Climate Fraudster gets his comeuppance

This article contains the original “hockey stick” graph that set me on the path to skepticism. Note that it is truncated at 1400AD even though the climate reconstructions went back 1000 and in some cases 2000 years. Starting at 1400AD was the depth of the Little Ice Age and excluded the earlier Medieval Warm Period. Truncated graphs are one of the most common frauds in science.

But Mann’s comeuppance is the result of his habit of suing anyone who critiques his work. He sued Tim Ball who criticized him for not releasing his methodology and supporting data for examination by other qualified scientists.

One of the basic standards in science is that if something cannot be reproduced, it didn’t happen.  Mann apparently hoped Ball, who is 79, would die before the court ruled in the decade long suit. But finally the court has ruled in Ball’s favor, exposing Mann as a fraud, and requiring him to pay Ball’s legal costs as well. The ruling exposes Mann to criminal charges in the US.

Perhaps this will be the beginning of bringing real science back to the climate issue.

7 thoughts on “Climate Fraudster gets his comeuppance

  1. The American Stinker??

    9 years and it ain’t over yet. Mann is a prickly jerk and his findings may never be corroborated, but that doesn’t really prove anything about the global climate shifts.

    I’ve always considered him a fringe type, kinda like Curry.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Ad hominem attacks are not welcome. If the article is wrong, tell us where it is wrong.

      National and international policies are being made based on fraudulent studies, which cannot be tested due to withheld ad destroyed data and formulae. That is a very big deal, and the fact the the AP will never report this does not change that.


      1. Ad hominem because I think Mann’s a prickly jerk and should not have gone after Ball?

        OK, here’s Mann’s response to the biased slant from the conspiracy theorist’s website.

        It disagrees and refutes the blog’s conclusions. I’m not defending Mann if he won’t produce his methodology he should have no credibility, but there are dozens of replicated studies in existence.

        There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:
        The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were not valid.
        The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.
        The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.
        This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Mann is under court order to produce the withheld data and methods. He refuses to do so, and was held in contempt of court.

        There is no reason to do so unless it contradicts his claimed interpretation.


    1. You need to read up on logical fallacies.

      I am not saying that Mann’s papers are wrong because he is a fraudster, that would be Ad Hominem.

      I am saying he is a fraudster because he refused to follow the requirements for sharing methods and data as required by the publications that carried his work, and because he has consistently presented findings in a deceptive manner to influence policy, the graph in this article being a prime example.

      You will note that the Climategate Emails revealed that he conspired with Phil Jones and others to destroy data rather than allow it to be examined independently.

      So, I call him a fraudster based on the evidence, not based on who he is.


      1. Okay, but your smarmy lecture was misguided. Referring to “The American Stinker” was not an ad hominem attack. Jimmie did not dispute anything in the article. It was more of an aside which fairly reflects its frequent absurdly biased articles.

        If anything should be disputed it is the way you distorted the fining of the court as a repudiation of Mann’s work product.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s