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.
UPDATE:
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:
- Stark admission he lost fair and square
- 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
UPDATE #2
Then there is this:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So Mann is not only an ignorant dishonest fool when it comes to science , but also when it comes to legal matters.
I’ll make it simple for the dummy. Your case was dismissed, you were ordered to pay defendants costs, you lost bigly and ugly.
There was a Q&A with Mann, perhaps on Reddit, several years ago, where my question was deleted-
“What’s the status of your lawsuit against Tim Ball? Has he paid up yet?”
do a private arbitration process…..name every one of the swinging lying parties…..give them 10 days to answer….claim a sum certain for abuse of process and elder abuse, material misrepresentation, deceptive and fraudulent business practices, false claims, 15 USC 1 and 2……all under Title 9 of the USC………Arbitration….Schein v archer white…….January 8 2019….Supreme Court case the right to private arbitration………..phuck these swinging liars swindlers and scam artist, fake actors, phonies, shrills …….
Mann claims on his tweet that his data is available here
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/
That’s the question I intendet to ask too.
Are these data complete ?
No,
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/research/MANNETAL98/METHODS/AlgorithmDescription.txt
Waffle and piffle, where is the formula used ? .
Its reads like a cookery recipe with no amounts for the ingredients, no timings for the cooking and no temperatures.
Thx for he answer, but
whats about that, multiproxy.f ?
This flunks the smell test. If all Mann had to do to win the suit was point to that data, why did he not do it?
It has to be admitted into evidence and / or physically delivered to all parties in the case . Giving the URL adresss doesn’t count
The second point is the data available may not include the r2 regression analysis
OK, same question; if he had simply entered it properly into the record to win, why didn’t he?
The most reasonable answer to your question was that the data was no good and embarrassing to release. His case was filed in 2011 (he has the burden of going forward), and the fact that nothing substantial was done even through August 2019 reflects poorly on him.
JD
There is no evidence that the court required the release of any data. They were hearing a libel suit.
Well, none other than….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 Dr Ball explained at that time”
Dr Ball does not get to grant adjournments or apply conditions. What he does not say is whether the court made that a requirement.
I just can’t imagine that the court would require him to produce his computer codes. What are they going to do with them? Look for illegal format statements?
Courts are required to stick to what is relevant, and not follow Dr Ball’s fantasies.
Nick, old Racehorse, why should anyone follow your fantasies when you admittedly can’t imagine?
Ball was there, you weren’t.
The case was dismissed due to Mann’s delay.
Mann brought the suit, he did not win it.
Nick Stokes: “I just can’t imagine that the court would require him to produce his computer codes. What are they going to do with them? Look for illegal format statements?”
You have no idea how litigation works. The court is a referee and does not search for the facts on its own. Both parties search for and present the facts, and then the court rules on the facts as presented. Each party has rights to discover facts in the possession of the opposite party. [Very broad in the US] If Mann claims libel, Ball is entitled to see his work to justify his criticisms of Mann’s work. Mann is also entitled to documents in possession of Ball.
JD
The hockey stick is a result of “proxy calibration”. A statistically forbidden practice outside of climate science.
I read some where that his refusal to forward the data was to protect his intellectual property rights ?
https://longhairedmusings.wordpress.com/2019/08/29/scepticism-alive-and-well-found-living-in-the-memory-hole-aka-room-101-climatesceptics-dumberanddouma-climategate-10-years-after-rdrake98-cliscep-grubstreetjournal-di2nu/
That it drags on is a great crime against society and liberty.
https://twitter.com/PMotels/status/1167093056996368384
Mann is feeling the heat now that he is forced to pay some money. He has taken on a side job as online climate change course instructor.
https://www.edx.org/course/climate-change-the-science-and-global-impact?utm_medium=partner-marketing&utm_source=social_twitter&utm_campaign=sdgacademyx&utm_content=enroll_in_climate-change-the-science-and-global-impact&fbclid=IwAR3qt4zv-btGH-_qij_m4XZWVnDaiw74nFmHgfZt0hVV-3EDtM6ZJ2aNV8g
Hurry up. Registration will end soon.
Remember that in the same suit the Fronter Center on Public Policy apologized to Mann and retracted Ball’s post.
Hey Nick I see you are still batting for Mann .As I said a few days ago any one that is defending Mike Mann the fraud should tread very carefully .
Every thing you have written will come back to bite you.You might believe that man is making the world warmer
releasing CO2 but what Mann has done is release a lot of hot air and garbage .Why are you going in to bat for him?
Graham
Question
has anyone seen an ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENT wherein Mann is required to produce something
( code, data, whatever)
I have not.
I reserve judgement
Dear Mr. Mosher: you obviously are uninformed on this case. Mann was ordered by the court in October 2016 to file the data supporting his famous “hockey stick” graph of world temperatures (which forms the basis of the ipecac theory) by February 2017. HE refused to comply with that order. Ball had filed a similar graph with the court, with supporting data. Mann’s graph showed 2000 years of slightly declining temperatures then 200 years of rapidly rising temperatures. ball’s graph showed 2200 years of slightly declining temperatures!!! putting into proper context an email mann got earlier from a fellow ipecac researcher commending mann for “hiding the decline”!!! As opposed to the nonsensical explanation Mann gave earlier!!! Now you know the true explanation of that email. I proved the fraudulent nature of ipecac research over 25 years ago by examination of IPCC reports and the resulting decision summaries. Shortly after the February 2017 court hearing, Ball was called to Washington. On his return home, he predicted the USA would pull out of the IPCC Paris Accord, which happened.
The court documents can be found here:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840
There is fee to see them.
James,
Mr. Mosher asked a reasonable question, where are the COURT DOCUMENTS on Dr. Mann being required to produce his data.
I do agree with you that Dr. Mann’s NORTHERN HEMISPHERE Hockey Stick paper is junk science.
Dear Sunsettommy: As i said, he was not informed on the file. Mann was ordered in October 2016 to file the data supporting his fraudulent “hockey stick” graph of world (not North American,. sir) temperatures by February, 2017. I told him facts. he does not need court documents concerning the order. The judge got tired of Mann’s 8 years of delays and threw his case out. Why in %$$%^&&^$ would anyone want to see court documents about the data order??? People get caught up in minutia and miss the forest entirely. I attempted to inform him of the critically important issues. Mann is a fraudster his theory is bunk.
Mann’s research has been replicated over 3 dozen times by different researchers using different methodologies with different data sets.
How many times has your research been replicated? In what journals.
Why don’t you e-mail Tim Ball and ask him? He actually replies.
Also, the ‘alternate perspective’ you posted from quora lies blatantly or by omission.
Look at his takeaways:
1) The BC Court never made any finding that Mann failed to produce any data. – of course they didn’t, that was part of a Tim Ball’s requirement for an adjournment. Which Mann failed to meet by the deadline.
2) Judge found written attack on Michael Mann too ludicrous to be libel – no, he found them to be part of an opinion piece, he also found Mann to be a thin skinned liar who was clearly not actually ‘harmed’ by the statements since he treated them like a badge of honor.
3) Ball requested that the lawsuit be terminated – of course he did, Mann has dragged this out for NINE YEARS.
4) Thus Michael Mann didnt lose the case. – When you sue someone and the court tells YOU to pay all of THEIR fees, that’s called losing.
I could go on, but eh.
My question was directed to JAMES SHUTIAK CA EMBA CMC CFE CPA (retired).
DEAR MIKEY L… WELL SAID SIR!!! He is obviously another IPCC/Mann fraudster. He refuses to accept facts and twists everything around in circles.
and refuses to acknowledge Ball filed his supporting data for his graph which showed no “hockey stick” warming for the lat 200 years. Also, Man never chllegthe ash blebby All!!!
oops! Darn macular and wonky keyboard!! Missed the last sentence. Meant to type Mann never challenged the Ball non-hockey stick graph at all.
Dear MIKEY L: In addition shortly after the February 2017 court hearing, Ball was called to Washington. On his return home, he forecast the USA would pull out of the IPCC Paris Accord, which happened!!! Trump recently appointed Dr. William Happer, a leading climate scientist skeptical of the validity of the IPCC theory to head a sub-committee of the National Security Council to verify the validity of the IPCC research. He will not need the 20+ proofs of IPCC fraudulent research I emailed him to re-confirm the fraudulent IPCC research. I think Happer will reconfirm the fraud before the 2020 election. Democrats will be reconfirmed as fraudsters!!!
Of course if replication means using the same suspect algorithm that produces a “hockey stick” curve regardless of the data, even with with random numbers as data, then yes it has been replicated.
So what? Crapping twice, thrice, or more often, doesn’t make for a non-smelly output.
No wonder he hid it for so many years.
LMAO, so Mann claims that he did not lose, and the court did not reject his science, but fails to mention that is because he could not produce any relevant data to back his claim, or simply refused to have his study scrutinized. That says it all, and yet he still claims a victory for himself in having to pay court costs.
Dear BT: Mann is a typical fraudster. Always lying. Why he has anyone supporting his fraudulent work defies logic.