In a recent development reported at SteynOnline.com, Michael E. Mann, known for his controversial “hockey stick” graph and his demeanor of lawfare, has been ordered to personally contribute to the legal expenses of his lengthy lawsuit against Mark Steyn, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). This case, initiated over a decade ago, gained significant attention due to its implications for free speech and scientific debate.
Initially, Mann testified that he had not personally funded his legal actions, leaving the sources of his financial support unclear. Early in the case, an Anti-SLAPP motion—designed to prevent lawsuits aimed at silencing public discourse—was denied by Judge Natalia Combs-Greene, whose primary expertise lay in landlord-tenant disputes. This decision was upheld by a subsequent judge, complicating the defense’s efforts.
Seeking resolution, Steyn advocated for an immediate trial to clear his name, filing counterclaims and requesting separation from his co-defendants. However, Mann opposed this move, leading to a stay as the appeals process advanced all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. During this time, Steyn published a compilation of critiques from over 100 scientists who questioned Mann’s work, particularly the methodology behind the “hockey stick” graph.
Over time, National Review successfully had certain charges dismissed at the appellate level, with remaining charges dropped after discovery. Despite raising significant funds from supporters to defend Steyn, National Review eventually distanced itself, suggesting that Steyn was acting independently. Similarly, CEI employed similar arguments to exit the case, leaving Steyn and CEI writer Rand Simberg to proceed alone.
In the end, National Review filed a motion seeking partial reimbursement of legal fees from Mann under the Anti-SLAPP statute. The recent ruling, requiring Mann to personally bear some of the financial burden, represents a small but significant shift in the prolonged legal battle. I applaud the ruling.
But, based on past history, he will probably try to weasel out of it like he did after losing the lawsuit with Dr. Tim Ball. Mann has lost three times in the past, this makes four.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It has become the scourge of our society how people are allowed to maneuver around legal proceedings using the very laws intended to protect us from that happening.
At least, in this case, Mann has got his comeuppance.
Perhaps he can use his Nobel prize money to pay the $500K 🤣🤣🤣
Errrr… Nobel prize? I thought that was a mis-print in his CV!
As I recall, it was a misprint on a sign outside his office.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Any chance he could be slapped with a hockey stick?
We can only hope
Cap Allon has a longer article on the same topic but it is paywalled at Electroverse:
https://electroverse.info/kashmirs-cold-kills-record-freeze-grips-pakistan-depleting-european-gas-reserves-michael-mann-ordered-to-pay-530820-21-in-long-running-lawsuit/
He provides great summaries almost daily via Patreon.
He analysed the story thusly:
+++++++++
“After 13 years of contentious litigation, Michael E. Mann, known for his absurd “hockey stick” climate model and general slime-ball tactics, has been ordered to pay $530,820.21 in attorney fees and costs to National Review.”
This marks the first instance of Mann bearing financial responsibility for his protracted legal battle against critics.
?resize=400%2C399&ssl=1“A Disgrace To The Profession” The World’s Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science Volume I
[Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn]
Recent DevelopmentsIn January 2024, Steyn and Simberg went to trial, during which several key motions emerged. Among them, Mann sought attorney fees from Steyn, citing anti-SLAPP provisions. …This week, the DC Superior Court issued two rulings:
ImplicationsThis order marks the first time Mann has been held accountable for the financial toll of his lawsuit.
Pending MotionsSeveral post-trial motions remain unresolved, including:
This case underscores the corrosive nature of Michael Mann’s tactics—weaponizing the courts … Mann’s actions reveal him as a petty, litigious opportunist, more concerned with silencing dissent and preserving his inflated, media-constructed reputation than engaging in scientific discourse.
This ruling finally forces him to bear some of the financial burden of his vindictive campaign.
First, Michael Mann lost his case against Dr. Tim Ball, and now he seems poised to ultimately lose his case against Mark Steyn—a man who has been devastated by the process, left in a wheelchair as a result.
Mann can’t twist the fabric of reality without having it snap back.
+++++++
Well said, Cap.
Half a million $$. That’s not chump change.
More to the point, that’s enough money to make a collection agency take note. I mean, not one who just sends official-sounding letters, but one who sends people.
I wasn’t aware that the process put Mark Steyn in a wheelchair. I’m very close to fully recovering from similar, and wish all the best to Mr Steyn, a real hero of free speech, if he’s reading this.
It will be covered by “The Climate Slush Fund” or whatever it is called.
Mann himself, probably won’t pay a cent.
I wish the judge had noted full transparency on the sources of funding, leaving Mann open to RICO charges when it miraculously appeared out of thin air.
Mann won’t pay any of it, if it comes to that. Soros or someone similar will.
The million in damages was a disgrace in itself, when the only ‘damage’ mann was able to cite was that some unidentified stranger gave him a ‘funny look’ in a supermarket. He has made millions from book sales since then from poor gullible souls who think he has something of value to say.
Shows that even US libel courts are too friendly to plaintiffs. No way should hurt fee-fees count as damages. Waah!!!
“Ironic” that National Review gets compensation for not sticking with Steyn.
I don’t like Mann.
I too suffer from the exact same form of misandry.
“Misandry” – now there’s a word you don’t see every day. I really must find an excuse for using it…
Lots of ‘subjects’/’objects’ for you to draw upon/from.
Or Mannkind.
You guys sound like misterogynnists.
According to Lew’s paper, 97% on Climate Scientist are “Mannkind”. 😎
I don’t like AlanJ either.
Few do. He isn’t even popular with other climate warriors.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer fella’
2025, the year that will keep on giving.
America needs “loser pays” to put an end to this nonsense.
Things are in the process of change John. We don’t want to change the weapons these sociopathic money grubbers have developed against the normal people. Consider it a capture of weapons of war, which it surely is – complete with punishments. It’s coming, and the losers are going to pay.
The danger to somehow avoid is that the loser of a “good faith” lawsuit would be punished even if the winner was the real slime. (Sometimes both parties are being “honest” but only one is legally mistaken.)
In the history of all Mann’s lawsuits and evasions when pressed to produce proof and/or evidence, it’s clear that he’s the slime.
Nothing augurs well when a falsehood – Mann’s hockey stick – still has so much traction so long after the event.
There should be a dump where we can dispose of this odious waste if only to remind us all how deceitful so called professionals can be. Don’t forget Mann was caught lying in public about Dr Curry..
An exhibit in the National Museum of Science and Engineering?
A display that shows how fraud is created and promulgated?
Would it be a true representation though? At the risk of breaking my own personal, albeit modest dislike record, I have a different take on what really happened. He was a grad student at the time, right? I was a grad student once and I’m pretty sure that all the good stuff I remember had an equal or, more likely, a greater number of stupid and useless experiments that I didn’t bother putting in my notebook carefully. I suspect he couldn’t produce his data because he didn’t bother keeping it, and then the whole thing got out of hand and out of his control. Where he went wrong was in his outward insistence that his conclusions were correct and his enlisting of more climate liars to help with the insistence, leading to where we are now. Very early on, he might’ve been able to rein it in, but he chose not to.
No, it was all a lot nastier than that. IMHO.
Steve McIntyre finally tracked down the last of the MBH98 data last year.
It is possible that the authors forgot which data sets were used.
Thanks for the info. That guy’s a bulldog.
My university engineering dept., had a seminar on “How To Lie With Statistics.”
It was intended to equipment students with the skills to recognize when lies are being foisted, not as a How To manual.
I recall a little red book “How to Lie with Statistics” being a second “required purchase”textbook in our engineering class. The prof was keen on explaining that most stats one reads in reports will be the gimmicked personal viewpoint of the author and we would need to develop a pragmatic viewpoint on stats used for salesmanship versus stats used to allow engineering problems to be solved.
He and his crooked stick only still have traction because they still provides leverage for “The Cause”.
— “The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” — Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank, consultants to the United Nations.
— “We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.” – Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports.
— “We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.” – Timothy Wirth, president of the UN Foundation.
— “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony. … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.” – Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
The biggest scammer on the planet.
National Review cared so for “ implications for free speech and scientific debate” that they didn’t stand by their writer.
Technically, yes, but in reality they were bludgeoned into submission and silence.
