Friday Funny – D-Words Describe Defective Mann

Our resident cartoonist Josh writes:

Apparently Michael Mann has a new book out where he describes a whole new slew of climate change ‘D words’, but which sound, as ever, like he is describing himself… “dissembler, deceiver, downplayer, divider, deflector, doomer, delayer, distractor.”

4.6 36 votes
Article Rating
124 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Zig Zag Wanderer
July 9, 2021 1:47 pm

Classic projection, as is so common with the natural climate change deniers.

Greg
July 9, 2021 1:48 pm

D for projection.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Greg
July 9, 2021 8:25 pm

Confession through projection … a typical progressive fault.

Tom Halla
July 9, 2021 1:50 pm

The sheer intellectual bankruptcy of the climate change establishment is illustrated by Michael Mann still being taken seriously. Publishing, and not retracting, a study that produces the same results from red noise shows his basic dishonesty.

kakatoa
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 9, 2021 7:17 pm

Climategate ‘hide the decline’ was explained by Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller a few years back.

 
https://youtu.be/8BQpciw8suk

Decades ago I saw a few offices taped off with yellow tape. Hard drives and paper files were removed by the agents for review. I heard that a few scientists were detained while the offices were forensically gone over.
 

John Phillips
Reply to  kakatoa
July 10, 2021 2:41 am

Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of climate skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in August 2013.

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forces. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.

http://berkeleyearth.org/about/

paul courtney
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 5:00 am

Mr. Phillips: Thank you for the press release, their PR Dep’t is the BEST. I wonder if anybody has disputed Mr. Hausfather’s report? Did you look?

John Phillips
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 10, 2021 3:17 am

 a study that produces the same results from red noise 

The paper was not retracted because the claim is not true.
 
It came from McIntyre and McKitrick. Red noise is random or ‘white’ noise that has had a trend added. Clearly the red noise should have the same statistical profile as the data you are simulating. In fact M&M used data with an unrealistic degree of persistence. (Wegman, with an astonishing lack of diligence simply parroted the M&M result without trying to reproduce it independently. Professor David Ritson wrote to Wegman asking for details of the noise generation and is still waiting for a reply. Where is an auditor when you really need one?).
 
Even with this data, the results had a tiny magnitude compared to the real hockey stick and half pointed down, not up. So M&M amended the code to ‘mine’ for hockey stick shapes and only plotted a selection from the 1% with the highest ‘hockey stick index’.
 
If you run enough simulations you can find any pattern you want eventually, so it is not that meaningful an exercise, a better question is: using red noise with the variance and lag-one autocorrelation coefficients) as the actual North American ITRDB series, and applying the MBH98 PCA convention, how likely is one to produce the “Hockey Stick” pattern from chance alone? The analysis has in fact been done:
 
“The Monte Carlo experiments were performed for both the MBH98 (non-centered) and MM (centered) PCA conventions. This analysis showed that the “Hockey Stick” pattern is highly significant in comparison with the expectations from random (red) noise for both the MBH98 and MM conventions. In the MBH98 convention, the “Hockey Stick” pattern corresponds to PC#1 , and the variance carried by that pattern is more than 5 times what would be expected from chance alone under the null hypothesis of red noise (blue curve at x=1: y = 0.07), significant well above the 99% confidence level (the first 2 PCs are statistically significant at the 95% level in this case). For comparison, in the MM convention, the “Hockey Stick” pattern corresponds to PC#4, and the variance carried by that pattern is about 2 times what would be expected from chance alone, and still clearly significant (the first 5 PCs are statistically significant at the 95% level in this case).
 
So the facts deal a death blow to yet another false claim by McIntyre and McKitrick.”
 
Source https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/on-yet-another-false-claim-by-mcintyre-and-mckitrick/

See also: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/house06/RitsonWegmanRequests.pdf
https://deepclimate.org/2010/11/16/replication-and-due-diligence-wegman-style/
https://deepclimate.org/2010/10/25/the-wegman-report-sees-red-noise/

Tom Halla
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 9:12 am

MBH 98 is preposterous, mostly on the historical record as well as other proxies. As the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were inconvenient for those claiming an overwhelming influence for GHGs, Mann’s motivations are transparent.

John Phillips
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 10, 2021 9:35 am

Um, MBH98 only went back to 1400, so said nothing about the MWP. As for the canonical MBH99, it has been confirmed many times over -most recently by PAGES2K (MBH99 in blue, PAGES in green).

WUWT MBH.jpg
Tom Halla
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 9:50 am

Mann is quite good at fundraising, and most of the studies supporting the hockey stick have been co-authors of Mann’s.

Editor
July 9, 2021 2:09 pm

Go Josh, Go!

Good one.

Martin C
Reply to  Andy May
July 9, 2021 2:38 pm

One of the better ‘d’ words that i would describe Mann as is D!P$SH!T 🙂

Poems of our Climate
Reply to  Martin C
July 9, 2021 3:06 pm

Dipstick?

MarkW
Reply to  Poems of our Climate
July 9, 2021 6:43 pm

Deadbeat

Has he ever paid the legal expenses that the courts ordered him to pay?

