Remember me
▼ Content

Michael Mann loses his court case and faces costs



Page 1 of 212>
Michael Mann loses his court case and faces costs07-07-2017 08:37
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1128)
http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

A bitter and embarrassing defeat for the self-styled 'Nobel Prize winner' who acted as if he was the epitome of virtue, this outcome shames not only Michael Mann, but puts the climate science community in crisis. Many hundreds of peer-reviewed papers cite Mann's work, which is now effectively junked. Despite having deep-pocketed backers willing and able to feed his ego as a publicity-seeking mouthpiece against skeptics, Mann's credibility as a champion of environmentalism is in tatters.


Bye bye hockey stick.
07-07-2017 11:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Fake news reporting by Tim. From Michael Mann's lawyer:

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O'Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O'Sullivan's suggestion that Ball "is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions" against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

If O'Sullivan had read Ball's statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

O'Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball's defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann's lawsuit) were said in "jest."

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann's libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump's perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer


https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1466774033378794:0
07-07-2017 12:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1128)
Well, one side is lying. I guess we will find out which in due course.
07-07-2017 17:22
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
If one side is saying someone is in contempt of court and no such charge was made against him we don't need to wait to find out which side is lying, one thing I am certain of is that you won't care and will have some new bone to chew on.
08-07-2017 09:25
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1128)
spot wrote:
If one side is saying someone is in contempt of court and no such charge was made against him we don't need to wait to find out which side is lying, one thing I am certain of is that you won't care and will have some new bone to chew on.


Either he is in comtempt or not.

I don't know which it is yet.

Neither do you.
08-07-2017 11:44
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
If one side is saying someone is in contempt of court and no such charge was made against him we don't need to wait to find out which side is lying, one thing I am certain of is that you won't care and will have some new bone to chew on.


Either he is in comtempt or not.

I don't know which it is yet.

Neither do you.


If he was found in contempt of court it would be a matter of public record, I looked into it, so I do know.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-07-2017 11:52
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1128)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
If one side is saying someone is in contempt of court and no such charge was made against him we don't need to wait to find out which side is lying, one thing I am certain of is that you won't care and will have some new bone to chew on.


Either he is in comtempt or not.

I don't know which it is yet.

Neither do you.


If he was found in contempt of court it would be a matter of public record, I looked into it, so I do know.


Did you see the public record or some facebook thing?
08-07-2017 12:17
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
I googled it, There is not much about it. The best thing you can say is Tim Ball is expected to ask his attorneys, i,e the future tense. Whether he will actually ask his attorneys and whether they will ask the court and whether the court will ask for discovery and whether Mann defies the court and is held in contempt has not happened yet. The information they seem to be asking for is in the public domain anyway so the claims by your source don't make sense. I know your trying to discredit The Facebook thing but that is Michael Mann's own page and a statement by his actual lawyer.
08-07-2017 13:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1128)
If it turns out that all that happens and he is found to be incontempt of court and thus loses with all costs awarded to the defendant will that alter your view as to how strong the case for anti-CO2 stuff is?
08-07-2017 14:08
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
This case is about libel and not about the science and he won't be found in contempt of court on the grounds your source says he will be because it does not make sense because the information is in the public domain. I have already explained but you seem to have failed to take on board.

And I don't think a court ruling either way will effect the properties of CO2.
Edited on 08-07-2017 14:09
09-07-2017 10:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1128)
spot wrote:
This case is about libel and not about the science and he won't be found in contempt of court on the grounds your source says he will be because it does not make sense because the information is in the public domain. I have already explained but you seem to have failed to take on board.

And I don't think a court ruling either way will effect the properties of CO2.


The maths/model he used in his hockey stick graph together with all the processing of it is not in the public domain which is why it was being sought.

That it has not been forthcoming, or maybe it has, is the issue.

And you don't think that the chief proponent of the anti-CO2 argument being clearly a fraudster will at all shake your personal faith in the cult.

A true believer to the end.
09-07-2017 13:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Greg Laden has posted an interesting article on this topic here:

Michael Mann Did Not Sabotage His Law Suit, But Deniers Are Sabotaging The Planet

It includes some fascinating background on John O'Sullivan, the author of the ludicrous claims that Tim has quoted:

"Sometimes John O'Sullivan claims to be a lawyer, but sometimes he backs off that claim.

According to himself, John O'Sullivan is not lawyer, but "... just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom."

He is the author of "Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl." This is an online book of some kind (I looked, it is not on Amazon).

"O'Sullivan was successful in winning an acquittal when he was personally charged in England as a high school teacher accused of sending lewd text messages and assaulting a 16-year-old female. Given the acquittal, it would not generally be appropriate to bring up this sordid and unproven bit of history, except that O'Sullivan himself went on to write an "erotic" "novel" with a startlingly similar storyline: Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher's Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl."

O'Sullivan claimed that he was an experienced attorney with an excellent record in New York and US federal courts. He isn't. He identified a major law firm that he worked for. He didn't work for them. He claims a fairly imporessive writing resume including some major outlets such as Forbes. None of that was true. He claims to be a member of the American Bar association but isn't. He may or may not have a fake law degree from an on line alt-degree mill."
09-07-2017 15:58
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
LOL,

And no way Mr strong had a Marxist fantasy just because he wanted to write a book about it.
09-07-2017 23:05
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
This case is about libel and not about the science and he won't be found in contempt of court on the grounds your source says he will be because it does not make sense because the information is in the public domain. I have already explained but you seem to have failed to take on board.

And I don't think a court ruling either way will effect the properties of CO2.


The maths/model he used in his hockey stick graph together with all the processing of it is not in the public domain which is why it was being sought.

That it has not been forthcoming, or maybe it has, is the issue.

And you don't think that the chief proponent of the anti-CO2 argument being clearly a fraudster will at all shake your personal faith in the cult.

A true believer to the end.


Firstly the thread title is misleading because it says that he has been found in contempt of court when in fact that hasn't happened and is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The maths/model is in the public domain, this is the third time I have told you this. and because I looked into something rather then blindly take your word, you want to paint me as some sort of zealot.

It's like you are from a parallel universe.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
10-07-2017 12:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
This case is about libel and not about the science and he won't be found in contempt of court on the grounds your source says he will be because it does not make sense because the information is in the public domain. I have already explained but you seem to have failed to take on board.

And I don't think a court ruling either way will effect the properties of CO2.


The maths/model he used in his hockey stick graph together with all the processing of it is not in the public domain which is why it was being sought.

That it has not been forthcoming, or maybe it has, is the issue.

And you don't think that the chief proponent of the anti-CO2 argument being clearly a fraudster will at all shake your personal faith in the cult.

A true believer to the end.


Firstly the thread title is misleading because it says that he has been found in contempt of court when in fact that hasn't happened and is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The maths/model is in the public domain, this is the third time I have told you this. and because I looked into something rather then blindly take your word, you want to paint me as some sort of zealot.

It's like you are from a parallel universe.

The thread title isn't just misleading; it's a barefaced lie.
11-07-2017 02:44
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
This case is about libel and not about the science and he won't be found in contempt of court on the grounds your source says he will be because it does not make sense because the information is in the public domain. I have already explained but you seem to have failed to take on board.

And I don't think a court ruling either way will effect the properties of CO2.


The maths/model he used in his hockey stick graph together with all the processing of it is not in the public domain which is why it was being sought.

That it has not been forthcoming, or maybe it has, is the issue.

And you don't think that the chief proponent of the anti-CO2 argument being clearly a fraudster will at all shake your personal faith in the cult.

A true believer to the end.


Firstly the thread title is misleading because it says that he has been found in contempt of court when in fact that hasn't happened and is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The maths/model is in the public domain, this is the third time I have told you this. and because I looked into something rather then blindly take your word, you want to paint me as some sort of zealot.

It's like you are from a parallel universe.

The thread title isn't just misleading; it's a barefaced lie.


I see in addition to your PhD in Plasma Physics you have a law degree in Canadian law.
11-07-2017 07:27
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
You need a degree in law to know that something that hasn't happened yet should not be described in the past tense?
12-07-2017 00:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
You need a degree in law to know that something that hasn't happened yet should not be described in the past tense?


How do you know what and what hasn't occurred? If the allowance for adjournment was on the grounds that Mann supply paperwork and he did NOT do so then he is in fact guilty of contempt of court.

The lawyer's word means NOTHING AT ALL. It is Dr. Tim Ball that requested this paperwork as his agreement for the adjournment. Dr. Ball is saying that his requests were not answered.

All Mann's lawyer can argue is that partial compliance equals full compliance. And that will not hold up in court.

So at the end of this adjournment Michael Mann is dead meat.

But of course as an expert in legal procedures you already knew that.
12-07-2017 00:18
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
You need a degree in law to know that something that hasn't happened yet should not be described in the past tense?


How do you know what and what hasn't occurred?

If Michael Mann had lost his court case as Tim claims, it would be a matter of public record. The case would be finished and all those involved would have packed up and gone home. This clearly isn't so. The case continues, hence it hasn't finished, hence Michael Mann cannot have lost the case, hence Tim is lying. It really isn't hard to understand, even for you, Wake.
12-07-2017 16:01
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
You need a degree in law to know that something that hasn't happened yet should not be described in the past tense?


How do you know what and what hasn't occurred?

If Michael Mann had lost his court case as Tim claims, it would be a matter of public record. The case would be finished and all those involved would have packed up and gone home. This clearly isn't so. The case continues, hence it hasn't finished, hence Michael Mann cannot have lost the case, hence Tim is lying. It really isn't hard to understand, even for you, Wake.


And showing your expertise at legal proceedings you already knew that until the adjournment is over and proceedings begin again no findings can be posted. But if Dr. Bell was not given the papers by Feb 20, 2017, Mann has already committed contempt of court.

Is there some reason that you must always be a moron?
12-07-2017 16:54
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Legal expert or not it's a libel case and this information allegedly hidden is in the public domain, I know that ,surface detail knows it and presumably everyone in that courtroom knows it so your narrative does not make sense, as has been explained. Not that it matters to you, your just posting to be argumentative.
12-07-2017 17:19
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
Legal expert or not it's a libel case and this information allegedly hidden is in the public domain, I know that ,surface detail knows it and presumably everyone in that courtroom knows it so your narrative does not make sense, as has been explained. Not that it matters to you, your just posting to be argumentative.


The paperwork that Dr. Bell requested WAS NOT released into the public domain and that is the entire case. Why do you continue to invent the world around you as if it isn't your idea of the way it should be?
12-07-2017 17:38
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Legal expert or not it's a libel case and this information allegedly hidden is in the public domain, I know that ,surface detail knows it and presumably everyone in that courtroom knows it so your narrative does not make sense, as has been explained. Not that it matters to you, your just posting to be argumentative.


The paperwork that Dr. Bell requested WAS NOT released into the public domain and that is the entire case. Why do you continue to invent the world around you as if it isn't your idea of the way it should be?


We don't know if Dr balls legal team has requested any paper work because nobody that does know is at liberty to report it.

There is no relevant paperwork to request because as I have said in almost every post I have made to this thread the all the data and algorithms used to make the "hockey stick" are now in the public domain.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

It's like suing Linus Torvalds for hiding the code to the Linux kernel.

when its available here;

https://www.kernel.org/

One thing I am sure of is that describing something that is ongoing as past tense is wrong and you don't need a law degree to know that.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
12-07-2017 18:09
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Legal expert or not it's a libel case and this information allegedly hidden is in the public domain, I know that ,surface detail knows it and presumably everyone in that courtroom knows it so your narrative does not make sense, as has been explained. Not that it matters to you, your just posting to be argumentative.


The paperwork that Dr. Bell requested WAS NOT released into the public domain and that is the entire case. Why do you continue to invent the world around you as if it isn't your idea of the way it should be?


We don't know if Dr balls legal team has requested any paper work because nobody that does know is at liberty to report it.

There is no relevant paperwork to request because as I have said in almost every post I have made to this thread the all the data and algorithms used to make the "hockey stick" are now in the public domain.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

It's like suing Linus Torvalds for hiding the code to the Linux kernel.

when its available here;

https://www.kernel.org/

One thing I am sure of is that describing something that is ongoing as past tense is wrong and you don't need a law degree to know that.
12-07-2017 18:11
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Legal expert or not it's a libel case and this information allegedly hidden is in the public domain, I know that ,surface detail knows it and presumably everyone in that courtroom knows it so your narrative does not make sense, as has been explained. Not that it matters to you, your just posting to be argumentative.


The paperwork that Dr. Bell requested WAS NOT released into the public domain and that is the entire case. Why do you continue to invent the world around you as if it isn't your idea of the way it should be?


We don't know if Dr balls legal team has requested any paper work because nobody that does know is at liberty to report it.

There is no relevant paperwork to request because as I have said in almost every post I have made to this thread the all the data and algorithms used to make the "hockey stick" are now in the public domain.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

It's like suing Linus Torvalds for hiding the code to the Linux kernel.

when its available here;

https://www.kernel.org/

One thing I am sure of is that describing something that is ongoing as past tense is wrong and you don't need a law degree to know that.


Is there some reason you're changing the subject from the original posting?
Edited on 12-07-2017 18:47
12-07-2017 18:35
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Legal expert or not it's a libel case and this information allegedly hidden is in the public domain, I know that ,surface detail knows it and presumably everyone in that courtroom knows it so your narrative does not make sense, as has been explained. Not that it matters to you, your just posting to be argumentative.


The paperwork that Dr. Bell requested WAS NOT released into the public domain and that is the entire case. Why do you continue to invent the world around you as if it isn't your idea of the way it should be?


We don't know if Dr balls legal team has requested any paper work because nobody that does know is at liberty to report it.

There is no relevant paperwork to request because as I have said in almost every post I have made to this thread the all the data and algorithms used to make the "hockey stick" are now in the public domain.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/

It's like suing Linus Torvalds for hiding the code to the Linux kernel.

when its available here;

https://www.kernel.org/

One thing I am sure of is that describing something that is ongoing as past tense is wrong and you don't need a law degree to know that.


Isa there some reason you're changing the subject from the original posting?


I'm having trouble following you. I'm simply repeating myself and using an analogy while you seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
12-07-2017 18:53
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote: Is there some reason you're changing the subject from the original posting?
I'm having trouble following you. I'm simply repeating myself and using an analogy while you seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing.


You are telling us what is in public domain instead of what the original article showed in fact that the information that Michael Mann used was modified and not in the public domain and has not been presented to Dr. Bell as per requirements of the Canadian court after Dr. Mann sued Dr. Bell for liable for making it public both through the information in his "hockey stick" chart did NOT meet public domain information.

But apparently you want to argue the accuracy of the hockey stick when it has plainly been disproven not just by Dr. Bell but by the actual records.
12-07-2017 18:56
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote: Is there some reason you're changing the subject from the original posting?
I'm having trouble following you. I'm simply repeating myself and using an analogy while you seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing.


You are telling us what is in public domain instead of what the original article showed in fact that the information that Michael Mann used was modified and not in the public domain and has not been presented to Dr. Bell as per requirements of the Canadian court after Dr. Mann sued Dr. Bell for liable for making it public both through the information in his "hockey stick" chart did NOT meet public domain information.

But apparently you want to argue the accuracy of the hockey stick when it has plainly been disproven not just by Dr. Bell but by the actual records.


I did more the tell you I showed that its in the public domain.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
15-07-2017 22:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote: Is there some reason you're changing the subject from the original posting?
I'm having trouble following you. I'm simply repeating myself and using an analogy while you seem to be arguing with me for the sake of arguing.


You are telling us what is in public domain instead of what the original article showed in fact that the information that Michael Mann used was modified and not in the public domain and has not been presented to Dr. Bell as per requirements of the Canadian court after Dr. Mann sued Dr. Bell for liable for making it public both through the information in his "hockey stick" chart did NOT meet public domain information.

But apparently you want to argue the accuracy of the hockey stick when it has plainly been disproven not just by Dr. Bell but by the actual records.


I did more the tell you I showed that its in the public domain.


So let me get you straight - a COURT has approved Dr. Bell's request for the actual files that Dr. Mann has and you're telling us that the court is full of crap because you know better? Why don't you write the Canadian court and tell them that?
15-07-2017 22:33
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
But a court has not done these things if it had it would be a matter of public record, I've looked and can find nothing.
15-07-2017 22:38
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
But a court has not done these things if it had it would be a matter of public record, I've looked and can find nothing.


Morons are as morons do. THERE IS NO COURT RECORDS UNTIL AFTER THE COURT CASE IS SETTLED. Where on earth did you stash your brain?
15-07-2017 22:48
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Then how can you say it has?
15-07-2017 23:19
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:Then how can you say it has?


You aren't even bright enough to keep up with the conversation are you? Do you even have an inkling what an "adjournment" means? You seem to be lacking in the very slightest knowledge of anything you speak of. Which raises the question: If you don't know anything, why are you talking about it and sounding like a complete ass? You know nothing of science and talk about it. You know nothing about the law and talk about it. You aren't even bright enough to know how to look things up on the Internet.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/26431-controversy-in-the-climate-science-trial-of-the-century

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/michael-manns-potential-contempt-of-court.177465/

https://www.iceagenow.info/looks-like-michael-hockey-stick-mann-sabotaged-lawsuit-dr-ball/

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Michael-Mann/439408629448440?page=4

https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/07/climate-news-july-michael-mann.html

https://www.spartareport.com/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-hand-data-judge-climate-change-trial/

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-give-hockey-stick-data-court

This shows that Michael Mann started out suing several people in US courts and he was thrown out. He was forced to pass back his Nobel Prize. Then he sued again in Canadian courts and did NOT comply with the court orders. When the court resumes after it's adjournment Mann will either turn the papers over or suffer legal penalties. And he will STILL suffer legal penalties since he did not produce his phony papers which did not show the medieval warm period in the time ordered by the court.

Why do you post here? You know nothing about anything that you talk about. Your greatest success story is discovering a misspelling in someone's posting.
16-07-2017 18:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5343)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
But a court has not done these things if it had it would be a matter of public record, I've looked and can find nothing.


Morons are as morons do. THERE IS NO COURT RECORDS UNTIL AFTER THE COURT CASE IS SETTLED. Where on earth did you stash your brain?


Court record begin as soon as the case is filed, not settled. They begin at the BEGINNING of a case.


The Parrot Killer
16-07-2017 20:51
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:Then how can you say it has?


You aren't even bright enough to keep up with the conversation are you? Do you even have an inkling what an "adjournment" means? You seem to be lacking in the very slightest knowledge of anything you speak of. Which raises the question: If you don't know anything, why are you talking about it and sounding like a complete ass? You know nothing of science and talk about it. You know nothing about the law and talk about it. You aren't even bright enough to know how to look things up on the Internet.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/26431-controversy-in-the-climate-science-trial-of-the-century

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/michael-manns-potential-contempt-of-court.177465/

https://www.iceagenow.info/looks-like-michael-hockey-stick-mann-sabotaged-lawsuit-dr-ball/

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Michael-Mann/439408629448440?page=4

https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/07/climate-news-july-michael-mann.html

https://www.spartareport.com/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-hand-data-judge-climate-change-trial/

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-give-hockey-stick-data-court

This shows that Michael Mann started out suing several people in US courts and he was thrown out. He was forced to pass back his Nobel Prize. Then he sued again in Canadian courts and did NOT comply with the court orders. When the court resumes after it's adjournment Mann will either turn the papers over or suffer legal penalties. And he will STILL suffer legal penalties since he did not produce his phony papers which did not show the medieval warm period in the time ordered by the court.

Why do you post here? You know nothing about anything that you talk about. Your greatest success story is discovering a misspelling in someone's posting.


volume of links does not make a case when they are reliant on the same source, as I said the information used to make the "hockey stick" is in the public domain so your source does not make sense.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
16-07-2017 22:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:Then how can you say it has?


You aren't even bright enough to keep up with the conversation are you? Do you even have an inkling what an "adjournment" means? You seem to be lacking in the very slightest knowledge of anything you speak of. Which raises the question: If you don't know anything, why are you talking about it and sounding like a complete ass? You know nothing of science and talk about it. You know nothing about the law and talk about it. You aren't even bright enough to know how to look things up on the Internet.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/26431-controversy-in-the-climate-science-trial-of-the-century

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/michael-manns-potential-contempt-of-court.177465/

https://www.iceagenow.info/looks-like-michael-hockey-stick-mann-sabotaged-lawsuit-dr-ball/

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Michael-Mann/439408629448440?page=4

https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/07/climate-news-july-michael-mann.html

https://www.spartareport.com/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-hand-data-judge-climate-change-trial/

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-give-hockey-stick-data-court

This shows that Michael Mann started out suing several people in US courts and he was thrown out. He was forced to pass back his Nobel Prize. Then he sued again in Canadian courts and did NOT comply with the court orders. When the court resumes after it's adjournment Mann will either turn the papers over or suffer legal penalties. And he will STILL suffer legal penalties since he did not produce his phony papers which did not show the medieval warm period in the time ordered by the court.

Why do you post here? You know nothing about anything that you talk about. Your greatest success story is discovering a misspelling in someone's posting.


volume of links does not make a case when they are reliant on the same source, as I said the information used to make the "hockey stick" is in the public domain so your source does not make sense.


You manage to irritate hell out of me because of your obvious lack of scientific knowledge. But I should apologize for acting like an ass where you are concerned. I will just say that you do not have any knowledge of what is going on and you make comments that are entirely out of line. When the case resumes you can tell us the results.
16-07-2017 22:11
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: I should apologize for acting like an ass....

You ain't no actor! You ARE an ass...... probably with adornments.
16-07-2017 22:42
StarMan
★☆☆☆☆
(88)
Wake wrote:


This shows that Michael Mann started out suing several people in US courts and he was thrown out. He was forced to pass back his Nobel Prize. Then he sued again in Canadian courts and did NOT comply with the court orders. When the court resumes after it's adjournment Mann will either turn the papers over or suffer legal penalties. And he will STILL suffer legal penalties since he did not produce his phony papers which did not show the medieval warm period in the time ordered by the court.


Outstanding post in a wonderful thread for which I thank the original poster. What a profound embarrassment for the "climate change sharia." But will it even slow them down? Not a prayer. Evil is like that. Pride was the original sin.
16-07-2017 23:31
Wake
★★★★★
(3386)
StarMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


This shows that Michael Mann started out suing several people in US courts and he was thrown out. He was forced to pass back his Nobel Prize. Then he sued again in Canadian courts and did NOT comply with the court orders. When the court resumes after it's adjournment Mann will either turn the papers over or suffer legal penalties. And he will STILL suffer legal penalties since he did not produce his phony papers which did not show the medieval warm period in the time ordered by the court.


Outstanding post in a wonderful thread for which I thank the original poster. What a profound embarrassment for the "climate change sharia." But will it even slow them down? Not a prayer. Evil is like that. Pride was the original sin.


The amazing thing to me is that the True Believers are all those without a trace of scientific knowledge and little to no education about it. Science isn't something you need a degree to understand, but you DO have to study it and study it hard.

And another thing is the number of people that claim that hey have a degree in one science or another and then prove beyond a doubt that they cannot have those sorts of degrees. Take our apostle here who claims many true things and then backs them up with garbage. Can you imagine a man with a PhD that cannot transpose items in a math formula?

Can you believe people that do no understand that ALL radiated heat is an electromagnetic wavelength?

But in the end none of it matters because our present "heating" may be nothing of the sort. It may be nothing more than Urban Heat Island Effect that was not properly compensated for by NOAA or NASA.
16-07-2017 23:33
spot
★★★☆☆
(925)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:Then how can you say it has?


You aren't even bright enough to keep up with the conversation are you? Do you even have an inkling what an "adjournment" means? You seem to be lacking in the very slightest knowledge of anything you speak of. Which raises the question: If you don't know anything, why are you talking about it and sounding like a complete ass? You know nothing of science and talk about it. You know nothing about the law and talk about it. You aren't even bright enough to know how to look things up on the Internet.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/item/26431-controversy-in-the-climate-science-trial-of-the-century

https://bwi.forums.rivals.com/threads/michael-manns-potential-contempt-of-court.177465/

https://www.iceagenow.info/looks-like-michael-hockey-stick-mann-sabotaged-lawsuit-dr-ball/

https://www.facebook.com/topic/Michael-Mann/439408629448440?page=4

https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2017/07/climate-news-july-michael-mann.html

https://www.spartareport.com/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-hand-data-judge-climate-change-trial/

http://granitegrok.com/blog/2017/07/michael-mann-refuses-give-hockey-stick-data-court

This shows that Michael Mann started out suing several people in US courts and he was thrown out. He was forced to pass back his Nobel Prize. Then he sued again in Canadian courts and did NOT comply with the court orders. When the court resumes after it's adjournment Mann will either turn the papers over or suffer legal penalties. And he will STILL suffer legal penalties since he did not produce his phony papers which did not show the medieval warm period in the time ordered by the court.

Why do you post here? You know nothing about anything that you talk about. Your greatest success story is discovering a misspelling in someone's posting.


volume of links does not make a case when they are reliant on the same source, as I said the information used to make the "hockey stick" is in the public domain so your source does not make sense.


You manage to irritate hell out of me because of your obvious lack of scientific knowledge. But I should apologize for acting like an ass where you are concerned. I will just say that you do not have any knowledge of what is going on and you make comments that are entirely out of line. When the case resumes you can tell us the results.


Scientific knowledge? you would not be taking the position you are taking if you have scientific knowledge.

You lie in order to do your bit to make sure the future is unpleasant as possible perhaps you think you will help bring about the rapture or something.

Are you going to threaten to slit my throat you nutcase?

That is standard practice for you.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Michael Mann loses his court case and faces costs:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
This is interesting, pertinent - "The Eerie Silence Surrounding the Assange Case"124-06-2018 02:53
"Freakishly Warm" Arctic Weather Has Scientists Reconsidering Worst-Case Scenarios on Climate1104-06-2018 18:50
Climate Change Denial in the Age of Trump | Michael Mann127-05-2018 07:29
Frankenstein Meets Climate Change: Prof Michael Wysession (March 2018)319-05-2018 13:25
The moment of Mann is fast approaching225-01-2018 22:37
Articles
Appendix B - Calculating The Economic Costs of Extreme Weather Events
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact