Michael Mann’s Latest Research

Michael Mann has determined from a Wikipedia article (which had nothing to do with me) that I am an anti-Semite, racist and misogynist. As a Jew married to a beautiful Asian bride, I was quite surprised.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Michael Mann’s Latest Research

  1. Conrad Ziefle says:

    Well, his powers of deduction always have been questionable. Nothing he has posted detracts from that.

  2. Disillusioned says:

    He stepped way over the line. I am no attorney, but it seems he probably created grounds for a slander suit.

    • Francis Barnett says:

      Slander is spoken/broadcast defamation, writing it on a publicly accessible forum turns it into a published libel.
      How do I know? Years ago I criticised the physical state of a vehicle I hired to the hirer with photographic evidence. They threatened that I had libelled them.
      My lawyer had a good laugh about it, explained the legal position to me, and told them in legal language to Foxtrot – Oscar.
      Might be different in USA however?

      • Dan A Sinema says:

        You are correct. Slander is verbal; libel is written.

      • Russell Cook says:

        In the U.S., the standard for defamation is the “New York Times v Sullivan” court case, which I point to in my GelbspanFiles blog ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/NYTvSullivan-false-or-reckless-disregard.jpg ) when discussing the overall defamation of skeptic climate scientists as ‘paid shills of Big Oil.’ A person defames someone else by knowingly telling a falsehood with malice to hurt the person (as opposed to a false claim that is an honest mistake), or else it is an act done with malice where the accuser made the false claim with utterly reckless regard to whether it was true or not. A biased, leftist newspaper staff might not like a ‘denier scientist,’ but if their report relies on sources for the ‘industry-paid’ accusation, it would be tough to prove defamation. When those sources to the newspaper deliberately provide the accusation with malice to cause big reputational harm to skeptic scientists because they outright hate them all, but never bothered to check if the ‘leaked industry memos’ evidence had any merit — I think that is were those accusation promulgators are in potentially deep trouble. The Mann has a reputation, as demonstrated in the Mark Steyn case about his guesses concerning the personal status of Dr Judith Curry, for being maliciously reckless with his accusations.

  3. Surely the sheer stupidity of his pronouncements must offend even the thickest academic (they award PhDs in climate science to any idiot, or so it seems, from the comments I used to get back in the days I posted on YouTube). Wikipedia has become weaponized against those who question the Holy Doctrines and present inconvenient facts which completely debunk the official party line. I imagine Tony will not be able to edit the libellous Wikipedia article, any more than Vernon Coleman can his.

    By putting the slander in Wikipedia, which can be edited anonymously, there is no individual who can be brought to account, and that is the reason it is useless as a source.

    However, continued slander, brings public attention to the individual concerned. As every ad man knows, there is no such thing as bad publicity. If Tony can make the headlines as an ‘extreme climate denier’, it will draw attention to his work, and that of other ‘deniers’, so that
    through curiosity, many may be motivated to look at it and make up their own minds.

    As Dr Goebbels pointed out, the message must be purely emotional, and all opposing views must be suppressed. The climate crisis narrative fits the template of Nazi propaganda.

    • Disillusioned says:

      Good post. Perhaps a few of his detractors may be attracted by the bad publicity and come here, watch his sane, measured, steady-as-she-goes short clips and become uncomfortable. Discomfort before disillusion.

  4. arn says:

    Well, Michael Mann has nothing to do with climate science yet he uses it to prove global warming,
    therefore an article that has nothing to do with you
    can easily be used as Manns prove for your antisemitism,racism and mysogynie (which are probably the terms the intellectual lefty elite uses instead of racist, bigot,nazis).
    Manns ‘quality’, intellectual integrity and approach pretty consistent.

    And since Larry Elder was declared the black face of white supremacy anything is possible in the realm of New Babylon.

    But when Mann can call you such names,
    why can I neither post your name nor that of your Website and refer to the 1970s cooling scare without being deleted or Shadow Banned on YouTube?
    If 2020ies mainstream scientist can call you names,
    then your name in combination with 1970s mainstream scientists should not be violating any guidelines.

    • The suppression of opposing views must be absolute. Particularly dangerous to propaganda are verifiable facts. The slightest trickle of truth will eventually wash away the feet of clay on which the carefully constructed edifice of lies has been built.

      • I have a strong suspicion that the AI used to assess the nature of your blog works by comparing the phrases in the titles of the posts with a list of proscribed ideas. I don’t believe for one minute that it actually understands the content.

        Give your posts tiles which are apparently sycophantic to the party line, while actually containing the evidence that debunks it.

        I deduced this from some flat earth posts, which are clearly controlled opposition, intended to associate skeptics with nonsensical conspiracy theorists. As they are written by propagandists, we can glean some of their techniques from their work.

        • arn says:

          Of course the AI does not understand the context
          of AGW and criticism.
          As Mr Ziefle said it is a search engines – and Google= YouTube,has already been abusing their search engine to manipulate elections or to promote vax BS .

          And in this case it works more like a reverse search engine by analyzing specific words and patterns .
          And if you use certain forbidden words or too many ‘problematic’ words in a sentence your comment won ‘t show up.

          Proof : The number of long comments on alternative news sites has massivly decreased on YouTube.
          Nowadays it is mostly 1 or 2 liners that can be found and even the responses are short.
          Reason : the more you write, the more likely forbidden words will be used.

          The Ai does not understand – it goes by quantity of problematic words.
          And they are permanently adding new words (and disguised words) to the database.
          And I’m pretty sure they categorize users and channels,
          and if you end up in the worst category as user and are on the wrong channel,
          you can not even post war+wall street in a single post,
          not even Rockfeller,vax or CiA.
          Even the words Joe+ Dementia can barely get through.
          And even made up terms, i used to call YouTube censor algo Stalin2,become verboten after some time.

          And I haven’t seen in a while the name Soros in the comment section,so I guess very specific words have a 99 % chance to get your comment deleted on alternative channels.

  5. roaddog says:

    Mark Steyn’s lawyers would likely gladly assist you in legal action against Mann for libel.

  6. Mac says:

    Defamation, pure and simple. Michael Mann, like most modern leftists, seems to be a real nasty piece of work. I suspect it’s because his extremist climate hysteria is indefensible, so he goes on the offensive. He can’t deal with anyone outside the cult, because outsiders don’t suffer from the mass neurosis. Has anyone else noticed that leftists are incapable of simply criticizing your views or your analysis if you disagree with one of their bizarre beliefs? They cannot stick to the subject at hand, and debate in an emotionally mature fashion. They have to make everything a personal attack, like an angry infant screaming because he didn’t get ice cream.

    What’s next? Is Mann going to start personally attacking John Clauser, too?

    • czechlist says:

      “…his extremist climate hysteria…”
      I wonder if he actually believes his b s or if he is just too much of a narcissist to acknowledge that he is a charlaton.
      If pride does come before a fall then he continues to gain altitude and the resulting thud should register on the scientific and legal Richter Scales.
      Detestible people don’t pay their debts – or acknowledge a grandchild

  7. jb says:

    When — not if (u r obliged to do so for ur friends Ball and Steyn) — u sue him, please do it in a deep red state for the favorable judge/jury.

    • Disillusioned says:

      I too would love to see Mann taken to the cleaners, by someone. I don’t know that Tony is in the position to do that. It may be more about being on the controlling team – and who has the deepest pockets to keep paying legal fees. Tim Ball won, but lost his life-savings and his health in the process (Mann won even when he lost).

      At least we know Tony is dead-over the target. I appreciate his no-nonsense, measured approach. I pray for his continued health and wish him and family all the best.

      • Conrad Ziefle says:

        Any attempt to get justice regarding MM during the current Worldwide Marxofascist rule will cause self harm. They will never sacrifice one of their own, regardless of how justified.

  8. Richard E Fritz says:

    he lost a BIG Lawsuit in Canada then won a minor POS suit in US against Mark Styen – so he thinks hes a big shot now – THE PROBLEM is the Politicians and MEDIA have chosen the side of LIARS and Thieves when it comes to RAPING the tax payers in the name of a CLIMATE EMERGENCY all so they can steal billions from a $1.5 Trillion dollar a year industry – the CULT of Climate

    [Updated Aug. 24, 2019, here]

    The Supreme Court of British Columbia has dismissed Dr. Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit against skeptical Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball. Full legal costs were awarded to Dr. Ball, the defendant in the case.

    The Canadian court issued its final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed May 2019 by Dr. Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.

    Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. IPCC 2001 climate report.

    • Francis Barnett says:

      I followed that Mann v Ball case and while the outcome and costs awarded to Ball was a win, I find it very odd, strange, even that there is no legal protocol for a Canadian national to enforce the collection of a debt from a US national.

  9. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Mann has “issues”…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *