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.
That's right, Greta.
It is Friday.
And this is our own personal
Friday protest.
Climate Change Roundtable, Episode 96,
Climate Trial of the Century,
Man vs. Stein, Round 3.
I'm Jim Lakely,
Vice President of the
Heartland Institute.
And our usual host, Anthony Watts,
is under the weather today
instead of forecasting it.
So feel better soon, Anthony,
and we'll see you next week.
With us as always are Dr. H.
Sterling Burnett.
He is the director of the
Arthur B. Robinson Center
at the Heartland Institute.
And also Linnea Lucan,
a research fellow with the
Robinson Center.
Well, you know,
and we also have a special guest.
I'll get to her in just a moment.
But we've just ended week three.
of the defamation trial
where serial litigator and
all around nasty piece of business,
a climate hockey stick
inventor named Michael E. Mann,
he's suing Mark Stein and
Ran Simberg for a couple of
blog posts that supposedly
so greatly injured his
reputation that it damaged
his ability to get
government grants to fund
more climate alarmism and
made him a pariah in public
and professional circles.
Well,
anyone following this trial that has
operating ears and an open mind
would find that that claim
is utterly ridiculous.
And that surely includes our
special guest this week.
That is one Anne McElhenney.
She and her husband, fellow McAleer,
who we had on the show last week,
run the Unreported Stories
Society and have been in
the courtroom every day.
And they provide
comprehensive coverage on
this important trial via their podcast,
Climate Change on Trial.
Welcome, everybody.
This is going to be a
fantastic show and special welcome to you,
Anne.
Thank you so much.
It's great to be here.
Thank you for having me.
You are quite welcome.
It's our honor to have you here.
And I know we only have you
for a limited time.
So we're going to try to get
to some of the new
developments in the trial this week.
Michael Mann rested his case.
And I think, you know,
anybody listening to trial,
as I alluded to in the introduction,
would find actually that
Mann's witnesses were not
really all that impressive.
In fact, the defense...
And again,
you get a lot of this from
listening to the Climate
Change on Trial podcast.
A lot of the witnesses for the plaintiffs,
the defense questioning of
those witnesses seem to do
a lot more good for the
defense than they ever did
for the prosecution,
or I should say for the plaintiffs.
But one of my favorite
things about the trial, Anne,
favorite maybe isn't the right word,
but I think it's actually something,
it is my favorite then,
because it actually is
exposing what kind of a
person Michael Mann really is.
Those of us in the climate skeptic,
climate realist community,
whom he calls climate deniers,
which is of course to make
an analogy to Holocaust denial,
which is evil and filthy thing to do.
But over and over,
he has to keep read into
the public record are
emails that he had written to colleagues.
Now, mind you, this is a professional.
This is a PhD.
This is a professor at Penn
State University.
And now he's in the Ivy
League at the University of Pennsylvania.
And the language that he uses,
the insults that he so
freely and so frequently
throws out there,
among his colleagues,
among people that just
happen to disagree with him
and think maybe he may have
made a few mistakes in his
hockey stick is really shocking.
And I think it's awesome, actually,
that this is on the
permanent public record about, as I said,
what a nasty piece of
business Michael Mann is.
Yeah, I mean, I was very,
very shocked by that.
You know, he calls people human filth.
He called McIntyre human filth,
a guy who had published, by the way,
McIntyre and McKittrick had
published their criticism
of the hockey stick in the
same peer reviewed journal
where Michael Mann's
hockey stick had appeared first.
And those guys, you know,
got the ire of Michael Mann and he called,
you know, human filth, by the way,
to call somebody that.
He also called him an a-hole
and I'm abbreviating that.
But I think even almost
worse was Judith Curry.
Judith Curry,
as I think you guys would
probably know her very well,
world-renowned climate scientist,
uh you know very pure you
know science person by the
way big time
environmentalist she
explained yet when she was
in court yesterday I think
she has 26 solar panels at
her house and all of that
but he insinuated in emails
to other academics
including people at nasa
that she had slept her way
to the top which is the
oldest slur against a woman
uh being successful in the world
that is known to man, basically.
And this is what he did.
And when he had an
opportunity in the court
under pain of perjury,
he admitted on the
testimony that every part
of the email where he
insinuated that she was a
student when she went to Penn State,
that she had an affair with a married man,
that every part of that was untrue.
And when he had an opportunity,
when Judith Curry was in the courtroom,
when Dr. Webster was also
in the courtroom, her husband,
He didn't apologize and
hasn't done anything to apologize since.
I mean, this for me,
I found it really shocking.
I mean, we've all been to university,
I presume.
And my memory of third level
education was that I was
taught by people who were, you know,
crusty academics, a little eccentric,
but awfully correct.
Very, you know, very impressive.
And this if this is the
caliber of person who's
teaching at Penn State,
it's kind of an interesting
insight that you speak like
that about people who disagree with you.
you know these people didn't
kill your dog you know this
these people didn't you
know shoot your wife you
know and yet he uses
language incredibly in
temperate language to
describe these people and
as you know and I think
you've talked about it
before tim ball you know in
canada we basically
litigated him to death
Extraordinary.
And when the case went
against Michael Mann, he never paid.
And Tim Ball died in penury.
He's an extraordinary man.
Obviously incredibly
insecure because he needs
to do this kind of the way
he speaks about people.
I'm shocked by it, by the way.
Every day I'm completely blown over by it.
his insecurity was was on
full display when he talked
about someone glaring he
was convinced someone
glared at him in a grocery
store and oh can I just oh
my whole life yeah I can't
shop there anymore you are
so right I mean I i we made
the joke by the way he
should have a look at our
my inbox sometime and the
things that have been
written to me I hope you
die I hope you're I've
gotten a couple of my
choice ones was I hope your
children are disabled
I hope you are hung from a
short rope like the Nazis.
Like I got all of that just
in a day's work, by the way.
He said,
and this is by way of him as the
plaintiff proving damages,
said that in a Wegmans, by the way,
let's be specific,
in a Wegmans in State College,
someone looked at him,
the meanest look he'd ever seen.
Woo!
And by the way, my question to that is,
how do you know, Michael Mann,
that that man didn't just
find his wife in bed with someone else?
How do you know that that
man didn't just stand in a piece of poo?
How do you know that that
man didn't just realize
that the winning lottery
ticket for that week was
his numbers and his wife
had washed down the sink?
How do you know that
Whatever, right?
How do you know he didn't look at man?
He never said his name.
He never said anything.
Well, yeah, I mean,
and the irony with all of
this and Michael Mann being
a nasty piece of business
is that if there's anybody
who's a serial defamer of
others in this community,
it is Michael Mann.
It is not Rand Simberg and
it is not Mark Stein.
So as I mentioned,
Mann did rest his case this week.
And we're going to get to
something that many thought
might happen after he rested his case,
but apparently did not happen.
And you were in the
courtroom to see it and
people listening and
watching online were not able to see it.
So it's very important that
we get to that.
But, Anne, first,
I wanted to get to two
clips from near the end of
Mann's case from your
excellent Climate Change on
Trial podcast and play them
for our audience.
The first is a clip from
your self-admitted girl crush,
Victoria Weatherford, who is the attorney,
one of the attorneys for Rand Simberg.
She was going hard after
Michael Mann's claim of damages,
which is his burden to prove, by the way.
He has to prove that he has
suffered damages.
And specifically,
she was going after the
idea that he had lost out
on millions of dollars of
government grants that he
normally applies for and
normally receives.
Now,
when he first submitted a sworn
document about those losses in 2020,
the amount was in the many,
many millions of dollars
that he claimed to have lost.
And then when he had to
submit them again under
pain of perjury in 2023,
those numbers dropped dramatically.
And in fact, in one case,
he swore in 2020 that he
lost a $9 million grant, I believe.
You can correct me if I'm wrong.
And then he later amended that in 2023,
did Michael Mann, to say, oh,
that grant was actually only $112,000.
Now,
we're not playing that clip where you
could hear Victoria
Weatherford's eyes roll
when she mentioned that
there's quite a difference there,
isn't there, Dr. Mann,
between $9 million and $112 million.
But, Annie,
let's go ahead and play this other clip,
which you and Phelan had
identified as one of your
favorite bits as she was
wrapping up this point she
was making in going after Michael Mann.
Now,
her conclusion to this long and very
effective line of
questioning is a total delight.
Just again, to remember, we obviously,
you know, I mean, the show could be,
you know, 12 hours long or whatever.
It could go on forever.
So we have had to cut this
down a little bit.
But I honestly think
Weatherford's conclusion,
so she went back and forth
and back and forth through
all of these different errors.
And we're going to hear kind
of a summing up of that now.
And I do think that this is
extremely delightful.
So let me get this straight.
For your funded grants between June 2020,
March 2023,
you have to make corrections to 7,
by my calculation,
out of the 13 grants on here.
Isn't that right?
Yes.
Less than 50% score, Dr. Mann.
Are you saying that it's
okay to give us a failing
grade in your sworn
responses under penalty of
perjury about your grants?
That prompted Mance going to
one of his rather lengthy
responses and he talked
about how his grants could
be funded at different
levels and what he applied for, et cetera,
et cetera.
But Weatherford then came in
and responded to his
flailing effort at explaining himself.
And this is just delightful.
Let's listen to this.
And let me get this straight.
You are asking the jury to
believe that your
complicated statistics in
this case are unimpeachable
and they should trust you
on the data for your graph
when you can't get a dozen
grant amounts right.
Is that what I'm supposed to
believe and what the jury
is supposed to believe?
Yeah.
So that was that was her
wrapping up going after a
man's claims of damages in
a pretty devastating way.
And, you know,
using the failing grade for
a professor is a pretty good dig.
Yeah, and this is 12 years, you know,
this is 12 years of litigation.
And when you were asked
these interrogatories, as they call them,
under pain of perjury, as you picked,
as you're pointing out there, Jim, I mean,
this is very, very serious stuff.
And this error is ridiculous.
I mean, you know, as Phelan was joking,
like,
who among us haven't mistaken 9
million for 112,000?
You know, and it...
I don't know what it shows,
but it definitely shows a sloppiness.
At the very least, it shows sloppiness.
At the worst, it shows something much,
much, much worse.
You're kind of alluding to
the fact that they're
trying to get a summary
judgment at this point and
get this whole case thrown out.
I think on the basis of he
has been unable to show
that he was damaged and
particularly with this
grant making thing and I
thought they made a lot of
very good points the grant
making and it's just
important maybe for
everyone to understand that
the grant making that he
lost out on let's say and
you know the big number in
the end was like it went
from four four years prior
was 3.3 four years after
these alleged defamatory
articles it was 500 000 but
what really is important is
that these grants did not
go to michael mann
They went to Penn State.
And Penn State, we all remember,
was having a little bit of
a reputational issue at the time.
Their president ended up in prison.
So the idea that somehow
these grants were reduced.
There's some other reasons
why the grants might have been reduced.
And the effort to try to
connect the grant laws with
these articles was not made.
That argument was not made.
and while that's not made
that's literally the only
thing they've got and they
didn't make it I mean who
is to know that it wasn't
the fact that the president
of the college was under
investigation for one of
the worst things you could
possibly do which is to
hide the rape of children
So, you know,
if you're somebody from one of these,
you know, large,
maybe prestigious
grant-making organizations, and, you know,
you've got 100 people
who've applied for grants, guys in Oxford,
in Cambridge, you know, whatever,
in Australia, people all over the world,
you know, you might say to yourself,
you know,
I think we're going to wait a
wee bit with this Penn
State and see how things, you know,
shake out because I'm not
comfortable with us using
this grant money to support
these guys because this
college is rotten.
And, you know,
we know that the college is rotten.
I mean,
when the president went to prison
and another one of the
executives went to prison.
I mean,
this is it's the first time in history,
by the way,
that a college president went
to went to prison.
So this is not a small thing.
Yeah, you got to.
man in my experience I've
actually met him been on
the same conference as him
published in the same
journal he has no small amount of hubris
And you've got to think
another factor in him not
getting his grants.
I mean,
he's he's assuming that they just
come to him every year.
They're going to just come
to him and his group,
whoever he's applying with.
But the truth is,
just like there are lots of
people you said from Oxford and wherever,
you know,
pushing for grants, they all have good,
interesting research,
and he doesn't have a right
to a set amount of that pool money.
Others may need more
deserving that year and in
the following years.
And
I think the Grant thing,
I'd be interested to see
how the judge responded to the fact that,
what your impression of
what the judge responding
to the fact that they had
filed these false or
misleading statements about the money.
I think they all should call
him out on the fact that he claims
he claimed early that he doesn't,
he doesn't, uh, tweet much.
Something like,
something like one of the attorneys said,
look, you know, aren't you constantly?
No, I don't tweet much.
Well, he'd,
he'd done over a hundred thousand tweets.
It turned out to be something like,
you know, X dozens per day, every day.
Um,
Look, I don't tweet much.
Zero.
There's a lot of people that
don't tweet much.
Man tweets.
I mean,
he rivals Donald Trump during his peak.
Yeah, he really loves to tweet.
And in fact, actually, of course,
I think the first day of the trial,
he blocked me on Twitter.
And he's blocked an awful lot of people.
But obviously, we have ways around that.
And we've got other people who he hasn't.
He's not aware of.
So we're able to see his tweets.
And actually,
he's been going nuts on
Twitter over the last few days.
because he doesn't like
what's going on in the
court and what's coming to light.
One of the things that kind
of I think you just kind of
alluded to there when you
were talking was the fact
that he actually
misrepresented to the jury
visually with a demonstrative.
He showed a spreadsheet
of grants that he had missed out on.
And the 9 million, that error,
which had been pointed out prior,
he showed that to the jury.
They showed that.
The plaintiffs showed that to the jury in,
you know,
and the judge went fairly nuts over that,
to be honest with you.
Was very, very, very angry about that.
To knowingly show something
to the jury that is completely an error.
But as you have mentioned earlier, Jim,
you know,
so the plaintiff's case has rested.
And then we get to hear the defense.
And we're running out of time, by the way,
here.
It's unbelievable.
The judge said yesterday,
no matter what happens,
we're finishing on Wednesday.
So that leaves us now with three more days,
right?
Because we don't have court on Friday.
So we've got three more days.
We've got a jury that are always...
Always late.
So we never, ever start on time.
OK, it's a little bugbear of mine.
I'm terminally punctual.
It's just a thing with me.
I think it's very disrespectful.
I just think it's incredibly
disrespectful to have
somebody waiting on you.
It doesn't matter who it is.
And I'm not saying everyone in the jury,
but I am saying that there
is a court in that jury who
are late every day.
And I'm not talking about five minutes.
I am not talking about five minutes.
We start at least a half an
hour late basically every day, every day.
So this is cutting into the time
that the defense have to put
their case out.
So we've only heard really
from Judith Curry,
but we did get to hear from
Professor Weiner,
who you mentioned that I
had a girl crush on Miss Weatherford.
Well,
she's been slightly replaced by
Professor Dr. Weiner,
My God, what a delight.
And really,
he has restored my faith in academia.
He's from the Wharton School of Business.
He's a statistician.
And he's what every young
person deserves when they
go into third level education.
He's very pure.
He's incredibly excited by what he does.
And he's somebody who
analyzed Michael Mann's
methods for creating the hockey stick.
And I thought was
devastating in the
demonstratives that he presented.
I thought he was devastating
to the case because he
showed and it was I think maybe Jim,
maybe you have those visuals,
but he was devastating.
And I think.
You know,
a lot of this case is very technical.
It's quite tough for people.
I'm not a scientist.
I find it very tough at
times to keep up with some
of the language.
And yet there we are.
There we are.
We're going to start seeing
some of Dr. Weiner's.
But as I said, I've replaced it away.
I still really do have a
crush on Miss Weatherford.
But I do think Dr. Weiner
became my new favorite.
And he's like my poster boy
for just real intelligent, sober,
serious science.
delightful and charming way
he presented and I noticed
that the jury were very
impressed with him they
they really leaned into him
they were all taking notes
and he really did a lecture
it was like you know they
got the opportunity to have
a statistics class that
they hadn't asked for um
and he gave these great
visuals if you want to
maybe talk us you know this
at the moment on the screen
for people who are watching
there's a there's a there's
a visual there of Dr
Weiner's reconstruction
Now, he had a number of these.
He has a number of these.
But as you can see,
I think what's important
there is if you see the top,
the very top to the very
bottom is the mapping of uncertainty.
And this is really the
center of what Dr. Weiner was saying,
that in this whole climate,
this climate conversation
and in the conversation
particularly about the hockey stick,
The last period,
which of course Dr. Weiner
very honestly has done, created a line.
So if you see that,
the long line near the end there,
which is coming into where
we have the actual temperature record,
he created a line to say,
now we're using thermometers.
But prior to that, they're using proxies.
They're using these kind of ice cores.
They're using tree ring data.
They're using all these
things from all over the
world or whatever.
And there's an incredible
amount of uncertainty.
It's probably fair to say
there's a much less
uncertainty after that line.
But what he's basically
saying is that with the
data available with the proxies,
does any number of potential
graphs that you could create.
And I don't know if you've
got the slide there that
shows the three different
possibilities that have equal validity.
Keep going.
There's another one.
Or maybe, oh, no, maybe you don't have it.
But there's another one
that's really fabulous.
And it's green, red, and blue, I think.
It's green and blue.
Not this one.
This one's interesting, though.
I can talk to this one.
So this one's very interesting.
It
Dr. Weiner made the point
that in statistics,
you're constantly making
choices and you need to be
very transparent about how
you made those choices.
So we said you're constantly
coming to a fork in the road.
Do I go right?
Do I go left?
There's nothing wrong with
either direction,
but you make choices and
the choices will affect an outcome.
And here's one of the choices.
And it's very interesting
for your viewers to look at this.
Here's a number of choices available.
There's 22 different data points here.
And you see the graphs there.
So 22 different lines there.
And if you look at them,
An awful lot of them are fairly flat.
Enormous number of them are very flat.
There are two of them that have a blade.
So two of them kind of have
a little bit of a, they go up at the end,
two of them.
So they're the two that
Michael Mann chose from 22.
He chose those two.
He made a choice because he had a bias,
because he wanted things to
go a particular way.
And I suppose what Dr.
Weiner is saying is that
you should be a lot more
disinterested as a statistician.
You shouldn't be looking for a result.
And you should certainly be
giving the people who are your audience
the knowledge that this is all very,
very uncertain.
But I think that that
slide's very instructive
because it shows you that he chose, he,
and they call it,
I think they call it P-hacking.
And some of your very
intelligent listeners and
viewers may pick me up on that,
but I think that's what's
called P-hacking.
So what you're doing is out
of a number of
opportunities and possibilities,
all of them equally valid
You choose the one that goes
along with your bias, if you like.
And his bias is, there we are.
This is the one I love.
Okay, this is the one I love.
This is one of his, and I just love this.
I think everyone should
focus on this if you can.
He said,
here's different reconstructions
that he made based on the data.
Each of these is equally valid.
That's the really important thing.
Now, look at the green one.
So the green one, if you look at it, right,
it's equally valid to the red one.
Now, the red one is very close.
It's not Michael Mann's hockey stick,
but it looks like it, right?
But that red one is as valid
as the blue one,
is as valid as the green one.
But look at the green one.
The green one, it was warmer.
Like, according to that green one,
really nothing to see here in a way,
right?
It totally blows out of the
water the Michael Mann hockey stick.
which has the idea that the
world was just doing hunky
dory for a thousand years
until we invented the
combustion engine and
introduced fossil fuels.
And now we're all going to
hell in a hike and hike in a cart.
Right.
But if you look at that,
he's saying from a
statistical point of view,
each of these are equally valid.
Now, the jury got to look at this.
They got to look at this
from a guy who's Yale.
I'm going to run Stanford
now at the Wharton School
at the Wharton School, by the way,
in the University of
Pennsylvania and the very
same institution where
Michael Mann is teaching right now.
This isn't a charlatan.
This isn't some tinfoil hat wearing guy.
This is a guy who knows his stuff.
And he's saying these three
are equally valid.
Please.
Just real quick, Sterling.
I know we only got a few minutes.
Andy,
can you put that first chart that you
had up there before that
was shown to the jury?
No.
Keep going.
You'll find it there.
That one right there.
So.
So, Anne, in the time we have you,
my recollection of watching
this on on the stream was
that the attorneys for
Michael Mann were trying to say, like,
that doesn't look like a
hockey stick to you.
Doesn't that look like a
hockey stick to you?
It's like, no,
that doesn't look like a
hockey stick at all.
It looks like, actually, a very,
it looks like a U trend
with the bottom of the U
quite far to the right.
But yeah,
so I guess his attorneys were trying to,
because it's important, I think,
the case that what Mark
Stein and Ransomberg had
written was that the hockey
stick graph is a fraud.
In other words, it's fake.
It's not real.
It's not a hockey stick.
And so when you can put this
evidence up there from the
statistician who knows how to, you know,
and one of the things that Anthony Weiner,
Abraham Weiner, I should say,
said during the trial is
that he is probably one of the most,
certainly this country's
most renowned statisticians.
He has a radio show on
Sirius XM radio as a statistician.
That's, you know,
how many statisticians have
their own national radio shows?
Yeah,
we should give a shout out because
some of your listeners
would probably really like
this guy so much.
And I haven't listened to the show,
but it's called
The Wharton Powerball, I think.
So people can check it out.
The Wharton Powerball and Powerball.
And it's basically a lot of
it is about sports statistics.
But I just he's a delight.
He's a complete delight.
Actually,
if you go back to the chart there
with the three different colors.
um what you're saying jim
actually this is the chart
that they were talking
about and they were saying
oh sure that green that
green line is a hockey
stick and I'm not even
going to begin to argue
with that the hockey stick
that's in question is the
hockey stick which is here
which is basically where
it's a hockey stick lying
down lying horizontal where
the blade sticks up and
this idea that you're
trying to confuse
everything by saying
everything looks like a hockey stick
No, this actually looks, as you say,
it comes down and goes up.
But they were flailing.
I felt they were flailing
with this hockey stick back and forth.
It's the hockey stick that
has been criticized,
which is Michael Mann's hockey stick,
which has the 1,000 years
flatline interrupted then
by this catastrophic
warming where we're all going to die.
And something else I want to
say that I really would love,
and I maybe failed to
mention it last week,
was Ran Simberg made a speech,
or not made a speech,
but it was being questioned.
And I really like Ran Simberg.
He's a very serious man.
He's actually what would be
called colloquially a rocket scientist.
Actually, genuinely, he's one of them.
He's that kind of guy, right?
But he said, why is this important?
Why is all of this important?
And it came up in the context of
his criticism of Al Gore's
An Inconvenient Truth.
And this really meant a lot to me as well.
And he said,
he was criticizing that Al
Gore's movie is being shown
to kids in schools.
And he made the point that
for the first time in history,
First time in history,
young people are deciding
not to have children.
Right.
Because they're so
terrorized and depressed by
the teacher who they love
and respect and believe in
telling them we're all going to die.
We're going to fry.
So if you were to have a child, I mean,
who in their right mind would do that,
by the way,
have a child and bring them
into some kind of apocalyptic nightmare?
Nobody would do that.
So the teachers that they are, so children,
and I've noticed this when
I've spoken on campuses,
and it's something that
matters a great deal to me,
is I go to these campuses
and I meet these depressed young people.
And I'm thinking, you know,
and I know you guys and I
know we're all on the same team here,
whatever.
But, you know,
it's never it's never been better.
We're so lucky.
We can't even we don't even
know how lucky we are.
People are walking around and they're,
you know, Richard Linsen the other day.
And I could talk a little bit about him.
I can stay on a bit longer.
Richard Linsen, you know, an advanced age.
And there he was, you know,
coming in to give evidence
from Paris through Zoom.
It didn't work, but the technology.
But we're living at the best
time in history and young
people should be told that.
and told to be enthusiastic
and told to get excited and
have loads of children
because one of their
children will cure cancer
and make them joyful and be
Beethoven or not even be
Beethoven and annoy them,
but be magnificent and a joy to them.
But instead of that,
they're being brought up in
this horribly doomsary environment.
And Rand said that on the stand.
And I just really, I really loved that.
And I think this is what
this case is about.
And this is why they need to win.
Yeah.
Just one last thing I want
to mention about Abraham Weiner.
He said he testified that
the reason because actually
the man's attorneys were like,
this is the first time
you've ever gone into
climate science and statistics.
Right.
And you haven't really done
a lot of other work when it
comes to climate science and statistics,
have you?
And he says, no.
But he said, you know,
that wasn't really his thing.
His thing is statistics.
And he said he looked at the
hockey stick and he looked.
He says.
you know,
what Michael Mann was trying to
do with statistics.
And he is not a statistician.
He said that was the hardest
problem I could even
imagine having to deal with
with statistical algorithms.
And so one of the country's
most renowned statisticians
actually takes a look at
the data and comes to a
very different conclusion.
And actually what he did is
he exposed that what
Michael Mann did and which
is what he's being
criticized for and what
he's suing over is that he
was cherry picking data and that, frankly,
he doesn't know what he's doing.
When it comes to a
statistical analysis of
both temperature records and proxy data.
On that point, you know, on that point,
you know, man, when he,
when he was just fine,
he specifically said, no,
I'm not a statistician.
And they said, well, you had status.
No, I didn't work with statisticians.
We, we talked to a few, we consulted,
but they weren't part of the,
they weren't part of the research team.
So a non-statistician
produces a statistical analysis of,
And then they criticize the
statistician who analyzes
their analysis because he's
not a climate scientist.
He's not a climate scientist.
It was about the results of
their statistical analysis.
Correct.
That graphic to me
I know hockey sticks.
They are flat.
And then they have a blade at the end.
And that's what man's look like.
Flat with blade.
That looks like a bucket
scoop on the front of a tractor.
Yeah.
Right.
You know,
and it does show very clearly
that there was no flat before.
Right.
What's you know,
what's also great about Dr.
Weiner is and it's such an
interesting thing about statistics.
I literally can imagine some of the jury,
by the way,
deciding that they're going to
study statistics after this,
because it's really
fascinating because it
doesn't matter that he
doesn't know anything about climate.
In fact,
it's almost an advantage that he
doesn't know anything about climate.
He knows about data.
And what we're looking at
when we look at these
graphs is data and how data
has been manipulated or
dealt with in order to create a result.
And it's very legitimate for
a statistician to come along and say,
let's have a look at this
and how this was created
and if this is accurate,
because the stakes are very high here.
This is trillions of dollars.
This is people who froze to
death in Texas.
by the way this is about
people who froze to death
in texas including a child
this is what this is about
this is about the lights
going off in germany this
is this is what this is
about this it could the
stakes could not possibly
be higher so yes you should
invite if you care you
should be inviting everyone
in to criticize your
results because we're all
in this together this
really really matters
But I loved what Dr. Weiner said.
He talked about how
confirmation bias and p-hacking,
et cetera,
these inappropriate ways of
dealing with data
create results that are incorrect.
And he gave fabulous examples,
and not as serious,
but he gave a wonderful example about,
I think it was,
and he mentioned it without
getting into too many details,
about a cough medicine,
which then had been
scrutinized by
statisticians who came back
and basically said, hmm, OK,
that cough medicine that
we've all been taking all
around the world forever does nothing.
And so people like this Dr. Weiner,
the world needs more of him.
And I'll tell you one other
thing that I really think is important.
One thing that has really
struck me in this case and
sitting in that court case
is what has been going on
in that courtroom is what
should be going on in the
town square of every town in the world.
And it's what's not
happening because the
climate change alarmists
will not debate anything.
They will not debate.
And so there's something
very powerful happening in
this courtroom where they
are having to answer questions.
And my God, they hate us.
That's why Michael Mann does
not want to talk to anyone who won't,
you know, to celebrate him.
without question you know he
wants to pal around as he
said he has a bromance with
leonardo dicaprio you know
and we didn't mention I
presume phelan mentioned it
last week the idea that 12
years of litigation he has
never spent a penny he is
in law here trying to
destroy people michael mark
stein is there in the
courtroom in a wheelchair I
mean it's horrible
And it's no small measure
that he is in that
wheelchair because of this litigation.
Who would be fit for it?
The bills are astronomical.
They're frightening.
I mean,
I have a very good friend who's a
lawyer in town here.
He explained to me that the
average kind of price for
these lawyers is fifteen
hundred dollars an hour.
But most of them are twenty
five hundred dollars an hour.
Most of them.
So fifteen hundred is kind of, you know,
the kind of the lower end.
Let's exaggerate downwards
and say $1,000 an hour.
This is hours and hours and
hours for 12 years.
This is huge money.
So somebody is paying Michael Mann.
We don't know who is doing it,
but it's a nightmare.
If you, you know, so basically the word,
you know,
the word that goes out there is
be careful.
Oh God, you skeptics,
be careful because I'll
come after you and I will destroy you.
I'll take your home.
I'll make sure your children
don't go to college.
I'll take your house.
We will destroy you for having an opinion.
Well, the irony here, Anne,
is that in testimony,
I believe it was John Abraham,
was that one of Michael Mann's witnesses?
He's the founder of
something called the
Climate Science Legal Defense Fund.
I mean,
we actually mentioned this on the
podcast with Phelan last week.
And, you know,
it's the Climate Science
Legal Defense Fund.
And that is why, presumably,
Michael Mann has not spent
a thin dime of his own
money while emptying the
bank accounts and causing
financial ruination and
physical ruination of men
like Mark Stein and Rand Simberg.
They should call it the
Climate Science Legal
Offense Fund because
apparently its only purpose...
is for people like Michael Mann,
a serial litigator and a
nasty piece of business to
have unlimited funds to sue
anybody who criticizes him
in a way that he finds
distasteful and people that
he sees as vulnerable to being ruined.
So it's not a defense fund,
it's an offense fund and it's disgusting.
Jim, this is just taking I mean,
Michael Mann is basically
just using the tactics of
Greenpeace and them at the
individual level, you know,
instead of going after, you know,
Greenpeace will try to sue
like a utility company or
something to get them, you know,
trapped in such expensive
litigation that they just
opt to close down a coal plant anyway.
Right.
And Michael Mann is doing the same thing,
but instead of going after groups,
he goes after individuals
who call him mean names on
Twitter or blog posts.
It's lawfare.
And it's lawfare attacking.
I don't think that the
fundamental issue is science.
I think the fundamental
issue is free speech.
We have a First Amendment in this country.
They don't have it in Canada.
They don't have it in Europe.
We have it here.
Yes.
And supposedly that is
supposed to identify you
unless you are actually committing fraud.
And there's no evidence that
these people have committed fraud.
They mocked him.
Mocking public figures is
supposed to be OK.
Yes.
Yeah.
and should be encouraged.
And so the result of this is
incredibly important.
Jim, were you going to play another clip?
Because I'd love the
listeners to hear the better audio,
just to realize that the
podcast has very high production values.
And I'd love them to hear
the better audio in the second clip.
Because what we're doing is,
as people probably know,
your listeners probably
know this quite well,
we have actors over in Los Angeles
who you know the way we're
doing this is we go to the
court every day we come out
we work on the transcript
then we send the transcript
to los angeles have actors
reenact the best parts of
the day the most dramatic
parts of the day then we go
to a studio here we record the links
Then all of that gets sent
to an editor in Dublin, Ireland,
who works overnight and it
comes out in the morning.
So it's quite the production,
as you can imagine.
And anyone out there, by the way,
who wants to help us,
we would appreciate it.
We're the Unreported Story Society,
by the way, and we are a 501c3.
Yes.
OK, Andy, you're.
Yeah, there you go.
And so, yeah,
we'll play that clip real
quick so people can hear
the fantastic audio quality
of this very professional production.
So this is Rand Simberg.
And then I hope we have time.
I hope that your feet
doesn't turn into a pumpkin too soon.
I have to ask you about the
attempt to dismiss the case
and what the judge said,
because people watching the
trial had no idea what the judge said.
But actually,
you can get it on episode 10.
climate change on trial.
So but maybe they can give us a preview.
Anyway,
so so they tried to make a big deal.
Ran Simberg in his brief blog post said,
I guess you can call me a denier.
And I'm not quite sure what
point they were trying to make.
But that is the plaintiffs.
But, you know, we're called deniers,
climate deniers.
I mean,
Michael Mann must have said the
word denier in his own
testimony about 100 times.
But, yeah,
let's play this clip from Rand Simberg,
who I imagine, I think the actor,
I hope he is,
mirroring the sense of
exasperation the actor has
in playing the role of Rand Simberg.
So, Andy, go ahead and cue that up,
please.
When you say, now consider me a denier,
what do you mean by that?
Denier in quotes.
I know.
It means that I believe
what... I was kind of upset
when I wrote that.
And what it really means is
that I'm... I'm kind of
skeptical about the
validity of the climate
science up to this point.
I'm seeing what I think is
actual deception resulting
from the ClimateGate emails.
That's really what I am saying.
When you say that you have
been skeptical of climate science,
are you referring to
climate change or are you
referring to the issues
that are in this case,
which is the research
around the historical temperatures?
I was referring to really
the hockey stick and all
the hype it got in
particular at the IPCC.
Yeah.
yeah you get to hear you get
to hear the audio there um
and uh you know the
production values which I
have no I have no hand in
but other great people are
involved with um and yeah I
mean so yeah so rand
simberg had referred to
himself in inverted commas
as a denier I mean I'm very
sensitive about this denier
thing I've got you know I
I'm an irish catholic but I
came to live in america and
I happened to have ended up
in los angeles
And basically everyone I
love now in the world is Jewish.
So I'm very sensitive about
the word denier because I
think it has been always
reserved for people who
deny that 6 million people
were tortured and executed by the Nazis.
And I think any other use of it,
I almost feel like it's a,
But it's somehow almost sacred.
You know, it's a word.
