PRIZE ? winners is more discriptive, for these wicked strangers to the truth.

  18. July 6, 2017 6:59 pm

    I scanned to bottom of article : its says
    Ah that org that Anthony Watts calls a bunch of cranks.
    I scan back up to top “Mann commits contempt of court ”
    … Big claim, bu judge has not said that yet
    So I’ll wait until he/she does.

  19. July 7, 2017 3:25 pm

    Reblogged this on HiFast News Feed.

  20. July 7, 2017 11:27 pm

    Another climate scam / fraud!? Everyone wants a piece of the billions of taxpayer $$$’s up for grabs!

  21. captainfish permalink
    July 9, 2017 1:23 am

    the condition was that Mann turn over data and documents by Feb 20, 2017. And 5 months later this story comes out? Wouldn’t the rulings and contempt of court declaration have all happened by now? I am sensing something off about this story.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: