• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Michael Mann Loses Court Case

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Manns suit against Tim Ball was dismissed and Ball was awarded legal costs by a Canadian court.

Mann sued Ball when Ball said than Mann belonged at the State Penn rather than at Penn State for his role in the Climategate email scandal.

Some are speculating that Mann lost because he refused to provide the Canadian Court with information required by the Court that supported his claims about the climate.

BREAKING – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay | Watts Up With That?
 
LowDown said:
Manns suit against Tim Ball was dismissed and Ball was awarded legal costs by a Canadian court.

Mann sued Ball when Ball said than Mann belonged at the State Penn rather than at Penn State for his role in the Climategate email scandal.

Some are speculating that Mann lost because he refused to provide the Canadian Court with information required by the Court that supported his claims about the climate.

BREAKING – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay | Watts Up With That?
Click to expand...

This one is even better since it was John O Sullivan who advised Dr. Ball's lawyers to file a dismissive due to Dr. Mann's failure to meed a court mandated deadlive to produce documents.

I got this update news from John O Sullivan in an e-mail, which explains why Dr. Mann's tweet statements and his absurd intention to file and appeal will fail.

From Scientific Principia International

Written by John O Sullivan,

Update (August 24, 2019):
Dr Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article:

Mann’s statement is here: Michael E. Mann on Twitter: "There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement ([url]https://t.co/8tGoBZnE3Y):… https://t.co/SHTDdh1qQm"[/url]

In short, Mann’s ugly responsive legal statement is (a) stark admission he lost fair and square, and (b) a disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in timely fashion.
Well, Mikey, Tim gave you a whole NINE YEARS to get your case together!

On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it we offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:

“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.”

As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.

AN APPEAL

Assisting Dr Ball has been a huge honor for me and probably one of the greatest achievements of my life. But Tim only won this famous courtroom battle thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support.
Click to expand...

LINK
 
Sunsettommy said:
He he he,

it appears that Dr. Mann's 15 fans have not discovered that their stupid hero has LOST a court case to Dr. Ball, and his planned appeal which is absurd will fail too.

This will help Mark Steyn who was sued about TEN years ago, a case that is rotting because Dr. Mann, doesn't want it to go to trial (sounds familiar?) which is the same behavior he did against Dr. Ball.

Dr. Mann is soon to be a TWICE loser of court cases he filed.
Click to expand...

He should have never started Mann man global warming with a hockey stick.
 
LowDown said:
Manns suit against Tim Ball was dismissed and Ball was awarded legal costs by a Canadian court.

Mann sued Ball when Ball said than Mann belonged at the State Penn rather than at Penn State for his role in the Climategate email scandal.

Some are speculating that Mann lost because he refused to provide the Canadian Court with information required by the Court that supported his claims about the climate.

BREAKING – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay | Watts Up With That?
Click to expand...


Watts Up With That? has posted a FULL update on the Mann/Ball court case

UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann “hides the decline” AGAIN

First Update shows DR. Mann's replies via Tweets.

Second Update shows John O"Sullivan replies to the case he had advised Ball over.

LINK

===========================

Dr. Mann should drop the absurd appeal effort and go on into the sunset as a mediocre researcher.
 
The fake Nobelist does not want to submit to discovery or testify under oath.
 
Let’s just level set here...

Tim Ball just recently was sued for libel and had the suit dismissed because, in the judges words, ‘no reasonable person would find him to be credible’.
 
Lord of Planar said:
He should have never started Mann man global warming with a hockey stick.
Click to expand...

Why not?

It’s widely recognized among paleoclimate scientists as a seminal paper, and it’s findings have been repeatedly confirmed and expanded upon globally.

But you wouldn’t know that, I guess.
 
I'm eager to learn Mark Steyn's reaction. Meanwhile, from John Hinderaker at Power Line:

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 [graph] 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. Michael Mann Refuses to Produce Data, Loses Case | Power Line
 
Threegoofs said:
Why not?

It’s widely recognized among paleoclimate scientists as a seminal paper, and it’s findings have been repeatedly confirmed and expanded upon globally.

But you wouldn’t know that, I guess.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it is also known how silly it is.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Mixing different types of measurements.
Click to expand...

It’s pretty much standard in the literature.

I’m not sure why one would go to the trouble of quantifying past temps and then pretend it’s impossible to compare them to temps that are directly recorded, since that’s kinda how they were able to validate proxy accuracy in the first place.

Why is it silly?

Because it tells you stuff you don’t want to know?
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s pretty much standard in the literature.

I’m not sure why one would go to the trouble of quantifying past temps and then pretend it’s impossible to compare them to temps that are directly recorded, since that’s kinda how they were able to validate proxy accuracy in the first place.

