I had been scrolling through Michael Mann’s Twitter account, until Friday when I discovered I was blocked. Blocked even though I was yet to retweet or comment on anything to do with the defamation trial that he has brought against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg – yet to comment on Twitter or anywhere else. I can’t image that he is blocking everyone because according to Google, Mann has over 20,000 followers and tweets so much that he is acknowledged as one of the ‘top 50 science stars of Twitter’.
But for sure he is blocking me, at least since Friday.
I can’t image that it is just for the weekend, that he has blocked me. Michael Mann doesn’t take weekends off. He didn’t even take Martin Luther King Jr. Day public holiday off.
If you listen to Mark Steyn’s opening comments in his defamation trail, on that day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Michael Mann the ‘vicious blowhard’ – as Steyn describes him in his opening remarks in court room 518 of the District of Columbia Superior Court where Steyn is defendant and also representing himself in a defamation case brough by Mann – Mann was suggesting on Twitter that because Steve McIntyre is sceptical of the consensus on climate change, sowing doubt and all the rest, he is a racist and homophobe. I would like to go and see exactly what is written, but I can’t – because I’m blocked.
As Steyn also commented in his opening remarks, it seems Mann can damn anyone he wants as a racist and homophobe but he himself, Michael E. Mann, should be protected from offensive commentary, by the defamation laws.
It is twelve years since Michael Mann began defamation proceedings against Steyn for insulting him, in particular for Steyn claiming that his last 1,000-year reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures is a fraud. Further, Steyn quoted from a Competitive Enterprise blog by Rand Simberg claiming:
Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
It is the case that Jerry Sandusky was finally convicted in 2011 of 52 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period from 1994 to 2009, with senior Penn State university staff failing to tell police of reported incidences of rape dating from 1998.
It was in November 2009, soon after the release of the incriminating Climategate emails that Penn State University announced it was going to launch an inquiry into allegations about Michael Mann’s conduct:
1. Suppression and falsification of data
2. Deletion of emails and data
3. Misuse of confidential information
4. Deviation from accepted academic standards.
It ended up being nothing more than a two-hour interview with Mann, and without interviewing any of his critics, was done and dusted within a couple of months clearing Mann of all allegations. But not providing any documentation of the specific evidence relied upon. This was apparently in contravention of even the universities’ own policies.
In the lead up to the Mann v Steyn defamation case – that is now being heard in court room 518 of the District of Columbia Superior Court – Mann has been forced to hand over an e-mail where he described this Climategate inspired Penn investigation into his conduct as a ‘cover our A$$es’ exercise.
This trial is being promoted by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer as ‘Climate Change on Trial’. I hope this is what comes to pass.
Ann and Phelim are going to great lengths to get the details of the trial to all of us, every day. They are in court, and have actors reenacting critical exchanges from the court room. They have a dedicated new podcast series, that you can subscribe to here:
The court case is expected to run until about 6th February, we are three days into it now, but the first days were mostly procedural and jury selection.
I have much more to write about all of this. So much that I have been having trouble knowing where to start with a first blog post.
So here it is, my first blog post, so you can at least get yourself up to date by at least listening to Day 3, that is a good place to start.
I have known Mark for a long time, and he has included my take on the hockey stick in his book on this topic (A Disgrace to the Profession) and also in his deposition for this trial – yes, I am quoted in that document.
I will write much more about all of this soon. Because in the end it is about the veracity of historical temperature reconstructions, something that many of you will know has preoccupied me for over a decade, for almost as long as it has preoccupied Mark Steyn.
I had the pleasure of giving the vote of thanks for Mark Steyn when he was in Brisbane in February 2016. He gave a similar speech in Melbourne, as part of the same tour sponsored by the IPA. You can listen to his Melbourne IPA speech here:
*****
I apologise for having so many ‘parts’ to different blog series open at the moment. It is my intension that this series about Steyn v Mann will collide with my ARC series. But I’m still working on all of that: ARC part 5, and Kuranda part 2. I’m always thinking, and checking, to the extent I can already anticipate how if Mark Steyn is successful at making this trial about climate change, I will also be able to update you on my ongoing FOI saga with the bureau over the parallel data. You see I do have something in common with Mark Steyn, and it is not that I can sing (I can’t sing, Mark can sing), it is that we both care deeply about historical temperature reconstructions. We both want them to be accurate.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I have always been blocked from Michael Mann’s Twitter account, I was blocked before I even knew he had a Twitter account.
Jennifer, do you realise how close we are to witnessing the collapse of Climate Hoax? Schwab & his sidekick Harari are broken men … Harari knows it’s finished and has stated as much in the past few days. Davos was an unmitigated disaster … Sweden has has turned its back on Net Zero … Germany is back on (dirty) coal, and farmers are conducting massive protests in Germany, Poland and elsewhere … we are witnessing the beginning of the end of for the UN/WHO/WEF … as an aside, things won’t go for Michael Man … watch on as he is completely isolated. These people are finished … along with many more!
Cheers
Jennifer, ten years ago John O Sullivan put his house on the line for Tim Ball vs Mann. Dr. Ball famously declared that his adversary belongs “in the state pen, not Penn State.” https://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/john-osullivan-puts-his-house-on-the-line-more-than-any-skeptic-ought-to-be-asked-to-do/
Mann and Briffa were exposed in the East Anglia data leak as having hid the decline in temperatures to suit their narrative. Consider it a badge of honour that Mann has blocked you!