Last edited 20 days ago by MarkW
ozspeaksup
Reply to  Poems of our Climate
July 10, 2021 2:29 am

nah a dipstick IS useful and functional
mann isnt

MARTIN BRUMBY
July 9, 2021 2:28 pm

Drip

MarkW
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
July 10, 2021 10:37 am

Drip

MARTIN BRUMBY
July 9, 2021 2:30 pm

Drongo

MARTIN BRUMBY
July 9, 2021 2:31 pm

Dim Wit

Clarky of OZ
Reply to  MARTIN BRUMBY
July 10, 2021 7:19 am

Beat me to it

ResourceGuy
July 9, 2021 2:33 pm

Disconnected
Demonic
Dandy
Duplicitous
Dope
Defendant
Dirty
Dung

Scissor
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 9, 2021 4:53 pm

Those sound like his personal pronouns, plus Dolt.

Richard Page
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 9, 2021 4:57 pm

It needs the Leslie Winkle touch.

“Dumbass!”

Last edited 20 days ago by Richard Page
ATheoK
Reply to  ResourceGuy
July 9, 2021 7:55 pm

Desperate
Dingbat
Dummkopf
Dilettante
Delirious
Disaster, statistically
Dam_ed
Deceptive
Delusional
Divisive
Delinquent
Doofus
Dishonest
Deceitful
Dastardly
Defrauder
Dodger
Double-dealer
Double-crosser
Disreputable

And these are before we start with other Mannian relative words, perfidious, mendacious, treacherous, bluffing, cheater, fraudulent and a whole host of similar meanings.

lee
Reply to  ATheoK
July 10, 2021 4:05 am

Doddery delinquent?

Rich Davis
Reply to  ATheoK
July 10, 2021 2:30 pm

Clearly I came too late to the party, but I will offer a few:

Daffy
Damnable
Dangerous
Data-challenged
Data-corrupting
Deluded
Demented
Deranged
Dim
Dimbulb
Dimwit
Dirtbag
Disproved
Ditz
Dork
Dorky
Douche
Douchebag
Dud
Dull
Dullard
Dysfunctional
Dyspeptic

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 11, 2021 5:26 pm

Missed a few

Data-torturing
Detritus
Difficult
Disgrace
Disgraceful
Disgusting
Disputatious
Domineering
Drama queen
Dreck
Dug-in

Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 2:47 pm

Josh perfectly ridicules this new Mann book.
Came out in January, titled ‘The New Climate War’.

Just a few problems:
It is the same OLD climate war Mann enlisted into in 1998.
His book thesis is the same as Oreskes 2010 ‘Merchants of Doubt’— evil fossil fuel comoanies funding deniers. Old thesis disproven; I didn’t get a check yet.

Despite all the ‘D’ projections, in the excerpts and interviews about it by him (just sped read a dozen or so) there is zero factual refutation of any of the skeptical main points refuting the well documented now old warmunist alarms, viz:

  • Models run hot, and CMIP6 is worse than CMIP5.
  • Observational ECS is half of models, so AR5 could not even assign a central estimate.
  • Sea level rise is not accelerating.
  • Arctic sea ice has not disappeared.
  • Polar bears are thriving.
  • No tipping points have tipped, or about to. Icecaps, species extinctions…
  • Renewables at any appreciable grid penetration DO NOT work; they require intermittency backup and provide no grid inertia.
  • Renewables are expensive; none get installed without subsidies today despite 30 years of subsidies to ‘get them started’.
  • China and India ignore the climate kerfuffle and build lots of coal generation.
Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 3:39 pm

“comoanies* I thought that co-moanies must be Greenies and Lefties (but I repeat myself).

Bruce Cobb
July 9, 2021 2:49 pm

LiarMann’s a Doofus.

Earthling2
July 9, 2021 3:00 pm

Michael the Mann…Dumb and Dumber. Or just Dumbo for short.

Andrew Wilkins
July 9, 2021 3:22 pm

He’s a solid gold twat.
Ignore him.

layor nala
July 9, 2021 3:26 pm

I have ‘read’ the book. It was completely unbalanced (surprise) and full of self-congratulation. Difficult to follow ‘arguments’.

Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 3:41 pm

A thought. If we had not been gifted Mann as an object of justified ridicule, we would have had to invent him. Fortunately, he volunteered himself as a ‘Disgrace to the Profession’.

My favorite Mann video clip is from the some years agoCongressional hearing involving Curry, Steyn, Christy, and Mann as witnesses. Mann whined during questioning that he had never called anyone a Denier. Curry snapped a response: ‘You just called me that in your written testimony for this hearing! Forgot already?’
Is an indelible 17 second Youtube Mann moment.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 3:59 pm

And, I just learned something more. Youtube has deleted the oft posted clip. Fortunately, it is still archived under the entire Congressional hearing itself, but a pain to find this snippet. Trump’s Google censorship class action just got another plaintiff. I will notify Judith to join.

