Environment and Climate News Podcast | Climate Trial of the Century: Mann vs Steyn – Climate Change Roundtable #94

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 “hockey stick” graph that has been the lynchpin of climate alarmism for decades. Steyn compared the cover-up of Mann’s shoddy science at his then-employer Penn State University to the way the school covered up the horrible sexual abuse crimes conducted by disgraced football coach Jerry Sandusky and then whitewashed an internal investigation.

Steyn, who gave one of the greatest keynotes ever at a Heartland climate conference about this case a while back (see below for a link), has been itching for this trial to finally happen since Obama was just starting his second term. It was Mann who employed one delaying tactic after another in an attempt to scare Steyn off.

Steyn never backs down from a fight, and is putting Mann’s hockey stick itself on trial. And, in a twist that will be either brilliant or disastrous, Steyn is acting as his own attorney in this civil suit.

In episode 94 of Climate Change Roundtable, host Anthony Watts and panelists H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and (maybe) Jim Lakely will get you caught up on the Climate Trial of the Century. After opening statements on Thursday, the jury trial in the DC Superior Court is expected to last well into next week. Join us at noon CT (1 p.m. ET) for the kind of coverage of this trial you won’t find anywhere else.

Creators & Guests

Host

Anthony Watts

Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environmental policy at The Heartland Institute. He is also the founder and publisher of WattsUpWithThat.com, one of the most-read site on climate science and policy in the world.

Host

H. Sterling Burnett

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D., hosts The Heartland Institute’s Environment and Climate News podcast. Burnett also is the director of Heartland’s Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy, is the editor of Heartland's Climate Change Weekly email, and oversees the production of the monthly newspaper Environment & Climate News. Prior to joining The Heartland Institute in 2014, Burnett worked at the National Center for Policy Analysis for 18 years, ending his tenure there as senior fellow in charge of environmental policy. He has held various positions in professional and public policy organizations within the field. Burnett is a member of the Environment and Natural Resources Task Force in the Texas Comptroller’s e-Texas commission, served as chairman of the board for the Dallas Woods and Water Conservation Club, is a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, works as an academic advisor for Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow, is an advisory board member to the Cornwall Alliance, and is an advisor for the Energy, Natural Resources and Agricultural Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council.

Host

Linnea Lueken

Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy at The Heartland Institute. Before joining Heartland, Linnea was a petroleum engineer on an offshore drilling rig.

What is Environment and Climate News Podcast ?

The Heartland Institute podcast featuring scientists, authors, and policy experts who take the non-alarmist, climate-realist position on environment and energy policy.

And that's what climate change is about.

It is literally not figuratively a clear and present danger.

We are in the beginning of a mass extinction.

The ability of CO2 to do the heavy work of creating a climate catastrophe is almost nil at this point.

The price of oil has been artificially elevated to the point of insanity.

That's not how you power a modern industrial system.

The ultimate goal of this renewable energy plan is to reach the exact same point that we're at now.

You know who's tried that?

Germany.

Seven straight days of no wind for Germany.

Their factories are shutting down.

They really do act like weather didn't happen prior to, like, 1910.

Today is Friday.

Yes, indeed, it is Friday, Greta, and this is our own personal Friday Protest Climate Change Roundtable episode number 94, Climate Trial of the Century, Man vs. Stein.

It's going to be a big one.

I'm your host, Anthony Watts, Senior Fellow for Environment and Climate at the Heartland Institute and part of Climate Enemy number one team here today.

We have with us our regular panelist, Dr. H. Sterling Burnett, Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center at the Heartland Institute, Linnea Lucan, our Research Fellow at the Robinson Center, and also joining us, Vice President of Communications at the Heartland Institute, Jim Lakely, who's going to provide us with some color commentary from the Mann v. Stein trial,

that is ongoing.

It could be going as long as three weeks.

We should mention, none of us have yet to be sued by Michael Mann so far.

Yeah, we're working on it.

We'll give our best out today, for sure.

I've seen the show run down.

We're in big trouble.

Yeah, we're working on it.

At any event, before we get to the Mann versus Stein trial, we're going to have our usual affair of climate crazy news of the week.

So let's start off with our first one, which giant freaking space mirrors.

Yes.

solar energy on the ground isn't good enough so what what do they want to do now they want to put giant freaking space mirrors out there to reflect sunlight down to the ground here's a story from joe nova that talks about this i mean what could go wrong with this right i mean we've already seen birds get vaporized with that uh power plant uh down in uh in the desert near las vegas i mean what could happen with giant freaking space mirrors pushing beams down to the planet's surface

Planes, planes erupting into flames spontaneously.

Of course, I'll tell you what, I see a story like this and I think any kid who's ever owned a magnifying glass could tell you what could go wrong with this, even though when you're a kid, you don't think it's wrong.

It's just pretty cool.

Yeah, but the sickos who kill ants with their magnifying glass are the kind of people that are now in charge of climate policy around the world.

They're all nuts.

No, I expect that the sickos, A, they weren't sickos.

They were experimenting when they were kids.

And now they've grown up to be responsible adults.

These people have never grown up to be responsible adults.

They think what they were doing then was great.

And let's do it again.

I'm not going to indict every child who's ever fried a doodle bug with a magnifying glass as being a sicko.

Well, I think, I think, um, I'm not, I guess that you could make some serious problems if the reflectors are also concentrating, uh, which I think is kind of the point, but, um, we already use solar in space.

Solar is pretty good, uh, for some electricity in space.

We've got it all over the international space station.

Um,

The problem with this that comes to mind, and I have not read this article yet, so maybe they cover it, but how do you...

How do you get the power back to Earth?

Are we doing space elevators again?

It's just reflected light off these mirrors as if the sun isn't already shining down on the Earth.

Oh, so they're not saying they're putting panels in space.

No, it's not solar panels.

Oh, it is concentrators.

It's mirrors that they then concentrate things on the ground.

Yeah, I don't like that idea.

Yeah, exactly.

I don't like that at all.

Never mind.

That's a terrible idea.

I thought they were putting panels in space for the mirrors in space to beam down to the panels on the Earth's surface.

And so, you know, there's a few things that could go wrong.

Clouds, weather, stuff like that.

Asteroids.

Yeah, little asteroids shattering your mirror.

You're talking about seven years of bad luck.

What happens if there's an error somewhere up there and then it just happens to just turn by accident and gets right onto an airplane flying by?

I mean, I'm sure that'll be safe.

That's that.

Or better yet, Washington, D.C.

Imagine this.

It's not an accident.

China hacks the software and directs the beam at, you know, something that we think is important.

We've already got people spreading rumors about directed energy weapons and stuff.

This would put so much fuel on that.

It would be unbelievable the amount of fun theories.

You know what they need to do is they need to spray more chemtrails to block these things.

That's what they need to do.

That's what they're going to do.

All right.

All right.

Enough of that.

Enough of that.

Let's get on to the next one.

Now, you know, Tesla has made lots of cars.

But in this week's big cold snap that hit Chicago, cars are stuck in charging graveyards.

They go up to the charger and they can't charge and they're stuck and they're dead and stinking, stuck at the charger.

They have to get towed away because the batteries are so cold they will not accept the charge.

I mean, we've seen EVs week after week after week here fail.

And it's all because of the battery technology.

The battery technology is just not mature enough to handle the kind of expectations that the average American driver or anywhere they expect.

Well, I mean, there's that time that I drove...

to and from new orleans on vacation earlier this week and uh when i went to the pump to pump the gas it wouldn't pump because it oh wait that didn't happen i could get gas when i needed it in minutes and i traveled the whole way uh it wasn't stuck in a frozen car by the side of the road hoping not to freeze the self myself yeah yeah dad robots

Next thing you know, we'll have battery-powered school buses stuck in Maine with kids shivering.

Because that's what the school planners want, is battery-powered buses.

Let's get rural kids on buses that are going to fail in the middle of nowhere.

Well, I mean, it was so cold in Chicago this week, we almost had another Jussie Smollett hoax.

I mean, that's how cold it's been in Chicago.

Wow.

Yeah, well, that joke didn't go over well yesterday either.

So, okay, great.

Well, I bet people really like coal and pipelines this week in the Midwest, right?

Yeah.

So, okay, while we're on the subject of electric cars, get this.

Someone decided we're going to drive an electric car from the Arctic North Pole to the Southern Hemisphere North Pole.

And I don't know how they got across the ocean, but...

Apparently they did.

But see, here's the interesting thing.

It's a big celebration.

We drove this car from pole to pole.

It's electric.

But if you read into the story, you discover, hey, they had a gasoline generator to keep the thing charged that they took with them.

They either towed a generator or they had a gasoline-powered truck with a generator in tow.

So that every time they were going low, they cranked up the gasoline generator and charged their battery.

Well, that saved the planet.

Yeah, well, it's because you can't find a charger in the middle of the Antarctic Peninsula.

That's why.

Or the Amazon or the Pampas, you know, or almost anywhere.

I was about to say, or like, I don't know, central Oklahoma.

But in truth, but in truth.

You can't find a gasoline station in the Amazon, but you can fill up before you go in it, go all the way through it and get to the next gasoline station.

That's not what you can do with an electric vehicle.

No, no.

You can't make this stuff up.

Yeah, you can't.

If you're just towing a generator with you, it's just your car is just gas powered, but less efficient.

That's what's happening there.

It's like having buses in Oslo that are electric, and then to keep them heated, you put a diesel generator on board.

I don't know how you vent the gas, but that's what they did until they decided we had to pull them off the service routes.

I just read today that Ford is going to greatly reduce its production of the Ford F-150 Lightning because nobody wants them because they can't operate as designed.

You can't have a pickup truck.

Electric technology and what a pickup truck is bought to do do not mesh.

They do not work together.

The F-150, by the way, the best-selling vehicle...

In the nation, I believe for 20 years running, not car, best-selling vehicle.

And they can't sell electric Ford F-150s.

I will say, if I was like a billionaire and I had, you know, kind of spend crazy money, kind of money, and I was collecting cars, I think I would want that Cybertruck just because of what an abomination it is in appearance.

It is literally like Halo 2, like low-poly.

You're talking about the Tesla truck?

Yeah, yeah, like low-poly pickup truck.

I wouldn't have the Tesla.

If I had one of those, I'd put a bumper sticker on it that says, my other truck is gasoline powered.

Yeah.

Or just, my other truck runs.

No, I wouldn't drive it.

I mean, that would be silly.

It would be a trailer queen, and I would just bring it to all the sci-fi conferences.

There you go.

Well, you know, there's an old joke.

It's not accurate, but there's an old joke.

Ford stands for found on road dead.

Well, when it comes to their Ford F-150s, it's pretty accurate.

Yeah.

Well, look at the quote I highlighted there when I brought the story.

It says, Julie Ramsey says, this just proves that EVs can go the distance.

It proves the opposite.

It proves they cannot go the distance.

Exactly.

But see, people don't read the fine print.

They're just looking at the headline and the pictures.

Look, we did it.

Yay.

Yeah, it's all propaganda.

What a load.

Okay, so the U.S.

has been in a deep freeze.

And, you know, the only thing that's saving people from dying in the Midwest and the upper Midwest is fossil fuels, right?

But our friend Seth Borenstein at the Associated Press, the propagandist deluxe, has this article that says, U.S.

in deep freeze while much of the world is extra toasty.

Yet again, it's climate change.

No, it's not, Seth.

He wants it both ways.

He wants it both ways.

I mean, basically, you know, we've seen stories where, you know, winters are going to be warmer.

And then they say, oh, winters are colder because of the polar vortex.

Well, a study just came out a few months ago that showed that there was no trend in polar vortex outbreaks whatsoever.

And the IPCC agrees with it.

The whole thing is propaganda.

But look at these two comparison images that we have of older stories talking about how they won it both ways.

The whole thing is just nuts.

They don't even keep track of what's been going on with the own reporting going on out there.

One story says the end of winter and other horrifying new global warming projection because it's going to get warm.

And then on the independent, we have global warming will make our winters colder.

Make up your freaking minds, people.

Oh, follow the science.

Follow the science.

That's what it is.

Yeah, which science there?

The problem is, the first story you brought up, where they say it's cold here, but it's warm elsewhere.

Well, yeah, elsewhere, unless you're in Russia, where they're setting record cold, or Japan, where they can't get to earthquake survivors because of snow and cold, or England, where recent rains froze over at Hampton Court.

And first time in a couple of decades.

So, yeah, it's really warm everywhere else, except for all those other places around the globe where it's not warm at all.

Yeah, it's kind of like the Northern Hemisphere is in winter and the Southern Hemisphere is in summer.

What a concept.

It is funny.

They use Melbourne as an example of where it's hot right now.

It's like, well, yeah, it's hot right now.

You mean the summer?

Yeah.

Oh, my goodness.

All right.

So you remember last year we actually did an entire show on this about the Canadian wildfires and the climate change was causing more wildfires and wildfires were getting worse and more intense and all this other stuff because of climate change.

Well, guess what?

Those Canadian wildfires were caused by arson.

And this guy pleads guilty to starting 14 fires.

Yeah, that's climate change.

And guess what?

The guy is a climate change activist.

Not these.

Well, these two guys are, but they're not the ones that pled guilty.

But here he is.

Here he is.

Climate change activists.

I think they.

It's not clear to me.

I know this one story says he's an activist.

I heard, I heard he's a climate conspiracy theorist that he, he wanted to, he wanted to say the government was blaming, was, was causing it to gin up fears of, uh, global warming, but he's pled guilty to 14.

They suspect him of 19.

Um, and you know, arson is commonly the cause of many wildfires, uh, not just in Canada, but, uh, in the West, uh, where, by the way, we had, uh,

Really, really low wildfire season this year.

Well, it's a good thing he got caught because firebugs, I mean, they tend to be kind of precursors to worse crimes.

So glad we nabbed him.

Well, one of the fires he set destroyed some homes and neighborhoods.

Yeah.

I'm going to mute myself.

My dog hit somebody she suspects.

All right.

So the final thing is we've got some cartoons for you this week.

So after the last climate conference, we had this cartoon about John Kerry because he tried to negotiate with China and failed.

And so it's tough to negotiate with China on climate.

They're such hypocrites while he's flying in his private jet.

Oh, yeah.

He's calling his wife.

So I'm heading home.

Just don't know to which one of our five homes yet.

But, you know, we're supposed to reduce us little people, you know, right?

What are they talking about in Davos?

They want to get rid of rice production or reduce rice production?

It's the staple food for most of the Asian and many other countries.

They want to get rid of rice production because, well, that's methane.

We've got to do something about that.

He's, you know, he's crazy.

Now, of course, he's leaving his post.

as climate czar, he's going to join the Biden campaign to help him get reelected.

If he's successful.

Yeah, that's going to work.

Yeah.

If he's as successful with Biden's campaign as Kamala has been on the border and as he was in negotiating with China over climate, Biden's doomed.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Anyway, so here's the deal.

They've got a lovely parting gift for John Kerry as he steps down as climate czar.

And I think this is wholly appropriate, don't you?

This next cartoon.

Yep.

For years spent saving the climate, we want to honor you with this electric car, courtesy of the Hertz closeout we talked about last week.

Appropriate.

Appropriate.

Right?

Right?

He does not look amused.

Yeah, and finally, welcome to the Frozone.

Taylor Swift was about to lecture us on global warming, but then she froze up.

The Chiefs versus the Dolphins game, minus four degrees Fahrenheit.

Yeah, there's your global warming right there.

Yeah, they had 60, what, 60 emergency, 69 people were treated at the game by emergency personnel.

for cold-related illnesses or harm.

I think 30 of them or 15 of them went to the hospital with severe hypothermia.

Several went to the hospital with frostbite.

I bet they were wishing for a little global warming.

I'm sure they were.

And, you know, interestingly enough, in Melbourne this week, there was televised tennis tournaments, and the people were sweating in the stands, but no one keeled over.

All right.

So let's get onto our main discussion topic, Mann versus Stein, the climate trial of the century.

Well, I wanna talk about the history a little bit first.

This thing has been going on for 12 years, 12 years, since 2012.

And it all came about based on a couple of articles that were published.

Did he freeze up?

Lost him.

Wasn't you this time, Sterling.

My technology is gold.

Always is gold.

Well, we'll see if Anthony gets back, but I could pick up where he was leaving off because this starts with what's amazing about this case is that it started in 2012.

It's been 12 years.

And Mark Stein is the one who wanted to go to court right away.

He wanted to put the hockey stick on trial.

But back in 2012, if you remember, Penn State was in the news because of the Jerry Sandusky scandal and his molesting for decades children and the whitewashing of that internal investigation by Penn State University.

So Ran Simberg, a writer for National Review, I believe he's also with CEI at the time,

uh wrote a blog post on the corner at national review that's their that's their blog the corner um comparing the whitewash of uh you know jerry sandusky's investigation to the whitewash of the investigation of michael mann for his culpability in the climate gate scandal in which um they so-called hid the decline the whole hide the decline thing the um

The blackballing of scientists who do not peddle the climate alarmism line and all of that stuff that was done, that was discovered in the Climategate email scandal, which in the trial on the opening arguments yesterday, Mark Stein corrected the record from the from.

uh, from Michael Manside saying that those were not stolen.

Those were not, uh, absconded emails.

They were leaked by a whistleblower.

And so they still, they, they keep calling that as some kind of crime, like a leak, you know, that somebody had stolen the emails and released them.

No, it was a leak.

You guys have had what, uh, 10 years more or more to find the culprit.

You haven't done it.

That's because it's obviously it was a leak.

Anyway, I digress while Anthony hopefully comes back.

The, um,

And so, and Mark Stein had written a follow-on blog post, also citing the Jerry Sandusky thing.

And Michael Mann said that both Ransomberg, National Review, and Mark Stein had defamed him, had libeled him, and that by comparing him to a child molester, a convicted child molester in Jerry Sandusky.

Mark Stein said, that's not what I wrote.

You know that's not what I wrote, and I'm not going away.

So they kept it going, and other parties to the suit had dropped out.

Again, Mark Stein wanted to go to trial because he wanted to put the hockey stick

on trial itself.

And that's what's happening.

So this trial, again, it's been going on.

I can bring up the page.

I'll probably do it when Anthony comes back.

With the long list of legal machinations that have happened in the 12 years since this case first started, a lot of it, almost all of it, because Michael Mann kept doing delaying tactics.

His strategy, this is going to get us sued now.

So we might as well just go full Monty on this one.

Because he was trying to, his strategy, obviously,

was to run Mark Stein and Ransomberg and National Review out of money because it costs a lot of money to keep going to court.

I mean, just yesterday's hearing, I believe it was like $600 or $700 that Mark Stein had to pay to walk into the courtroom and be part of that suit.

And so the attempt of this is to silence any dissent, to demonize any climate realists, and to basically run you out of money so that you settle and that Michael Mann can say, see, they settled, I won.

They're right.

I'm right.

They're wrong.

A little more history.

So there were other people that were a part of the suit that were dropped from it earlier, you know, when man filed his suit.

And, you know, one of the famous statements that was said is an old joke in Pennsylvania.

x belongs in the state pen not penn state in relation to other things well they said that in relation to michael mann and so that's uh that's calling him a felon you know according to his logic he's a public figure evidently he's the sole public figure in the world that can't be mocked um

And this is not the only lawsuit that he filed.

He filed a lawsuit, a similar lawsuit, against a climate scientist, this time a scientist, in Canada.

That suit has subsequently come to an end.

Michael Mann lost that suit.

He, in fact, was losing so badly he didn't bother to show up in the end.

And they awarded the cost to the climate scientist who never received a dime because Canada has no reach for him as long as he stays out of Canada.

They can't get him to make him pay.

And so he never paid.

And the gentleman subsequently died after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars fighting Michael Mann and winning the

And Canada doesn't even have the protected speech that we supposedly have here in the U.S.

Remember, they can lock you up as a minister for saying things out of the Bible that they disagree with or for talking about wrong climate speech or for fighting COVID.

In Canada, they can lock you up for just talking about that.

Um, they can't hear, but man already lost in Canada where they can lock you up for stuff like that.

It's, it's, it's, it's amazing.

This has gone to trial.

I'm surprised man just said, no, this is going badly.

Let's, let's get out of this fast.

Well, yeah, we, we discussed that over, uh, over, over our internal heartland chat the other day.

And, uh,

Yeah, I wonder what the betting would be after yesterday's opening statements.

I watched more of this than I think both you guys and Anthony, or at least had it on the background while I was working yesterday.

Anthony is back.

And so the idea is like, will man say no mas and run off and run off before this gets too bad for him?

I think his ego is so big.

He's completely delusional and he's going to be destroyed by this lawsuit.

And it's great.

That's why this case and why we're covering it is so important.

And I'll hand it back to Anthony here in a second.

It's because this is the climate trial of the century.

