Mann’s reputation was such, that most climate researchers merely accepted his graph, a typical example of Dr. Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those ‘scientists’ at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Ball’s version top, Mann’s below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the findings.Statistical experts, deprived by the secretive Mann of the conclusive proof of intent, have nonetheless established that the hockey stick graph uptick relies on the Mann’s goal was to make the Little Ice Age (LIA) disappear, as we explained in our But government ‘experts’ like Mann have sought to use statistical trickery to make such natural variation appear as ‘man-made’ warming.Apart from playing with statistics Mann made his proxy fit the thermometer data by adding thermometer values to the proxy values known as “In them, Professor Phil Jones, Britain’s top climate scientist at the University of East Anglia, wrote to his alarmist colleagues (In 1942, there was just 4.0 Gt of emissions increasing to 17.1 Gt by 1975, but since that time, a 425% increase in CO2 emissions didn’t cause any global warming during that 33-year period; the conjecture that CO2 emissions caused (catastrophic) global warming was proven false.Readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding of what is likely to eventually be exposed as a criminal conspiracy between Mann and other ‘elite’ researchers should see “Behind the scenes, gathering the resources, mental, scientific and financial, there is an untold burden of defending these cynical SLAPP suits.Lest readers forget, it is mostly in the service of misguided public policy, with massive funding and connivance from political operators in play, that fake scientists like Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver acquired such esteemed public positions.They are not only despicable human beings they are a disgrace to all decent scientists.Readers will be aware that this author has been a staunch friend and ally to Tim throughout the hardships of this protracted nine-year legal battle.Our reputations were routinely trashed by our enemies, so it is sweet justice that the court has now given legal credence to Tim’s famous words that Michael Mann “Gullible greens and self-serving politicians swallowed up this garbage.
Sein »Erfinder«, Michael Mann hat gerade in Kanada mit Pauken und Trompeten einen Prozess vor dem Obersten Gericht von British Columbia verloren. !
(1998), MBH99, Briffa (2000) and Crowley & Lowery (2000) showing good agreement using different methods, but cautioned that use of many of the same proxy series meant that they were not independent, and more work was needed.In May 2000, while drafts of the IPCC Third Assessment Report were in the review process, Its Figure 2.21 showed smoothed curves from the MBH99, Jones et al. Mann was celebrated by some.Considering the enormous cost this pseudo-science fraud has imposed on taxpayers worldwide, one wonders if it isn’t time for a counter-suit. Just because some scientists says it is true doesn’t make it the truth. Ljungqvist's 2,000 year extratropical Northern Hemisphere reconstruction generally agreed well with This article is about the controversy. (1998) Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series" was published on the web, McIntyre set up climate2003 as a web site for the paper.McIntyre and McKitrick said that they had not been able to replicate the Mann, Bradley and Hughes results due to problems with the data: although the sparse data for the earlier periods was difficult to analyse, their criticism was comprehensively refuted by A draft response by Mann, Bradley and Hughes was put on the In an immediate response to these briefings, Mann, Bradley and Hughes said that the analysis by McIntyre and McKitrick was botched and showed numerous statistical errors including selective removal of records to invent 15th century warming. Barton was given support by global warming sceptic In November 2005, Science Committee chair Sherwood Boehlert requested the National Academy of Science to arrange a review of climate reconstructions including the hockey stick studies, and its At the request of the U.S. Congress, initiated by Representative The Wegman Report was discussed at hearings of the The report asserted that the critiques of MBH98 and MBH99 by McIntyre and McKitrick (MM) were "valid and compelling",A new criticism introduced in the Wegman report presented a Allegations were made in the Wegman Report that paleoclimatologists supposedly did not seem to interact with "the statistical community": Mann testified that many statisticians working in climatology had been offended by this claim, he himself had been on the The Wegman report also alleged inadequate sharing of methods, code and data:It concluded, "The weight of current multi-proxy evidence, therefore, suggests greater 20th-century warmth, in comparison with temperature levels of the previous 400 years, than was shown in the TAR. „Why was hockey stick graph creator Dr. Michael Mann ordered by a Canadian court to pay Dr. Tim Ball’s legal fees“ bei Quora; Tim Ball Pleads For Mercy As An Irrelevant Sick Old Man, Gets It, Declares Victory, Daily Kos am 28. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.It’s time for “Tricky-Mike” the Scam Mann to be slapped (no pun intended) with criminal lawsuits in America, where he can face the blunt club of justice, and justifiable serve hard time for his crimes against humanity.This is by far the biggest scam in man history.