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 4:08 pm

It’s so telling how bias has infiltrated all media. You can’t even post an excerpt from a Congressional Hearing without it being censored if it dows not support ‘the narrative’!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 4:11 pm

Just to prove how pervasive it is, try searching for the words she said. Nothing about the incident comes up, even on DuckDuckGo.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 5:53 pm

Let’s narrow that missing youtube video clip down. It was on 3/29/17, Lamar Smith’s committee hearing.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 6:22 pm

OK, finally found it because Judith archived it on her blog. So, the YouTube snippet was archived by Judith herself at her blog:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/31/deniers-liers-and-politics/
The internet is forever—you just have to know how to get around.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 6:27 pm

Let’s try that url once more before you all search yourselves:
https://judithcurry.com/2017/03/31/deniers-lies-and-politics;

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 6:44 pm

Yup, that one works and is archived.

Earthling2
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 9, 2021 8:28 pm

I think this was the same Congressional hearing with Curry, Steyn and Christy where Mann opened his testimony by stating that as he spoke, cows were being being burnt alive in Texas caused by weather ‘attribution’, a concept he was introducing as being able to fingerprint weather events due to man made climate change. There had been some fires that week in Texas as there had been a drought and there was some fires and some cows got caught in one of them. And he blamed all that squarely on our emissions. Will have to watch it again later tonight.

But that statement just had me stunned, as I think it did many of the committee. And I vividly recall Judith bring that up about him calling her a denier in his written submission and him denying it. I watched it live, since was advertised here for recommended watching. How do mediocre so called climate scientists even get the traction they do? He is hyperbolic over the top in all his pronouncements on CAGW.

Last edited 20 days ago by Earthling2
Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 10, 2021 7:39 pm

I keep wondering why there is no resource forum existing to archive material and readable science papers be available also archived for access.

I had a forum that did that for a while but no one supported it and the evil corporation bought out the server and shut me down on purpose.

My old forum still alive in Wayback who seems to like it a lot as they archived more than the front page.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rud Istvan
July 10, 2021 4:29 am

In the same session Dr Curry testified that AGW was ‘as likely as not’ to become a major problem.



paul courtney
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 5:05 am

Mr. Phillips: So why did you guys attack her and get her position at Ga. Tech cancelled? What were you afraid of with J. Curry?

John Phillips
Reply to  paul courtney
July 10, 2021 7:49 am

I have never once attacked Dr Curry, in fact I agree with a lot of what she has to say. As far as I know she retired from her tenured position aged 63, and now focusses on her private company and her blog.

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 10:18 am

John, have you read (in her own words) why she retired? The fact that you claim you never attacked her seems to be an attempt to deflect from the history of CliSciFi vituperation.

John Phillips
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 10, 2021 2:09 pm

Can’t be bothered to look it up however I think she complained about the ‘craziness’ of the climate debate.

Four years later we have a lame cartoon prompting 80-odd vitriolic and baseless ad-hominem comments against a member of the National Academy of Sciences. Looks like she had a point.

(Maybe it is a language thing – I am English – but Andrew Wilkins’ comment at 3.22 does not exactly speak to me of a sane debate. Hey ho.)

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 4:03 pm

John, the “craziness of the climate debate” comment of hers had to do with the CliSciFi practitioners and their academic and political enablers attacking her personally and relentlessly. It is and was cancel culture writ large applied to her. Like most Leftist, the evil practiced by CliSciFi will be their undoing.

John Phillips
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 10, 2021 4:26 pm

He said, in a thread dedicated to attacks against Dr Mann both ‘ personally and relentlessly’.

Dave Fair
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 4:49 pm

John, deflection does not work on open forums. Vicious CliSciFi attacks on Dr. Curry are well documented. Michael Mann’s criticisms are well and truly earned. One must be a true ideologue if one reads his many vituperators comments and his CliSciFi lies and does not come away with a huge aversion to his slimy existence. Get better heroes.

paul courtney
Reply to  John Phillips
July 11, 2021 1:08 pm

Mr.Phillips: Oh, I see, obtuse is your fall back? “You guys” means you guys who still try to defend Mann, but maybe I was unclear. So, try this- why did Mann lie about her(in that same session)? “As far as you know…”, but one comment later you know she was attacked for a “complaint”. Don’t look it up, hold tight to your ignorance so long as you’re transparent about it.

Earthling2
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 1:01 pm

“Burning cattle alive” @ 31:52 What is this, some sort of ancient memory of animal sacrifice at the alter of fire? 97% scientific consensus? When did science become a consensus effort, which is what religion is, combined with faith? Science is the opposite of consensus, faith and religion. Ask Einstein.

“In the ancient world the bull was a symbol of strength and power. Every culture in the ancient world was connected to bull worship in one way or another. Many people would seek the bull deity for divine blessings, whether for rich crops and a fertile harvest or for victory in battles. The sacrifice of the bull was the most significant form of worship.” Michael Mann is full of bull shit!

Last edited 19 days ago by Earthling2
commieBob
July 9, 2021 3:52 pm

It always brings joy to my heart to point out that Mann has effectively admitted that he does belong in state pen.

Mann sued Tim Ball because Ball quipped that Mann belonged in state pen not Penn State. Mann dragged out the case forever until the court dismissed the case because of those unreasonable delays. So, Mann by his delaying tactics avoided presenting evidence over which he had control. That gives rise to adverse inference. In other words, we may infer what the evidence would have demonstrated if it had been presented. Surely, if Mann had a case, he would have pursued it, which would have entailed presenting said evidence.

I love to say it. Mann has admitted that he belongs in state pen.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  commieBob
July 9, 2021 5:48 pm

Also, it follows, if a researcher fails to produce all related data and calculations necessary for anyone to falsify or reproduce his research, that research, in whatever form, is invalid and should never have passed peer review … particularly the Mann, Bradley & Hughes 1998 (MBH98) paper.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 10, 2021 8:04 am

So many myths.

The most serious contention in your letter — namely, that my work has not been subject to replication because I have failed to make available the underlying research data — is incorrect. Your letter notes that the National Research Council’s “gold standard” for scientific research is the ability of other scientists to replicate first-generation research, and I fully agree. My colleagues and I follow the National Research Council’s guidance with regards to the disclosure of research data, and all of our data and methodologies have been fully disclosed and are available to anyone with a computer and an internet connection. As a result of our willingness to share our research with others, an independent team of scientists has used the research data my colleagues and I have made public to replicate our research and confirm the reliability of our findings. ”

https://web.archive.org/web/20051108041810/https://www.realclimate.org/Mann_response_to_Barton.pdf

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 10:03 am

So many myths.

So much puffery. Mann lost at least two law suits for failing to produce discovery material in a timely manner. McIntyre and McKitrick had to reconstruct Mann’s data and related material forensically. Take you pseudo-science goat rodeo elsewhere. No one is buying.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 10, 2021 12:02 pm

Simply untrue (or can you name the cases?).

So you are now saying Dr Mann lied to the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in writing and nobody, McIntrye included, contradicted him?

Is there anything you will not believe?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 12:46 pm

So you are now saying Dr Mann lied to the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Yes. He’s a liar, a poltroon and a fraud. He lost his case against Tim ball, with prejudice and costs. He also lost against Mark Steyn and the National Review with prejudice, in a summary judgement. Now he’s proving to be a deadbeat as well as the other failures. He refuses to pay his legal costs in the cause.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 10, 2021 2:24 pm

Hmmm. I asked you to name the two cases you claimed were lost because Dr Mann failed to disclose data. You cite Ball and Steyn.

In the Ball case no court order was made against Dr Mann to disclose data, the case was dismissed solely due to delay, at Ball’s request. Fail.

You make the bizarre claim that Dr Mann has lost the Steyn case on a summary judgement. Simply untrue. While both sides have requested such a judgement, none has yet been made. Fail.

As for the National Review case, it was dismissed on the simple, narrow basis that Steyn was not a NR employee at the time he made the defamatory statement. Nothing about data disclosure or the science. Triple fail.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 2:40 pm

No court order is required to force disclosure in discoveries. They have simply failed to meet the burden of proof … an automatic dismissal.

Mann continues to lose …on merit on science and on procedure.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 10, 2021 4:41 pm

No court order is required to force disclosure in discoveries. “

Simply untrue. Without the backing of a court order any request for disclosure has no legal merit.

Not that it matters. Dr Mann’s conclusions are based on data and methods that are 100% in the public domain.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 6:40 pm

Simply untrue. Without the backing of a court order any request for disclosure has no legal merit.

Wrong again. You have no idea what you’re talking about. Each party to a legal dispute before the courts are required under Rule 7-1 — Discovery and Inspection of Documents — Discovery and Inspection of Documents

But more important is, under Rule 7-2 — Examinations for Discovery …
Examination of parties(1) Subject to subrule (2), each party of record to an action must
(a) make himself or herself available, or
(b) if any of subrules (5) to (10) apply, make a person referred to in that subrule available,
for examinations for discovery by the parties of record to the action who are adverse in interest to the party subject to examination.
Oral examination on oath(4) An examination for discovery is an oral examination on oath.

That means Ball’s lawyers get to examine Mann directly and ask anything they want. Mann kept avoiding this mandatory, pretrial process.

Mr.
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 10, 2021 5:11 pm

per·fi·dy (pûr′fĭ-dē)

1. Deliberate breach of faith; calculated violation of trust; treachery: “the fink, whose perfidy was equaled only by his gall” (Gilbert Millstein).
2. The act or an instance of treachery.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Mr.
July 10, 2021 6:44 pm

Exactly. Mann was a coward and unable to stand up to direct questioning in pretrial discovery. Some cases don’t need to go to trial. It’s possible to win a case using the means of many brief hearings in what are called chambers hearings.

Sunsettommy
Editor
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 7:41 pm

He lost to Dr. Ball in Canada 2 years ago, are you really that far behind?

Dr. Mann sued him for defamation then sat on his ass doing very little for years, which forms the main basis for the dismissal.

