I just saw in two or three other threads that some people here are claiming that the scientist Mann "lost his own court case and apologized to the person he sued for questioning him" or "the court ruled in favour of this published scientist being named a fraud".

Whatever one thinks of Mann and his graph, the truth is that the court did NOT rule in favour of him being named a fraud; the case never even got to court. Mann did NOT apologise to any defendant, and in fact one of the defendants publicly retracted their claims about Mann and apologised to him - see below.

As I said, whatever you think about the person and his graph, no one should throw around lies around like this. If the case against climate science is strong, you shouldn't need to BS about it.

One defendant apologised and retracteded their claim in June. The suit against Ball never went to a hearing on the merits.

The fact is that the claims that Mann "lost his own court case and apologized to the person he sued for questioning him" or "the court ruled in favour of this published scientist being named a fraud" are wrong.

Mann is a jerk. He sues all and sundry. He is also a very bad scientist, Mr.Pedant Chris 249. He used trees from different ALTITUDES to try and prove no MW Period. I bet you like his friend Briffa from East Anglia and the pathetic HADCRUT lot. Briffa REFUSED to show how he arrived at his similar conclusion. After 2 years he reluctantly provided FORTRAN unrecorded data. (ie his lousy 17 odd trees and where they were located - turns out some 250 miles APART!!! Ha, ha.) Then get this, 16 trees showed the MWP was true but ONE, one gimpy tree did not..........so he AVERAGED them - conclusion? No MWP. That's the way to do science, is it? Refuse to produce your data; footdrag? And then a pathetic 17 trees?
Chris, what is wrong with you. Go away and study Synodic Resonance; and John D.Maclean's study of the decrease in World cloud cover. 6.8% in 23 years. No nit picking, please!