Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann

This about Dr Tim Ball's case: Mark Steyn's case is still in the Doldrums.

Pcar

All we are getting is the comment by Tim Ball quoted by Paul Homewood.

“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.”

"Has judge said that, is so why isn't Mann now locked up?"

We don't know if the judge said. The February 20th deadline was put forward by Tim Ball and may have no legal standing at all.

Anyone got a copy of the actual adjournment decision?

Anyone got a copy of the actual adjournment decision?

I have but it is upside down and the sign is wrong. Any good?

I'd like to see the Court adjournment ruling too, if it's available. As I posted at unthreaded, if Mann has revealed the data, but late, that is a lot less significant for Ball's prospects than if Mann has failed to provide the data at all. Much depends on the wording of any Court ruling and what happened (or didn't happen) next.

In this country, if the parties agree a trial adjournment on terms, and the Court agrees to the parties' request for an adjournment, then the parties would usually put up some form of suggested agreed wording to the Judge, which the Court would adopt if the Judge is happy with it. I assume, but don't know, that the same is likely in Canada. The article reads as though the parties had agreed terms for the adjournment. The article is written as though Mann sought the adjournment and Ball agreed - on terms - because he was advised that the Court would probably grant the adjournment anyway.

We all need much more information before we can begin to arrive at any conclusions.

I don't think that there is a judgement yet. Just a 'contempt of court' in theory. It will depend how the judge decides to play it. The question is has Mann complied now or is the data still due? I don't know about Canada but UK judges hate it when their rules are broken. Of course if the judge is favourable to Mann then the contempt could be ignored.

Mark Hodgson & TinyCO2

From what you are saying ...

Whilst Michael Mann APPEARS to be in contempt of court, as he does not appear to have complied with an agreement, made before a Judge in Court, he is NOT in Contempt of the Court until the Judge formally/legally says so in Court. There appears to be no evidence of the Judge making any such statement.

Meanwhile, there remains no evidence, that Mann has any evidence to back up his claims, that led to him bringing this Case to Court, even though the IPCC was happy with the same amount of evidence to redefine climate science and history.

Judgements are judgements. they are just that. And judges do not like being overturned on appeal especially on procedural points of law. Leeway is not uncommon, the safest course. Judges do not need to make courageous decisions (Yes Prime Minister). And lawyers know how to play the game, sow doubt about issues on appeal. So until the Judge commits something in writing that is publicly available, this is all just speculation and should have little weight at the moment.

Another Mann article:
Things Get Hot for Michael Mann
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/07/things_get_hot_for_michael_mann.html

Unlike gangrene, Gang Green is a communicable disease; it does spread from person to person, though the infection can be stopped by frequent, gentle bathing in the hard Sciences until understanding is sufficient to reject the narrative.

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie
Lawyer

Perhaps one of you can reassure Tim Ball that all the data and code he requested relating to Mann et al 1998 is already in the public domain and can be found here.

Jul 7, 2017 at 6:14 PM | Phil Clarke

Still no chance of Mann giving an honest account of himself in Court in the near future then. I thought Mann wanted to clear his name.

If Ball has said that some of his words were spoken in jest, and this is not about the future of climate science/change global warming or whatever, what is Mann hoping to achieve?

It would have been cheaper to build a Great Pyramid to house the embalmed Hockey Stick for eternity, as a tribute to the Sun God Ra.

Jul 7, 2017 at 8:16 PM | Entropic man

Why didn't Mann simply refer Ball to that data, if that is what has been at issue?

Jul 7, 2017 at 10:26 PM | stewgreen

I am looking forward to the Judge being provided with sufficient evidence to make a Judgement.

Stewgreen

Phil Clarke posted a statement by Michael Mann's lawyer on behalf of his client.

If you have been following the Mann v Ball and Mann v Steyn cases you will recognise the name Roger D. McConchie.

I can't tell you the name of Tim Ball's lawyer. Mr Ball seems to have been doing his own statements.

"Phil Clarke posted a statement by Michael Mann's lawyer on behalf of his client".

Interesting ambiguities therein - for the lack of adequate punctuation.

Supertroll

Commas can be fun.

Remember "A panda eats, shoots and leaves."

Er...shouldn't it be "eats, shoots, and leaves."?

I can't tell you the name of Tim Ball's lawyer.

Dr Tim's 'legal advisor' is John O'Sullivan, not actually qualified to practise, with some interesting nonlegal interests.

One might imagine Ball had had enough of lawsuits. From the 'Controversies and Lawsuits' section of his wiki entry:

Ball claimed, in an article written for the Calgary Herald, that he was the first person to receive a PhD in climatology in Canada, and that he had been a professor for 28 years, claims he also made in a letter to then-prime minister of Canada, Paul Martin.[48] Dan Johnson, a professor of environmental science at the University of Lethbridge, countered his claim on April 23, 2006, in a letter to the Herald stating that when Ball received his PhD in 1983, "Canada already had PhDs in climatology," and that Ball had only been a professor for eight years, rather than 28 as he had claimed. Johnson, however, counted only Ball's years as a full professor.[49] In the letter, Johnson also wrote that Ball “did not show any evidence of research regarding climate and atmosphere.”[41]

In response, Ball filed a lawsuit against Johnson. Ball's representation in the case was provided by Fraser Milner Casgrain.[50] Johnson's statement of defense was provided by the Calgary Herald, which stated that Ball "...never had a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming," and that he "...is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."[48] In the ensuing court case, Ball acknowledged that he had only been a professor for eight years, and that his doctorate was not in climatology but rather in geography,[41] and subsequently withdrew the lawsuit on June 8, 2007.

Ball's claim was for $300K for reputational damage. Perhaps the most painful part of the defence statement, which Ball elected to leave uncontested in a court of law, read

1. "...that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming. 

2. "The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

3. "The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

4. "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

5. "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

Ouch!

With Mann v Steyn, Mann v Ball and the Our Children's Trust suit all going to trial it will be interesting to see how the courts apply the Daubert standard.

Phil Clarke

Is that the same John O'Sullivan at climatechangedispatch.com ?

Sullivan refers in his most recent post on the subject to "Ball's lawyers" so would be an advisor and not legal counsel.

Some people are more gullible than others.

Repeatedly.

Entropic Man & Phil Clarke

would that be the same Michael Mann who presents this:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/27/slides-from-the-michael-mann-lecture-at-cabot-institute-in-bristol/

as honest science?

I'm not sure about John O'Sullivan but he gets points for being smeared by desmog blog et alia.

A reply

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-michael-mann-doubles-down-over-contempt-issue/

Entropic Man, I followed your link to Daubert standard which concerns US Case Law, and it refers to this US Case.

General Electric Co. v. Joiner,[1] which held that a district court judge may exclude expert testimony when there are gaps between the evidence relied on by an expert and his conclusion, and that an abuse-of-discretion standard of review is the proper standard for appellate courts to use in reviewing a trial court's decision of whether it should admit expert testimony.

Do you think this may be of relevance to Climate Science "Expert" Mann?

seat

Gullible? Yes, I think that can be said of golf Charlie, radical rodent and most of those at BH. You pass on the same stale debit memes as thought they are holy writ.

Golf Charlie

The Daubert standard is relevant to both Mann v Steyn and Mann v Ball for two main reasons. Both cases are libel suits, not trials of the science. If the defendants choose to dispute the science, then the standard will
be applied.

I have to go to work. More later.

While I'm gone, read the bit about how Canada applies the same standard.