{"id":299240,"date":"2024-02-01T10:40:29","date_gmt":"2024-02-01T09:40:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299240"},"modified":"2024-02-01T10:40:32","modified_gmt":"2024-02-01T09:40:32","slug":"steyn-v-mann-the-infamous-climate-hockey-stick-goes-on-trial","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299240","title":{"rendered":"Steyn v Mann: The Infamous Climate \u2018Hockey Stick\u2019 Goes on Trial"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Sceptic<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BY\u00a0CHRIS MORRISON<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fifteen years on from the notorious Climategate scandal<\/a>, and the widely debunked temperature \u2018hockey stick\u2019 is centre stage in a libel trial in a Washington D.C. court. In the widely-billed climate trial of the century, the fake Nobel laureate<\/a> Michael Mann is suing the journalist Mark Steyn for claiming that his infamous hockey stick graph is fraudulent. The case has enormous ramifications since it can be argued that the hockey stick removed the concept of natural climate variability for an entire generation. It is fraudulent, claims Steyn, both in its construction and in the uses<\/a> to which it has been put by Al Gore, the IPCC, every school and most governments throughout the Western world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The hockey stick first appeared in 1998 and purported to show that global temperatures had slowly declined for around 1,000 years before shooting up suddenly in recent years under the impact of humans burning hydrocarbons and increasing the supply of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It was widely quoted by activists and was published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). To this day, many activists argue that the small recent rises in global temperature are exceptional and have not been witnessed in the past going back 125,000 years. Widespread and convincing proxy evidence, along with historical observations, suggest otherwise. It is generally accepted that a medieval warming period saw similar rises to those witnessed today. But proxy evidence can work both ways.\u00a0According to Steyn<\/a>, the Mann graph abolished warming in medieval times using two clumps of trees \u2013 some California bristlecones and just one cedar from the Gaspe Peninsula for the years up to 1421.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTree rings are absolutely brilliant at telling you the temperature in 1432\u201d, Steyn has observed sarcastically, and if you criticise that on Twitter, Mann says you are funded by the Koch Brothers. In 2012 Mann sued Steyn in the District of Columbia Superior Court for \u201cdefamation of a Nobel Prize recipient\u201d. Mann has since withdrawn the false Nobel claim but not the defamation charge. In court hearings it has been revealed that if Mann loses he will not pay a cent. As always, there is interest in who funds a great deal of climate activism and \u2018lawfare\u2019 around the world.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The hockey stick featured in the Climategate scandal in 2009 when leaked emails, possibly from an internal whistleblower, showed the process by which Mann and a number of colleagues working out of the University of East Anglia had used proxy evidence to arrive at the graph. It was said that a reference in the emails to \u201cMike\u2019s Nature Trick\u201d referred to the practice of using the most convenient proxy or temperature measurements to fit the desired narrative. The emails showed how competing climate claims were kept out of science journals and requests for information about the methodology these activists were using were denied. At the time, Professor Jerome Ravetz of Oxford University noted that within two months the East Anglian scientists and the IPCC \u201cwere discredited<\/a>\u201d. Even if only a fraction of their scientific claims were eventually refuted, added Ravetz, \u201ctheir credibility as trustworthy scientists was lost\u201d. Even George Monbiot in the Guardian<\/em> was appalled<\/a>, noting that pretending the climate email leak wasn\u2019t a crisis wouldn\u2019t make it go away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, there was a massive pretence that the emails were not a crisis and interest faded. Internal inquiries whitewashed the affair, \u2018denier\u2019 abuse rapidly took away any perceived need to debate sceptics, the leaks were blamed on bad players (probably funded by the Koch Brothers), and a general air of \u201cmove along please, nothing to see here\u201d descended on the tame, mainstream media.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Michael Mann continued his career, rising up the climate activist ranks, and is currently a Professor at the University of Pennsylvania. He still seems keen on supressing climate information that doesn\u2019t follow the \u2018settled\u2019 narrative. Last year he was part of a successful attempt<\/a> to get a published science paper by four scientists retracted in a Springer Nature<\/em> journal. The scientists, including three professors of physics, argued that a climate \u2018emergency\u2019 was not supported by the available weather data. Mann told the Guardian<\/em> that \u201ceither the consensus of the world\u2019s climate experts that climate change is causing a very clear increase in many types of weather extremes is wrong, or a couple of nuclear physics dudes in Italy are wrong\u201d. Mann is no stranger to abuse, referring to Steyn at one point as an \u201codious excuse for a human being\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The stakes could not be higher for Mann, and the reputation of \u2018climate science\u2019 more widely. Mann may well find his abuse and false claims of Nobel honours do not play well in a court room before a judge and a jury. He is up against an opponent of considerable intelligence and sharp, quick wit. Mark Steyn has been a regular on U.S. broadcast media, and U.K. viewers will remember him from a stint on GB News. A stint, it might be noted, that was  was required viewing if only for speculation as to how long Ofcom would allow it to continue. Not long, as it turned out. It is difficult to second guess a court trial, even one held these days in a solid Democrat city. But Mann, who can come across as an attention-seeking and vicious science nerd, is up against a skilled showman. This was evidenced by the following opening exchange<\/a> when Mann complained that Steyn\u2019s writings had led to him receiving a \u201cmean look\u201d in a supermarket. Having elicited precise details of where Mann received his mean look, Steyn observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Excellent. Excellent. Truly excellent answer there\u2026 I thought that was a good answer. Let\u2019s say for the sake of argument you were in the pet food aisle and you were standing there. How do you know the mean look was not because you were blocking the guy because you were dithering between the Fancy Feast Gourmet Tuna and the Fancy Feast Salmon Delight?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Steyn in fine form, subtly tutoring Mann in the pitfalls of causation. The trial is expected to continue for up to another week. You can listen to a podcast in which actors re-enact key moments from the trial hosted by Phelim McAleer here<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Chris Morrison is the<\/em>\u00a0Daily Sceptic\u2019s<\/em>\u00a0Environment Editor.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Fifteen years on from the\u00a0notorious Climategate scandal, and the widely debunked temperature \u2018hockey stick\u2019 is centre stage in a libel trial in a Washington D.C. court. In the widely-billed climate trial of the century, the\u00a0fake Nobel laureate\u00a0Michael Mann is suing the journalist Mark Steyn for claiming that his infamous hockey stick graph is fraudulent. The case has enormous ramifications since it can be argued that the hockey stick removed the concept of natural climate variability for an entire generation. It is fraudulent, claims Steyn, both in its\u00a0construction and in the uses\u00a0to which it has been put by Al Gore, the IPCC, every school and most governments throughout the Western world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":299242,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"Fifteen years on from the\u00a0notorious Climategate scandal, and the widely debunked temperature \u2018hockey stick\u2019 is centre stage in a libel trial in a Washington D.C. court. In the widely-billed climate trial of the century, the\u00a0fake Nobel laureate\u00a0Michael Man","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691818956,691819134,691819743,691820449,691826659,691823943,691818215,691820151],"class_list":{"0":"post-299240","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-cancel-culture","9":"tag-climate-alarmism","10":"tag-climate-propaganda","11":"tag-hockey-stick","12":"tag-lawfare","13":"tag-mark-steyn","14":"tag-michael-mann","15":"tag-the-science","17":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/02024-01-31-00_10_22-Mann-vs-Steyn.png-800%C3%97600.jpeg?fit=1587%2C868&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1fQs","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":301372,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=301372","url_meta":{"origin":299240,"position":0},"title":"The Travesty of Mark Steyn\u2019s $1m Libel Loss to \u2018Hockey Stick\u2019 Climate Chart Creator Michael Mann","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Mark Steyn loses in Washington D.C. in the defamation trial surrounding Michael E. Mann\u2019s unbelievable temperature \u2018hockey stick\u2019, while President Biden cannot be criminally charged for taking home state secret papers on the grounds that he is gaga. Only in Democrat America.","rel":"","context":"In \"Bias\"","block_context":{"text":"Bias","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=bias"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png?fit=1049%2C673&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png?fit=1049%2C673&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png?fit=1049%2C673&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0HockeyStickOverview_html_6623cbd6.png?fit=1049%2C673&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":297472,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=297472","url_meta":{"origin":299240,"position":1},"title":"Climate Trial of the Century: Mann vs Steyn \u2013 Climate Change Roundtable #94","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"After 12 years of delays, the defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann and writer Mark Steyn finally began this week. Mann sued Steyn and others in 2012 claiming they libeled him when they mocked his infamous \u201chockey stick\u201d graph that has been the lynchpin of climate alarmism for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"12 years of delays\"","block_context":{"text":"12 years