Affidavit Of Lost Check And Agreement Of Indemnity: Fill & Download for Free

MY ANSWER: Everything.Climategate 2.0: Medieval Warm Period tough to eraseHow does one erase 300 years of inconvenient warming?From the Climategate 2.0 e-mail collection, someone named Pollack (possibly alarmist Henry Pollack)But it will be very difficult to make the MWP [Medieval Warm Period] go away in Greenland.The chart below from the IPCC First Assessment Report in 1990 shows why alarmists want to erase the MWP.Read Climategate 2.0.Michael Mann erased almost 1000 years of accepted climate history by rubbing out the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. Reason to scare the public about so called global warming that was not happening.It means an objective review of alarmism by independent judges proves in law that the scientists tampered with data to fake a climate crisis that does not in fact exist.The alarmist claims of unprecedented global warming becoming catastrophic is based on fast rising temperatures that are unusual in climate history.But reality does not cooperate as for example the Medieval Warming Period was clearly warmer than any current warming. To cover up reality some rogue junior scientists like Michael Mann and his colleagues decided to resolve the problem by removing the history of warmer temperatures during the Medieval time.To really make the data fudge work they also removed the temperature data of the Little Ice Age history with the result of a fine ‘hockey stick graph’ showing sharp and fast increase in temperatures since industrialization.This tampering was primarily the work of junior scientist Michael Mann.The fake graph was used in reports of the UN until at least 2007 when it was removed.The tampered data of the hockey stick featured prominently in the Inconvenient Truth video of Al Gore. This video became the cool aid for much of the public who fell under the spell of group think and continue to this day to support the scam.According to the leftist The Guardian newspaper (Feb, 09, 2010), the wider importance of Mann’s graph over the last 20 years is massive:“Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics.”REFERENCESHere are the two graphs first reality and secondly the Orwellian fudge erasing history.Correction after McIntyre found the tampering by Mann with Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age.Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit!Published onAugust 23, 2019Written by John O'SullivanSupreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:“Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.”A more detailed public statement from the world-renowned skeptical climatologist is expected in due course.Professor Mann is a climate professor at Penn State University. Mann filed his action on March 25, 2011 for Ball’s allegedly libelous statement that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State.” The final court ruling, in effect, vindicates Ball’s criticisms.Previously, on Feb, 03, 2010, a self-serving and superficial academic ‘investigation‘ by Pennsylvania State University had cleared Mann of misconduct. Mann also falsely claimed the NAS found nothing untoward with his work.But the burden of proof in a court of law is objectively higher.Not only did the B.C. Supreme Court grant Ball’s application for dismissal of the 8-year, multi-million dollar lawsuit, it also took the additional step of awarding full legal costs to Ball.This extraordinary outcome will likely trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to alarmist climate science claims that modern temperatures are “unprecedented.”According to the leftist The Guardian newspaper (Feb, 09, 2010), the wider importance of Mann’s graph over the last 20 years is massive:“Although it was intended as an icon of global warming, the hockey stick has become something else – a symbol of the conflict between mainstream climate scientists and their critics.”Under court rules, Mann’s legal team have up to 30 days to file an appeal. For readers interested in accessing the court website directly, use this link.“IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIACitation: Mann v. Ball,2019 BCSC 1580Date: 20190822Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice GiaschiOral Reasons for JudgmentBall:M. ScherrD. Juteau Place and Date of Hearing: Vancouver, B.C.May 27 and August 22, 2019Place and Date of Judgment: Vancouver, B.C. August 22, 201[1] THE COURT: I will render my reasons on the application to dismiss. I reserve the right to amend these reasons for clarity and grammar, but the result will not change.[2] The defendant brings an application for an order dismissing the action for delay.[3] The plaintiff, Dr. Mann, and the defendant, Dr. Ball, have dramatically different opinions on climate change. I do not intend to address those differences. It is sufficient that one believes climate change is man-made and the other does not. As a result of the different opinions held, the two have been in near constant conflict for many years.[4] The underlying action concerns, first, a statement made by the defendant in an interview conducted on February 9, 2011. He said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the state pen, not Penn State.” This statement was published on a website and is alleged to be defamatory of the plaintiff. The notice of civil claim also alleges multiple other statements published by Mr. Ball are defamatory. It is not necessary that I address the many alleged defamatory statements.[5] 0690860 Manitoba Ltd. v. Country West Construction, 2009 BCCA 535, at paras. 27-28, sets out the four elements that need to be considered on a motion to dismiss. They are:a) Has there been inordinate delay in the prosecution of the matter?;b) If there has been inordinate delay, is it excusable in the circumstances?;c) Has the delay caused serious prejudice and, if so, does it create a substantial risk that a fair trial is not possible?; andd) Whether, on balance, justice requires that the action be dismissed.[6] I turn first to whether there has been inordinate delay. Some key dates in the litigation are:a) March 25, 2011, the action was commenced;b) July 7, 2011, the notice of civil claim was amended;c) June 5, 2012, the notice of civil claim was further amended;d) From approximately June of 2013 until November of 2014, there were no steps taken in the action;e) November 12, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of intention to proceed;f) February 20, 2017, the matter was initially supposed to go to trial, but that trial date was adjourned;g) July 20, 2017, the date of the last communication received from Mr. Mann or his counsel by the defendant. No steps were taken in the matter until March 21, 2019 when the application to dismiss was filed;h) April 10, 2019, a second notice of intention to proceed was filed; andi) August 9, 2019, after the first day of the hearing of this application, a new trial date was set for January 11, 2021.