Skip to content

Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case

August 26, 2019
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

PowerLine has a bit more detail on Tim Ball’s court victory over Michael Mann:

 

image

Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case.

The rules of discovery provide that a litigant must make available to opposing parties documents that reasonably bear on the issues in the case. Here, it is absurd for Mann to sue Ball for libel, and then refuse to produce the documents that would have helped to show whether Ball’s statement about him–he belongs in the state pen–was true or false. The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part.

Mann says that his lawyers are considering an appeal. He can appeal to his heart’s content, but there is not a court in North America that will allow a libel case to proceed where the plaintiff refuses to produce the documents that may show whether the statements made about him were true or false.

Mann responded to the dismissal of his lawsuit in typically mean-spirited and dishonest fashion: “The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on [sic] the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay.” The dismissal was for failure to obey a court order, and the delay went on for eight years.

Fun fact: I learned while tracking down Michael Mann’s statement about the court’s order that he has blocked me on Twitter:

.

Full story here.

22 Comments
  1. August 26, 2019 6:33 pm

    Reblogged this on Climate- Science.press.

  2. August 26, 2019 6:53 pm

    Mike…you’ve been unwilling to fully share your data from the beginning with McIntyre and now Ball. Losing this court case was your only alternative because your data would make your fraud manifest. Slink away and avoid any IPCC relationships. You have no scientific standing.

  3. August 26, 2019 8:10 pm

    I’m guessing that Mann is the most prevalent Tweeter blocker in the Tweet world. He also blocked me the very first time I sent a reply to him . . . and was a nothing burger.

    • Tim permalink
      August 26, 2019 9:07 pm

      garyh845, same here. I responded to someone else’s comment (who said something to the effect that the legal delays further the ‘conspiracy theories’) and then he broke in, hit me with some kind of ad hominem (something like ‘didn’t your momma teach you not to lie’), and blocked me (LOL, WTF?) … this is what I tweeted:

      “Scientific findings must be repeatable: refusing to provide the underlying data is tantamount to confirmation that the findings are not repeatable.

      When you call someone who respects the scientific method a “denier” you confirm that your position is based in belief, not science.”

    • August 26, 2019 9:24 pm

      People like Mann and Owen Jones use pre-emptive blocking tools.
      Such action leads to bubbleworld
      and locks individuals out of the debate, even though you expect them to pay for GreenDream in tax and loss of liberty.
      I would guess if you check if he tools block you, that could push up your negative rating

      • August 26, 2019 9:49 pm

        “@science_shield blocks @stevesgoddard, @tan123, @curryja”

      • Tim permalink
        August 26, 2019 9:53 pm

        I’ve seen those, but if I was pre-emptively blocked on his echo-chamber list he never would have seen my tweet at all, no?

      • August 26, 2019 11:12 pm

        Obviously not, I didn’t say that is the only way he blocks people
        AS you say, you had a discussion with him
        and he took a dislike and blocked you

        However it is entirely possible that he or his team run sock-puppet accounts in the same thread.

      • Tim permalink
        August 27, 2019 12:14 am

        Yeah, fair enough. It was just weird, b/c he wasn’t involved in the thread (was one of many off of his original tweet), but he kinda dove in, made a nasty comment and blocked me: I didn’t have any direct interaction with him at all.

        It’s just weird: I wouldn’t have even seen it, except it was on my phone notifications … who does that? That dude has some serious credibility issues.

    • bobn permalink
      August 26, 2019 11:46 pm

      Whats this twatter thing? surely only children use it. given its imbecilic

  4. swan101 permalink
    August 26, 2019 8:11 pm

    Reblogged this on ECO-ENERGY DATABASE.

  5. Ian Phillips permalink
    August 26, 2019 10:22 pm

    The issue, of the hockey stick graph is fundamental to current climate politics. The graph was the centrepiece of Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” film, branded as propaganda as the result of Stewart Dimmock’s taking the matter to the High Court. It was ruled a “political film” and thereby breaking the Education Act in the matter of political indoctrination. However, widely viewed, its exaggerations and errors, as listed by Judge Michael Burton, have been the motivation behind the extremist “extinction” movement.
    Now the brainless Anglican Church has being signed up to the deception via projects such as “Operation Noah”. I think climate fanatics now believe they are even superior to God, and to lie and exaggerate is OK because they believe their cause is “right”.
    This legal result must be made as public as possible to demonstrate the weakness in the CO2 greenhouse theory…..if it were a strong case, why would Mann refuse to produce his evidence and the arguments he used in order to ‘disappear’ the Mediaeval Warm Period, thus accentuating his hypothetical future temperature claims?

  6. August 27, 2019 4:10 am

    This court ruling should be spread around the world news

    • David Parker permalink
      August 27, 2019 9:23 am

      Yeah! Pigs might fly

  7. Malcolm Bell permalink
    August 27, 2019 8:48 am

    I see or hear nothing in the mainstream press. Are they too scared of the extremists? They have good reason to be, the XR fanatics are becoming very dangerous indeed. Now I think would be a bad time for a professional journalist with a known address to
    put her head above the parapet.

  8. Phoenix44 permalink
    August 27, 2019 9:50 am

    It should have taken Mann a few days to produce his “proof” – after all didn’t he have it when he published his claims? All he had to do was turn over his workings.

    Yet he refused to do so, even though it will cost him (or somebody) a fair bit of money. Any real scientist should run a mile from that sort of behaviour – but not a single Climate Scientist will. That’s the true corruption of science.

    • August 27, 2019 10:21 am

      Unlikely that Mann will personally pay anything. His employers and/or warmist benefactors will probably step in, or he wouldn’t be engaging in multiple law suits in the first place.

  9. August 27, 2019 12:01 pm

    Michael Mann is but one of the vociferous gaggle which now infest academia. He may be more well known due to his childish pranks, but he represents a growing percentage of the college/university campus. Liberal arts, where the biological sciences lurk, circled the drain some time ago.

  10. Jon Scott permalink
    August 27, 2019 9:16 pm

    Worst of all this will NOT be reported by any of the UK media outlets who spend their time sliming you as to their “impartiality”. The disgusingly left tainted BBC and Pravda wannabe Guardian will simply ignore it wile spoiting utter nonsense on a daily basis as “proof” of AGW. Rotten to the core!

  11. August 29, 2019 3:15 am

    Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  12. Neil Gibbs permalink
    August 29, 2019 5:53 pm

    Egotism is the anesthetic which nature gives us to deaden the pain of being a fool.
    Dr. Herbert Shofield

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: