Posted by Richard Willett - Memes and headline comments by David Icke Posted on 16 February 2024

Does Michael Mann’s OUTRAGEOUS Libel Victory Mean We’re Saddled With His Hockey Stick Forever?

The sad Michael Mann defamation case against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg ended last week in the even sadder confines of the Washington D.C. Superior Court. The verdict was awful for those believing in free speech and the right to engage in public criticism of public figures like Mann. And, of more concern, subtly continues the bashing of the scientific method that has become a feature of the last 20 years or so.

The trial showed that climate scientist Mann had no damages to his career or reputation – in fact, quite the reverse as he has become the darling of Leftie Hollywood stars and D.C. Politicians. However, the jury awarded excessive punitive damages against Steyn of $1 million. The reason for this was provided in the Plaintiff’s lawyer summing up for the jury: “The jury should award punitive damages so that in future no one will dare engage in ‘climate denialism’ just as Trump’s ‘election denialism’ needs to be suppressed.” Washington D.C. is one of the most far Left Democrat-leaning areas, and a D.C. jury is all in for a bit of Right-wing bashing, no matter how thin the excuse, and so delivered on the punitive damages. These damages cannot be awarded on their own hence the derisory award of $1 for actual damages.

The damages are likely to be overturned either at the Appeal Court in D.C. or the Supreme Court due to the excessive ratio between the two sets of damages. However, Mann can now claim vindication for himself and his peculiar, yet increasingly popular, belief that any challenge to orthodox climate science is a form of ‘denialism’.

We have come a long way from old school liberal scientists and thinkers such as Carl Sagan, who said in his last interview in 1996: “If we are not able to ask sceptical questions to interrogate those who tell us something is true, to be sceptical of those in authority, then we’re up for grabs for the next charlatan – political or religious – who comes ambling along.” This belief in scientists as folks who fearlessly question everything, even their own work, as part of a method for understanding the natural world, is foreign to the climate fundamentalists. Rather, they seem to believe scientists should develop a hypothesis, smear or sue anyone who disagrees – or tie them up in endless complaints to press regulators – and enforce fealty to it.

But what of the actual science and the scientific method? Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ itself was not on trial, but was central to Mann’s defamation case in that Steyn said it was fraudulent. The hockey stick purports to show temperatures over the last 1,000 years. The graph produced for the temperature shows a flat stick through most of the timeframe with an upturned blade at the end representing the last 60 years or so. At a stroke it eliminated the natural variability that had long been the bedrock of climate science and replaced it with a long period of similar temperatures rudely interrupted by a huge spike coinciding with the world’s industrialisation. When it was first published at the turn of the millennium it immediately became iconic – oft-cited and revered. It was central to the IPCC’s Assessment Report 3 back in 2001 and slithered into the popular consciousness by being a huge part of Al Gore’s global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

Read More: Does Michael Mann’s Libel Victory Mean We’re Saddled With his Hockey Stick Forever?

The Dream

From our advertisers