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

Original title before update: Breaking: Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay

See the update below.

Readers surely recall that the easily offended Dr. Michael Mann launched a court case for defamation against climate skeptic Dr. Tim Ball of Canada.

In Feburary 2018 there was a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against Dr. Ball by Andrew Weaver of Canada, also for “defamation”.

The Weaver defamation case involved an article Ball wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. Ball referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. Ball made some comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit.

That case was completely dismissed, you can read more here.

Now in the Mann case, which goes back to 2011, there’s also a complete dismissal. Ball wrote to me less than an hour ago, asking me to announce it here.

He writes:

Hi Anthony  

Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs.  

Tim Ball

This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more.


Dr. Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article

Mann’s statement is here: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568

For those who are blocked by Dr. Mann: (including me)

And if you’re blocked on Facebook by Dr. Mann, here is that statement:

John O’Sullivan of PSI wrote to one of our moderators with this intro and statement given by Dr. Ball that I was not aware of. Mann of course does not tell his readers this other very important fact, sort of like what he did in “hide the decline” by not reporting negative results that compromised his argument. Mann was doing most of the foot dragging that caused such long delays as the case has been active since 2011.

As Mark Steyn once pointed out; “the process is the punishment “.

O’Sullivan writes:

In short, Mann’s responsive statement is:

  1. Stark admission he lost fair and square
  2. A disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in a timely fashion.

The case has gone on an entire nine years.

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 they 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.

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.

Anthony: So, as usual, in my opinion Dr. Mann’s ego interprets the facts only in ways that suit his viewpoint, which is the whole reason he got into trouble with the hockey-stick in the first place.

And it isn’t just me who thinks Mann’s arguments are merit-less, in the other defamation case he is pursuing, he has no friends:

Mann’s media buddies leave him high and dry – oppose his lawsuit

Twenty-four media organizations, including The Washington Post, NBC Universal, and Fox News, have sided with the conservative National Review and free market-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) over a defamation lawsuit brought by a leading climate scientist.

The organizations, which also included the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, were signatories to a Feb. 13, letter filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in which both the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute requested a rehearing of their case before the full appeals court.

In December 2018, a three-judge panel amended a previous ruling against them. But according to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, which represents the two-dozen media groups, a full rehearing of the case is now “warranted.”

“The panel’s decision on the merits of plaintiff’s defamation claim … may have unintended and undesirable consequences in future cases implicating the exercise of amici’s right to freedom of speech and of the press,” attorneys for the Reporters Committee stated.

Read it here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/22/manns-media-buddies-leave-him-high-and-dry-oppose-his-lawsuit/

These two quotes seem relevant to Dr. Mann’s travails, and I think the first one speaks loudly to his “save the planet from global warming” machinations:

When any man is more stupidly vain and outrageously egotistic than his fellows, he will hide his hideousness in humanitarianism. –George Moore

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


Then there is this:

5 6 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark Broderick
August 22, 2019 4:30 pm

Congrats Tim……

Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 23, 2019 2:09 am

Congratulations Tim.

Tim Ball was lucky to win, because he got a good judge (actually a good “Justice” – federally-appointed judges are called Justices).

Based on my experience, Liberal-appointed federal Justices do not even follow the basics of our laws. They do what they are told by Ottawa.
They routinely plunder:
– Innocent until proved Guilty
– Rules of Evidence
– the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I presented to about a dozen federally-appointed Justices through the Court of Queen Bench of Alberta, the Alberta Court of Appeal, not counting the SCC that refused to hear my case. Most of these Justices apparently were politically-appointed hacks – like the recent Leblanc appointees.

Sean Fine, Justice Writer, July 2, 2019

Jason Kenney is hoping to have the Courts reject the Carbon Tax, but in my opinion he has no chance – the Liberal-appointed Justices will follow Ottawa’s instructions and uphold the Carbon Tax – the laws won’t matter – just like the science.

Regards, Allan

Jim Whelan
August 23, 2019 11:56 am

In other words Canadian courts are not different from U.S. courts.

Reply to  Jim Whelan
August 23, 2019 6:15 pm

Jim – both systems have their problems.

Your elected judges are beholden to those who contribute to their election campaigns. In the oil and gas business, we are particularly cautious about Texas and Oklahoma courts.

Our federally-appointed Justices are beholden to those who appointed them.

But in terms of transparency of judicial appointments, Canadians have none, whereas you have beaucoup.

Bryan A
August 23, 2019 7:45 pm

Stickin it to the Mann…what’s not to like

August 26, 2019 7:27 pm

Our federally-appointed Justices are beholden to those who appointed them.

Once they’re appointed, they are independent and can’t really be influenced. Just look at the s**t storm that resulted from “Dances with Unicorns” trying to influence the AG (Wilson-Raybould).

The best the government can hope for is to get judges who are naturally conservative or liberal. Even so, judges have changed their colors after being appointed.

August 27, 2019 12:39 am

I know little about the Canadian legal system, but it seems they got it right this time. The only thing I can complain about is that it took them eight years rather than eight seconds.

I first met Dr. Ball in the comments-section of this website (I think) when this website was young. As I recall he was just “Tim Ball” and I had no idea I was exchanging ideas with a man who was an expert. He had the nice habit of redirecting me to links that were full of fascinating information, regarding the Medieval Warm Period. (I knew a fair amount about Greenland Vikings, but little about climate.)

This was in stark contrast to Mann, who was amazingly rude. Even the “Climategate” emails show his fellow Climate-scientists tended to back away from his tendency to get very nasty when faced with differing views. One thing that could make Mann explode was to say the Medieval Warm Period even existed. Mann’s “hockey stick graph” basically “erased” that idea.

I don’t object to Mann proposing a new theory. What I object to is the way he attacks others. In a sense his theory disregards the life’s work of a great many historians, archeologists, geologists, and even climate-scientists such as Charles Lamb. If any one has attacked anyone, it is Mann, in attacking prior ideas.

Considering Mann in essence attacked the life’s work of Dr. Tim Ball, Tim was quite gracious, especially initially. Mann dealt out many scornful and belittling statements, and Tim never sued him, instead resorting to what scientists are suppose to resort to, which was facts and science. It was only after considerable provocation that Tim began to fight back with more heat, including the line (which I think is great) that stated Mann belonged not at Penn State but in the State Pen.

Mann could dish it out, but couldn’t take it. He has wasted everyone’s time and money in a frivolous lawsuit based on vanity, bullying, and other people’s money. I think he intended to break Tim without ever presenting any evidence, perhaps by merely dragging the case out until Tim died of natural causes.

The great thing is that Tim refused to die, or even to simply roll his eyes and head off to a quiet retirement someplace far away from political nitwits. He puts me to shame, because I’m tired of political nitwits, and don’t battle as much as I used to.

Tim is an inspiration. May he live to be 110, and never retire!

Reply to  Jim Whelan
August 31, 2019 5:26 am

Don‘t forget to mention Germans or Europeans…

August 23, 2019 1:23 pm

dear allan:

you are spot on sir!!! the liEberal judges are truly fraudsters all. over 25 years ago i proved MANY TIMES by review of IPCC researchers’ reports and decision summaries that the IPCC researchers’ work was fraudulent. i know tim ball, and he luckily got a smart lawyer tHAT HAD TIM ALSO PREPARE A GRAPH OF WORLD TEMPERATURES FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF BC ACTION FILED BY MANN, BUT WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. MANN REUSED TO COMPL;Y WITH THAT COURT’S ORDER TO FILE THE DATA SUPPORTING HIS “HOCKEY STICK” GRAOH BY FEBRUARY 2017. I THINK THAT IS WHY THEY THREW OUT HIS DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST TIM. AND RIGHTLY SO.

August 23, 2019 4:32 pm

Well done james, you manage to capitalise just about everything except people’s names.

Congrats to Dr Ball, Mann will have to get out his begging bowl again to get others to pay the costs of his rediculous “defamation” delusion.

Reply to  Greg
August 23, 2019 7:44 pm

Posting while celebrating with brew OR TWO CAN DO THAT TO A PERSON 🙂

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Greg
August 24, 2019 3:35 am


Reply to  Greg
August 24, 2019 6:30 am

Well done Greg, you managed to spell everything right except ridiculous.

August 23, 2019 6:03 pm

Thank you James – useful information!

john mcguire
August 26, 2019 2:43 pm

HOPe yuier Not dRIVNG

Steve Hinchey
August 27, 2019 6:28 am

I haven’t followed this much, but have read many of the updates and findings here. I do agree with everyone that Mann is easily triggered, arrogant and extremely rude. I’m confused as to what the real meaning is behind the results of this outcome. Mann never produced what he was asked to. But it doesn’t appear that Ball really won anything here. I’d love for Mann to be hopelessly embarrassed.

But this confuses me.

Reply to  Steve Hinchey
August 27, 2019 7:54 am

When you are the one being sued, the best possible outcome is to end up not paying anything yourself and to have the other side pay your bills.

That happened.

Jack Dale
Reply to  Steve Hinchey
August 31, 2019 9:25 am

In the same case the FCPP, who were co-defendants with Ball, apologized to Mann and retracted the post by Tim Ball. Not confusing at all.

Reply to  Jack Dale
August 31, 2019 9:41 am

From the slow moving Appell link,

Mann says he has not settled his claims against Tim Ball, who remains a defendant in the lawsuit. We’ll see about that “humor.”

That is what he LOST Dale, this part where Mann sat on his ass after requesting an Adjournment of Trial back in early 2017, which was granted.

Reply to  Steve Hinchey
September 3, 2019 9:21 am

It would appear to me that Mann & the IPCC clan realised that they couldn’t actually back up the case with real data and the only recourse (to fake a semblance of dignity) was to run out the clock, pay the piper quietly and move on to the next bogus suit …

Reply to  Jack Dale
September 3, 2019 1:40 pm

DEAR MR. DALE: It appears you are another IPCC/Mann fraudster. You ignore Mann’s incessant delaying tactics of his 2011 suit. He was ordered to file his data in October 2016 by February 2017. He refused to comply. Ball filed his graph, with supporting data without order. Mann probably knew if he filed his data, Ball would prove Mann’s research was fraudulent. Even i proved IPCC research was fraudulent over 25 years ago by examination of IPCC reports and resulting decision summaries. If you had a double digit IQ you could do the same.

Jack Dale
September 4, 2019 7:49 am

Some with all those initials behind their name would know that “Ball’s graph” is actually the graph produced by Hubert Lamb in 1965 and modified in 1982. It is based on “”data from the realms of botany, historical document research and meteorology ” from Central England.

I look forward to seeing your 25 year old proof that “IPCC research was fraudulent”. Please provide us with the journal in which it was published.

Reply to  Jack Dale
September 4, 2019 12:19 pm

DEAR Mr. DALE; i said i proved it from IPCC reports (=/- 1500 pages) prepared by many climate scientists and the resulting decision summaries (prepared by IPCC people. If you took the time to read them you would note several errors and omissions between the two related documents. All in the same direction!!! In support of the IPCC theory!!! Conclusive proof of fraud in all reasonable courts!! Reconfirmed in each set of IPCC documents i reviewed!!! Even in the 1990’s I offered to sponsor a court room style debate on the IPCC theory, offering $50,000 to the winner and $25,000 to the loser, and to work hard to get additional sponsors to raise the prize money by a factor of 10 to 100. One major rule “full, true and plain disclosure in all communication”, similar to that imposed on officers of publicly listed corporations, (with similar penalties (huge fines, long jail terms and prohibition from ever being involved in the industry ever again). I could get lots of scientists to take the negative side but not one supporter of the IPCC theory!!! I thought that liars never want expert cross examination. I have an outstanding background in finding fraud. Found my first one as a first year articling strident out of high school. By the end of third year the senior partner to whom i articled and worked for called me into his office and said “Jim, last year you found more fraud than the other 32 offices in the firm combined – you have a sixth sense – use it>”. i have found about 100 during my career in practice and industry. In the 1980’s the managing partner for Canada asked me to rejoin the firm to manage the forensic, valuation and litigation support practice for western Canada out of Calgary, which i did for 4 years. What is your record in finding fraud??? And denouncing fraudsters???

Jack Dale
September 4, 2019 2:45 pm

James claims “i said i proved it from IPCC reports ” I am skeptical; show me.

mike the morlock
August 24, 2019 1:33 pm

Sorry if this is inappropriate but the practice of Dr Mann of blocking people could have unintended consequences. To note President Trump was ordered by the court to unblock people because of his public presence, AOC has a pending case against her for similar reasons.
Dr Mann is by his actions a public figure and spokes person. He is involved with public policy and thus his blocking of other views is a violation of freedom of speech rights.
A lawsuit to force him to unblock his media accounts, would be interesting


Reply to  mike the morlock
August 26, 2019 8:19 am

Normally, I would agree but even if you are blocked, you can still read the tweets if you log out of your account. You just can’t respond. Is that problematic? I don’t think so considering there are other ways of communicating.

John Endicott
Reply to  Rnt
August 26, 2019 11:45 am

You’d think so, but the courts set the precedent with the Trump case that public figures involved with public policy can’t legally block the public from their official social media feeds. The question isn’t “is it problematic?” (the courts already ruled on that) but rather is Mann a public enough figure for the Trump precedent to apply.

Reply to  Rnt
August 27, 2019 7:48 am

Snail-mail shouldn’t be considered a sufficient legal remedy to blocking in our communication age!

Robert Beckman
Reply to  mike the morlock
August 31, 2019 2:00 am

It’s wrong, though not inappropriate.

It is, however, a false claim lots of people are making who do not understand the ruling against the President (and that’s a hint).

The court ruled that a government actor may not stifle the dissemination of governmental communications made to the public unequally treating different members of the public – which isn’t really interesting, as it follows from many cases over more than a hundred years.

Where this gets more interesting (though again, not too surprising) is in how they determine what a governmental communication channel is. In short, if a governmental actor (elected, appointed, hired, etc) use a channel for official announcements or official communications (such as announcing new tariff policies, or the nomination or appointment of government employees) then they turn that channel from a private one into a public one which cannot block others from reading it.

Let’s look at the specifics.

President Trump has two Twitter accounts: @POTUS and @RealDonaldTrump. Prior to his election, @realdonalttrump was his personal account. After his election he started to use that account for official government business, transforming it into a governmental channel which cannot block people. After he leaves office he’ll no longer be able to make policy. So that account will revert back to a private account. He could also do so now by segregating his official and personal conduct. “Melania is the best”, “I eat KFC with a fork”, “Kaepernick is a loser” would all count as personal, but so long as he even occasionally uses it for official communications (“were raising a tariff on China. Very bad. USA good”) then he can’t block anyone.

AOC does the same, and will have the same result. The only interesting question with her is whether this ruling counts as “clearly established” yet, which would make her liable under 18 USC 1983 for violation of civil rights, and would pierce her limited immunity. Trump was not liable under that law because it definitely wasn’t clearly established that’s how the law would work out, now it is (especially as to him), so he’s unblocked everyone who was previously blocked and has asked to be unblocked.

None of this of course requires that he read their tweets, and he can safely ignore them.

So let’s look at Mann. The court ruling requires that all governmental actors not block people. Mann is not a governmental actor, so the law doesn’t apply to him. The end.

But you say, he’s a public figure. Very true, and immaterial. The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution requires that the government treat people the same, not that they treat each other the same. Even if a new statute were written to force public figures to unblock people, that itself would also violate the right to assemble under the first amendment, in the specific case of the right not to assemble with people you don’t want to.

Reply to  Robert Beckman
September 1, 2019 12:00 am

Robert you mention “the right not to assemble with people you don’t want to”.
Makes me wonder about its application to mailing lists.
Would it apply to private action (email listing) as well as Government – surely in our private life we have “the right not to assemble with people you don’t want to” which must include private behaviour.
What do you think – does being put on an email list violate one’s ”right not to assemble with people you don’t want to”?
Does having one’s metadata on the Internet “taken” constitute a violation of this right?

The Shoals of Litigation loom.

August 26, 2019 9:23 pm

Hopefully Penn State is next.

Oliver Antunovic
Reply to  moron
September 1, 2019 1:42 pm

All great to hear! Is there a official judgment with case Nr. and so on? I want to proof this to some people her.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 23, 2019 7:45 am

And add +100,000,000 more!

Reply to  Joel Snider
August 24, 2019 3:47 am

Talking about BIG numbers, Who is/are the money changers behind Mann. Don’t tell me his salary is paying this.

Reply to  Robertvd
August 25, 2019 11:39 am

Any fees expended in support of Mann’s lawyers, research, etc. that are not out of Mann’s pocket are treated as earnings.

The IRS should investigate Mann and ensure that he paid all income tax due from any financial aid received or professional hours expended on his behalf.

Reply to  Robertvd
August 26, 2019 8:03 am

Nah, the Mann is just the guy picking up his 30 pieces of silver…

Reply to  Robertvd
August 27, 2019 2:38 pm
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 24, 2019 5:49 am

Same congrats. Tim has been on my website so I will I should be able to give personal congrats

John Anthony
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 24, 2019 5:45 pm

Brilliant victory for an honest scientist.well done Tim.

Mikkel Kaastrup
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 25, 2019 12:01 pm

For those interested, I’d like to give a legal perspective on the lawsuit, and on Michael Mann’s comments:

1) It is in many ways unfortunate that Tim Ball won the case on a procedural basis, i.e. because of delays on the part of Michael Mann, since this means that the court will not be judging whether Tim’s comments amount to defamation. Suppose it sided with Tim on this issue, the ruling might possibly also show that some of Tim’s allegations against Mr. Mann were in fact correct. Now, this question will not be adjudicated by the courts.

2) While it’s abhorrent to try to silence your opponents in a scientific debate by suing them for defamation, what I’ve read of Tim Ball’s writings suggest that there is sometimes a sound basis for suing him for defamation. The easiest way to avoid more costly lawsuits would be for Tim to scale down his comments and make sure he doesn’t accuse people, or alledge wrong-doings, that he cannot prove.
I mean – there’s ample evidence that many of the people advocating that the registered global temperature increase prior the year 2000 is caused solely or mainly by the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere – are wrong – and that some of them use fraudulent and/or unscientific methods to support their own theory (see the “ClimateGate” mails, for instance) – so why not just stick to provable facts? If you do so, you can never lose a defamation lawsuit!

3) For those readers who don’t have law degree, and don’t know basic procedural law, I’d like to point out that Michael E. Mann’s comment to the case is grossly misleading. Below you’ll find his Facebook comment, with my comments inserted in brackets [].

“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:

The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.
[Ball DID win the case, on the procedural matter, namely because Mann didn’t provided the necessary documents within the (very long) time he was given to do this]. Precisely because Ball won on the procedural issue, the court could not decide on the matter of the case, namely whether Ball’s writings amounted to “defamation” of Mann. All lawyers are aware of this risk of dismissal, and all parties know beforehand that the lawsuit will be dismissed if the deadline isn’t met. It follows from this that Mann chose to loose the case by dismissal (most likely on the informed advice of his lawyer). Why would he choose to loose it like that? Most probably because he was informed he would not be able to win the case on its merits (i.e. prove defamation), and then chose to lose it before this issue was settled. This has the advance of lowering the costs that Mann will be obliged to pay to Ball ].

The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days. [That is amusing. Since the dismissal is due to delay, an appeal will only be appealing the question of whether the lawsuit was rightly appealed because of the delay, and the dismissal is almost 100% certain to be upheld. So Mann won’t be appealing – as we shall see in the future, because if he does, he will lose again,and will have to pay further case costs, plus of course the salary of his own lawyers.]

The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.
[No, for the payment of the loser to the winner of the case normally doesn’t cover all of the winner’s legal fees; but it does cover SOME of them!]

This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment [Very true. By losing on a procedural question, Mann avoided a decision as to the matter of the case]. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.” [ROTFLMAO! The person showing the world he doesn’t want a verdict on the real issue is Mann, who could have avoided the loss by simply producing the needed documents in time, OR simply asking for an extension until he was able to produce them.]

M. Kaastrup, M. Sc., L.L.M.

Reply to  Mikkel Kaastrup
August 25, 2019 5:40 pm

Excellent news, hopefully wide public will read this soon

David Clancy
Reply to  Mikkel Kaastrup
August 25, 2019 6:32 pm

Thanks. What is your source regarding the substance of the ruling — is there a written order or a transcript?

Mikkel Kaastrup
Reply to  David Clancy
August 28, 2019 1:51 pm

My source is Mann’s and Tim’s summary of the ruling, I don’t have the ruling itself – but it’s easy enough to figure out on the basis of their summaries.

Tony Duncan
Reply to  Mikkel Kaastrup
August 26, 2019 7:13 am

So what you are saying is that this was not a victory stating that Tim Balls assertion that Mann’s research was fraudulent and he should be in jail was valid. It does not address whether Ball’s comments had any scientific validity, nor that anybody Mann’s research was in any way incorrect?
As I read Soloman’s statement it was the defense demanding all of Mann’s research, not the court, is that correct?
So the worst case scenario for Mann is he thought it unlikely he would be able to legally prove defamation and was cutting losses.
And in the intervening years since the suit began, all the research including Koch funded research that involved 2 well known climate skeptics reconfirm Mann’s paper that Ball claims was fraudulent.
So Tim Balls assertions that were the basis for the suit have no scientific validity and Mann’s reasons for suing Ball were perfectly justified, if not strong enough to merit legal justification.
Is there anything inaccurate in my analysis?

Moray Watson
Reply to  Tony Duncan
August 26, 2019 8:13 am

Nope. The 2017 adjournment which was requested by Mann was granted by the Court. The adjournment was only consented to on the condition that Mann produce his source documents/data. So the Court was demanding Mann’s research be turned over to Ball; it would not have granted the adjournment otherwise.

Reply to  Tony Duncan
August 26, 2019 9:32 am


(Second warning for Capitalizing every letter, the BLOG POLICY is very clear on this: “Publishing comments in SHOUTING MODE (all caps) is not acceptable.”) SUNMOD

August 26, 2019 8:06 pm

My eyes were “deafened” by this very loud post No more caps please except for grammatical reasons

Reply to  Tony Duncan
August 26, 2019 7:50 pm

There are quite a few inaccuracies.
1) In the course of the lawsuit, Mann’s own legal position was that the originally published reconstruction was invalid.
2) No research has confirmed Mann’s paper and several reconstructions oppose his “hockey stick’, showing significant variations in temperature prior to the 19th century.
3) As mentioned by others, the court demanded Mann’s research.
4) To have any scientific claim validated, the research would need to be fully released to the general public.

There hasn’t been a shred of evidence presented that Tim Ball’s claims weren’t completely accurate, just a claim that others got results somewhere in the ballpark of what Mann claimed after the fact was the general concept he meant to claim in his original paper.

Reply to  Tony Duncan
August 27, 2019 8:00 am

What are these alleged studies that prove the hockey stick isn’t fraudulent?

Mikkel Kaastrup
Reply to  Tony Duncan
August 28, 2019 1:50 pm

So what you are saying is that this was not a victory stating that Tim Balls assertion that Mann’s research was fraudulent and he should be in jail was valid.
It does not address whether Ball’s comments had any scientific validity, nor that anybody Mann’s research was in any way incorrect?
As I read Soloman’s statement it was the defense demanding all of Mann’s research, not the court, is that correct?
So the worst case scenario for Mann is he thought it unlikely he would be able to legally prove defamation and was cutting losses.

MK: I think that is what he did, yes. But the worst case scenario for Mann would be if he had given up the information, and it could be used by Tim and others to prove Mann had falsified the temperature records by creating a program that tampered with them.

And in the intervening years since the suit began, all the research including Koch funded research that involved 2 well known climate skeptics reconfirm Mann’s paper that Ball claims was fraudulent.
So Tim Balls assertions that were the basis for the suit have no scientific validity (no evaluation of this has been made!) and Mann’s reasons for suing Ball were perfectly justified, if not strong enough to merit legal justification (no evaluation of this has been made, but IMO Mann’s suit was NOT justified. That is, however, because my impression is that he is a liar and a fraud, but Tim would have to prove that in court).

Is there anything inaccurate in my analysis?
-See above 🙂

Mark Fisher
Reply to  Tony Duncan
September 5, 2019 10:22 am

Nonsense. Mann made a claim of libel. The libel claim was predicated on the accuracy of his government funded research, the results of which should be at least partially public property. To defend against the libel claim asserted the “Truth Defense” which has its counterparts under American law. This if Ball could show knowing error or outright fraud in the collection, weighting or organization of Mann’s data then his opinion statements would provide the factual foundation to Dr. Ball needed to fend off the lawsuit. Ergo the necessity of the Plaintiff providing discovery to the Defendant or suffer dismissal.

Your reference to outside “confirmation” research, without any point citation to it, is inapposite and irrelevant regardless of any findings.

Mann had an absolute obligation to produce the requested data failing which he suffered a court reversal and bad outcome. When you have possession of the critical evidence and refuse to produce it in order to advance your own lawsuit it is pretty reasonable to infer that you didn’t produce it because you knew it hurt you and did not help you. But Leftist members of the Latter Day Church of AGW aren’t known for their rationality are they?

Reply to  Mark Fisher
September 5, 2019 11:55 am

Dear MARK FISHER: Extremely well said, SIR!!! You have expressed the facts of the case exceedingly well and your excellent opinion logically follows. I read my first IPCC Report and resulting Decision Summary over 25 years ago and was able to prove fraud from those IPCC documents. I reconfirmed the fraud by examining IPCC documents over 20 times in the following years. Mann refused to comply with the court order to file his supporting data as he knew Ball would prove Mann’s “HOCKEY STICK” graph would be o\proven fraudulent. After all, Ball’s similar temperature graph showed no “hockey stick” for the last 200 years!!! Mann never challenged Ball’s graph even though Ball filed the supporting data!!!

Bob Hunter
Reply to  Mikkel Kaastrup
August 27, 2019 2:37 pm

“The easiest way to avoid more costly lawsuits would be for Tim to scale down his comments and make sure he doesn’t accuse people, or alledge wrong-doings, that he cannot prove.” Maybe that is the point, Mann et al do not disclose their code or raw data as well as hiding behind ‘pal review’. Getting Mann et al to court where they must disclose the info is one of the objectives.
Anyway, thanks for the great summary from a legal point of view.

Mikkel Kaastrup
Reply to  Bob Hunter
August 28, 2019 1:54 pm

Yes, Bob that may indeed be the point of Tim’s actions, and if so, it’s a ballsy thing to do. Unfortunately, it didn’t work in this case, as Mann didn’t release his calculations. But suppose he’d released falsified calculations that had then proved Tim wrong? That’s what I would have done….:-D

Joe - the non climate scientist
Reply to  Mikkel Kaastrup
August 28, 2019 7:40 am

M Kaastrup LLM – One additional comment regarding the non submission of documents

Mann made the claim in one of his recent twitter posts that the “codes” have been made available for 10+ years and he include a citation on where those codes could be located/obtained.

It is my understanding that documents have to be admitted into evidence – even if they are publiclyknown or common knowledge or available at the local liabrary. Without being formally admitted into evidence in court or in a court filing, then the information can not be used. Same

Fwiw – this is the same error in the Gore V Bush case where the trial court was the only court that got the correct decision (the US SC got the correct result but for the wrong reason). At the trial court, while there was considerable evidence that would have placed the election in doubt, the gore team did not put into any evidence to support that fact.

Robert Beckman
Reply to  Mikkel Kaastrup
August 31, 2019 2:21 am

You’re missing a point of US law that might matter (I’m ignorant of Canadian law, and choice of law across national border is beyond my expertise).

Under US law Mann would have to prove all of these:
A) Balls statements were statements of fact, not opinion
B) the statements were false
C) Ball knew them to be false, or was reckless in his disregard of their falsity
D) they’re not derived from true stated facts
E) and it’s not hyperbole

C only applies to public figures, and Mann certainly qualifies as a “limited purpose public figure” under US law, which basically means it’s the higher standard for anything to do with climate, but C wouldn’t apply if you were to accuse him of bank robbery, for example.

D is a clause that often doesn’t matter in defamation cases, but from what I remember of Balls comments would apply to all of them. This part of US law comes from the idea that even an apparent statement of fact, if made as a part of a deductive logic chain, is really an opinion. For example, “Mann robs banks” would be actionable, as it implies some undisclosed specific knowledge. “Mann’s a climatologist, therefor he’s a bank robber too” is a protected statement as it uses deductive logic – noting very explicitly that the conclusion doesn’t actually have to make sense, just that it show the persons method of determining perfidy.

E of course also covers a lot, but since I don’t have a perfect memory of even my own postings I can’t be sure it applies to all of Balls.

One more point which might matter. US law requires that for a foreign defamation judgement to be domesticated it has to show that the protections for speech the US has wouldn’t have prevented the judgement. In other words, that the same result would have obtained in the US, so Mann obtained a Canadian judgement under different rules he’d have to relitigate to show that under the US standard he’d have won too, if he wants to seize assets in the US. Of course, if all of Balls assets are in Canada that’s immaterial.

Mikkel Kaastrup
Reply to  Robert Beckman
September 1, 2019 6:40 am

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your insightful comment. I guess for the sake of clarity I should point out that my law degree is from Denmark, and I might be equally (or more) ignorant of Canadian law than you. I wrote my first comment because it was clear that many contributors didn’t know the first thing about the effects of the case being discussed). Having said that, it is quite obvious that there are many many similarities between both Danish law, US law and Canadian law (the two last law systems derive from the same roots in the British and Common law tradition, while Danish law is closer to the continental (Freench/German) tradition).

As for the “international aspect” of the case, you can safely assume that International Private Law rules dictate that the case is adjudicated according to Canadian law. (A Canadian citizen, being sued in Canada, is not subject to US law and likewise (Praise the Lord!) as a Danish citizen sued in Denmark, I am not subject to US law). The questions about seizing assets and the like are purely speculative, since there will never be a verdict on the reality of the case (is this defamation? nor on the related issue: Is Mann a fraud and a liar?).
But thank you for the tabulation of A) to E). They correspond well with the legal situation in Denmark in cases where a person is sues for libel or defamation (“injurious accusations”).

Reply to  Mikkel Kaastrup
September 1, 2019 1:45 pm

All great to hear! Is there a official judgment with case Nr. and so on? I want to proof this to some people her.

John Wise
Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 28, 2019 5:29 pm

What a joke! The court tossed the case because Ball pleaded that he was ill and the case was taking too long. Mann has published all the hockey stick research years ago.

Reply to  John Wise
August 29, 2019 8:42 am

Not true. The only data or code he ever released was the logic flow chart he used to solve the problem of what to do if he was ever discovered “massaging” the raw data.
comment image

August 22, 2019 4:31 pm


Congrats Dr. Ball. Don’t spend it all in one place.

David Chappell
Reply to  MichaelS
August 22, 2019 10:02 pm

He won’t. It will all go to the lawyers – “costs”

John Endicott
Reply to  David Chappell
August 23, 2019 4:54 am

Well, technically David, he already spent it on the lawyers – “costs” – this would thus be considered a refund which he can now spend as he pleases.

Reply to  John Endicott
August 23, 2019 8:50 am

I was pleased to donate to his defence. Hopefully any money which is returned gets rolled over to a similar cause.

August 22, 2019 4:33 pm

Well done Tim!!

Maybe the twerp Mann will learn to keep his gob shut in future.

8 years is one helluva long time to go through all this just for costs though Tim.

ALexander Carpenter
Reply to  HotScot
August 22, 2019 6:26 pm

Mark Stein filed a countersuit against Mann’s suit, just so’s that wouldn’t happen, and thereby forcing a jury trial if Stein wanted. Guys like Mann should be hammered when justice happens, or the justice isn’t complete. Who more deserving?

John francis
Reply to  ALexander Carpenter
August 22, 2019 6:52 pm


Reply to  ALexander Carpenter
August 22, 2019 7:17 pm

Mark Styne

Reply to  clipe
August 23, 2019 5:59 am


Mike McMillan
Reply to  clipe
August 23, 2019 6:11 am


Reply to  Mike McMillan
August 23, 2019 4:19 pm


Reply to  Mike McMillan
August 23, 2019 7:12 pm

DonM’s response: “beer”
Wins best comment of the year

Ed Moran
Reply to  Mike McMillan
August 24, 2019 2:54 am

i also liked Don M’s “beer”.
I fact I’ll drink to that!

Phil Rae
Reply to  HotScot
August 22, 2019 11:54 pm

Wonderful! Hearty congratulations to Dr Tim Ball and thanks to WUWT for sharing the good news. However, I agree with you HotScot – simply having court costs covered by Mann is a poor recompense after 8 years of worry and anxiety as a result of his bullying tactics.

Reply to  Phil Rae
August 23, 2019 2:46 am

Woefully inadequate recompense for a frivolous lawsuit. I’ve read places, including here, that Dr. Mann is not widely respected either professionally or personally. He strikes me as the kind of creep who runs around yelling … “I’ll sue!” … at the slightest slight.

Thank goodness not ALL our courts are infected activist Judges, err Justices.

Reply to  Kenji
August 25, 2019 1:24 am

Great to see you here. Will it soon be safe to say that Mann belongs in the pen?

Reply to  WalterF
August 26, 2019 7:11 am

pig pen?

Reply to  Phil Rae
August 23, 2019 1:42 pm

Penn State will probably foot the bill for the criminal and liar Mann.

Owen Morgan
Reply to  DocSiders
August 24, 2019 12:33 am

Somebody other than Mann has to have been financing his adventures in the courts. Even in the absence of anything resembling court proceedings, sustaining a lawsuit for years on end is an enormously costly business, made the more so by drawing out the process, and Mann has demonstrated an infinite willingness to prolong the Bell and Steyn cases indefinitely.

Sadly, I don’t imagine that Dr Ball or Mark Steyn will ever see a penny of compensation.

Reply to  Owen Morgan
August 27, 2019 9:58 pm

His delay tactics are purely because the doesn’t HAVE the data to back up his claims. He is a fraud. An any further court cases should be thrown out if he can’t produce his data on filing. He has already lost on this point.

Reply to  DocSiders
August 26, 2019 12:14 pm

Mann belongs in the State Pen ……not Penn State

Bill Parsons
Reply to  HotScot
August 23, 2019 10:04 pm

When people here get on a roll it can get pretty rowdy. You know not what you do.

Reply to  Bill Parsons
August 27, 2019 8:00 am

What do we do that we know not, Bill?
It used to be that the ignoramuses that relied on bullying tactics and lies always won! Being cordial was never a sufficient defensive measure!
But when we started to bully with the truth and with courage was when the tide turned!
So if that’s what we do that we know not, it should be exposed more often considering the nefarious goals of the Globalists!
Don’t be a shill for M. Mann; he is the least deserving person on the planet to get sympathy!

Reply to  HotScot
August 24, 2019 10:41 pm

Mann effectively admitted to the world he does not want the case to continue forward by getting the trial stopped by not providing court ordered data. Or that he doesn’t actually have it.

Reply to  ironargonaut
August 27, 2019 5:08 pm

The most fundamental principle of jurisprudence is “Put up or shut up!”
Mann failed to “put up” and to make matters worse, has also failed to “shut up”!
He is such a loser!

August 22, 2019 4:35 pm

So, can we now say, “Michael Mann belongs in the STATE PEN, not at PENN STATE” and not fear arrest or lawsuit? My message to Michael Mann…

comment image&f=1

Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
August 22, 2019 10:38 pm

I think Mark Steyn said that, and that’s part of the case against him.

OTOH, I suspect Mann won’t be suing many more people over that dumb joke.

It seems to me that you can safely call Mann a loser, though.

Richard S Courtney
Reply to  Ric Werme
August 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Ric Werme,

I suspect Mann won’t be suing anybody else over anything as a result of the victory of Tim Ball and the reactions of Mark Steyn.

I congratulate Tim Ball on his victory which I would like to think will get much publicity (but I suspect will not),

However, I regret that I think Ball’s victory means Mann will not make good his threat against me. That threat was revealed by Climategate and throughout the years since then I have been hoping it was more than bluster because I could use the money I would make from claiming damages.


Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
August 22, 2019 11:04 pm

Mann in name only.

Reply to  Phaedo
August 23, 2019 12:53 am

“Mann in name only.”
That’s a wild assumption using proxy data; can it be proved Empirically…
& pity the poor researcher who attempts to find out.

Reply to  saveenergy
August 23, 2019 1:40 pm


Reply to  saveenergy
August 24, 2019 5:48 am

“Mann-made global warming”.

“Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann”, inventor of the “hokey stick”.

If atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature, how is it that “CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales”?
Simple! It is obvious that the future is driving the past!

August 22, 2019 4:35 pm

Congratulations Dr. Ball!

Reply to  PaulH
August 24, 2019 3:38 pm

Yes! And thank you Dr. Ball for continuing to write and publish in an effort to educate during those 8 years, despite the stress you must have endured.

August 22, 2019 4:37 pm

Congratulations Dr. Ball!

J Mac
Reply to  Sunsettommy
August 23, 2019 10:52 am

Whoo Hooo! More Winning!
Stick it to the mann!

John Tillman
August 22, 2019 4:40 pm

Thanks for the great news!

Will Mann’s exalted sense of Nobelity permit him to settle with Steyn?

Reply to  John Tillman
August 22, 2019 5:41 pm

Only if a court forces him to.

nw sage
Reply to  John Tillman
August 22, 2019 5:43 pm

Of course not! NO amount of Nobelity is enough to reverse that much ego. A fitting settlement in the Steyn case would be for the court to force Penn State to remove him from his exalted position.

Reply to  nw sage
August 22, 2019 7:19 pm

A truly fitting resolution would be for Mann to pay the damages and legal fees and whoever is funding his lawyers to be identified and required to pay the triple punitive damages.

I want to know who has been funding his legal harassment endeavors and want them to pay for the harm they have done.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Drake
August 22, 2019 7:56 pm

I remember a Climate Justice fund was set up for legal battles due to the FOI requests and the fighting of those. Mann’s case happened soon after and I remember his initial funding came from that. No idea if it continues today.

Reply to  Greg Cavanagh
August 22, 2019 10:51 pm

Trivial search, at least if you remember Scott Mandia started it or know it’s gotta be somewhere at WUWT.

See https://www.csldf.org/ – Yes, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund still in business.

See https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/31/climate-craziness-of-the-week-supermandia/ for a note about it from Michael Mann, and more. 🙂

Gary Pearse
Reply to  John Tillman
August 22, 2019 7:51 pm

John, I believe Mann is locked in by Steyn’s countersuit for 20M+. If Mann abandons the case, Steyn’s suit is a slam dunk. When Mann sued, a large number of commenters here who knew Steyn, opined that Mann had made the mistake of his lifetime! He was funded by some Climateering Defence League and Ibelieve Steyn will bankrupt this ill thought out org, too. Also, discovery from Mann looms. All his homespun ersatz stats (which McIntyre reported always formed a hockeystick with ‘white noise’), his weighting of one Yamal larch tree ring to get the upturn (WUWT had an article about the single most important tree in climate science “Once you’ve seen one you’ve seen ‘Yamal'” ). Plus a Finnish contaminated lake sediment proxy that the Finns said wasn’t usable but he went ahead and used it upside down because it supported the h- stick!!

Dave Dodd
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 22, 2019 9:50 pm

Actually it was “red noise,” but, hey, who’s picky?

Thomas McFadden
Reply to  Dave Dodd
August 22, 2019 9:58 pm

Mark Styne? the man who is on Fox News with Tucker Carlson? WOW……OH WOW…Mark is a pitbull!!!!!!Deserves him right Mann is going to get his just deserts! Big Time…… Beautiful

Reply to  Thomas McFadden
August 23, 2019 11:22 am

Mark Steyn has filled in as host of the Rush Limbaugh radio program on several occasions as well. He is most entertaining and informative.

Reply to  Thomas McFadden
August 27, 2019 8:06 am

I enjoy Mark more than Rush! Just don’t tell Rush that!

Natalie Gordon
Reply to  Thomas McFadden
August 28, 2019 7:58 am

Yes that Mark. I wrote a bit about his previous famous court battle in Canada in my review of Steyn’s book about Mann which you can read here.

Reply to  Dave Dodd
August 22, 2019 10:57 pm

Let’s settle on pink(o) noise, shall we?

Reply to  brians356
August 23, 2019 7:51 pm

LMAO. You win! With all the great comments and funny stuff on this thread you win hands down. Kudos!

Mark A Luhman
Reply to  brians356
August 26, 2019 2:46 am

No we can not. Pink noise has equal energy per octave, white noise is equal energy across the bandwith and red noise is just that random noise that all over the place. Now that I have pramterized them just may Dr Mann might read this and learn something, although being the fraudster he is not much chance of that.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 22, 2019 9:55 pm

Gary, you’ve got a lot of stuff wrong there. You might want o go back to Climate Audit and brush up on the facts.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 23, 2019 6:05 am

Maybe, we’ll get to see if Manniacal’s financial backers are the ones that pay for Mann’s defeat?

We should report Mann to the IRS; since that defense league’s payments to Mann’s lawyers and covering his legal loss constitutes financial earnings. And, it’s only right that Uncle Sam gets his portion of Mann’s largess.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
August 23, 2019 12:47 pm

The same thing happened, as I recall, when Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” went before a British Court as was found, essentially, not to be a “documentary” but a naked propaganda vehicle loaded with scientific gaffs.

Truth always wins in the end, but it is often financially ruinous and personally risky, and not a gauntlet to be run by the squeamish. Hat’s off to Tim Ball.

Tony Duncan
Reply to  Loran Blood
August 26, 2019 7:24 am

That is of course completely the opposite of the judgement in case against An Inconvenient Truth. The Judge actually said the film was generally accurate, but pointed out 8 or 9 instances where the facts were not clear or they could be easily misinterpreted . The ruling was quite accurate and the film was able to be shown for educational purposes as long as caveats on those points were included.
But don’t expect Anthony’s cheerleaders to correct you.
You are welcome!

Reply to  Tony Duncan
August 26, 2019 8:10 pm

You are totally wrong.
Read the penultimate paragraph ( Paragraph 45) of Justice Burton’s judgement in Dimmock v.State of State for Education and Skills (2007) EWHC 2288 (Admin).
It is available on line at BAILII.
No fee.
Justice Burton notes that the original “ Guidance Notes” (aka list of errors) prior to the litigation were inadequate and indeed the “ Guidance Notes” at the hearing had to be updated (by agreement of the parties counsel) as they were not comprehensive and sufficient.
He specifically ruled that without the corrective material being sent out with the video ( not merely referenced to an internet site) he would rule the movie propaganda not science and in breach of sections 306 and 307 of the UK Education Act.
The Guidance Notes to accompany the movie to schools highlight errors ( not “errors”) and are not available to the public at large although summarised by his Honour in the Judgement.
It was not the case that the errors were “ facts that were not clear or that could be easily misinterpreted.”
The Wikipedia entry on the court case is misleading by omission.

Reply to  Tony Duncan
August 27, 2019 8:04 am

The standard position of the internet troll.
Totally dismissive towards anyone who dares to disagree with what the troll is paid to say.

Andre Lauzon
August 22, 2019 4:44 pm

Good for you Dr. Ball. Very happy to hear about the victory.

Stefan Youngs
August 22, 2019 4:47 pm

The only way these global warming hysterics will ever stop persecuting anyone opposing their agenda is if courts award damages against them if they are found to have lied. Mann has fed for decades at the trough in pursuit of his private cabal’s agenda (i’m Looking at you Phil Jones, James Hansen, Gavin Schmitt). Time to pay up, then shut up.

August 22, 2019 4:50 pm

Congratulations, Tim. Rectitude crushes ego every time.

August 22, 2019 4:52 pm

Truth will win out!

Insufficiently Sensitive
August 22, 2019 4:53 pm

Does this mean that the glacial pace of that so-called court has increased? Will we see adjudication of Mark Steyn’s case, or must another decade pass?

Reply to  Insufficiently Sensitive
August 22, 2019 6:48 pm

Wrong country. BC vs.DC
So many suits hard to keep track.

Reply to  ironargonaut
August 23, 2019 7:17 am

8 years would be lightning fast compared to a DC court. At least in a case the Left knows they can’t win.


August 22, 2019 4:54 pm

Excellent news

August 22, 2019 4:57 pm

Mann only has himself to blame – he ignored scientific principles and ethics.

Reply to  John
August 22, 2019 5:51 pm

Liars sometimes lose.

August 22, 2019 4:58 pm

Justice is finally being served?

Are appeals still to available to Mann?

Reply to  JEHILL
August 22, 2019 11:00 pm

Plaintiffs can appeal? Huh.

Reply to  brians356
August 22, 2019 11:14 pm

Not a lawyer nor am I knowledge of court room procedural practices in Canada

Asking a question.

Reply to  brians356
August 23, 2019 8:22 pm

Losing side can always appeal.
For that matter the winning side can appeal as well if they feel the award wasn’t big enough.

Reply to  JEHILL
August 23, 2019 1:48 am

“A party may appeal a decision of the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal.”

ferd berple
August 23, 2019 3:35 pm

You likely need grounds for an appeal (new evidence, error in law). Losing in itself isn’t grounds.

August 23, 2019 6:06 pm


Sleazy lawyers can always come up with a reason to appeal… and if you get a Liberal-appointed Justice, you will get your appeal, and you may win it!

It has little (or nothing) to do with the facts, or the law.

Ed Moran
August 24, 2019 3:08 am

Keep it civil, Sherrington. Macrae’s comment was on-topic, pithy, accurate and reasonable. Your reply was just rude.

(That was NOT Geoff making that comment, it was a imposter loser doing it) SUNMOD

Geoff Sherrington
August 24, 2019 3:30 am

The comment above was not written by me, the original Geoff Sherrington, well known to you all from a decade of active blogging and articles on WUWT.
You might search for your own Internet names to see if IMPOSTER SLUG has stolen your identity also.
Geoff S

(It is being taken care of, thanks for the tip once again. It is likely the same person who did it before) SUNMOD

August 24, 2019 8:53 pm

Thank goodness! I thought you had gone over to the Dark Side.

Clyde Spencer
August 25, 2019 5:35 pm

If you are able to identify who has been hijacking Geoff’s name, would it be possible to post his real name?

(We have a likely suspect, but Mods will not publish them, that is for Anthony to decide) SUNMOD

Reply to  JEHILL
August 23, 2019 9:40 am

We can hope that maybe Mann will be served in this manner, tho it would prb’ly result in nausea for the Kanamits:

Reply to  JEHILL
August 23, 2019 1:36 pm



Charles J. Bates
Reply to  JEHILL
August 23, 2019 2:45 pm

No. it is finally over for good.

Dyspeptic Curmudgeon
Reply to  Charles J. Bates
August 23, 2019 8:19 pm

No it is not completely dead. Mann *could* appeal from the dismissal. Without seeing the actual Order it is difficult to say how hard that would be. From what has been published it appears that Mann has been in contempt of Court Orders requiring him to produce documentation. The Courts take a very very dim view of that sort of contempt. He is the instigator but does not want to play by the Court’s rules. He was given lots of time to fix his errors. The Court of Appeal will not look on that with any favour.
But give it 30 days, and then we will know.

@Shutiak. Shut up about things you know nothing about. Any appeal goes to the British Columbia COurt of Appeal first, and only after that, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Reply to  Dyspeptic Curmudgeon
August 28, 2019 10:26 pm

Mann would have to comply with the court’s order to produce his data before he could appeal, would he not?

Joe Born
August 22, 2019 4:59 pm

Haven’t looked into this, but it sounds great for Dr. Ball. Congratulations.

August 22, 2019 5:01 pm


Henry chance
Reply to  nicholas tesdorf
August 26, 2019 4:18 pm

Hoist with his own petard.
Impailed with his own busted hockey stick.

This is painful.
The documents he wisely refused to produce obviously had a lot of damaging “science” in the form of a threat exposing fudging the numbers.

The curtain falls on the tree ring circus.

Iain Russell
August 22, 2019 5:02 pm

Dieu et mon droit! Mes félicitations!

August 22, 2019 5:08 pm

Contratulations, Tim. The Climate Conversation Group backs you all the way.
Rectitude crushes ego every time.

Rob Bradley
August 22, 2019 5:14 pm

Photo the Check like Julian Simon did with that of Paul and Anne Ehrlich.

Robin David Beran
August 22, 2019 5:16 pm

Loser pays. A policy that is sorely needed in the US. Congratulations Dr. Ball.

Charles Higley
Reply to  Robin David Beran
August 22, 2019 6:49 pm

Three years of legal wrestling with my family over a will cost me $250k. It isn’t cheap. I bet Dr. Ball has had to spend a lot of money over the eight years, as the paperwork and stuff never ceases, as the lawyers get to run up the bill with many little issues.

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Charles Higley
August 23, 2019 6:38 am

Hope you don’t wind up like Jarndyce vs Jarndyce.

Patrick Hrushowy
August 22, 2019 5:23 pm

Hurrah for the good guys!

Larry Hamlin
August 22, 2019 5:25 pm

Good luck trying to collect from that scumbag Mann.

Fritz Brohn
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
August 22, 2019 6:18 pm

Send “Vito” to collect!

Reply to  Fritz Brohn
August 22, 2019 6:40 pm

Naw, send Luca Brasi.

Bemused Bill
Reply to  Marv
August 22, 2019 9:38 pm

Marv…..send me, I cant imagine anything I would enjoy more…yes, even that.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Fritz Brohn
August 23, 2019 6:02 am

Tom in Pittsburgh
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
August 22, 2019 8:32 pm

Lien Mann’s properties and garnish his wages. This charlatan needs to be put out on the street with all the other homeless in the USA.

Bradley Holdner
Reply to  Larry Hamlin
August 22, 2019 11:21 pm

Counter-sue the AssHat Mann…

mike the morlock
August 22, 2019 5:28 pm

Now this calls for wild “rebel yell”

And I’m a New England Yankee!


August 22, 2019 5:32 pm

Great news and a load off the shoulders of Tim Ball.
I will be looking at our main stream news outlets for this story.
I might be waiting a long time as the story doe’s not fit the agenda here .
The win that Peter Rudd gained in Australia was not reported here in New Zealand .
I googled Peter Ridd and Stuff had an article that the case was about to be heard but nothing more .

Reply to  Gwan
August 22, 2019 7:42 pm

I’ve started going to sites like HuffPo and posting zingers. Of course, they try to delete all such comments but I’m finding that they can’t keep up. Maybe their funding to pay censors is dwindling. At least I like to think that.

This seems to me to be a way of getting the word out although you have to have an ego big enough to handle someone asking you “What’s the weather like in Moscow Boris”. Seriously. I might even try the Guardian sometime. In fact, when this news comes out in more detail, I think I’ll make it a half hour weekend project getting the word over to Libtardia.

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 23, 2019 12:07 am

The Guardian doesn’t allow comments, Phil. They may be dumb but they ain’t plum dumb. They don’t want pesky readers correcting their mistakes!

Reply to  KcTaz
August 23, 2019 9:10 am

Strange, because I’ve read comments on here where people have been banned by the Guardian. I used to post on APNews before they did away with comments – possibly at the request of Seth Goebbelstein, who used to get his ass handed to him every time he peddled his propaganda there.

ferd berple
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 23, 2019 3:48 pm

Use reverse psych. Post how terrible it is that Ball beat Mann.

Reply to  ferd berple
August 23, 2019 8:35 pm

I like the way you think! Crafty, very smooth. 🙂

Robin Matyjasek
Reply to  ferd berple
August 24, 2019 2:53 am

So in fact, Mann has no Balls…

Reply to  Robin Matyjasek
August 25, 2019 11:03 am

Yee-ouch! 😀

John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
Reply to  Gwan
August 22, 2019 8:11 pm

NZ Stuff news media is part of the Nine Entertainment Co/Fairfax Media group. No different in ideology than The Guardian or our ABC. So I am not surprised.

Peter Wilson
Reply to  John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia
August 22, 2019 9:16 pm

Stuff “encourages debate, but will not give oxygen to climate denial”. They have a permanent section entitled “Quick, save the Planet”.

Stiff is the Grauniad Down Under

Tony Bullock
Reply to  Peter Wilson
August 23, 2019 2:50 am

The stand taken by STUFF is this :
“Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy. That applies equally to the stories we will publish in Quick! Save the Planet and to our moderation standards for reader comments. ”

Their articles on the climate ’emergency’ are dangerous and as in other jurisdictions I suspect are having serious effect on the mental health of the young and the easily manipulated.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tony Bullock
August 23, 2019 8:06 am

“Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity.”

Right out of the starting gate they are wrong. There is no “overwhelming scientific consensus” and there is no evidence that CAGW is real. These people couldn’t prove either statement if their lives depended on doing so.

I love saying those kinds of things. I never get any pushback from the alarmists. That would be because what I said above is true, and they know it, and they know they don’t have any evidence to offer to show otherwise, so they remain silent and allow me to lambast their delusions with impunity. 🙂

And to all those out there who don’t know whether CAGW is real or not, it ought to tell you something when a skeptic challenges those promoting CAGW for some evidence of it, and all the skeptic gets is silence from the other side. If the alarmists had any evidence they would be falling all over themselves trying to show how ignorant the skeptics are. But they don’t do that and we know the reason why, don’t we.

Reply to  Gwan
August 23, 2019 3:09 am

it was hardly reported in Aus either.

but I sure shared it around;-))
as I will be doing with this also
excellent news for Dr Ball

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Gwan
August 23, 2019 6:33 am

Ridd won on all 17 counts. JCU is foolishly appealing.
Jennifer Merohasy’s blog keeps up to date on it. I get email briefed directly by Peter since gave him a rather large financial contribution to support his legal costs.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
August 23, 2019 8:03 am

Can you post a link to said blog?
I am unable to find it.

Reply to  Brad
August 23, 2019 9:11 am
August 22, 2019 5:34 pm

Excellent news! Well done Tim Ball; you have waited a long time for this.

August 22, 2019 5:35 pm

It has taken a long time…. but remember, Rome wasn’t burned in a day.

mike macray
Reply to  THX1138
August 24, 2019 6:09 am

. but remember, Rome wasn’t burned in a day.

Good one THX1138!
I believe it burned until Nero was all out of fiddles.

George T
August 22, 2019 5:38 pm

HOOAH! The question now is why is he employed at all at a university? Shameful. He should be relieved for cause. As John suggested, “he ignored scientific principles and ethics.” Where is the accountability?

Alan the Brit
Reply to  George T
August 22, 2019 11:26 pm

Would they “relieve” him the British way, i.e. “Early” retirement on health grounds or somesuch excuse, or “moving on to pastures new to persue another career, etc?

August 22, 2019 5:38 pm

Sweet! Tim is a fellow Victoria resident, a great scientist, and a very good friend. Having a beer now to celebrate.


Mark Broderick
Reply to  Susan Crockford
August 22, 2019 7:05 pm

Canadian beer eh ! lol

Reply to  Susan Crockford
August 22, 2019 7:29 pm

OMG! I wish we all could be there. You’re in PDT so the night is still young. Please convey our heart felt congratulations. I’m pretty sure I’m speaking for at least 97% of the WUWT audience there.

Larry Hamlin
August 22, 2019 5:42 pm

I should have offered congratulations to Dr. Ball!!!

Well done!!

August 22, 2019 5:47 pm

We were looking forward to Dr. Mann being forced to produce discovery. Did that happen?

I am just dying to be able to read the Judge’s decision.

I wonder if Mann can/will appeal.

Nicholas McGinley
August 22, 2019 5:48 pm

Pass me a tissue, I am gonna well up!
This news makes me unreasonably happy and cheerful.
The only thing better would have been if there was a countersuit which Mann lost resoundingly.
Hey, anyone that can tell me about the Mark Steyn lawsuit w/ Mann dealio?

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
August 22, 2019 7:01 pm

It’s still pending. The ACLU, WaPo and other news organizations have filed amicus briefs for Steyn because if Mann wins, it’s the end of freedom of speech for the Press and others, as I understand it. No date set, yet, that I’ve heard.
This is great news about Dr. Ball. I am thrilled for him. I wonder if Mann will think about withdrawing his suit against Steyn? Nah, I doubt.

Rod Evans
Reply to  KcTaz
August 23, 2019 1:30 am

I am no expert in the legal field, come to think about it, I am no expert in most fields but as I understand it, if Mann withdraws he is liable for all costs incurred.
That might be the lesser evil for him better than the actual costs he will have to fund up plus damages when he eventually has his time in court.
Can#t wait for the Steyn case to be heard in court, I might even take a holiday to be there, well only if i am still alive in twenty years time….

Greg Freemyer
Reply to  Rod Evans
August 23, 2019 11:00 am

As I understand it, Steyn counter-sued for $20M saying Mann was making defamatory statements about Steyn. If Steyn were to drop the part of the case, the part where he is a defendant would still move forward and be even more likely to be a so.

Dennis Sandberg
August 22, 2019 5:55 pm

The liberal democrat machine can never let this stand. Couldn’t it chisel into the huge phony climate mountain? Expect the appeal to be held in an Obama appointed judge’s court and be reversed. But still great news….wonder who appointed this judge?

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 22, 2019 6:34 pm

Note, Obama didn’t appoint any judges in British Columbia.

Dennis Sandberg
Reply to  Writing Observer
August 23, 2019 5:45 pm

Writing Observer,
oops, I didn’t realize there was more than one suit. This is the one I knew about”. Do you know anything about the status?

[Herewith is another post wondering what has happened with Mann v. NR, et al., repeating (with a few updates) what I posted last fall.]

In 2012, climate scientist Michael Mann filed a defamation suit against National Review, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg over a hyperbolic blog post written by Simberg for the CEI and quoted approvingly by Steyn on National Review Online.

In December 2016, after sitting on the case for years, the D.C. Court of Appeals (not to be confused with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) held that Mann’s suit against the CEI, National Review and Simberg may proceed to trial (Steyn having gone his own way in the litigation).

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 27, 2019 1:09 pm

Steyn’s book on this is excellent. The reason for delay of this trial: Mann won’t show up to discovery. He’s a confirmed chicken shit. Don’t be fooled by Mann trying to make the best of this Ball victory. Mann lost because again, he could not or would not show his “facts” to the world, since he knows they are bogus.

Why suffer such harm to the World with the crap on which he based his thoroughly discredited papers and research.

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 22, 2019 6:48 pm

Canadian court.

Bryan A
Reply to  bsl
August 23, 2019 2:22 pm

Beats Kangaroo Court

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 22, 2019 6:52 pm

Wrong country

Mike Mac.
Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 22, 2019 7:04 pm

I don’t think Obama appointed an Canadian judges.

Reply to  Dennis Sandberg
August 22, 2019 7:21 pm

Well, we don’t have to worry about an Obama appointed judge because the case was heard in Canada.

Javert, Chip
Reply to  commieBob
August 23, 2019 9:31 am

Might be one of the 57 states he visited

Old Doc
August 22, 2019 6:06 pm

Truth wins again. I think we are gaining.

Randall Stubbings
August 22, 2019 6:06 pm

Congratulations, Tim. I am very appreciative of your efforts to bring truth to the climate discussions.

August 22, 2019 6:08 pm

Just curious – did Mann EVER produce the docs and data he was ordered to?

If not, isn’t that contempt of court?

August 22, 2019 6:10 pm

Meanwhile, over at the D.C. Federal Court in Mann v. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Steyn and ors. the sclerotic litigation drags on.
As Dr.Hugo Z.Hackenbush (aka Groucho) said, “Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped”.

Andrew Mark Harding
Reply to  Herbert
August 24, 2019 3:17 am

Or as WC Fields said: ‘If you can’t blind them with science, baffle them with bulls**t’

William Schroeder
August 22, 2019 6:14 pm

You Rippers !!!!

August 22, 2019 6:22 pm

Good result, BUT –
“court costs” usually don’t amount to much, covering only the statutory filing / scheduling / officers costs.
Lawyers costs are a separate matter.

But I hope D Ball bankrupts Mann.

Reply to  Mr.
August 22, 2019 7:32 pm

I am sure that Mann will have to pay all Tim Balls legal costs .
That is how it works in New Zealand in call civil cases.
Otherwise a person with deep pockets could lose the case but bankrupt his opponent.

Reply to  Gwan
August 22, 2019 8:41 pm

Which is why deep-pocketed climate activists engage in “law-fare”

Crispin in Waterloo
Reply to  Mr.
August 22, 2019 7:47 pm


I can’t wish for such an eventuality as a goal. I wish that those who have gamed the funding system have to return the money if the research has been applied for, obtained or spent on a fraudulent basis. Bankruptcy is a possibility depending on the scale of the offences.

Receiving monies on a competitive basis then failing to provide the results including data, methods and code shall not be overlooked. Breach of contract. Evading FOIA requests is another example. Avoiding and evading are different acts, in law.

I hope the judgement favour of Tim Ball was made on the basis of evidence supplied to show that what he said, though uncomfortable for Prof Mann, was true. The suit was made on the basis that things said were not. And it has been rejected by the court. That indicates that the statements were true, or were not made with malice.


Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo
August 23, 2019 1:54 pm



Kone Wone
Reply to  James Shutiak CA EMBA CMC CFE CPA (RETIRED)
August 24, 2019 2:35 am

James, do you realise your Caps Lock is on?

Reply to  Kone Wone
August 24, 2019 12:32 pm


Daniel P
Reply to  James Shutiak CA EMBA CMC CFE CPA (RETIRED)
August 27, 2019 4:07 pm

Sorry to hear of your vision issue, if you use a PC when posting I’d be more than happy to write a program for you to type in normal case but review in upper case, of course you could also open notepad and change the font size to something large enough to not be an issue. After typing and reviewing in another program, you can copy and paste to your post.

To the mods, I’m also willing to write code for the website to detect all caps posts and convert everything to lower case if it exceeds a certain percentage of upper-case letters.

(He was given a change to work something out, but his rudeness and ignoring suggestions, and continued policy violations, has him BANNED. Thanks for trying to help) SUNMOD

Dyspeptic Curmudgeon
Reply to  Mr.
August 23, 2019 8:46 pm

You are probably thinking of the costs which are awarded in some US Federal Court actions.
Not so in BC (or the rest of the common law world.
In general, costs ‘follow the event’, and are granted to the winner on one of two levels. Generally costs are awarded on a “party and party” basis, (or partial indemnity) which covers probably 2/3 of the actual legal fees and costs incurred. Or costs can be awarded on a “special” basis (‘solicitor and client’ or ‘substantial indemnity basis) which would cover about 90% of the actual legal bill. Actual disbursements are covered and included. Costs in BC can be granted on 3 increasing scales (A through C). The Weaver v Ball claims are a in a nuanced and difficult area of law, so the highest scale is likely appropriate.
Unfortunately, the actual Judgment does not give us any information about the costs determination. It states: ” Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.”

But in general terms we can assume that Ball would receive from 66% to 90% of his actual out of pocket costs, paid to his lawyers. (And of course, Weaver has to front his own lawyers too: a double hit.)

HOWEVER: Weaver v Ball is not DEAD and BURIED
On May 21, 2019, the Court of Appeal granted a Motion by Weaver, to re-list his appeal for hearing. He had failed to perfect his appeal within the prescribed time limits, and it had be (administratively) struck off the list (not by a judge’s order). It has been returned to the list, to be heard, probably some time this fall.

So even if the Judge granted special costs on Schedule C, Ball will not have seen a penny of it yet.

August 22, 2019 6:31 pm


Phil Ford
August 22, 2019 6:32 pm

Very good news. Gosh, I’d almost forgotten about this case, it’s been rumbling along for many years now. This is a significant victory against one of CAGW’s most pernicious, public-facing and insistent propagandists. I wish Dr. Ball all the very best and thank him for his courage in taking this case all the way to its happy conclusion.

