7 ms·

That's backwards! Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against a skeptic and then lost it nine years later. The court awarded the defendant full costs: http

That's backwards! Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against a skeptic and then lost it nine years later. The court awarded the defendant full costs: https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/ https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-m... 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. The case was about whether Mann was engaged in knowing scientific fraud when he made his false hockey stick graph. Tim Ball said he did, and Mann sued, but in the end he preferred to lose the case rather than reveal his data and working, which says a lot: In the pre-trial Discovery Process, the parties must give up key evidence in a reasonable fashion, that proves or disproves the Claim. Dr. Mann lost his case because he abused Discovery by refusing to honor the “concessions” he made to Ball in 2018 to finally show in open court his R2 regression numbers (Mann’s math ‘working out’) for his graph (see ‘update’ at foot of article).

dmbche 4y ago
Mann v competitive enterprise institute recognizes that a jury would find their comments as deragatory, false and damaging, and the suit was dropped because Mann delayed the proceedings as he was "busy with other things". No where was his data found fraudulent - the court recognized that Mr.Ball's statements are derogatory. The delay is a technicality that has nothing to do with science. The article you linked is very inflamatory and makes this seem much more of a big deal than it is - nowhere do they discuss the court decision itseld, but they bring up more than 3 scientists from the 90's shitting on climate change. I'd be weary of this news outlet.
- revelio 4y ago
  Mann filed a lot of lawsuits over this and has lost all of them: https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-times-a-loser https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-tim... He didn't spend 9 years fighting a very expensive lawsuit and then, when he finally had a chance to prove that his work wasn't fraudulent in front of a judge, decide he was busy with other things lol! He refused to present the relevant evidence because his goal from the start was an ideologically motivated litigation war, in his own words: thanks Phil. there is a possibility that I can ruin National Review over this. Going to talk w/ some big time libel lawyers to see if there is the potential for a major lawsuit here that will bring this filthy organization down for good. But then National Review was removed from the case and so there was no chance for him to achieve his goal via abusive litigation anymore. Mann is unquestionably a fraud even in the eyes of his colleagues. He deliberately deleted data that disproved his reconstruction because he knew that if he was honest "skeptics would have a field day": As lead author, Mann decided to omit the Briffa data without the input of his other lead authors.. . . Mann’s own collaborators cautioned him against the deletion. IPCC TAR Coordinating Lead Author Chris Folland wrote to Mann that Briffa’s data “contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly.”. . . Briffa himself urged Mann not to succumb to “pressure to present a nice tidy story” by “ignor[ing]” his post-1960 results. . . . Mann agreed with them on the merits but bemoaned the data’s political impact: “[I]f we show Keith’s series . . . skeptics [will] have a field day.”
  - dmbche 4y ago
    All dimissed on technicalities, go read the judgments
    - revelio 4y ago
      "Technicalities" like Mann filing a lawsuit and then never actually doing anything to move it forward? The judge is extremely harsh towards Mann in the Mann v Ball case dismissal, stating in plain language that Mann has engaged in abusive behavior. He also clearly tried to BS the court about the reasons for delay. That sort of behavior is consistent with abusing the legal system so he could say he was suing for defamation without ever having to actually win - for a decade! Dismissing such a case isn't a technicality. As the judge points out, Ball got witnesses lined up in his defense and Mann delayed so long that Ball's witnesses actually died of old age. Honestly, I hadn't read the dismissals before. But it's laughable to call this dismissed on technicalities. Mann comes across as an abusive, manipulative and extraordinarily untrustworthy person in all of this. A clearer case of abusive litigation is hard to find.
      - dmbche 4y ago
        But you agree that all the judgment also recognize that the jury would've edit: been able to recognize the comments as defamatory, and that, factually, in reality, the cases were - black on white - dissmissed on technicalities instead of from an actual judgment of anything scientific? The whole point is that you bringing this up has nothing to do with the subject of this conversation. And that you were blatantly wrong and misguiding in saying that he "lost the case" as the case was not argued
        revelio 4y ago
        No, the jury would not have found it defamatory if it were true, which it was. The cases were dismissed without evaluating the science because of Mann's behavior. The people he sued wanted to just get on with it and debate the science, but Mann literally filed suit and then never turned up to his own legal proceedings. Hence the judge's displeasure. Apparently Mann tried to make the same argument you made about not losing the case. He lost all the cases. If the judge dismisses your case that is losing. You don't get to file a lawsuit, never turn up and then when the judge tosses you out, claim you won.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Mann v competitive enterprise institute recognizes that a jury would find their comments as deragatory, false and damaging No, Mann v. Competitive Enterprise Institute had Mann’s claims against CEI dismissed at summary judgement because Mann’s evidence was insufficient for any reasonable jury to conclude that the required standard (“actual malice”) was met in CEI’s conduct, irrespectice of whether the charges were false or not. [0] (“actual malice” was held to be a triable issue of fact for the jury against an individual defendant in the same case, as was the actual falsity of the charges. I believe the case against the individual defendant was abandoned because CEI was the real target, or just because of Mann’s pattern of abandoning cases because he was “too busy” to prosecute them after filing.) I wonder if in general you are making the mistake of assuming that motions to dismiss or for summary judgement in which the court is required to assume that the jury would find for Mann in any cases where there is a material issue of fact constitute “recognition” that the jury would find for Mann, which is decidedly not the case. [0] http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2021/20210722_docket-2012-CA-008263-B_order-1.pdf http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case...

dmbche 4y ago

Mann v competitive enterprise institute recognizes that a jury would find their comments as deragatory, false and damaging, and the suit was dropped because Mann delayed the proceedings as he was "busy with other things". No where was his data found fraudulent - the court recognized that Mr.Ball's statements are derogatory. The delay is a technicality that has nothing to do with science. The article you linked is very inflamatory and makes this seem much more of a big deal than it is - nowhere do they discuss the court decision itseld, but they bring up more than 3 scientists from the 90's shitting on climate change. I'd be weary of this news outlet.

revelio 4y ago
Mann filed a lot of lawsuits over this and has lost all of them: https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-times-a-loser https://www.steynonline.com/11508/youre-once-twice-three-tim... He didn't spend 9 years fighting a very expensive lawsuit and then, when he finally had a chance to prove that his work wasn't fraudulent in front of a judge, decide he was busy with other things lol! He refused to present the relevant evidence because his goal from the start was an ideologically motivated litigation war, in his own words: thanks Phil. there is a possibility that I can ruin National Review over this. Going to talk w/ some big time libel lawyers to see if there is the potential for a major lawsuit here that will bring this filthy organization down for good. But then National Review was removed from the case and so there was no chance for him to achieve his goal via abusive litigation anymore. Mann is unquestionably a fraud even in the eyes of his colleagues. He deliberately deleted data that disproved his reconstruction because he knew that if he was honest "skeptics would have a field day": As lead author, Mann decided to omit the Briffa data without the input of his other lead authors.. . . Mann’s own collaborators cautioned him against the deletion. IPCC TAR Coordinating Lead Author Chris Folland wrote to Mann that Briffa’s data “contradicts the multiproxy curve and dilutes the message rather significantly.”. . . Briffa himself urged Mann not to succumb to “pressure to present a nice tidy story” by “ignor[ing]” his post-1960 results. . . . Mann agreed with them on the merits but bemoaned the data’s political impact: “[I]f we show Keith’s series . . . skeptics [will] have a field day.”
- dmbche 4y ago
  All dimissed on technicalities, go read the judgments
  - revelio 4y ago
    "Technicalities" like Mann filing a lawsuit and then never actually doing anything to move it forward? The judge is extremely harsh towards Mann in the Mann v Ball case dismissal, stating in plain language that Mann has engaged in abusive behavior. He also clearly tried to BS the court about the reasons for delay. That sort of behavior is consistent with abusing the legal system so he could say he was suing for defamation without ever having to actually win - for a decade! Dismissing such a case isn't a technicality. As the judge points out, Ball got witnesses lined up in his defense and Mann delayed so long that Ball's witnesses actually died of old age. Honestly, I hadn't read the dismissals before. But it's laughable to call this dismissed on technicalities. Mann comes across as an abusive, manipulative and extraordinarily untrustworthy person in all of this. A clearer case of abusive litigation is hard to find.
    - dmbche 4y ago
      But you agree that all the judgment also recognize that the jury would've edit: been able to recognize the comments as defamatory, and that, factually, in reality, the cases were - black on white - dissmissed on technicalities instead of from an actual judgment of anything scientific? The whole point is that you bringing this up has nothing to do with the subject of this conversation. And that you were blatantly wrong and misguiding in saying that he "lost the case" as the case was not argued
      - revelio 4y ago
        No, the jury would not have found it defamatory if it were true, which it was. The cases were dismissed without evaluating the science because of Mann's behavior. The people he sued wanted to just get on with it and debate the science, but Mann literally filed suit and then never turned up to his own legal proceedings. Hence the judge's displeasure. Apparently Mann tried to make the same argument you made about not losing the case. He lost all the cases. If the judge dismisses your case that is losing. You don't get to file a lawsuit, never turn up and then when the judge tosses you out, claim you won.
dragonwriter 4y ago
> Mann v competitive enterprise institute recognizes that a jury would find their comments as deragatory, false and damaging No, Mann v. Competitive Enterprise Institute had Mann’s claims against CEI dismissed at summary judgement because Mann’s evidence was insufficient for any reasonable jury to conclude that the required standard (“actual malice”) was met in CEI’s conduct, irrespectice of whether the charges were false or not. [0] (“actual malice” was held to be a triable issue of fact for the jury against an individual defendant in the same case, as was the actual falsity of the charges. I believe the case against the individual defendant was abandoned because CEI was the real target, or just because of Mann’s pattern of abandoning cases because he was “too busy” to prosecute them after filing.) I wonder if in general you are making the mistake of assuming that motions to dismiss or for summary judgement in which the court is required to assume that the jury would find for Mann in any cases where there is a material issue of fact constitute “recognition” that the jury would find for Mann, which is decidedly not the case. [0] http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2021/20210722_docket-2012-CA-008263-B_order-1.pdf http://climatecasechart.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case...