Michael Mann may have jeopardized Canadian libel lawsuit

UPDATE 07/06/2017: Upon further investigation, it is looking like the Principia Scientific article cited below is not true. A review of the website’s archives shows a 2014 article states that Dr. Tim Ball won Mann’s lawsuit against him during that time as well. Apologies for any inconvenience.

Not only is Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann suing author Mark Steyn, he is also suing Climatologist Dr. Tim Ball in Canada. The thrust of Mann’s lawsuit is a remark Dr. Ball made that Mann belonged in the state pen and not Penn State. According to Principia Scientific International, despite being ordered by a judge to do so, Mann refuses to turn over data related to his scientific work for court examination.

Due to Mann’s contempt of court, Dr. Ball is expected to instruct his attorneys to activate mandatory, punitive court sanctions and request a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to conduct climate fraud. Mann filed his lesser known suit against Ball six years ago in the British Columbia Supreme Court located in Vancouver.

Since filing his lawsuit, Principia reveals, Mann has refused to comply with the court’s order to turn over all of the data including his investigations related to his hockey stick chart that have been the basis of environmentalist claims about humans being the cause of climate change. Mann and his lawyer’s conduct are expected to draw the ire of the judge overseeing the case. The end result will, most likely, be a collapse of Mann’s case against Dr. Ball. Ball is quoted as saying:

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.

Not only is Michael Mann’s reputation ruined, these latest events would be a major blow to climate science work that has based its findings on Dr. Mann’s research. By being in contempt of court for refusing to turn over his data sets, would jeopardize the credibility of Mann’s research too. Imagine most (if not all) of the studies done based on Mann’s chart are now invalidated resulting from his actions since it directly shows Mann is also not confident of the accuracy of his research. Did Mann think his studies would not be brought up? If not, he was stupid and Mann can now be open to a criminal investigation in the United States.

It did not help climate alarmists and environmentalists that they decided to resort to resort to using sloppy research of scientists, like Michael Mann, and attempt to change certain aspects of their studies in order to make them fit the theory. Consequently, environmentalists can use studies culminated by their scientific allies to lobby for rules curbing fossil fuel emissions or any other human activity. Now they can no longer do so and Michael Mann will be in even deeper trouble than when he started.

2 thoughts on “Michael Mann may have jeopardized Canadian libel lawsuit

  1. Ridiculous garbage.
    Micheal Mann is the most respected climate scientist in the world – which is why the fossil fuel lobby have relentlessly attempted to smear him for decades.
    His Hockey Stick has been replicated by dozens of other teams and found to be correct.
    There are now around 75 ‘hockey sticks’ ALL of which independently verify Mann’s original.

    Here are a few of them.

    Cronin et al. 2003:

    Reconstructed temperatures between 200 BC and AD 2000 around Chesapeake Bay, USA, using sediment core records.

    Pollack and Smerdon 2004:

    Reconstructed global average temperatures since AD 1500 using temperature data from 695 boreholes from around the globe.

    Esper et al. 2005:

    Compared and averaged five independent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1000 to AD 2000.

    Moberg et al. 2005:

    Combined tree ring proxies with glacial ice cores, stalagmite, and lake sediment proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000.

    Oerlemans 2005:

    Reconstructed global temperatures from AD 1500 to AD 2000 using 169 glacial ice proxies from around the globe.

    Rutherford, et al. 2005:

    Compared two multi-proxy temperature reconstructions and tested the results of each reconstruction for sensitivity to type of statistics used, proxy characteristics, seasonal variation, and geographic location. Concluded that the reconstructions were robust to various sources of error.

    D’Arrigo et al. 2006:

    Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 700 and AD 2000 from multiple tree ring proxies using a new statistical technique called Regional Curve Standardization. Concluded that their new technique was superior to the older technique used by previous reconstructions.

    Osborn and Briffa 2006:

    Used 14 regional temperature reconstructions between AD 800 and AD 20

    00 to compare spatial extent of changes in Northern Hemisphere temperatures. Found that twentieth century warming was more widespread than any other temperature change of the past 1,200 years.

    Hegerl et al. 2007:

    Combined borehole temperatures and tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures over the past 1,450 years. Introduced a new calibration technique between proxy temperatures and instrumental temperatures.

    Juckes et al. 2007:

    Combined multiple older reconstructions into a meta-analysis. Also used existing proxies to calculate a new Northern Hemisphere temperature reconstruction.