Why is it silly?

Because it tells you stuff you don’t want to know?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't comprehend. It has been repeatedly explained to you that a 300 year rise and fall back to normal levels would be lost is a 600 year proxy. To claim recent temperatures are unusual, is far from certain, and based on ignorance or wilful deception.
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s pretty much standard in the literature.

I’m not sure why one would go to the trouble of quantifying past temps and then pretend it’s impossible to compare them to temps that are directly recorded, since that’s kinda how they were able to validate proxy accuracy in the first place.

Why is it silly?

Because it tells you stuff you don’t want to know?
Click to expand...

The problem of course is that when the proxies used to show temperatures in the past are obviously wrong in the present the credibility of the entire enterprise is called into question.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sorry you don't comprehend. It has been repeatedly explained to you that a 300 year rise and fall back to normal levels would be lost is a 600 year proxy. To claim recent temperatures are unusual, is far from certain, and based on ignorance or wilful deception.
Click to expand...

I think I’ll go with all the experts on this one, especially the ones who have annual proxies, but thanks for your amateur analysis!
 
Jack Hays said:
The problem of course is that when the proxies used to show temperatures in the past are obviously wrong in the present the credibility of the entire enterprise is called into question.
Click to expand...

I think you posted a blog by some nitwit saying this.
 
Threegoofs said:
I think I’ll go with all the experts on this one, especially the ones who have annual proxies, but thanks for your amateur analysis!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you don't understand simple science.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I'm sorry you don't understand simple science.
Click to expand...

Weird.

I’m the one who’s supporting the conclusions of the scientists, whereas you’re the one saying they’re wrong. So you must think the scientists who actually provide you with this data don’t understand simple science.

One of us certainly seems out of step with simple science.
 
Threegoofs said:
Weird.

I’m the one who’s supporting the conclusions of the scientists, whereas you’re the one saying they’re wrong. So you must think the scientists who actually provide you with this data don’t understand simple science.

One of us certainly seems out of step with simple science.
Click to expand...

No, you don't use or quote papers. You link activists and journalists. You cannot ewxplain science in your own words.

Why are you here?
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s pretty much standard in the literature.

I’m not sure why one would go to the trouble of quantifying past temps and then pretend it’s impossible to compare them to temps that are directly recorded, since that’s kinda how they were able to validate proxy accuracy in the first place.

Why is it silly?

Because it tells you stuff you don’t want to know?
Click to expand...

Your comment makes clear you don't understand RESOLUTION scale of data at all.

Proxy Data are ALWAYS lower in resolution than modern data, I see Lord of Planar pointed this out:

It has been repeatedly explained to you that a 300 year rise and fall back to normal levels would be lost is a 600 year proxy.
Click to expand...

It is clear you have no resolvable level of science literacy.
 
Sunsettommy said:
Your comment makes clear you don't understand RESOLUTION scale of data at all.

Proxy Data are ALWAYS lower in resolution than modern data, I see Lord of Planar pointed this out:



It is clear you have no resolvable level of science literacy.
Click to expand...

Yeah. No **** Sherlock.

But given that temps don’t spike one degree worldwide and then spike back down immediately after means proxy resolutions are not as big of a deal as you (err...your denier blogs, I should say, because that’s where your ‘ideas’ originate) think.
 
The fake Nobelist's case was dismissed because he never complied with the court's order to provide data.

[h=1]Michael Mann "Hockey Stick" Update: Now Definitively Proven To Be Fraud[/h]August 26, 2019/ Francis Menton[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” is suddenly back in the news. It’s been so long since we have heard from it, do you even remember what it is?
The “Hockey Stick” is the graph that took the world of climate science by storm back in 1998. That’s when Mann and co-authors Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes published in Nature their seminal paper “Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries.” A subsequent 1999 update by the same authors, also in Nature (“Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations”) extended their reconstructions of “temperature patterns and climate forcing” back another 400 years to about the year 1000. The authors claimed (in the first paragraph of the 1998 article) to “take a new statistical approach to reconstructing global patterns of annual temperature . . . , based on the calibration of multiproxy data networks by the dominant patterns of temperature variability in the instrumental record.” The claimed “new statistical approach,” when applied to a group of temperature “proxies” that included tree ring samples and lake bed sediments, yielded a graph — quickly labeled the “Hockey Stick” — that was the perfect icon to sell global warming fear to the public. The graph showed world temperatures essentially flat or slightly declining for 900+ years (the shaft of the hockey stick), and then shooting up dramatically during the 20th century era of human carbon dioxide emissions (the blade of the stick).
In 2001 the UN’s IPCC came out with its Third Assessment Report on the state of the climate. . . .
READ MORE[/FONT]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom