Penn State or the State Pen?

Principia Scientific

Written by John O’Sullivan

Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.

The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.

The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” 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.”

A more detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.

Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action on March 25, 2011 for Ball’s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.”  The final court ruling, in effect, vindicates Ball’s criticisms.

Previously, 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 objectively higher.

Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the 8-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.

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 artefact 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. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.

But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?

No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily – or face severe consequences for not doing so – that is, until Dr Ball came into the picture!

Evidence in Legal Discovery and the Truth Defense

Dr Ball’s legal team adroitly pursued the ‘truth defense’ such that the case boiled down to whether Ball’s words (“belongs in the state pen, not Penn State”) after examining the key evidence (Mann’s R2 regression numbers) fairly and accurately portrayed Mann.

The aim was to compel the plaintiff (Dr. Mann) to show his math ‘working out’ to check if he knowingly and criminally misrepresented his claims by resorting to statistical fakery (see: ‘Mike’s trick‘ below).

In the pre-trial Discovery Process the parties are required to surrender the cited key evidence in reasonable fashion, that they believe proves or disproves the Claim.

Despite Ball’s best efforts over 8 years, Mann would not agree to surrender to an open court his math ‘working out’ –  those arcane R2 regression numbers for his graph (see Mann’s latest obfuscating Tweet in the ‘update’ at foot of this article).

But throughout 2017 and 2018 any reasonable observer could see through such endless delays from the plaintiff  – all just attritional tactics.

The Penn State professor had persistently refused to honor the binding “concessions” agreement he made to Ball which ultimately gave his legal team the coup de grace to win the case  for the defendant due to Mann’s ‘Bad Faith’ (see: legal definition here).

Dr. Ball always argued that those numbers, if examined in open court, would have conclusively proved Mann was motivated to commit a criminal fraud. It was at this point legal minds could discern Ball was closing in on victory – a triumph for ‘David over Goliath.’

And Mann certainly is a science ‘Goliath.’ Ever since featuring so famously in the UN IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) Mann’s graph has been an iconic image cited relentlessly by environmentalists clamoring for urgent action on man-made global warming.

For the past two decades the biased mainstream media has acclaimed Mann as “a world-leading climate scientist” and last year he was heralded as their champion to help dethrone “climate denier” President Trump.

Indeed, not just a fawning MSM, but many hundreds of subsequent climate studies have relied on Mann’s findings. Mann’s reputation was such, that most climate researchers merely accepted his graph, a typical example of groupthink.

Dr Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those ‘scientists’ at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.

As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Mann’s version top, Ball’s below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the respective findings.

Above: contrast and compare Dr Mann’s dodgy graph with Dr Ball’s more reliable version (based on that of the renowned H. H. Lamb) and see how Mann fraudulently altered the proxy climate date with a ‘hockey stick’ shape to falsely show the dramatic uptick with modern temperatures rising ‘catastrophically’ to fit the fake UN IPCC doomsaying narrative.

Have Skeptics Ever Proven that Mann’s Graph was Deliberately Faked?

Answer: No. This is because Mann has always  refused to release his R2 regression numbers for independent examination.

He claimed his secrecy was justified because he held “proprietary rights” over them (i.e. personally valuable intellectual work product, you see).  So “valuable” to Mann was the secrecy of his metadata that losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit and his reputation was the ultimate price he was prepared to pay.

While steep, I guess, that’s preferable to serving a long federal prison stretch, right?

Before Ball’s glorious court victory, little more could be conclusively proven other than the hockey stick graph uptick stupidly (and unscientifically) relies on the proxy evidence from the tree rings of a single Yamal larch!

Mann could thus sleep safe in the knowledge that as long as statistical experts remain deprived of any conclusive proof of his intent to defraud, they could only find him guilty of incompetence.

Putting Mann’s Fraudulent Graph Under the Microscope

For an easy-viewing summary by Tim Ball please watch the video:

Mann’s goal was to make the Little Ice Age (LIA) disappear, as we explained in our previous article on this issue. The LIA was an especially cold era that ended around 1840 and since then global temperatures have gradually risen. But government ‘experts’ like Mann have sought to use statistical trickery to make such natural variation appear as ‘man-made’ warming.

Apart from playing with statistics Mann made his proxy fit the thermometer data by adding thermometer values to the proxy values known as “Mike’s trick” in the climate gate email scandal.

From the emails released during the Climategate scandal Professor Phil Jones, Britain’s top climate scientist at the University of East Anglia was shown to have written the following to his alarmist colleagues (some analysis here).

The email, sent by Prof Phil Jones of the CRU in 1999, states:

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,
Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or
first thing tomorrow.
I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years
 (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual
land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land
N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999
for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with
data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.
Thanks for the comments, Ray.


This has the Hockey Stick Graph showing the same cooling from 1942 to 1975 as the HadCRUT3 data as posted in the IPCC 2001 AR3

In 1942 there was just 4.0Gt of emissions increasing to 17.1Gt by 1975 but since this 425% increase in CO2 emissions didn’t cause any global warming during this 33 year period; the conjecture of CO2 emissions induced (catastrophic) global warming was proven false.

Readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding of what is likely to eventually be exposed as a criminal conspiracy between Mann and other ‘elite’ researchers should see “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford.

The Guardian newspaper (above) expressing doubts over ‘(Michael) Mann-made’ global warming.

Victory that Comes at Great Personal Cost

Behind the scenes, gathering the resources, mental, scientific and financial, there is an untold burden of defending these cynical SLAPP suits.

Lest readers forget, it is mostly in the service of misguided public policy, with massive funding and connivance from political operators in play, that fake scientists like Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver acquired such esteemed public positions.

They are not only despicable human beings they are a disgrace to all decent scientists.

Readers will be aware that this author has been a staunch friend and ally to Tim throughout the hardships of this protracted 8-year legal battle.

Our reputations were routinely trashed by our enemies, so it is sweet justice that the court has now given legal credence to Tim’s famous words that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” a comical reference to the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.

[Author Note: Being very much a party to these legal proceedings (having provided Dr Ball with the financial security of a legally-binding indemnity in the event Tim lost) it is a monumental vindication of my faith in Tim’s cause. In effect, I ‘bet the farm’ on Tim winning, as graciously reported by Jo Nova (below)]

Knowingly Fraudulent and Corrupt

During 2018, while Tim Ball’s hard work was winning “concessions” from Mann’s legal team in Canada, south of the border, (on April 20) a shameless Mann wrote in Scientific American this utter nonsense:

Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies, again and again, have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium.

Gullible and brainwashed greens and the many self-serving politicians swallowed up this garbage.

Dr Ball Expresses Gratitude to Principia Scientific International

Speaking in this 2018 video on the gravity of what some scientists have called “The science trial of the Century,” Dr Ball revealed his gratitude to his colleagues at Principia Scientific:

Dr Tim Ball:

 I know John O’Sullivan who set up the Principia site and I know I wrote a foreword and a chapter in one of the books they produced called Slaying the Sky Dragon.

John O’Sullivan comes from his anti-government [stance], very legitimately and unfortunately, it’s not until you’ve actually directly personally experienced that; challenging the government – that you realize how nasty they can get. So John knows very well how nasty these things can get – that anyone that dares to challenge the authorities.

And so, Principia was set up for that reason, and John was the one that helped me set up the PayPal so people could help me financially so, that’s my disclaimer with that.”

As Jo Nova reported on the blog:

“John O’Sullivan is putting in above and beyond what any single skeptical soul ought to.

He’s already been a key figure helping Tim Ball in the legal fight with the UVA establishment, which has spent over a million dollars helping Michael Mann to hide emails. The case was launched by Michael Mann, but could turn out to do a huge favor to skeptics — the discovery process is a powerful tool, and we all know who has been hiding their methods, their data, and their work-related correspondence.

Tim Ball and John O’Sullivan are helping all the free citizens of the West. The burden should not be theirs alone. There are many claims for help at the moment, but that is a sign that the grand scam is coming to a head.  Jo”

Two out of Two Major Court Wins By Ball Versus Junk IPCC Scientists

Dr Ball, now affirmed as a courageous champion of honest science, has assured his place in the annals of real climate science. His gift to the world was sacrificing eight of his senior years, when he could have been enjoying his retirement, to exposing key players in the biggest science fraud of all time.

People too easily forget Dr Ball has defeated in expensive legal battles not just one top UN IPCC climate scientists, but two!

This latest victory is the second this champion of climate skepticism has enjoyed in the last 18 months in this same jurisdiction – both for “defamation,” both multi-million dollar climate science claims.

We reported (February 15, 2018) on Dr Ball’s first crucial courtroom win against Dr Andrew Weaver (photo, above), another elite junk scientist (a UN IPCC Lead Author in climate modeling) and British Columbia Green Party Leader.

Pointedly, at the time, Dr Ball wanted to emphasize an extremely salient fact:

Roger D. McConchie

“While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer,Roger McConchie, (photo, left) in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”

In effect, there is more than mere coincidence that Dr Ball, a world-leading skeptical climatologist, was systematically targeted for legal retribution time and again by political groups such as the unscrupulous Climate Science Legal Defense Fund .

As a retired scientist in his 80’s, Tim was a ‘soft target’ and the stress of these lawsuits put an enormous toll on his health.

Not to be outdone, Tim has used his time wisely to write a damning book of the 30-year back story of the great climate fraud titled The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ and I heartily recommend that interested readers buy it.

It is also not often reported that the funding in Canada for these extravagant SLAPP lawsuits is believed to be from the David Suzuki Foundation, a hot house for extreme environmental advocacy and Big Green policy promotion.

Giving Back - Hugh Culver

What is a ‘Strategic lawsuit against public participation’ (SLAPP Suit)?

Wikipedia offers a fair definition:

“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censorintimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.

In the typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”

Update (August 24, 2019):

Dr Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article:

Mann’s statement is here:

In short, Mann’s ugly responsive legal statement is (a) stark admission he lost fair and square, and (b) a disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in timely fashion.

Well, Mikey, you are the plaintiff and Tim gave you over 8 YEARS to get your case together!

On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it we offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:

Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.

As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.