Decision looms in Michael Mann / Tim Ball “hockey stick” lawsuit

After six years of tedious litigation, a court in Vancouver, British Columbia appears set to hand down a ruling involving one of the most controversial claims ever made in support of human-induced global warming.

The case pits two climatologists – Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Tim Ball, retired from the University of Winnipeg – in a dispute rooted in data Mann used in creating his famous, or infamous, “hockey stick” graph. In 1999, Mann was the lead author of a paper that used an assortment of statistical techniques to reconstruct variations in atmospheric temperatures over the past 1,000 years. The graph made the Medieval Warm Period all but disappear and showed a sharp spike in temperatures at the end of the 20th century that resembled the blade of a hockey stick.

Mann was one of eight lead authors of the “Observed Climate Variability and Change” chapter in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Scientific Assessment published in 2001. A graph based on Mann’s work was highlighted throughout the IPCC report. It received widespread publicity and was touted by climate alarmists as further evidence of manmade global warming. Indeed, Mann’s hockey stick took on a life of its own and was repeatedly cited by the IPCC and numerous governments as justifying collective action to combat climate change. The hockey stick has also been cited in innumerable peer-reviewed papers on climate change.

“Secret Science”

Astounded by the sudden disappearance of the Medieval Warm Period — a time generally considered to have been warmer than the present — a growing chorus of critics demanded to see the underlying data on which the hockey-stick graph was based. Mann and his co-authors refused to release the data, even though their paper had been funded by U.S. taxpayers. The episode raised allegations that climate alarmists were engaging in “secret science.”

One of those critics was Tim Ball. In a 2011 interview, he quipped that Mann “should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.” Mann sued Ball for defamation in British Columbia under a procedure known as a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP). SLAPP lawsuits are intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by threatening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism.

As the case unfolded, the BC Supreme Court directed Mann to turn over all data relating to his graph by Feb. 20, 2017. The deadline came and went without the data being handed over by Mann.

Ball believes that Mann’s refusal to disgorge the data by the court-ordered deadline has put the Penn State researcher in a precarious legal position. As Ball explains (principia-scientific.org):

We believe that he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

Mann’s Suit Against Mark Steyn

Once the BC Supreme Court has ruled in his suit against Ball, Mann will have another legal battle on his hands. Mann filed a SLAPP lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against writer and commentator Mark Steyn after the latter wrote in a 2011 National Review Online article that Mann “has perverted the norms of science on an industrial scale.” Judith Curry, a recently retired climatologist at Georgia Tech, has submitted to the court an Amicus Curiae brief critical of Mann’s scientific methods.

For his part, Ball has produced his own graph showing temperature variability over the past 1,000 years. Both the Medieval Warm Period and the following Little Ice Age can be seen on the graph. The graph also shows the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age, albeit to levels below what was experienced during the Medieval Warm Period. Unlike Mann, Ball has published the data on which his graph is based.

Categories

About the Author: Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph. D., is a senior policy analyst with CFACT.

  • adam_s_0625

    I really hope Mann loses both cases, his funding, his teaching position, his reputation, and all his friends …. and his dog. His perversion of the scientific is method requires nothing less than total intolerance.

    • oriorda

      Mann’s nauseating smirk irritates the hell out of me. He’s a third rate mind hiding behind a fourth rate mentality.

    • Ian5

      “His perversion of the scientific is method…”

      >> How has Dr. Mann perverted the scientific method? What credible evidence do you have?

      • checker99

        His efforts to to silence his critics using courts rather than have a discourse. Are you following along or just playing dumb?

      • adam_s_0625

        My, my. Do we not read? Mann was asked multiple times to share his data and analysis code to validate his research. He declined to share. This is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        M&M demolished Mann’s statistical analysis anyway via reverse engineering. That he did not acknowledge their valid conclusions is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        Mann’s tree-ring data showed a temp decline after 1960. Not the result he wanted. So he truncated the declining data and concatenated temp sensor data, which showed the rising temp he desired. He published this WITHOUT noting what he had done. THIS is the antithesis of the scientific method.

        To top it off, the IPCC no longer includes the hockey stick graph in its documents.

        Are you honestly going to attempt to defend such a person?

      • J T

        We got another moron here.

  • KC135TopBoom

    We as US taxpayers should SLAPP Michael Mann for withholding OUR intellectual property. We paid for it, it is our data, not his.
    Mann filed his SLAPP lawsuit against Mark Steyn? Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.
    I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data (Mann ignored both in developing taxpayer’s ‘hockey stick’).

    • Ian5

      “Steyn is one of the smartest people on the planet.”

      >> Maybe, maybe not. What is a fact is that Mark Steyn has absolutely no climate science credentials whatsoever. None.

      “I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data”

      >> I’d like to see them too. Dr. Ball hasn’t published any peer-reviewed climate science in over 25 years.

      • Frederick Colbourne

        George Marshall told Dwight Eisenhower that he would not let Ike see action because Ike had never even commanded a platoon.

        Does that mean Ike should not have been Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe?

        Your remark about Tim Ball is just as much a non-sequitur.

        • Ian5

          Think about it a little…comparing Ball to Eisenhower is an empty comparison…comical really. Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature. He hasn’t published anything in years. Why should he be considered an authority on the current state of climate science?

          • adam_s_0625

            Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying. As a matter of fact, it frees them from the pressures put on them by managers, peers, and grant orgs.

            • Ian5

              “Retirement doesn’t prevent one from understanding and commenting on the subject they spent their working career studying“.

              >> Of course it doesn`t. Neither does it negate the conclusions of the the scientific literature on climate change that have accumulated over the past 25 years, the vast majority of which continues to reinforce that GHGs from human activity are warming the planet`s climate system; the evidence is unequivocal. Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              • Next to none of it deals with causation, because it can’t be established.

                • Ian5

                  Misleading statement. There are multiple, independent lines of evidence studied by thousands of scientists from many jurisdictions and agencies around the world that indicate that global warming is unequivocal.

          • oriorda

            ‘Dr. Ball regularly presents “findings” that contradict the scientific literature’… YOU’VE lost the plot here. Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see. He makes NO predictions using modelling techniques he keeps secret. You ABSOLUTELY cannot make those claims for Mann.. If Clausius stepped out of his grave today, knowing nothing of the invented ‘science’ called ‘climate science’, he could destroy Mann’s house of cards in 5 minutes. The Laws of Physics completely refute the bedrock claims that underpin the entire shambolic structure called ‘climate science’.

            • Ian5

              “Ball presents data and evidence that accords with the scientific method… EVERYTHING he writes can be checked, all his data is there for everyone to see.“

              A little rich don`t you think? Moreover Dr. Ball`s positions on climate science and those of the silly “Friends of Science“ are diametrically opposed with the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

              • rhjames

                Keep in mind that the positions taken by the above societies don’t necessarily reflect the opinions of their members.

                • Ian5

                  Yet these they reflect the findings of scientists from a range of different disciplines, from multiple countries and jurisdictions, and government and non-government sectors. Conspiracies are the stuff of Alex Jones and other extremists.

                  • oriorda

                    This is not a ‘conspiracy theory’. This is a scientific discourse. There are deep, fundamental flaws in the global warming agenda. The conspiracy is in fact the other way round, there is a conspiracy to deny any opposition to the agenda – see Climategate emails where this is spelled out clearly – see UN statements that ‘unless we show disasters, nobody will listen to us’.

                  • Lima6

                    More name-calling.

              • oriorda

                You need to look at the facts, not the purveyors you mention. Don’t forget, Galileo was opposed by every single institution yet he was right. The Earth DOES go round the Sun: his DATA proved it. All the bodies you mention take it as fact that the data they obtain from Goddard and Hadley/CRU (the only 2 sources they all use as source data) is correct and they put that into their models. But.. the data has been fiddled to remove past warming events, thus making any current warming – however small – appear disproportionately large. This fundamental problem is then exacerbated by hopelessly biased model which are designed to produce apocalyptic warming 100 years hence, even though they are universally unable to reproduce reality… run ANY model using the start data of, say, 10 years ago and compare the output month by month to what we know ACTUALLY happened and you will see they all fail spectacularly. The reason they do this: they are ALL feeding at the grants/subsidies trough and need to show future disasters or all their funding will disappear. Ball and others simply point out all the discrepancies in the data, the fallacy that the models are reliable, and the problems with the basic laws of physics arising from the theory that man-made CO2 has led to significant temperature rises which will only get worse: there is no scientific basis for this claim, it is just a politically expedient claim that generates huge funding for any body willing to take the shilling. Read sepp.org and wattsupwiththat.com for detailed analysis of all this. We’re not making this up!

              • Lima6

                Arguments from authority are worthless. If you have the necessary facts and data to prove a hypothesis, you win. If not, you lose. Mann has neither of those things on his side and he has demonstrated his contempt for the scientific process (and his legitimate critics) by refusing to release his data.

              • Lets Do It Ourselves

                NOAA. NASA. HADCRUT. A recent peer reviewed paper proves that they have repeatedly manipulated the data. Their credibility is on a par with Mann and Hansen.

                • Ian5

                  What “recent peer reviewed paper” would that be? Surely you don’t mean the PDF of D’Aleo’s WordPress blog post that Breitbart’s Delingpole and other misinformers have been promoting as peer-reviewed science? Not peer-reviewed, nor does it “prove” anything.

                  • What’s been proven about man made CO2 and global warming/ climate change/ whatever it gets labelled next when the data fails to conform to the theory?

                • Hard to say-it’s a race to the bottom!

              • Aquinasthegoat

                “NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union”. Each and every one a politically driven organization whose “data” has been soundly refuted time and again by real scientists.

                • Ian5

                  Untrue statement intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. That every reputable scientific organization is somehow conspiring to manipulate climate data and scientific findings isn’t plausible.

                  • Aquinasthegoat

                    Not conspiracy, just pure politics.

                  • Starting to sound like “Blah blah blah blah blah blah”. TROLL

                    • Ian5

                      Your own self assessment perhaps. Repetition of talking points and childish name-calling.

                  • Beirish65

                    Wow. You really are drunk with blindness and you just don’t care about losing the wealth that you’ve established in your life or your family’s wealth because you will lose it if you continue to go along with this hoax. These government agencies have come out in the last 10 to 15 years with Data that was misrepresented in underminded the actual study of global warming because there was zero global warming and it was global cooling. If you use half of the temperature gage is around the world and warmer climate you can make anything look like it’s heating up around the world. But if you use the average of all the temperature gauges around the world we have been cooling not warming.

                • All heavily infiltrated by #BigGreen.

              • TROLL

              • Beirish65

                Still blinded by all those government agencies I wonder why because you think government agencies have the end-all and be-all of everything and they are just the fact finding people of the world and they are gods because when they say something it’s the God honest truth. BS they are bought and paid for by governments around the world to continue the hoax of global warming, carbon emissions and climate change. This government tax is to steal wealth from every nation so that the billionaire elites can line there pockets such as George Soros the face end up at master of the New World order.

          • Lima6

            Such arrogance. Einstein also went for years without publishing any papers. Should that fact be used to impugn or discount his understanding of physics? My God, you really are hopeless.

          • Lets Do It Ourselves

            I’ve had a couple of conversations with Ball. He has seen enough climate change and studied enough history to know that climate change, sometimes catastrophic, has always been a feature of life on this planet. He has absolutely nothing to gain by questioning the alarmism.

          • He kicked Mann’s ass from here to Christmas in BC Supreme Court. Go home troll, the game’s over. http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/.

            • Ian5

              Hilarious that you would cite the disinformation site principia-scientific. Oops there’s Tony Heller aka Steve Goddard again. No climate science credentials whatsoever.

          • Beirish65

            You’re not a scientist and we have to listen to you and you’re spewing your nonsense.

      • adam_s_0625

        “What is a fact is that Mark Steyn has absolutely no climate science credentials whatsoever. None”

        So, what you’re saying is we should blindly trust people with credentials who lie to us versus a layman who researches the subject and tells us the truth. Got it.

        • Ian5

          Nope. On the contrary, what I am suggesting is that you should think twice before blindly trusting people – particularly political pundits – on scientific matters when they have no scientific credentials whatsoever.

          • adam_s_0625

            But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything he said? And trusting people, just because they have certain credentials, is a recipe for disaster. The DATA, not a reputation, not credentials, are what matters. This observation somehow slipped by you.

            • Ian5

              “But what if I AM a scientist, and agree with everything [Mark Steyn] said?“

              >> Then you`d be in the company of a small handful of well-known contrarions with extreme views and be supporting a position that is diametrically opposed to the positions of NASA, NOAA, British Atmospheric Data Centre, Environment Canada, IPCC, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union and virtually every US and international scientific academy.