    Wahl and Ammann 2007:

    Used the tree ring proxies, glacial proxies, and borehole proxies used by Mann et al. (1998, 1999) to recalculate Northern Hemisphere temperatures since AD 800. Refuted the McIntyre and McKitrick criticisms and showed that those criticisms were based on flawed statistical techniques.

    Wilson, et al. 2007:

    Reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1750 to AD 2000 using tree ring proxies that did not show a divergence problem after AD 1960.

    Mann et al. 2008: (an updated version)

    Reconstructed global temperatures between AD 200 and AD 2000 using 1,209 independent proxies ranging from tree rings to boreholes to sediment cores to stalagmite cores to Greenland and Antarctic ice cores.

    Kaufman, et al. 2009:

    Used tree rings, lake sediment cores, and glacial ice cores to reconstruct Arctic temperatures between 1 BC and 2000 AD.

    von Storch et al. 2009:

    Tested three different temperature reconstruction techniques to show that the Composite plus Scaling method was better than the other two methods.

    Frank et al. 2010:

    A brief history of proxy temperature reconstructions, as well as analysis of the main questions remaining in temperature reconstructions.

    Kellerhals et al. 2010:

    Used ammonium concentration in a glacial ice core to reconstruct tropical South American temperatures over the past 1,600 years.

    Ljungqvist 2010:

    Reconstructed extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere temperatures from AD 1 to AD 2000 using historical records, sediment cores, tree rings, and stalagmites.

    Thibodeau et al. 2010:

    Reconstructed temperatures at the bottom of the Gulf of St. Lawrence since AD 1000 via sediment cores.

    Tingley and Huybers 2010a, 2010b:

    Used a Bayesian approach to reconstruct North American temperatures.

    Büntgen et al. 2011: Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Central European temperatures between 500 BC and AD 2000.

    Kemp et al. 2011:

    Reconstructed sea levels off North Carolina, USA from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores. They also showed that sea levels changed with global temperature for at least the past millennium.

    Kinnard et al. 2011:

    Used multiple proxies to reconstruct late summer Arctic sea ice between AD 561 and AD 1995, using instrumental data to extend their record to AD 2000.

    Martin-Chivelet et al. 2011: Reconstructed temperatures in the Iberian Peninsula from 2000 BC to AD 2000 using stalagmites.

    Spielhagen et al. 2011:

    Reconstructed marine temperatures in the Fram Strait from 100 BC to AD 2000 using sediment cores.

    Esper et al. 2012:

    Used tree ring proxies to reconstruct Northern Scandinavian temperatures 100 BC to AD 2000. May have solved the post-AD 1960 tree ring divergence problem.

    Ljungqvist et al. 2012:

    Used a network of 120 tree ring proxies, ice core proxies, pollen records, sediment cores, and historical documents to reconstruct Northern Hemisphere temperatures between AD 800 and AD 2000, with emphasis on proxies recording the Medieval Warm Period.

    Melvin et al. 2012:

    Reanalyzed tree ring data for the Torneträsk region of northern Sweden.

    Abram et al. 2013:

    Reconstructed snow melt records and temperatures in the Antarctic Peninsula since AD 1000 using ice core records.

    Marcott, et al. 2013:

    Reconstructed global temperatures over the past 11,000 years using sediment cores. Data ended at AD 1940.

    Rhodes et al. 2013:

    Used proxy and instrumental records to reconstruct global temperatures from AD 1753 to AD 2011

    So check all of these out and if you can find evidence that any of them are flawed in any way then submit your research and study findings for peer-review and if it is correct it will probably be accepted for publication in one of the respected science journals.

    THAT is how you debate science.

    Like

    • Thank you for your message. However, if you have read posts on this website you will see where I have cited sources that show Michael Mann did, in fact, falsify if was outright sloppy with his research.

      What Mann is is a warmist stooge. He intentionally falsified his data in order to get his manuscript published so environmentalists could fund raise and then lobby politicians to enact climate controls.

      Similar efforts were done in Europe with pesticides. A group of scientists linked to a green group were caught plotting to get a false study published in a peer review journal and then others on their team would replicate the data in other manuscripts other scientists submitted. The London Times broke the story on the pesticide scandal about three years ago and it is discussed here toohere too.

      Like

Comments are closed.