Court Battle: Michael Mann Losing, Gives Tim Ball ‘Concessions’

Published on February 1, 2017 Written by John O'Sullivan @ Principia Scientific International

In a week when mainstream fake news outlets try to sell him as the ‘World-leading climate change scientist’ Professor Michael Mann (above image: left) concedes legal ground in major court case about his alleged climate data fraud.

After the news leaked out defendant in the case, Dr Tim Ball (above image: right) told colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI):

“What my lawyers did was demand a series of concessions, all of which were agreed. I can’t discuss the details but, under the circumstances, it is a good outcome.”

The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver was where “world-leading” American professor, Michael E Mann was supposed to start his libel trial against retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball – until this crucial retreat. Such a delay – to possibly extend the case into an eight-year epic – plays into the hands of skeptics who early on dismissed Mann’s gambit as a cynical strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) to silence dissent.

Till now Dr Ball had been eager to make good use of up to a month’s worth of courtroom time granted to him to win over jurors. He had carefully prepared and assembled an array of the best scientific brains from the skeptic side.

Ball’s opponent is formidable in his field. At the turn of the millennium Mann was the golden boy of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They touted Mann’s graph (appearing on page 3 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report [TAR]) as the smoking gun of man-made global warming. As you can see from the press header below, Mann’s still ‘world-leading’ to them.

 

The “concession” to Ball is a hugely embarrassing development. This is especially so in a week when Mann has been on the charge leading the wide media assault against President Trump for his alleged attacks on climate science. Government climate researchers are the keenest to discredit the new president on science policy.

For almost a generation literally thousands of climate scientists and science publications world-wide have relied on Mann’s graph as the cornerstone of the science to persuade governments to act on ‘catastrophic’ climate change.

For the “world leading climate scientist” the upside is that by giving ground to Ball Mann dodges the deadly bullet – for now. He has bought himself time till 2019 and his lawyers can continue to deny jurors (and Joe Public) access to his disputed data in this protracted legal battle that has already eaten up six years and millions in legal fees.

Fake News and Media Misdirection

Meanwhile holding court back in the alternative universe of the MSM  fake journalists abound promoting their fake scientist. In his latest article for the Hill website sees a defiant Mann scolding President Trump because he:

 “barred the Environmental Protection Agency from publishing studies or data prior to review by political appointees and has told them to remove mention of climate change from their website”.

Propaganda can cut both ways, you see. Journalists may now be regretting touting Mann as “one of the world’s leading climatologists” fomenting “rebellion” against Trump for dismissing dangerous man-made climate change as a “hoax.”

For surely, if Mann’s data is pristine and irreproachable why hide it?

If Mann were to lose to Ball anytime soon then Trump’s skepticism would be entirely vindicated and the case for de-funding/dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proven as fiscally prudent.

Unbiased observers are urged to contrast and compare for themselves how much Mann’s latest public pronouncements conflict with his less public courtroom strategy. And certainly don’t expect to see any mention of this legal development in the biased media.

For instance, take a look at the latest newspaper puff-piece in UK’s Independent (February 1^st 2017). Here we see the usual hyperbole as their beloved “World-leading climate change scientist” calls for mass “rebellion” against Donald Trump.

Ian Johnston, author of the article declares:

“Professor Michael Mann, whose work was key in demonstrating that global temperatures had risen dramatically because of human activity, said academics and researchers were usually reluctant to take to the streets in protests.”

To Johnston Mann laments:

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

Really?

Seems more like it is Mann who is assaulting science. If temperatures have risen “dramatically” and Mann’s work is “key” to proving it then journalists should do their job and challenge him for cynically keeping secret his disputed R2 regression data – not Donald Trump.

Readers can see for themselves what Mann cobbled together and tortured and cherry-picked from 1,000 years’ worth of proxy tree ring temperature data (graph shown below). Mann’s version clearly contradicts the widely-accepted earlier depiction underneath it which is supported by Ball and many others because it is based on openly-available data.

 

Those secret R2 regression numbers used for Mann’s  ‘hockey stick’ graph, which first hit the headlines in 1998 are the big issue. It is called a hockey stick because it shows the official temperature reconstruction for the last 1,000 years starts off being monotonously flat (the ‘handle’) before a dramatic uptick (the ‘blade’) coming at the end of the 20th century.

The world has long been on notice about the vast international climate conspiracy. The ethics of Michael Mann and his co-conspirators was exposed in those leaked Climategate emails (2009).
So, can the media blame the public for losing trust in scientists who have to rely on withheld, secret data to argue for trillion dollar tax increases?