It makes one wonder how many other constitutional rights they are willing to be “bludgeoned into submission and silence” about.
This being more a ringing condemnation of the actions of their writer than NR’s commitment to free speech.
But ultimately, these attempts to malign Mann through procedural rulings and distortions of unrelated cases fail to address the central point: the science behind the hockey stick graph is robust.
Robust, right. Which is why verification stats had to be hidden, and the “CENSORED” folder on the FTP, and the gross overweighting of bristlecone pines, without which there is no hockey stick. Robust, right.
Verification stats weren’t hidden, the data in the censored directory on the public FTP site were used in the analysis, bristlecone pines weren’t overweighted. Is there anything else you want to be wrong about while simultaneously providing not an ounce of substantiation or did you get it out of your system?
Why don’t stop the LYING!
I suspect that doing so would violate his employment contract.
Interesting. Where can I find Mann’s verification r²?
In the Mann vs Steyn case: Based on Mann’s inability to get his grant applications/income mathematics correct the first time during pre-trial, then later corrected, then presented wrong version to the court/jury, then wasting everyone’s time to correct the record (used redirect), I wouldn’t trust his mathematical abilities. In the end the jury found Mann had no substantiated significant material loss of income in both cases but gave the minimum/nominal amount for emotional distress of $1 from each (Steyn & Simberg). That’s the kind of result often seen for “plantiff didn’t prove their case but we like the plantiff a lot more than the defendants”. The punitive damages are arbitrary & can be argued down to the typical max, at most 10x the $1 each.
It was less about the actual science & more about comments/inferences when these were discussed.
Briffa’s data was truncated. Without the truncation there was no hockey-stick. It was active fra*d right from the start.
Even SkepticalScience admits that the data was truncated.
Briffa’s reconstruction has nothing to do with Mann’s hockey stick reconstruction. The IPCC was following Briffa’s directive from his 1998 paper, in which he described the divergence of the tree ring series with the instrumental temp data after the mid-20th century.
One of the hallmarks of the critics trying to disparage Mann’s work is that they almost universally don’t seem to be aware of of what the actual issues involved were, or what was being said about them by either side.
“Briffa’s directive from his 1998 paper, in which he described the divergence of the tree ring series with the instrumental temp data after the mid-20th century.”
Briffa’s tree ring data actually coincides with the written, historic temperature records where they show the Early Twentieth Century as being just as warm as today, and show that there is no unprecedented warming today, contrary to what Climate Alarmists claim.
The reason for the divergence of the Briffa data and the computer-generated “instrumental” temperature data (Hockey Stick chart) is because Phil Jones and others bastardized the instrument-era records to make it appear that we are experiencing unprecedented warming today.
Phil Jones conspired with Michael Mann and others (see the Climategate emails) to bastardize the global temperature record. Jones asked Mann for advice on what Jones should do with the land temperature “blip” and the sea surface temperature “blip” he found in the historic records.
These temperature “blips” interfered with the Human-caused Climate Change meme because the “blips” showed that it was just as warm in the past as it is today, so disproves the unprecedented warming caused by CO2 that Climate Alarmists wanted to promote, and Phil Jones wanted to get rid of these troublesome temperatures.
So he did and created a BIG LIE Hockey Stick chart which Climate Alarmists cannot do without. This LIE is the only thing Climate Alarmists have to point to as “evidence” that CO2 is doing anything in the Earth’s atmosphere.
The written, historic temperature records from around the world, and Briffa’s tree ring data, put the lie to the bogus, bastadized Hockey Stick global temperature chart.
Steyn could have added another name to that book of his. Mann isn’t the only one who is a disgrace to the profession.
There’s a lot to unpack here.
There is no global historic temperature record that shows global temperatures in the 20th century warmer than or comparable to today. Not adjusted, not raw, there just isn’t any. This is the raw vs “bastardized” temperature data:
Briffa’s tree ring chronologies show coherence with instrumental records over most of the period of record, except the period between the 1960s and 1990s. Because we know the planet was not experiencing a dramatic cooling event during this time, there is no question whatsoever that the tree rings are diverging from responsiveness to temperature change.
The “why the blip?” email was not sent by Phil Jones, it was sent by Tom Wigley to Phil Jones, not to Michael Mann, and is in reference to the implications of this study, which necessitated modifications of the SST records that had not yet been published (so Wigley was trying to ascertain the impact the coming changes would have on his work). And if you’re curious, here are the “pre” and “post” blip adjusted data:
Huge scandal, right?
“There is no global historic temperature record that shows global temperatures in the 20th century warmer than or comparable to today.”
AlanJ is being tricky here. He says there is no “global” historic temperature records, and he is correct, there is no one global historic temperature record.
Of course, I can show numerous regional historic temperature charts that show it was just as warm in the recent past as it is today, but that wouldn’t count with AlanJ’s thinking because it’s not “global”.
If all the regional temperature charts show a similar temperature profile, in this case, where it is just as warm in the past as it is today, then that temperature profile IS the global temperature profile. And it looks nothing like the Hockey Stick temperature profile.
What we have are many regional surface temperature records, which, when combined add up to a global temperature record. Now, maybe AlanJ will disagree with that, but then I would have to ask how the current global temperature record was created, since the only temperature data available to Phil Jones or anyone else was the regional land surface temperature records.
So Phil Jones put together all the regional land temperature records and came up with a global temperature record. I have no problem with that, I just have a problem with how this global temperature record was calculated, eliminating the significant warming of the 1880’s, and the 1930’s, and the significant cooling of the 1910’s, and the 1970’s, which are recorded in the written regional records. Phil Jones erased all that with his Hockey Stick creation, and people like AlanJ think it represents reality.
AlanJ: “Briffa’s tree ring chronologies show coherence with instrumental records over most of the period of record, except the period between the 1960s and 1990s. Because we know the planet was not experiencing a dramatic cooling event during this time”
You know that, do you? You’re so funny. How old are you?
AlanJ: “The “why the blip?” email was not sent by Phil Jones, it was sent by Tom Wigley to Phil Jones, not to Michael Mann,”
Do you deny that Michael Mann’s little temperature bastardization “trick” was discussed?
This is what you need to do to say whether it is warmer today than sometime in the past. Eyeballing disparate records from around the globe showing asynchronous periods of warmth will not yield an accurate characterization of global change. You can either combine the records as gridded averages and plot them on a map:
Or you can compute a global mean from the gridded averages (which you say you have no issue with). The example I posted in my earlier comment shows the raw, completely unaltered station records exactly as they were recorded compared to the bias-adjusted records, and neither series shows greater warmth in the earlier 20th century than today.
If you’ve done such an analysis and found different results, by all means, share them, along with your detailed methodology.
Yes, the modern warming is not in question. Every observation of the earth system confirms it from rising sea levels and ocean heat content, to observations of glacial retreat around the global, to remote satellite observations. The paleo-temperature reconstructions are producing the handle of the hockey stick – the blade comes from direct observations.
Phil Jones did indeed send an email discussing Mike’s “Nature trick” in correspondence with colleagues while preparing a data visual for the cover of a WMO report. The “trick” was to plot instrumental temperatures from 1981 onward alongside Mann’s reconstruction to bring it up to present day: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards),” because Mann’s reconstruction ends in 1981.
“How old are you?”
Trying to teach AlanJ some physics, I conclude that his mental age is about 6 and his IQ is no more than about 60 on a good day.
Where did these Fake Data fraudsters get temperature data for the Southern Indian Ocean?
Odd that no one complained in 1940, after a 30-year run of 0.8 degrees warming, that the earth was boiling away and we needed to stop burning fossil fuels immediately. Why not?
Again, a lot of misinformation to unpack, compressed into very few words. Quite a skill.
The scientific consensus around CO2 driven warming had not yet formed in the 1940s, estimates of global temperature change were in their infancy, and the amount of warming that had occurred by 1940 was substantially less than 0.8 degrees above the preindustrial baseline. The questions about the possible impacts of future anthropogenic warming were not being earnestly considered yet.
Indeed, yet the actual temperature changes over the past 30 years were the same in 1940 as they are today, according to your chart. That couldn’t have been caused by anthropogenic CO2 in those days, and no one was boiling to death then, or even thinking about it. Why is CO2 the bogeyman now, and is anyone boiling to death today?