It's a very specific word
about a very specific thing
that we've all known about
for years and we have utter disgust for.
And to use that word in
relation to somebody who's
sceptical about the hockey stick,
it's disgusting, by the way.
And equally, by the way,
I have a such clear memory.
Some of your listeners will
remember we created a
documentary a number of
years ago called Not Evil,
Just Wrong about this whole issue,
about this whole global warming madness.
And we interviewed the great
Dr. Richard Lindzen,
chair of atmospheric
sciences at MIT at the time.
I know he's retired now,
but a brilliant person.
And this is where my sensitivity started,
because he said,
he had literally just read at that time,
this is, I don't know, a decade ago,
he had literally read in
The Economist magazine,
himself be described as a denier.
And he's, you know,
you guys probably know
Richard Linsing quite well,
very mild mannered,
very correct gentleman.
And he said, you know,
that he was quite shook up
by it because so many of
his own family had perished
in the Holocaust.
And for him to be called
that and to have that word
used against him.
I mean, it's really horrific, you know,
and this is this is the tenor.
This is the tenor of this conversation.
And there's something really
quite disgusting about that.
There's something disturbing
about that when you can't
speak civilly to people
about something that has
couldn't have more import for the world.
As I said, people froze to death in Texas.
because of that hockey stick.
I mean,
literally because of that hockey stick,
one of them a child.
This couldn't be more important.
So we're allowed to talk about it.
We're meant to talk about it.
As you said there very correctly, Sterling,
we have free speech in this country.
And this idea that somebody
like Michael Mann can come
along and lawfare us into
quiet and lawfare us into
being quiet and worrying
that we're going to lose our house.
This is not a good thing.
And this case needs to end
this and to let these guys
know you have to take it.
You have to take it when people say,
I'm questioning this.
In the strongest terms,
I'm questioning this.
This looks wrong to me.
And the reason, by the way,
that Rand Simberg and Mark
Stein were so critical was
based on their reading of people like
Dr. Wyman and others, Nobel Prize winning,
actual Nobel Prize winning
scientists who criticized
the hockey stick.
And that Nobel Prize,
I presume Phelan dealt with
that last week.
But again,
the stolen valor involved with that.
You know, Marie Curie won the Nobel Prize.
Michael Mann, you did not.
Yes.
And, you know, and so, yeah,
it's it's 43 minutes since
we started and I think you
may have to go soon.
So see how quickly you could
do this before you have to go.
So so so after the plaintiff, Michael Mann,
arrested his case,
the defense moved to have
the case dismissed.
They were arguing that Mann
had not proved his case,
that he suffered defamation or damages,
injury.
And the judge did not rule
in favor of the of the defense.
Can you walk us through
those arguments and why the
judge declined to just bang
the gavel and throw everybody out?
Well, it's quite a formal process.
So what you have to do is, I mean,
they did argue a little bit
in court and came up with
some of the stuff, which is, you know,
and it's very simple in a sense.
They have not proved their case.
They have not proved damages.
They haven't.
They have been they
literally have been unable to do that.
You know,
somebody looked strangely at me
in a Wegmans.
Oh, shut up.
You know, already get over yourself.
But so the judge has
received submissions from
the Simberg side and from Mark Stein side,
quite lengthy submissions
detailing the reasons why
this case should be dismissed.
They are being considered as we speak.
And in fact,
the plaintiffs are also
allowed to speak into that
and say why it shouldn't be dismissed.
And they were allowed till noon Eastern,
so just a couple of hours ago,
noon Eastern today to
submit their rejoinder.
And then the judge will decide.
And funny enough,
somebody asked me that very question,
the question that you're
kind of asking now.
I believe what will have to
happen is that we will go
back into court on Monday
morning and the judge will
say what he decided after
considering these documents.
I don't believe we're going
to get a phone call today
or over the weekend saying it's all over.
I think we're going back to
court on Monday.
I would be inclined to think
that the judge will
continue at this stage.
But I but I do think they
have a very strong case for dismissing,
including in that the case
for dismissal is the fact
that the plaintiffs had
shown erroneous information in a very,
very prejudicial way to the jury.
And it's certainly if this
thing goes on and if there was any and if,
for example, if they if the defense,
if they lost.
It certainly grounds for a
retrial or a mistrial,
what happened inside the court.
So it's interesting.
Who knows?
And don't forget,
and your viewers will very
much appreciate my next comment,
we are in Washington, D.C.
This is a Washington, D.C.
jury,
which is almost in itself
extraordinarily unfair.
It shouldn't be here at all.
It wouldn't be here at all
if it wasn't for CEI and National Review,
neither of whom are now in
this case at all.
It shouldn't be here.
It should be in a much more neutral venue.
But I still believe in the jury system.
I covered a case recently,
the Kevin Spacey case,
which I imagine many of
your listeners would
probably think Kevin Spacey
is a dreadful person and
was guilty and whatever.
Well,
he has been exonerated in every last
court he's been in.
because the guy who took the
action against him lied.
And the jury in New York,
where I thought Kevin
Spacey didn't have hope,
made their decision within
a half an hour.
So there's always hope.
There's always hope.
And the jury system,
we have to believe in it.
And I do believe that they
were very impressed,
particularly by Dr. Weiner.
And I hope to get to hear
from Dr. Curry on Monday.
Yeah, well,
so a quick question for you before you go,
because you might know this and we don't.
A question from Phil Rader.
Do we know if Dr. Ross
McKittrick is going to testify?
He did a statistical
analysis of the hockey stick as well.
Do you know if he's going to
be on the witness list for Mark Stein?
Yes, absolutely.
Thanks, Phil, for that question.
I'm actually really glad you
wrote that in.
So
We have on the list of
people who have yet to
appear and should appear if
this thing isn't dismissed
are Ross McKittrick and McIntyre.
Ross McKittrick,
McIntyre and McKittrick and
Judith Curry and Dr. Richard Lindzen.
Those are the ones that are on the list.
but as I said the judge has
been you know came out
quite strongly and was
quite kind of uh more firm
than he's been before
saying we're finishing this
on wednesday one way or the
other and I don't know how
we do that with all those
um witnesses who haven't uh
appeared yet and you know
you have to think that they
have to give their evidence
to Rand Simberg's lawyers
and to Mark Stein himself
and then be cross-examined.
And I would really like all
of them to be heard because
McKittrick and McIntyre,
as you said very correctly, Phil,
they did the criticism
which appeared in the peer-reviewed,
the same peer-reviewed
journal where the hockey
stick originally appeared.
I honestly don't understand
how the judge can set a
timeline on a trial.
I know.
You have your plaintiffs,
they have their witnesses,
and you have your defense.
There's no...
Well, it's also it's also sterling.
It's also very unfair
because the the defense, the plaintiffs,
I should say,
the plaintiffs didn't rest
until yesterday or whatever it was like.
So, you know,
so they went they went over
like three days over what
they should have done.
So, you know,
it's very unfair that the
defense have now got such a
limited time to present
powerful witnesses that they have.
