The IPCC Takes a Direct Hit

Also, interview with Dr. Tim Ball – By John Feldsted —  Professor Michael Mann, the IPCC climatologist who invented the “hockey stick” model of future global warming has failed to defend his theory in court.   During disclosure proceedings in his libel action against Dr. Tim Ball, Mann was ordered to produce the figures on which his theory is based in order that they might be checked for accuracy.   Dr. Ball’s defence was based on “truth”. If Mann’s calculations were correct and not “doctored” Dr. Ball would have lost the case. Mann refused to reveal his calculation because he would not, or more likely could not prove he had not fiddled with the calculations to create his theory.   In 2003, the University of Guelph had already shown that Mann’s calculations were fraudulent and did not conform to standard statistical prediction calculations.   Dr. Ball’s first crucial courtroom win was against Dr. Andrew Weaver, another elite junk scientist (a UN IPCC Lead Author in climate modelling) and British Columbia Green Party Leader.   Dr. Ball’s alleged offence was his statement that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change.   Weaver’s libel case against Dr. Ball was dismissed by the BC Supreme Court last year.   IPCC efforts to silence Dr. Ball through multi-million dollar legal actions have failed and its key scientists are unable to defend their theory on predicted climate change and global warming.   Global warming and climate change is a worldwide exercise in uncritical and unexamined groupthink based on junk science. The enormity of the fraud is breathtaking.   Politicians are always eager to adopt movements they do not comprehend, particularly if it gives them some semblance of control over the masses. They are also fickle and will turn on the IPCC rather than admit they failed to exercise due diligence in adopting IPCC fraud. Birds of a feather . . . 
**********************************Dr. Tim Ball Defeats Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann’s Climate LawsuitClimate Change DispatchAug. 24, 2019   The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against skeptical Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Full legal costs were awarded to Dr. Ball, the defendant in the case.   The Canadian court issued its final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed May 2019 by Dr. Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.   Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. IPCC 2001 climate report.   The graph showed a spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability. Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.   On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr. Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:“Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.”   Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action in 2010 for Ball’s allegedly libellous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.”    The final court ruling, in effect, vindicates Ball’s criticisms.   On Feb. 03, 2010, a self-serving and superficial academic ‘investigation‘ by Pennsylvania State University had cleared Mann of misconduct. Mann also falsely claimed the NAS found nothing untoward with his work.But the burden of proof in a court of law is higher.   Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.   A more detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.   This extraordinary outcome will likely trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr. Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to alarmist climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.”   According to the leftist The Guardian newspaper (Feb. 09, 2010), the wider importance of Mann’s graph over the last 20 years is massive:   “Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics.”   Under court rules, Mann’s legal team have up to 30 days to file an appeal. For readers interested in accessing the court website directly, use this link.‘Hockey Stick’ Discredited by Statisticians in 2003   In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artifact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.   So, the graph was junk science. But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make a profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?Read on: 

Democracy is a participatory event; if you don’t participate, you will be governed by whoever others choose. Every election is determined by the people who show up.

John FeldstedPolitical commentator, consultant & strategistWinnipeg, Manitoba