It went that way because Mann knew he would look bad during discovery phase, thus the ass dragging of the lawsuit.

Last edited 19 days ago by Sunsettommy
John Phillips
Reply to  commieBob
July 10, 2021 7:53 am

The case, and the outcome, has zero bearing on the science.

commieBob
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 8:58 am

You mean other than that the Mann admitted his ‘science’ was fraudulent.

Last edited 20 days ago by commieBob
John Phillips
Reply to  commieBob
July 10, 2021 9:07 am

Please provide a quote or link where he did that. You can’t.

It was a defamation case, Ball applied for a dismissal on grounds of delay which he was granted. None of the allegations were ever litigated. If you want to ‘infer’ anything it is that Ball was unwilling to fight on and got the case dismissed on a technicality.

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 10:46 am

That is one of the best examples of weasel worded dissembling I have ever read.

The fact that the person who brought the suit refused, over the space of years, to provide the data that the courts ordered him to produce is not a technicality.

John Phillips
Reply to  MarkW
July 10, 2021 12:07 pm

That is not a fact. Dr Mann was never asked by the court for any data, code, calculations or indeed any material related to the science.

From the ruling

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.”

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

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 12:56 pm

Both Steyn and Ball demanded the controversial material in discoveries. Mann failed to produce the material. The court does not ask for the material. The parties do that as a matter of court rules. Failure to provide all documentation required by the opponent is automatically in contempt of court.

Your quote from the judge’s ‘Reasons’ is non sequitur. It has nothing to do with the issue.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 10, 2021 2:34 pm

Both Steyn and Ball demanded the controversial material in discoveries. Mann failed to produce the material. The court does not ask for the material. The parties do that as a matter of court rules. Failure to provide all documentation required by the opponent is automatically in contempt of court.”

Balony. To be in contempt of court a party must defy a court order or instruction (think about it). No such court order has ever been made against Dr Mann. He has complied with all legal disclosure requirements.

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1166711465597968384/photo/1

commieBob
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 11:53 am

Adverse inference is a legal term and is very potent in court. It is the death knell for the side against which it is invoked.

I suppose that the referee finding lead weights in a boxer’s gloves would cause that boxer to lose the bout on a technicality. ROTFL

John Phillips
Reply to  commieBob
July 10, 2021 12:21 pm

As I said, the appropriate inference is that Ball did not want to go to court and asked for a dismissal for delay instead of the case being judged on its merits.

You have been unable to back up the claim that Mann admitted his fraud, as it is untrue. The claims were never tested in court.

You claimed there was a court order for Mann to disclose data. There was no such order.

When you are in a hole the best advice is to stop digging.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 1:00 pm

There’s no sense arguing with you because you have no understanding of court procedure, language or rules. Mann lost. His loss proves Ball’s case by inference. It was Mann who did everything in his power to delay having a trial.He knew he would lose. That’s why he delays and delays. The court finally got tired of his delaying tactics.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 10, 2021 2:50 pm

Of course Phillips knows this but thinks that he can lie and deceive by half truths.

commieBob
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 1:04 pm

You claimed there was a court order for Mann to disclose data.

How about a direct quote.

Mann wasn’t even willing to enter court and expose himself to cross examination.

If the other fighter won’t come out of his corner do you have to wait for him until the heat death of the universe?

Lrp
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 1:48 pm

Mann admired his fraud the moment he went to court to settle a scientific argument.

Rich Davis
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 2:47 pm

When you are in a hole the best advice is to stop digging.

Very true. Why haven’t you stopped? Obtuse?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 6:27 pm

As I said, the appropriate inference is that Ball did not want to go to court and asked for a dismissal for delay instead of the case being judged on its merits.

There is no such inference assumed. Parties in any dispute are required to conduct matters in a timely manner. The court determined that Mann was wasting the court’s and the other party’s time. Ball as the respondent and had no authority to request the judge to rule as he did. It was clear to the court that Mann had no interest in being heard in trial.

You’re clearly ignorant of court procedure and the specifics of the action.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 11, 2021 3:04 am

“Ball was the respondent and had no authority to request the judge to rule as he did.”

More balony. The second line of the judgement states Ball made an application for dismissal 

The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.

And while Ball never posted his request, Mann’s lawyer quoted from the accompanying affadavit in advice to his client.

My Health

82. I myself am 80-years old (born 5th November 1938. I am diagnosed a Type 2 diabetic controlled by insulin. 

83. I had quintuple bypass surgery in June 2007.

84. After the trial adjournment in February of 2017, I suffered coronary heart failure. This occurred in May 2017. It result in the surgical insertion of five stints in my heart. I am on blood thinners and will be for the rest of my life.”

Ball’s request that your lawsuit against him be terminated for delay also relied heavily on his argument that Ball’s accusations have not damaged your reputation.

According to a written submission filed with the Court by Ball’s lawyer:

“Dr. Ball’s website did not appear in a Google Search of Dr. Mann or his research for at least 92% of all searchers, likely more. Dr. Ball’s website has a low ranking and low popularity as calculated by Alexa, software used to judge website popularity.”

