Michael E Mann, Loser

From Steyn Online

Mark Steyn eloquently evicerates Mann’s blathering online about not really losing to Tim Ball.

For a start, although Mann always presents himself as the victim, it is important to remember that, in this case as in mine, he is the plaintiff: He chose to sue – and without that conscious choice there would be no legal action. So, when Mann says there was no “finding that Ball’s allegations were correct”, Ball did not allege anything: That is a legal term and the only allegations before the Court were Mann’s, in his statement of claim against Ball. Those Mann allegations have been dismissed with prejudice – so, in layman’s terms, Mann lost and Ball won.

and

Which is to say it’s over and Mann lost. Whatever the floundering Fraudpants regards in the fevers of his brain as “the real issues”, this judgment is binding on them as it is on all other aspects of his complaint: The Court has found that Mann’s inexcusable behavior prejudiced the defendant, and therefore the case is dismissed. As a point of law, that is a dismissal on the merits: Whatever his “real issues” with Ball, they’re over and done, forever. Tim Ball can declare that Mann belongs in the state pen every day of the week for the next thirty years – because that vital legal question has been adjudicated, and Mann blew it. I’m not surprised none of his lawyers, Canadian or American, want to put their names to Mann’s tosspottery above – because you’d get disbarred if you argued as insanely as this before a judge.

And of course ties it up with his own case against Mann

But, of course, under the American perversion of Common Law, inordinate delay is standard operating procedure. In Mann vs Steyn, the slow-motion plaintiff is now drawling lethargically that, alas, he will be Down Under on “sabbatical” for the next six months so cannot be deposed until he returns sometime in 2020… or 2021… Personally I don’t see why he can’t be deposed in Oz, either by some top-notch Queensland or Victoria silk or indeed, if I happen to be in town, by my good self. But we will see how the DC court rules on that.

To reprise my old line, the process is the punishment: in America fraudulent plaintiffs routinely launch suits that, as with Mann in British Columbia, they have no intention of ever bringing to court, preferring merely to slow-bleed you into settling – as, to their great shame, Ball’s wanker co-defendants the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, did. (It is depressing how useless so many institutions of the right prove when push comes to shove.)

Despite a decade-long onslaught, and to his lasting credit, Tim Ball stood firm – and won. I can do no less.

The full article is here.

HT/John T


Update (EW) – The court judgment makes interesting reading (h/t Dr. Willie Soon)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation:
Mann v. Ball,
 
2019 BCSC 1580
Date: 20190822
Docket: S111913
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Michael Mann
Plaintiff
And:
Timothy (“Tim”) Ball
Defendants
Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Giaschi
Oral Reasons for Judgment
In Chambers
Counsel for the Plaintiff:
R. McConchie
Counsel for the Defendant, Timothy (“Tim”) Ball:
M. Scherr
D. Juteau
Place and Date of Hearing: 
Vancouver, B.C.
May 27 and August 22, 2019
Place and Date of Judgment:
Vancouver, B.C.
August 22, 2019

 
[1]             THE COURT:  I will render my reasons on the application to dismiss. I reserve the right to amend these reasons for clarity and grammar, but the result will not change.
[2]             The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay. 
[3]             The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years.
[4]             The underlying action concerns, first, a statement made by the defendant in an interview conducted on February 9, 2011. He said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” This statement was published on a website and is alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The notice of civil claim also alleges multiple other statements published by Mr. Ball are defamatory. It is not necessary that I address the many alleged defamatory statements.
[5]             0690860 Manitoba Ltd. v. Country West Construction, 2009 BCCA 535, at paras. 27-28, sets out the four elements that need to be considered on a motion to dismiss. They are:
a)    Has there been inordinate delay in the prosecution of the matter?;
b)    If there has been inordinate delay, is it excusable in the circumstances?;
c)     Has the delay caused serious prejudice and, if so, does it create a substantial risk that a fair trial is not possible?; and
d)    Whether, on balance, justice requires that the action be dismissed.
[6]             I turn first to whether there has been inordinate delay. Some key dates in the litigation are:
a)    March 25, 2011, the action was commenced;
b)    July 7, 2011, the notice of civil claim was amended;
c)     June 5, 2012, the notice of civil claim was further amended;
d)    From approximately June of 2013 until November of 2014, there were no steps taken in the action;
e)    November 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of intention to proceed;
f)      February 20, 2017, the matter was initially supposed to go to trial, but that trial date was adjourned;
g)    July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr. Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed;
h)    April 10, 2019, a second notice of intention to proceed was filed; and
i)       August 9, 2019, after the first day of the hearing of this application, a new trial date was set for January 11, 2021.
[7]             There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the matter ahead. The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.
[8]             I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all. 
[9]             Counsel for Dr. Mann submits that the delay was due to his being busy on other matters, but the affidavit evidence falls far short of establishing this. The affidavit of Jocelyn Molnar, filed April 10, 2019, simply addresses what matters plaintiff’s counsel was involved in at various times. The affidavit does not connect those other matters to the delay here. It does not explain the lengthy delay in 2013 and 2014 and does not adequately explain the delay from July 2017. The evidence falls far short of establishing an excuse for the delay. 
[10]         Even if I was satisfied that the evidence established the delay was solely due to plaintiff’s counsel being busy with other matters, which I am not, I do not agree that this would be an adequate excuse. Counsel for the plaintiff was unable to provide any authority establishing that counsel’s busy schedule is a valid excuse for delay. In contrast, the defendant refers me to Hughes v. Simpson‑Sears, [1988] 52 D.L.R. (4th) 553, where Justice Twaddle, writing on behalf of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, stated at p. 13 that:
…Freedman, J.A. said that the overriding principle in cases of this kind is “essential justice”. There is no doubt that that is so, but it must mean justice to both parties, not just to one of them.
In Law Society of Manitoba v. Eadie (judgment delivered on June 27, 1988), I stated my preference for a one-step application of the fundamental principle on which motions of this kind should be decided. The fundamental principle is that a plaintiff should not be deprived of his right to have his case decided on its merits unless he is responsible for undue delay which has prejudiced the other party. A plaintiff is responsible for delays occasioned by his solicitors.
 I have already dealt with the consequence of the solicitors’ conduct being negligent. Once it is established that the delay is unreasonable having regard to the subject matter of the action, the complexity of the issues, and the explanation for it, the other matter to be considered is the prejudice to the defendant. It is in the task of balancing the plaintiff’s right to proceed with the defendant’s right not to be prejudiced by unreasonable delay that justice must be done.
[Emphasis added]
[11]         Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff, rather than give this matter any priority. The plaintiff appears to have been content to simply let this matter languish. 
[12]         Accordingly, I find that the delay is inexcusable.
[13]         With respect to prejudice, such prejudice is presumed unless the prejudice is rebutted. Indeed, the presumption of prejudice is given even more weight in defamation cases: Samson v. Scaletta, 2016 BCSC 2598, at paras 40-43. The plaintiff has not filed any evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice. 
[14]         Moreover, the defendant has led actual evidence of actual prejudice. The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted, I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay.
[15]         Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding that, on balance, justice requires the action be dismissed. The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.
[16]         I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.
[17]         Before concluding, I wish to note that the materials that have been filed on this application are grossly excessive in relation to the matters in issue. There are four large binders of materials filed by the plaintiff on the application to dismiss, plus one additional binder from the defendant. The binders contain multiple serial affidavits, many of which are replete with completely irrelevant evidence. In my view, this application could have been done and should have been done with one or two affidavits outlining the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice.
[18]         Those are my reasons, counsel. Costs?
[19]         MR. SCHERR:  I would, of course, ask for costs for the defendant, given the dismissal of the action.
[20]         MR. MCCONCHIE:  Costs follow the event. I have no quarrel with that.
[21]         THE COURT:  All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.
[22]         The outstanding application, I gather there is no reason to proceed with it now.
[23]         MR. MCCONCHIE:  It is academic, in light of –
[24]         THE COURT:  It is academic.
[25]         MR. MCCONCHIE:  – Your Lordship’s ruling today.
[26]         THE COURT:  Right. Thank you, gentlemen. Anything else?
[27]         MR. SCHERR:  No, Your Honour.
[28]         THE COURT:  All right.
[29]         MR. SCHERR:  No, My Lord.
[30]         THE COURT:  Then, we are concluded and you shall have your materials back, which are these binders. Thank you, gentlemen. 
“Giaschi J.”

Source: https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm

Its not all good news for climate skeptics; Mann has had a win in his case against Steyn, the judge in D.C. refused Steyn’s motion to dismiss.

Advertisements

328 thoughts on “Michael E Mann, Loser

  1. It’s all part of the leftist playbook. What Mann tried to do with Ball, the MSM and Democrats have been doing for 3 years with Trump. There was no collusion, corruption, etc … and they know it. But the goal is to give appearance, and generate negative press for your opponent. There was no offense on Dr Ball’s part, and the court was right to make Mann pay for the expenses he had to put up to defend against the false claim.

    They really need to make stronger counter laws that apply to the plaintiff ….. if you knowingly bring a false claim against a defendant, you should be subject to penalty.

    • There are plenty. They don’t need anymore. At some point no one will bring a case no matter how meritorious. It cuts both ways.

      And today’s judges are very dismiss happy because they have way too many cases to litigate. The judiciary has not grown anywhere nearly as fast as the population.

      • ” they have way too many cases to litigate. ” ? Yes they do, because of garbage claims like this that
        TIE UP THE COURTS FOR 10 YEARS ! D’OH !

      • “Dismiss happy” after EIGHT PLUS YEARS of Mann doing nothing to press his supposed claim and clear his name?

        Tell, us, please – what would make this judge NOT “dismiss happy”? Continuing the case until his grandchild (assuming one such enters the judiciary) and the yet unborn descendants of the litigants finally decide to call it quits? (Having forgotten just what the whole thing was about…)

      • You are entitled to your own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts.
        This case languished for 8 years while Mann ignored requests from the court.
        Yet you blame the courts for dismissing the case.

        PS: The idea that judges are tossing cases right and left is one of the craziest lies you’ve ever come up with.

    • Yes, the left has been practicing what is called “Lawfare” for some decade or more. However, NOW they have really jumped the shark with the practice of “Liefare” (see: multiple fantastical charges of sexual assault and deviancy against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh). Their motto is: “By all means necessary”. It is an assault on our rule of LAW which springs from decent human morality. No more. Morality is dead. Or worse … it’s “relative”. The moral relevance and equivalencies of the left are destroying Western civilization.

      While I understand Steyn’s frustration that other ‘does’ in the Soon-Mann case resigned their defense … Steyn must recognize the power of the “slow-bleed”. We’re talking about REAL $$ here. REAL lives and livelihoods’. I have great compassion for those who have been beaten by the immoral Lawfare actions.

    • Yeah, Trump needs to expand the federal judiciary. He can start by splitting the 9th Circuit in three and adding six new USSC justices, so that every circuit will be associated with one.

      The new 13th Circuit (OR/WA/AK) could be called the 14th. The 12th would be AZ, NV, ID and MT.

      I’d hope that Trump’s originalist nominees would make Amy Coney Barrett look like Bill Brennan.

    • The case was dismissed with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be appealed or reopened. Yet the first story I read about this was that Mann’s attorneys were considering an appeal. If he’s paying them by the hour, then God bless them for taking him to the cleaners.

        • You are correct Krishna. The cyberstalkers, eggheads, and sycophants on this site won’t grasp the subtleties of further permissible legal action.

          • Rob,
            Have you read the link that Krishna Gans cités?
            It is true that the dismissal can be appealed.
            However, Mann’s lawyers need to establish that the Judge erred in the grounds for dismissal.
            Having read the Judgement, what are the prospects of that?
            We will know in a short time if Mann appeals.

          • With prejudice means that the dismissal of the case by the trial court is final and one cannot come back to the trial court, amend one’s pleading, and try again. But because there is now a final judgment, the dismissal can be appealed to a higher court. If I were Mann I would do that as old age and hardship are not legal defences they are mitigating ones when deciding damages. I have won two closed Court actions, one 16 years after the loss by showing fraud at the original trial. Fraud action must be taken within three years of discovery.

          • However refusing to provide requested information for years is a cause for dismissal.
            And amazingly enough, according to the judge that is why he dismissed the case.

          • Post when you are sober my creepy cyber-stalker! You are nearly worse than that fat, lazy, orange lying coward clown in the WH when it gets its clock cleaned.

          • Rob September 20, 2019 at 4:42 pm
            If instead of the name calling you had read the link you would have seen that the persons responding were lawyers from a number of U.S. states, not Canadian.
            You need to spot these things. You know “grasp the subtleties”.

            michael

          • Canadian Law (my emphasis):

            The right to appeal a court’s decision is an important safeguard in our legal system because a court could make an error in a trial.

            In most civil and criminal cases, a decision made at one level of the court system can be appealed to a higher level. Where there is no right to appeal, permission or “leave” to appeal must be sought. The higher court may deny leave to appeal, affirm or reverse the original decision. In some cases, it will order a new trial.

            Both sides in a civil case and either the prosecution or the accused in a criminal case may appeal.

            Sometimes, it is only the amount of damages or the severity of the sentence that is appealed. For example, the accused may ask a higher court to reduce a sentence, or the prosecution may ask to have the sentence increased.

          • Replying to someone more than once makes one a cyber stalker?
            Once again Rob demonstrates that his competence lies in his head only.

          • Despite the fact that you agreed to my possible (seems to be wrong) argument, I can’t and will follow your conclusions about the person I answerd to and other commenters here. I won’t step dpwn to answer you in a comparable manner. 😀

        • I seem to recall a comment from Mann that he had 30 days to consider appealing.

          The judgement date is 22 August 2019. Today is 21 September 2019.

          Does anybody know if Mann has lodged an appeal or not?

      • Awesome, ruffled some feathers.
        NEW FLASH:
        Michael Mann has hit the TIPPING point and will implode in 10 years. Not even Greta will be able to save him.

  2. “Moreover, the defendant has led actual evidence of actual prejudice. The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. “

    Yeah, that kinda sounds like unreasonable delay to me too.

  3. All of the steps in this saga have been reported here on WUWT, but my gosh! the delay was truly inordinate as I had forgotten most of the details along the way.

    Thanks for posting the judge’s summary and reasoning for his verdict, ctm. It covers the travesty of Mann’s suit very well.

    Enjoy the win, Dr. Ball, and be sure to get some effective bill collectors to recover the costs which were awarded to you. I’d hate to see payment dragged out.

  4. Mann claims he released all the data circa 2005.
    As Steve McIntyre notes, he dis release significant parts of the data, however he did not release the R2 stats which were negative.

    In Mann’s suit against Ball, Ball requested the R2 stats which Mann did not provide. That is what caused the delay. Ie Mann not providing the documentation.

    • R2 stats have nothing to do with defamation. Mann didn’t lose – old age won the day for the charlatan Ball! An Appeal may reverse this judgment so celebrations may be premature. Note DC Appeals Court dismissed Steyn Appeal for dismissal as their assessment was the plaintiff would most likely prevail should the matter go to trial. You should also note that Mann has not lost a case before having beaten many attempts by VA etc.

        • Thank you for the accolade. I am unfortunately not going to be one of the US’s top living 50 scientists according to NSF being retired. Why such jealousy and envy?

          • Good god. Sickness leftist cheater and manipulator. You and your ilk are the scourge of science. Ick. Plus you smell bad.

          • Nothing Mann has done in consensus climatology qualifies as science.

            Proxy paleo air temperature reconstructions have no connection to physical theory.

            The air temperature record is so riddled with systematic measurement error, utterly neglected by consensus-mongers, as to be climatologically useless.

            And climate models haven’t the resolution to detect what is claimed for them.

            The whole thing is a pseudo-scientific crock.

            Science: missing in action within AGW consensus climatology

          • The air temperature record is so riddled with systematic measurement error

            If you draw a cartoon of the science (like journalists, conspiracy theorists, deniers and contrarians do) then its easy to be confused. You are arguing against phantoms. You are also myopic if you think that observations are perfect or that the experiments we perform in order to compare to reality are ideal. Indeed, all of those things need improving as well. But none of that undermines the fact that CO₂ is a GHG, we are putting a lot of it out and the planet is warming (and will warm more) as a result.

            You can disagree with a scientist. In fact, please do. Maybe the scientist is wrong about something. Chances are if you are not a scientist and your disagreement is about something the scientist is an expert on and you are not, there is a different problem. Perhaps science has not been explained clearly, and that is a problem, a reasonable thing to ask about. That can also be fixed. If, however, the science has been explained, and you maintain your disagreement not because the scientist is wrong, but because you want the scientist to be wrong, or because it is in your financial or political interest to disagree or cause confusion or sow doubt then … well, you can still do that because this is a free country that allows one to be an idiot.

          • “But none of that undermines the fact that CO₂ is a GHG, we are putting a lot of it out and the planet is warming (and will warm more) as a result.”

            How much of the current warming is due to CO2, Rob?

          • Yes, bury your head in the sand and hope for a different outcome when you live a life based on prejudiced feelings.

          • Rob sure uses a lot of words to explain the fact that nobody is permitted to disagree with what he considers “science”.

            He doesn’t care about the many problems with the ground based system, because “science” has revealed it’s truth to him.

          • The claim that CO2 is causing most of the warming (even the IPCC doesn’t try to claim that it’s 100%) comes only from models. Models which have historically run warm by a factor of 2 to 3 compared to real world temperatures.

            The world is still cooler than it was during each of the last 5 warm periods over the last 5000 years, and none of those warm periods were caused by CO2.

          • More than 100%

            ‘Because that’s what I want it to be … And many more with me. And we all agree!’

            So once again it’s the ‘wishful-thinking-blindly-hoping kind of ‘science’.

            And why not call it ‘consensus’ too? Because that’s sounds almost like ‘settled science’.
            And everybody (agreeing) knew this all along anyway! Didn’t they?

            😉

          • Brian,

            Mann will rank far below Galton. While eugenics was comparably anti-human with CACA, Galton made real contributions in other areas.

            IMO, Piltdown Mann is on a par with fraudster Charles Dawson. Mikey’s fake assembly of graphs is as phony as Dawson’s bones and tools ploy.

          • He is a chemist not a climate scientist with neither education nor research in the field. I’m sure he is a great chemist. I would not commission him to a climate science project.

          • Rob,

            Pat’s work requires massive amounts of data analysis. This expertise enables him to demolish so-called “climate science”, which consists of fake “data sets” and GIGO computer games, not climatology, as still practiced by real scientists such as Spencer and Christy.

            GISS’ Schmidt, OTOH, perpetrator of the GISTEMP pack of lies, is not a scientist at all, but a mathematician, who couldn’t get a job in that discipline.

          • You are not the sharpest knife in the drawer, are you? Just because he can do stats that doesn’t mean he is a climate expert. I’m sure he has undergraduate capabilities in general science and probably very good at his specialization. I wouldn’t engage him to do surgery so why would I think he should be engaged outside of his field?

          • Rob,

            Experts at statistical analysis have shown false the key elements of fake “climate science”, which is based upon fraudulent statistical manipulation.

        • Rob,

          You say, “You can disagree with a scientist. In fact, please do. Maybe the scientist is wrong about something.”

          We are talking about Michael Mann. The first version of his ridiculous ‘hockeystick’ graph is known as MBH98 because Mann (M) co-authored with Bradley (B) and Hughes (H) the paper containing it that was published in 1998.

          In the same week as MBH98 was published I wrote an email on the ‘ClimateSkeptics’ circulation list. That email objected to the ‘hockeystick’ graph because the graph had an overlay of ‘thermometer’ data over the plotted ‘proxy’ data. This overlay was – I said – misleading because it was an ‘apples and oranges’ comparison.

          Discussion of the matter continued and – unknown to me – two years later somebody copied an email about the matter to Michael Mann and he replied.

          Years after that, Mann’s reply was revealed by ‘Climategate’ which leaked many emails.

          Mann’s reply consisted solely of personal abuse against me and, importantly, it does not address the issue which I had raised immediately upon seeing the ‘hockeystick’ graph. Hence, I am certain that the graphical malpractice of the ‘hockeystick’ was both witting and deliberate.

          The entire affair including the emails was reported and discussed on WUWT at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/

          There are three important points from Mann’s email about me. They are
          1.
          Michael Mann knew that his graph was a deliberately misleading construction.
          2.
          Mann lied about what he had done when the misleading construction was pointed out.
          3.
          Mann made a threat against me that he has not yet to fulfilled.
          (I regret that Michael Mann has not made good on his threat against me because I would like to obtain the award for damages I am certain I could then obtain).

          As you say, “You can disagree with a scientist”. Clearly, Michael Mann is no scientist.

          Richard

          • Eschew prolixity and pleonasm when you write a garrulous jeremiad of gallimaufry based on your prejudiced feelings. Obviously, neither are you a scientist.

          • My cyberstalker is jealous and envious. Perhaps it peaked in middle school? Its disdain for and ineptitude in basic English lexicon is not a virtue despite what it learned in home school from its sibling parents!

          • Rob,

            Please try to behave like a grownup and address realities which are put to you.

            Also, please stop pretending you are a scientist: that pretence is as blatantly false as your claim that you are old enough to legally buy yourself a beer.

            Richard

          • Rob,

            I recognise that your untrue insults are attempts at deflection because you lack valid arguments. But I have a request.
            Please refer to your thesaurus for additional untrue insults because your repetition of puerile is boring.

            Richard

          • Thankyou Richard for your original challenge to Mann to rectify the MBH98 ‘hockey stick’ graph, and your detailing of the experiences you had. It is excellent to see that on his permanent record.

      • R2 stats have nothing to do with defamation.

        They do, if the manner in which they were used could justify a defense against alleged defamatory statements.

        The case dragged on for over eight years, Rob. If you are 70ish when it started and 80ish when the case was still dragging on, then is it old age or age old delay tactics by the party causing the dragging? I believe that it is the latter, and that you are confusing unreasonable delay with natural aging.

      • Cutting to the chase, “Mann should be in state pen, not Penn State”, were Mann not aware of the legitimacy of this opinion he would have simply brushed it off. Ludicrous spoken opinions are no threat to a person’s reputation but plausible ones are, and that is the scoundrel’s cause for lawfare against the source of the opinion and the body of information that supports it.
        What a waste of the court’s time; Mann could have said”Oops” and then taken down the hockey stick or whatever other fabrication he was caught on, but oh no, he had to double down.

        • Liar. Mann has never been caught fabricating. Be ashamed of yourself. Just because lying is now the accepted way of life in Republican circles this is not so for the majority of patriotic Americans.

          • Mann was indeed caught fabricating. It was shown that in his “Hockey-Stick” graph he had concealed relevant data by truncating a proxy data series where it was inconvenient (for Michael Mann). The inconvenience was a decline where he would have wanted an increase – hence the infamous “hide the decline” emails.
            The fraud was exposed by Steve McIntyre, and is documented in
            https://climateaudit.org/multiproxy-pdfs/
            Warning:Steve McIntyre is very thorough, and there’s a lot of material. There’s also nowhere for Michael Mann to hide.

          • Continental-scale temperature variability during the past two millennia, PAGES 2K Consortium Nature Geoscience 6, 339–346 (2013) DOI: ac10.1038/ngeo1797 pages2K Hockey Stick A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years Marcott et al Science 8 March 2013 Vol. 339 #61224 pp. 1198-1201 Science DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026

            McKitrick and McIntyre’s work did not rebutt the hockey stick and the corrections they were responsible for did not significantly alter the shape of the “hockey stick”. McKitrick and McIntyre’s efforts for the rest were shown to be deeply flawed themselves. The constant denier whining about Mann’s work has been debunked thoroughly. There are at least 45 studies showing a hockey stick shape to the temperature record. These studies use different proxies and different statistical methods. It is fascinating that those who are motivated to attack paleoclimatology always attack the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 paper but ignore their later work and the work of a large number of scientists who found similar results.Ultimately it doesn’t matter how Mann got his graph. Researchers are allowed to get things wrong! That’s part and parcel to the scientific process. But what you would expect is, if a researcher did a botch job then subsequent research would show different results and the bad research would be relegated to the waste bin of scientific research that didn’t pan out. There is nothing wrong with that. The insane part of this is that everyone gets the grand idea that MBH99 is the cornerstone of AGW. It’s just not.

          • Rob writes “Mann has never been caught fabricating.”

            Mann said

            No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum. Most proxy reconstructions end somewhere around 1980, for the reasons discussed above. Often, as in the comparisons we show on this site, the instrumental record (which extends to present) is shown along with the reconstructions, and clearly distinguished from them (e.g. highlighted in red as here).

            But “Mike’s Nature Trick” is

            Mike’s Nature Trick
            Mike’s Nature Trick was originally diagnosed by CA reader UC here and expounded in greater length (with Matlab code here ). It consists of the following elements:

            1. A digital splice of proxy data up to 1980 with instrumental data to 1995 (MBH98), lengthened to 1998 (MBH99).
            2. Smoothing with a Butterworth filter of 50 years in MBH98 (MBH99- 40 years) after padding with the mean instrumental value in the calibration period (0) for 100 years.
            3. Discarding all values of the smooth after the end of the proxy period.

            The splicing of instrumental data with proxy data prior to smoothing has been established by UC beyond any doubt

            All from Climate Audit where the investigation is detailed
            https://climateaudit.org/2011/03/29/keiths-science-trick-mikes-nature-trick-and-phils-combo/

            And 97% of scientists who actually research the facts and understand what happened will agree that Mann lied and the proxy data at the end of the series could easily be described as “fabricated”

            But Rob, if you say it enough times maybe you can change reality.

          • You haven’t a clue what you are regurgitating. The proxy records now extend into the 21st record and they show the same pattern as the instrument era. Mann has been paid several large sums of money for false accusations by the State of Virgina. How was he so successful if what you write has an iota of truth in it?

          • I don’t think you know what a fact is. Look up the definition and then lay out what you consider to be truths with verifiable evidence to authority.

          • When Rob decides he is going to just invent the data he needs, he is following in the footsteps of his god Mann.

          • Rob writes “lay out what you consider to be truths with verifiable evidence”

            I just did. The fact is Mann claims no scientists ever grafted the temperature data onto reconstructions. Its his quote. And the other fact is that a reproduction of his work shows that’s exactly what was done by Jones using “Mike’s Nature Trick”.

            What is it you believe is not factual?

          • Your gibberish in results in garbage out. Perhaps you’ll have better success posting before happy hour rather than after in future.

          • McKitrick and McIntyre’s efforts for the rest were shown to be deeply flawed themselves.

            Again, as I requested with another of your claims (a request that you predictably dodged), could you please point me to the references that support this claim about McKitrick and McIntyre. Thanks.

          • I’m not here to educate people who have spent enormous amounts of energy rendering themselves ineducable. I’m here to laugh at what incredibly uninformed febrile illiterates you buffoons are by choice. Read the science. I am not your librarian. I don’t waste my time arguing known science or change science-deniers diapers.

          • “The insane part of this is that everyone gets the grand idea that MBH99 is the cornerstone of AGW. It’s just not.”

            Yes it is!

            It is not the blade of the Hockey Stick that makes it the cornerstone of AGW. It is the straight shaft. In order for the AGW scare to have teeth, it was vital to eliminate all unexplained natural variability that was clearly evident in all scientific studies of past climate before 1999, and in most studies after 1999. The far-fewer studies supporting Mann’s straight shaft have generally been conducted by pals of Michael Mann, or those following Mann’s path to fame and fortune.

            Throughout the history of science, demand for certain results from financiers has resulted in those results being found by scientists. That hasn’t changed. Indeed, the charge against skeptics being under the pay of Big Oil cannot be valid unless one acknowledges that climate alarmists, like Michael Mann, are equally susceptible to the desires of his financial supporters.

            The straight shaft of MBH 99 was and still is an outlier in the field of historical climate. The AGW theory predicts a relatively stable climate when CO2 concentrations are stable, like they were for the entire Holocene up until WWII. But the Holocene climate before WWII was no more stable than the climate is now, based on the vast majority of scientific and anecdotal evidence.

            The AGW theory is undermined by the cooler and warmer historical periods well documented in the scientific literature. The alarmist movement needed some scientific literature to claim, contrary to all the existing evidence, that the Holocene climate was stable. Michael Mann was one of the first to provide his financiers with the results they wanted. If MBH 99 is no longer the cornerstone it once was, it is only because the financiers have purchased identical cornerstones from others. This allows them to disavow the importance of MBH 99 (as you have done) by simply replacing it with the same argument in a different paper paid for by the climate industrial complex.

          • I am sorry but that tome is just pure prejudiced feelings and junk science. Find a scientist friend to help you out. Every fall our minor league hockey club sends aspiring College-bound players who pay me $200/lesson to improve their SAT and ACT scores so they can get into better colleges. I’ll cut you some slack and will coach you in climate and earth science for half that amount.

          • Rob is your typical internet troll.
            Makes blatant statements that are easily refuted by others.
            He then starts insulting.
            When asked to back up his claims, he proclaims that he doesn’t have to.

          • My petty, creepy cyberstalker with Stockholm syndrome strikes to waste recycled cyber bits on BS. It is besotted with me after so many spankings that it has endured from me! What is it with you uneducated buffoons that you feel compelled to follow your intellectual superiors after we have given you thorough schooling in the very basics of math and science? Those are emotionally appealing talking points, too bad they are not based in reality or have any scientific context and is meaningless and misleading. Definitely not from a scientifically literate brain. Very creepy!

          • Read the link you gave. If you have any questions I am sure they will be gracious enough to answer you! Perhaps you may even have a few nuggets for them. I came across many discoveries in my scientific career that laypeople had found or known but they did not realize the importance thereof. For example, I discovered that what was considered to be the aquiclude was in fact the aquifer. The conventional physical grading of the materials correctly classified them as such, as did the modeling. Nothing beatsin situ testing and talking to local folk with years of observation. I was able to show the reverse was true thanks to an interconnected fine sand layer vertically and horizontally (basically the base of every varve). More than five decades of attempts to exploit the liquid failed – my team prevailed.

          • Rob September 20, 2019 at 7:09 pm

            Every fall our minor league hockey club sends aspiring College-bound players who pay me $200/lesson to improve their SAT and ACT scores so they can get into better colleges

            Thanks for the confession You do know we had a bit of a scandal here, over things like that.
            A few well to do parents as well as some of the “coaches” are off to the “Pen”.
            Now what was the name of that sting operation?

          • The difference is the parents bribed college staff. I physically coach and teach how to take the examinations. So far I have a great success rate and the youngsters are grateful – all I do is polish their innate talents and remove some insecurities, build confidence and close academic gaps.

          • Rob, “Read the link you gave”. So a hockey stick that is not robust can be made robust if you hold your mouth just so? 😛 😛

          • “I’m not here to educate people who have spent enormous amounts of energy rendering themselves ineducable. I’m here to laugh at what incredibly uninformed febrile illiterates you buffoons are by choice. Read the science. I am not your librarian. I don’t waste my time arguing known science or change science-deniers diapers.”

            So, you’re just here to annoy people.

            We’ll see how long you last. Not long, I would guess, if the past is any indication of the future. We periodically have trolls pop up here. Most of them leave after a short time.

          • The fact is that no matter how long I visit on this sojourn in your fantasy world or the amount of braying by you and your fellow sycophants of this claque or cult, it won’t alter one iota of “Liar. Mann has never been caught fabricating. Be ashamed of yourself. Just because lying is now the accepted way of life in Republican circles this is not so for the majority of patriotic Americans.

            Cheers, watch the rugby world cup today – there are great games on.

          • Rob, you are aware, that hundreds of studies exist, showing that f. e. the MWP and RWP existed worldwide, a fact that was eliminated in the infame hockeystick construction ?

          • Yes. When all are distilled, we find for the planet that MCA (MWP) and RWP were neither global or synchronous. An added bonus is that the natural rates of warming ( δT⋅δt⁻¹ ) were about 35x less than CWP.

            I am rooting for Namibia in the rugby today. Possibly one of the most interesting countries in the world geologically and the cradle of humankind. Very understudied with little research. Has the potential to be a very secure site for the world’s nuclear waste. Put some energy into solving sending the waste to Namibia and making them among the wealthiest nation on Earth. The last time I visited, the famous sandstone Finger of God collapsed fulfilling Nama legend that the power of the “white man” would fall at the same time as the rock fell.

          • Rob,

            You say, “Mann has never been caught fabricating.”

            Sorry, I have provided a post that is yet to appear in which I link to an account of
            (a) how I spotted Mann was guilty of fabricating when I first saw his ‘hockeystick’ graph in 1998
            and
            (b) several years later ‘Climategate’ revealed that Mann lied about the fabrication and made a threat against me in attempt to silence discussion of what he had done.

            I repeat here the link I discuss in my above post.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/12/a-mann-uva-email-not-discussed-here-before-claims-by-mann-spliced-and-diced/

            Richard

          • Climategate emails are a fictional meme among denizens of the science denial cult and climate fiction claques. Known cures: 1. education 2. do not remain aliterate

          • Most of the people who’s e-mails have been exposed by the climate-gate release have admitted that the e-mails are real and accurate.

            Of course Rob can’t admit this, so he will once again result to voluminous, multi-syllabic insults rather than deal with the fact that he can’t actually respond intelligently.

          • Rob,

            MarkW correctly refuted one of your recent pieces of idiocy when he wrote,
            “Most of the people who’s e-mails have been exposed by the climate-gate release have admitted that the e-mails are real and accurate.”

            In this case the email exchange you dispute consists of an email which I admit I wrote and the response to it of Michael Mann.

            Indeed, all the emails from me which were leaked by ‘Climategate’ are releases of unaltered emails which I wrote. If you choose to doubt this, then I point out I would have been prosecuted for misleading Parliament if the email of this memorandum were not as ‘Climategate’ purported
            https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387b/387we02.htm

            Richard

          • Refresh my memory – what was the outcome of the findings of the UK government’s House of Commons Science and Technology Committee or the UEA’s ICER? I seem to recall that he former concluded that criticisms of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) were misplaced and that CRU’s “Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community“. The latter, chaired by Professor Ron Oxburgh in consultation with the Royal Society (the world’s preeminent science body) assessed the integrity of the research published by the CRU and found “no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit.”

            Were you the Courtney that wrote the press supporting the prosecution of Alan Turing because he was homsexual?

          • Moderators,

            I write to request deletion of the untrue smear about me posted by the troll operating under the title of “Rob”‘.

            I have not made any such assertion nor email about Alan Turing nor any other of my heroes.

            Indeed, I want that entire comment from the troll excised because it is merely abuse: it has no relation to anything I wrote nor any relation to the subject of this thread.

            Richard

          • I didn’t assert you were the author. I enquired if you were. Can you never write without fabrication? Shakespeare’s hamlet has you nailed. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”

          • Moderators,

            I am dismayed that my request for deletion of the untrue smear of me has been rejected and that you have permitted the troll to pretend his “question” was not a smear.

            The anonymous troll’s behaviour is despicable and I anticipated better from you.

            Richard

          • @Rob,

            Yes. When all are distilled, we find for the planet that MCA (MWP) and RWP were neither global or synchronous.

            Have a look at the ‘Medieval Warm Period Project’ and you will find, that it was a) global, b) more or less synchronus. Only on example. So you are wrong again and you can’t stop insulting people here as I have read.
            You have a lot to learn before someone will take you for serious.

          • LOL – another victim suckered by the fossil fuel shills the Idsos! Guess the world needs simpletons, like you, for some kind of weird balance.

          • Rob, and what are you a victim of ??
            Propaganda at it’s best, far away from any facts. You can’t comment with facts or any argument, only with ad hominem and insulting who ever. You will be taken serious ?
            You are laughable, leading meber of Muppets Show, your only and best presentation 😀
            Bye

          • Typical nescient, low-educated con fail! Doesn’t know the meaning of ad hominem! Misuses and doesn’t know when and how to apply the word, correctly! What is it with right-wingers that they can’t figure out simple English lexicon? Did you all skip third grade and take a job?

          • Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

            Seems, Rob, you have to learn s.th. about what I wrote.
            Btw, I’m not natural english speaking, it’s only my forth language 😀 after German, French and Latin 😀 ( that for “low-educated con fail”)
            Wavin’ – bye bye 😀

          • Not my first either and I don’t do French on your list. May I substitute Russian or Hollands?

            First, insults per se are not ad hominen. Second, you need to understand logic structure and relevancy.P1 asserts XP1 is an idiot.Therefore, X is not true. <– that's an ad hominem!This is not:Why are you working so very hard to come across as a very dumb, uneducated, conservative cretin?It could be construed as an insult but I think the certainty of it being true >95% in your instance. When the attack on the person is relevant to the argument, it is not a fallacy.

          • Not worth worrying about your comments.
            Finally I’m not alone telling you are spreading BS.
            Stay happy in it.

          • ad hominem
            /ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
            adjective
            (of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

            Rob writes

            “Guess the world needs simpletons, like you, for some kind of weird balance.”

            The very definition.

          • Absolutely wrong! I have already given you the lesson. Obviously the ability to learn is not one of your skill sets. Please don’t communicate until you are up to speed.

          • 😀 😀
            You are certainely not in te position to give lessons, your position is more to learn the lesseons others give you. And so you have a lot of workin front of you.
            Start with: “reading alone isn’t essential, but understanding what you read is”.

          • I’m a polyglot but I don’t do pidgin. Please let everyone know when the English translation of your post becomes available.

          • “Liar. Mann has never been caught fabricating. Be ashamed of yourself. Just because lying is now the accepted way of life in Republican circles this is not so for the majority of patriotic Americans.”

            I’m pretty sure he tried to claim that he was a Nobel Laureate in court documents. If you can fabricate a Nobel Prize, you are not above reproach for other fraudulent claims.

        • Rob, your reply to my earlier polite request to provide a link to your sources was this:

          I’m not here to educate people who have spent enormous amounts of energy rendering themselves ineducable. I’m here to laugh at what incredibly uninformed febrile illiterates you buffoons are by choice. Read the science. I am not your librarian. I don’t waste my time arguing known science or change science-deniers diapers.

          Congratulations on yet another masterful dodge of actually trying to discuss the facts of what you claim. How does one spend enormous amounts of energy rendering themselves ineducable? — What does that even mean? If they spent any time, then the time would have been spent on educating themselves on something. What you’re doing there is subtly applying your own disregard for what they have spent their time learning — your own unwillingness to investigate what it is they have spent their time on — and then cloning their knowledge with a false label that reflects your own ignorance of their efforts.

          This reminds me of those little-girl beauty contestants, with their pageant moms encouraging them manically to look adult far too soon, and they end up looking like freaky dolls, with no real knowledge of their sexuality, yet they attempt to flaunt what it is that they have not yet matured enough to even begin to display. Do you have a pageant mom encouraging you here? (^_^)

      • I hope you are being paid for your efforts to embarrass yourself.
        The R2 stats strike directly to the relevance of Mann’s work. If the work is fraudulent, then there is no defamation.

        Even the judge doesn’t agree with you as to why the case was dismissed. But what the heck, you have a cause to defend and whatever lies work will be used.

      • Rob,

        Do you know why Mann requested the Feb 2017 trial date be postponed?

        That is truly the crux of the matter. Discovery had closed. Trial was forthcoming. Mann requested a delay. The judge gave it to him.

        2 1/2 years later the judge basically said “I’m tired of waiting. Mann has had plenty of time to bring this matter to trial and it has been in his hands to do so. Mann’s lack of effort to prosecute this matter is damaging to the legal process.”

        • But Mann says that the case was dismissed because Ball was getting old, and according to Rob, Mann would never lie.

      • Iirc Steyn did not appeal the disnissal of the motion ro dismiss. It was the other defendants. The ‘reasoning’ of the CoA was that Mann was a great scientist who had been ‘exonerated’ by the various investigations and “was therefore likely to prevail at trial”. Completely missing the point that was at the heart of the alleged defamation: that Penn State had not in fact investigated.
        All of which is why the defendants (less Steyn) filed for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and are supported by a number of amicus briefs.
        The application for certiorari is to be discussed by the Court on October 1st.

    • Joe the NCS

      I think if you check carefully, what Mann said about the data was that it was “in the public domain” without specifying which data sets he used that were “in the public domain”. M&M pressed him to reveal which data sets he used and which he did not. He replied that provision wasn’t necessary as all data was available to everyone.

      M&M carefully (and rather cleverly) examined the publicly accessible files available on Mann’s storage system and worked out what they felt were the data sets used, and replicated his work, including two non-standard mathematical steps (errors). Having recreated what M&M think was the treatment of data, and based on what appear to be the data sets Mann used, M&M tried other data sets, adding or removing sets to see how it affected the results, correcting the errors (or not) and published the outcomes. It is easy to Mann to say that is not how he produced the original work because he has never provided the data and (I think) the exact methods. If he is forced to reveal that M&M were correct, he will probably, ultimately, lose his position at Penn State.

      Thus M&M pressed for the full disclosure of data and methods so the work (MBH98) can be examined and replicated with, for example, additional data collected since 1997.

      As Steyn’s move to dismiss was declined, Mann has to be deposed, complete with data and methods. If he is, all this will come out, and it will cost him $5m plus costs, payable to Steyn.

  5. Now if the citizens of Pennsylvania would just sue Mann and Penn St for that data the tax payers paid for, that’d be news.

    • Well, good luck with that. The work wasn’t done under Mann’s current tenure at Penn State. He was at the University of Massachusetts at the time.

  6. Please Mark, you should not speak ill of Americas adaptation of English Common Law. It appears to be on at least as “quick” a schedule as the Dr. Ball matter in Canada. I live in a country that has Roman Law at its core, and you cannot believe the difference. I once commented to a District Attorney, the defendant has written three totally different versions of the event, at least two are therefore perjury, so it looks like perjury is a National Sport here. The District Attorney said, when people feel the hangmans rope on their neck they will say almost anything, so no perjury charge.

  7. Penn State will tolerate Mann until he starts costing THEM money. He brings in grant money, lots of it, and the university gets half of that. He’s a spoiled brat with a hair up his backside and a weak ego the size of the Sears Tower in Chicago. He’s the one who started the fight but didn’t win. That makes him quite a sore loser now.

  8. The parties are both in their eighties…

    The judge had me guessing there for a bit. Remarkably youthful appearance, etc. But Wikipedia may occasionally be trusted for simple facts…??

    Michael Evan Mann (born 1965[6])

  9. Thank God for the internet. You would never hear this on any of the Canadian media outlets unless Dr. Ball “lost”. Canada Free Press is one of the exceptions. How come CBC and Global, and CTV never have you on any of their programs. ;).

  10. I guess Mann felt it would be helpful to explain to his acolytes all that foreign judge’s legal mumbo-jumbo in deLayMann’s language. He neglected to include this one:

    “Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff.”

    The inversion method is still in beta testing but here’s what my computer spat out:
    Inverse.English.Mannsplain(“attended to other professional matters”) = “was preoccupied with Twitter”

  11. This is really simple. Dr. Mann did not want the matter tried in court because, as we are now free to infer, his hockey stick would be exposed as a fraud and possibly him as well. So, he delayed and delayed. Dr. Ball asked the judge to call BS and the judge, apparently gleefully, did so.

    The lawyers who frequent WUWT may correct me, but I think it is now reasonable for everyone to infer that the hockey stick is fraudulent.

      • Mann never wanted to prove his hokeystick graphic.
        Mann made every effort to avoid discovery with overtime to avoid letting his case proceed.

    • No need to infer that the hockey stick is fraudulent, this has been demonstrated by giving the software random sets of data and the software producing a hockey stick instead of random output.

      • Fraudulent? You are the fraud when there are more than 45 peer-reviewed published papers that corroborate Mann et al’s seminal paper. That’s science working. Try a science class sometime before making false accusations.

        • There is a legal principle, adverse inference, which allows us to infer that Mann’s hockey stick is fraudulent. It’s kind of like put-up-or-shut-up. Mann failed to prosecute his case and he refused to produce the requested discovery. We can make any reasonable inference about what that means.

          While we’re at it, why don’t you explain Mike’s Nature Trick to us.

          • Adverse inference does not apply here. Mann was not silent. There was no outstanding discovery – that is just urban legend in the conspiracy claques. Do you know if Mann has decided to not Appeal the Judge’s decision based incorrectly on old age and hardship for the charlatan Ball?

          • Rob September 20, 2019 at 12:31 pm

            Adverse inference does not apply here. Mann was not silent.

            Did you even read the judge’s decision?

            The judge castigated Mann for producing a voluminous pile of irrelevancies.

            … the Judge’s decision based incorrectly on old age and hardship for the charlatan Ball?

            Mann made the deliberate decision not to prosecute his case. The judge pointed out that such conduct prejudiced the chances for a fair trial. My inference from the reprehensible Mann’s conduct is that he was hoping that Ball would die during the delay.

            By his conduct Mann has given me plenty of evidence that his hockey stick is fraudulent. Do you have any evidence that allows you to defame Ball by calling him a charlatan?

          • Your prejudiced feelings cause you to read far too much into the Juge’s verdict. Let see how it holds up on Appeal if that is a route to be taken by Mann. You have no clue as to what Mann’s intentions were!

            I have read both Ball and Mann’s work. Ball, a geographer writes junk climate science. Mann, a physicist does good science. The behaviors of these two men have nothing to do with the science produced. Do we toss away Newton’s work because he spent most of his life trying to turn lead into gold? Compare the peer-reviewed publication successes between Ball and Mann. Ball is close to, if not, zero. Mann? Many dozens.

            If a person’s behavior is your measure then I am sure you take great umbrage to the fat, orange, lying clown in the WH!

          • “…Compare the peer-reviewed publication successes between Ball and Mann. Ball is close to, if not, zero. Mann? Many dozens…”

            Yet he lost his lawsuit against Ball.

          • I guess you were just too lazy to research Canadian law. Typical contrarian gainsayer unable to find a drink in a pub unless placed in front of its pot belly.

          • Rob September 20, 2019 at 10:59 pm

            Of course it was a reference to Canadian law. Don’t jump the gun like that. It gives to much away about you. Sloppy thinking.

            michael

        • Can you provide a source that lists those 45 papers that corroborate Mann et al’s seiminal paper?

          Let’s see how many of them make the same blunders as Mann. Or, if they don’t, then you have a point, … but, until I see the 45 papers, try putting your evidence where your mouth is.

          I searched with the phrase, “45 papers corroborating Michael Mann et al’s seminal paper”, and nothing relevant came up. You’d think, if this were a big deal, then I’d have gotten something.

          • If your research was as thorough as you imply, you should be turning up different results. Have any links from a scientist or scientifically literate person who knows what they’re doing?

          • In other words, Rob can’t produce the results, so like his god Mann, he’s going to just pretend that it’s your fault for not finding what is not there.

          • Rob,

            It was you who cited the fact that 45 papers corroborate Mann et al’s seminal paper? I simply asked you to supply the reference supporting this claim. Let’s have a look at them.

            Instead of making an attempt to provide the evidence, you deflect and reverse the onus of proof, which is on you to support this claim. I specifically want to see that list of papers. You specifically avoided the effort of leading me to them, thus casting your claim into further doubt.

          • Whiner, still struggling with Google? Do you want me to take up a page or more of the history to end 2013 which was when I stopped compiling in my second year of retirement? Here’s one that should satisfy your salivation:

            DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1797 Figure 4 paleoclimate reconstruction by Pages2K.

          • Rob,

            I’m glad you included an actual reference in your insult this time.

            Actually, I was looking at that reference yesterday. The abstract of it alone raised some questions. I hope you don’t mind focusing for a moment on it:

            Past global climate changes had strong regional expression. To elucidate their spatio-temporal pattern, we reconstructed past temperatures for seven continental-scale regions during the past one to two millennia. The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century. At multi-decadal to centennial scales, temperature variability shows distinctly different regional patterns, with more similarity within each hemisphere than between them. There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century. The transition to these colder conditions occurred earlier in the Arctic, Europe and Asia than in North America or the Southern Hemisphere regions. Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the past 30 years (1971–2000), the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

            What specifically raises a question is the appearance of the following two statements in the same paragraph:

            (1) The most coherent feature in nearly all of the regional temperature reconstructions is a long-term cooling trend, which ended late in the nineteenth century.
            (2) There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.

            ALL regional temperature reconstructions showed a long-term COOLING trend, yet there were no warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide MWP or LIA, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between 1580 and 1880.

            In order for there to be a cooling trend, there must be a warm period before it, from which the cooling starts. You cannot have cooling unless there is a warm phase first from which the cooling descends. These statements, thus, seem contradictory — one seemingly negates the other.

            The abstract strikes me as double talk, and so I’m not convinced that it is worth my time to read any further into this article.

            Furthermore, one paper leaves 44 more to go. I was asking you for a reference for the 45 that you cited. You still have not answered that question. Where did you get that figure? Have you seen the actual list of 45 papers? How many of the papers have you looked at?

            Deluded denialist minds want to know.

          • World cup rugby is on so I will not be wasting my time on your troll requests and your ineptitude in using search tools.

            There is no contradiction, as the planet has been in its cooling cycle after peak Holocene warming (about 10-12 k years ago) for about the last 8 thousand years as we transition into the next glacial period a few millennia hence.

            As I wrote to you before – I compiled the list to 2013. This was 36 papers in total for a mean of just under three per year. It is now 2019 do the math. Your “kalte” site may even have some for you. The hockey stick is now solid scientific theory and the result of human activities. The world should be smart enough to solve this event hough the US is the most backward of all developed nations.

          • THat the climate has been on a cooling trend since the end of the Holocene Optimum about 5K years ago is the first true thing you have managed to say.
            However it has not been a smooth continuous fall. There have been warm spells such as the Egyptian, Minoan, Roman, Medieval and Modern Warm periods. There have been cool snaps as well, such as the Little Ice Age.
            To date, nobody knows what caused any of these. There are theories but nothing has been proven.

            Regardless, current temperatures are still 3 to 5C below temperatures that existed during the Holocene Optimum. Anyone who claims that increasing temperatures to levels last enjoyed during the Holocene Optimum is going to create problems for life on earth is either lying, or has no connection to reality.

          • Creepy cyberstalker! Very creepy! Gibberish with a healthy dose of gobbledygook. Stick to the science you understand that requires coloring in between the lines.

          • Rob,

            If there’s any ineptitude, it is yours, obviously displayed by your inability or unwillingness to site EXACTLY a source for your 45-paper claim. You still dodge the direct answer to the question. You still reverse the onus to produce that list.

            You seem more interested in popcorn, as you watch your soccer show, rather than contributing to an honest interchange of information.

            I’ve been here for years, whereas you just popped in recently during my stay here, which makes you far more trollworthy than moi.

            Enjoy your popcorn, and watch the salt and extra butter, as , by not doing so, you risk clogging your arteries, raising your blood pressure, and further limiting circulation to your overly-confident, condescending, self-bloated brain.

            Ta ta, now.

        • Acolytes, using the same faulty methods and same faulty data get the same disproven results.
          You and the rest of the choir are impressed. No one else is.

        • Your prejudiced feelings cause you to read far too much into the Juge’s (sic) verdict.

          Kindly elaborate. The judge was pretty darn clear. So, how about telling us exactly where I have gone wrong.

          Also, how about telling us about Mike’s Nature Trick.

          As you point out, Mann is a physicist. His papers are about trees. When I was a pup, you could get your BSc without taking a single biology course never mind a course that would equip you to talk intelligently about trees. You criticize Ball’s geography background and give a pass to Mann’s obvious lack of formal qualifications as an arborist. At least climate science is a commonly accepted field of study for geographers. (You knew that didn’t you.)

          Of course Mann is the toast of the town. Trenberth et al put out a hit on the MWP and Mann obliged. When money, prestige, and power are involved, science is every bit as corrupt as any other human endeavor. obvious example How about a comment on Climategate.

          • Rob recently commented that Christie’s graphs of satellite data had been thoroughly debunked. I read the post about it at RealClimate and noted that the fixed graph by the RealClimate author showed the same information as Christie’s – that the satellite temperature average fell below the 95% confidence interval of the mainstream climate models and is at or below the bottom of it still.

            Rob took no note that Christie’s apparently questionable graphing techniques made no substantial change to the underlying data, referring to it again as “garbage in garbage out”.

            Hi again, my fellow Rob! The more accurate satellite data still show the models to be potentially quite hot. It’s right there in the RealClimate post you linked to.

            Also I found out today that the recent surface temperature spike was an El Nino year, meaning that we’re definitely still well below the modeled predictions even if we ignore the satellite temps. You said the mean temperatures are perhaps running a bit hotter than the models. In fact it was the first big El Nino spike since 1997 which sent temps up into the model’s predicted average range. The mean temps are definitely well below that with the current temperature trend that has been running cooler than the models for perhaps two decades now. I think the models are most likely hot, certainly it appears that is what you should presume from the satellite and surface temperatures.

        • So if I predict it will be warmer in ten years by by throwing some chicken bones in a bowl and getting my answer from how they land. But don’t tell anyone how I got my answer and 46 scientists come up with the same answer by other means that according to you means I have done “science”. And my ” science ” has been validated. Here’s a more likely reason everyone else curve fitted their data to match what was expected, neigh REQUIRED to get published. The climate gate emails show both curve fitting and contrary papers being blocked.

      • Mann’s “Back to 1400 CENSORED” folder, which he foolishly left on his anonymous data ftp site, ended up in Steve McIntyre’s hands.

        That folder included evidence of Mann’s failed verification statistics. Despite those failures, Mann published anyway. And when he did so, he wrote MBH98 so obscurely that no one could figure out exactly what he did.

        Steve McIntyre has demonstrated all of that beyond any sane doubt.

    • You are the fraud! Take a peek at published science rather than tendentious contrarian and misinformation sites and blogs.

      • Mann’s Hockey Stick plot is such an obvious fraud…it has bears no resemblance to any respected graphical representation of Global Average Temperature trends.

        Anyone still defending Mann on this point knows nothing about the truth of the matter…or doesn’t care about the truth…or both.

        • Pumpkin, that is just so puerile, immature and unscientific. I suggest you look at Pages 2k and Figure 4 in Nature Geoscience DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1797 and subsequent updates to the current time.

          • Rob,

            You say, “I’ll wait until they publish.”

            OK, you want to play the illogical fallacy of ‘appeal to authority’ and to compound that error with the silly notion that peer-reviewed publication provides authority.

            I’ll play your game in this case because I can win with a simple ‘copy and paste’.

            The only evidence we have is that recent climate variations are within the range of climate variations that have happened in the past. The IPCC reported this fact in its Second Assessment Report (SAR).

            However, in its Third Assessment Report (TAR) the IPCC attempted to overcome this fact by publishing the now thoroughly discredited ‘Hockey Stick’ graph of Mann, Bradley and Hughes. It should be noted that Michael Mann was the Lead Author of the chapter that included this graph that the IPCC published prior to its publication elsewhere.

            In my expert peer review for IPCC AR4 I wrote:

            “Start Page SPM-9, Start Line 21, End Page SPM-9, End Line 24
            This paragraph is grossly misleading and must be replaced. The following replacement is the minimum required to correct the error in the TAR.

            “The SAR had reported that temperatures of the late twentieth century are similar to or lower than temperatures 1000 years ago. The TAR placed emphasis on the work of Mann et al. that indicated very little variability in NH temperatures over the last 1000 years with consistently low temperature until a temperature rise began around 1900. This finding of Mann et al. seemed to refute the large climate variability previously reported in many places including the SAR. However, since the TAR several studies have provided doubt to that work of Mann et al.. Many studies provide data that conflict with the findings of that work of Mann et al. (e.g. Beltrami et al) (ref. Beltrami et al “Long-term tracking of climate change by underground temperatures”, Geophysical Research Letters v.12 (2005) ) and indicate that the report of climate variability in the SAR was correct. In 2005 McIntyre and McKitrick published two papers that together provide a complete refutation of that work of Mann et al. (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 16, no.1 (2005)) (2005), Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 32, No. 3, (2005)). But, perhaps the most important of their studies of that work of Mann et al. was their publication in 2003 (ref. McIntyre S & McKitrick R, Energy & Environment, v 24, pp 751-771 (2003)) that showed it is not possible to replicate the work of Mann et al. There are several reasons for the inability to replicate this work of Mann et al.; not least that Mann refuses to reveal his source codes. The inability to replicate this work of Mann et al. means it has no scientific worth: i.e. this work of Mann et al. is anecdote of similar kind to a report of a ghost sighting. Hence, the IPCC now apologises for including it in the TAR. The IPCC will now disregard this work of Mann et al. and recommends that all others should also disregard it until it can be – and has been – independently replicated.” ”

            But the AR4 did not accept this review comment. Instead, the AR4 made no mention of the ‘Hockey Stick’ (which it had published eight times in the TAR) and merely stated that recent work suggests there was more climate variability in the past than had been reported in the TAR.

            Now it is your turn.
            Please explain why the IPCC did not adopt your call for peer-reviewed papers but when confronted with references to such papers the IPCC dropped any mention of Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’.

            Richard

          • … publishing the now thoroughly discredited ‘Hockey Stick’ graph of Mann, Bradley and Hughes.

            When you stop prevaricating I may waste some time on your bloviating nonsense. McKitrick and McIntyre’s work did not refute the hockey stick, period. The corrections they were responsible for did not significantly alter the shape of the “hockey stick”. Their efforts for the rest were shown to be deeply flawed themselves.

            The constant denier whining about Mann’s work has been debunked thoroughly. There are at least 45 studies showing a hockey stick shape to the temperature record. These studies use different proxies and different statistical methods. It is fascinating that you are motivated to attack paleoclimatology always attack the Mann, Bradley and Hughes 1998 paper but ignore their later work and the work of a large number of scientists who found similar results.

            Do you have some professional jealousy and/or personal grudges and animosity that cloud your mental sky? You remind me of the old dotards and codgers that refused to accept plate tectonics – a hot topic of debate in my post-graduate years. Your behavior reminds me of why science is not a debate. The debate is theatre. Yes, there are arguments in science, but it’s not a formal debate. One doesn’t show science is wrong by having a better argument. You demonstrate it wrong by doing better science, with data, evidence, and methods, not rhetoric!

          • Rob, in an earlier comment, I suggested that you look at this:

            https://kaltesonne.de/mapping-the-medieval-warm-period/

            Your reply, following this suggestion (which I assume was your response to the suggestion), was this:

            I’ll wait until they publish.

            If I am correct in assuming that this was your response, then I think you missed what that website is all about — it is essentially a compilation of PUBLISHED papers establishing the basis of that map you see on the website — you have to actually click on the little red circles, which leads you to the studies justifying the placements of those little red circles.

            In other words, “they” are based on what has been published — “they” merely map what the published papers show. Have a deeper look.

          • Anyone who uses tree rings as a proxy for temperature has proven that they either know nothing about trees, or they are willing to lie for the cause.

          • Rob,

            Try to grow up.
            You asked for references. I gave them to you. Your response is irrelevant insults. And ALL the prevarications this thread have been from you.

            It is clear that you don’t have a clue about the refutations of the ‘Hockey Stick’ by ‘M&M’.
            Insults to people do not alter that.

            Those who know about this matter all (yes, all) know you are wrong, and those who don’t know about this matter recognise that your behaviour displays your ignorance of the subject.

            So, let us cut through your nonsense.
            I WROTE TO YOU
            “Now it is your turn.
            Please explain why the IPCC did not adopt your call for peer-reviewed papers but when confronted with references to such papers the IPCC dropped any mention of Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’.”

            I am awaiting your response (n.b. not infantile abuse) in hope that an adult conversation can ensue.

            Richard

          • You are right – let’s cut to the chase and ignore your bluster. Despite you repeating HBM was debunked is just pure fiction. Not even M$M asserts that. If you don’t want abuse then don’t initiate it – I will respond to your insults in kind. Now acquiesce and move on – dogmatic bluster is not science – you will just have to accept that you are a contrarian and mainstream climate science does not follow your tack. Oddballs like you make us serious scientists so much better. You also take all credibility away from contrarians with your dogma and propaganda that is so easy to refute. I’m watching world cup rugby – you should be too. It will help you relax.

        • Rob,

          I am still waiting for you to explain why the IPCC did not adopt your call for peer-reviewed papers but when confronted with references to such papers the IPCC dropped any mention of Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’.

          Irrelevances and insults showered like confetti as you run away do not substitute for the explanation.

          Richard

          • If you want to have a serious conversation then you need to stop being a whining bombastic git and threatening to have my posts taken down while you impugn other scientists and me with alacrity. It is a two-way street and you commenced the insults. Perhaps you need to learn humility and accept your cantankerous ways are just not acceptable. tHANK YOU. rOB.

          • Rob,

            I have “impugned” no scientists.

            I asked that your untrue smear of me be excised. Your excuse that your “question” is not an accusation is ridiculous. I respond in kind; i.e. How many children under 8 have you sexually abused?

            You are the one who refuses to discuss but throws insults instead. I will ignore any more of your nonsense because I think you may be being flattered that real people seem to be taking notice of you.

            Richard

      • As Albert Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        The reason the hockey stick is fraudulent is because data from the instrument record was grafted to the end of the proxy data when that data began to show lower temperatures after 1960 or so. The instrument data — unannounced — was added to show the temperature going the “right” way.

        I don’t think that’s ever been denied, just declared as being unimportant.

        • Those are some emotionally appealing talking points, James; too bad they’re meaningless and misleading. The old Einstein ploy or gambit. Einstein would be laughing at your ignorance.

          • Mr. Schrumpf’s comments are not merely “emotionally appealing talking points”: they are what Mann *did*, and why NOT EVEN the IPCC refers to the hockey stick any more.

            Apparently you are not familiar with Tim Ball and Steve McIntyre and their roles in debunking Mann’s deceptive travesty.

            And, since to this day Mann will not release the raw data used to create his graph, no one can say they have confirmed his methods, let alone his conlcusions.

            p.s. this tendentious website has over 400 MILLION hits, and features articles from all sorts of scientists involved with the topic of climate change, INCLUDING AGW theory advocates. Drive-by slimings and ad homs are the sure sign of a person with no science background.

          • Clicks are now a sign of authenticity? Porn gets that number of hits in a day! WUTT is not a science site. This is where contrarians come to console themselves. Genuine science sites have very low hits due to the small numbers of scientists and experts.

            The IPCC does not include Mann et al per se because their seminal work is now solid scientific theory with more than 45 corroborating peer-reviewed research studies that include the planet and not just the NH as per the original.

            Neither Ball or MrIntyre debunked Mann et al in the science world. That old meme wanders around the conspiracy and contrarian worlds popping up when the user is an under-educated scientifically illiterate person who decides they can pontificate on matters that they read on disinformation sites. Your third paragraph is pure fabrication from the same world. The data are freely available online and have been available for download since (at least) 2012.

          • Pointing out that it is fraudulent to tack an instrumental record to the end of a proxy record is just emotional talking points?
            Really?
            And you wonder why everyone here is laughing at you.

          • Rob, if the data is clearly available since 2012 then what are the R values Rob? We’re waiting. Put up or shut up.

      • You really need to get out more, Rob.

        I suggest you try looking at the several hundred papers — peer-reviewed and in reputable scientific publications — that do not support the consensus view on climate change. And that’s just over the last couple of years! You won’t, of course, because you don’t want anything to interfere with your belief system, the only conceivable reason there could be for shutting, locking and bolting your mind.

        (What action are you personally taking to reduce your personal carbon footprint to zero, by the way? Or are you one of those who believes the rest of us must impoverish ourselves while you carry on as normal? If you really believe we are in dire straits you must live the lifetsyle you want for the rest of us of admit to being a hypocrite.)

        • several hundred papers — peer-reviewed and in reputable scientific publications — that do not support the consensus view on climate change.

          Probably being out too much is your problem with no time to read or research. If your prejudiced feelings were true then I’d know about successful peer-reviewed science papers challenging AGW. I cannot find one successful printed article accepted by climate science experts. I have more than five decades of a professional career and continue in my retirement to stay current and I cannot find what you assert.

          • Congrats on your retirement. 5 decades as a circus clown is quite an achievement for someone like you.

          • Rob,

            While it can’t be definitively observed, only modeled, AGW is theoretically possible to some degree, simply because CO2 is a GHG. In the lab, ECS can be derived at a bit over 1 K per doubling of CO2. But in the real, complex climate system, uncertainties affecting the actual warming effect of man-made CO2 abound.

            For 32 years after WWII, Earth cooled dramatically despite steadily rising CO2. Hence, natural variability affecting temperature must be large. After the PDO flip of 1977, the planet did warm slightly, but again, how to identify what portion of whatever warming did occur might be attributed to human causes?

            Bear in mind also that we can’t know even the sign of human effects to any high degree of probability, since air over Europe and North America was cleaned up from the 1970s. Before then, pollution shaded those industrial regions, so humans first cooled, then warmed the planet. Now India and China are repolluting the atmosphere and depositing soot on polar ice.

            Nor is observed warming global. It’s decidedly regional, although CO2 is supposedly well-mixed. There has been no warming over the South Pole since records were kept there, despite that being the place where it should be most pronounced.

            The alleged historical temperature “data” sets are unreliable, to say the best. Satellite observations show insignificant warming from the 1998 super El Nino to that of 2016, since which Earth has once again cooled markedly. How to sort all this out?

            Peer-reviewed papers have addressed these and a variety of other issues regarding hypothetical AGW. Here is one of many finding the human contribution to warming at under 50%, using the same methods as studies finding higher anthropogenic component, but with different, defensible assumptions:

            Quantifying the role of solar radiative forcing over the 20th century

            https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117711007411?via%3Dihub

            Here’s one of many deriving low ECS, although still above the no-feedback figure of ~1.1 K per doubling. Indeed, the trend in recent studies has been toward ECS lower than the Charney (1979) range of 1.5 to 4.5 K, with “canonical” central value of 3.0 K per doubling.

            The Impact of Recent Forcing and Ocean Heat Uptake Data on Estimates of Climate Sensitivity

            https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1

            Other papers have found net negative feedbacks, at least under some conditions. This should not be surprising on a homeostatic, water world. Models require high positive feedback from the radiative effects of more H2O in the air, while ignoring or downplaying cooling effects from such processes as evaporation and cloud formation.

            In your long study of computer-gamed “climate science”, as opposed to real climatology, you must have encountered some of the numerous peer-reviewed papers finding low ECS and a putative human “fingerprint” under half since c. 1945. Before then of course, it was even less.

            So the issue isn’t really whether some anthropogenic warming has happened somewhere at some time. Locally and regionally, it has, and not just from CO2 alone, whether detectable globally or not. The issues are how much the man-made effect has been, and whether it is beneficial, as early apostles of AGW Arrhenius and Callendar believed, or really or potentially dangerous. We know that a fourth molecule of plant food per 10,000 dry air molecules has greened the planet, which is a good thing.

          • You are obviously not a scientist and nowhere near literate enough. The two papers you cite and link to are very poor examples. You should read all the correspondence and rebuttals and answers before citing so that you know how the papers stack up.

            Your first link has been thoroughly rebutted and the authors have not been able to defend it. Your second paper is a rehash with some updates of an earlier paper that the authors got no traction among its peers. This one is faring no better. I will let you go and read the narrative for your edification.

            Your tome is always full of rookie errors. Satellite data are the least reliable datasets and pretending they show trends that the ground stations don’t is just ludicrous for a plethora of reasons. CO₂ is NOT plant food! Rookie elementary school error. Greening is an AGW prediction. It is not necessarily a good thing as falsely assert without evidence. For one it is mainly the higher altitudes and where invasive flora species have taken hold. It also causes more warming by decreasing albedo. You have lots of reading to do.

          • Rob,

            You could not possibly be more wrong.

            Most greening has occurred in previously near-desert regions, such as the Sahel. It has also occurred in woodland and grassland plains, to include commercial forests and cropland.

            AGW doesn’t predict greening. The fact of photosynthesis guarantees it.

            You clearly are not a scientist, since you trash the scientific method.

            I could have provided you dozens of similar papers. Why don’t you say what you imagine is wrong with them? The point is that you falsely claimed that no paper finds fault with the hypothesis of AGW.

          • Strange but do not see one peer-reviewed paper citation in your latest garrulous diatribe. I do see that you pretend not to recognize one of the original and fundamental predictions of the AGW hypothesis which is now solid scientific theory. Arrhenius predicted in his hypothesis in 1896 (Arrhenius, S., 1896: On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philos. Mag., 41, 237–276), he stated clearly and unambiguously that adding additional CO₂ to the atmosphere would cause greening and crops to grow faster.

            Every current researcher worldwide who publishes in the recognized peer-review journals subscribes to the theory i.e. 100%.Scientific bodies, professional organizations, institutes, societies, etc worldwide that reject the IPCC findings = ZERO!Defendant Chevron 3/21/2018 Federal Court SFC:”The best science was presented by plaintive … from Chevron’s perspective, there’s no debate about climate science. First, because Chevron accepts what this scientific body and includes scientists and others, but what the IPCC has reached consensus on in terms of science on climate change.” All other defendants concurred.” People of State of California v. BP p.l.c. http://climatecasechart.com/case/people-state-california-v-bp-plc-oakland/ Defendants: Exxon Mobile, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, ConocoPhilips +10 DOES

          • More food and fiber from field and forest is indubitably a good thing.

            If you imagine yourself a scientist, please state your full name and link to your work.

            Thanks.

          • 2003

            By 2003 the gang are on top of the world. Michael Mann’s famous ‘hockey-stick’ temperature reconstruction has appeared to be the irrefutable Sign, Oh Lord, of mankind’s guilt which they have hoped to find with such Biblical fervour. Predictions of effects of warming have become increasingly hysterical. Governments are alarmed and the grants are bountiful.

            Privately they will still admit to problems, uncertainties, how much they don’t know; they will even gently or not so gently query the reliability or value of each other’s work, sometimes appear to have difficulties reproducing it for themselves; and sometimes say bluntly it is worthless. But they adopt a stern policy of pas devant les domestiques and to the media present a united front of complete confidence and mutual esteem.

            They are still curious and inquiring, try to resolve the problems; but it genuinely never seems to occur to them that the answers may lie outside the theory of man-made greenhouse warming, or that they may not be problems at all without it. Every apparent contradiction must be fitted into that paradigm with crowbar or blowtorch.

            More, it never occurs to them that anyone else could question the theory in good faith. Any scientist who raises doubts is automatically dismissed, and slandered, as having been paid to do so by big oil.

            This is ironic when in fact… well, see for example 0962818260, 0973374325, 0968367517, 0968691929, 0947541692, or the separate Shell_Memo document, for illustrations of how CRU themselves are only too eager to accept oil money. Or the article quoted at the bottom of 0965750123, for an indication of how many years ago (1997) the oil companies started to jump on board the AGW bandwagon.

            https://michaelkelly.artofeurope.com/cru.htm

          • Your diatribe makes no sense. I am not in the habit of getting science from random websites. Try science next time.

          • Rob,

            Yet more blatant falsehoods.

            AGW advocates didn’t “predict” greening. It was an unavoidable consequence of more plant food in the air, once CO2 was recognized with water as the feed stock for photosynthetic manufacture of sugar.

            If CO2 isn’t plant food, then what is it? Without CO2, plants can’t make the sugars upon which they rely for life. Without photosynthesis, we animals will also starve. CO2 is a vital nutrient for the photosynthetic organisms upon which heterotrophic organisms such as animals and fungi depend.

            You are aware, are you not, that during the light reactions in photosynthesis photons of sunlight separate H from O in H2O (acquired in land plants from their roots in the ground) and in the dark reactions attaches H atoms (ie protons) to CO2 (acquired from the air through stomata in leaves) to make sugar, ie carbohydrates?

            More such plant food in the air means that the stomata need stay open for less time, thus reducing water loss.

            You seriously believe that such greening isn’t good for land plants and the fungi and animals which rely upon them? Please explain. Thanks!

          • AGW advocates didn’t “predict” greening.

            I gave you the citation. Stop being a douchebag.

            Rookie, you are out of your depth regurgitating snippets of science that you use out of context. CO₂ is an aerial fertilizer and a necessary building block that plants and microorganisms photoautotroph to MAKE food from sunlight. Without the other biogeochemical, photo and temperature autotrophic drivers and the right plant types i.e. C₃, CO₂ has zero effect. The 17 nutrients essential for plant growth are: Nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg), sulfur (S), chlorine (Cl), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu), boron (B), molybdenum (Mo), nickel (Ni), oxygen (O), carbon (C), and hydrogen (H).

            More such plant food in the air means that the stomata need (sic) stay open for less time, thus reducing water loss

            Absolute nonsense and demonstrates you have no knowledge of the topic and zero capcity to learn. Probably why you are not a scientist. Photosynthesis requires 3 moles of H₂O from the soil for every mole of CO₂, one mole for energy that is released to the atmosphere as O₂ with the H ions and the other mole to make glucose. The current elevated CO₂ levels are causing more stress than benefit as it is causing less protein to develop and the stromata to open less thereby impacting the N content in leaves as less water flows to lift sap into the vascular xylem.

            Plant growth rates in addition to C are related to temperature, moisture, N, P and hours of sunshine with the latter having the major influence. Daylight has neither increased nor diminished. For increased C influx into an ecosystem under elevated CO₂ generally requires more N to support plant growth than is required at ambient CO₂ and, in turn, sequesters N into long-lived plant biomass and soil organic matter pools. This N sequestration can decrease soil N availability for plant uptake and lead to progressive N limitation (PNL) over time. The PNL hypothesis states that N sequestration in long-term organic matter pools will, without new N input and/or decreases in N losses, lead to a decline in mineral N availability over time at elevated CO₂ compared to ambient CO₂ i.e. growth slows.