Ramifications for Mann in the United States

Close behind Dr Ball is celebrated writer Mark Steyn. He defends his own words against Mann’s Washington DC SLAPP suit and 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.

Also Steyn has written a book ‘A Disgrace to the Profession‘ detailing Mann’s misconduct.  Likewise, Dr Ball has written his own book,  ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science‘ thoroughly exposing the fraud. Well worth a read for those not sold on mainstream fake news. Readers note: the book sales go towards their respective defense funds.

While Mann is posturing and prevaricating over whether to defend his reputation or his dodgy data President Trump need not be so timid. If Mann won’t come clean soon enough about cherry-picked bristlecone pines and those disputed verification r2 statistics (MBH98) then a prod from a federal government RICO investigation may bring it all into the light.

Via his Facebook page I asked Michael Mann for a reply to the “concession” set back. Here was his response:



Ball Takes on Second SLAPP Lawsuit

Dr Ball is increasing his reputation as hero of the climate skeptic cause. Not only is he taking on Mann he is also defending a SECOND big money climate libel lawsuit (Andrew Weaver-v-Tim Ball)
That case involves Professor Andrew Weaver also called out by Dr Ball six years ago for scientific misconduct. Weaver is now head of the British Columbia (BC) Green Party and sitting member in the BC legislature. At the time, he was a computer modeler at the University of British Columbia and four-time contributing author for the IPCC Reports, (1995, 2001, 2007 and 2013).

It is usual for scientists to permit other scientists access to their calculations. But climate science is such a politicized arena of government research where the normal rules of the scientific method haven’t been applied. No wonder criminality has reigned free in government quarters.

In his remorseless battle in defense of the traditional scientific method Dr Ball declares:
“You can rest assured they will not shut me up.”
****
Read more from Dr Ball at his website: drtimball.com
 

Mann vs. Steyn likely to head to Supreme Court

Anthony Watts / February 14, 2019 @ Watts Up With That?
 

Mark Steyn writes on his webpage:

---

There was some modest activity yesterday in the Mann vs Steyn climate-change hockey-stick case, which will shortly be entering its eighth year. As that ludicrous fact testifies, it has been procedurally bollocksed by the District of Columbia courts, which is why it will almost certainly be headed to the Supreme Court. When it gets there, it will be the most consequential free-speech case since New York Times vs Sullivan fifty-five years ago.

Lest you doubt that, consider yesterday’s request by the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press and various other parties to file an amicus brief on the merits of the case – that’s to say, on the danger Michael E Mann’s victory would pose for the “right to freedom of speech and of the press”. Those supporting our side in this battle include not only the chaps you might expect, such as Fox News, but an awful lot you might not – including NBC, The Washington Post and the ACLU. Because they all recognize the threat that Mann poses to a free society in demanding the courts adjudicate public-policy disputes.

---

Also, apparently, Mike Mann picked up a friend to help him in the Tort wars, a conservative no less.

Read all about it here

My Take - I've been following this for years and wondered what was happening with the Steyn SLAPP suit.  Mann lost in Canada in his SLAPP suit against Dr. Tim Ball because he refused to turn over his data.  I expect the same here, and remember, Steyn counter sued so it will be interesting to see what Steny does when Mann loses.  Steyn notes this is a huge issue regarding free speech, but this could also be one of the biggest game changers in the war for valid science and scientific transparency. 

Geo-engineering: Ignoring the consequences

Governments charge ahead on engineering Earth’s climate, ignoring possible harmful effects

Tim Ball and Tom Harris

The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report said we have only 12 years left to save the planet. It triggered the usual frantic and ridiculous reactions.

NBC News offered this gem: “A last-ditch global warming fix? A man-made ‘volcanic’ eruption” to cool the planet.” Its article proclaimed, “Scientists and some environmentalists believe nations might have to mimic volcanic gases as a last-ditch effort to protect Earth from extreme warming.”

Proposal like this are defined as geo-engineering – trying to artificially modify Earth’s climate to offset what are presented as unnatural events. The problem is, the events they are trying to offset are actually natural events. Any scientist or politician who doesn’t understand that will undoubtedly create worse problems than those they are trying to “fix.”

From 1940 to almost 1980, the average global temperature went down. Political concerns and the alleged scientific consensus focused on global cooling. Alarmists said it could be the end of agriculture and civilization. Journalist Lowell Ponte wrote in his 1976 book, The Cooling:

“It is cold fact: the global cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species.”