[7] There have been at least two extensive periods of delay. Commencing in approximately June 2013, there was a delay of approximately 15 months where nothing was done to move the matter ahead. There was a second extensive period of delay from July 20, 2017 until the filing of the application to dismiss on March 21, 2019, a delay of 20 months. Again, nothing was done during this period to move the matter ahead. The total time elapsed, from the filing of the notice of civil claim until the application to dismiss was filed, was eight years. It will be almost ten years by the time the matter goes to trial. There have been two periods, of approximately 35 months in total, where nothing was done. In my view, by any measure, this is an inordinate delay.[8] I now turn to whether the delay is excusable. In my view, it is not. There is no evidence from the plaintiff explaining the delay. Dr. Mann filed an affidavit but he provides no evidence whatsoever addressing the delay. Importantly, he does not provide any evidence saying that the delay was due to his counsel, nor does he provide evidence that he instructed his counsel to proceed diligently with the matter. He simply does not address delay at all.[9] Counsel for Dr. Mann submits that the delay was due to his being busy on other matters, but the affidavit evidence falls far short of establishing this. The affidavit of Jocelyn Molnar, filed April 10, 2019, simply addresses what matters plaintiff's counsel was involved in at various times. The affidavit does not connect those other matters to the delay here. It does not explain the lengthy delay in 2013 and 2014 and does not adequately explain the delay from July 2017. The evidence falls far short of establishing an excuse for the delay.[10] Even if I was satisfied that the evidence established the delay was solely due to plaintiff's counsel being busy with other matters, which I am not, I do not agree that this would be an adequate excuse. Counsel for the plaintiff was unable to provide any authority establishing that counsel's busy schedule is a valid excuse for delay. In contrast, the defendant refers me to Hughes v. Simpson Sears, [1988] 52 D.L.R. (4th) 553, where Justice Twaddle, writing on behalf of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, stated at p. 13 that:...Freedman, J.A. said that the overriding principle in cases of this kind is “essential justice”. There is no doubt that that is so, but it must mean justice to both parties, not just to one of them.In Law Society of Manitoba v. Eadie (judgment delivered on June 27, 1988), I stated my preference for a one-step application of the fundamental principle on which motions of this kind should be decided. The fundamental principle is that a plaintiff should not be deprived of his right to have his case decided on its merits unless he is responsible for undue delay which has prejudiced the other party. A plaintiff is responsible for delays occasioned by his solicitors. I have already dealt with the consequence of the solicitors' conduct being negligent. Once it is established that the delay is unreasonable having regard to the subject matter of the action, the complexity of the issues, and the explanation for it, the other matter to be considered is the prejudice to the defendant. It is in the task of balancing the plaintiff's right to proceed with the defendant's right not to be prejudiced by unreasonable delay that justice must be done.[Emphasis added][11] Additionally, based upon the evidence filed, the plaintiff and his counsel appear to have attended to other matters, both legal matters and professional matters in the case of the plaintiff, rather than give this matter any priority. The plaintiff appears to have been content to simply let this matter languish.[12] Accordingly, I find that the delay is inexcusable.[13] With respect to prejudice, such prejudice is presumed unless the prejudice is rebutted. Indeed, the presumption of prejudice is given even more weight in defamation cases: Samson v. Scaletta, 2016 BCSC 2598, at paras 40-43. The plaintiff has not filed any evidence rebutting the presumption of prejudice.[14] Moreover, the defendant has led actual evidence of actual prejudice. The evidence is that the defendant intended to call three witnesses at trial who would have provided evidence going to fair comment and malice. Those witnesses have now died. A fourth witness is no longer able to travel. Thus, in addition to finding that presumption of prejudice has not been rebutted, I also find that there has been actual prejudice to the defendant as a consequence of the delay.[15] Turning to the final factor, I have little hesitation in finding that, on balance, justice requires the action be dismissed. The parties are both in their eighties and Dr. Ball is in poor health. He has had this action hanging over his head like the sword of Damocles for eight years and he will need to wait until January 2021 before the matter proceeds to trial. That is a ten year delay from the original alleged defamatory statement. Other witnesses are also elderly or in poor health. The memories of all parties and witnesses will have faded by the time the matter goes to trial.[16] I find that, because of the delay, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for there to be a fair trial for the defendant. This is a relatively straightforward defamation action and should have been resolved long before now. That it has not been resolved is because the plaintiff has not given it the priority that he should have. In the circumstances, justice requires that the action be dismissed and, accordingly, I do hereby dismiss the action for delay.[17] Before concluding, I wish to note that the materials that have been filed on this application are grossly excessive in relation to the matters in issue. There are four large binders of materials filed by the plaintiff on the application to dismiss, plus one additional binder from the defendant. The binders contain multiple serial affidavits, many of which are replete with completely irrelevant evidence. In my view, this application could have been done and should have been done with one or two affidavits outlining the delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice.[18] Those are my reasons, counsel. Costs?[19] MR. SCHERR: I would, of course, ask for costs for the defendant, given the dismissal of the action.[20] MR. MCCONCHIE: Costs follow the event. I have no quarrel with that.[21] THE COURT: All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.[22] The outstanding application, I gather there is no reason to proceed with it now.[23] MR. MCCONCHIE: It is academic, in light of –[24] THE COURT: It is academic.[25] MR. MCCONCHIE: – Your Lordship's ruling today.[26] THE COURT: Right. Thank you, gentlemen. Anything else?[27] MR. SCHERR: No, Your Honour.[28] THE COURT: All right.[29] MR. SCHERR: No, My Lord.[30] THE COURT: Then, we are concluded and you shall have your materials back, which are these binders. Thank you, gentlemen.“Giaschi J.”2019 BCSC 1580 Mann v. Ball}‘Hockey Stick’ Discredited by Statisticians in 2003In 2003 a Canadian study showed the “hockey stick” curve “is primarily an artefact of poor data handling, obsolete data and incorrect calculation of principal components.” When the data was corrected it showed a warm period in the 15th Century that exceeded the warmth of the 20th Century.So, the graph was junk science. You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.But the big question then became: did Mann intentionally falsify his graph from motivation to make profit and/or cause harm (i.e. commit the five elements of criminal fraud)?No one could answer that question unless Mann surrendered his numbers. He was never going to do that voluntarily – or face severe consequences for not doing so – that is, until Dr Ball came into the picture!Evidence in Legal Discovery and the Truth DefenseDr Ball’s legal team adroitly pursued the ‘truth defense’ such that the case boiled down to whether Ball’s words (“belongs in the state pen, not Penn State”) after examining the key evidence (Mann’s R2 regression numbers) fairly and accurately portrayed Mann.The aim was to compel the plaintiff (Dr. Mann) to show his math ‘working out’ to check if he knowingly and criminally misrepresented his claims by resorting to statistical fakery (see: ‘Mike’s trick‘ below).In the pre-trial Discovery Process the parties are required to surrender the cited key evidence in reasonable fashion, that they believe proves or disproves the Claim.Despite Ball’s best efforts over 8 years, Mann would not agree to surrender to an open court his math ‘working out’ – those arcane R2 regression numbers for his graph (see Mann’s latest obfuscating Tweet in the ‘update’ at foot of this article).But throughout 2017 and 2018 any reasonable observer could see through such endless delays from the plaintiff – all just attritional tactics.The Penn State professor had persistently refused to honor the binding “concessions” agreement he made to Ball which ultimately gave his legal team the coup de grace to win the case for the defendant due to Mann’s ‘Bad Faith’ (see: legal definition here).Dr. Ball always argued that those numbers, if examined in open court, would have conclusively proved Mann was motivated to commit a criminal fraud. It was at this point legal minds could discern Ball was closing in on victory – a triumph for ‘David over Goliath.’And Mann certainly is a science ‘Goliath.’ Ever since featuring so famously in the UN IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) Mann’s graph has been an iconic image cited relentlessly by environmentalists clamoring for urgent action on man-made global warming.For the past two decades the biased mainstream media has acclaimed Mann as “a world-leading climate scientist” and last year he was heralded as their champion to help dethrone “climate denier” President Trump.Indeed, not just a fawning MSM, but many hundreds of subsequent climate studies have relied on Mann’s findings. Mann’s reputation was such, that most climate researchers merely accepted his graph, a typical example of groupthink.Dr Ball has long warned that if the world was permitted to see behind the secrecy they would be shocked at just how corrupt and self-serving are those ‘scientists’ at the forefront of man-made global warming propaganda.As anyone can tell by contrasting and comparing the graphs below (Mann’s version top, Ball’s below) it is obvious there exists a massive discrepancy in the respective findings.Richard Muller castigates Michael MannHockey Stick to the HeadAbove: contrast and compare Dr Mann’s dodgy graph with Dr Ball’s more reliable version (based on that of the renowned H. H. Lamb) and see how Mann fraudulently altered the proxy climate date with a ‘hockey stick’ shape to falsely show the dramatic uptick with modern temperatures rising ‘catastrophically’ to fit the fake UN IPCC doomsaying narrative.Have Skeptics Ever Proven that Mann’s Graph was Deliberately Faked?Answer: No. This is because Mann has always refused to release his R2 regression numbers for independent examination.He claimed his secrecy was justified because he held “proprietary rights” over them (i.e. personally valuable intellectual work product, you see). So “valuable” to Mann was the secrecy of his metadata that losing a multi-million dollar lawsuit and his reputation was the ultimate price he was prepared to pay.While steep, I guess, that’s preferable to serving a long federal prison stretch, right?Before Ball’s glorious court victory, little more could be conclusively proven other than the hockey stick graph uptick stupidly (and unscientifically) relies on the proxy evidence from the tree rings ofa single Yamal larch!Mann could thus sleep safe in the knowledge that as long as statistical experts remain deprived of any conclusive proof of his intent to defraud, they could only find him guilty of incompetence.Putting Mann’s Fraudulent Graph Under the MicroscopeFor an easy-viewing summary by Tim Ball please watch the video:Mann’s goal was to make the Little Ice Age (LIA) disappear, as we explained in our previous article on this issue. The LIA was an especially cold era that ended around 1840 and since then global temperatures have gradually risen. But government ‘experts’ like Mann have sought to use statistical trickery to make such natural variation appear as ‘man-made’ warming.Apart from playing with statistics Mann made his proxy fit the thermometer data by adding thermometer values to the proxy values known as “Mike’s trick” in the climate gate email scandal.From the emails released during the Climategate scandal Professor Phil Jones, Britain’s top climate scientist at the University of East Anglia was shown to have written the following to his alarmist colleagues (some analysis here).The