Is Climate Data Fraudster Michael Mann’s Lawyer a Liar?
Hotshot lawyer to disgraced climate scientist Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann faces accusations of misrepresentation as a critical global warming lawsuit against a prominent Canadian critic, Dr Tim Ball continues to unravel.
Mann’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, a leading expert in Canadian libel law, was reported recently as dismissing damning claims by John O’Sullivan, a writer/publisher and known associate of the internationally popular Tim Ball. McConchie is reported to have ridiculed claims by O’Sullivan that he is a party in the protracted three-year lawsuit at the British Columbia Supreme Court, Vancouver. But O’Sullivan insists he does contractually hold a huge financial stake in the case. So, what gives?
The question is: did McConchie actually make any such a statement, and if he did, is it factually correct? (If he didn’t say any such thing then those who promulgate the lie should apologize).
First, a little background:
If Ball wins this case then it will likely become the most important science lawsuit since the notorious Scopes Monkey trial of 1925. The issues being litigated go to the heart of which scientists are lying about man-made global warming. Professor Mann of Pennsylvania State University is a high profile alarmist; he says his science proves humans are dangerously changing earth’s climate. Dr Ball, a retired university professor and skeptic, says much of the ‘science’ is fudged and some deliberately faked to obscure the actual truth that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) have little, if any, impact on climate.
O’Sullivan has been embroiled in this multi-million dollar legal battle from the start. Ball and O’Sullivan were regularly-published contributors to the Canada Free Press (CFP) site that ran Ball’s now famous article declaring that the Penn. State professor belonged in “the state pen, not Penn. State.” This was a reference to Mann’s unethical (possibly criminal) actions relating to hidden metadata for his discredited 1998 ‘hockey stick’ graph that purportedly proved human industrial emissions of carbon dioxide were dangerously warming the planet.
Ball’s article caused a storm and CFP capitulated to a “take down” notice of legal threats from McConchie. Articles written by O’Sullivan and Ball disappeared from the site and McConchie filed Mann’s lawsuit.
Since 2010 O’Sullivan had collaborated with Ball and in his own right become an effective advocate against climate alarmism. He set up the ‘Slayers’ group of global warming skeptics and Dr Ball joined as lead author of the ground-breaking book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory.’ The book inspired the founding of the increasingly prominent organisation, Principia Scientific International (PSI) that champions scientific ethics and openness and transparency by researchers in key fields that impact public policy.
From the outset one of the key ‘junk science’ targets of the group was Mann and his dodgy graph. They had been iconic symbols in the highly-influential 2001 UN report on man-made global warming, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which then went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize (not science prize, we should add!). Ball’s sensational new book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science;’ shows why the UN IPCC is nothing more and nothing less than a politically contrived organisation.
As O’Sullivan predicted from the outset, Mann’s litigation was to serve as nothing more than a cynical SLAPP suit designed to tie up Ball for years and chill public debate.
In recent weeks O’Sullivan has spoken out. He has drawn the ire of Mann and his lawyer after publishing stinging articles declaring Mann’s legal claim against Ball dead in the water due to Mann’s stubborn unwillingness to comply with court rules about disclosing the key calculations for his “secret science.”
The hard legal facts:
In his court papers McConchie identifies O’Sullivan by name. Affidavits attacking O’Sullivan were filed. Ball was challenged to clarify to what extent, if any, O’Sullivan’s published comments may be connected to Ball. The purpose of seeking such clarification, it is assumed, is so that Mann may hold Ball actionable for O’Sullivan’s words or, in the alternative, Mann could readily sue O’Sullivan separately for his supposed defamatory statements.
In the event, after taking legal advice, O’Sullivan signed a “hold harmless” indemnity with Ball so that O’Sullivan would be legally and financially liable to Ball if Mann won his lawsuit and the court ruled O’Sullivan’s words were a factor.
So is O’Sullivan therefore a party to his action?
Yes, by plain reading of the common law term ‘party.’ Legal dictionaries define this as:
“Parties:
The persons who are directly involved or interested in any act, affair, contract, transaction, or legal proceeding; opposing litigants. Persons who enter into a contract or other transactions are considered parties to the agreement.”
By virtue of the fact O’Sullivan is bound by Ball’s ‘hold harmless’ indemnity, then he is certainly contracted to these legal proceedings as a party. By his signed agreement with Ball, O’Sullivan is considerably and financially liable to Ball if Mann wins (don’t hold your breath!).
So, is McConchie a liar? Let the facts come out and you be the judge.
Trackback from your site.