On 9 February 2024, a Washington DC jury rewarded climate warrior Michael E. Mann over a million dollars for taking what can only be described as vexatious court action against two of Mann’s adversaries who had dared to speak out against him and his famed ‘hockey stick’ graph.

In case you don’t know, Mann is the lead man who in 1998 wrote an article that contained the following iconic graph, which the IPCC promptly adopted as gospel, and which, through years of relentless promotion by Mann and other climate gurus, has firmly implanted the idea in most of the Western world, that humans are responsible for the alleged sudden and dramatic warming of planet over the last 150 or so years. 

This graph has contributed considerably to the notion that human CO2 emissions have brought the Earth to the boil. In my mind, after years of researching this topic, that’s complete and utter nonsense, and the graph itself has been credibly debunked a long time ago, but I’m not going into that now. At issue here is Mann’s propensity for taking court action against those who do not bow to his science and his famous graph. 

Mann has made it his business to promote the climate change hoax, rubbing shoulders with the rich and the famous who bought into this story hook, line and sinker. It’s probably fair to say, he is rich and famous himself now. 

But Mann has also had his adversaries, people who have criticised and debunked his work, for exposing it as fraudulent science. Mann doesn’t like criticism of any kind. He is right, he is the Fauci of climate science, the ultimate arbiter of truth. Mann has been most active on Twitter/X for many years, ridiculing and calling his critics all sorts of names. He has engaged in what can only be described as bullying, but he gets away with it, presumably because he’s a vocal and committed supporter of the climate agenda. He delivers blow after blow below the line, but he is so precious he can’t take a punch or two to his chest. 

Mann hasn’t always won in court, but his recent victory is the most incomprehensible travesty of justice imaginable. I wasn’t in court or listening to the broadcast, but I did listen to every episode of ‘Climate Change on Trial’, an excellently produced podcast by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer, which reported highlights from the court action on a daily basis, including the use of voice actors to bring the transcript of the proceedings to life. 

Mann had absolutely nothing of any substance in evidence to support his spurious defamation case against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, in this case. 

You see, in 2012, Rand Simberg wrote a blog post that included the following sentence: “Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data.” 

Mark Steyn then wrote a piece in the National Review, saying that Mann was “the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.” Followed by a clear reference to Simberg’s article: “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point.” 

In Mann’s narrow mind, he was being compared to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky, who had been working at the same university as Mann. It might not have been the most tasteful metaphor indeed, but Simberg’s statement explicitly says that Mann didn’t molest children, and Steyn distanced himself from that comparison, even if only slightly. On top of that, Mann suffered absolutely no damage to his career or his reputation as a result of these statements. 

Mann has been a very successful member of the climate circus ever since his hockey stick made headlines for all the wrong reasons, jet-setting around the world, tirelessly disseminating his climate propaganda. Not even the 2009 Climate Gate scandal could derail his career. In fact, as was revealed during the trial, in the wake of that scandal, he was protected from reputational harm by the same man who tried to shield Jerry Sandusky. Mann’s salary increased year after year following the publication of the allegedly damaging articles. Also, he doesn’t seem to have to pay any legal costs. I wonder who’s funding this man’s litigation. 

And so, despite the judge instructing the jury that this was not about climate science, these six wise men and women somehow came to the conclusion that Mann had suffered. They knew full well that Mann had not suffered damages, awarding Mann $2 in compensatory damages, $1 from Simberg, 1$ from Steyn. Some kind of slap on the wrist to justify what came next? 

The jury awarded $1000 in punitive damages against Simberg, and $1 million against Steyn, saying they made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.” The plaintiff suffered no damage, but the defendants were in the wrong anyway. I would have loved to hear the deliberations in that jury room! In any case, it seems that wit and any type of criticism is now a thing of the past, at least for those who criticise dogma. 

This outcome is beyond farcical, and both defendants have indicated they will appeal the decision. 

Not to blame Steyn for this ridiculous verdict, but I have a suspicion that it is the result of Steyn representing himself. I could be wrong, but had just another boring lawyer represented Steyn, the emphasis would have been more on Mann’s lack of evidence, and less on the obvious dislike Steyn displayed for Mann. The jury might also not have appreciated Steyn’s haughtiness. As a foreigner, Steyn would have been better off not criticising the US justice system, as he did from time to time, no matter how witty and funny his remarks were – at least before the verdict was delivered.

The reporting by the mainstream media and scientific journals was predictably euphoric – in the aftermath. They didn’t bother to report from the trial, because they probably thought that Mann had no hope, but with this unexpected victory, that is, of course, another victory for the worldwide climate cult. And Mann gloated: “It feels great. It’s a good day for us, it’s a good day for science.” And in a statement: “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”

Interesting. So clearly, for Mann himself, this had nothing to do with his thin skin. This was about climate science, and scoring a victory against people he likes to denounce for allegedly spreading lies and disinformation, when all they do is trying to engage in scientific discourse by pointing out the faults in his research and his arguments.

Unless the learned appeal court justices are disciples of the climate cult, Steyn and Simberg will be vindicated – as long as Steyn gets representation.

There was something profoundly odd about this entire Voice thing from the beginning. Suddenly it was there, at least in the media, seemingly coming out of nowhere. 

Apparently, this was some kind of done deal, and all we had to do was vote Yes. But Yes to what exactly? There was precious little detail on what this Voice was about.

As the campaign train was gathering speed, I thought I better inform myself. After all, it’s the Constitution, the rule book of our country, we’re talking about. 

I think I’ve heard enough now. I digested the various arguments from both sides, through a range of sources (no, Facebook wasn’t one of them!), from the official pamphlet to watching various Yes-adds, listening to interviews, including aboriginal Yes- and No-voters. 

Frankly: there isn’t a single argument by the Yes campaign I find convincing enough. 

Below are some of my reasons for my resounding No to the Voice.

I refuse to be emotionally blackmailed. I’m not voting Yes just because it’s the right thing to do and you’re called a racist if you vote against this proposition. I know I’m not racist. I don’t need to vote Yes to confirm that or to feel good about myself. All the abuse-shouting Yes-campaigners who prove by their very actions that this vote is divisive and not uniting won’t change that. Even clever covid-type propaganda methods, as this article suggests, will not work on me. 

By his own admission, the prime minister himself hasn’t even bothered to read beyond the executive summary of the ‘Statement from the Heart’. Relying purely on that one-pager is about as ridiculously shallow as basing your views on climate change entirely on the IPCC’s executive summary (or rather the hyperventilating media reports on it), which, sadly, … but I won’t go there now. 

There is indeed more to the ‘Statement of the Heart’ than the one page. You can download the full document here. Unlike Mr Albanese, I have read through document 14. The story is more nuanced and it’s obvious to me that the Voice is a stepping stone to treaty, truth telling, possibly reparation. There is clearly a roadmap that’s being followed. Why is the Yes campaign not being honest and forthcoming about that? And what would all of that really mean for all Australians – what legal, political and social implications would this have? The PM and Yes campaigners have done nothing to clarify. If anything, they’ve given evasive answers and tried to gloss over it. Not a good look.

Given Indigenous people already have the same opportunities to talk to government and parliament like any other Australian citizen has through the customary channels, I can’t see any reason why a particular group of people needs any special rights in the Constitution – especially when the Constitution is a purely technical instrument devoid of the consideration of human rights. And so the Voice, whatever it would become, has no place in the Constitution.

If anything, we should vote about getting rid of the remaining existing race-related paragraphs of the Constitution (sections 25 and 51xxvi). I’d be happy to vote Yes to that.

There’s nothing now that stops parliament from enacting another body, if the myriad of existing Indigenous bodies really aren’t enough to give advice to parliament. 

There is nothing the governments of the day couldn’t already do to alleviate the suffering that does exist in disadvantaged Aboriginal communities. In fact, an address by fervent Yes-campaigner Julian Leeser confirms this. He gave the example where advice from Aborigines was taken seriously, resulting in an improvement of the situation relating to breast cancer in Aboriginal communities. Clearly, good things can already happen, without the need to tinker with the Constitution. 

Adding another section to the Constitution would hardly contribute to fixing the existing issues. As Aboriginal senator Jacinta Price has pointed out many times: governments and program providers just need to listen to Indigenous voices, take meaningful action, and be accountable. If governments don’t listen and waste the money invested in the various programs, then it’s up to parliamentarians, if need be pressured by us, the people, to hold them to account. 

If, for example, alcohol-fuelled male violence in some aboriginal communities is a problem, as it seems to be, then those calling it out need to be taken seriously, instead of being condemned for speaking out. Governments and the existing support organisations then need to work with these communities to find practical solutions that work for them. The problems seem to be well known. What’s missing is not a Voice, but action and courage to do something about these real problems. More virtue signaling will not improve the situation one iota.

In my view, the whole concept of a Voice is flawed. Indigenous Australians aren’t homogenous in terms of needs or opinions. Consequently, there can never be just one voice. If a diverse group of people speak with one voice, we’re talking about political parties perhaps, or lobby and activist groups. These institutions are already problematic enough for democracy, so no thank you to more of that. I can’t see the point of enshrining an institutionalised advisory body in the Constitution.

The Voice has already proved very divisive, and there is in my view no good reason to adopt this proposal. If the outcome of this referendum in a week’s time is No, I suspect we’ll soon have a new prime minister. We may also have to deal with some fallout for a while. But perhaps this debate has thrown enough light on the real issues at hand, and governments will listen to the many voices already giving them advice on Indigenous issues, and they will finally meaningfully support Indigenous communities in fixing the existing issues.

As to the full roadmap expressed in the full Statement of the Heart document, there is a much broader and deeper discussion to be had.

Thanks to covid more people know what PCR is than the inventor of this widely used biochemical detection method could have dared to imagine. 

Even though I probably benefited from it many times throughout my life, before covid I had no idea what a polymerase chain reaction test was, let alone how it worked and what its limitations were. 

Those of us who were critical of the central role PCR tests played in the whole travesty would also at some point have learned the name of the guy who invented PCR in 1983: Kary Mullis. 

In 2020, video clips surfaced showing Mullis cautioning about the limits of PCR. I’ll get back to that. Surely, many of us said, Mullis himself (he died of pneumonia on 7 August 2019) would not have approved of the way his 1993 Nobel Prize winning invention was being (ab)used by health authorities around the world to detect the SARS-Cov-2 virus. After reading Mullis’s 1998 autobiography, Dancing Naked in the Mind Field, I think he would definitely have been turning over in his grave when Christian Drosten’s WHO-approved covid test regime was used as a weapon to terrorise the entire globe. 

The eccentric Mullis was never one to mince words. Would he have been able to single-handedly stem the tsunami of covid madness that was flooding the planet? Unlikely, but he would not have kept quiet. 

Judging by his autobiography, Mullis was a free-spirited maverick, a fiercely independent and critical thinker, a scientist at heart, driven by curiosity. Here is a sample from page 110:

If there is something in my food that somebody says is a poison, I want to have the chemistry explained and decide for myself whether or not I want to eat it. Science is a method whereby a notion proffered by anyone must be supported by experimental data. This means that if somebody else is interested in checking up on the notion presented, that person must be allowed access to instructions as to how the original experiments were done. Then he can check things out for himself. It is not allowable in science to make a statement of fact based solely on your own opinion. 

Mullis also harboured a deep mistrust in government:

Checks and balances are hard to come by in a scientific establishment that is supported from outside by a populace unskilled in the scientific arts. I know it’s going to be a hard and inefficient answer. Compared to a benevolent monarchy, having three branches of government was also inefficient. And I know that as long as it achieves a better life for us here in the colonies, we will put up with it. We are optimistic people, really, and we are not in a hurry to go anywhere else. I don’t know exactly what the answer is, but I know the answer is not to believe, “Trust us. We’re here to help.” It never has been. [p 103]

Nothing’s changed for the better since he wrote these words. On the contrary. 

Mullis was fully aware of the problems science was already facing back then:

We have to make it on the basis of our own wit. We have to be aware-when someone comes on the seven o’clock news with word that the global temperature is going up or that the oceans are turning into cesspools or that half the matter is going backward-that the media are at the mercy of the scientists who have the ability to summon them and that the scientists who have such ability are not often minding the store. More likely they are minding their own livelihoods. [p 106]

He pinpoints the beginnings of this decline to the 1930s, when governments realised that they could use science to determine the balance of power. 

Further, he is critical of many of the then-pervasive issues: the climate scare, the ozone hole; and perhaps most famously, HIV-AIDS:

I lectured about PCR at innumerable meetings. Always there were people there talking about HIV. I asked them how it was that we knew that HIV was the cause of AIDS. Everyone said something. Everyone had the answer at home in the office in some drawer. They all knew and they would send me the papers as soon as they got back. But I never got any papers. Nobody ever sent me the news about how AIDS was caused by HIV. I finally had the opportunity to ask Dr. Montagnier about the reference when he lectured in San Diego at the grand opening of the ICSD AIDS Research Center, which is still run by Bob Gallo’s former consort, Dr. Flossie Wong-Staal. This would be the last time I would ask my question without showing anger. In response Dr. Montagnier suggested, “Why don’t you reference the CDC report?” “I read it,” I said, “That doesn’t really address the issue of whether or not HIV is the probable cause of AIDS, does it?” He agreed with me. It was damned irritating. If Montagnier didn’t know the answer, who the hell did? [p 174]

Intriguing, to say the least, but unfortunately, the chapter ends there.  

Mullis’s book is entertaining as much as it is thought-provoking. He reminisces about his relationships with his parents and his partners, his drug use, how he invented PCR, his involvement in the O.J. Simpson trial – but somehow he always finds a link back to his great love for science and the quest to find scientific truth.

So, what about those video clips that surfaced early on during the covid years, which were of course dismissed by our all-knowing fact-checkers? 

I dug a little deeper, past those pesky YouTube and Google algorithms, and eventually found the entire footage, which, as it turns out comes from an interesting panel discussion at an AIDS-critical conference in Santa Monica that took place on 12 July 1997. You can find the recording in two parts here and here. When Mullis talked, he was far from eloquent, and it was not always easy to be sure what he actually meant. But to me what he says about PCR at the end of the discussion is clear enough to confirm that he would not have approved of the way the PCR method was being abused during covid. 

Here is my 45-minute compilation of everything Mullis said on that occasion. You might also want to treat yourself to this fascinating 30-minute TED-X talk. 

No, Mullis was not the most refined orator, but he more than made up for that with his intellect, his authenticity, his wit, and his passion for science.