email, sent by Prof Phil Jones of the CRU in 1999, states:Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today orfirst thing tomorrow.I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real tempsto each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annualland and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH landN of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 withdata through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.Thanks for the comments, Ray.CheersPhilThis has the Hockey Stick Graph showing the same cooling from 1942 to 1975 as the HadCRUT3 data as posted in the IPCC 2001 AR3In 1942 there was just 4.0Gt of emissions increasing to 17.1Gt by 1975 but since this 425% increase in CO2 emissions didn’t cause any global warming during this 33 year period; the conjecture of CO2 emissions induced (catastrophic) global warming was proven false.Readers interested in gaining a deeper understanding of what is likely to eventually be exposed as a criminal conspiracy between Mann and other ‘elite’ researchers should see “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford.The Guardian newspaper (above) expressing doubts over ‘(Michael) Mann-made’ global warming.Victory that Comes at Great Personal CostBehind the scenes, gathering the resources, mental, scientific and financial, there is an untold burden of defending these cynical SLAPP suits.Lest readers forget, it is mostly in the service of misguided public policy, with massive funding and connivance from political operators in play, that fake scientists like Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver acquired such esteemed public positions.They are not only despicable human beings they are a disgrace to all decent scientists.Readers will be aware that this author has been a staunch friend and ally to Tim throughout the hardships of this protracted 8-year legal battle.Our reputations were routinely trashed by our enemies, so it is sweet justice that the court has now given legal credence to Tim’s famous words that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” a comical reference to the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.[Author Note: Being very much a party to these legal proceedings (having provided Dr Ball with the financial security of a legally-binding indemnity in the event Tim lost) it is a monumental vindication of my faith in Tim’s cause. In effect, I ‘bet the farm’ on Tim winning, as graciously reported by Jo Nova (below)]Knowingly Fraudulent and CorruptDuring 2018, while Tim Ball’s hard work was winning “concessions” from Mann’s legal team in Canada, south of the border, (on April 20) a shameless Mann wrote in Scientific American this utter nonsense:“Yet, in the 20 years since the original hockey stick publication, independent studies, again and again, have overwhelmingly reaffirmed our findings, including the key conclusion: recent warming is unprecedented over at least the past millennium.”Gullible and brainwashed greens and the many self-serving politicians swallowed up this garbage.Dr Ball Expresses Gratitude to Principia Scientific InternationalSpeaking in this 2018 video on the gravity of what some scientists have called “The science trial of the Century,” Dr Ball revealed his gratitude to his colleagues at Principia Scientific:Dr Tim Ball:I know John O’Sullivan who set up the Principia site and I know I wrote a foreword and a chapter in one of the books they produced called Slaying the Sky Dragon.John O’Sullivan comes from his anti-government [stance], very legitimately and unfortunately, it’s not until you’ve actually directly personally experienced that; challenging the government – that you realize how nasty they can get. So John knows very well how nasty these things can get – that anyone that dares to challenge the authorities.And so, Principia was set up for that reason, and John was the one that helped me set up the PayPal so people could help me financially so, that’s my disclaimer with that.”As Jo Nova reported on the joannenova.com.au blog:“John O’Sullivan is putting in above and beyond what any single skeptical soul ought to.He’s already been a key figure helping Tim Ball in the legal fight with the UVA establishment, which has spent over a million dollars helping Michael Mann to hide emails. The case was launched by Michael Mann, but could turn out to do a huge favor to skeptics — the discovery process is a powerful tool, and we all know who has been hiding their methods, their data, and their work-related correspondence.Tim Ball and John O’Sullivan are helping all the free citizens of the West. The burden should not be theirs alone. There are many claims for help at the moment, but that is a sign that the grand scam is coming to a head. Jo”Two out of Two Major Court Wins By Ball Versus Junk IPCC ScientistsDr Ball, now affirmed as a courageous champion of honest science, has assured his place in the annals of real climate science. His gift to the world was sacrificing eight of his senior years, when he could have been enjoying his retirement, to exposing key players in the biggest science fraud of all time.People too easily forget Dr Ball has defeated in expensive legal battles not just one top UN IPCC climate scientists, but two!This latest victory is the second this champion of climate skepticism has enjoyed in the last 18 months in this same jurisdiction – both for “defamation,” both multi-million dollar climate science claims.We reported (February 15, 2018) on Dr Ball’s first crucial courtroom win against Dr Andrew Weaver (photo, above), another elite junk scientist (a UN IPCC Lead Author in climate modeling) and British Columbia Green Party Leader.Pointedly, at the time, Dr Ball wanted to emphasize an extremely salient fact:“While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer,Roger McConchie, (photo, left) in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).”In effect, there is more than mere coincidence that Dr Ball, a world-leading skeptical climatologist, was systematically targeted for legal retribution time and again by political groups such as the unscrupulous Climate Science Legal Defense Fund .As a retired scientist in his 80’s, Tim was a ‘soft target’ and the stress of these lawsuits put an enormous toll on his health.Not to be outdone, Tim has used his time wisely to write a damning book of the 30-year back story of the great climate fraud titled ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’ and I heartily recommend that interested readers buy it.It is also not often reported that the funding in Canada for these extravagant SLAPP lawsuits is believed to be from the David Suzuki Foundation, a hot house for extreme environmental advocacy and Big Green policy promotion.What is a ‘Strategic lawsuit against public participation’ (SLAPP Suit)?Wikipedia offers a fair definition:“A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1] Such lawsuits have been made illegal in many jurisdictions on the grounds that they impede freedom of speech.In the typical SLAPP, the plaintiff does not normally expect to win the lawsuit. The plaintiff’s goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs, or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism. In some cases, repeated frivolous litigation against a defendant may raise the cost of directors and officers liability insurance for that party, interfering with an organization’s ability to operate.