Michael Mann just stepped in it.

I wonder what Mike will teach his children and grandchildren about integrity and truth. Of course the problem comes when they want to lean what the world knows of their father/grandfather and the internet never forgets. I just hope that he will still be alive to explain to these young minds why he did it. And beg, at least, their forgiveness.

I live in hope that grown ups will actually return to run things. Differences of opinions are NOT lies. Lies are full untruths. Not half-truths, hypes or mistakes.

This idea that someone is paid to lie is ridiculous in this matter. Yes, people do get paid to exaggerate and obfuscate.

I once worked for a PR firm. In the morning I prepared material for a pro-smoking campaign paid for by tobacco companies. In the afternoon, I worked for a cancer charity. I didn’t last long as the sleaziness made me sick.

But for someone like Mann to say that someone is PAID to LIE is pathetic (and probably provably wrong).

It would mean someone actually BELIEVES his apocalyptic crap about climate change, but ignores it to cash a check.

Anyone who reads WUWT knows that skeptics are not deniers (whatever they are anyway). We simply don’t see the numbers the same way as True Believers, which means we can’t make the same conclusions.

Nothing to “lie” about at all.

Bob,

Perhaps so, as Steve hasn’t posted anything at Cimate Audit since mid-July and that was with respect to PAGES2K cherry picking back in 2014.

I am a lawyer. Mann’s delay in producing evidence was deemed a refusal by the court, hence the dismissal. A refusal to provide evidence when it is available leads to a jury instruction allowing the factfinders to draw an adverse inference from said refusal, i.e., that such evidence either does not exist or does not support the refuser’s position or in fact is contrary to the ref user’s position. In argument to the jury, a lawyer would call the refusal to provide available evidence a “consciousness of guilt” in a criminal case, or an admission against interest in a civil case, and in either case would fit within a jury instruction on how to judge credibility, obviously against the refuser. The failure to appeal would not likely be admissible unless his statement that he would appeal somehow was allowed in evidence. But the prior refusal to provide evidence very likely would be admissible in a subsequent case in which the issue of the credibility of his hockey stick claim is relevant—and in some circumstances he might even be prohibited from offering any evidence even if he had a change of heart and were inclined to do so. In short, from a legal perspective Mann’s credibility is non-existent.