Written by John O’Sullivan
Exactly as we expected, Dr Michael Mann, after his sensational court defeat to Dr Tim Ball in the ‘science trial of the century,‘ doubles down on more shenanigans over his infamous graph.
The fundamental principle of jurisprudence is “Put up or shut up!” Mann failed to “put up” and to make matters worse, he fails to “shut up.”
In the early hours of this morning mendacious Mann foolishly took to Twitter to try to rally his befuddled and shrinking army of Twitter troops with this latest whopper:
Do please read the words carefully again:
“If a climate denier is STILL(!) claiming the hockey stick has been disproven/debunked/discredited/destroyed, etc. they are either ignorant or dishonest, or — most likely — a combination of both”
Which ‘deniers’ are you referring to, Mikey? Do you notice how Mann carefully avoids naming names? A confident Mann, tooled up with his army of lawyers, would come right out and name names, wouldn’t he?
When Tim Ball saw the above Tweet today he had an instant reply for the hockey stick fraudster:
“Of course. To prove us not liars all he has to do is produce information we seek. Ross McKitrick explained the problem in 2005. http://www.uoguelph.ca/~
rmckitri/research/McKitrick- hockeystick.pdf”
“Mann also objected that we did not exactly replicate his computational steps or sequence of proxy rosters. No one had ever replicated his results, and we now know others had tried but were also unsuccessful. To date we are the closest anyone has been able to come in print. We were not bothered by Mann’s response on this point, but it did seem pointless to differ over trivial issues. So we requested his computational code to eliminate these easily-resolved differences. To our surprise he refused to supply his computer code, a stance he maintains to today. As for the proxy sequence, in building his PCs it turns out he had spliced together a number of different series in order to handle segments with missing data in the earliest part of the analysis. This was not explained in his Nature paper so Steve had not implemented it in the emulation program. We requested identification of the splicing sequence, which Mann refused to provide, so Steve worked out an emulation as best he could. In the end nothing turned on it, though Mann continues to point to it as a knock against our efforts. It is still not possible to identify the final form of the data used in MBH98 since it requires forming sequences of spliced proxy PC segments and Mann has given conflicting counts of the number of underlying vectors involved. Still, Steve’s emulation program is very close to reproducing the original hockey stick, and is as close as anyone is able to get in the absence of cooperation from Mann and his colleagues.”
Word is spreading fast that this global warming ‘Emperor has no clothes.’
Over the weekend American singing legend, Pat Boone, picked up on the glaring anomaly that Mann would rather lose a multi-million dollar lawsuit than reveal his faked secret science. Pat Boone wrote on WND:
“Mann had spent untold amounts of taxpayer funds in government grants, and now huge sums in legal fees suing Dr. Ball for libel, and he couldn’t afford to expose his “working out,” lest he be shown to be a fraud and actually lose the lawsuit he had brought.”
Also noteworthy is that soon after news broke of Dr Ball’s epic legal victory Mann told his army of gullible followers that he would appeal the decision.
Well, Mikey, we would love to see you file such an appeal and state on what grounds you believe you are entitled to one. Your chances are slim to none after your disgraceful bad faith breach of the binding “concessions” agreement you made in 2017.
In addition, you made no contact with the court at all thereafter, proving that you had no intention of coming to court to prove the reliability of your hidden r2 regression numbers.
On September 7, 2019, PSIs’ valued member, Tom Tamarkin of Sacramento, California published a public open letter to Michael Mann delivered by email and U.S. post.
Mr. Tamarkin’s letter made reference to a 2004 article written by Richard Muller in MIT Technology Review titled “Global Warming Bombshell; A prime niece of evidence linking human activity to climate change turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics.” The bombshell article which was never refuted by Mann, referred to the original work of Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick.
Additionally, Mr. Tamarkin referred Mann to three articles written or edited by Tamarkin which form the 3 legs of the global warming/climate hoax; no correlation of anthropogenic CO2 in the Kneeling curve , an explanation of what trace amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere really does, and the raison d’être of the climate hoax
A notable quote from Mr. Tamarkin’s open letter to Mann follows:
“I, for one, am convinced that you have fraudulently and knowingly mislead the academic, scientific, and media communities, as well as elected governmental leaders, policy makers, and the public at large.”
Based on what we have seen so far, this ‘denier’ is also calling Michael Mann a fraud all day long and steps are being taken to have instituted a full RICO investigation into his role in the climate racketeering scam.
Finally, a nice little pension pot from a counterclaim against you for malicious prosecution would be handy, so do please serve one of your SLAPP libel suits on me at the following address:
***
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