Because Mark Stein refused to go away.

And the centrality of his case, and he laid that out in his opening statements yesterday, is that the hockey stick is a fraud.

And I'm allowed to say the hockey stick is a fraud.

And you're not, you know, you shouldn't just have carte blanche to sue anybody who criticizes you.

And, you know, it might be a little salty about it.

It might throw a couple insults in there.

You're a big boy.

You can take it.

And then he also laid out how Michael Mann actually, just like everybody on the left,

They do exactly what they accuse their opponents of doing.

He is the one who was always using vitriol and libel and smears, not the other side.

Take it away.

And he's the one that wants to censor.

And he's the one that censors.

Yes.

Yeah.

So I missed about five minutes or where are we at here in the show flow of things?

We didn't bring the stories that you wanted up, but I just laid out the background like you started to do about happening 10 years or in 2012 and moving forward.

Okay, thanks for filling me in.

All right.

So first, I want to show you the courtroom.

Now, we're not allowed to show the video from the courtroom.

There's a rule that prevents us from rebroadcasting it.

But we can show you a still picture of where Stein and Mann are in the whole scheme of things.

Mark Stein on the left, Michael Mann on the right.

Obviously, you can see him clearly because of his chrome dome.

And you can get...

feel of the animosity between these guys just watching this courtroom battle uh the judge it from my perspective seemed to be able to take most of these arguments in but my biggest worry about all this is that they chose a jury the other day and some of the technical stuff that's going to come out is just going to go right over their heads and so i think this boils down to

Who is more likable and who do they trust more?

I think the technical stuff is just going to go out the window as far as the jury is concerned.

What do you guys think?

Well, if it's who's more likable, then man is in trouble because I met the man.

I was at a conference with him.

We published in the same journal.

And he is not a pleasant individual if you disagree with him.

Whereas Stein is very charming, very engaging.

I think

I'm not clear.

It's not clear to me that he didn't make a mistake when he decided to represent himself in a court trial.

That's, I think, always a dangerous thing.

But I'm not sure any lawyer could be as engaging as he is either.

So I think it shows his fearlessness in the face of this.

I can't believe it came to trial.

This should have been thrown out.

Look, every day, every day on the news, they mock our president of the United States, calling him doddering, stumbling, sniffing someone's hair and what that implies.

They mock his son, who has become a public figure, but unlike man, hasn't always been a public figure.

Um, they mock all sorts of people.

They make awful, terrible jokes about these people.

Uh, they once called me a carnival barker for my views on climate.

And yet they can't sue you for libel or, um, or, uh, um,

any of the other term.

And yet Mann thinks he can get away with this as if he's not a public figure, engaged in the public debate, actively on Twitter and everywhere else, challenging on TV.

He can be mocked.

And for the court not to just say, hold it, you're a public figure, you've got to live with this.

Exactly.

He's got a serious case of small man syndrome.

Like he's just a...

embarrassingly cruel person online, especially on Twitter, even to the point where other climate alarmists talk about him rather negatively in terms of his, you know, activities online and stuff.

But man, it's just the... You said small man syndrome.

You know that you're now being added to a lawsuit as we speak.

discriminatory or something yeah i'm sure uh whatever i'll take it defamation i'm not small so so i um yeah he's gonna come he's like actually i am according to the united states department of health i am an average height for well within the but that's not what i mean i mean small like the grinch is small like small heart um he uh

And yet his heart has not grown three sizes too large.

Maybe at the end of this, maybe once Mark Stein stomps him into the dirt in this court case, it will.

But I kind of doubt it.

He is a...

like once he gets his jaws on something, he does not let go, even if it starts hurting him and it starts, you know, working against his purposes.

So hopefully this goes in Mark Stein's favor, but I will say that I am, it does make me nervous when people represent themselves, but I imagine that he does have, you know, legal issues

experts that he's, you know, conferencing with and that are there with him and stuff.

I can't imagine that it's just him by himself in the courtroom.

It looks like from the photographs that we've seen and from the video that he has a little entourage with him consulting.

So yeah, well, I mean, the facts are on his side, so I'm not too worried.

Yeah.

I mean, Rand Simberg, one of the co-defendants, has an attorney there, and he doesn't.

I mean, Mark Stein defended himself against the hate speech court in Canada, where I believe if he was convicted, he may have even gone to jail.

And he won that one.

So, you know, he definitely has confidence.

And if you could have heard him yesterday, you had to watch live.

It was fantastic.

And I think it actually was, Anthony, to your point, I don't think he's going to be going over the heads of these people.

I think actually Michael Mann and his guys are probably going to be more like that.

Mark Stein's argument was that he is a public figure.

I did not write what he says I wrote.

He has a thin skin.

I should win.

And it was very, very well grounded and in a way that an ordinary person could understand, which makes sense because he's been one of the most successful international columnists for decades.

He's always been one of my favorite reads.

And the other argument that Stein makes is that he lied in his court filing.

He very visibly lied in his court filing, you know, because he said he's a Nobel Prize winner.

And even the Nobel Committee says, you ain't a prize winner.

You didn't get the prize.

It was a committee.

Yeah.

So we're going to get to that.

But I'm just saying that wasn't the only argument that Stein made.

It's such a weird thing to claim if it's not true.

Such a weird thing.

Yeah.

Unless you're like a email chain scammer or something and you can get away with something like that because you think people aren't going to check.

But to be a professional in a scientific industry and you're on the news all the time and stuff and you get away with that, it's unbelievable to me.

It's like being a production assistant or a showrunner on a film that wins the Academy Award for Best Director and you claiming you won an Academy Award.

right right all right so let's let's get into um jim put up a comment on our our private channel yesterday um about what this trial is about now we had opening arguments yesterday from rand simberg's attorney as well as mark stein and jim wrote this and i want to read it because it was it's very telling um they are definitely putting the hockey stick on trial

Rand Simberg, the attorney, just put up this graph and noted that the red line is what Mann used.

And Jim, if you can put that graph up there, thank you.

But the blue and green lines are just as likely to be correct looking back in time at proxy temperature data.

So saying that Mann was guilty of data manipulation is, in fact,

a well-founded statement, and not even remotely, defamation.

And this is from the Shane and Weiner article, I believe it was in 2013, maybe a little earlier.

But basically, they went and did some different reconstructions with different proxy sources of temperature and came up with three different possibilities, or two different possibilities compared to man.

And the bottom line is, and we've heard this, that they had to get rid of the medieval warm period.

That's the period from 1000 to 1400.

They worked really hard in their statistical manipulation to get rid of that warm period because you had to have this flatness then in order to make it look alarming in the present.

And so the attorney also came up with, you know, the trial's about comparing Mann to Jerry Sandusky and the whole thing at Penn State, you know, the sexual abuse and so forth.

And so Rand Schoenberg's attorney put up this fantastic little table here where comparing Professor Mann to Mr. Sandusky.

So both work at Penn State.

Both were high profile public people, public persona.

The president, who's now ousted, President Spanier, he had involvement in the whole thing.

They were both put under investigation.

They both didn't have any punishment initially.