“…there are eight years of evvidence to support the complete lack of damage to reputation in BC or elsewhere.”

Basically this is tantamount to saying that Ball’s accusations against you have been given no credibility by the average, reasonable reader.

In summary, the court’s brief ruling on August 22 made no finding on whether your claims were valid, or whether Ball’s pleaded defenses had any merit.

Such findings would have been made at a trial, which will now not happen (unless this ruling is reversed on appeal).

Note that the judgement makes no reference to Mann failing to comply with any order to disclose any data, that would be because there never was any such order. In fact the Judge complained that for the motion to dismiss both sides had submitted too much information.

” 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.”.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 11, 2021 2:26 pm

You’re STILL not getting it. It is customary to apply for a dismissal as the easiest means to end a case when the plaintiff has shown no sign of wanting to go to trial. It wasn’t Ball who wanted to avoid trial; he had everything to gain. It was Mann who had nothing to gain from trial. It was proven in the end that Mann had no cause of action and it was obvious he was dragging his feet to avoid trial.

Typically you misinterpreted what did take place. The Judge’s point was that the case was a defamation case, having nothing to do with climate science. Therefore the evidence was inflated beyond his needs to hear a libel case.

The upshot was, Mann’s case was dismissed with prejudice and Ball received costs in the cause.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 11, 2021 3:33 pm

It wasn’t Ball who wanted to avoid trial

Oh but it so was. He successfully applied for the case to be dismissed on the basis of delay, backed up with his poor health and the fact that no sensible person takes him seriously. (You might want to also look up Ball vs Weaver and Ball vs the Calgary Herald. There is a pattern here.).
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Ball#Controversies_and_lawsuits

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 11, 2021 5:08 pm

No, it wasn’t Ball who wanted to avoid trial because, like Steyn, they want to get the fraudulent science of ME Mann in front of a lawyer for cross examination … first in discoveries, then in trial.
The fact that Mann’s legal team (with the bottomless pockets of his Marxist backers) managed to drag the case out for nearly a decade made that impossible due to Ball’s failing health. He still won the case as he did in his case against Andrew Weaver. Yes, there is a pattern here. With practically no personal resources Dr. Tim Ball has won both of his cases against the deep pockets of the climate crazies.

Among other things Dr. Timothy Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor in the Geology Dept. at the University of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. Ball is also Chief Science Advisor of the International Climate Science Coalition and a Policy Advisor to The Heartland Institute. With a doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England, Dr. Ball’s comprehensive background in the field includes a strong focus on the reconstruction of past climates.

Mann has no degree in climatology. It’s clear he really knows very little about the field … especially paleo-climate, as Ball does.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 11, 2021 7:20 pm

He still won the case as he did in his case against Andrew Weaver. 

Well, there is winning and then there is winning. Okay, let us just unpack that. Andrew Weaver brought a case for defamation against Ball after Ball wrote an article in the Canada Free Press (now retracted) alleging that Weaver would be dropped from the next IPCC report for a lack of expertise. Did Ball win the case? Well, not really. It is true the judge dismissed the libel action, but not because Ball had a valid point, but because nobody sensible would take him seriously. Apparently in law to defame someone, you have to have credibility, something the Court decided Timothy Ball lacks…

… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth. …”

“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views”

If that is winning, I would hate to see what does losing looks like.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 11, 2021 8:23 pm

Did Ball win the case? Well, not really. It is true the judge dismissed the libel action, but not because Ball had a valid point, but because nobody sensible would take him seriously. Apparently in law to defame someone, you have to have credibility, something the Court decided Timothy Ball lacks…

A case is judged on the merits of the Plaintiff’s evidence, arguments are a distant second. Civil law is based on the preponderance of the evidence, not the judges opinion of the respondent. Weaver lost his case because he lacked credible evidence to support it. Ball came out the winner. In court any win is a win. You watch too much TV. Your understanding of law and courts reflects that.

Whatever the Judge’s opinion of the “offending” article, he really has no expertise on it’s merits and the topic in general. Unless he points out the “inaccuracies” and the “errors” and cites his expertise on writing style his remarks greatly overstep his position as a judge (noted for bad writing). I suspect the Judge is just an ignorant true believer who was able to take a swipe at a real climatologist.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 12, 2021 5:35 am

Well firstly, Weaver appealed the dismissal and it has been reversed. The matter is back before the courts to decide damages and other matters, but the appeal court was clear – The article was defamatory, Ball lost the case.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/andrew-weaver-wins-appeal-1.5551662

Secondly, here is the apology and retraction from the Canada Free Press, which published, and then withdrew Ball’s defamatory article 

Apology to Dr. Andrew Weaver

On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.

As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.

Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk. CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.

CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little abut climate science.” We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.

CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.

Or you could always try reading the judgement.

First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory

Here is some contemporary reporting.

Last week, the court decided in favor of Ball, the author of the article. The reasoning is somewhat surprising. Partly, the judge found that many of the article’s accusations could be read as complaints about the system of science and education—of which Weaver was just a part—rather than specifically alleging flaws in Weaver’s professional character.

