• 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's Bad Behavior

Jack Hays said:
Case in point . . .
Click to expand...

It’s very challenging to come up with verbiage when confronted with vacuous comments, so I’m just left with derisive laughter.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
Because dishonest hack spammers like the OP don't care about it, there has been countless threads on this BS and its been destroyed every single time. People respond with facts, and others will just repeat the same stupid lie, copy and paste more garbage links, and deflect.

Sorry, we have played with the trolls ad naseum. They can't even make their own arguments, they just copy and paste nonsense

What discussion, get some credibility and some actual facts
Click to expand...

Instead of making mindless blanket partisan statements, read about what is happening first before you comment. The lying quack who calls himself a Nobel prize winner just got his butt handed to him because his libel suit failed. Those are the facts.
 
Rob Honeycutt, from Skeptical Science, wanted to score a veiled attack on Dr. Ball, gets a reply making him look stupid.

He writes at WUWT blog:

Rob Honeycutt
August 26, 2019 at 6:45 am

Congrats for being too old and sick to survive a trial?

Okay…
Click to expand...

This jerk seems to have forgotten that Mannboy filed for Adjournment of the trial in February 2017 which was granted, and done nothing since, which is 2 1/2 years running.

My reply to this over educated fool:

Sunsettommy
August 26, 2019 at 6:50 am

No, congratulations for Dr. Ball to end the lawsuit absurdity. It was Dr. Mann who stopped the trial that was scheduled for February 2017, this after 6 years of preparation.

YOU seems to have forgotten that Dr. Mann filed for Adjournment of the trial in February 2017 which was granted, and done nothing since, which is 2 1/2 years running.

What was holding Dr. Mann back? Then nothing for 2 1/2 years, again why did he stop his legal pursuit?

It is obvious he hasn’t been defamed anyway, since he is still getting large grants, employed by the university and able to publish papers in journals, publish a dishonest book attacking a lot of people and getting a lot of money for it. He is a much wealthier man than he was in 2011.

No, Mann destroyed his case over time…….

Snicker…….
Click to expand...

He was never damaged. since he is more famous, wealthier and still working at the University of Penn State.

He deserved being taken down by the Judge, who knows the case far better than warmist fools like Honeycutt.
 
Last edited:
Sunsettommy said:
Rob Honeycutt, from Skeptical Science, wanted to score a veiled attack on Dr. Ball, gets a reply making him look stupid.

He writes at WUWT blog:



This jerk seems to have forgotten that Mannboy filed for Adjournment of the trial in February 2017 which was granted, and done nothing since, which is 2 1/2 years running.

My reply to this over educated fool:



He was never damaged. since he is more famous, wealthier and still working at the University of Penn State.

He deserved being taken down by the Judge, who knows the case far better than warmist fools like Honeycutt.
Click to expand...

Ball.... determined by a judge to be too nutty for anyone to take seriously.

LOL
 
Threegoofs said:
Ball.... determined by a judge to be too nutty for anyone to take seriously.

LOL
Click to expand...

You are too dumb to realize that BOTH Judges AGREED with Dr. Ball.

The Dr. Ball/Dr. Weaver Lawsuit decision is HERE:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

LINK

Excerpt:

The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. As Justice Lebel observes, such debate often includes critical and even offensive commentary, which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder. It is only when the words used reach the level of genuinely threatening a person’s actual reputation that resort to the law of defamation is available. Such is not the case here.

[83] In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.

[84] Given this finding, I need not consider whether Dr. Weaver has established that the Article was published in the sense that it was downloaded and read in BC by anyone other than him. I also need not address the defences raised by Dr. Ball.
Click to expand...

bolding mine

The Judge doesn't even bother address Dr. Balls defense claims, because Dr. Weaver never had a case to win on, heck the Judge says he was NEVER defamed or libeled at all:

Excerpt:

[78] Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.
Click to expand...

bolding mine

Dr. Weaver was stupid in pushing the Lawsuit in the first place.

The Dr. Ball and Mann case was dismissed as shown by court website, details of the decision will come later:

"Order 22Aug2019
Affidavit 20Aug2019

File Number VLC-S-S-111913

Date Filed: 22Aug2019
Filing Parties
Terms of Order
Order

1. Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
2. Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed

You can get them here: CSO - Amount of Payment Due
Click to expand...

LINK

Dr. Mann has acknowledged the Dismissal in a Tweet.

LINK
 
Sunsettommy said:
You are too dumb to realize that BOTH Judges AGREED with Dr. Ball.
Click to expand...

Again, heres what the judge in the Weaver case said:

In a ruling released Wednesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ron Skolrood said that despite Ball’s history as an academic and as a scientist, the article was “rife with errors and inaccuracies” and provided little in the way of credible support for his thesis.

But the judge also agreed with Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Weaver were extreme and not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking person.

“Specifically, I do not accept that the article, read in its entirety and properly construed, alleges dishonesty on Dr. Weaver’s part or attacks his character in the sense of imputing moral fault or blameworthiness.”

The judge noted that the laws of defamation provide an important tool for protecting a person’s reputation from unjustified attack.

But the judge added that the laws were not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest or compensate for every perceived slight or quash a contrary view, no matter how ill-conceived.

Only when the words used genuinely threaten a person’s actual reputation can defamation be proved, he said, and that was not evident in the Weaver case.

“In summary, the article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science,” said the judge.

“While the article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.”
Click to expand...
Defamation lawsuit filed by Andrew Weaver thrown out of court | Vancouver Sun

In other words, Ball's nutty op ed was so bad, that no one would believe it anyway.

But he's your hero.

Telling.
 
I see Canada has left wing activist judges, just like here.
Even though the case was laughable on the face of it, he had throw in his uninformed lw talking points.
 
Birdzeye said:
It’s very challenging to come up with verbiage when confronted with vacuous comments, so I’m just left with derisive laughter.
Click to expand...

And again . . .
You might really get more satisfaction out of substantive comments.
 
Jack Hays said:
And again . . .
You might really get more satisfaction out of substantive comments.
Click to expand...

Take your own advice first. You’re doing nothing but hurling mindless personal insults at me and then you have the gall to lecture me about “substantive comments.”
 
Birdzeye said:
Take your own advice first. You’re doing nothing but hurling mindless personal insults at me and then you have the gall to lecture me about “substantive comments.”
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you will not find a single personal insult from me against you.
 
The fake Nobelist's case was dismissed because he never complied with the court's order to produce his 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]
 
Jack Hays said:
The fake Nobelist's case was dismissed because he never complied with the court's order to produce his 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]
Click to expand...

What a bizarre alternate reality.
 
Threegoofs said:
What a bizarre alternate reality.
Click to expand...

Why would you think unarguable facts are "bizarre?"

[FONT=&quot]". . . Now, as readers here know, I spent my life in the litigation business. My practice was in the U.S. rather than Canada, but I have good reason to think that many of the basic ground rules would be the same. And one of the basic ground rules is that a plaintiff in civil litigation needs to provide “discovery” to the defendant of whatever factual information is in his possession that would either support or undermine his claims. When Mann brought his case, I was frankly amazed, because it was obvious to me that Ball would request as “discovery” the very data and methods that Mann had been aggressively resisting giving to anyone to check his work. How could Mann’s case survive if he refused to provide this information?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sure enough Mann absolutely refused to provide the underlying information in the Ball litigation. For better or worse, when a litigant does that, a court will try every possible avenue to try to get the parties to resolve the matter, before it will take the ultimate step of resolving the case against the non-compliant litigant. And that is in fact what happened in the Mann/Ball case. The court repeatedly tried to get an agreement that something would be produced that would satisfy Ball, and repeatedly gave Mann more time to comply. Could this really go on for eight years? In the U.S., that would be extraordinary, but not impossible. Maybe in Canada it is less extraordinary. It appears that in 2017 Mann actually agreed (under court pressure) to produce to Ball within 21 days the key technical information about construction of the Hockey Stick graph that Ball was requesting. But the information was not produced. Undoubtedly there have been multiple returns by Ball to the court since then to enforce compliance, finally seeking the dismissal of Mann’s claims as the ultimate sanction. On Friday, the court granted that relief. . . ."[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
Why would you think unarguable facts are "bizarre?"

