In 2011, Michael Mann of “hockey stick” fame sued Dr. Timothy Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia (Vancouver) in 2011 for libel. Dr. Ball disagreed with Dr. Mann’s claim that recent warming is abnormal as Dr. Ball claims Mann is at variance with established temperature patterns for the last 1000 years. Dr. Ball is saying the “hockey stick” is a fraud.

Critics of the “hockey stick” have maintained that Dr. Mann ignored the Medieval Warm Period and eliminated the Little Ice Age that ended in about 1850. Both the Warm Period and the Little Ice Age are historical facts.
By basing the warming with the end of the Little Ice Age, alarmists made a safe bet that the world would warm up and it has warmed about 1 degree since 1880. By blaming the warming on co2, they could demand drastic changes to economies around the world. Critics disparagingly called “deniers,” have claimed that the warming was natural and nothing to be alarmed about. Asking scientists if the earth has warmed earned a huge majority (97%) who agreed about the warming. By saying they agreed to co2 as being the cause and that it was dangerous as well, was disingenuous.

NEW MATERIAL: The two graphs at the heart of the case are shown here.  It is clear that Dr. Ball’s graph represents historical accuracy while Dr. Mann’s graph omits the two major climate events of the last 1000 years. Dr. Mann has to prove the Warm Period and the Little Ice Age didn’t happen!!

Dr. Mann filed a lawsuit claiming Libel against his reputation and filed a lawsuit in federal court in the District of Columbia against Mark Steyn claiming the same sort of damage. Both cases are considered SLAPP cases, or Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Policy which are filed to suppress dissent. Dr. Mann may have erred hugely with these lawsuits. His contempt of court may cause the court to find that his “Hockey Stick” is false, will cause him to pay Dr. Ball’s costs, and because is climate fraud is the basis of the IPCC findings and hundreds of billions of dollars spent on research, he may be liable for that too.

The judge in British Columbia has now asked the question that should have been asked ten years ago. The is stated in paragraph 2 (of 2) that says:
2: The Plaintiff, Dr. Michael Mann, shall deliver any expert reports in response to the reports delivered by Defendants . . . on or before February 21, 2017.

So, the Judge has told Mann to prove the truth behind his “hockey stick.” The deadline was February 20 and it’s early July. Mann is in contempt of court. We’ll see how this plays out. It will be very interesting.

For those interested the case is Michael Mann v. Timothy “Tim” Ball and The Frontier Centre for Public Policy and John Doe. VLC-S-S0111913 (2011)