Justice Has Been Served–Mann Loses
August 23, 2019
20 Comments
Comments are closed.
“We do not believe any group of men adequate enough or wise enough to operate without scrutiny or without criticism. We know that the only way to avoid error is to detect it, that the only way to detect it is to be free to inquire. We know that in secrecy error undetected will flourish and subvert”. – J Robert Oppenheimer.
Recent Comments
dave on June temperatures at half the… devonblueboy on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on Labour To Keep Strategic Reser… gezza1298 on ‘Green’ renewable… Micky R on Shameful Behaviour by Prof Pau… In The Real World on German Hydrogen Rollout Fails… Nicholas Lewis on What’s the real distance…
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Interestingly enough, the captions over the photos are appropriate in more than just the lawsuit. They tend to define the individuals beneath them.
Yipeeee 🙂
John Doran.
Mann’s official response is typically slimy, I won’t bother posting it here.
To sum up, Mann says he didn’t lose, Ball chickened out of having the court make a ruling!
When would that have been if Mann had his way, the year 3000?
Put up or shut up. And Mann had to shut up.
This report gives the real reason why the Judge Dismissed the defamation claim by Mann without a full trial.
“Dr Mann lost his case because he refused to show in open court his R2 regression numbers (the ‘working out’) behind the world-famous ‘hockey stick’ graph (shown below).
The graph first appeared in the UN IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) and has been an iconic image used ever since by environmentalists clamoring for urgent action on man-made global warming.
Indeed, many hundreds of subsequent climate studies relied on Mann’s findings.
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.”
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/
Mann covering up to the very end
The Graphs compared
So Mann lost? Couldn’t have happened to a nicer fellow!! How he manages to hold on to his job amazes me. In any other scientific field he would be persona non grata. The champagne corks will be popping here tonight!
Because his activities support the desired outcome as far as politicians are concerned.
But of course none of his ‘mates’ would support him in his ongoing case against Mark Steyn. Perhaps even they realise the damage he, along with the idiotic Peter Wadhams, is actually doing to their case.
I’m not one to condone violence, although I have been involved in more than my fair share over the years, only as an act of defence for myself or others, but Michael Mann has a face I wouldn’t ever get sick of punching, metaphorically of course.
Mr Mann looks like a fatter version of Sir Oswald Mosley. It’s the smugness, I suppose, plus the face fungus and the black crewneck sweater.
There is a great similarity between Michael Mann and Bob Ward.
Mikey is still suing Mark Steyn.
Isn’t Mark impervious to it by now?
Employing similar tactics I believe, too? ie Mann instigates legal action…then refuses to come to court!
Absurd that the system allows such a tactic. You call a case, you should be expected to defend your position in open court in a timely manner.
Mann exposed as a less than decent chap yet again.
“…the system allows such a tactic…”
There are rules to stop “vexatious litigants.” However, these tend to assume that anyone with a lawyer to represent him is acting properly.
So there is justice after all, I was beginning to wonder.
Great but not the end of this I think.
Reblogged this on Climate Collections.
Perhaps Dr. Ball needs to have Mann declared a vexatious litigant.
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/general/b.c.-takes-steps-to-stem-tide-of-vexatious-litigants/275384
Someone who knows Dr. Ball should ask of there is a transcript of the relevant hearing or some other document officially describing the ruling.
All we have now are characterizations by the two sides, which just leads to what we’ve seen — dueling descriptions of what happened.
There is almost certainly either a transcript/written ruling now — or one is expected soon. Any appeal needs to reference some concrete ruling.