Except Ball requested the dismissal.

Except  requested the dismissal.

Sep 20, 2019 at 1:09 PM | Phil Clarke

Because Mann is a time waster, and unable to provide evidence for his claims.

As it was Ball who requested the dismissal it is reasonable to infer that it was he who wished to avoid legal scrutiny. Again - counterfactual, Dr Mann supplied everything the court requested. Also, in deciding to dismiss the Judge noted that

The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not.

Case closed.

"Case closed.
Sep 20, 2019 at 1:50 PM | Phil Clarke"

Yes, Hockey Teamsters can't even be trusted to report honestly about Mann's inability to substantiate his claims.

Any Climate Science paper quoting anything by Mann as a "Reference", is suspect.

WUWT has now got a post on it, including the Judge's opinion (the unfortunately named Justice Twaddle, but maybe that is appropriate to any case involving Michael Mann).

In dismissing it on the grounds of unreasonable delay by plaintiff and his solicitors ("We were busy"!) the bit I liked most was

"Moreover, the defendant has led actual evidence of actual prejudice. The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. "

Sep 20, 2019 at 2:58 PM | michael hart

Using the Precautionary Principle, so beloved of Climate Alarmists, it would be safer to incarcerate all Hockey Teamsters, and only release them if actual measured data proves Mann's predictions correct.

If any of them die whilst waiting, everyone should follow Mann's demonstration of self-interested indifference.

Phil Clarke:

"As it was Ball who requested the dismissal it is reasonable to infer that it was he who wished to avoid legal scrutiny."

I should have known you'd try to spin what is a deeply embarrassing ruling for Mann into something critical of Ball. Did you actually read the judgment?

"I turn first to whether there has been inordinate delay....There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the
matter ahead. The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay."

And you argue that it was Ball, not Mann, who wished to avoid legal scrutiny! Absolutely extraordinary.

"I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not
provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all. Counsel for Dr. Mann submits that the delay was due to his being busy on other matters, but the affidavit evidence falls far short of establishing this."

"Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff, rather than give this matter any priority. The plaintiff appears to have been content to simply let this matter languish. Accordingly, I find that the delay is inexcusable."

Yet in Phil's parallel universe the decision apparently exculpates Mann and demonstrates that Ball was a scaredy-pants who was frightened of legal scrutiny.

Phil, if you're going to continue writing rubbish such as you just have on this thread, I'm afraid I'll have to take you less seriously when you write about other subjects.

Sure, we cleave to a view about climate science and Michael Mann's part in it. And yes, the case does not rule at all on those issues. Nevertheless, the judgement is excoriating (most judges use very measured language most of the time) and reflects extraordinarily badly on Mann, as does Mann's attempts to spin the outcome on his Twitter feed immediately the result was announced. Read what he said on his Twitter feed, then read the judgment, and ask yourself if his response was fair and reasonable and accurate. I know what I think.

"Phil, if you're going to continue writing rubbish such as you just have on this thread, I'm afraid I'll have to take you less seriously when you write about other subjects."

Sep 20, 2019 at 5:21 PM | Mark Hodgson

Phil Clarke represents the expertise of Hockey Teamsters. Their science is also based on dishonesty, as they can't afford to renounce Mann.

"The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not"
Case closed.

Sep 20, 2019 at 1:50 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke".

In fairness to the resident troll, he almost certainly does understand something the Honourable Justice Twaddle does not.

Like most serious skeptics who more than well enough equipped to understand the scientific issues, I have never heard Ball say he doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming. Merely that it is probably small and inconsequential.

This is what is most frustrating for me. A Judge should be highly attuned and trained in the nuances of the English language. Yet once again, we appear to be confronted with somebody who can't distinguish between the statements "a lot", "a bit", or "none".

Could somebody please repeatedly slap him with a large wet haddock until he admits it has gone in? Phil Clarke at least understands this, even though he may choose to lie about it. Judges are held to higher standards, even Canadian Judges.

ten years of deliberate + vexatious + expensive dicking around and insults from the puffed up bloviating fraud Mann ... some people of Ball's age might've resorted to a shot gun , institutional heating, 3 square meals a day and the respect of their peers.

he got off lightly

can't wait for ding-ding ... Round II with Steyn

Oh, I understand folk's desire to land a blow on Dr Mann, even one orthogonal to his science, I wrote earlier that this lawsuit was ill-advised and it's the case that Dr Mann (and/or his legal advisors) made a dog's breakfast of this.

However it is also true that the case was brought to an end by the defendant, IANAL, but presumably there were other, less terminal remedies available which would have lead eventually to an actual hearing.

Hey ho. We'll never know. Case closed. While this was rumbling on Dr Mann was awarded the Hans Oeschger Medal, the highest honour of the European Geosciences Union, elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society, promoted to the rank of Distinguished Professor by his University, was listed as one of Bloomberg's '50 most influential people', named as Highly Cited Researcher by the ISI, listed by Economica magazine as one of their '50 Leading Influencers', by Business Insider as one of their '50 scientists who are changing the way we see the world”, elected Fellow of the AAAS and was awarded that body's Award for Public Engagement with Science, elected Fellow of the Geological Society of America, picked up the Tyler prize for Environmental Achievement and the Climate Communication Prize from the AGU, in addition to a clutch of honourary degrees and other awards for his outreach work. He was also coauthor of dozens of peer-reviewed papers and the 1999 'hockey stick' study was selected by GRL for inclusion in their 40th anniversary collection.

If you want to restore a little perspective on the relevance of this spat in the scheme of things and the public discourse, well you only have to turn on the TV news or open a newspaper.

;-)

https://www.michaelmann.net/about/cv

"However it is also true that the case was brought to an end by the defendant,
Sep 21, 2019 at 9:27 AM | Phil Clarke"

More Hockey Teamster lies.

The case was brought to an end by the Judge, because Mann couldn't prove anything he claimed.

Sep 21, 2019 at 9:27 AM | Phil Clarke

Thank you for listing the organisations that do not value honesty and integrity in science.

The case was brought to an end by the Judge, because Mann couldn't prove anything he claimed.

Counterfactual again. The defendent brought a motion to dismiss, without which the case would stil be ongoing.

Sep 21, 2019 at 12:17 PM | Phil Clarke

As with all Hockey Teamsters, you seem unable to comprehend the importance of genuine facts and evidence, even when stated by a Judge, and explained to you by a Lawyer.

As Hockey Teamster Science is not based on genuine facts or evidence, it is not surprising that Mann cannot provide evidence to support that either.

It's simple. The Piltdown Mann can't defend his statistics and thus won't. To leave the issue in abeyance he leaves the only thing he's contributed to humanity of any importance and it is a lie.

He abandons his purported libel case to the tactics of the alarmist cabal. He wasn't as outraged at the insult as the cabal was at the prospect of the scary hockey stick being debunked.

Nonetheless, his statistics are not unknown, and history will remember.

And Phil will be remembered for his propagandizing for a segment of humanity which seeks to exert power and control over the masses. He's a liar, too.
=======================

Phil is both right and wrong.

He's right that the case was brought to an end only because the defendant, Ball, applied to have it struck out for unconscionable delay. He's wrong to say that Ball really had any other options. As a result of the delays, important witnesses had either died or become incapacitated. The delays, which were unexplained by Mann, and which were unconscionable, prejudiced a fair trial, as the Judge found, and which Phil knows assuming (as I assume he did) Phil read the judgment. Phil doesn't quote from the judgment, because it offers him and his hero no crumbs of comfort.

To blame Ball for the case not getting to trial is quite extraordinary, and is true Alice Through the Looking Glass behaviour. The case didn't get to trial because Mann delayed it beyond all reasonable lengths of time. Had he not done so, Ball's application would have failed. The fault is no-one but Mann's.

Has Mann made the judgment available on his twitter feed? If not, why not? He was quick enough to put a load of spin up there when his case was thrown out. One assumes he wants everyone to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth regarding this sad farrago.

What does Mann mean when he says he won't be paying Ball's costs? He hasn't explained. I can see a few possible alternatives:

1. He's lying (I doubt it, by the way);

2. He intends to appeal (seems unlikely, given that the judgment appears to me to be beyond criticism from a legal point of view), though that's not to say that he won't seek to appeal, to perpetuate the punishment that is the Court process, even if an appeal has no prospect of success);

3. He is going to ignore the Court order and put himself in contempt of Court (seems unlikely); or

4. Somebody else - perhaps the Climate Defence Fund - is going to pay the costs for him. Thus he can say he isn't going to pay the costs (which would be true) and create the impression that Ball's costs won't be paid (which wouldn't be true).

Why the lack of clarity from Mann on this important point?

Even after the judgement is published, the speculation continues. The science never came into these proceedings; Mann's 'statistics' have been the subject of extraordinary scrutiny up to and including a congressional hearing and a panel formed by the NAS. Criticisms that have merit are shown to have negligible impact and those that might have invalidated the conclusions were shown to have no merit. Hence 20 years on, the hockey stick has been multiply repeated, extended and confirmed and it has entered the canon.

No court case about a single throwaway joke was ever going to change those simple facts.

Mark,

Dr Mann's lawyer actually said: Costs are *automatically* awarded if a case is dismissed. They represent a partial indemnity, not actual legal fees.”

And Ball has used the phrase 'Court Costs'.

I could speculate what that legalese means in real life - but there's been enough speculation, and this particular crumb holds absolutely no interest for me.

Phil

As you know, I have consistently made the point (unlike some sceptic websites which do seem - wrongly - to argue otherwise) that the dismissal of Mann's claim against Ball is absolutely no judicial reflection on the merits of the claim, nor (so far as I can ascertain) was Mann in breach of any specific order by the Court for disclosure/discovery of evidence. His case was dismissed, not on the merits (which remain undetermined) and not because of any alleged failure to disclose his evidence/scientific findings in this case (though I'm not sure the case got far enough - in 8 years! - for him to have had to disclose such evidence).

Questions relating to the scientific accuracy of Mann's work, and its integrity, remain to be argued about elsewhere. And no doubt those arguments will continue.

What I find disappointing is that Mann acolytes (including, it seems, yourself) can't bring themselves to acknowledge the huge extent to which this whole shabby episode, including not least his (IMO) pathetic attempts to bluster and spin about the outcome on his twitter account, reflect so badly on him.

Whilst it is always important to play the ball and not the man, I can't help feeling that this episode, in my opinion, undermines Mann's credibility as a human being, if not as a scientist.

Which part of 'made a dog's breakfast of this.' is giving you the problem?

Phil, I should have acknowledged that criticism by you. The bit that's giving me the problem is that you don't really seem to acknowledge that it's not really Ball's fault that it isn't going to trial (you keep pinning the blame on him) and you don't seem to recognise the bluster and spin by Mann once the judgment went against him.

Whether or not he's a great climate scientist, I don't think he's a very nice person, and personally I don't trust someone who can bluster and spin the way he did about the result of his case.

He did more than "make a dog's breakfast" of the case, IMO. He deliberately delayed the proceedings (IMO), to put maximum pressure on an aged defendant who doesn't enjoy Mann's liberal funding support; then, when the case was (quite rightly) dismissed, he came close (IMO, I stress) to lying about what actually happened. I keep stressing this is all opinion on my part - I don't want either myself or our host to be sued!

The Hockey Stick will exit the canon. The straight shaft is a lie and will eventually be exposed. You are bright enough, Phil, to understand this point, and repeatedly refuse to acknowledge it.

I can't add much to Mark's critique of the Piltdown Mann's behaviour. He's been spoiled by the supporters of his cause, which is alarmist climatology and the politics of globalists, whose interests are totalitarian. They've promoted the 'Big Lie' and Phil has absorbed it like mother's milk.

Truth will out, and the truth is that to the extent man can warm the globe the warming will be net beneficial. And the greening, and the feeding of billions, is just frosting on the cake. This is why this 'Big Lie' campaign, based on fear and guilt, will not ultimately prevail.
===================

The climateaudit.org post 'CG2 and Ex Post Picking' has a nice discussion in the last month of the problem with Mann's verification R2 statistics which are what he failed to divulge to the Canadian Court. These are what history will remember, Phil.

There's also a nice discussion of the limitations of GCMs by Gerald Browning and Pat Frank.
============================================================