Guest commentary by David Middleton
Have you noticed the media’s coverage of Dr. Tim Ball’s court victory?
Neither did I.
The great news about Dr. Tim Ball’s court victory over Michael Mann appears to have been ignored by everyone except WUWT and the GWPF. I wonder why? I did find this on ARS Technica:
Have you guys seen this? I wonder if the Ars front page is going to cover this news.
Billy_ca
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/
Really embarrassing for Michael Mann. I wonder how that lawsuit vs. Mark Steyn is going too.
So far, no one has replied to “Billy.” I’m writing this at 8:00 AM, Houston time and it won’t be published until 8:00 PM… So maybe Billy’s question will be answered by then.
However, I did find a couple of interesting Clean Technica articles from back in June.
Defending Mann’s Hockey Stick because #ExxonKnew
Michael Mann Wins A Round In Court, Other Challenges Pending
June 17th, 2019 by Steve Hanley
Michael Mann is the man fossil fuel advocates love to hate. Together with fellow climate scientists Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes, he created the famous “hockey stick” graph in 1999 that predicted a sharp increase in global temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased. That graph became a focal point of Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth.
For his efforts to alert us all to the danger of continuing to spew unlimited quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, Mann has been hounded by operatives acting on behalf of the oil and gas industries. He has been followed and kept under surveillance in hopes that he would commit some personal peccadillo that could be used to undermine his credibility.
[…]
Mann Sues Over 2011 Blog Post
In 2011, the Frontier Centre for Public Policy headquartered in Winnipeg published a statement on its website that accused Mann of fraud. He demanded a retraction and an apology but was rebuffed, so he sued. On June 14, the Frontier Centre apologized to Mann and removed the offending post from its site, according to a report by the National Observer.
I’ve settled my claims in BC Supreme Court against The Frontier Centre for Public Policy Inc. on a basis which includes the following retraction & apology. I have not settled my claims against Tim Ball, who remains a defendant in that lawsuit: https://t.co/3q5YhWoxxQ pic.twitter.com/SMWrD6LxlG
— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) June 7, 2019
A Vicious Attack In The National Review
Mann is still embroiled in a legal tussle in the United States. In 2012, the National Review published a story by Mark Steyn who called Mann “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science.” Mann sued for defamation. In his complaint, he states that Steyn went on to say, “He has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and the planet. Michael Mann was behind the fraudulent climate change hockey stick graph, the very ringmaster of the three-ring circus.”How embarrassing for Steyn that a chart created by Exxon’s own scientists in 1982 mirrors Mann’s hockey stick graph almost exactly! Mann won at the trial court level but the case is now on appeal to a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of appeals and the defendants are asking for a hearing by all the judges of that court. They have been joined by a coterie of interested parties including the Washington Post, NBC Universal, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, all of whom warn that a decision favorable to Mann could put a crimp in a free press.
[…]
Clean Technica
This bizarre bit caught my eye…
How embarrassing for Steyn that a chart created by Exxon’s own scientists in 1982 mirrors Mann’s hockey stick graph almost exactly!
I don’t recall any climate reconstructions in the pack of #ExxonKnew lies. So, naturally, I clicked on the link and quoted the only passage that seemed even tangentially relevant to the bizarre bit.
Confessions Of A Climate Activist: Don’t Blame Yourself, Go After The Criminals Who Sold Out Humanity For Profit
June 12th, 2019 by Steve Hanley
[…]
An investigation by Inside Climate News in 2015 revealed that ExxonMobil new exactly what the result of burning fossil fuels would be way back in 1982. Its scientists even created a graph showing what the result of pumping billions of toms of carbon dioxide would be over time. A version of that chart, with red lines added to show where we are today, was tweeted recently by Bloomberg correspondent Tom Randall.
The original hockey stick chart created in 1998 by climate scientists Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes brought hoots of derision from the industry and led to a well funded campaign — paid for in large part by ExxonMobil — to discredit the scientists who created it.
[…]
Clean Technica
I hope, some day, the oil industry sues people who call us criminals. It’s time to go full-Chevron.
Here are the Tom Randall tweets:
Here’s another from @exxonmobile 1982. It showed how global warming would initially be almost indistinguishable from normal climate fluctuations. But by 2020 there could be no doubt—the old “normal” would be entirely left behind. Welcome to the future 2/ https://t.co/BPRn3ZMigz pic.twitter.com/lYvqLldBdh
— Tom Randall (@tsrandall) May 14, 2019
My first thought was that these cartoons bear no resemblance to the Hockey Stick and my second thought was that they looked very familiar (1, 2).
The first allegedly proprietary Exxon climate model is a cartoon derived from a 1979 National Research Council publication. It starts in 1960. The Hockey Stick starts 960 years earlier. The problem with the Hockey Stick was its erasure of the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age before splicing on the instrumental data . The Exxon cartoon starts about 100 years after the end of the Little Ice Age.
I plotted HadCRUT4 and MLO CO2 on the cartoon at the same scale… The “models” were wrong back then and are not much better now.
The second cartoon was based on papers published by the American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and other publicly available research.
Exxon’s own modeling research confirmed this and the company’s results were later published in at least three peer-reviewed science articles. Two of them were co-authored by Hoffert, and a third was written entirely by Flannery.
Exxon’s modeling experts also explained away the less-dire predictions of a 1979 study led by Reginald Newell, a prominent atmospheric scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Newell’s model projected that the effects of climate change would not be as severe as most scientists were predicting.
Specifically, Newell and a co-author from the Air Force named Thomas Dopplick challenged the prevailing view that a doubling of the earth’s CO2 blanket would raise temperatures about 3°C (5°F)– a measure known as climate sensitivity. Instead, they said the earth’s true climate sensitivity was roughly less than 1°C (2°F).
Inside Climate News
I have yet to find any actual Exxon models… Much less any that confirmed a “Global Warming Consensus” or “Climate ‘Catastrophe’”. What I have found are reports which cite other people’s models and quite a few “cartoons” derived from those reports.
I plotted HadCRUT4 on the second cartoon at the same scale. I anchored it on the range from -1 °C (K) to +1 °C (K). The cartoon is not exactly to scale and is off a bit at -2 °C (K). It clearly demonstrates that, apart from the recent El Niño, HadCRUT4 is within the “range of natural fluctuations (climatic noise).
Who is Steve Hanley? What sort of scientific qualifications would lead him to think that “a chart created by Exxon’s own scientists in 1982 mirrors Mann’s hockey stick graph almost exactly“?
About Steve Hanley
Clean Technica
Steve Hanley Steve writes about the interface between technology and sustainability from his home in Rhode Island and anywhere else the Singularity may lead him. His motto is, “Life is not measured by how many breaths we take but by the number of moments that take our breath away!” You can follow him on Google + and on Twitter.
Website: http://rhodetrips@wordpress.com
According to LinkedIn, he has A.B. degrees in English and sociology from Dartmouth and a J.D. from Boston University.
I am the site director for EcoWorldly.com, a global website specializing in ecotourism and sustainable travel/ I am also a contributing writer for Gas 2.0, Green Building Elements, EcoLocalizer and Sustainablog. My focus is on sustainable living and weaning society from its addiction to fossil fuels.
Steve Hanley, LinkedIn
Wean this, Bucko!
What sort of qualifications would lead me to question Mr. Hanley’s assertion? A B.S. in Earth Science (geology concentration, math minor), 38 years of experience as a geophysicist/geologist in the oil & gas industry and the ability to differentiate 1960 from 960. MAGA!
“The great news about Dr. Tim Ball’s court victory over Michael Mann appears to have been ignored by everyone except WUWT and the GWPF. I wonder why?”
In fact the case seems to have fizzled out for lack of interest all around. But a good reason for non-coverage by all but those entities could well be just the total lack of information available. We have no court order or finding, and only the very vaguest information from Tim Ball.
Stokes
Isn’t it the job of journalists to try to obtain information? As in “Investigative Journalism?
“
We have no court order or finding . . .
We have the order. I paid the 6 CAD to get it:
Terms of Order:
1. Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
2. Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed
This much is already confirmed in the “statements” we’ve seen from both parties.
Mann’s case is dismissed due to his profligate propensity for procedural prorogueity. He behaved as a shameful, ne’er-do-well slacker in getting on with court business. Thus Mann pays Dr. Ball’s court costs for wasting Dr. Ball’s (and everyone else’s) precious time.
I queried one “in the know” regarding just exactly what’s meant by “court costs”:
“Since the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed, presumably the Defendant had court costs, deposition costs, motion fees to defend the lawsuit. Those costs would be taxed against the Plaintiff when the Defendant makes a motion to do so. It does not include atty fees. I used to do those motions all the time in medical malpractice cases when we got a defense verdict. It seems cruel but sometimes Plaintiffs file frivolous lawsuits and we want to discourage that.”
Will the ruling discourage an iniquitous villain like Mann the Miscreant from lodging his threatened appeal? Who can know? A sense of shame would seem to be required.
Sycomputing,
The Courts of British Columbia site allows a search of Court of Appeal,Supreme Court and other Court Judgements.
Can you give us the British Columbia Supreme Court (or Provincial Court) Neutral Citation ( e.g. BCSC 2019 101),Case Name and Judgement Date?
Is your court order an interim order or final dismissal of the action?
This should address Nick Stokes’ point.
Herbert:
Mr. Stoke’s “point” has been adequately addressed. See for yourself:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/searchPartyResult.do?serviceId=55954860
I used Dr. Ball’s first and last name to search. That should bring Mann’s case up first in the results.
From there, however, the Canadian court is extremely jealous of it’s information. To view you must pay. Note further, if you do pay, you get the information once and only once. After your browser is closed, so are you. Note even farther than the further before it, if you want documents related to the case, you have to pay additionally for each one of those!
I stopped at 6 CAD myself, since this was enough to confirm both parties independent “statements” about the ruling.
Is your court order an interim order or final dismissal of the action?
This is what I was able to view regarding the status of the case for 6 CAD:
Terms of Order:
1. Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
2. Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed
The order is final. This is externally evidenced by the Melodramatic Miscreant himself. He wouldn’t be squeaking all over his front side about an appeal were it not.
Sycomputing,
Thanks.
I did not realise that British Columbia was so parsimonious with its Court data.
In other Commonwealth jurisdictions such as Britain and Australia the judgements and orders are freely available.
It does seem to be curtains for 6CAD.
It will be interesting to see what press release if any comes from Mann.
American Thinker now has an item on the outcome.
Herbert:
Most welcome.
I did not realise that British Columbia was so parsimonious with its Court data.
Indeed. We two (that is, BC and I) wrestled twice to see who would take the other’s lucre. I lost both times. Bah.
American Thinker now has an item on the outcome.
Thank you for that update:
“Not only did the court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.”
Hmm, something seems amiss. Dr. Ball originally reported to Mr. Watts that only “[court] costs” were awarded. I guess we’ll have a clarification soon enough. I, for many I suspect, hope he receives full recompense from the Malevolent Miscreant.
Was the person “in the know” a USA lawyer or a Canadian lawyer. What he says is true in US but I believe Canadian courts apply the English rule that losers pays winners attorneys fees. A Canadian lawyer from Ontario posted on this thread that it would be rare for the winner not to be awarded attorney fees. That is consistent with a bit of quick research I have done.
Was the person “in the know” a USA lawyer or a Canadian lawyer.
Paul see here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/23/media-reaction-to-tim-balls-court-victory/#comment-2779356
I’m sure a clarification regarding who pays what will be forthcoming in the coming days.
Wow, this spin is actually professional grade.
BTW, court cases don’t fizzle out, unlike your reputation. Court cases are either won, lost, or abandoned. In this instance the case was thrown out, which translates to a loss for Mann.
Mr. Stokes,
Dr. Mann himself acknowledges the BENCH ruling and plants to appeal.
Right now the case is in dismissal stage.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/threads/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay.774325/#post-22980951
“… and plants to appeal.”
I thought the vegan stuff was in Monckton’s “Now They’re coming after the Roast Beef of Old England”?
The King of Typos apologizes for pointing that out. 😎
(If it wasn’t for “spell-check, I’d be the Emperor! https://www.cartoonstock.com/directory/s/spell_check.asp )
“Dr. Mann himself acknowledges the BENCH ruling and plants to appeal. ”
He said he didn’t loose, but he plans to appeal. He’s really awesome. I mean the chutzpah.
Nick has a wealth of knowledge to bring to the table but squanders his credibility by repeatedly making a fool of himself by taking absurd partisan positions on issues like this. He claims that accusations that he is a paid troll are false. If we are to take him at his word, then we must conclude that he makes a fool of himself due to natural causes.
Gonna sue me Nick?
“Nick has a wealth of knowledge to bring to the table but squanders his credibility by repeatedly making a fool of himself by taking absurd partisan positions on issues like this.”
I agree completely. I used to enjoy reading Nick’s well thought out and factual comments. He tended to keep the discussion honest, not turning into a one-sided echo chamber. There were a few times he made ridiculous statements (having 60+ invalid models somehow will get to the truth so we don’t need to have one correct model) but generally he made excellent contributions. Lately his comments have taken a Mosher turn and sometimes I wonder if it’s someone else using Nick’s name who is really making these comments.
As one who has observed nick many years, especially at climate audit, I can say his recent behavior is as usual. He is absolutely in for the cause.
I agree with both of you, and it is a shame that Mosher kicks so many own-goals here on WUWT.
davidmhoffer, I still don’t believe he is paid to do it. The talent and drive appear natural.
If people are being paid to argue semantics in comments on websites, the outlook for millennials living in their parents’ basements are not so bleak.
Nick has a wealth of knowledge to bring to the table but squanders his credibility by repeatedly making a fool of himself by taking absurd partisan positions on issues like this.
David, I agree. Not only a waste, but a deliberate obstructionist. Not at the level of the vile apparatchik David Appell tho — Stokes at least isn’t vile & does have math ability.
The self fooling of Mr Stokes always amuses me.
So willing to create a fictional reality because we know that if Mann won, we know it would have been published.
Nick, not only are you a liar, you are a fiction writer
Nick – idle question: have you ever not just reflexively leapt to find excuses for every Global warming fail? You’d be a lot more credible if you actually accepted the facts occasionally.
Thank you once again, Mr. Middleton! Brilliant as ever!
EXXON Knew? They made even worse predictions than most of the IPCC ass clowns. When some one quotes “experts” always ask to see their predictive skills.
“… Mann has been hounded by operatives acting on behalf of the oil and gas industries. He has been followed and kept under surveillance in hopes that he would commit some personal peccadillo that could be used to undermine his credibility.”
I wonder how Hanley came by this information? Perhaps it came to him in a dream.
I wondered about that, too. How would he know those thngs?
Once you decide that it’s ok to make up facts, why stop with climate change?
So Steve Hanley doesn’t know what he is talking about when it comes to Hockey Sticks and Exxon. We get a lot of this kind of distortion of reality from the alarmists. Just about 100 percent of the time.
David,
What strikes me about your Figure 9 is that the range of natural fluctuations (≈±0.5°C) is only for relatively recent changes in temperature, and doesn’t capture the full range for the Holocene. The implication is that the post-Little Ice Age climate is the normal for the Holocene. The other thing is that if the “Expected range of fluctuations …” was correct, then the HadCRUT4 temperature trace should be near the center of the envelope, not on the far, right-hand side. This alone would seem to invalidate the prediction, with poor skill demonstrated. So, how can Exxon be held culpable if predictions attributed to them are unreliable?
They weren’t Exxon’s predictions. The drawings were based on what was in the published literature at the time.
I think this point needs to be repeated, often. The enemies of Exxon are often caught attributing to Exxon “secret information” which they actually obtained from published articles. How that constitutes a conspiracy against humanity I don’t know.
The nonsense about a well funded campaign to discredit MB and H personally is laughable. Isn’t it true that Bradley distances himself from M these days? The paper MBH98 is enough to discredit the authors with any help from Exxon.
However that is not “how it works”. Authors are not discredited, published works are. In the case of MBH98 the core flaws were pointed out by McIntyre and MacKitrick in 2003. Neither is an “oil person” nor funded by “big oil”. To date Mann has not provided all the data, codes and methods used to create the hockey stick. The paper should be withdrawn, along with the hubris about a high climate sensitivity.
So Exxon was doing what the IPCC claims they’re doing, only Exxon did it honestly, and considered all available data, without excluding anything and everything that failed to support their predetermined conclusion.
Nick, you decided on a curious word choice in your post. To wit, which “case” fizzled out? Do you mean the story/media coverage of the legal battle or the legal case? The legal case didn’t fizzle, it came to a conclusion, we have been informed. I too await some corroboration or confirmation. But the news story didn’t fizzle out. It has been snuffed out/smothered by a media establishment that didn’t like the outcome. Or do you really think and expect the rest of us to believe that the media wouldn’t have trumpeted it far and wide if Mann had prevailed and Tim ball had lost badly?
Come on, get real.
He wears his confirmation bias on his sleeve.
“Do you mean the story/media coverage of the legal battle or the legal case?”
Well, both. It happens. Here is a report of the start of a case where Tim Ball as plaintiff was suing Prof Johnson and others over some aspersion he perceived relative to his qualifications. That case fizzled out; Dr Ball says he ran out of money. I don’t think the termination was ever reported.
What a hunk o’crap. How did anyone come up with the “Range of Natural Fluctuations”? We’ve been warming up out of the Little Ice Age since the middle 1800s. It seems to me that the range of natural fluctuations should have a non-zero positive slope.
It was just based on what was in the published literature at the time.
From Hanley’s article, “ExxonMobil lied, then spent billions of dollars to cover up its lie. Because of that lie, the world is in grave danger.”
Would would Hanley and his ilk have had Exxon do? As unlikely as it is for a publicly traded company to ignore the profits implicitly promised to share holders, what if Exxon management had said, “Gee, if we keep supplying fossil fuels to those who want it, we will be contributing to putting the world in grave danger! Therefore, we will dissolve the corporation and distribute the liquid assets to the share holders.” Now, the shock to the world economy would have put the world in grave danger! Suddenly stopping the energy supply would have brought everything to a standstill. Even an attempt to ease off gradually would have been catastrophic because the technology did not exist at the time to even install the undependable, intermittent PV and rare earth-dependent turbine magnets. Thus, it would have taken years to provide an energy infrastructure that would have been less efficient than the current inefficient systems. In 1982 we might have gone on a crash program to build nuclear reactors, but that would not have been well-received by environmentalists!
Those who want to punish Exxon and coal companies for providing something that society needed and demanded, seem to be seriously logic impaired.
Someone at the National Post in Toronto should comment on the case.
That with the associated Financial Post have covered the warming promotion honestly.
There is no reason to doubt Tim Ball’s communications with Anthony Watts. If it wasn’t true, Michael Mann would have already had 15 minutes of airtime on CNN to talk about evil, death-wishing denialists funded by billions of dollars of sin-cash from the fossil fuel industry, out to destroy little-ole Mikey. The silence from that side confirms the truth of Tim Ball’s announcement.
I am constantly reminded by they left that they live in a post-rational world. It’s not that they have no ability to be rational, it’s that they don’t find any value in it. #ExxonKnew and Mann’s libel suit against Tim Ball were all about building narratives, not about convincing a judge with facts, figures and a reasonable argument. It is not about winning the lawsuit. Its about filing the lawsuit, making it last forever and always working with a willing media to build the narrative. Oh, and vindictively punishing the defendants.
We skeptics have been winning the logical/scientific arguments for 20 years, but the world is now full of 20 year olds who totally believe in the coming climate catastrophe. We are like chess masters going up against kickboxers. We know we are smarter, but the rest of the world sees us getting our a$$es kicked! Only the Deus ex machina of global cooling can save us now. We just need to stay in the ring long enough for that to happen.
To James Clark,
“We skeptics have been winning the logical/scientific arguments for 20 years, but the world is now full of 20 year olds who totally believe in the coming climate catastrophe. We are like chess masters going up against kickboxers. We know we are smarter, but the rest of the world sees us getting our a$$es kicked! Only the Deus ex machina of global cooling can save us now. We just need to stay in the ring long enough for that to happen.”
I agree. That or a Martin Luther or some prominent scientists to publicly say the Co2 theory was wrong.
It would be great if Mr Mann had a religious conversion and said “Ok, I made it all up, now here are the real figures” 🙂
“Only the Deus ex machina of global cooling can save us now”
“or some prominent scientists to publicly say the Co2 theory was wrong.”
This is an where an honest player comes in and corrects the misapprehension. But no, he’s just going to let that “horst schist” slide. Tacit assent, no better than direct disinformation.
He will however dedicate pages and graphs and all manner of crap to dispute who he considers alarmists.
Double standards much David?
Loydo…what are you calling “horst schist”? That’s what I call the alarmist argument. Here’s why:
1. There remains no scientific/data driven evidence that CO2 is the primary driver of global climate temperatures, which is a requirement for the prospects of a climate catastrophe. There is very little evidence that it is even ‘significant’, beyond 1 degree of beneficial warming from a doubling of CO2.
2. All climate models with that assumption are way too warm, even as the surface temperature data has been grossly manipulated…I mean ‘homogenized’ to try and make it closer to the models.
3. Almost nothing the theory predicts has come to past. There is no mid-tropospheric tropical hot-spot. Severe weather is not increasing.
4. Scientists supporting the theory are denying significant natural climate variability, despite the tremendous amount of data that supports significant natural climate variability. They are in the awkward position of arguing that natural climate variability existed before WWII, then inextricably ‘disappear it’ when calculating the human influence.
5. Scientists supporting the theory seem incapable of talking about the obvious benefits from increasing CO2 and modest warming, which are much more scientifically apparent than the hypothetically bad things that might happen in the future. This is a behaviour found among political activists, not scientists.
6. Most importantly, those promoting the climate crisis behave exactly the same way as scammers have always behaved. They do not engage in rational/scientific debate, but demonize their opponents with personal attacks. They often hide their evidence! They make proclamations instead of presenting evidence, and if they do present evidence, it is cherry-picked or manipulated evidence. They do not answer questions, but attack the asker. They build authority figures and then appeal to those authorities instead of arguing the evidence. They proclaim the debate is over, which is antiscience. Their arguments are primarily emotionally driven and unusually fact-free! Normal severe weather events are ALWAYS depicted as abnormal and evidence of human tampering. They demand allegiance and threaten those who do not comply. I am sure I could go on, but the above behaviours are more than enough to clearly identify climate alarmists as scam artists.
Okay, Loydo. It is your turn. What do you see as the “horst schist” coming from those of us who believe that man-made climate change is not a crisis, has significant benefits and has drawbacks that are far more efficiently tackled with innovation, adaptation and localized actions?
(Hint: If you attack me personally or appeal to some authority, you will be making my point. Good luck!)
James, those are your opinions. Here are David Middleton’s posted several days ago:
“News flash: The greenhouse effect is real. CO2 and CH4 are greenhouse gases. At least half of the rise in atmospheric CO2 and CH4 over the past 150 years is due to the combustion of fossil fuels. All other factors held equal, an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases will elevate the average temperature of the bulk atmosphere. There is absolutely no scientific debate about this… Not from Judith Curry, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen or WUWT…”
“…the misguided idea that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist…”
“The scientific debate revolves around climate sensitivity to GHG’s…”
So see if you can lure him or Judith or John or Roy or Richard or Anthony down your opinion rabbit hole.
Instead I’d be happy to discuss climate sensitivity which the research shows is around 3C…
https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo3017
and could even be a lot higher.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL083574
(Hint: If you attack me personally or appeal to some authority, you will be making my point. Good luck!)
Well, you called that one did you not Mr. Clarke?
I have always found the “Exxon knew” meme to be strange and false on its face. How in the world would “Exxon know”, when thousands of scientists in fields related to climate, to include those at NASA, NOAA, the IPCC with their repeatedly failed models, still don’t understand the climate nor are they able to make accurate predictions? It never made sense that Exxon would know something, somehow, that science still hasn’t figured out.
If it were true, which it isn’t, why bother spending all that time and money to find out what Exxon knew? Just get Exxon’s scientists to tell the IPCC what they “knew”.
The hubris of the AGW/CC crowd and their willingness to tell whoppers never ceases to amaze me.
Exxon knew what was being published by AGU, AMS and an alphabet soup of government agencies. The publications offered conflicting conclusions. Exxon didn’t know anything about climate change that government and academia didn’t already know.
That says it all, right there.
Exxon wasn’t privy to any information about the Earth’s climate that wasn’t also available to every person on Earth who could read.
These @$$hats conflate this with sequence stratigraphy (sea level cycles) and the elevation of subsiding offshore platforms into the #ExxonKnew horst schist.
Well, Mann’s tweet confirms the judge has thrown out the case that he brought to court. Hopefully that will provide Nick with the proof he requires of where the case stands. It’s a shames he does not accept Tim Ball’s prior confirmation the case was thrown out.
Mann and his team of lawyers ( do all in academia have teams of lawyers?) will decide over the next 30 days if they will appeal the judges decision to throw out the case.
That effectively means nothing will happen for the next 29 days, we await developments.
“Hopefully that will provide Nick with the proof he requires of where the case stands. “
I don’t dispute the judge has dismissed the case. The question is whether the dismissal was procedural or whether it was a determination in favor of Dr Ball on the merits of his case, which many here like to think. And there is the related issue of whether Mann is required to pay Ball’s legal costs, or just administrative court costs.
Nick writes
They were, pretty much by definition. If there was any remaining question as to the merits of Mann’s case, it wouldn’t have been dismissed.
No, it seems they hadn’t finished gathering evidence. But the main thing is, we don’t know.
At the time the decision was made…we do know.
They hadn’t finished gathering evidence??? Well “they” have been at it for nine years!
What time were “they” expecting to take?
What is it you don’t know after nine years of careful investigation and looking, other than what you are looking for, is not there?
No, it seems they hadn’t finished gathering evidence.
I think you mean the liar Mann hadn’t finished “providing” evidence for his claim don’t you?
Because after 9 long years he needed just a bit longer to find some, right?
“Just a little bit longer, good sir Adjudicator? Won’t you allow me just a few more short years to produce even less evidence of what I’ve already not given you that Ball didn’t say????”
That is why it was dismissed because Mann would not honor discovery. Maybe Steyn can force him into discovery.
After 8 years of the lawsuit HE filed, he still needs time to “gathering evidence”, sorry Nick but that is STOOOOPID.
I think the Judge realized that this lawsuit is dead, especially when Dr. Mann himself had stopped the trial from happening back in February 2017, was that for more time to gather evidence?
He hasn’t done crap since then, which is 2 1/2 year running. What is he waiting for, Dr. Ball was sitting there waiting for the trial to start……………., but gee Dr. Mann doesn’t push for a new one.
Let’s understand this, Mann files a lawsuit claiming defamation.
Nick is curious; Is the dismissal procedural?
Or did Dr Ball win based upon the merits of his case?
Notice what is missing? Nick is not curious if Mann won the suit?
Nick’s curiosity about the merits of Mann’s case? Crickets!
Nick’s curiosity regarding the lawsuit is at a standstill? Crickets!
Nick is only curious whether the judge got so fed up with Mann’s failures to respond to discovery requests that the judge throws the lawsuit out?
Or.
Did Dr. Ball win by sheer proof? A notoriously impossible achievement, when the court case is not allowed to proceed due to one party’s inaction.
Making, Nick’s alleged curiosity just more false strawmen ∞ claims.
“Nick’s curiosity about the merits of Mann’s case? Crickets!”
In fact the argument isn’t of great interest. Tim Ball says that Mike Mann belongs in the state pen. Is that libel under Canadian law? I’m a little curious, but nothing much hangs on that specific issue.
WHAT!!
According to Mann the fate of “the world” is balanced on a Hockey Stick and it isn’t of great interest????
(Have you been smoking a certain carbon-based plant?)
Mann could have produced, should have been able to produce, evidence in the “discovery phase” of both Ball’s and Styne’s cases.
He has not.
Why not?
PS Why all the legal actions to hide his emails?
“is balanced on a Hockey Stick and it isn’t of great interest”
The issue had nothing to do with the Hockey Stick. It was a plain case of libel. Is it defamatory to say that Mann belongs in the state pen? Did the defendant say it? Did Mann suffer damage?
I think your defending of Mann says every thing about you Nick .
You are defending a shyster .
You know the old saying
Birds of a feather flock together .
Just a bit of advice Nick .
Silence is golden .
Gosh Nick, your idiotic defense of a man who STOPPED the trial back in February 2017 and does nothing for 2 1/2 years after that, which compelled Dr. Ball to request a dismissal which was granted by a JUDGE (who knows this case far more than YOU do) straight from the BENCH (which means it was an easy/obvious decision to make) thus it is over, and the appeal possibility will never happen, because Mann was the one who foot drags the case for years.
It is obvious he hasn’t been defamed since he is still getting large grants, employed by the university and able to publish papers in journals, publish a dishonest book attacking a lot of people and getting a lot of money for it. He is a much wealthier man than he was in 2011.
No, Mann destroyed his case over time…….
I want to remind you: the Lawsuit was about insulting. It was not about whether M.Mann made scientific scams or whether he belongs to the state penn. The corresponding case of Mark Steyn could therefore have a completely different result.
A reply had been posted on Ars Technica as of a few minutes ago. Here is what is on that board now:
*************************************************
Billy_ca
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Registered: Aug 13, 2002
Posts: 1242
Reply with quotePosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 12:21 am
Have you guys seen this? I wonder if the Ars front page is going to cover this news.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/
Really embarrassing for Michael Mann. I wonder how that lawsuit vs. Mark Steyn is going too.
**********************************************************
JimboPalmer
Ars Tribunus Angusticlavius
Tribus: Greenwood MS USA
Registered: Jun 22, 2003
Posts: 8920
Reply with quotePosted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 8:39 am
I fail to see this as science or technology. Are you sure you read the Observatory Guidelines?
The Soap Box has most legal news.
*****************************************************************
I find it absurd that people who claim to be technologically advanced planet saviors are so dumb when it comes to solutions (wind, solar, no hydro, no nuclear, the last two being the only significant practical low carbon power generators) . Even the Russians, who these climate warriers accuse of bad carbon emission policies, are way ahead of the U.S. climate warriers in reductions of said emissions, thru ambitious nuclear build programs around the world, including the oil rich Middle East. And the future of energy production is apparently only understood by Russia, India and China, and some parts of the UK and Canada and the U.S>. It is small modular reactors fueled by uranium and/or Thorium. These reactors are superior to wind/solar in every conceivable regard – economics, safety, ographical footprint, controllability, lack of any need for fossil fuel backup, speed of construction per MW of capacity, and on andon. Yet these climate warriers lump all nuclear technology in the same boat (often mentioning Chernobyl) , demonstrating just how clueless and ignorant they are. Anyone who cannot rattle off the enormous differences between convention light water nulear technology and that of the molten salt nuclear reactor designs cannot be quoted on anything having to do with nuclear. Climate warriers have vastly exaggerated not only the fatalities arising from Chernobyl, but have falsely claimed a strong similarity between Chernobyl’s design and Western nuclear designs. Never any mention of the unequalled safety record of 60 years of nuclear power generation in the U.S. The world will embrace molten salt technology regardless of how backwards the climate warriers force U.S. power technology. Other countries are leading the world in future power technologies, although recently the U.S. Feds have FINALLY thrown a couple of paltry millions to molten salt developers. While billion are sunk into stupid solar and even dumber wind power.
The Gray Ghost?
Thank you David Middleton for sorting this #ExxonKnew nonsense. The radical greens routinely fabricate falsehoods and few people have the skills or tenacity to disprove them, as you have capably done here.
The history of Exxon in this matter, to my knowledge, is as follows:
Lee Raymond was the chief executive officer (CEO) and chairman of ExxonMobil from 1999 to 2005. He received his PhD in Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota. Lee was very intelligent, but had no patience with nonsense, and had a reputation for brutal public put-downs when he was exposed to foolishness at work. He sponsored some climate scientists who spoke the truth and opposed radical green climate extremism. I regard that opposition to climate falsehoods as honest and beneficial, both to humanity and the environment.
Rex Tillerson was elected chair and chief executive of Exxon in 2006, and retired from Exxon on January 1, 2017. Tillerson publicly was a much more affable individual, probably elected by the Board to give Exxon a more friendly public image. Tillerson, perhaps at the instruction of the Board, capitulated to the prevailing global warming/climate change nonsense and thus tried to improve Exxon ‘s public image. This was a huge strategic error – you cannot improve your position by getting into bed with vermin. By capitulating, all you do is lose your moral high ground, and stoop closer to the level of your enemies.
Rand Simberg called Michael Mann the Jerry Sandusky of climate science. It’s not right to compare an unjustly persecuted man to someone who is truly reprehensible. Rand Simberg owes Jerry Sandusky an apology!
Yes I did write that! There is a growing number of journalists, authors, podcasters, … etc., who’ve looked closer into this case and believe Jerry Sandusky is innocent. It’s mostly based on the work of John Ziegler, who derailed his own career over this toxic case. You can find more than you’ll ever want to know at his site:
http://www.framingpaterno.com/
Moderator, I know you most likely won’t let this comment through, but please give it some consideration. This really is an important case of mass hysteria, moral panic, horrendously bad media reporting and Penn State University (associated with lots of prominent climate scientists) — all things that should be of interest to people involved in the climate debate. It really is an amazing and interesting story.
Five globalists own the entire media, so everything that exposes this monster fraud will be ignored until another globalist puppet is installed in the WH. Until then it matters what the public knows, after that it won’t.
Are globalists and their complaisant politicians in effect acting the part of modern-day corporate slave masters?? They seem to LUV cheap labor but do not need to import it. Most of the labor can stay out of site and the fruits of that labor can then be delivered to your doorstep via Amazon among others. To be totally fair, we as consumers LUV cheap stuff and fail to see the interconnection between cheap stuff and violated human rights of the out-of-site workers.
Back in that period Exxon, and other companies had bigger challenges, legal and otherwise. In Louisiana the state (different agencies) leased the same water bodies in many forms both for drilling and oyster culture. I was around a number (at least a dozen or so including surveyors and the like) of major and minor Louisiana petroleum companies and universities back then, but not Exxon with one exception. I never heard a peep about climate, except for the difficulties with the weather and topography (if you can call it that there) flying helicopters, float planes and operations which were spreading farther offshore. They are now faced with an expansion of having everything coastal, real and imagined, blamed on them, too often aided by “experts.” There is a big story there, mostly unwritten far as I know, a lot locked up in settled lawsuits.
What’s so hard about producing the data to support your claims ? Isn’t that what the scientific method is all about ?
If the study has merit then fine move on to retesting until there is no doubt it is correct .
If not admit your reservations and risks .
Given the events I suspect that the whole thing brought a lot of attention and cash
so a defensive strategy was employed to keep the thing going . Climate Gate showed how far a small clique of modelers were prepared to go .
The IPCC / NASA recent admission about the challenges of modelling cloud cover at least showed some humility .