              • ppiaseck

                That Hockey stick was discredited long ago, 2002 or 03, by Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick DR, Richard Muller, a professor of physics at University of California at Berkeley, He is also a faculty senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. wrote an article about it, and he is a believer in human induced climate change. below are parts of it

                But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
                But it wasn’t so. McIntyre and McKitrick obtained part of the program that Mann used, and they found serious problems. Not only does the program not do conventional PCA, but it handles data normalization in a way that can only be described as mistaken.
                Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
                If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still should agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions. Suppose, for example, that future measurements in the years 2005-2015 show a clear and distinct global cooling trend. (It could happen.) If we mistakenly took the hockey stick seriously–that is, if we believed that natural fluctuations in climate are small–then we might conclude (mistakenly) that the cooling could not be just a random fluctuation on top of a long-term warming trend, since according to the hockey stick, such fluctuations are negligible. And that might lead in turn to the mistaken conclusion that global warming predictions are a lot of hooey. If, on the other hand, we reject the hockey stick, and recognize that natural fluctuations can be large, then we will not be misled by a few years of random cooling.
                A phony hockey stick is more dangerous than a broken one–if we know it is broken. It is our responsibility as scientists to look at the data in an unbiased way, and draw whatever conclusions follow. When we discover a mistake, we admit it, learn from it, and perhaps discover once again the value of caution.

              • Scott Campbell

                A small handful? Are you frigging retarded? How about 31,247 American scientists who are quite open about their disbelief and signed onto the NPCC report? How about the 65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support that idiot mann? How about all of the scientists who have testified before congress clearly stating , and backing up with data, that ACC is a scam? You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON

                • Ian5

                  Name-calling…the preferred strategy of propagandists and the poorly educated.

                  • Lima6

                    And “well-known contrarians with extreme views” is not name-calling? How about the grotesque Holocaust smear (“deniers”) so many of your climate change pals are so fond of hurling at scientists who disagree with your dogma? Have a look in the mirror, pal.

                    • Ian5

                      Sorry you are offended, I didn’t use the term “denier” in the above comment so go complain to someone else.

                      No, referring to a 3rd party as a “contrarian with extreme views is not the same as responding childishly to a commenter with words like moron,

                • Beirish65

                  Scott you are correct he is a moron.

                  • Ian5

                    Why not explain why you disagree with my view and the position of virtually every reputable US and international scientific organization and academy instead of resorting to childish name-calling?

                    • Beirish65

                      Being called a moron is not name-calling it is a fact. If I wanted to name call you I would say something totally different but being called a moron is factual.

                    • Ian5

                      As I stated up-thread, name calling is a strategy typically used by propagandists, the poorly educated and those harbouring feelings of inadequacy.

                    • Beirish65

                      Your ignorance is bliss.

                    • Ian5

                      Says the frequenter of the silly Infowars conspiracy site and other rubbish sources customized for the gullible.

                    • Beirish65

                      This website has nothing to do with the infowars this website is called CFACT. Ian I feel sorry for people like you so gullible. Ask Al gore how much he’s making on the hoax of global warming, carbon omissions and climate change? Have you notice how big his house is and how big his jet is that he flies around the world? Follow the money Ian. I am not suggesting that we do not become good stewards of our environment, of our relationships between human beings and our stewardships of life. But what I am suggesting is that this money making system for the billionaire elites that run the world such as George Soros a.k.a. puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order.

                • Ian5

                  “How about 31,247 American scientists”

                  >> A reference to Art Robinson’s silly long-debunked Oregon Petition Project. Go look it up.

                  “…the NPCC report?

                  >> Do you mean the Heartland Institute’s ridiculous NIPCC report? Heartland Institute…not a scientific organization. Lobbyist for the tobacco industry…. Its report does not even purport to summarize the scientific literature. Why would you believe such rubbish.

                  “65 % off members of the American Academy of scientists who DON”T support [Mann]”

                  >> Hopeless rubbish, you just made that up.

                  “You are clearly an uneducated liberal MORON”

                  >> Name-calling is a strategy typical of propagandists, bullies and the poorly educated.

              • Peter Oneil

                Nasa believed that there were canals on Mars, until 1998. The canals were first proposed in 1789. before 1950 there was a cosensus that Martians were trying to signal earth. Experts, what does tht even mean.
                (93) Scientific Consensus And Mass Delusion – 150 Years Of Scientific Insanity – YouTube

                • Ian5

                  Provides link to silly video posted by well-known misinformer Tony Heller (aka Steven Goddard). He has no climate science credentials whatsoever. Why do you think he is credible? Would you trust your heart condition to a plumber?

              • Lets Do It Ourselves

                The organizations you cited have been proven to have manipulated the data. Repeatedly.

                • Ian5

                  Untrue, unsubstantiated statement intentionally designed to mislead and misinform. If your ridiculous statement were true, then cite some organizations that you feel are trustworthy and tell us why.

              • Beirish65

                NASA, NOAA, British astronomy data center, Environmental Canada, IPCC and other government agencies are bought and paid for with taxpayers money to do exactly what the New World Order tells them to do. George Soros the puppetmaster and leader of the New World Order tells them exactly how to tax everybody around the world to steal the wealth of the world because they don’t have enough money already.

                • Ian5

                  Ridiculous conspiracy fluff that is promoted by multiple disinformation sites. No evidence whatsoever. Remarkable how many people fall for this rubbish.

                  • Beirish65

                    Your ridiculous and you need to stop your ignorance and being so uneducated that you believe everything that you hear from the IPCC and every other government organization that’s full of crap. You’re so ignorant and you’re so blinded that you’d rather be taxed of all your wealth then realize that they’re playing an absolute hoax and lies with regards to global warming, climate change and carbon emissions.

              • “Appeal to Authority” is a logical fallacy. Like Michael Crichton said “The claim of consensus is the first refuge of scoundrels”.

                • Ian5

                  Incorrect talking point. Argumentum ad Verecundiam is an argument from an inappropriate authority — an appeal to an authority outside the authority’s special field of expertise. Appeals to legitimate bodies and experts is a perfectly admissible form of inductive argument.

                  • Beirish65

                    Just because Ian says so that’s what we’re supposed to believe try again Ian. Your ignorance is so bliss that most people on this website don’t even listen to what you’re saying because you’re a fool and your arrogant and ignorant.

            • Ian5

              I suggest you look beyond data. Data are not the same as information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom.

              • Lima6

                Right. So fundamental physical facts (i.e., data) don’t matter in a scientific debate about matters that involve atmospheric physics??

                I suppose you think that the “wisdom” and “information” of people like Al Gore supersede all that nonsense about data.

                But as Adams once said, “Facts are stubborn things.” (Especially facts like the unexplained 20-year warming pause we’re currently experiencing.)

                • Ian5

                  Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is responsible for a stronger greenhouse effect that is warming the planet.

                  Why not inform yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                  • Immortal600

                    “Fundamental physical fact: Humans have increased atmospheric CO2
                    concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution”

                    You can’t show that is true. All you can do is link to sites that hype the scare tactics of increased CO2. THEY can’t substantiate your statement either.

                    Why do you bother to troll here? You aren’t a scientist and are convincing no one with your garbage (or is it rubbish). Do you think you are saving the world?

                    • Ian5

                      Humans have indeed increased atmospheric CO2 concentration by more than a third since the Industrial Revolution. Over 25% in the past 60 years. Unequivocal; why not inform yourself: https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_full_record.png

                    • Immortal600

                      You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. Your graph is meaningless. Why not take your head out of the sand and realize that you don’t have a clue? I have offered a link to an atmospheric physicist that shows what you believe is bogus. What’s the matter, can’t you absorb his explanation?

                    • Ian5

                      “You can make that claim all day long, yet you can’t substantiate it. ”

                      >> Your statement is false. The Keeling curve presents direct evidence of rising atmospheric CO2; measurements have been taken continuously since 1958. You cannot refute it.

                      Ed Berry’s views on climate change are extreme…it is not his research area and besides he hasn’t published any peer-reviewed science since the 1980s as he freely admits: http://edberry.com/dr-ed-berry/publications/ . There is ideology not science all over his website.

                      Please educate yourself: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                    • Immortal600

                      You haven’t refuted Ed berry’s views. All you have done is regurgitated garbage from Patrick Moore. What kind of expert is he? Ed Berry addresses every one of his criticisms and Moore can’t refute it. You’ve been to his site and YOU can’t refute Dr. Berry. He simply doesn’t align with your naive understanding of climate science. He uses the scientific method. You and your ilk don’t. It IS that simple!

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      1.The climate was not better at lower levels of CO2
                      2.The climate would not get better if we reduced CO2 levels
                      3.The NASA temperature record is complete garbage
                      https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/nasasurfacetemp1981-1999-20141.gif

                    • Ian5

                      Another link to disinformation professional Steve Goddard (his real name is Tony Heller), Steve and Tony have no climate science credentials whatsoever. He hasn’t published a single journal article, not one.

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      More bullshit.Why do you only show the chart going back to 1960?
                      Because if you go further back the CO2 levels were higher and it makes your chart look stupid and insignificant,that’s why.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#/media/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

                    • Ian5

                      Why is it bullshit? It is the well-known Keeling curve — direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 that have been taken uninterrupted since the late 50s. The graph you provided reflect CO2 levels derived from ice-core data — the graph does not include increases from the past century. The two are entirely consistent. Have a look a these graphs that put the two series together over a range of timescales:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

                      As you can see, current CO2 levels of 406 ppm have not been a feature of the planet for over 800,000 years, perhaps much longer:
                      https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/co2_800k.png

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      Again,CO2 levels have been far higher than that.
                      https://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/image277.gif

                    • Ian5

                      And your point is what? That there is no cause for concern or need for action?

                    • gold&silverismoney

                      The planet does what it does and we are not the cause and there is nothing we can do about it anyway.
                      What is your solution?
                      Kill off all humans?
                      You are a dumbass if you think there is anything we can do about it.

                  • Joe Geshel

                    There is scientific data that disputes your claim. Getting the whole picture is better than half. Water vapor contributes to the green house effect. CO2 is not the only cause. Facts are stubborn, I agree.

              • Andre Den Tandt

                Let’s say that you have knowledge, understanding and wisdom in spades. How do you quantify that, as science requires?

              • Lets Do It Ourselves

                In other words, Al Gore’s to be precise, sometimes the facts are not enough?
                And sometimes they are. Not one of the alarmist predictions has come to pass. That’s fact enough, even for a layman.

                • Ian5

                  Try a little harder; this quote might help:

                  “Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, understanding is not wisdom.” Clifford Stoll

              • model94

                We have Nostradamus here guys

            • model94

              Exactly right. In my mind “climate science credentials” are a big negative. It requires (excuse me) political whoring to make a living at it

          • Jeremy Poynton

            Mann’s paper has been discounted and battered by many within the profession. Suggest you get Steyn’s book which deals with this; also talk to Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit, who, whilst not a climate scientist is a tip top statistician – he’s pulled his paper to pieces on numerous grounds.

            • Ian5

              Why would you suggest Steyn’s book? Mr. Steyn has no scientific credentials whatsoever. Likewise former mining executive Steve McIntyre – no climate science background whatsoever.

          • Lima6

            I don’t blindly trust anyone, scientist or otherwise. But Mann is a proven liar (see his now-retracted claim to have been a “Nobel Laureate,” among other things) and a well-known prevaricator (see “Mike’s Nature trick”). It’s difficult to understand how or why anyone in the climate science community places any confidence in Mann at this point.

          • Mann has been debunked by top scientists. That’s enough for this layman.

            • Ian5

              Untrue statement. His conclusions are consistent with the current scientific literature. Why not inform yourself of the science, evidence and implications of climate change: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

              • Steven Woodcock

                If you’re saying his work is sound, why did he refuse to release his data?

                • Ian5

                  Yet another silly myth manufactured by disinformation professionals.

        • prometheus11

          Exactly right. He should Mann up and confess that his hockey stick is more political schtick than science. We’ll forgive him if he does. Otherwise he’ll probably be denounced as a witch and burnt at the stake if he doesn’t.

      • Beirish65

        Ian is so uneducated, uninformed and ignorant that he’ll believe anything these global warming, carbon emission and climate change scientist have to say even if the skies falling tomorrow! When did you graduate high school? How old are you?

        • Ian5

          “Did you know that if you do not agree with climate change, carbon emissions or global warming you will not be funded as a scientist anymore?”

          >> Silly rubbish talking point of the misinformation industry.

          • Beirish65

            How old are you? When did you graduate from high school?

          • Beirish65

            You are uneducated, uninformed and ignorant. It is not misinformation in the industry my friend facts are facts and fiction is fiction. About 10 years ago I studied and researched for eight months global warming, climate change and carbon emissions. I found 75 different scientists and reasons why the Al gore philosophy is a complete hoax and BS. But if I go to try and find those 75 reasons today they’ve been eliminated from the Internet because they were true and factual. If you want to get taxed and lose all your wealth just because you think that there is global warming, carbon emissions and climate change then you should do that but if I don’t believe it and there’s facts that support what I believe then I shouldn’t have to pay for the bullshit.

            • Fun_eral

              Being called a moron is not name-calling it is a fact. If I wanted to name call you I would say something totally different but being called a moron is factual.

          • Beirish65

            How old are you? When did you graduate from high school?

      • Concerned

        What constitutes “climate science credentials” that are important to this discussion — a weatherman or a solar scientist? The question is NOT if there is global warming, the question is: “does the burning of fossil fuels (by man) that release CO2 to the atmosphere cause significant additional global warming?” The start of this discussion was simply asking for Michael Mann’s data and how this data was used to support his conclusions (hockey stick). All basic requirements of science are to use the scientific method, which includes a given hypothesis, data, and analysis of the data to verify if it supports or does not support that hypothesis. Experiments need to be designed to test hypotheses. If one piece of data is contrary to the hypothesis, then that hypothesis is wrong and needs to be refined and start over. Nearly all valid data (including data by NOAA and NASA) disprove the >100 models that are being used to drive policy!
        Therefore, it is entirely acceptable for any person who studies science to request the data generated by other scientists so that we can understand how it was generated and how those scientists decided that it supports the original hypothesis — manmade CO2 causes significant global warming. It should not matter if it is Michael Mann’s data or Tim Balls data; all should be made available to the general public, particularly if that data is being used to drive huge tax-payer’s outlay (admitted to be in the $T’s and as high as $100T this century!).

      • model94

        He has credentials enough to call out corruption. We all do.

      • robmanzoni

        “…I would also like to see Tim Balls data that includes the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age data”…”

        This statements makes you seem incredibly ignorant.

        The historical data for the MWP and LittleIceAge are everywhere to be found; and Prof Ball presented this to the court. He doesn’t claim (as Mann does) that it’s his own research, but he rightly points out that the science of weather and climate has multiple examples proving that these climatic periods existed, including historical records, artworks, geological data, tree-ring evidence, and ice-core data (from Greenland, Siberia and Antarctica).

        The deliberate alterations (by NASA, NOAA, Mann & Co, etc) of the historical climate records is an open fact; and can be researched, as Tony Heller did:

        Learn some science. It will open your eyes… and make life much more interesting

  • buddman

    I hope this lyin Jerkoff loses and has to pay all court costs and the plaintiffS attorneys I hope also that mark styne sues the crap out of this phoney Ahole

  • Bruce

    The part I find interesting is all scientific data published is subjected to rigorous peer review. This is the modus operandi for all, legitimate science. Obviously Michael Mann believes he has no peers. However, I have yet to see him on the rolls for a Nobel Prize in science. Just another Al Gore fakir, because only through magic could such data be obtained.

  • Jeremy Poynton

    Sadly, the source of this is John Sullivan at Principia Scientifica, who has previous on uttering nonsense about the Ball v Mann case. Whilst I would love this to be true, Mann’s lawyer has already said it is nonsense, so don’t hold your breath.

  • Denis Ables

    Why won’t Mann release his data and his process? After all, it can’t be very unique since his followers invariably claim that his numbers have been confirmed by dozens of other peer-reviewed studies. Perhaps, at least, some of these supposed confirming studies are willing to release their work papers. (I haven’t seen any referenced. The one I know about, done by McIntire, used many more trees and could not come up with Mann’s numbers.) Once it boils down to statistical machinations with data, McIntyre is the expert, not Mann.

    How did Mann conclude that the Medieval Warming period was not global and not as warm as it is now? (He also managed to shrink the LIA temperature bandwidth, making subsequent temperature increases appear even larger.

    Why should anybody believe Mann when anyone (even me, an outsider, no climatologist, and no data technician) can refer to peer-reviewed studies and other data which easily show that the MWP was a global event and and that the MWP was very likely warmer than it is now? This obviously refutes Mann’s claim (which rightfully deserve no respect since Mann refuses to reveal his process and data.)

    First of all the data from 6,000 boreholes demonstrate that the MWP was a global event. The boreholes were taken around the globe and not constrained to just areas where ice core data is used. Joanne Nova’s website has an educational discussion on the borehole data.

    Next, google the Greenland gisp2 temperature study. It shows, among other things, that Greenland was definitely warmer during the MWP than it is now. In Alaska we have a different process, mostly plain old observation. The receding Mendenhall glacier recently exposed a 1,000 year old shattered forest still in its original position. A similar phenomenon in the Alps has exposed a 4,000 year old forest. No trees have grown at that latitude anywhere near either of those sites since. Clearly Alaska was warmer than now during the MWP.

    There are also hundreds of peer-reviewed MWP studies. Most, if not all the MWP studies are also cataloged by co2science.org. A subset of these studies directly address temperature. The studies can all be accessed by region at co2science.org. Pick out half a dozen regions remote from one another and from the northern hemisphere (Greenland, Alaska, Europe). Almost every one will show the studied site(s) to have been warmer during the MWP than it is now.

    All these studies and observations confirm the borehole data, and the reverse also holds, the borehole data confirms the studies. The exposed Alaskan forest is another type of confirmation. There are also antique vineyards found in Europe at latitudes where grapes cannot be grown today.

    Now, suppose, it turns out, that a few of the numerous MWP studies show no temperature increase. So what? The preponderance of data indicates a global event. After all, co2 has been rising since before 1850, and there have been subsequent GLOBAL conflicts showing no warming (as opposed to merely site conflicts in the case of the MWP), and there has also been no additional GLOBAL warming following the 1997/1998 el Nino, at least not until until the 2015/16 el Nino). This would seem to imply that our current global warming has only been “synchronous” for the two decades from 1975 to 1998).

    Why are the alarmists even talking about what happened before 1975? Our current warming (such as it is) obviously began, by definition, at the first bottom (the low temperature) experienced during the LIA, so before the mid 1600s. co2 increase began, at the earliest, around 1830. That would indicate two centuries of NATURAL warming before co2 began increasing. Does anybody really believe that this NATURAL warming shut down the instant co2 (a trace gas) began increasing? After all it’s average ANNUAL increase during that period was about 2ppmv per YEAR.
    That infitesmal increase would have not been picked up by our thermometers for at lest several decades, if not a century or two. After all, co2 is now at its highest and there’s been no additional warming for the past two decades.

    We know the folks depicted in ClimateGate stated that they “had to get rid of the MWP”. Why? Perhaps because their models, since these depend on increasing co2, could not explain away that NATURAL event.

  • Lets Do It Ourselves

    Ian5
    “Data is not information…etc.”

    You’re quoting Cliff Stoll??? who’s been wrong almost as often as Al Gore??

  • Robert Mahar

    I’d like to know where this “data ” from hundreds of years comes from. Obviously big heat or cold events would be recorded in different ways but not on a consistent Record

  • Joe Geshel

    Mann’s refusal to produce his data is plainly unscientific. He hides it because he has something to hide. If his data is bonafide he wins. If it is faulty he loses face. Guess which one it is!

  • drewphillips

    Point 1. Mann did not refuse to produce all his data – that was a lie.
    Point 2. Ball has no personal research/study of his own regarding either the LIA or MWP.
    Point 3. No less than 36 more recent paleo reconstructions confirm the “blade” of Mann’s original hockey stick.
    Point 4. It is Ball who is a proven liar when it comes to his own credentials.

  • Ian5

    But you haven’t provided any facts, just ridiculous unsubstantiated statements that illustrate your poor understanding of climate research and how it is resourced.

    • Beirish65

      How is it resourced?

  • KellyManning

    Historical Geograper (not a climatologist) Tim Ball’s own analysis of mandatory journal’s kept by HBC Ship Captains, Traders and Factors revealed that climate in the north has warmed since the HBC Nonsuch and Eaglet first sailed into Hudson’s bay, before Fahrenheit invented the 1st standardised scale thermometer.

    Despite his own work, and events such as the HBC Baychimo being trapped in Ice and abandoned, Ball found it profitable to accept Fossil Fuel Fundind and deny Climate Change.

    The HBC tried to find a way through the northern Canadian ice for centuries, without success.

    Now the north opens for safe transit by non ice-strengthend ships like clock work, every August and into September.

    The Northern Route along the Russian Coast is nearly open as I write this, while the McClure Parry passage is nearly completely ice free as well. Both those routes will be marine traffic side shows when the Pole melts ice free 3 months a year, within the lifetime of my children.

    http://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/arctic-sea-ice-maximum-record-low-third-straight-year