Again, gobs of misinformation to pick apart. The changes were not the same, we are significantly warmer now than the early 20th century, the changes in the early century were primarily not driven by anthropogenic co2 forcing, which was low at that time, no one is claiming the earth is boiling or is going to boil, and most of the adverse impacts aren’t projected to be felt acutely for many years – in some cases several decades or more.
“The changes were not the same,”
They sure look the same on your chart.
“no one is claiming the earth is boiling or is going to boil,”
That’s a lie too. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2023/5580606 and also https://www.cnbc.com/2023/07/27/the-era-of-global-boiling-has-arrived-says-un-boss-antonio-guterres.html
“the changes in the early century were primarily not driven by anthropogenic co2 forcing”
This was my entire point, and it went whoosh! Right over your head, didn’t it? How old are you, again? What do you think “misinformation” means? Because I do not think that word means what you think it does.
AlanJ,
You bend over backwards to try to protect Mann (& specifically Mann) & his misdeeds & evil doings.
Do you think that he would do the same for you (without compensation)?
This website bends over backwards to attack Mann (& specifically Mann), falsely alleging misdeeds and evil doings.
I care little for what he would do in my stead, since my interest is in calling out the falsehoods and defending the science.
You are defending a proven LIAR and his hockey stick embarrassment that only fools would do.
It is highly likely you are a LEFTIST the worst kind of democrat.
… honesty, in defense of (the) science. That’s a good thing.
So, you are a type of good superhero, in the altruistic/moral sense. But no known extra-human qualities (maybe super(ior)-intelligence & the ability to see through the BS, but that isn’t really a super power.)
But, maybe, without super power you would be considered more of a sidekick. Like Robin. (I don’t even remember what Robin did in the real world; did he work for a 7-11 or something?)
Although, we maybe should not be looking past the potential of an alter-ego for a true Super. One that needs to protect their true identity. It is accepted that most Super’s need to be able to have a second private identity so they can continue to fulfil their super-purpose without interference … like Clark Kent.
“…attempts to malign Mann through procedural rulings and distortions…”
Who initiated the lawsuits?
Mann.
Who owes Ball but refuses to pay after Mann lost?
Who is paying for all the lawsuits Mann has filed?
(Does Penn State pay it’s professors that much?)
Mann’s case against Ball was dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the merits of Mann’s case. There is no evidence whatsoever that Mann did not pay court ordered costs.
But of course none of this has any bearing on the science behind the hockey stick, which is robust and has been vindicated over and over again. It’s just a pointless attempt to obfuscate the issue and mislead the public.
You keep LYING, the Judge ORDERED him to pay it is in the court order that is public which Dr. Mann openly defied in response in public which has yet to be shown he finally complied which YOU didn’t show.
Dr. Mann LOST the case since the Judge stated that he was dragging his feet on a lawsuit he FILED claiming defamation for years at a time that is why the defense team files for motion to dismiss because Mann wasn’t doing anything for long periods of time.
If Mann had merits in the lawsuit, why was he dragging feet for long periods of time….
No, the stick has never been objectively confirmed as they used the same error and proxies over and over which also was only regional and based on invalid statistical algorithms.
Mann has made no public statement defying the court order to cover costs, nor has Ball’s estate formally accused him of doing so. Accusing someone of defying a court order without evidence is both irresponsible and baseless. Furthermore, the court’s decision in Mann vs. Ball was procedural and did not address the merits of the case.
As for your claims about errors and invalid statistical algorithms, you’ll need to specify which ‘errors’ were allegedly repeated across multiple reconstructions and provide evidence for why the statistical methods were invalid. The use of the same proxy records in reconstructions is entirely expected and scientifically appropriate, given the finite number of available high-quality proxy datasets.
I might be mistaken, but Mann’s case against Ball was in a Canadian Court. Mann lost and was ordered to pay Ball’s court cost.
Mann hasn’t paid a dime and got away with it because Mann lives in the US.
As I said above, Mann’s the slime.
You are correct that Mann made no statements about refusing to produce the court ordered documents. He just ignored them, for years at a time and the court finally gave up waiting on him.
Biggest loophole in the Canadian legal system. If the court orders you to do something, just wait them out! They’ll soon get bored.
Do you ever stop to ponder why you’re just choosing to believe random claims you have no evidence of? No one here can proffer a single court document or formal statement from Ball’s legal team substantiating this allegation. In fact the official ruling from the bench is available online, and says exactly nothing about defiance of any court order.
“No one here can proffer a single court document ….”
Well I’ll be darned, yet another lie from LiarJ, student of lying by omission. Every single person on the planet, including you, can provide the whole set of rulings and transcripts given the time and resources to do it, but they don’t because, unlike you, many of them, including me, have lives and others don’t have the resources.
As is happening already here in the US, and more so in 9 days from now, people like you are going to have to answer for your professional lying. I assume that even though you’re not so good at it, you’re getting some kind of payment.
I’ll give you a warning mate – you’re in England right? This is going to start to spread to the UK, and you should not be pleased to know that there are people like me who will be working pro bono to assist, with our accurate science-based memories augmented by ai to get the
revengeevidence against you. For some people, this is personal dude.Watch some US Congress videos about the January 6th committee. It’s not going to be pretty for people like you, but do carry on with your head above the parapet.
I hope that Anthony and the mod team will not tolerate barely veiled threats of violence on the website, but thank you for the warning. I’m sure you’ll fall right in line if asked to commit atrocities against people you personally dislike.
Liar. I never advocated violence in any way. In fact I specifically pointed you to specific ways that, hopefully, people like you will be taken care of by judicial mechanisms. One more lie. How many is this on this thread must be about 20 or 30 LiarJ.
Thanks for clarifying. Your rhetoric sounds like someone hinting at political violence, so it’s good to hear that that wasn’t your intention.
As a matter of Law, Mann LOST the case against Ball. His son stated (I believe even on this site) that Mann hadn’t paid up.
The most robust thing on this thread is your pack of lies about essentially everything. You’re not fooling anybody on here. Any real scientist can look at Mann’s hockey stick and see that it’s scientific fraud or incompetence on its face.
Actually, Ball’s son said Mann was the picture of decorum and was a personal hero.
See how we can both just make things up whole cloth? You need to back these claims up with evidence.
Here’s where the Ball family resorted to this site for Anthony to set up a GoFundMe to cover Dr Ball’s funeral expenses.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/09/25/rip-dr-tim-ball-climate-realist/
Perplexity.ai will tell you that the payments have still not been paid my Mann. The direct quote I remember reading from his son (aka part of the above family) must have been from another site and as far as I’m concerned this is enough for anyone reading this to show you for the liar that you are. As if they didn’t already know.
You found any empirical evidence yet LiarJ ??
Yes LiarJ, where David Ball was posting on WUWT was on his father’s other lawsuit victory against Andrew Weaver here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/tim-balls-victory-in-the-first-climate-lawsuit-judgment-the-backstory/
As I’ve spent enough time on this you can show just how much further into the gutter you would like to go and tell me how bad my memory is because I conflated David Ball, the son, with Ball’s family. Would you care to take a guess on which member of Ball’s family was communicating with Anthony, or why don’t we truly get to the bottom of this and you can ask Anthony.
Anthony can provide any documentary evidence he has in his possession that would clarify these matters if he wants to. He seems to not want to.
Nowhere in that thread does David Ball mention any refusal by any party to comply with paying court ordered costs.
All these allegations, believed credulously by almost everyone here, are based entirely on hearsay or on some vague recollection someone has of reading… something, somewhere or other, at one time or another. Maybe. Produce court documents or official statements from Ball’s legal team.
“Nowhere in that thread does David Ball mention any refusal by any party to comply with paying court ordered costs.”
LiarJ, do you seriously think that people reading this thread can’t figure out how you lie by using weasel words, pathetic little strawmen?
Here’s how perplexity.ai answers the question “Has Michael Mann paid any of the debt he owes to Tim Ball’s family from the lawsuit he lost to Tim Ball Canadian Climate scientist”
Answer
Based on the available information, Michael Mann has not paid any of the debt he owes to Tim Ball’s family from the lawsuit he lost in Canada. The court dismissed Mann’s libel claim against Ball in 2019 and ordered Mann to pay Ball’s court costs. However, as of January 2025, Mann has not paid anything to Ball or his family.
