A Canadian and a Hockey Stick


Infamous climate “scientist” Michael Mann has sued various people who have challenged the credibility of his global  warming claims as backed up by his “hockey stick” temperature graph. (H/T, Artisan Craft BlogPrincipia Scientific International reports that Mann now appears to be on the verge of losing a suit he filed in British Columbia against Canadian scientist Tim Ball. Mann has refused to hand over the data set which backs up his research.

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.

A finding that Mann is in contempt of court could result a quick end to the lawsuit in the defendant’s favor.

Maybe he should have kept his hockey stick on ice.

41 thoughts on “A Canadian and a Hockey Stick

        • The comparison to Team Kimberlin is good. Mann sued to shut up a critic, then tried to withdraw his suit because he saw he’d have to give up his data. Apparently he’s rather lose that give up the data, which might prove he’s been cooking the books all along.

          • I have read elsewhere that Canadian law is such that Michael Mann can be charged, tried, and convicted of criminal charges out this Canadian lawsuit and his subsequent actions in the Canadian case.

          • Good. I hope they do. He sued for blatant frivolous reasons. He flouted the orders of the court that he submitted himself to. Throw the book at him. Repeatedly.

  1. I believe one of the keepers of one of global surface datasets has also admitted they have been fabricating upwards the data in their dataset for years. Climate change is real – it has been happening for billions of years on this planet. Man-made climate change is fake..

  2. But I thought there was consensus and that the science was settled… just like we know everything is made up of the four elements fire, earth, air, and water.

  3. I’d love to think that would happen, but….Canada (no offence Neal).

    And this article is a bit…uh, overwrought. Does anybody really believe this is true?

    “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.

    Only? No.

  4. Anyone who says “the science is settled” doesn’t know much about the scientific method.

    Anyone who thinks CO2 is pollution never took high school biology.

  5. Man made climate change is not fake. Allow me to demonstrate.
    Man “invented” temperature scales, before this, there was no defined way to measure climate change, ergo man made climate change is real.

    • From a philosophical point of view, does something have to be “measured” (quantified) to be deemed observed? If I slam my head against the desk, do I need a scale of pain to say that it hurts?

      (FTR: I am both asking a serious question, and being facetious. The commenters on this blog are both smart and funny, so I’ll be interested in both types of replies.)

      • Funny: I don’t know, but if I had a head like yours it would hurt too.

        Serious: Measurement need not necessarily be scalar. Binary (yes/no, on/off) or Ordered (Low/Middle/High, Stongly Agree/Agree/Neither/Disagree/Strongly Disagree) or even Categorical (Left/Right, Up/Down) are all observations.

        All of it can be used for data analysis and both predictive and inferential modeling.

      • Having managed people for decades, one of the first principles I teach is “you get what you incentivize and measure” – for example, if you attempt to incentivize “productivity” using the measure “lines of code written”, software engineers will write more lines of code to accomplish the same task. They are a clever folk…

        Wally (of “Dilbert” fame) captured this in the phrase “I’m gonna write me a mini-van!”

        • Being a sw engineer, I’ve been at places that counted a semi-colon as a “line of code”. Yep, you guessed it, some folks would pad files with lots of do nothing semi-colons to count as a “line of code”.

          I’m also in the control group that doesn’t bang their head on the desk.

  6. That’s nothing, Mann once refused a congressional subpoena for the algorithm’s used in his debunked ’98 paper. Mann is a complete loon.

    • People have asked me why I’m a ‘climate skeptic’, and behavior like this is my number one reason.

      If I catch you falsifying or massaging data to fit your theories, your credibility goes right into the toilet.

      Irritates the hell out of me when people get confused by this.

  7. I am a big fan of Instapundit’s take on the manufactured crisis of AGW:

    “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when the people telling me it’s a crisis start behaving as if it’s a crisis.”

    Looking at you, DiCaprio.

  8. considering his suit against Mark Stein has been dragging on for YEARS for basically the same reason, you’d hope this would be a sign that soon both suits will get finish up in favor of defendants and Mann will lose big time.

    not holding my breath.

  9. Mark Stein and WUWT have not posted/reported on this. WUWT in response to commenter’s have advised people not to get their hopes up, but to wait until there is an official ruling from the court.

  10. As a fellow (redacted) I am proud of the actions of Dr. Ball.
    He hasn’t wavered in the wind, and has weathered the storm of criticism directed his way.

  11. Here is something I found way back when I was 8 or 10 years old, and was re-reading the
    biography of Dr. R. W. Wood several times each year. What is is in the biography, and not in this note, is that Dr. Wood set out on this experiment to disprove the unscientific blather of a contemporaneous popular “science” lecturer, whose theories of how a greenhouse works have specifically become the “settled science” upon which all atmospheric solar warming computer models are based. Notice that the “greenhouse glass” (equivalent to “greenhouse gas”) produces LESS warming, not more.

    http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

    • Much has been made in recent years of the tentative nature of Dr. Wood’s final two paragraphs in this note. One must take into consideration that when he did this experiment, he was not “Dr. Wood, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Johns Hopkins University, co-founder of the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory”, but merely an unknown graduate student taking on the Dr. Mann of his day.

      Dr. Wood’s comments on this fraud and his own debunking of it are much more direct in his biography many decades later.

  12. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 07.12.17 : The Other McCain

  13. 1. Looking at some of the organisations, such as the “Competitive Enterprise Institute”, that oppose him, the entities that fund them (at least, the CEI, as described by Wikipedia — sorry, I don’t have better sources) seem to have a vested interest in stopping immediate action that would push the market away from them. This is a mild-to-medium red flag to me;

    2. I thought that the “pseudoscience” tag was too harsh, but Mann not releasing his data, let alone the statistical programs that were used, leaves space for this accusation. The scientific method is built around the idea of falsifiability, and letting others see your raw inputs, and how you processed them to form conclusions, is part of that. In this area, Mann has “failed” — except read on to the next point (no. 3):

    3. It’s impossible to provably write software that’s bug-free (the maths behind computation goes back to Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem — even if a program performs correctly up until the heat death of the universe, does not mean that it is guaranteed bug-free.

    Point 3 is where Mann is really, really caught in a bind: If he releases his data and software, then his opponents have a fair-to-good chance of finding fault in the material, and can refute his litigation on those item(s). If he doesn’t release his data and associated programs, then he’s falling short of the “independently reproducible” requirement of the Scientific Method (coming from Popper’s “falsifiable” angle).

    ———–

    OK, enough of being calm and reasonable about this stuff. Let me make some statements (some that I’ve made on this blog in the past) that annoy me about the climate denialists:

    (a) The Earth is further away from the Sun in the Northern Hemisphere summer than it is in the Southern Hemisphere summer. As a Southern Hemisphere dweller, there’s no doubt in mind mind that the summers are becoming blistering hot, with heat records (especially number of consecutive days above a very high thresholds) being broken several times over the last couple of decades. Also, last Spring was one of the wettest on record.

    So, while the Northern Hemisphere may have milder summers and winters, this may be being paid for by abnormalities in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. we nearly had our driest (winter) June on record) — ;

    (b) “Let the free market sort it out” is not a panacea — Markets tend to have externalities (reduce costs by using up resources that aren’t priced in) — so things like extreme pollution in highly industrialised regions tend to happen because there’s not enough cost being imposed on a manufacturer for polluting actions, and, while ethical investors in the stock market can try, there simply isn’t enough transparency to make good decisions. This is where Government regulation can step in and help, by identifying these externalities, putting a price on them, and levying/taxing polluters/external resource users accordingly; and

    (c) Information from satellite data (NASA/NOAA) over the last three years, shown them to be the the warmest years on record, since “modern” (whatever that exactly means) record-keeping was started in the 1880s:

    https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally/

    Notice how the press release includes explicit references on how to get your hands on the raw data set, and the methodologies used to process the data:

    The full 2016 surface temperature data set and the complete methodology used to make the temperature calculation are available at:

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp

    That’s the scientific method in action, not pseudoscience: Being able to independently investigate, validate, verify, and criticise the conclusions with the raw data, and the complete methodology, available for anyone to examine.

    —–

    And finally, just for fun, look at the Australian State Of The Climate report up to April 2016
    (the report is produced every two years, 2014, 2012 and 2010 are also available):

    http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s