of delays","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=12-years-of-delays"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-19-184739.png?fit=1200%2C660&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-19-184739.png?fit=1200%2C660&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-19-184739.png?fit=1200%2C660&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-19-184739.png?fit=1200%2C660&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-19-184739.png?fit=1200%2C660&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":298536,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=298536","url_meta":{"origin":299240,"position":2},"title":"Mann vs. Steyn: Climate Trial of the Century Continues – Guest: Phelim McAleer","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"27\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"In the second week of the defamation trial, where serial litigator and special climate snowflake Michael Mann sued Mark Steyn and others for libel, the proceedings featured notable developments and surprising revelations. To discuss, Phelim McAleer, a filmmaker and journalist who is attending the trial in a federal court in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate change\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate change","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-change"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-27-155617.png?fit=1200%2C632&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-27-155617.png?fit=1200%2C632&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-27-155617.png?fit=1200%2C632&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-27-155617.png?fit=1200%2C632&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Screenshot-2024-01-27-155617.png?fit=1200%2C632&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299183,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299183","url_meta":{"origin":299240,"position":3},"title":"Some Notes On The Trial Of Mann v. Steyn","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"31\/01\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Way back in October 2012, climate alarmist and activist Michael Mann brought a libel suit against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg for allegedly defamatory blog posts that the two had written a few months previously.","rel":"","context":"In \"hockey stick graph\"","block_context":{"text":"hockey stick graph","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=hockey-stick-graph"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Michael-Mann-Mark-Steyn.png?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Michael-Mann-Mark-Steyn.png?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Michael-Mann-Mark-Steyn.png?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/0Michael-Mann-Mark-Steyn.png?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":299594,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=299594","url_meta":{"origin":299240,"position":4},"title":"Mann vs. Steyn: Climate Trial of the Century Week 3 – Guest: Ann McElhinney","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"03\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"On episode 96 of Climate Change Roundtable, special guest Ann McElhinney joins The Heartland Institute\u2019s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely to break down the latest bombshell moments of the trial. We are sure to mention the devastating testimony on Thursday of renowned statistician Abraham Wyner\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Climate Trial\"","block_context":{"text":"Climate Trial","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climate-trial"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0Screenshot-2024-02-03-125744.png?fit=1200%2C633&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":303878,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=303878","url_meta":{"origin":299240,"position":5},"title":"The Hockey Stick Trial: Science Dies in a DC Courtroom","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"22\/02\/2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cScience,\u201d wrote the philosopher Karl Popper, \u201cis one of the very few human activities \u2013 perhaps the only one \u2013 in which errors are systematically criticised and fairly often, in time, corrected.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In \"Climategate emails\"","block_context":{"text":"Climategate emails","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=climategate-emails"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hockeyStick-768x557-1.png?fit=768%2C557&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hockeyStick-768x557-1.png?fit=768%2C557&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hockeyStick-768x557-1.png?fit=768%2C557&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/0hockeyStick-768x557-1.png?fit=768%2C557&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299240","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=299240"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299240\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":299246,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/299240\/revisions\/299246"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/299242"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=299240"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=299240"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=299240"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}