Michael Mann, creator of the infamous global warming ‘hockey stick,’ loses lawsuit ... [tr]

Michael Mann, a climatologist at Penn State University, is the creator of the "hockey stick graph" that appears to show global temperatures taking a noticeable swing upward in the era when humanity has been burning fossil fuels and dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The graph was first published in 1998[...]

The graph's methodology and accuracy have been and continue to be hotly contested, but Mann has taken the tack of suing two of his most prominent critics for defamation or libel. One case, against Mark Steyn, is called by Steyn likely to end up in the Supreme Court. But another 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. News first broke in Wattsupwiththat, via an email Ball sent to Anthony Watts. Later, Principia-Scientific offered extensive details, including much background on the hockey stick.

The Canadian court issued it's [sic] final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball's libel lawyers.

Not only did the court grant Ball's application for dismissal of the nine-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball. A detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.

This extraordinary outcome is expected to trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to climate science claims that modern temperatures are "unprecedented." (snip)

Dr Mann lost his case because he refused to show in open court his R2 regression numbers (the 'working out') behind the world-famous 'hockey stick' graph[.]

Dr Mann lost his case because he refused to show in open court his R2 regression numbers ....

To those not math minded, the R2 correlation coefficient (really called R-Squared) is a measure of how good the curve you drew fits the data. It ranges from 0 to 1 with higher numbers being better. A very low R squared means a lot of the data isn't anywhere near the curve you drew and you really can't say there is a correlation. a high one means your curve is very close to all the data points (and hence indicates that there is a mathematical relationship between them that isn't just coincidence). In this case CO2 and temperature, which he says is a hockey stick curve.

The fact that he refuses to show the mathematical basis for his claims is pretty outrageous. I can only think of one reason for that: they don't show what he says they do. Fraud, in other words.

....asked him [Mann] why didn’t he just show the data.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Mann's now proven contempt of court means Ball is entitled to have the court serve upon Mann the fullest punishment. Contempt sanctions could reasonably include the judge ruling that Dr. Ball's statement that Mann "belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State' is a precise and true statement of fact. This is because under Canada's unique 'Truth Defense', Mann is now proven to have willfully hidden his data, so the court may rule he hid it because it is fake. As such, the court must then dismiss Mann's entire libel suit with costs awarded to Ball and his team.

“may prove fatal to climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.”

Bad logic there.

A court of law cannot decide the truth, falsity, merit, or lack of merit of a scientific claim. They can decide whether a statement is defamatory or not, including a statement about a scientific claim, but they have no more knowledge or expertise to rule on scientific validity than anyone else. The scientific claims stand or fall based on facts, not rulings by judges. So I don’t see how the court decision will “prove fatal”.

That does NOT mean I support Mann’s scientific claims. I don’t rule out the possibility that the scientific claims were dead before they were ever aired in court. The facts that kill the theory stand on their own. They don’t become more true having been run through the legal system.

The article itself is old BUT in the meantime the court has published the opinion:

https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htm

“I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.”

Wind chill factor formula ‘warmed up’ ... more playing with numbers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2001/WEATHER/08/20/wind.chill/index.html

Wind chill factor gets new formula
August 20, 2001

(CNN) — Change is in the wind. The U.S. National Weather Service is about to revise how it measures the wind chill factor for the first time in 56 years.

The wind chill index measures how wind speed affects outdoor temperatures that are felt by the human body. The index is designed to give people an idea of how cold-weather air temperatures actually feel when factoring in the speed of the wind.

The old system — used by the United States and Canada since 1945 — measured wind speed at 33 feet above ground. But the new formula accounts for wind speed at what the weather service calls “face level.”

Face level is officially defined as “about 5 feet above ground,” the average height of the human face, according to the weather service.

The new system also factors in heat transfer theory, which accounts for heat loss from the body to its surroundings.

The public may have trouble with the new system at first because it makes temperatures appear warmer than they did under the old index.

Under the old system, an air temperature of 20 degrees Fahrenheit with a 15-mph wind speed would result in a wind chill of 5 degrees below zero, according to the weather service.

Under the same conditions, the new index would show an 11-degree increase in the wind chill factor: 6 degrees above zero.

https://web.archive.org/web/20041021171004/http://www.weather.gov/os/windchill/index.shtml

In 2001, NWS implemented an updated Wind Chill Temperature (WCT) index. The change improves upon the former WCT Index used by the NWS and the Meteorological Services of Canada, which was based on the 1945 Siple and Passel Index.

In the fall of 2000, the Office of the Federal Coordinator for Meteorological Services and Supporting Research (OFCM) formed a group consisting of several Federal agencies, MSC, the academic community (Indiana University-Purdue University in Indianapolis (IUPUI), University of Delaware and University of Missouri), and the International Society of Biometeorology to evaluate and improve the wind chill formula. The group, chaired by the NWS, is called the Joint Action Group for temperature Indices (JAG/TI). JAG/TI’s goal is to upgrade and standardize the index for temperature extremes internationally (e.g. Wind Chill Index).

The current formula uses advances in science, technology, and computer modeling to provide a more accurate, understandable, and useful formula for calculating the dangers from winter winds and freezing temperatures.

Really good news considering this is Canada as we have a much lower bar to consider nuisance lawsuits. Basically in Canada judges think it is OK run SLAPP suits as it is the business of a lawyer and stopping it would deny them feeding their children. I say that sarcastically but I was party to a suit where the judge said basically that when we tried to get the suit thrown out for being frivolous. If lawyers go through all the work of launching a suit, it must be viable right?

Mann must have been advised this very point by scum bag lawyers here in Canada and hoped to bully Ball into submission. He never planned to produce his bs data.

So I am just stunned a BC judge sided with Ball. If it was in Ontario, the center mass of quid pro quo between judges and lawyers, I think the outcome would have been different.

Now we can freely talk smack about Mann because he had his ass handed to him.

Lying POS.

Again, if this was in a US court, I could only imagine it would have been tossed ages ago.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.