Change the word "cooling" to warming and it applies to the alarmist threats today.

The problem then was – and still is now – that people are educated in the false philosophy of uniformitarianism: the misguided belief that conditions always were and always will be as they are now, and any natural changes will occur over long periods of time.

Consequently, most people did not understand that the cooling was part of the natural cycle of climate variability, or that changes are often huge and sudden. Just 18,000 years ago we were at the peak of an Ice Age. Then, most of the ice melted and sea levels rose 150 meters (490 feet), because it was warmer for almost all of the last 10,000 years than it is today.

This misunderstanding, combined with the new paradigm of environmentalism (it is illogical and wrong to soil your own nest) created the belief that perfectly ordinary changes must be manmade, and thus had to be corrected by us as well.

During the cooling “danger,” geo-engineering proposals included:

* building a dam across the Bering Straits to block cold Arctic water, to warm the North Pacific and the middle latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere;

* dumping black soot on the Arctic ice cap to promote melting;

* adding carbon dioxide (CO₂) to the atmosphere to raise global temperatures.

All these actions would impact global climate in unpredictable ways. Now we know they would have exacerbated the predominantly natural warming trend that followed.

The recent “volcano” proposal involves adding particulates (microscopic particles) to the high atmosphere to block sunlight, to lessen the supposed manmade global warming. The NBC News article references the cooling effect of the Pinatubo volcanic eruption of June 15, 1991, which ejected more particulates into the stratosphere than any eruption since Krakatoa in 1883. The resulting sulfuric acid haze caused average planetary temperatures to fall by about 0.9 degrees C (1.6 F) between 1991-93.

What NBC News neglected to mention was that this occurred during a warming period. Had the eruption happened during a cooling phase, the results could have been catastrophic. That’s what happened with the volcano Tambora in 1815. It was followed by the “year with no summer” that caused multiple extreme weather events and crop failures because it occurred during a cooling trend.

In the early 1800s, the world was already colder than today, and was in the process of cooling still further as a result of low, and decreasing, solar activity. This was during the period of the low sunspot activity of the Dalton Minimum (1790-1830). The billions of tons volcanic dust injected by the Tambora eruption, the largest in force of ejection for over 10,000 years, reduced sunlight dramatically.

The eruption occurred in April 1815, but its full impact on temperature wasn’t felt until 1816 because the volcano erupted vertically at the Equator and the dust it ejected into the Stratosphere took several months to impact both Hemispheres.

Harvest failures were widespread, especially in the densely populated areas of the eastern US and western Europe. In 1816 it snowed as far south as the Carolinas in July, and the year was dubbed “Eighteen hundred and froze to death.” The US government pleaded with farmers not to eat their seed stock as they would have nothing for the following year. That’s hard to do when your children are starving.

A gravestone inscription reads: “1771-1847, Reuben Whitten son of a revolutionary soldier a pioneer of this town (Ashland NH), cold season of 1816 raised 40 bushels of wheat on this land which kept his family and neighbours from starvation.”

In Germany, they even produced a medal for 1816-1817 with the inscription, “Great is the distress, Oh Lord, have pity.” In England the price of corn ( “wheat” in the USA) soared, and probably for the first time in history a government introduced legislation (The Corn Laws) to control price increases.

Since the best climate experts say that we can expect a gradual cooling over the next few decades as the Sun weakens, the last thing we should be doing now is artificially cooling the planet still further. Consider that as recently as 1680, in the depths of the Little Ice Age, there was a meter of ice on the Thames River in London, something unimaginable today.

In approximately 90 years, the height up the side of the glens in Scotland to which you could farm lowered by 200 meters. That doesn’t sound like much, but such a vertical change took half of Scotland out of food production. That’s the real reason for the Highland Clearances, the forced evacuation of Scotland’s Highlands and western islands.

As always, government response was inadequate or inappropriate. It is setting up to be the same this time, because the government not only ignored science but attacked those who tried to practice proper science.

“Taking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere,” as advocated by the IPCC in its October 8 news conference, is also foolish. Historic records show that, at about 410 parts per million (ppm), the level of CO₂ supposedly in the atmosphere now, we are near the lowest in the last 280 million years. As plants evolved over that time, the average level was 1200 ppm. That is why commercial greenhouses boost CO₂ to that level to increase plant growth and yields by a factor of four.

The IPCC has been wrong in every prediction it’s made since 1990. It would be a grave error to use its latest forecasts as the excuse to engage in geo-engineering experiments with the only planet we have.

Tim Ball is an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Manitoba. Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.