Ball was reportedly financially devastated by the costs of the litigation, to the extent that a GoFundMe campaign was started to help his family pay for funeral expenses after his death.
In 2011, Mann sued Ball for libel in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The case was dismissed in August 2019, with the court awarding costs to Ball.
Mann’s lawyer did not oppose the application for costs, as it is standard practice in Canadian litigation.
—————-
I took out the references and reformatted it to keep it from going into moderation. You can come up with a good lie about that too, you *******
Moderators: Am I allowed to use the word scumbag to describe this scumbag ??
So you asked a large language model to say something, and you’re presenting that as proof despite not having any sources for the information it generated?
We do live in strange times.
You might. I live in the real world, understand it and know how to navigate. It’s a shame that liars like you make it strange times for others for sure. I’m sure there are a lot of people (your Mum’s knitting circle?) who think you actually give a shit about environmentalism.
The link does not anywhere provide evidence that Mann refused to pay court ordered costs, certainly not such an accusation from Ball’s family. Anthony helpfully offers the accusation himself, without a single shred of evidence to substantiate it.
So your foggy recollection makes me a liar? Be serious. Produce evidence or admit that you can’t.
Yes, that and the fact that everything you say is a lie, and you avoid the question I asked you about any empirical evidence for any effect of carbon dioxide above 280ppm on any atmospheric climate parameter.
Cue …. next lie from LiarJ, see below:
Procedural grounds? Is that what they are calling Mann’s refusal to turn over court ordered documents, these days?
Of course, Mann did not refuse to turn over court ordered documents. These are pretty serious allegations you are making without a hint of evidence.
It’s why Mann lost the case liar.
The judge dismissed the case due to delay, not because Mann defied court ordered discovery. The ruling is freely available online. You guys need to start operating based on the publicly available facts instead of your vivid imaginations.
Notice that you’re once again just repeating hearsay, no evidence, no documents, nothing to substantiate the allegation.
LiarJ. All the facts are not publicly available. The transcripts of the entire case are paywalled. Lying by omission again. Did you work for the BBC? Puts you in a bit of a quandary doesn’t it? If you say No, everyone reading this will go “Aaaah so yes, he worked for the BBC. That does explain why he can’t make a post that isn’t a lie”.
I never claimed that every transcript of the case is publicly available, only that the official court ruling is, and that ruling clearly states the case was dismissed due to delay. The ruling itself is sufficient to confirm that the dismissal was procedural and not because Mann committed contempt of court or defied court-ordered discovery. If you have evidence from the transcripts to substantiate your claims, feel free to present it.
You’re such a lousy liar, I’m almost wondering if you’re under a false flag.
Your (phony) hypothesis is that Mann subjected himself to a judgment of hundreds of thousands because he, to quote you, did this “If the court orders you to do something, just wait them out! They’ll soon get bored.” rather than that he couldn’t produce the data to the court. Good luck with that hypothesis on here LiarJ.
We know that in your world you think you’re winning. On here you’re just a guy making a living lying about climate change. When you tell the people you know that you’re an environmental warrior, just remember this thread and have the other half of your cognitive dissonance chant Alan is a LIAR, ha ha ha. Or better still, go get therapy for your disorder.
I’m helping you in a way. Cruel to be kind an’ all that.
This makes four….
And how many of those did Mann actually pay was was ordered? Seems he still owes on at least one of them.
None of the usual hockey stickers have come to the aid of their hero, sad.
Wasn’t there one of his lawsuits where those he sued has a number of amicus briefs but Mann had zip?
Could well be, I’m not up on the details.
Look it up on perplexity.ai . I did and cut and pasted the result. It was pretty voluminous so I believe it’s still in moderation.
Yes, it was the one under discussion here. Some pretty prominent players too, as Perplexity reminded me:
“Michael E. Mann, known for his
controversialfraudulent “hockey stick” graph”No reason to mince words.
The photo, shows Mann using one eye salute. Praise to Satan.