[2] A SLAPP may also intimidate others from participating in the debate.”Update (August 24, 2019):Dr Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article:Mann’s statement is here: Michael E. Mann on TwitterIn short, Mann’s ugly responsive legal statement is (a) stark admission he lost fair and square, and (b) a disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in timely fashion.Well, Mikey, You Are The Plaintiff And Tim Gave You Over 8 YEARS To Get Your Case Together!On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it we offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:“Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann's Climate Lawsuit! | PSI IntlAN APPEALAssisting Dr Ball has been a huge honor for me and probably one of the greatest achievements of my life. But Tim only won this famous courtroom battle thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support.PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.Historians see Alexander the Great’s world wide successful conquests as leverage by horses in battle and the warmer Medieval climate globally.FLAT WHITEBig data finds the Medieval Warm Period – no denial hereJennifer MarohasyJennifer Marohasy22 August 20177:49 AMAccording to author Leo Tolstoy, born at the very end of the Little Ice Age, in quite a cold country:The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he already knows, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.So, our new technical paper in GeoResJ (vol. 14, pages 36-46) will likely be ignored. Because after applying the latest big data technique to six 2,000 year-long proxy-temperature series we cannot confirm that recent warming is anything but natural – what might have occurred anyway, even if there was no industrial revolution.Over the last few years, I’ve worked with Dr John Abbot using artificial neural networks (ANN) to forecast monthly rainfall. We now have a bunch of papers in international climate science journals showing these forecasts to be more skilful than output from general circulation models.During the past year, we’ve extended this work to estimating what global temperatures would have been during the twentieth century in the absence of human-emission of carbon dioxide.We began by deconstructing the six-proxy series from different geographic regions – series already published in the mainstream climate science literature. One of these, the Northern Hemisphere composite series begins in 50 AD, ends in the year 2000, and is derived from studies of pollen, lake sediments, stalagmites and boreholes.Typical of most such temperature series, it zigzags up and down while showing two rising trends: the first peaks about 1200 AD and corresponds with a period known as the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), while the second peaks in 1980 and then shows decline. In between, is the Little Ice Age (LIA), which according to the Northern Hemisphere composite bottomed-out in 1650 AD. (Of course, the MWP corresponded with a period of generally good harvests in England – when men dressed in tunics and built grand cathedrals with tall spires. It preceded the LIA when there was famine and the Great Plague of London.)Ignoring for the moment the MWP and LIA, you might want to simply dismiss this temperature series on the basis it peaks in 1980: it doesn’t continue to rise to the very end of the record: to the year 2000?In fact, this decline is typical of most such proxy reconstructions – derived from pollen, stalagmites, boreholes, coral cores and especially tree rings. Within mainstream climate science the decline after 1980 is referred to as “the divergence problem”, and then hidden.In denial of this problem, leading climate scientists have been known to even graft temperature measurements from thermometers onto the proxy record after 1980 to literally ‘hide the decline’. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, University of East Anglia, aptly described the technique as a ‘trick’.Grafting thermometer data onto the end of the proxy record generally ‘fixes’ the problem after 1980, while remodelling effectively flattens the Medieval Warm Period.There are, however, multiple lines of evidence indicating it was about a degree warmer across Europe during the MWP – corresponding with the 1200 AD rise in our Northern Hemisphere composite. In fact, there are oodles of published technical papers based on proxy records that provide a relatively warm temperature profile for this period. This was before the Little Ice Age when it was too cold to inhabit Greenland.The modern inhabitation of Upernavik, in north west Greenland, only began in 1826, which corresponds with the beginning of the industrial age. So, the end of the Little Ice Age corresponds with the beginning of industrialisation. But did industrialisation cause the global warming? Tolstoy’s ‘intelligent man’ would immediately reply: But yes!In our new paper in GeoResJ, we make the assumption that an artificial neural network – remember our big data/machine learning technique – trained on proxy temperatures up until 1830, would be able to forecast the combined effect of natural climate cycles through the twentieth century.Using the proxy record from the Northern Hemisphere composite, decomposing this through signal analysis and then using the resulting component sine waves as input into an ANN, John Abbot and I generated forecasts for the period from 1830 to 2000.Our results show up to 1°C of warming. The average divergence between the proxy temperature record and our ANN projection is just 0.09 degree Celsius. This suggests that even if there had been no industrial revolution and burning of fossil fuels, there would have still been warming through the twentieth century – to at least 1980, and of almost 1°C.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, relying on General Circulation Models, and giving us the Paris Accord, also estimates warming of approximately 1°C, but claims this is all our fault (human caused).For more information, including charts and a link to the full paper read Jennifer Marohasy’s latest blog post.Illustration: Detail from Peasants before an Inn, Jan Steen, The Mauritshuis Royal Picture Gallery, The Hague.MEDIA IGNORES MICHAEL MANN’S COURT LOSS — IT DOESN’T FIT THE WARMIST AGENDADate: 30/08/19Last week, a Canadian court tossed out a lawsuit in which Michael Mann, the researcher who published the idolized hockey stick temperature chart, had sued another researcher for libel. Did the mainstream media run with this story? Of course not. That would ruin the narrative.Mann became famous for the chart, which showed temperatures running along in a horizontal fashion before spiking at the beginning of the 20th century. It was the “evidence” the global warming alarmists had been waiting for — “science” that showed human activity was overheating Earth. It was included in at least one United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.Not all were convinced, however. There were questions about the data he used to create the stick, which he wouldn’t release. It has been called “100% fraudulent,” an “artifact of poor mathematics,” and a violation of “of scientific standards.”Mann has been accused of engaging in “data manipulation,” and “academic and scientific misconduct.”Some years after the stick was constructed, Canadian statisticians Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick challenged Mann’s work. They argued the “recent paleoclimate reconstruction by Mann et al. does not provide reliable evidence about climate change over the past millennium, because their data are inconsistent and their confidence intervals are wrong.”Climate researcher Tim Ball even went so deep as to say that Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” where Mann conducts research. Ball found out that was the wrong thing to say. Mann sued him in Canada.Ball, however, beat Mann in court. The case was dismissed Friday. Almost immediately, Ball wrote to Anthony Watts of the wattsupwiththat website, telling him “Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the (British Columbia) Supreme Court and they awarded me (court) costs.” According to John Hinderaker, an attorney and PowerLine blog contributor, the case was thrown out “with prejudice.”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,” Hinderaker wrote. “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.”John O’Sullivan at Principia Scientific International believes the “extraordinary outcome will likely trigger severe legal repercussions for Dr. Mann in the U.S. and may prove fatal to alarmist climate science claims that modern temperatures are ‘unprecedented.’”Big news, right? Not in the U.S. The media that acts as the climate hysterics’ public relations arm has ignored the case.So it’s just a Canadian story, then? Not hardly. The U.S. media played the hockey stick as an American/Western/global story. What happens to its author in a courtroom should be U.S. news.It’s plausible that the media have deserted Mann. Several mainstream outlets sided with the Competitive Enterprise Institute and National Review, which the litigious Mann had sued for defamation. They were concerned that allowing the lawsuit to go forward would be a threat to First Amendment freedoms.But the lack of coverage would be the same if any climate alarmist had suffered a legal loss.Media Ignores Michael Mann’s Court Loss — It Doesn’t Fit The Warmist Agenda - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)The famous “Hockey Stick” graph used illegitimate statistical methods and inaccurate data.RESEARCH Conclusions· ·Southern Alps cirque glacier palaeoequilibrium lines have provided the Little Ice Age LIA temperature reconstructions for 22 alpine sites across the South Island of New Zealand. Collectively, these reconstructions suggest a median austral summer temperature depression of *0.56 °C (±0.29 °C) for the LIA. Full research below.·Franz Josef Glacier, 2005. Photo: Andrew Mackintosh.MICHAEL MANN and the UN IPCC in 2001 revised the accepted climate history by removing the Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age. The reason was to mislead that public by showing with the industrial revolution the earth is suddenly in unprecedented warming when it is not. This is the HOCKEY STICK CHART scandal.The UN later removed the fudged chart. But Mann defends ignoring 100s of past research studies providing evidence world wide of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warming Period, “because these climate extremes are examples of regional, not global, phenomena."https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/behind-the-hockey-stick/There is a data confirming that Mann erred and his refusal to disclose his data must mean his deceptions were deliberate in a world wide mapping project.Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm Period4. Januar 2016 von Kalte SonneProjektbeschreibung auf deutsch HIERProjectCartography of the Medieval Warm Period: Online atlas of a poorly understood warm phaseAbout 1000 years ago, large parts of the world experienced a prominent warm phase which in many cases reached a similar temperature level as today or even exceeded present-day warmth. While this Medieval Warm Period (MWP) has been documented in numerous case studies from around the globe, climate models still fail to reproduce this historical warm phase. The problem is openly conceded in the most recent IPCC report from 2013 (AR5, Working Group 1) where in chapter 5.3.5. the IPCC scientists admit (pdf here):The reconstructed temperature differences between MCA and LIA […] indicate higher medieval temperatures over the NH continents […]. . The reconstructed MCA warming is higher than in the simulations, even for stronger TSI changes and individual simulations […] The enhanced gradients are not reproduced by model simulations … and are not robust when considering the reconstruction uncertainties and the limited proxy records in these tropical ocean regions […]. This precludes an assessment of the role of external forcing and/or internal variability in these reconstructed patterns.The main questions therefore are: How could it have been so warm one thousand years ago when CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were on a low pre-industrial level? Which climate drivers could have triggered the MWP warming, that seem to be underrepresented in the current climate models? How would temperature prognoses change when climate models are used that fully account for the MWP warming?A robust documentation of the MWP forms the basis of this overdue discussion. Unfortunately, there are still voices in the debate that describe the MWP as a local phenomenon, or as a warm phase that globally was much colder than the Modern Warm Period of the 20th and early 21st centuries. There are still press releases written on papers that seem to disprove the MWP concept, even though these studies are outliers or may fit very well into the MWP scheme when considering the full context.The current MWP mapping project aims to fully evaluate and provide reference access to the existing literature on the global climate history of the past 1500 years. The seed point is provided by the MWP summaries provided by the Medieval Warm Period Project by CO2 Science. Meanwhile, a large amount of additional, new literature has been identified. The data is visualized on a zoomable Google Maps platform which provides userfriendly access. A click on the respective datapoint opens an information panel which summarizes the results of the study using a common, simplifying scheme. Links to the journal abstract and key figure allow quick access to the data. If you like, try it out youself and open the MWP Online Map.The MWP Mapping Project will help to shed new light on a number of controversial issues: In which regions of the world has MWP warming been documented, in which areas is the MWP warmth missing? Are there regional trends with regards to the onset and termination of the warm phase? What shifts in rainfall did occur? The map is freely accessible on the internet in order to allow maximum distribution among all participants of the climate change debate. The MWP synthesis aims to serve as a neutral facts platform for discussions on the MWP and to provide important paleoclimatological context for modern climate change developments.Current Status (1 November 2018)The project has started in late 2015 and since then has made good progress. Initially, the focus was on regions with limited existing data to cover as much area as possible. A synthesis paper on the MWP temperatures in Africa has been published in 2017 in Paleoceanography. A paper on the MWP African hydroclimate came out in Palaeo3 in February 2018. The South America MWP temperature synthesis was published in Octover 2018 in Quaternary International.During the project startup phase MWP blogposts on Australia/Oceania, Antarctica and a review of the Young et al. 2015 paper on Baffin Island have been published on WUWT. It quickly became clear that in hot regions of the world, the palaeoclimatological reconstructions focus more on precipitation changes (arid vs. humid), rather than on temperature changes. When you click on the MWP online map you see five colours:red: MWP warmingblue: MWP cooling (very rare)yellow: MWP more aridgreen: MWP more humidgrey: no trend or data ambiguousMost of western North America and Africa were experiencing drought conditions during the MWP (except some areas in Southwest Africa). In contrast, Australia and the Carribean was more humid. Globally, the majority of all paleoclimatic temperature studies compiled in the map so far show a prominent warming during the MWP. This includes Antarctica and the Arctic.Project: Mapping the Medieval Warm PeriodMANN IS VERY WRONG AS ANALYZING > 900 RECENT STUDIES SHOWIn this article I pose the following questions:Was the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) a global event?Where the MWP temperatures higher than recent times?The reasons for asking these questions are that climate establishment have tried to sideline the MWP as a purely local North Atlantic event. They also frequently state that current temperatures are the highest ever.I attempt to answer these questions below.Mapping Project for the Medieval Warm PeriodI use the mapping project for the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) developed by Dr Sebastian Luening and Fritz Vahrenholt to establish the global extent of the MWP. This project is a considerable undertaking and I commend the authors for their work.Luening states on Research Gate that,“The project aims to identify, capture and interpret all published studies about the Medieval Climate Anomaly (Medieval Warm Period) on a worldwide scale. The data is visualized through a freely accessible online map: http://t1p.de/mwp.”(Note – The Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps URL given may or may not be reachable by some viewers as it’s one of those mangled “URL shorteners” that may or may not work. It does not work for me. The author claims the URL is valid, and offered no alternate, I independently found this link to a Google maps document which might work better for some readers – Anthony)Anthony)fig-1-screenshot-of-mwp-project key-to-figure-1Figure 1: Screenshot of MWP Mapping Project (Source: Luening Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps downloaded 27-Dec-2016)A cursory inspection of Figure 1 indicates that there are a large number of warm study locations dispersed throughout the world. However, to determine the global numbers for the Warm-Cold-Neutral-Dry-Wet studies, I downloaded the mapped data for the 934 studies that were available on 30 December 2016 and these are summarised in Figure 2.Figure 2: Results from MWP Mapping Project (Source: Luening http://t1p.de/mwp downloaded 30-Dec-2016)The following observations are evident from Figure 2;a. The number of Warm studies (497) greatly exceed the other studies, namely, 53% of the studies when temperature and hydroclimate date is used and 88% when temperature only data is used.b. The number of Cold studies (18) is very small, at 2-3% of the overall studies.c. The number of Neutral studies (53) is comparatively low, at 6-9% of the overall studies.d. The number of studies that report only Hydroclimatic data is not insignificant. The number of Dry studies (184) and the number of Wet studies (182) are 20% and 19% of the overall studies respectively.In summary, the overwhelming evidence from the Luening MWP Mapping Project to date is that the MWP was globally warm but it is not immediately obvious what the definition of warm is?Descriptions of warm or cold are given the individual studies. For example, Kuhnert & Mulitza (2011: GeoB 9501) (extracted from Luening) states that the,“Medieval Warm Period 800-1200 AD was about 1.1°C warmer (50 years mean) than subsequent Little Ice Age.”Now, whilst this description is useful, it does not allow us to compare