            As atmospheric concentrations of CO₂ increase to 540 ppm+, important nutrients in many key food crops decrease with losses of zinc, iron and protein in C₃ grains (e.g., wheat, rice, barley, oats). Loss of zinc and iron in legumes. Unless we can breed CO₂ resistant crops, fairly quickly, we may see a real problem getting adequate nutrition without eating morbidly-obese quantities of food. “Increasing CO₂ threatens human nutrition,” Samuel S. Myers et al, Nature, May 7, 2014, DOI: 10.1038/nature13179. You may also want to look up as to what happens to rice and cassava, two staple foods when CO₂ and temperature rise.

            Stanford experiment: The mean net plant growth for all treatment combinations with elevated CO₂ was about 4.9 tons per acre — compared to roughly 5.5 tons per acre for all treatment combinations in which CO₂ levels were kept normal. Results from the third year of the experiment revealed a more complex scenario. While treatments involving increased temperature, nitrogen deposition or precipitation — alone or in combination — promoted plant growth, the addition of elevated CO₂ consistently dampened those increases. http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

          • According to the choir, if a “climate scientist” says he disagrees with a paper, that proves the paper is faulty and must be ignored.

            CO2 is not plant food? And to think that you claim to be literate.
            Everything under the sun has been claimed to be the result of global warming.
            The fact that you believe you heard someone somewhere claim that global greening isn’t being caused by CO2 is just more evidence that you will believe anything, so long as it goes along with your religious convictions.

          • Rob September 20, 2019 at 6:57 pm
            Arrhenius Your type of guy I see. Wrong about everything.

            Svante Arrhenius was one of several leading Swedish scientists actively engaged in the process leading to the creation in 1922 of The State Institute for Racial Biology in Uppsala, Sweden, which had originally been proposed as a Nobel Institute. Arrhenius was a member of the institute’s board, as he had been in The Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene (Eugenics), founded in 1909.

            michael

          • He was a conservative, Christian, and eugenist which was quite common for that era. Henry Ford and GWB’s grandpappies were all eugenicists too – this is/was an ingrained white man’s fetish. We see the rise of them today in the US unfortunately led by the fat, lazy, orange, lying coward and clown in the WH.

          • Rob September 20, 2019 at 11:31 pm

            Thanks for playing .
            The more you write the more you give away.
            You can determine a persons age and education by the language they use. Insults also.
            Also the inconsistencies of your statements.
            50+ year in your “career” and now in retirement. Puts your age in the 70s. but your vocabulary is all wrong for that age.
            Its not so much what words you used but rather those which did not. Also to emotional.

            Again thanks for playing, and don’t skip school tomorrow.

            michael

          • OMG you are a hoot! Tomorrow is Saturday dork and having six grandchildren – three teenagers with one a senior in HS I can assure you not to give up your day job and go into any vocation requiring intellect, analyses and observation prowess.

          • Once again Rob demonstrates his utter hatred for anyone who is different from him.

            At times Rob sounds like a teenager who was refused permission to use the care.
            At other times he sounds like a bitter college professor who was over and over again passed over for promotions and rewards by individuals he considered lesser lights (of course Rob appears to consider everyone to be a lesser light).

            He’s nothing more than a bully who uses words instead of his fists in a desperate attempt to prove to himself that he is a superior life form.

            That he knows nothing of science is demonstrated by his frequent errors, he just reads articles and regurgitates what sounds good to him.

            We should actually pity him, however it’s so much fun to get him wound up and watch the spittle fly.

          • Does my cyberstalker hear sounds? Is there a ringing in your ears? Do you hear voices other than the radio? Thank you for writing absolutely nothing useful. Now please work on writing absolutely nothing. If only you were smart enough to know how ignorant you are.

        • Once again Rob proclaims that good data is only what he wants it to be.
          He is either unaware of the myriad problems that have been found with the ground based temperature network.
          He rejects the satellite data for the sole reason that it doesn’t agree with what he so desperately wants to believe.

          The idea that we can measure the temperature of the entire earth with a few thousand meters almost exclusively located in N. America and Europe to within a 0.1C is so ludicrous that only someone with absolutely no knowledge of science could ever believe in it.

      • Yes, the papers purporting to confirm “Mann et al.” have clearly shown that to produce the infamous “hockey stick” it is necessary to use either dodgy statistical methods, VERY carefully chosen data, or, as Doctor Mann did, both.

        In plain English: You gotta pick the cherries then weigh them out with your thumb on the scale.

        WKRP, not just in Cincinnati

      • Of course to those in the choir, only the science that they are told to pay attention to counts.
        Everything else just doesn’t exist.

        • Creep, have you decided to become my cyberstalker? Your puerile behavior is unbecoming for an adult but possibly excusable for an insecure adolescent.

          • Responding to your puerile claims is proof of being a stalker?
            Like your god Mann, you inhabit a world that only you can see.

          • Used puerile twice here within an hour…you need a larger thesaurus.

            I’m sure you’ve been called that many times.

          • Rob,

            I am not a “cyberstalker”. I am an onlooker annoyed by your juvenile behaviour.

            I have refuted your substantive points in above posts.
            Please address my responses to you instead of strewing abuse at people.

            Incidentally, I add an attempt to help you by pointing out that your behaviour in this thread is damaging to your attempts at supporting the egregious Mann (when you grow up you will understand why your behaviour has this effect).

            Richard

          • Rob,

            I did not say you did. Perhaps you should spend more time fulfilling your reading lessons instead making a fool of yourself here.

            Richard

    • I would not infer from Mann’s conduct that the Hockey Stick is “fraudulent”. The dismissal for delay doesn’t provide additional information regarding the validity of the hockey stick beyond what has already been well-documented by McIntyre and McKittrick and others.

      I think it is reasonable to infer from Mann’s conduct that he filed the lawsuit to intimidate his critics and that he had no real interest in prosecuting the claim.

      • If I believed that my reputation had been damaged by defamatory statements I would want the matter put right as soon as possible. Failure to pursue the case vigorously surely suggests that any possible reputational damage is insignificant.

  12. As Steyn says about Mann’s response: “Almost every word of the above statement is false” .

    There’s the MO, right there.

    It’s taken far too long, but I’m quite sure that I’m not alone is deriving deep satisfaction that this thoroughly dangerous and unpleasant Mann has finally been soundly kicked – hard – in the nuts.

  13. Mann is involved in a fraud scheme that could exceed $100 Trillion in diminished value (value stolen and wasted) with the potential loss of life totals involving a significant % of the population of the world. (They are already killing with the active obstruction of energy development by the World Bank in Africa “because of the climate”…in the 100’s of millions of man-years of life so far).

    The power of those prosecuting this war (Globalist International Socialists) are such that Mann will walk away with a very secure pension instead of the lifelong incarceration he deserves.

    We are already DECADES INTO A HOSTILE ENGAGEMENT (war) FOR THE DDEFENSE AND PRESERVATION OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION that the left hates so viciously. The Socialists have ramped up the tempo of the conflict about 5 fold in the last 2 decades. Peaceful coexistence between Americans and these International Socialists is unlikely to persist for another decade at this rate of acceleration of hostilities. Note that only one side is on the offensive…while the other side offers up little defense.

    Mann’s hockey stick is such an obvious fraud…there are no other respected global temperature plots that have any resemblance whatsoever to that manufactured propaganda piece. Who out there is still defending it?

  14. “This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. ”

    After he reads that, do you think “Dr. Fraudpants” will be lighting a fire under his legal team to get his claim against Mark Steyn “adjudicated on its merits” ASAP?

      • The Jerry Sandusky of climate science hasn’t won anything yet. He’ll have plenty of time to think about what he’s done when he’s in the state pen.

          • Try Google Scholar. BTW there is no truth in any science, just the nest explanation and analyses of evidence and data. Science doesn’t know what the truth is and works by discarding what is false. What remains is the best knowledge available at that time. You should have learned that in middle school.

          • Rob,

            Catastrophic AGW, ie CACA, was born falsified, so if you really embraced science, you’d know it was a crock.

          • If there is no CAGW, then there is no need to do anything.
            The benefits of enhanced CO2 and a degree or two of warming are 100% beneficial.

            It’s only by projecting 5 to 10C of warming that the alarmists hope to con people into giving them money.

            BTW, about 100 million years ago, CO2 levels were routinely above 5000 ppm, and life didn’t perish, in fact it flourished.

          • My cyberstalker makes a classic rookie faux pas and establishes why it is scientifically illiterate.

            … about 100 million years ago, CO2 levels were routinely above 5000 ppm, and life didn’t perish, in fact it flourished.

            The scientifally literate will need no explanation why this is a load og gobbledygook.

          • Once again, Rob reveals that he has nothing. Instead of dealing with counter arguments he just yells even louder how everyone who isn’t him, is an idiot.

        • Steyn’s countersuit puts Mann in extreme jeopardy. It means that if he deletes the emails which Virginia courts wrongly ruled were his property, then Mann has destroyed evidence.

          Steyn has brilliantly forced Mann, through the megalomaniac’s own hubris, to preserve the evidence of his antiscientific collusion and conspiracy to rob trillions and kill tens of millions.

          The slimy charlatan is going down, hoist by his own bombastic petard.

        • Be rude, obnoxious and throw your toys out the cit when you get schooled. Ask Steyn if he won is Appeal to have the SLAPP suit dismissed? Do some reading pumpkin before shooting from the hip. You give contrarians and conspiracy theorists a bad name. unnecessarily.

          • Actually, Steyn didn’t appeal from the trial Court’s decision not to dismiss Mann’s lawsuit. He wanted to go forward with a trial.

            His codefendants appealed and initially lost. They then filed a motion to the appellate court to reconsider. That motion has now been pending for several years without a decision. In a functional court that type of motion is unusually addressed in a few weeks.

          • Mann won the appeal against CEI/NRO/Steyn in DC District Appeals Court 12/22/16 “[The defendants’ statement that] Dr. Mann has engaged in misconduct has been so definitively discredited, a reasonable jury could, if it so chooses, doubt the veracity of appellants’ claimed honest belief in that very notion. A jury could find, by clear and convincing evidence, that appellants “in fact entertained serious doubts” or had a “high degree of awareness” that the accusations that Dr. Mann engaged in scientific misconduct, fraud, and deception, were false, and, as a result, acted “with reckless disregard” for the statements’ truth when they were published.”

          • Rob’s fascination with using language degrading children is creepy. I wonder if he talks that way when wrestling in the showers.

          • Enjoying all of that free-time in retirement, Jerry (errr…”Rob”)?

            “… Jerry Sandusky lost a bid for a new trial Tuesday but a Pennsylvania appeals court ordered him to be resentenced for a 45-count child molestation conviction.

            The former Penn State assistant football coach was sentenced in 2012 to 30 to 60 years, but a Superior Court panel said that included the improper application of mandatory minimums.

            In a 119-page opinion, the appeals panel struck down argument after argument that lawyers for Sandusky, 75, had made in seeking a new trial…

          • Another sick psycho cyberstalker. Probably with a small mushroom-shaped member like the lying coward clown in the WH. For a supposed science site it sure is full of under-educated braying simpletons.

          • Rob: Nothing you have written contradicts what I wrote: “His codefendants appealed and initially lost. They then filed a motion to the appellate court to reconsider. That motion has now been pending for several years without a decision. In a functional court that type of motion is unusually addressed in a few weeks.”

          • Nope, the Appeal was decided by the Appeals Court in 2016 and Mann prevailed. Steyn also filed for an immediate hearing or dismissal and lost. Steyn is a party co-joined with the defendants. Steyn can decide when the case is adjudicated what next to do. In DC this is a jury trial – not a sole judge as in Canada.

  15. As I have coached 8-12 year olds in local competitive sport I have always had to buff up little egos and keep kids grounded when they don’t win. Just because you didn’t win does not mean you are a loser but Mann, you are a loser. Top to bottom, side to side, front to back all round total loser in every sense of the word! I refrained from using all caps and many exclamation marks.

  16. How could Mann claim he suffered from “defamation” when he later claimed to be a Nobel Laureate?
    Wrong on both counts?

  17. Josh’s cartoon says it better in one cartoon than all the thousands of words written since the verdict was given.
    Excellent Josh — right on the money!

  18. “For a start, although Mann always presents himself as the victim, it is important to remember that, in this case as in mine, he is the plaintiff”

    How does being a plaintiff make him not a victim? Logic doesn’t follow there.

  19. You are definitely not alone. And, as long as I’m here, I want to thank Rob for so bombastically professing his “One True Religion”. It’s complete nonsense, of course, but the devil in me just loves to watch him, who is obviously a High Priest, or maybe even a Neighborhood Watch Captain, do faceplants…over, and over, and over. He’s “…all sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

      • Which is why they had to truncate the proxies and start using the thermometer record.

        Such ignorance is not to be admired. 173 independent temperature-sensitive paleoclimate proxy records un-calibrated to instrument data conclude that the planet has been in a warming trend since 1880 with data going back to 1730. The fastest warming period was the last 25 years of the data (1980 -2005) which was significantly faster than the long-term trend of 1880 -2005. The published science is freely available and even feckless you should be able to find it with a simple Google search.

        • Poor Rob, reduced to refuting arguments nobody has ever made.
          It’s also quite obvious that he has absolutely no knowledge of any the science behind global warming. He just regurgitates NYT editorials on clue.

          I’ve never, not even once denied the fact that the world has warmed since the end of the little ice age. What I deny is the claims by you that CO2 was responsible for this warming. There isn’t a shred of science behind your belief that only CO2 explains this warming.

          On the other hand, the so called hockey stick which you have so offensively defended denies the existence of the LIA.

    • As above, negative feedback is to be expected on a self-regulating water world.

      That means that the lab value for ECS of 1.1 K per doubling of CO2 should be 0.0 to 1.0 K with feedbacks rather than the IPCC’s fanciful 3.0 to 4.5 K.

      • Almost all of the recent estimates of ECS based on real world data, not models, have found the ECS to be less than 1.0C.

        • Many commenters here and contributors elsewhere might disagree, but I agree with you that net feedbacks are in fact negative, for a global ECS between 0.0 and 1.0 K.

  20. CtM,

    My brother, you’re welcome.

    Glad that you and so many other readers enjoyed Steyn’s inimicable rejoinder to Mann’s pathetic, megalomanical raving lunacy.

    John T.

  21. It seems like lone-troll-Rob is all there is remaining in an last ditch PR effort to salvage some of remnants of those Manninan machinations which gave the world that Hockey Stick with which they tried to sell a gullible world that CAGW-narrative.

    How many times can you say ‘ corroborated’ ‘many times since’ by ‘peer reviewed’ or found in the ‘primary literature’ without having a clue but still believing such phrases amount to an argument (for the CAGW-belief system that cannot be questioned)?

    The crux is very simple:
    Tree rings are not temperature-reading instruments, not even temperature proxies. (As the ‘divergence’, the decline that needed to be hidden clearly demonstrates).

    Tree rings can be used for pinpointing historical events called dendro-chronology, but dendro-climotology is essentially pseudo science.

    For other practical purposes tree rings should be viewed as random noise. And when you then select sequences with an uptick towards the end, give them extra extra weight in the assessments, claim that that uptick makes them temperature proxies, of course you’d get both the ‘modern era uptick’ and the straight handle of the stick (since there you’re just averaging trendless noise).

    But if Mann (still?) maintains the opposite, we all just should take theses claims as gospel. At least that’s what Rob maintains while stamping his feet …

    Apparently because of ‘peer review’ or ‘denier’ or ‘right-wing’ or some such …

    Well. It hasn’t worked before other than on the sheeple and already-believers in the CAGW-cult. But they still try …

    🙂

    A

  22. Troll Rob’s playbook dates from 9 -> 10 years ago and – just passing through – I note that rational argument is still missing from his approach even now.

    In the old days Anthony would have binned him at the second insult. The fact that he doesn’t do that now either means that he’s keeping Rob around for our amusement or that he has become more tolerant of the perennially stupid.

    Bit of both probably.

    (Don’t bother to come back on this Rob. Back in the day I heard all the foaming insults from some famously heavyweight climate trolls. You’re nowhere near their league.)

  23. Wow, this has been entertainment plus.
    Thanks ”Rob” for one of the biggest put down of trolls I have witnessed on this site for quite some time. Such a shame you can’t make a ”Mann” out of your self and face up to observational reality, I guess mother nature will take care of that in the end when CAGW has been proven to be the biggest con against humanity in history.

    • There is no such science as CAGW. This well worn out denier and contrarian meme is a comfort blanket for the mentally handicapped snowflakes in their cults and claques of fiction. Only fundamentalist trolls with a hard-on for world destruction use such silly language. You can change and recover by reversing your aliteracy. Give it try – it won’t hurt a bit – I promise.

      • “There is no such science as CAGW [Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming].”

        Are you denying that alarmists are not predicting “Catastrophic” effects from too much AGW [Anthropogenic Global Warming], Rob?

        Just about every thunderstorm nowadays is [falsely] claimed by alarmists to be causing catastrophic, unprecedented damage due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s CAGW, Rob. If you don’t want to call it by that name, it’s fine with me. Personally, I like to use the most descriptive terms and CAGW describes the situation perfecly.

        The alarmists claim human-caused climate change catastrophe is in our future and is even making itself evident today. All completely false of course, but that’s the claim they make and to deny that CAGW is not part of the fraud is incorrect. CAGW is the main part of the fraud. Without the scary CAGW part, the alarmists would have nothing to sell to keep them in grant/tax money.

        • Silly child, it is alarmists like you and your cult of ignorant science disbelievers that invoke the conspiracies of CAGW. Educated and experienced scientists and scientifically literate folk know that adding energy will amplify or enhance the natural weather patterns and systems. Your personal likes and dislikes are immaterial to science which is precise and as unambiguous as possible. Your follies fall by the wayside of the highway of reality. Good luck growing up and hopefully maturing into a sensible adult.

      • ”There is no such science as CAGW.”…… Oh really?? Please explain to me then as to why there is supposed to be a climate ”crisis” then??? Every day there is some alarmist story trying to link a weather event to a man made climate change. And that’s science??
        The only thing that comes to mind about you Rob, are the words septic tank. And your full of it.
        Cheers.

        • Bleat elsewhere. There is no such science as CAGW except in your denier bubble. Not my fault you are as so indoctrinated, thick as a brick and are grossly under-educated too.

    • Oh yes, there is plenty of effort trying to put out all kind of CAGW predictions, and feeding the CAGW-narrative to a wider public under the pretense of it being ‘science’. Which in CAGW-parlance (and also other politically motivated academic narrative building) means nothing more than ‘published’ in some journal claiming to use ‘peer review’ in their acceptance process.

      The obvious (and disingenuous) attempts to counter this, ie claiming that the term CAGW isn’t used by those promoting it, just reinforces the fact that its all about narrative building, even if it requires the silliest of word games.

  24. There is no such science as CAGW. This well worn out denier and contrarian meme is a comfort blanket for the mentally handicapped snowflakes in their cults and claques of fiction. Only fundamentalist trolls with a hard-on for world destruction use such silly language. You can change and recover by reversing your illiteracy. Give it try – it won’t hurt a bit – I promise.

    Assuredly CAGW is not a science. Thus, there is no meme or comfort blanket for mentally handicapped snowflakes and cliques of fiction here. Your subsequent words that hang on these, consequently, lack substance, as well. You obviously sculpt your spiteful retort with 100% straw, which is not unexpected for a son of the Great Oz.

    Silly child, it is alarmists like you and your cult of ignorant science disbelievers that invoke the conspiracies of CAGW. Educated and experienced scientists and scientifically literate folk know that adding energy will amplify or enhance the natural weather patterns and systems. Your personal likes and dislikes are immaterial to science which is precise and as unambiguous as possible. Your follies fall by the wayside of the highway of reality. Good luck growing up and hopefully maturing into a sensible adult.

    You lower yourself to speak to silly children, which seems odd, given your grand knowledge that rises so high above us. This might lead one to ask why you would play with children so much. I suspect that this is because the hollows of your self deception and narcissist canyons cannot be adequately filled with rousing rounds of playing with yourself.

    • You lower yourself to speak to silly children

      Children need guidance. You should seek out some sensible mature and learned adults. BTW – I know that you, like most others on this echo-chamber will not be swayed … but someone has to give those less delusional the science that you gainsay.

  25. What evidence do we have that Rob is not the Mannster ? ‘Rob-bed by a judicial process that unlike peer review cannot be leant on : certainly fired up to troll almost everyone but in particular those who have stood for rigorous science and have pointed out the Mann-y flows in MBH and others :
    presumably the moderators are investigating

    • Nope, Rob is not the Mannster … ‘he’ is just as likely to be a construct of the Petersburg Internet Research Agency (the Trolls from Olgino).

      “OK Pasha, you can be Rob this morning. Here’s the English thesaurus and the book of climate insults. Now off you go and wind up the WUWT commentators. You score 10 kopeks for everyone you either insult or upset.

      Enjoy, and make your botox’d zek of an employer proud.”

      Pravda, Robski?

        • For those who don’t speak Russian, ‘Rob’ is telling me (via cut ‘n’ paste) to go **ck myself’.

          • You initiate childish slurs against me and when I respond (not cut ‘n’ paste) as you falsely assert physically and technically to defend myself, you start whimpering and appeal to authority. You are a typical cyberbully coward. I have examined invertebrates with more spine than you. Neutered dogs have more balls than you. Grow up and a pair. Don’t enter frays you cannot defend or play in, snowflake.

          • The poor feels the necessity to defend himself. 😀
            I’m just searching for a comment from Rob withour any insult of a commenter. Wonder, I didn’t find one ?

            So, Rob, continue to defend your trolling, more you do, more I laugh 😀

          • If your research was as thorough as you imply, you should be turning up different results. Have any literate person to help who knows what they’re doing?

  26. “Rob”,
    You say that you’re a scientist. Okay then – where are you a scientist? What company/university/organization is cutting your paycheck???
    Also, can you please name any and all certifications/qualifications/degrees you currently hold, and from what university(s) did you study/graduate??

    Thanks.

    • On another thread ‘Rob’ boasts:

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/23/here-are-the-scenes-from-dcs-climate-protest/#comment-2803670

      “I know my own career very well after five decades and also a registered professional scientist in the US and internationally where such was required … I have authored or co-authored hundred’s of scientific reports and the odd peer-reviewed paper. I have also contributed to several seminal books on applied Earth and Climate science.”

      If that is all true (and I personally doubt it as I believe that ‘Rob’ is a Russian bot) and can be proven to be so (any time you like for that, ‘Rob’) then it is something to be proud of.

      But if so then you have to wonder what hideous life occurrence happened that turned ‘Rob’ into such an unpleasant arrogant twat.

      • Your self-projection is unbecoming of an adult twat. Jealousy and envy make spineless humans like you, vile and mean! Grow up!

        • Heh, ‘odd peer-reviewed paper’ makes me laugh. But this is the ‘odd rare’, not the ‘odd peculiar’, though I suppose it could possibly be both.
          =========================================

  27. Tone tells, Rob sells, Hell’s bells.

    As mentioned above, it is the straight shaft of the Piltdown Mann’s Crook’d Stick which is the lie. Temperature varies naturally, and we don’t know why. That natural variation has been artificially suppressed in the alarmist narrative mainly means that the alarmists will eventually be demolished by natural cooling.

    This is part of the reason for the increasing hysteria in the alarmist movement, and possibly explains the hysterical Rob. Wow, has he bought the fake news, hook, line and sinker.

    This false narrative of climate doom is an appeal to fear and guilt, and will eventually fail simply because science cannot support it.

    Sorry, Rob, you are a victim.
    =======================

  28. Rob is intelligent and well trained, and he has all the memes of the standard Gorebot down pat. The one that has long amused me the most is the attempt at denial of the CAGW meme. For consistency then, Rob, why all the hysteria lately of 12 more years, and the recent insistence that any unusual weather event is a sign of anthropogenic change?

    The false narrative of climate doom is getting less and less logical; it’s fairly amusing that a logical discipline, science, has been the vehicle. It could have been predicted that it would eventually fail, but why has it been persisted upon when it was sure that it would boomerang.

    The damages and deaths these evil narrators have done, are doing, and will continue to do could have been predicted, and still it went on. Why? Oh yes, politics, which is being increasingly admitted.

    Mostly, I’m just saddened that so many climate scientists whored themselves out to this gimmick, and have damaged not just climate science, but all of science. This has been a terrifying pathology.

    Nonetheless, we’ll survive and thrive. But lost opportunity costs compound and we’ve already damaged succeeding generations with this nonsense.

    It shall not be forgotten, and my hope is that our recovery from this madness of the crowd may partially immunize us from future such sickness.
    =======================

Comments are closed.