Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit against climate skeptic, ordered to pay defendant’s cost

GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Real science, not the phony “consensus” version, requires open access to data, so that skeptics (who play a key role in science) can see if results are reproducible. Of course, there are no falsifiable experimental data associated with the global warming predictions of doom, so it doesn’t really stand as science as Karl Popper defined it

This is an important victory in the process of debunking the warmist scare.

Update 1: Michael Mann disputes the notion that he lost (and more):

There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement (https://t.co/8tGoBZnE3Y): pic.twitter.com/ySeJcOktX9
— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) August 23, 2019
Click to expand...
Update 2: technology.news has a rather different take than Mann, noting that further legal steps are on their way.

Penn State climate scientist, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann commits contempt of court in the ‘climate science trial of the century.’ Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination. Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.
The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball ... is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.” (snip)
Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.' (snip)

The negative and unresponsive actions of Dr Mann and his lawyer, Roger McConchie, are expected to infuriate the judge and be the signal for the collapse of Mann’s multi-million dollar libel suit against Dr Ball. It will be music to the ears of so-called ‘climate deniers’ like President Donald Trump and his EPA Chief, Scott Pruitt.
Click to expand...


https://www.americanthinker.com/blo..._skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

The Worm has Turned...​




On Thursday afternoon, Judge Irving of the DC Superior Court ordered vexatious litigant Michael E. Mann to pay Mark's co-defendants Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg $477,350.80 in attorney's fees - within thirty days.







or as Jeff Haga put it in response to our lovely witness Dr. Judith Curry (another victim of Mann's disgusting behavior):


1748179875241.png









1748179956402.png










1748180057412.png
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member

When the Ice Cracks: Michael Mann's Legal Defeat and the Climate of Accountability​



The Graph That Launched a Thousand Grants​


Mann's rise to prominence began with a temperature reconstruction graph published in 1998. It erased historical warming periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in favor of a dramatic 20th-century spike. To the casual observer, it looked like mankind had shoved the planet off a climate cliff.

The media ran with it. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) elevated the hockey stick to icon status. Schools taught it. Politicians cited it. Al Gore plastered it in "An Inconvenient Truth," like a gospel.

But critics soon noticed that something wasn’t right. Canadian researchers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick uncovered glaring flaws in Mann’s methodology, showing that his algorithm could produce a hockey stick shape even when fed with random data. This wasn’t just bad science; it was political theater dressed in lab coats.


From Researcher to Legal Enforcer​


Rather than engage in honest debate, Mann chose litigation as his cudgel. In 2012, he sued National Review and CEI after their writers criticized his work and compared how Penn State handled their investigations of Mann after the East Anglia emails leak, and of Penn State’s disgraced football coach, Jerry Sandusky.

This was not a matter of protecting one's reputation from slander. This was a climate scientist declaring war on dissent. And for a while, it worked. The lawsuits dragged on for over ten years. Many media outlets pulled back from covering the criticisms, not out of agreement, but out of fear.

The recent rulings, however, dismantle Mann’s claims. The D.C. court awarded National Review $530,820.21 in legal fees. CEI and Simberg will receive $472,000. These were not sympathy payouts. They were direct rebukes of a man who tried to game the legal system as thoroughly as he gamed climate projections.


A Courtroom Beatdown​

In one of the ruling's most scathing parts, the court found that Mann and his attorneys misled the jury about the damages he suffered. He testified he lost grants, suffered financially, and had speaking engagements canceled because of the defamation.

But evidence showed the opposite. Mann’s career flourished during the litigation. His speaking fees increased, and his public profile soared. His hardship claim was a mirage, and the court wasn't buying it.

The original $1 million defamation judgment Mann won earlier this year was slashed to just $5,000, a symbolic slap. The judge called out Mann’s team for acting in bad faith, misrepresenting evidence, and manipulating the process.

What was once billed as a victory for climate science now reads like a cautionary tale of arrogance.


The End of the SLAPP Era?​

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPP suits, are designed to silence critics through legal intimidation. Mann’s campaign was a textbook example. By targeting individual writers and nonprofit think tanks, he hoped to scare others into silence.

For years, it worked. Journalists walked on eggshells. Scientists who questioned prevailing models did so anonymously or not at all. Free speech took a back seat to narrative control.

This ruling shatters that dynamic. It affirms that even loud, politically favored scientists must prove their claims with facts, not feelings. And it reminds us that courts are not the proper venue for science to settle scores.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top