I think that would be
grounds for appeals if
they're not able to present
their case in full.
Yeah.
I think he's not going to
move on Wednesday, by the way.
It's going to end on Wednesday.
And can I just say on my own behalf,
I have two cats in Los
Angeles waiting for me who
do have somebody taking care of them,
but they'll be very upset
if I don't return on Friday.
That's my plan, but we'll keep you posted,
guys.
Okay, well, we'll let you go, Anne.
I know that you have another
interview coming up.
Please,
I urge all of our viewers and
listeners to support the great work,
the heroic work
of Philem McAleer and Anne
McElhenney at the
Unreported Stories Society.
It is a 501c3,
just like the Heartland Institute.
They need your support.
So if you actually value
real journalism that
challenges those in power,
you must support that organization.
And please subscribe and
leave reviews for the
Climate Change on Trial
podcast because when Philem
was on last weekend,
he said it was at that time
the number six podcast
science podcast in the world.
Where are you now?
Do you remember?
I looked this morning,
we were number seven.
We would love to be number
one by the end of the week, but you know,
by the end of, by the end of the trial,
but it's still,
it's extraordinary because
we're ahead of like the, you know,
National Geographic and NPR
and these people with
obviously massive teams.
So we're a tight,
little tight organization.
So we're very proud of
what's been achieved.
Yeah, well,
we're very proud to have you on
the podcast,
and I hope we can have you on
again after the trial.
You and Phelan together would be fantastic,
but we'll see if we can work that out.
Thanks so much for being on with us today,
and we'll see you,
and we'll keep an eye on
you and the trial.
Thank you so much.
I really appreciate it.
God bless.
All right.
Guys, also,
if you want to support Mark Stein,
he's selling like a hockey stick,
a Liberty stick on his website,
which I think is steinonline.com.
And he has a shop there.
So he can probably use all
the help that he can get as well.
Yep.
For sure.
All right.
Well, let's pull up that super chat.
Let's do that.
Thank you very much, Dean.
As always, Dean,
we appreciate it when you
guys support us as well.
So thank you very much.
We're doing our best.
So I'm glad that people are
enjoying the show so much.
Yes, me as well.
Before we go to questions or crazy climate,
I don't know if we're going
to get to that,
but I'd like to just follow
up on one thing that she brought up,
the whole denier thing.
So I've been doing this
as much as I hate to admit it,
25 years now on climate, off and on.
And I have been, of course,
called a denier,
as have everyone at Heartland,
but me before at NCPA even.
And I've been compared to Nazis.
And the problem with the
denier opprobrium is not
just that I don't deny that
climate changes.
The whole comparison is just awful,
not because the Nazis were
evil and the Holocaust was evil.
It was, but because it's a fact.
It is a known fact.
We have bodies.
We have photographic evidence.
We have eyewitness testimony.
It's not a matter of
supposition or computer models saying,
well,
statistics show the Jewish
population went down.
No.
as opposed to the whole
theory of climate change,
which is not a fact.
It's not supported by data.
It's not supported by evidence.
It's driven by computer
models and statistical
manipulation like man's.
That's not fact.
That's not even science.
Those are tools used in science.
So it's just a totally
inappropriate comparison.
Right.
And the most notable thing
to me about this trial,
other than it going on at all,
is as Anne remarked at the
beginning of the show,
there is such a huge
difference between the
persona that Mann is
putting on for this trial
and his content and what
you can go and look at on
his Twitter account.
And also the way he talks on,
he goes on the news all the time.
I think CNN has him on.
Relatively frequently.
And he is just contemptible on there.
It's man on trial versus man in real life.
Yeah.
Him trying to play the like...
Nice guy who,
I don't know how I get in
these situations.
This is so weird.
Why would they say these
mean things about me?
Yeah, all right.
Yeah, it's infuriating.
I know a lot of our
listeners and viewers of
this show have been following it,
maybe not following it as much as I have.
I'm almost trying to listen
to every single minute.
But I think one of the
really and I was actually kind of shocked,
maybe not shocked,
but that the judge didn't
just dismiss the case.
I mean,
the burden here is on Michael Mann.
He has to prove that not
just him being attacked in
general by climate deniers.
No,
he has to prove that that blog post
seen by about 17000 people.
I think that was it was
entered into evidence
because you can track that.
is what cost him all these grants,
and it cost him,
it harmed his personal and
professional reputation, and that,
you know,
nobody would associate with him
anymore because of this.
And of course,
Mark Stein in Rensenberg's
side brings up photos of
him from his own website,
of him with his bromance
with Leonardo DiCaprio.
And here he is on stage
introducing Bill Clinton
and Terry McAuliffe at a
Democratic political event in Virginia.
And here's Michael Mann in a
documentary on climate change.
And here's Michael Mann at
the premiere of that
documentary on climate
change at some wonderful place.
And I'm sure he got a nice gift bag.
So it seems obvious to
anybody with eyes and ears
that this case is a joke.
It's a complete joke.
There is no way that he has
even remotely approached
the burden that is put upon
him as the plaintiff.
It is not Michael Markstein
and Ranzenberg's job to prove anything.
It is only it is his burden.
It's a civil case,
but he's the prosecution
and it is not even close.
And it's not just that his
personal reputation hasn't
suffered with sort of big
wigs and and celebrities.
You know, he had to go through.
Oh, well,
how many journal articles have
you published since then?
Well, yeah, a lot.
Uh,
how many conferences were you at to
speak at professional?
His reputation hasn't
suffered among his peers either.
So where has his
professional reputation suffered?
His reputation among the
17,000 people that read the post.
You could argue that his
reputation would go up because he's like,
you know,
public enemy number one among the deniers,
right?
So he's like the most
prominent guy to go after
that would actually
increase your reputation.
Frankly,
we here at the Heartland Institute,
we take pride in the fact
that we are the number one
global think tank when it
comes to covering climate
and research on climate and
energy policy.
We are attacked constantly.
in ways that are much more
defamatory and libelous
than what Michael Mann is
claiming in this case.
But we wear it as a badge of pride,
because as they say,
if you're not taking flak,
you're not over the target.
And that's exactly what's happening here.
About three years ago,
there was a peer-reviewed
journal article that published...
that did the ratings,
how many times different
deniers were mentioned in, in,
in articles and journals
and newspaper reports.
And I was offended that I
was as low as I was.
You know,
I hope my ratings have gone up since then,
but you know, I still, I made the list,
but I was, I was lower than people.
I thought that guy got
mentioned more than me.
That's not right.
I write a lot more than him.
Right.
Well,
I wish we could have had Anne on for
the whole time.
As she says,
she is obsessively punctual
and I did not want to make
her late and have it be our
fault for her next appointment.
So I just want to go over a couple.
We're not going to go over
climate crazy news of the week.
There's a lot.
So we'll get to it.
Maybe I'll have to dedicate
an entire show to just that.
That would be something.