And both of the investigations ended up in whitewashes.

And we know this.

And the pattern basically was to protect the university.

But here's the thing.

When you sue someone, you have to claim damages, right?

How much am I damaged by this statement?

And here's the irrefutable proof that Michael Mann was not damaged at all.

His pay actually went up after the articles were published in 2012.

Mann made more money every year after that.

You can see the red dashed line.

That's the baseline.

Every year after that, Michael Mann's salary, which is public, went up.

How about that?

And I suspect that he continued to garner a lot of federal grants for his research, millions and millions of dollars for research.

So it didn't hurt his reputation with the feds.

Yeah, like you say, it's hard to see where his reputation was damaged and what damage amounted to.

Yeah, what damage was, right?

Yeah.

And so here's an email from Michael Mann in November 2012.

And this email is very telling about what this whole trial is all about in terms of Mann's thought process.

And this email that was sent, and it's been redacted, but we know the people involved there.

But it's from Michael Mann in a response to DR who says, when will this bastard go away?

And Mann replies with, with each such action, he is adding to the damages.

So we're actually quite happy he is doing this.

One fringe benefit of the lawsuit will be to ruin this odious excuse for a human being.

M as in Michael Mann.

And if people were wondering why it looks a little wonky, the original screenshot of this was super blurry.

So in order for it to be even partially readable, we had to put it through a little bit of editing torture in AI to get it clear.

So that's why.

When man says things like this odious excuse for a human being,

He's projecting himself.

I mean, he doesn't realize how odious he appears to people.

He just doesn't.

He's clueless.

You know, there's a certain personality and a personality flaw, I think, that is behind it.

We've all had people in our lives like this.

People in our lives who just grossly exaggerate easily checkable things, like being a Nobel Prize winner.

You know, it's a certain personality flaw, almost maybe a mental illness in which you do these things that are so obviously not true.

And it tends to be people who are also very vicious and cruel people.

And I think it comes down to an extreme lack of self-esteem.

Maybe when he was coming up as a young boy in school, maybe he was picked last for all the games and it really has never gotten over it.

I don't know.

And then even his friend, and then you seem to attract yourselves or seem to attract similar minded people with you because D.R.

Tucker here responds to Michael Mann and says, when will this bastard go away?

meaning Mark Stein.

It's like, you don't even know this man and you're calling him names.

So this is why this is the climate trial of the century, not just because the hockey stick itself is going to be on trial.

And again, he is going to go after that with data and he's going to have scientists on the stand testifying on his behalf and against the hockey stick.

It's also putting one of the most odious, to use a phrase,

climate alarmists in public life today.

And if there is one man in the climate alarmist movement that needs to come up, it's Michael Mann.

Man's the man.

Man, oh man.

None of us are mental health experts.

And as far as we know, no one has actually diagnosed him with a cluster B personality disorder.

But if I...

But if I had to put him somewhere, I am not an expert.

Again, none of us are experts.

I want...

I will say one thing, Jim.

Jim, you made the point of we've all known people like this in our lives, and I have too.

But there was a movie where this kind of persona was very well portrayed.

Did you ever watch the movie Mr. Roberts?

It was also a play in New York.

Yeah, the captain of the ship.

Yeah, Jimmy Cagney played the captain.

And the captain had a monstrous ego.

Because the captain had been abused as a cabin boy during his previous cruises before he became a captain.

And so all that anger he built up associated with being abused back then, once he got a position of power, came out and he just spewed it everywhere and abused people.

And that kind of reminds me of this situation.

But I think...

I'm not sure that he suffered from an inadequate self-esteem or confidence.

I think he's a, I won't say he's a product because he's older than the current generation, but the current generation, so many of them believe

They, they are great.

They know the most, they are the bosses.

You should take us.

I mean, you know, Greta Thunberg's a perfect example of that.

She's uneducated, but she knows more about climate than you do.

And I think that's Michael man to a T is that he had unwarranted self-esteem, unearned self-esteem.

And what he has is a complete total lack of self-awareness of his limits and

Socrates said he was wise because he knew how little he knew about the world.

That ain't Michael Mann.

Right.

So Stein created a brilliant opening statement on his own.

And we're not allowed to show that to you, but we can talk about what he said.

And so we're putting the words up on the screen so that you can see them.

First, we want to talk about how Stein was explaining how man viciously attacks anyone who criticizes him.

So.

This is from the opening statement by Mark Stein yesterday.

The thesis of Mr. Man's hockey stick, as we will hear from our various witnesses, is that although I can't tell you what the temperature is for your entire human lifetimes, tree rings, tree rings are absolutely brilliant at telling you the temperature in the year 1432.

That is his theory.

All right.

So and if you criticize that, he doesn't engage with you.

He does what he always does, which he goes on Twitter and says, you're funded by the Koch brothers.

He's accused me of that.

The Koch brothers don't even know who I am.

And you're a white supremacist and most likely a homophobe and an Islamophobe and a transphobe to boot.

Eleanor Roosevelt, your late first lady, she had an interesting line.

She said, great minds discuss ideas.

Average minds discuss events.

Small minds discuss people.

And he, man, discusses people.

He plays the man, not the ball.

Ooh, Koch-funded climate denier homophobe.

I have no idea why an argument about tree rings should make one a racist or a homophobe.

And if Mr. Williams, man's attorney, is willing to put his client in the witness box, maybe we'll ask him.

Ooh.

Told you he did good.

Oh, yeah.

Yeah.

I mean, man, when he took on Stein, he just didn't know who he was up against.

I mean...

Stein is a fantastic orator, on the cuff even.

He's got a command of the language and a command of knowledge that well exceeds Michael Mann's ability to communicate.

It's a bit like if he were going up against the late William Buckley, a beautiful command of the English language and structure and rhetoric and argumentation, how logical arguments are supposed to work.

Exactly.

All right.

So Stein also went after a man in his whole I'm a Nobel Prize winner claim.

And so he says, this man is not a Nobel Prize recipient.

Not at all.

But he's passed himself off as one for years on end.

There are very few of those, a few dozen around the planet at any one given time.

So purporting to be a Nobel laureate is the equivalent of what some of you might have heard of stolen valor, where people impersonate warriors and so forth.

Those contemptible men

one runs into from time to time, who claim to have been in the thick of it at Omaha Beach on D-Day or in Vietnam or the Sunni Triangle in Iraq or whatever, when in reality, they were back home in the Lazy Boy recliner watching Dancing with the Stars.

As you will hear in the coming days, Michael E. Mann is the only scientist on the planet for whom the director of the Nobel Institute has had to issue a statement explaining that he is not and never has been, quote, a Nobel Prize recipient.

Nobel Committee rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was awarded the Nobel Prize.

Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Prize.

Nobel Peace Prize, and that's directly from the Nobel president.

That's a direct quote from then director of the Nobel Institute in Norway, Geir Lundstad.

I would have called Dr. Lundstad as a witness, but he's dead.

That's one of the drawbacks of advocating a case whose relevant events happened 12 years ago.

And you know why?

Because man has delayed and delayed and delayed and delayed again.

Yeah, I mean, to hear that, and I grabbed those excerpts, and I actually made video, and you would have heard the words out of his mouth.

It was a beautiful thing.

And then I was told this morning, you better not play that because the courts do not allow that.

If you guys are familiar with Ann and Phelan McAleer, in fact, if you watched those watching on YouTube, you saw Michael Mann being harassed by a journalist.

That journalist was Phelan McAleer with the hat.

And they are in the courtroom and they are doing a podcast that you should check out about this, covering this trial.

And I guess it'll be around for three weeks.

And they have actors reading the transcripts from the court to reenact it.

And then when I put two and two together, I realized, yeah, they don't allow you to record things.

So even though it's live streamed and even though I captured it and kept it the way it was exactly how it was in the courtroom, I could probably get in legal trouble.

And so could this channel.

We're in enough trouble already.

If I played that audio today, but him going right after Michael Mann for being a fake Nobel laureate and mentioning that, you know, I would have called the head of the Nobel committee to trial, but he's dead.

The way Stein delivered that was so biting.

I could just imagine steam coming out of Michael Mann's ears.

It was amazing.

Yeah.

And, you know, Stein's, this is just the first volley from Stein, right?

He's got all kinds of stuff wound up, I'm sure.

You're starting to feel sorry for him?

Oh, Christine, really?

Oh, goodness.

I don't know.

I kind of do, too.

Oh.

It's just us, Christine.

I haven't been in this as long as you guys have.

I don't feel sorry for evil people.

I don't feel bad for him getting, you know, kind of trounced in this area.

And I don't feel sorry for him getting comeuppance for his bad behavior and for his junk science.

But, man, this guy...

I mean, he just doesn't have the ability to let stuff go, and that's got to be a difficult mindset to live with.

So that's the extent of my pity, I guess.

Any more pity for Michael Mann, Linnea, and that's a one-way ticket to the mute button, so you've been warned.

Jim, I think we've got enough time for this, if you can find it.

Mark Stein gave a keynote address in 2015 at our Washington Climate Conference, and it was absolutely fantastic.

And I was named in there.

I was happy because it was so hilarious the way that Stein put all this together.

And of course, he's still trying to get this lawsuit

to trial and he's you know man keeps throwing out roadblocks right and left because man really doesn't want to be on trial because man knows that he's not going to look all that good and that's been the problem with the whole thing and that's why it's taken 12 years to come to trial and um but you know the fact that dr man wants to call everybody names that disagrees with him was really evident in the way that stein came up with this

this keynote address, and it was just beautiful.

And I see Jim's got it in the background and staging there, so when you're ready, Jim, just go ahead and play that.

No audio.

Great honor to be here with the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is an absolutely indispensable beacon of sanity on this issue.

Thank you.

And I'm also honored to be here with some of the eminent scientists with whom I'm sharing the pages of our book, Climate Change, The Facts, Bob Carter and Pat Michaels and Willie Soon and Scott Armstrong and Alan Moran and Anthony Watts, whom you've just heard from.

We're all in this book, so you don't need to wait for us all to write 25 different books.

You can get the compressed version.

all in climate change the facts and unlike unlike those guys i've made no useful scientific contribution i've basically only been invited here because uh as jim mentioned i'm i'm being sued by the inventor of the global warming hockey stick michael mann um i wish that were a more exclusive club actually um

But in this very room, I've met a couple of other folks he's threatened.

And of course, my fellow Canadian, Tim Ball, is here, whom Dr. Mann is suing in British Columbia.

I'm Canadian, and Tim Ball is Canadian.

Mann seems to be a bit Canuckaphobic, which in this very identity group conscious age is apparently the only phobia you're still allowed to have in America.

So I don't know what's up with Dr. Mann on this.

It's payback for the War of 1812 or something.

But anyway, I'm here because Mann's suing me, which, as I say, isn't really a useful contribution to science on my part.

Although if I win and he loses, I like to think that will be a very lasting contribution to science on my part.

not uh you know i'm i i understand my limitations it's a useful contribution it's not up there with sir isaac newton uh but maybe you know ernest rutherford it's that kind that's kind of that kind of level anyway the trial is going to be right here in uh in the uh district of columbia superior court and my lawyer michael songer is uh actually here today uh

Last year, in a trade secrets case, he won a big payout for DuPont of $919.9 million.

And he's promised me we can take Dr. Mann for at least around a billion by the time we're through with it.

Now, as most of you probably know, lawyers don't like it when clients talk about the case in public.

Because it can cause problems with the judge.

You've heard that, right?

I'd never heard it till this morning.

Till he mentioned it to me just before breakfast.

And I'd already written my speech by that point.

And I'm hopeless at ad-libbing, so it's too late to change it.

So I'll quickly tell you where I stand climate-wise.

This Monday is the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, which the... I see one of Her Majesty's Canadian subjects is applauding eagerly there.

Which the barons forced King John to agree to in a field at Runnymede on June the 15th, 1215.

When I was a schoolboy, we were taught that the England of 1215 was a degree or so warmer than today.

And vineyards were sown as far north as the Isle of Ely.

If you're not British and you're wondering where the Isle of Ely is, it's a stone's throw from where the East Anglia Climatic Research Unit stands today, the ClimateGate guys.

So I will take global warming seriously when they tear down the Climatic Research Unit and sow a vineyard, making an amusing little Chateauneuf-du-Phil Jones.

Until Michael E. Mann abolished the medieval warm period with a wave of his magic hockey stick, it was acknowledged as a hugely beneficial phenomenon that led to the flourishing of the economy, agriculture, industry, science, art.

And liberty, as in Magna Carta, Magna Carta Libertatum, the great charter of liberties.

Apparently, they don't have Magna Carta here in the District of Columbia.

They've got the DC anti-slap law, which so far is nowhere near as good, unfortunately.

After the medieval warm period, we had the Little Ice Age and then the warming we've had since the 19th century.

I accept the planet has warmed and I rejoice that it has warmed because as with the medieval warm period, it's been hugely beneficial to mankind.

I mentioned that I'm Canadian.

The entire political, economic and cultural development of my country has taken place during this warming period.

Nova Scotia, 1848, the first responsible government in the British Empire.

1867, the birth of the Dominion of Canada.

My entire nation has been the beneficiary of this warming trend.

There's a statistic that some of you may be familiar with that says something like 90% of the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of the US border.

You know why that is?

Because you go beyond that, it's freezing cold.

When you revolutionaries and us loyalists had carved up the continent, we should have done it north-south, down the Mississippi.

I was talking to Professor Van Kooten yesterday, who spoke yesterday, and he said he'd moved from Alberta to British Columbia because it was warmer.

That's like moving from Louisiana to Mississippi for the skiing.

So 90% of Canadians live within 100 miles of the U.S.

border.

If we hadn't had the warming of the last century and a half, 99.9% of Canadians would be living within 100 yards of the U.S.

border.

It'd just be like one long condo development strung along the 49th parallel.

That would be it.

So when I first saw Michael Mann's hockey stick 15 years ago, I reacted much as Jonathan Jones, professor of physics at Oxford University, did.

If you've never heard of this Oxford University outfit, it's apparently some wacky, fringe, coke-funded, denialist front group where you can download a diploma for 17 shillings and throw up and tape me.

No one takes it seriously.

Anyway, Professor Jones says, quote, like many people, I was dragged into this by the hockey stick.

I was looking up some minor detail about the medieval warm period and discovered this weird parallel universe of people who apparently didn't believe it had happened.

And even more bizarrely, appeared to believe that essentially nothing had happened in the world before the 20th century.

The hockey stick is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence.

So I started reading around the subject, and it soon became clear that the first extraordinary thing about the evidence for the hockey stick was how extraordinarily weak it was, and the second extraordinary thing was how desperate its defenders were to hide this fact.

I'd always had an interest in pathological science, and it looked...

And it looked like I might have stumbled across a really good modern example."

I agree with that.

For a generation of people across the Western world, Michael Mann abolished not only the medieval warm period, but the entire concept of natural climate variability.

If you talk to some of these young activists who've been force-fed this stuff since kindergarten,

They don't even believe, they don't know what natural climate variability is.

So I call the hockey stick fraudulent because it is in every sense, both in its construction and in the uses to which it's been put by the IPCC and Al Gore and every schoolhouse and most governments throughout the Western world.

The hockey stick is what's called, as all of you know, a proxy reconstruction.

a proxy reconstruction.

And there are only two problems with it, the proxies and the reconstruction.

Other than that, it's fine.

But my government,

Well, not my government.

I don't want to make it sound like I was responsible for it.

Her Majesty's government in Ottawa used the hockey stick to sell Kyoto to the Canadian people.

And so did Her Majesty's government down in New Zealand and virtually every other advanced nation except the United States in between.

So real people paid a real price for this.

So I called the hockey stick fraudulent in National Review, and Michael Mann sued me for defamation.

He venue shopped very well.

He doesn't live or work in the District of Columbia.

I don't live or work in the District of Columbia.

But I voluntarily submitted to their jurisdiction because I thought if they were so eager to take the case, they'd be capable of litigating a 270-word blog post in under 270 weeks.

We are now coming up to the start of the fourth year.

Is this the section mocking and sneering at the incompetent DC courts that you wanted me to take out?

Okay.

Now, not every part of this case's delay is the fault of the courts.

Mann's lawyer, John Williams, incidentally, John Williams tried to sneak in here without paying yesterday.

I'm being serious.

He had to be escorted out.

You know, this is such a racist society.

When black youths gatecrash a pool party in Texas, the cops start cussing them out.

And they draw their guns and they shove these bikini-clad teenagers to the ground.

But when Michael Mann's $1,200 an hour white shoe lawyer gate crashes the big climate denier's pool party, he just gets politely asked to leave.

You know, I'm like, oh, come on, can't you tase him?

But I mention it.

I mention it because if you were kept awake last night by what sounded like occasional thumps against the wall, that was just Michael Mann's lawyer rappelling down the ventilation shaft to get in place before breakfast.

Hi, John.

Oh, what was that other thing you mentioned?

Don't make cracks about the other guy's lawyer because it...

It makes it harder to reach a settlement.

As I said, not all the delay in this case is the fault of the courts.

The aforementioned Mr. Williams, Dr. Mann's counsel, filed a complaint with the Superior Court accusing me of, quote, the professional and personal defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient.

Unquote.

This was a hitherto unknown crime to me.

Quote,

defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient.

That's not in Magna Carta.

But it's apparently a crime in the District of Columbia.

Until then, I had no idea Michael Mann was a Nobel Prize winner.

And as it turns out, neither did the Nobel Institute.

A couple of reporters called them up and the director, the then director of the Nobel Institute, Dr. Geir Lundestad, said, quote, Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, unquote.

That's what he claims to have won, by the way, the Nobel Peace Prize.

But notice the subtle elision of his legal pleadings, quote,

defamation of a Nobel Prize recipient.

So not just a lousy old Nobel Peace Prize winner where you're standing in the Hall of Fame between Al Gore and Yasser Arafat.

But a bona fide Nobel Prize winner, where you're right in the same pantheon as Einstein and the Curies and all the rest of them.

Mann claims to be a Nobel laureate because in 2007, the IPCC as an institution received the Nobel Peace Prize.

And Mann was one of thousands upon thousands of people who've been associated with the IPCC since 1990.

A couple of years later, you may recall, the European Union won the Nobel Peace Prize.

So on man's criteria, the EU has 500 million Nobel laureates.

You can't swing a cat over there without hitting a Nobel laureate.

You go to one of those nude beaches in the south of France,

you know, in August, and it's wall-to-wall naked Nobel laureates from San Tropez to Monte Carlo.

It's the nearest you'll get to seeing Max Planck and Gustav Hertz and Francis Crick doing The Girl from Ipanema.

So every EU citizen is a Nobel laureate.

My father's Irish and my mum's Belgian, so I'm a two-time Nobel laureate.

Eat your heart out, Sir Frederick Banting, you know.

This to me is important, because it gets to the heart of the bubble that these people live in.

Why would they think twice about adjusting their figures?

If a man seriously believes that the pantheon of laureates can be adjusted to include himself,

Why would he be bothered about adjusting the 1915 temperature record the way Noah did just last week?

What's the big deal about that if you seriously believe yourself to be a Nobel laureate, as thousands of these guys do?

And that's why they had no qualms about adjusting the 1915, the temperature record of the last century, as they announced last week.

I was absolutely stunned by the way.

That was absolutely the most dramatically adjusted figure that I'd seen since Caitlyn Jenner a couple of days earlier.

If you take Michael Mann out of this equation,

A lot of the so-called lukewarmers and the moderates and all the rest of it, some of you may know Dr. Richard Betts and Dr. Tamsyn Edwards over in England, and they both said that they don't think the term denier is useful.

Who uses the term denier more than anybody else?

Dr. Mann has called just about everyone here deniers.

I'm just cruising his Twitter feed here.

Climate denier, Joe Bast.

Climate change denier, John Coleman.

Climate change denier, Roy Spencer.

Anthony Watts, climate change denier extremist.

You win, Anthony.

You know, there used to be a thing on Broadway.

Jim mentioned that I have a liking for Broadway.

There used to be a thing off Broadway.

There was a fashion for plays a few years ago.

I think Sam Shepard wrote one of them where it'd be like some inbred Appalachian family.

And at one point, there'd been a stillborn baby and they just buried it out in the yard and no one mentioned it.

And even though no one mentioned it, the less they talked about it, the worse they got.

It still infected and poisoned everything they did.

And that is what they're trying to do now with the hockey stick.

If they could redo the third assessment report of the IPCC, they would not.

put everything on the hockey stick.

And they think they can get away with just not mentioning it, just not looking at it, just ignoring it, trying not to catch Michael Mann's eye.

The fascinating thing about those ClimateGate emails, by the way, is not all the science stuff where the doubts they expressed were well known.

but the fact that the actual personal relationships between Mann and these poor schlubs in East Anglia, who sound like Michael Mann's battered wives,

They're trying to avoid another slap from him, but they don't want actually to finally get out and walk away.