And yet, here in the penal colonies:
Tonight’s ABCess TV “news” featured a confused creative writing piece about “energy” and particularly the proposed off-shore albatross shredder plantation near Port Stephens. When they want your opinion, they will give it to you, good and hard and often.
NOBODY in their right financial mind would build a serious, multi-tower generator site out in the ocean, That such things are done tells you all you need to know about this circus. The construction costs are enormous as are the maintenance costs.
HOWEVER, given the alleged enthusiasm for spending bazillions of taxpayer dollars on “interesting” projects with a high potential “spillage” factor, is anyone surprised the eco-loons are more than schizophrenic about “renewables, vs “bewildered cetaceans” vs their customary death-cultism.
“Temperatures in the small Pilbara town of Paraburdoo reached their highest recorded level of 48.1 degrees Celsius on Sunday, as an extreme heatwave continues to bake the region.”
Thanks for the Spotify link to the trial. No doubt Mann is a fraud proven beyond a doubt by Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. It’s not just Mann that is a fraud, the entire academic system that defends Mann and allows the climate fraud to exist. Money, Money, Money. Sad example of human character.
Steve and others who come here to register their general disagreements with me,
Off-topic and/or repetitive comments will be marked spam as appropriate, and so you risk the AI eventually categorising everything you write as spam.
Best to stay on topic, not keep repeating stuff, and limit the nefarious
Michael Mann blocks anyone on X (twitter) who disagrees with his hockey stick or challenges his views.
““Temperatures in the small Pilbara town of Paraburdoo reached their highest recorded level of 48.1 degrees Celsius on Sunday, as an extreme heatwave continues to bake the region.””
Long way to go before they crack Cloncurry’s record of 53C.
Steve sounds like a fun troll Jennifer.
As for Steyn: I am worried about him: self representation is never a good look. And the proceedings are in DC the centre of democrat judicial activism which has seen the corrupt charges brought against Trump.
More generally as the New Zealand NIWA case showed, Judges are loathe to go against the science establishment even if BS is manifest. This is a defamation case which goes beyond a 1st Amendment defence, so in a sense AGW is on trial. Steyn has to show that Mann has not just made errors but falsified climate evidence.
Tony Heller always have interesting comments about M. Mans hocky stick
Jennifer, I love reading your emails and blogs. I really admire your courage and tenacity in challenging the scientific integrity of so called “experts”, particularly in regard to effects of carbon dioxide on climate, historical temperature records and misleading claims of climate change degrading the GBR. I also enjoy the comments that your articles inspire, and wish you well-deserved success in your campaign for scientific truth.
As a Chemist I worry more about the effect that dissolved CO2 has on the pH of cold Antarctic sea water and as a result causes the dissolution of the skeletons of the krill. I am not in the position to do a comprehensive literature search on the subject but I would assume that the final result will be a loss of the total food chain in the ocean from bottom up.
Jennifer, if you’re going to block Steve for his comment on 21 Jan then shouldn’t you also block the equally off topic comment from Bruce that preceded it? The Steve comment was obviously a push back to the Bruce comment and neither had much to do with your post.
“David Tanner says
January 23, 2024 at 6:40 pm
As a Chemist I worry more about the effect that dissolved CO2 has on the pH of cold Antarctic sea water and as a result causes the dissolution of the skeletons of the krill. I am not in the position to do a comprehensive literature search on the subject but I would assume that the final result will be a loss of the total food chain in the ocean from bottom up.”
Your assumption would be wrong:
https://www.academia.edu/92123788/How_Does_the_Atmospheric_Carbon_Dioxide_Affect_Ocean_Acidification
https://principia-scientific.com/ocean-acidification-is-a-myth/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/ipcc-expert-discredited-ocean-acidification-papers/
People can follow this daily here:
https://open.spotify.com/show/6jDpaNT18Yg0t8kIvfV0Du?si=4VsKYtf_RvSqrJxWR5wgdw
Those who have a genuine interest in the defence of free speech and pursuit of science in a truthful and rigorous manner should read Mark Steyn’s opening statement which can only be described as formidable with a superb command of language to address a very serious issue but with some very apt moments of humour that only add to the force of his argument. His opponent has been a malign blot on the landscape for far too long, abrogating to himself the right to bully, censor and attack anyway he can anyone who disagrees with him and shows him up to be a scientific fraud, but then, when his victims push back and receives his own medicine in response, and very often much tamer he cries wolf, “unfair, how dare people disrespect me so” and reaches for the law suit as a form of intimidation and happy to destroy their livelihood if necessary (not many have the resources to go to court). Hypocrite is too mild a description. Mark has much better ones.
The link is as follows: https://www.steynonline.com/14039/opening-statement
Peter Hetherington-Smith, science, rigour, truth, fraud, free speech … hypocrite.
Brilliant by Steyn again. I’ve been following for a very long time.
Other past nonsense with Mann. He never paid Tim Ball’s court costs. Ball died penniless and his family raised money online to help defray the costs. The process is the punishment as Mann is also trying to do here. A few links regarding Tim.
https://principia-scientific.com/breaking-key-un-climate-fraudster-makes-concessions-tim-ball-lawsuit/
https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/
“Increasing prevalence of hot drought across western North America since the 16th century”
SCIENCE ADVANCES
24 Jan 2024
Vol 10, Issue 4
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.adj4289
Droughts US:
https://co2coalition.org/news/claims-of-southwestern-usa-megadrought-are-all-wet/
Roy Spencer:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10202171869655922&set=a.2509917884989.66545.1764384371&type=3&theater
There is a blocklist curated by others, that Mann probably subscribed to recently.
I was placed on it by Willard.