Reply to  Phil Ford
August 23, 2019 2:28 am


August 22, 2019 6:40 pm

Now to get Mann and co. from Penn State to the state pen. where he belongs!

August 22, 2019 6:41 pm

Good to hear. The arrogance that Mann exhibits needs to be deflated. Good start to that.

Michael H Anderson
August 22, 2019 6:41 pm

GREAT way to end the day, congratulations Dr. Ball!

August 22, 2019 6:47 pm

Very good news.

Best wishes, Tim, on this wonderful day.


August 22, 2019 6:51 pm

Love it when justice prevails. Doesn’t seem to happen so often these days,

Now high time for someone to prosecute Mann over the fraudulent H.S.

August 22, 2019 6:54 pm

Great news! I suspect it will still be difficult to get paid. Hope this is the start of more legal victories for the sceptics.

August 22, 2019 6:57 pm

Will watch for updates on this. I hope that Dr. Ball is awarded attorney fees AND an amount equal to that which Mann sued for or greater.

Jan Rikkelman
August 22, 2019 7:02 pm

Great news . Congratulations Dr Ball.

August 22, 2019 7:08 pm

Force Mann to sell his Nobel Prize to pay Dr. Ball…hit him where it REALLY hurts….huh?….he LIED about being awarded the NOBEL PRIZE?…MANN?…LIED?….

mike the morlock
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
August 22, 2019 9:32 pm

TEWS_Pilot August 22, 2019 at 7:08 pm

Oh dear, discovery,, is that not wheres you must list all things of value? Is not a Nobel Prize a thing of value.
Did he not say in court documents that he won one. This could be a great inconvenience for him.

evil laugh.


Gilbert K Arnold
Reply to  mike the morlock
August 25, 2019 3:06 pm

Mike: from Wikipedia: “Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions.

August 22, 2019 7:17 pm

This is excellent news! Am very happy for Dr. Ball.

Mark Broderick
August 22, 2019 7:18 pm

More good news….
“Protests erupt after DNC puts kibosh on climate change-focused debate”

“The Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in San Francisco erupted into a hail of protests on Thursday, as unruly environmentalist activists condemned the party’s decision not to hold a presidential primary debate focused exclusively on climate change — a demand long sought by left-wing activists.”


Reply to  Mark Broderick
August 23, 2019 7:05 am

I would’ve preferred them to make collective fools of themselves on the big stage (again).

Tom Abbott
Reply to  philincalifornia
August 23, 2019 8:47 am

I too would have preferred a debate dedicated to CAGW. It would have been a three-ring circus!

The DNC spokesperson said they thought it better to focus on a variety of subjects than just one, but that CAGW (my words, not hers:) would be one of them. So the Democrats can still make fools of themselves over CAGW, it just won’t last as long. Which is probably the main reason they nixed a dedicated CAGW debate.

Reply to  philincalifornia
August 23, 2019 11:54 am

This should be front page news WORLDWIDE!!! Oh, the HYPPCRISY of the Chicago GRIFTERS…I wonder what effect it will have on the Alarmist movement….huh?…..NONE?

WHAT ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE?! Internet Has A Blast After Obamas Buy $15 Million Beachfront Mansion

So Barack Obama has bought yet another house. He’s got a mansion in California, another in Chicago, plus there’s his massive residence in Washington, D.C., the one with the walls and fences to keep the riff-raff away.

The internet, as it is wont to do, immediately weighed in on the news.

This one was among the best on Twitter: “If you truly believe that climate change is going to be as devastating as the pundits are saying (ex: the island of Manhatten will soon be underwater), why would you gamble $15M to buy an island estate directly on the water?”
comment image


August 22, 2019 7:18 pm

Waiting to read about this in the MSM …

Reply to  jkp416
August 22, 2019 7:44 pm

Get it into the comments sections of climate nut case stories. If enough of us do it, the censors can’t keep up.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  jkp416
August 22, 2019 10:37 pm

supreme court of BC has nothing about it in its record of official judgments

MSM Folks usually wait for publishing of actual court papers.

If there was a dismissal, Ball should have a copy to post. Personally I will wait
to see the court official filing.

It doesn't add up...
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2019 4:21 am

I am sure many of us will take much pleasure in reading the court official filing.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2019 5:09 am

Steven you have a first hand account from one of the participants in the suit – the MSM usually waits for publishing of court papers because they’re not participants in the suit. unless you have reason to believe Dr Ball is lying about what transpired in the courtroom mere hours ago at the time you responded, you are just being petty in your response (as usual).

Steven Mosher
Reply to  John Endicott
August 23, 2019 7:07 pm

“unless you have reason to believe Dr Ball is lying about what transpired in the courtroom mere hours ago at the time you responded, you are just being petty in your response (as usual).”

Given his previous misrepresentations I do have reason to wait

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 23, 2019 8:26 pm

You do have quite the imagination, don’t you.

steven mosher
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2019 4:23 am

mark. you are welcome to go to the supreme court of BC. pay 6 dollars and get the actual court record including the action on the 20th.


Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2019 4:16 pm

The imagination has to do with your delusional belief in various prevarications allegedly committed by Dr. Ball.

What you fail to realize is that disagreeing with your sainted opinions is not the logical equivalent to lying.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 24, 2019 9:24 pm

Well well Steven Mosher ,
Are you a backer of Mike Manns .
You believe that his hockey stick was legitimate ?
Why take eight years to bring forward his proof ?
Why did he not produce his code and proof?
What about listing your proof Steven. and what about listing Dr Ball’s lies that you are insinuating .
Come on Steve Mann up.

paul courtney
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2019 5:24 am

Mr. Mosher: After your wait and the Decision is filed, please do return for more comment. Because then we’ll all be waiting for your apology to Dr. Ball. Given your previous representations, you’ll have to adjust something along the way, and I won’t hold my breath.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 25, 2019 5:24 pm

“Mr. Mosher: After your wait and the Decision is filed, please do return for more comment. Because then we’ll all be waiting for your apology to Dr. Ball. Given your previous representations, you’ll have to adjust something along the way, and I won’t hold .my breath.”


For what? I dont trust Mann or Ball.

I trust an official court document

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 26, 2019 5:07 am

I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you paul, regardless of his past glories, Mosh has long since proven himself a disingenuous troll on these boards the past few years, and trolls never apologize.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 26, 2019 5:13 am

MarekW: You do have quite the imagination, don’t you.

Mark, trolls usually do. Steven is no exception.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 26, 2019 5:32 am

mark. you are welcome to go to the supreme court of BC. pay 6 dollars and get the actual court record including the action on the 20th.

steven, you are the one that insists on waiting for the court documents (despite both Mann and Ball agreeing that there was a dismissal even if they disagree on the details of it), so if anyone needs to pay the 6 dollars to get the actual court record, that would be you. Mark doesn’t need the court record as he takes it as read that when the participants in the suit say it was dismissed that means the suit actually was dismissed. So when are you going to pay the 6 bucks to get those record Steven?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 26, 2019 7:16 am

“For what? I dont (sic) trust Mann or Ball.”

Once again, rather than deal with the original question, Steve determines that his safest route is to change the subject.

The claim was that when the court documents show that you are wrong, will you apologize.
As you have demonstrated, you aren’t man enough to do that.

John Endicott
Reply to  Steven Mosher
August 26, 2019 5:11 am

Now that both Mann and Ball (both sides of the suit) have said there was a dismissal (even if they disagree on the details) do you still need to wait for “publishing of actual court papers”to acknowledge that the court did indeed dismiss the case? :rollseyes:

Doug Hilliard
August 22, 2019 7:20 pm

Great news! Congratulations Dr. Ball!

August 22, 2019 7:23 pm

I looked into whatever info was available on the suits Mann brought against Dr. Ball.
Here are links to what I found for past history.
Dr Ball’s sceptic lawyers in big win…Mann loses
Posted on November 11, 2011
The judge ruled that Weaver was not defamed by me and dismissed the claim completely. This was after almost seven years and thousands of dollars in legal costs. 
Court Battle: Michael Mann Losing, Gives Tim Ball ‘Concessions’
The judge ordered Mann to turn this data over. He refused.
.…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
Now we prepare to bring the Mann case back to the court. 
Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann
July 4, 2017
…As Dr Ball explains:

“…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.”
…s Ball explains:

“We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

More here.
Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud?
May 23, 2018

August 22, 2019 7:24 pm

Looks like more that a 97% consensus that justice was done.
A wise judge.

John Laidlaw
August 22, 2019 7:26 pm

Excellent – very glad to hear this!

August 22, 2019 7:26 pm

Best news of the month!!

Congratulations Dr. Tim Ball. We all missed you at ICCC 13 in DC last month, but enjoyed the video.

Well-earned award for “Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science” presented by the Heartland Institute.

Carry on!

Not Chicken Little
August 22, 2019 7:33 pm

So at least in this case, crime does not pay! And the good guys win one. I have a big smile on my face. I hope to smile even more in the future!

August 22, 2019 7:35 pm

COSTS? 8 years of work defending himself and all he gets are costs?!

That is not justice yet.

But Steyn sued Mann–let us know how that one goes.

August 22, 2019 7:36 pm

Did Mann succeed in hiding his, probably incriminating, emails?