[FONT=&quot]". . . Now, as readers here know, I spent my life in the litigation business. My practice was in the U.S. rather than Canada, but I have good reason to think that many of the basic ground rules would be the same. And one of the basic ground rules is that a plaintiff in civil litigation needs to provide “discovery” to the defendant of whatever factual information is in his possession that would either support or undermine his claims. When Mann brought his case, I was frankly amazed, because it was obvious to me that Ball would request as “discovery” the very data and methods that Mann had been aggressively resisting giving to anyone to check his work. How could Mann’s case survive if he refused to provide this information?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Sure enough Mann absolutely refused to provide the underlying information in the Ball litigation. For better or worse, when a litigant does that, a court will try every possible avenue to try to get the parties to resolve the matter, before it will take the ultimate step of resolving the case against the non-compliant litigant. And that is in fact what happened in the Mann/Ball case. The court repeatedly tried to get an agreement that something would be produced that would satisfy Ball, and repeatedly gave Mann more time to comply. Could this really go on for eight years? In the U.S., that would be extraordinary, but not impossible. Maybe in Canada it is less extraordinary. It appears that in 2017 Mann actually agreed (under court pressure) to produce to Ball within 21 days the key technical information about construction of the Hockey Stick graph that Ball was requesting. But the information was not produced. Undoubtedly there have been multiple returns by Ball to the court since then to enforce compliance, finally seeking the dismissal of Mann’s claims as the ultimate sanction. On Friday, the court granted that relief. . . ."[/FONT]
Click to expand...

The basic findings of the MBH98 paper are solid and have been reconfirmed in the scientific literature many, many times.

The only people who dispute this exist on blogs and half of them use pseudonyms or have no scientific background at all.
 
Threegoofs said:
The basic findings of the MBH98 paper are solid and have been reconfirmed in the scientific literature many, many times.

The only people who dispute this exist on blogs and half of them use pseudonyms or have no scientific background at all.
Click to expand...

That is your fairy tale.
 
Play-the-Mann_scr.jpg
 
Threegoofs said:
Court transcript was finally released.

The case was dismissed because Ball is too old.

It had nothing to do with any of the science being shown to be wrong, and the judge made it clear that was never going to be litigated anyway.

2019 BCSC 1580 Mann v. Ball
Click to expand...

I have no objection to you providing us a grotesquely illiterate reading of the court order, but I do object when you can't even make your disingenuous posting at least entertaining.

You might spare us the 'hand-waving fool' act and now acknowledge what was already posted all along - Ball won because Mann's legal antics were no longer tolerated. The judge was unsparing in his criticism of Mann and his team:

1) There were two extensive periods of delay, of which nothing was done for a total of three years. As it stands, it would not have gone to trial not less than 10 years after the suit was filed by Mann.

2) These delays by Mann and his attorneys were not excusable. There was no evidence from Mann explaining his inordinate delaying. He simply ignored requests to explain the delay in filings. The evidence falls fall short of explaining the two long delays, from 2013 and 2014 and then again from July 2017 forward.

3) The delaying was with prejudice. "Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted (by Mann), I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay." (i.e. three of Ball's witnesses have died since the suit was filed 8 years ago, and a fourth is no longer healthy enough to travel).

The judge concluded:

I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.
Click to expand...

Which, I think, pretty much sums up the venal character of Mann.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom