Back in 2009, leaked documents in the “Climategate Scandal” revealed the climate change scam to be exactly what many suspected – a massive scam, the Gateway Pundit reported on this scandal extensively when the reports first broke.
Christopher Booker of the Telegraph back in 2009 slammed the climate alarmists. He claimed the climate emergency was non-existent.
Dr. Michael Mann, the scientist who co-authored a famous graph of temperature trends known as the “hockey stick graph,” was implicated in the 2009 global warming email scandal, which the Gateway Pundit reported on at the time.
This same Dr. Michael Mann, in 2012, sued the National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute over their critique of his work regarding the climate change hoax. Mann posted on his Facebook page about the lawsuit.
In 2017, as The Gateway Pundit previously reported, Dr. Michael Mann committed contempt of court in what was then dubbed the “climate science trial of the century”.
Dr. Mann defied the judge presiding over the case and refused to surrender his data for “open court examination”. This is a routine practice for scientific studies to determine if the results will stand up against examination. But Dr. Mann refused to turn over his data.
“Only possible outcome: Mann’s humiliation, defeat and likely criminal investigation in the U.S.”
79-year-old Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball is the defendant in the libel trial and told his attorneys to “trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud”.
Back in 2017 scientists knew the defeat of Dr. Mann would only vindicate President Donald Trump in his claims that climate change is a hoax. The graph below from Principia Scientific shows “Mann’s cherry-picked version of science [that] makes the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappear and shows a pronounced upward ’tick’ in the late 20th century” – this is the blade of Mann’s now infamous “hockey stick”.
Below Mann’s graph is Ball’s, which uses much more reliable and easily attainable public data, accurately showing a significantly warmer Medieval Warm Period with temperatures that are drastically hotter than the modern day’s.
In 2019 the court case against Dr. Tim Ball was decided by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, with Mann’s case thrown out, and him ordered to pay the defendant’s legal costs, no doubt a tidy sum of money.
This historic case was a blow to junk scientists everywhere!
Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.” (snip)
Michael Mann, who chose to file what many consider to be a cynical SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) libel suit in the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver six long years ago, has astonished legal experts by refusing to comply with the court direction to hand over all his disputed graph’s data. Mann’s iconic hockey stick has been relied upon by the UN’s IPCC and western governments as crucial evidence for the science of ‘man-made global warming.’
But on Thursday, five years after he lost in court, Michael Mann was awarded one million dollars in a defamation case against Rand Simberg and conservative pundit Mark Steyn.
In a unanimous decision, jurors agreed that both Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann in blog posts that compared Mann to convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, former assistant coach of football at Penn State University. They announced that Simberg will pay $1,000 in punitive damages and Steyn will pay the larger $1 million.
Standing in front of the courthouse smiling with his legal team after the verdict was read, Mann told DeSmog that he trusted the jury to see through the “smoke and mirrors” that the defense used during the trial.
“One million dollars in punitive damages makes a statement,” he said in an exclusive interview. “This is about the defense of science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine scientists who are just trying to do our job.”
Mann also noted that the trial was about defamatory statements made in an effort to discredit scientists “whose findings might prove inconvenient to certain ideologically driven individuals and outlets.”
How does this happen? Mann’s hockey stick model was already found to be a complete fraud. Can someone explain how he then can win a defamation trial?