Court Battle: Warmist Michael Mann Losing, Gives Skeptic Tim Ball ‘Concessions’


By: - Climate DepotFebruary 2, 2017 9:19 AM

Written by John O’Sullivan

In a week when mainstream fake news outlets try to sell him as the ‘World-leading climate change scientist’ Professor Michael Mann (above image: left) concedes legal ground in major court case about his alleged climate data fraud.

After the news leaked out defendant in the case, Dr Tim Ball (above image: right) told colleagues at Principia Scientific International (PSI):

“What my lawyers did was demand a series of concessions, all of which were agreed. I can’t discuss the details but, under the circumstances, it is a good outcome.”

The Supreme Court of British Columbia, Vancouver was where “world-leading” American professor, Michael E Mann was supposed to start his libel trial against retired Canadian climatologist Dr Tim Ball – until this crucial retreat. Such a delay – to possibly extend the case into an eight-year epic – plays into the hands of skeptics who early on dismissed Mann’s gambit as a cynical strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) to silence dissent.

Till now Dr Ball had been eager to make good use of up to a month’s worth of courtroom time granted to him to win over jurors. He had carefully prepared and assembled an array of the best scientific brains from the skeptic side.

Ball’s opponent is formidable in his field. At the turn of the millennium Mann was the golden boy of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They touted Mann’s graph (appearing on page 3 of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report [TAR]) as the smoking gun of man-made global warming. As you can see from the press header below, Mann’s still ‘world-leading’ to them.

The “concession” to Ball is a hugely embarrassing development. This is especially so in a week when Mann has been on the charge leading the wide media assault against President Trump for his alleged attacks on climate science. Government climate researchers are the keenest to discredit the new president on science policy.

For almost a generation literally thousands of climate scientists and science publications world-wide have relied on Mann’s graph as the cornerstone of the science to persuade governments to act on ‘catastrophic’ climate change.

For the “world leading climate scientist” the upside is that by giving ground to Ball Mann dodges the deadly bullet – for now. He has bought himself time till 2019 and his lawyers can continue to deny jurors (and Joe Public) access to his disputed data in this protracted legal battle that has already eaten up six years and millions in legal fees.

Fake News and Media Misdirection

Meanwhile holding court back in the alternative universe of the MSM  fake journalists abound promoting their fake scientist. In his latest article for the Hill website sees a defiant Mann scolding President Trump because he:

 “barred the Environmental Protection Agency from publishing studies or data prior to review by political appointees and has told them to remove mention of climate change from their website”.

Propaganda can cut both ways, you see. Journalists may now be regretting touting Mann as “one of the world’s leading climatologists” fomenting “rebellion” against Trump for dismissing dangerous man-made climate change as a “hoax.”

For surely, if Mann’s data is pristine and irreproachable why hide it?

If Mann were to lose to Ball anytime soon then Trump’s skepticism would be entirely vindicated and the case for de-funding/dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proven as fiscally prudent.

Unbiased observers are urged to contrast and compare for themselves how much Mann’s latest public pronouncements conflict with his less public courtroom strategy. And certainly don’t expect to see any mention of this legal development in the biased media.

For instance, take a look at the latest newspaper puff-piece in UK’s Independent (February 1st 2017). Here we see the usual hyperbole as their beloved “World-leading climate change scientist” calls for mass “rebellion” against Donald Trump.

Ian Johnston, author of the article declares:

“Professor Michael Mann, whose work was key in demonstrating that global temperatures had risen dramatically because of human activity, said academics and researchers were usually reluctant to take to the streets in protests.”

To Johnston Mann laments:

“It is difficult to keep up with this dizzying ongoing assault on science.”

Really?

Seems more like it is Mann who is assaulting science. If temperatures have risen “dramatically” and Mann’s work is “key” to proving it then journalists should do their job and challenge him for cynically keeping secret his disputed R2 regression data – not Donald Trump.

Readers can see for themselves what Mann cobbled together and tortured and cherry-picked from 1,000 years’ worth of proxy tree ring temperature data (graph shown below). Mann’s version clearly contradicts the widely-accepted earlier depiction underneath it which is supported by Ball and many others because it is based on openly-available data.