Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog

Jedediah Tucker Ward: It’s not hypothetical to Dr. Pavel, he wrote it

Michael Grazier: So he says.

Jedediah Tucker Ward: So he says under oath

Class Action 1991

PM James Hacker: (On Phone): No, no, leave me out of it. A routine visit. (Listening) All right – a routine surprise visit. (Listening) Well, say they were invited earlier, but the NATO exercise got in the way. Now they’re not needed, they’re going anyway. (Listening) All right. Nobody knows it’s not true. Press statements aren’t delivered under oath.

Yes Prime Minister A victory for Democracy 1986

There is an awful lot going on in the word today of note but I’d say the single most significant story I’d seen lately is this one:

Some years ago, Dr. Tim Ball wrote that climate scientist Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” At issue was Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph that purported to show a sudden and unprecedented 20th century warming trend. The hockey stick featured prominently in the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (2001), but has since been shown to be wrong. The question, in my view, is whether it was an innocent mistake or deliberate fraud on Mann’s part. (Mann, I believe, continues to assert the accuracy of his debunked graph.) Mann sued Ball for libel in 2011. Principia Scientific now reports that the court in British Columbia has dismissed Mann’s lawsuit with prejudice, and assessed costs against him.

What happened was that Dr. Ball asserted a truth defense. He argued that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud, something that could be proved if one had access to the data and calculations, in particular the R2 regression analysis, underlying it. Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case. [emphasis mine]

The significance of this can’t be overstated.

For decades now the media and the left have insisted very loudly that global warming/ climate change or whatever new name they’re giving it these days is going to doom us all and further requires massive tax increases, massive subsidies (coincidentally going to connected firms) and massive conferences (coincidentally always requiring plenty of air travel and taking place at very nice places full of very nice things for all the right people to enjoy) and that anybody who expressed any doubt to this narrative is a “climate denier” the equal to those who deny the slaughter of the jews by the Nazis.

Furthermore they have introduced a curricula to our public schools that has convinced kids that unless these things (which coincidentally enrich all the right people) they will not survive.

Yet when given the chance in a court of law to verify this data produced by one of the leaders of the climate change community, data that people leaned on for years for conclusions. Not only did this gentleman decline to produce the data proving the came to his conclusions honestly but he was willing to do so even if it meant losing his case and paying the costs of the person he sued, rather than let expose his data to the prying eyes of those who might examine it.

I ask any fair minded person is that the act of a scientist or of a fraudster?  If for example Donald Trump was suing a person for libel and refused to produce the recording of an exchange that could confirm said libel or prove it to be false, would you not assume that he was hiding something?

This is a story that should be shouted from the highest heights but will be downplayed by every media outlet in the world, at least until the president starts tweeting about it.

That will be fun.

If you think what we do worthwhile please consider subscribing to help keep our writers and the bills paid.

Of course one time Tip jar hits and always welcome too.

BTW wild and woolly things are going on with our database which is why the move is not yet complete hopefully they will be resolved by the end of this month.