But the judge also decided that the derogatory statements aimed more clearly at Weaver failed to meet the legal standard for defamation. His reason? No one could take them seriously. Citing a list of careless inaccuracies in Ball’s article, the judge said it lacked “a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.””

Essentially, the judge in this latest case found Tim Ball’s entire article outlining his case against climate science to be as transparently unserious as an intentional parody, which may not exactly be the victory Ball hoped for.”

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/judge-finds-written-attack-on-climate-scientist-too-ludicrous-to-be-libel/

As I said, if that was a ‘win’ I would hate to see what a humiliating defeat looks like.

Hardly the first time Dr Ball’s credibility has been tested in court and found wanting. Go read up on Ball vs Dan Johnson.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 11, 2021 3:39 pm

The Judge’s point was that the case was a defamation case, having nothing to do with climate science.”

I think I may have made that point 😉

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 11, 2021 5:26 pm

The case has gone on an entire nine years.
On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it they offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:

Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.

As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/

That pretty much paints you as an uninformed fool. Mann did not provide all documents and it was clearly Mann who avoided trial … which was his down fall.

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

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

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

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 11, 2021 6:57 pm

“Written by John O’Sullivan”

Please, please tell me you are joking. 

O’Sullivan is a former art teacher whose career ended in scandal following his arrest and trial for sending dozens of obscene text messages to a 16-year old school girl.He was acquitted after his step-daughter testified she had sent the obscene messages — testimony that the judge said he did not find fully credible. But O’Sullivan then published a semi-autobiographical novel ‘Vanilla Girl’ in which he defends what he describes as “kiddie fiddling”. It is online but clearly I am not going to link to it.

Ok, paedophilia, however distasteful, does not automatically disqualify O’Sullivan as a reliable source. After all, he is Ball’s legal advisor right? But here is an email thread that established that he purchased his ‘law degree’ from ‘Hill University’, which hands them out for the bargain price of $499.00 a pop. 

So hardly a neutral source and hardly qualified. We should believe him because ….?

No. The facts are that Dr Mann was never asked by the court to disclose any data relating to his research, all of which is and has been for some time feely available. The case ended because Tim Ball requested and was granted a dismissal based on his poor health and age. The actual merits of either side’s legal arguments were never tested in court.

You can infer from that what you will. 

Rory Forbes
Reply to  John Phillips
July 11, 2021 7:58 pm

I’m not surprised you rely solely on ad hominem and non sequitur at that. You people would have no arguments at all it it wasn’t for your strong reliance on logical fallacies. I just find it a rather infantile way to concede an argument.

Contrary to Mann’s protestations, an acquittal in civil court means you LOST your case. He lost for the reasons Ball laid out below. He breached the terms of the adjournment … “to produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th.”, not because of his ill health, which the Court also took into consideration. Clearly, you’re just not all that good at reading basic English like most AGW true believers.

As Dr Ball explained at that time:

Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.

What part of that don’t you understand? It was written by Ball, not O’Sullivan.

The actual merits of either side’s legal arguments were never tested in court.

Mann’s case was without merit or he would have prevailed. He spent 9 years doing a tap dance around the rules of court. He had no case to present. His sole purpose was a SLAPP attack because his backers have deep pockets and they can’t allow his fraud into open court.

John Phillips
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 12, 2021 2:40 am

Ball’s words as reported by John O’Sullivan, a serial liar.

“O’Sullivan claims to be legal scholar and a lawyer with a law degree from University of Surrey and that he has “successfully litigated for 13 years in New York and Federal 2nd District courts.” He claims to be a science writer with major articles published around the world including in National Review and Forbes magazines. He also claimed to be employed as a legal consultant by Pearlman Lindholm, the law firm defending Tim Ball in the matter of Mann vs. Ball, et al. before the Supreme Court of British Columbia. None of that is true. He is an utterly shameless humbug. In 2010, he purchased his “law degree” from the online diploma mill “Hill University” that sells any degree in any field with a “promised delivery in just 14 days!“”

Legally, his claims are just nonsense. Here is the response from Dr Mann’s (fully qualified lawyer) to O’Sullivan’s utterly spurious claims.

“Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

Roger D. McConchie

Lawyer”

https://m.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/photos/a.221233134599563/1466774033378794/?type=3&locale2=it_IT

‘Divorced from reality’. Got that?

MarkW
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 10:43 am

That’s because his work has no science.

Rich Davis
Reply to  John Phillips
July 10, 2021 2:42 pm

I suppose that you mean The Science ™
In which case that is true
The Church of Climastrology does not change its dogma.

Gunga Din
July 9, 2021 3:55 pm

“Michael Damn”
Has a nice ring to it.
(But it would ruin a lot of past jokes.8-(

July 9, 2021 4:41 pm

You forgot the short name for Richard.

Scissor
Reply to  Zoe Phin
July 9, 2021 4:54 pm

Rick doesn’t begin with a “D.”

Barry Malcolm
Reply to  Scissor
July 10, 2021 4:21 pm

Dick is a common shorty for Richard.

DonM
Reply to  Zoe Phin
July 9, 2021 6:06 pm

Mann also eligible for the Dicky-do award.

Dave Fair
Reply to  DonM
July 10, 2021 10:22 am

“I’m so fat I can’t see my toes, but my dickey do” is close enough to the original joke.

Redge
Reply to  Zoe Phin
July 10, 2021 12:18 am

Richard Cranium?

Richard Page
Reply to  Zoe Phin
July 10, 2021 4:28 am

I’m 6’1″, there’s nothing short about me!

Rob_Dawg
July 9, 2021 5:20 pm

Didn’t he drown?

Richard Page
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
July 10, 2021 7:52 am

Not just yet – it’s an ongoing process as he sinks deeper into the growing pile of his own verbal diarrhoea.

Rory Forbes
July 9, 2021 5:34 pm

One “D” word Michael Mann is not … DIFFIDENT.

Earthling2
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 9, 2021 9:03 pm

Good one…had to look that one up since hadn’t run across that word. Another thing learnt today.

“Diffident and confident are antonyms, but both have a lot to do with how much trust you have in yourself.”

Obviously, Michael Mann doesn’t really have much trust in himself with his talents as a climate scientist, as he knows better than anyone that he is a LIAR. A confident liar. Sue me Mann.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Earthling2
July 9, 2021 10:53 pm

I suspect many narcissists, like Mann, also suffer from paranoia. Their extreme grandiosity triggers vast self doubt so their often feigned “confidence” causes them to belittle the accomplishments of others to expand their own meager ones. They can also have a tendency to believe the world is out to get them. Science is definitely not the occupation for such personalities … too much failure involved and one needs to trust and play well with others. I see it more as a team sport. Mikey is unable to do that.

Hutches Hunches
July 9, 2021 5:38 pm

One has to wonder…What will it take for “The Sciences” to come to terms with the fact that “Climate Science” is an absolute fraud? You would think that the total disregard for the Scientific Method, the abject failure of their computerized climate models and the domination of their “profession” by frauds like Michael Moore would give pause to those “Climate Scientists” still pushing that agenda. But alas, the attraction of the public money trough is just too strong for them to resist…..especially since the government handouts are now in the billions.

ResourceGuy
July 9, 2021 5:53 pm

Dystopia

July 9, 2021 6:17 pm

Disingenuous Mann. Almost all the major auto companies seem to be committed to going all EV. Toyota has declared that politicians who cast doubt on the 2020 election result will receive no contributions. The 2021 Hurricane prediction is for 20 major storms…up from 17 in 2020. Utah is being over run with grasshoppers…..climate change…..yet again?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anti_griff
July 9, 2021 6:37 pm

One thing we can be sure was caused by “climate change” is climate frauds and the scientists who invent them.

MarkW
Reply to  Anti_griff
July 9, 2021 6:48 pm

Toyotas are off my shopping list for the foreseeable future.

TEWS_Pilot
July 9, 2021 6:32 pm

20% of electric car owners in California say there is no way they will buy another.
https://www.businessinsider.com/electric-car-owners-switching-gas-charging-a-hassle-study-2021-4?op=1

comment image

Simon
Reply to  TEWS_Pilot
July 10, 2021 8:19 pm

So 80 % are very happy with them. Sounds about right.

LdB
Reply to  Simon
July 11, 2021 8:43 am

Well it was difficult getting the responses from the 5 buyers so there is a large margin of error. One guy was sitting on the fence so it could have easily been 60/40.

David Hartley
July 9, 2021 10:15 pm

What no Deranged in there? Or are we all a little so at the moment. I know they drive me up the bloody tree

Herbert
July 9, 2021 11:25 pm

Anthony,
In Mann v. C.E.I. and Mark Steyn, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgement against the Plaintiff Michael Mann on 22 January 2021.
On the same day, Mann filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgement against the defendants.
Recently National Review has obtained final judgement against Mann on the basis that any libel by Rand Simberg and Steyn was by parties not employees of that defendant which could not be held liable for their publications.
Why it took nearly 9 years for a Court to discern this is anyone’s guess.
I appreciate that the presiding Judge in the case may be a busy judicial officer.
At steynonline.org as at today,there is no result on either Motion.
My point is that this may be one of the slowest outcomes for Motions of this sort in Common Law judicial history.
We are not talking about a reserved judgement after a trial.
As Mark Steyn notes, he is caught in a “sclerotic judicial system” in D.C.but nearly 6 months for a decision on an interlocutory application is truly extraordinary.
The case itself is some 9 years old.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Herbert
July 10, 2021 10:27 am

Judgeships are especially political in D.C.

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 10, 2021 1:16 am

Dotard.

Richard Page
July 10, 2021 4:32 am

Dunderhead.

Sara
July 10, 2021 5:59 am

If he adds “dumber than a box of rocks” to his list, it will be more accurate.

Andy Pattullo
July 10, 2021 8:13 am

Explains a lot. At his age he should have got through the whole alphabet by now but still stuck at D. D as in dimwit.

%d bloggers like this: