Heartland Daily Podcast

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

How dare you?