The above graphs explain, in a nutshell, the battle that I, along with many others, have faced since 1999, nearly two decades. The Medieval Warm Period, so obvious in the lower graph, was simply “erased” by the upper graph, created by Michael Mann.

I cannot describe the scorn and belittling I have faced, even from people near and dear to me, for questioning Mann’s graph, and the IPCC which made the “hockey stick graph” so notorious (by using it for the cover of its 2001 report). I didn’t even need to say Mann’s graph was incorrect. I only needed ask to see the data.

At first I felt very alone. The politically correct had a vast support-group, wherein people busily patted each other’s back and stroked each others precious egos, as my poor ego got punctured. But I simply couldn’t shut up. Not that I was always as brave as I could have been; there were times I was far too polite to people who were not the slightest bit polite in return.

Fortunately on certain occasions, (sometimes involving a few beers), my sense of humor would kick in. My best weapon seemed to be hilarity, and reducing others arguments to absurdity. Not that this convinced many, but it did get me in touch with a few others, who appreciated my way of questioning, and who told me, privately, that they too had questions. After 2005 I started to feel less alone. On the web a counter-support-group began to appear. (One of the biggest jokes was that Alarmists accused us of being “funded by Big Oil”).

We didn’t need funding, for our fuel was curiosity, and a thirst for Truth. And we didn’t merely question Alarmists, but each other. Consequently we came up with more answers than Alarmists, who simply accepted Mann’s graph and insisted it was wrong to question.

The Alarmists always seemed to appeal to authority, insisting that we mere mortals could not understand the “science”, and that if we didn’t swallow what we were told we were “deniers.” That was a rich vein that supplied me with hundreds of jokes, because it is so wrong, so against both principles of science and Free Speech.

Gradually I became aware that there were scientists who questioned the hockey stick graph as well. When their questions went unanswered they became increasingly outspoken. Then they were belittled as being “too old” and “backwards.” The late Bill Gray and Dr. Tim Ball refused to be quiet, despite subtle and not-so-subtle threats that they would see funding cut, and be “marginalized.”

These secret tactics on the part of certain Climate Scientists became obvious in 2009 when their emails were made public during “Climategate.” It was at this time Michael Mann was revealed as a particularly nasty person, and a bully. In the nearly eight years since he has made no effort to appear any nicer.

In those eight years there are certain questions that Mann has never answered, for, when asked to produce the data behind the hockey stick, he has refused. In court in the USA he managed to get this data called “personal papers”. Rather than open and honest, he appeared to be conducting a cover-up, and never seemed to lack the money needed to perpetuate his cover-up.

Those who demanded answers received threats. Eventually Dr. Tim Ball, weighing the evidence, stated Michael Mann belonged not at Penn State but in the State Pen. Mann countered with a lawsuit, and Tim Ball basically said, “Bring It On.” Though well past retirement age, Dr. Ball has proven to be a remarkable fighter.

The Canadian courts have proven to be different than the courts south of the border, and they demanded to see the data. Mann apparently couldn’t risk it, and by refusing to produce evidence has not only lost the case, but appears to be a scofflaw and faces paying court fees, and more.

It sure took a long time, but the sense of vindication is very sweet.

Read about the mess Mann is in here: (Not that the mysterious money-bags funding Mann won’t manage to bail Mann out, in some legalistic manner, but he will be even more stained than he already is, if such a rescue occurs.)

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/

AFTERTHOUGHT:

I whipped off the above post in the morning twilight before rushing off to work, and have had all day to mull things over, when I’ve had time to think. The one thing that keeps occurring to me is what an almighty waste of time it is, having to deal with what increasingly looks like “bad science”.

As a small-time farmer, I do not approve of beating plowshares into swords, because if we make swords we have less food to munch and more wounds to stitch. As a small-time scientist I do not approve of the same thing in science, because every hour of time spent battling “bad science” is an hour which might otherwise have been spent doing “good science.”

If Michael Mann had any dignity or decency he would simply (and proudly) make his data public, certain he would be vindicated as a man who honestly cares about Truth. The fact he has the audacity to claim that some sort of Right To Privacy makes his data “personal” and “protected” seems to suggest he does not believe it could withstand public scrutiny. The fact he is so amazingly funded, and has such a prestigious job and paycheck, seems to suggest there are others, behind the scenes, who also do not believe his data could withstand public scrutiny. In other words, they do not believe his efforts would be vindicated. And what does that also suggest? The opposite of vindication is to be condemned.

At this point I ask, “What’s so bad about being condemned?” If you stand by the Truth, condemnation is water off a duck’s back, for if you stand by the Truth you can be a mental midget, but you are standing by a towering Pal. If you stand by the Truth than Truth will stand by you.

The people who dared question Mann’s graph have faced being condemned for nearly two decades. Rather than simply answering the questions and producing the data, Alarmists have preferred to be nasty, and call Skeptics all sorts of insulting things. Mann seemed to be gifted, when it came to insulting others. You might even call such treatment “Mann-handling”.

Such rough treatment may not be fun, but again I ask, “What’s so bad about being condemned?” If you are standing by Truth, the manhandling is like that of a child with puny fists. It is laughable.

However for the bully, the mere fact you laugh at his threats is intolerable. On one hand he poses, shedding crocodile tears about how tender and sensitive he is, and on the other hand his crocodile smile attempts to sue your socks off.

It takes guts to stand up to a crocodile, and I admire Dr. Tim Ball greatly for having the guts. He has put his data forward for public scrutiny where Mann hid his, and moved forward from that honest gesture of everyday science to demonstrate, step by step, Mann’s unwillingness to be truthful and adhere to everyday science, until Mann’s skulking could not be mistaken, by any honest person, as the behavior of someone who wants to share the beauty of Truth with others. And, if Mann is not that sort of honorable person, (who wants to lovingly share), what does that make Mann?

It makes Mann a man who has something to hide.

It makes the people supporting Mann co-conspirators.

It is pity our world is infested with creatures that suck blood like leeches or ticks or mosquitoes. However they do exist. Even if we’d like to focus on higher things, there are times we need to deal with the low life.

Even if a farmer doesn’t beat his plowshares into swords, there comes a time to buy some sort of environmentally-friendly pesticide.