MWP temperatures with modern warming. Therefore, I compare modern temperatures with the MWP below.fig-2a-temperature-hydroclimate-data-1fig-2b-temperature-data-onlyFigure 2: Results from MWP Mapping Project (Source: Luening Medieval Warm Period - Google My Maps downloaded 30-Dec-2016)The following observations are evident from Figure 2;a. The number of Warm studies (497) greatly exceed the other studies, namely, 53% of the studies when temperature and hydroclimate date is used and 88% when temperature only data is used.b. The number of Cold studies (18) is very small, at 2-3% of the overall studies.c. The number of Neutral studies (53) is comparatively low, at 6-9% of the overall studies.d. The number of studies that report only Hydroclimatic data is not insignificant. The number of Dry studies (184) and the number of Wet studies (182) are 20% and 19% of the overall studies respectively.In summary, the overwhelming evidence from the Luening MWP Mapping Project to date is that the MWP was globally warm but it is not immediately obvious what the definition of warm is?Descriptions of warm or cold are given the individual studies. For example, Kuhnert & Mulitza (2011: GeoB 9501) (extracted from Luening) states that the,“Medieval Warm Period 800-1200 AD was about 1.1°C warmer (50 years mean) than subsequent Little Ice Age.”Documenting the Global Extent of the Medieval Warm PeriodThe Little Ice Age and 20th-century deep Pacific coolingG. Gebbie1,*,P. Huybers2See all authors and affiliationsScience04 Jan 2019:Vol. 363, Issue 6422, pp. 70-74DOI: 10.1126/science.aar8413https://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6422/70PDFDeep Pacific coolingEarth's climate cooled considerably across the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age about 700 years ago. Theoretically, owing to how the ocean circulates, this cooling should be recorded in Pacific deep-ocean temperatures, where water that was on the surface then is found today. Gebbie and Huybers used an ocean circulation model and observations from both the end of the 19th century and the end of the 20th century to detect and quantify this trend. The ongoing deep Pacific is cooling, which revises Earth's overall heat budget since 1750 downward by 35%.Science, this issue p. 70AbstractProxy records show that before the onset of modern anthropogenic warming, globally coherent cooling occurred from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age. The long memory of the ocean suggests that these historical surface anomalies are associated with ongoing deep-ocean temperature adjustments. Combining an ocean model with modern and palaeoceanographic data leads to a prediction that the deep Pacific is still adjusting to the cooling going into the Little Ice Age, whereas temperature trends in the surface ocean and deep Atlantic reflect modern warming. This prediction is corroborated by temperature changes identified between the HMS Challenger expedition of the 1870s and modern hydrography. The implied heat loss in the deep ocean since 1750 CE offsets one-fourth of the global heat gain in the upper ocean.Deep Pacific coolingEarth's climate cooled considerably across the transition from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age about 700 years ago. Theoretically, owing to how the ocean circulates, this cooling should be recorded in Pacific deep-ocean temperatures, where water that was on the surface then is found today. Gebbie and Huybers used an ocean circulation model and observations from both the end of the 19th century and the end of the 20th century to detect and quantify this trend. The ongoing deep Pacific is cooling, which revises Earth's overall heat budget since 1750 downward by 35%.Science, this issue p. 70AbstractProxy records show that before the onset of modern anthropogenic warming, globally coherent cooling occurred from the Medieval Warm Period to the Little Ice Age. The long memory of the ocean suggests that these historical surface anomalies are associated with ongoing deep-ocean temperature adjustments. Combining an ocean model with modern and palaeoceanographic data leads to a prediction that the deep Pacific is still adjusting to the cooling going into the Little Ice Age, whereas temperature trends in the surface ocean and deep Atlantic reflect modern warming. This prediction is corroborated by temperature changes identified between the HMS Challenger expedition of the 1870s and modern hydrography. The implied heat loss in the deep ocean since 1750 CE offsets one-fourth of the global heat gain in the upper ocean.This research further exposes the scandal of the Michael Mann Al Gore HOCKEY STICK FUDGE where the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age were given an Orwellian erase.Wrong. New and past climate research from across the Southern Hemisphere demolishes Mann’s HOCKEY STICK data trick.Here are a selected number of peer reviewed science ABSTRACTS with their full texts below covering the Southern Hemisphere.· ABSTRACT: The Little Ice Age climate of New Zealand reconstructed from Southern Alps cirque glaciers: a synoptic type approach, 2014.· ABSTRACT: Tropical rainfall over the last two millennia: evidence for a low-latitude hydrologic seesaw, 2017.· ABSTRACT: Cold conditions in Antarctica during the Little Ice Age — Implications for abrupt climate change mechanisms 2017· ABSTRACT: Little Ice Age Climate near Beijing, China, Inferred from Historical and Stalagmite Records· ABSTRACT: Evidence for Little Ice Age in Antarctica, 2017.· ABSTRACT: How climate change impacted the collapse of the Ming dynasty Nov. 2014· ABSTRACT: Extreme cold winter events in southern China during AD 1650–2000, 2012.· ABSTRACT:Climate extremes revealed by Chinese historical documents over the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River in winter 1620Michael Mann is uniformly repudiated by the science community as “a disgrace to the profession” because of his fudged data shart.Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generationOur hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker.CO2 emissions will be on top of the agenda at the Copenhagen summit in December Photo: GettyBy Christopher Booker6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.Related ArticlesEuro 2012 11 Jun 2012'Climategate' university performs data U-turn 28 Nov 2009Climategate won't make global warming go away 29 Nov 2009Copenhagen climate summit: Doors open on summit 07 Dec 2009Climate emails sweep America 29 Nov 2009BBC weatherman was sent climate change emails 30 Nov 2009Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?