Much Ado About Michael Mann the Climatology Courtroom Perjurer

Three days on and it is finally beginning to dawn on his supporters that Michael Mann has been monumentally caught out committing perjury in two lawsuits in which he has filed untrue statements claiming to be a Nobel laureate. Already the retractions are happening apace.

Michael Mann surrenders his credibility

Michael Mann surrenders his credibility

Just witness how Penn State University (PSU) and Wikipedia are in full retreat and a forlorn Mann has withdrawn to the sanctuary of his Facebook page. Today, up in Vancouver, Canada, Dr Tim Ball sits serene and satisfied that not only is he about to defeat Mann’s bogus, dragged out libel suit but that he can proudly announce that the organization of which he is chairman and co-founder, Principia Scientific International, today publishes a truly astonishing new paper utterly refuting the greenhouse gas theory.

We are truly at the end game of the man-made global warming scam that has preoccupied western academia for over a generation. The rent seekers like Mann sustained the greenhouse gas fraud to steal over $100+ billion from taxpayers.  Monday morning PSU continues in it’s ignominious task of removing from all university documents and websites Mann’s bogus claims that he won the prestigious Nobel award in 2007.[1]

Mann’s crestfallen employers were already reeling and face further criminal charges in their midst due to the boardroom conspiracy in the cover up of the Jerry Sandusky pedophile ring (conspiracy theories anyone?). Now they’re liable to a full investigation by the National Science Foundation, a federal agency, for complicity in this long-standing deception that culminated in Mann repeating the falsehood with his sworn affidavits, both in the Washington DC court last week and last year in the British Columbia Supreme Court versus Ball. In both instances, Mann sought to prevail in libel claims where others had disputed his truthfulness. It seems time has now caught up with the perjurer and his critics are proven correct.

NSF, as per their mandate, are required to investigate why PSU, a federally-funded university. PSU disregarded it’s own official policy about academic misconduct and false representation to and became complicit with their employee to assist him to profit personally, professionally and financially in plying his false Nobel claims. In this quid pro quo arrangement PSU gained undeserved prestige and addition funding. And the happy counterfeiting arrangement went on brazenly for several years.
As I reported yesterday, PSU is hard at work playing damage limitation. But is it too late? No doubt their attorneys advised them that to continue to make such misrepresentations renders the university to the charge of accessories in the crime. At minimum they flagrantly disregarded their own policy statement on academic misrepresentation:
“Academic integrity includes a commitment by all members of the University community not to engage in or tolerate acts of falsification, misrepresentation or deception. Such acts of dishonesty violate the fundamental ethical principles of the University community and compromise the worth of work completed by others.”

On two separate occasions, the first last year in British Columbia Supreme Court, Canada, the second last week in the District of Columbia Court Mann committed perjury with the  implicit consent of his university that also shields pedophiles. PSU enabled Mann’s nauseating chutzpah to rise above mere academic fraud into criminality. Regardless of Mann’s counterfeiting his Nobel credentials, his increasingly popular adversary in Canada, Tim Ball, is on the very brink of defeating  Mann on a wholly separate issue anyway: Mann’s refusal to comply with the court’s  mandatory requirement to release of his hidden “hockey stick” graph data (more on that below).

For over a year the Ball case has been a slow -ticking time bomb and very soon Ball’s legal team will be motioning for a dismissal on the basis that Mann declines to progress the case.  In both lawsuits Mann’s court papers comprise a list of arguments from authority whereby the “authority” on all things climate is inferred to be a Nobel laureate, i.e. Mann himself. By unlawfully assuming the identity of “Nobel laureate” he then demands that the courts take this “Nobel laureate’s” word that Mann’s science “must” therefore be top class. That’s called deception with intent to gain undue advantage.

There can be no mistake, from hereon in the defendants in these actions will want to put it to any jury that if Mann can lie under oath and falsify his academic credentials, then what else has he falsified? On the balance of probability a reasonable juror may thus then be inclined to believe Mann also lies when he declares his (hidden) “hockey stick” data isn’t deliberately rigged (fraudulent).

The “hockey stick” graph has been an iconic image since the 2001 Report by the International Panel on Climate Change. It is allegedly reliable and affirmed tree ring proxy evidence proving the existence of dangerous man-made global warming. It isn’t and doesn’t. In fact, no third party analysts have been allowed any open access to Mann’s crucial, but hidden r-squared cross-validation results for his graph.

But we do know a few interesting facts about this secret science. For example, it is a matter of public record that Mann’s proxy reconstruction method was made by lining up his tree ring data with measured temperatures in the 20th century to calibrate the scale. In the process Mann used a statistic called the r-squared correlation coefficient. We also know, from evidence in the public domain, that Mann found that over most of the reconstruction there was essentially no match (in other words the r-squared data was telling Mann his graph was junk).

We know Mann did, indeed, perform this important due diligence test because he let on that he got r-squared results for the one part of the data where there was a weak match. We also see it in the code he eventually was forced to publish. We critics of this post-normal junk science then say Mann thereafter lied when he proudly boasted to journalists that his graph had passed the tests. He got away with that hubris for a while because he very carefully didn’t publish most of the r-squared numbers themselves. These unpublished r-squared numbers are what Tim Ball wants to see examined in open court and what Steve McIntyre and others have repeatedly asked Mann to release. Instead Mann had his PSU employers spend upwards of a million dollars to pull every trick in the book in the U.S. to finally block open public access to it in  the Virginia courts. But that trick won’t work in Canada under different judicial rules.

In fact, the r-squared numbers are what the ‘dirty laundry’ comment in the Climategate emails was about. Mann won’t release the r-squared data to Ball to pick apart in open court, and would rather lose the case. We say Mann chooses not to comply with court rules because if he did release the numbers we believe he will be exposed in court for what he actually did after performing his original r-squared tests. We test data shows his procedure was bad (ie it created hockey sticks whatever numbers were fed in, and Mann knew it). In fact, statistics expert, Steve McIntyre and others have actually demonstrated that Mann’s methods themselves are why his tortured data churns out endless hockey stick-shaped graphs.

Reason and common sense demands that if Michael Mann is guilty and all his lawsuits must be thrown out. Certainly, costs and damages should be awarded to Dr Ball. While Mann’s employers, Penn State University and the NSF, must now sanction him. The US federal govt should also sanction Penn State for their duplicity. Perhaps a Romney Whitehouse might even countenance banning PSU from applying for any further federal funding for several years. The world is now seeing the complete vindication of Dr Ball. He was right on the money when said Mann belongs in the ” state pen, not Penn State!”


[1]Page 6 (Para. 17) of Mann’s Complaint makes the false and misleading claim that Mann, “shared the Nobel Peace Prize with the other IPCC authors for their work in climate change, including the development of the Hockey Stick Graph.”



Filed under Uncategorized

10 responses to “Much Ado About Michael Mann the Climatology Courtroom Perjurer

  1. Grammar Man

    ps. please learn the difference between it’s and its.

  2. David Walker

    $100 billion is a paltry sum compared to the trillions the scammers would extract with green programs, carbon sequestering and other mandated “prosperity” machinations. The global warming context has always been about defining who makes money and who pays, by force. Decades ago we called it fascism; the boot is still a perfect fit for Michael Mann, et al.

    Didn’t Michael Mann advocate punishing carbon dioxide emitters? Or am I confusing him with some other lunatic?

  3. John Francis

    The new paper is completely plausible and convincing. Shout it from the rooftops!

  4. Ahh. A truly tangled web. Rather like the closing scene of the move The Fly in which a part man and part fly was shown tangled in a spider web crying: “Help me. Help me. Help me!….”

  5. Simple deductive logic has provided a final solution to the issue. If Mann is prepared to lose a case which was presumably extremely important to him to prove rather than show his data he may as well admit it’s shonky as why else do it?

  6. Pingback: Much Ado About Michael Mann the Climatology Courtroom Perjurer « Skeptics Chillin'

  7. Pingback: Much Ado About Michael Mann the Climatology Courtroom Perjurer | NCAA Football Insights

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s