And they have to get up and walk away from the hockey stick and be seen to do so for the integrity of science.

This...

This conference is called A Fresh Start, and that is what climate science needs.

I urge you to read Matt Ridley's piece in the Australian magazine Quadrant this month.

that pinning everything, taking a wild ride on the hockey stick, corrupted the heart of climate science.

And to cleanse themselves, they have to actually draw a clear line and admit that the last 15 years were wrong, that it corrupted everything it touched, from the prestigious journal Nature, to peer review, to the governments that embraced it, to the Climatic Research Unit, which trashed its founders' legacy.

These guys did it from a building called the Hubert Lamb Building.

Hubert Lamb was one of the greatest climatologists of the 20th century, and they trashed his legacy to take a ride on Michael Mann's coattails.

And climate science...

Climate science has to make a fresh start and get beyond this, because they will sound ridiculous.

We heard earlier that many people have not fallen for this, and that takes a great courage.

Most of us are not Galileo.

I'm glad, by the way, whoever said that imagine what Galileo could have done if he'd had the internet, because I think he'd just have been posting cat pictures all day.

Most of us are not Galileo.

Most people want to be like most people.

And when you look at the polls, then, of people who say, no, climate change isn't important, it's number 19 on my list of concerns, and you consider the ABC and CBS and NBC and the BBC and the CBC in Canada and the New York Times and Le Monde and the Times of London and the Sydney Morning Herald and everyone else,

have shoved this thing down people's throats now for 20 years, and they're still refusing to swallow it.

That is extremely unusual, given the levels of propaganda control.

And that is why a fresh start is possible.

But it requires climate science to recover its integrity and climb off the hockey stick.

Thank you very much indeed.

Thank you.

That was fantastic.

I mean, there is no better indictment of Michael Mann on the hockey stick ever.

I got to admit, I'm envious of you, Anthony.

Yeah.

You're mentioned directly.

Mann attacked you directly.

He met me.

As far as I know, he's never attacked me.

Gosh, you are a star.

Let's not get carried away.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so I'm going to have to get that, get those words framed, you know?

So anyway, we've run long, but we want to go through question and answer real quick.

If any of you got some questions, we'll try to address those.

And then we have a special video for the ending of this show.

What do we got?

Redwood asks, what's the worst case scenario for man?

Well, I think what will happen if, let's say, man loses the case, which seems possible, he'll appeal.

And he'll appeal again and he'll drag it out for another 10 years, I'm guessing.

But the worst case scenario, that's what he asked about, is that he'll lose.

He'll be, the court costs will be awarded to Stein.

Stein's legal fees because he did have a lawyer, even though the lawyer is not evidently arguing.

The other gentleman's lawyers will have to be paid.

It'd be nice if it actually came out of man's personal account rather than some slush fund set up by University of Pennsylvania.

His his standing will be diminished.

His work will be diminished and it will set back climate alarmism because so much of it, as you know, as Stein pointed out, is built on the hockey stick.

If you walk away from a hockey stick, you've got to start over.

And that, I think, is maybe why Mann and others are so fiercely defending it.

uh because they don't want to start they don't want to see that it's a sham so if he loses that's the worst that can happen i i don't think he'll lose his job at upenn he's too big at uh raising money um uh he still publishes all the time so uh but but that that may go away if he loses yeah

All right, next question.

Dominic Lielo.

Didn't they splice proxy and direct measurements together to get the hockey stick?

Yes.

And this is where the hide the decline term came from.

You see, tree rings aren't necessarily perfect indicators of temperature.

Trees respond to other things.

There's a rule out there called Liebig's Law, which says that the minimum thing to make a tree grow is the determining factor.

And that can be temperature.

That can be water availability, sunlight availability, or nutrient availability.

And so what is a tree ring really measuring?

So the problem was is that after about 1960 or so, the tree ring proxy data went down instead of up.

And so what Mann did was he put the instrumental temperature record for the globe on top of it.

He overlaid it.

He covered up the decline.

And this is well documented.

This is not conjecture or opinion.

It's well documented by Steve McIntyre and others.

And so bottom line is, is that they put the instrumental temperature record on there with all of its UHI and problematic weather stations and airport weather stations that we've talked about time and again on top of the tree ring record.

And it's like you don't splice two data sets together to get an end result.

And that's why, amongst other reasons, Mark Stein is calling the hockey stick fraudulent.

Well, and I think another reason, and maybe you can connect me if I'm wrong, Anthony, it's been a while since I looked at the hockey stick.

But I thought that, in fact, it wasn't just a complete reconstruction from all of the trees that they looked at.

In fact, they threw out some trees that didn't seem to correspond to the theory.

So it was a selective reconstruction based on some trees.

Sometimes...

some trees within the same group so some trees were growing faster well we're going to ignore the ones that aren't growing as fast or that are you know the other way around so even that was suspicious but maybe i'm wrong the premise was that the larger tree rings and width

represented warmer temperatures.

But there was this one tree that Steve McIntyre discovered, and it was tagged YAD061, I believe.

And it was up in Yamal, way, way up in the far north.

And this tree had a massive growth, just like way up, just like a hockey stick.

So what happened?

That tree became the dominant mathematical factor for all of this reconstruction because they put in lesser trees that didn't have this, but this thing dominated the statistics.

So what happened there?

Did it get more water?

Did a reindeer come by and take a dump next to the tree and it got more nutrients?

Who knows?

But it certainly can't be said that that particular tree responded only to temperature.

Thank you, Peter Williams, for the super chat there.

He says, contribution to your legal costs versus man.

So thank you very much.

All right.

Next question.

Yeah, there it is.

I'm sure we'll have some.

We're looking forward to that fight.

Okay, any other questions?

No more questions?

All right.

Well, then I think we're good.

We've run long, but I want you to stick around because we have a fantastic ending for this show.

My favorite video of all time.

Even better than Mark Stein's video, at least in my opinion.

Anyway, I want to thank you for joining us today.

Thanks to our panel, Sterling, Jim, and Linnea for being with us.

Thanks to all of you viewers.

And thanks, everybody, for just participating in bringing out the truth.

So I want to wish everybody a great Friday and a fantastic weekend.

I'm Anthony Watts for the Heartland Institute saying goodbye and so long.

Fudging the numbers day by day Ignoring the snow and the cold in a downward line Hide the decline

Michael Mann thinks he's so smart Totally inventing the hockey stick chart Ignoring the snow and the cold in a downward line Hide the decline Hide the decline

Climate gauge, I think you have sealed your fate.

I hope you do a lot of time, cause what you did was such a crime.

How did he climb?

How did he climb?

The tree ring data was very thin You should have chopped more trees instead of hugging them Ignoring the snow and the cold in a downward line Hide the decline Hide the decline

Climategate I think you have sealed your fate I hope you do a lot of time Cause what you did was such a crime Hide the decline Hide the decline Hide the decline Hide the decline Hide the decline

How to decline.

How to decline.

How to decline.

How to decline.

How to decline.

Thank you.