Because you certainly,
we can fill an hour every
week just talking about that.
Believe me.
So the...
the Stein Simberg side,
the defense got to start
calling witnesses.
And as we talked about earlier,
the statistician,
America's probably most
prominent statistician was,
was the first witness.
And he was the one that looked at the,
result of Michael Mann's
data manipulation and found
it wanting and wrote a very
critical paper that was well known.
And again, so now Stein has his witnesses.
So after Abraham Weiner talked about that,
Judith Curry,
took the witness stand and she barely got,
you know,
I used to cover Congress and I
used to joke, you know,
Congress is one of the
easiest jobs in the world
because you don't work on Mondays,
you work Tuesday through Thursday,
and then you leave early
Thursday afternoon and you
never work Fridays.
And apparently that's the
way it works in the DC
Superior Court as well,
because they don't have court on Fridays.
They do have it on Mondays.
Apparently the jury,
as Anne was annoyed by,
can just come in whenever
they feel like it.
So when these guys are
paying their attorneys a
thousand or $2,000 an hour,
Well,
there goes a thousand bucks for the
half an hour that we didn't
start on time because they
charge for that too when
the jury doesn't come in.
So this jury, by not being punctual,
is costing everybody lots
and lots of money.
But putting that aside,
Judy Curry didn't actually
get to testify very much.
I think it's actually going
to be starting up on Monday
and I think they'll really
get rolling with her.
And, you know,
Judith Curry has been on
this podcast on our show a
couple of times.
She has spoken.
at our climate conferences.
So has Ross McKittrick.
So has Richard Lindzen.
So has Stephen McIntyre.
So, you know, this is,
we know all these names
because we work with them quite often.
So next week is really what
I was looking forward to,
the defense witnesses.
And they are going to go after Mark Stein,
or they're going to go
after Michael Mann and his hockey stick.
And so no matter what the
result of this trial, guys, I think
its usefulness for posterity
is that for the first time
ever in a public forum,
the fraudulent hockey stick
is going to be exposed and
it will be on the public
record forever and it will be referenced,
I would hope, for decades to come.
Maybe as a kind of thing, hey,
remember when the hockey
stick was a thing?
That would be kind of fun,
but we'll see if that's how it turns out.
I want to caution CARE
I don't know if I've ever
called it fraudulent.
But the statistician yesterday, he said,
no, I never said it was fraud.
Fraud requires intent.
I can't get in people's minds.
I called it deceptive
because it is deceptive.
And he explained why it was deceptive,
why it didn't follow norms of statistics,
why it cherry-picked certain statistics.
There's no question it's deceptive.
And man...
He may have committed fraud when he said,
I'm a Nobel Prize winner.
He may have lied in court when he said,
I don't tweet that often.
And when he said, before Congress,
under oath, I don't call people,
I've never called anyone a denier.
How he could say that, it befuddles me.
But I'm not convinced we can
know with certainty that it
was fraud perpetrated upon the IPCC.
Because I'm not convinced
the IPCC ever cared about
the truthfulness of it.
It made the case they were trying to make.
Right.
They didn't care about the accuracy.
They cared about the usefulness of it.
They didn't care about the accuracy of it.
So we'll wrap up the show here,
but I wanted to thank both
Peter Williams for his nine pounds,
99 pence, I believe, in proper money,
as they say, from England.
And also here,
Alan Griffiths has a question.
for 10 pounds.
Thank you very much.
Let's suppose Stein and Simberg win.
What then for the IPCC and
the whole climate change industry?
Well, I hate to be the negative one.
I don't think it'll make the
IPCC withdraw using some of
those models from their AR6
reports or anything.
I don't think that that's
going to change anything.
I
I do think that they will be seething mad.
There will be many emails
going back and forth,
particularly among the
individuals who are already
busted for sending nasty
emails that were brought up in this trial,
including a gentleman from
NASA who is also just...
His activities on Twitter
are just really shocking
for someone who's supposed
to be a professional.
It's...
I won't say that it will all
of a sudden create like a
collapse in the whole narrative,
but it will reveal a pre-existing crack.
And I think that it can be
leveraged on our part from there.
I largely agree with Linnea there.
I don't think it will change
their narrative, right?
Because the hockey stick is
only part of it.
It's not one of the climate models.
It's a statistical analysis
that used graphical form.
They didn't use it in the
three reports they issued
after it because they
didn't want to get into that.
I doubt they'll ever put it
in there again if it loses.
I mean, you know,
they almost certainly won't.
They'll just it'll be it'll
be like in The Wizard of Oz
when the curtain is peeled
back and the wizard says, ignore the man,
ignore the man behind the curtain.
And and the IPCC says, oh, well,
that's old news.
That was that was five reports ago.
We're not talking about that.
We know we've got a lot of
data since then.
Yeah, well,
I think what's fair to say is
that Michael Mann winning
would be really great for his side,
or at least would be portrayed that way.
And him losing is what you
would think is the opposite of that.
So it's better than the alternative,
which is a D.C.
jury ruling, I think,
beyond all logic and evidence that...
He has been defamed and is
in his due punishment for
Stein and Simberg.
If he loses, it'll be appealed.
Sure.
So more court for Stein and Simberg.
Yeah.
If he loses, it'll be appealed.
It'll be a black mark.
I suspect that it won't hurt the IPCC,
but it will hurt man and
it'll hurt his colleagues.
If I'm one of his colleagues,
I don't want to work with him.
I don't think I don't think
it'll hurt man one bit
because he's already lost
court cases that should
have hurt him in the eyes
of his colleagues and stuff.
And they don't they don't
care because the kind of
people that he's hanging
out with don't care.
Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't
care that the data doesn't back it up.
He's having too much fun, you know,
running around doing
whatever celebrity
appearances he does for this stuff.
I mean,
they don't they really do not care.
No, they don't.
Well,
we will have it as actually as an
exit question.
It's so asks,
does Mark need financial support?
And the answer to that is yes.
So you can go to Mark Stein,
Mark Stein's website,
Stein online dot com.
He is selling truth sticks,
truth hockey sticks to help
fund his his his legal bills.
He doesn't have the
what Michael Mann has,
which is the supposed
climate science legal defense fund.
So he has to depend on the
likes of us to help him in
this very important fight
and battle for the truth
when it comes to the climate.
So that's going to be it for today.
You know, I want to thank everybody here,
obviously, for being on the program.
And we are covering this trial.
We're going to take it all
the way to the end.
So the judge says that the
trial is supposed to end on Wednesday.
So Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday are going to be
very important days.
I know I will be watching
and listening to the trial.
I suspect Sterling and
Linnea will as much as they can.
And we will hopefully have
some good news to report
at the end of next week and
every Friday at 1 p.m.
Eastern Time, 12 p.m.
Central Time.
It's Climate Change
Roundtable by the Heartland Institute.
I want to thank again all of
you for watching here online.
I want to thank you for being in the chat.
It's been fantastic.
And we will talk to you next week.
How dare you?