Climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation case reveals what critics say is unethical behavior

[Dashinka 25,434]

Maybe Mann, and Fauci can be held together.  This guy is amazing, and someone needs to find out who is paying his bills.

 

Climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation case reveals what critics say is unethical behavior

 

Mann is suing Simberg over statements he and Steyn made in articles they posted online.

 

Testimony so far has raised a number of complaints about plaintiff Mann’s behavior toward his critics.

 

One witnesses’ deposition even revealed that Mann had emailed the editor of a scientific journal in 2007 to stop a paper written by another climate scientist from being published by getting hostile peer reviewers assigned to it.

Journalists Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have been at the trial and posting regular podcasts on what's happening in court. The podcast, which has ranked in the top 15 podcasts on Spotify in the science category, highlights testimony in the trial using actors to portray what was said in court.

 

According to a summary of the case that Superior Court of the District of Columbia Judge Alfred Irving gave during the trial, Simberg’s and Steyn’s post compared the Penn State’s investigation into assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who was found guilty in 2012 of sexually abusing 10 young boys over the course of 15 years, to the investigation of Mann’s research on global historic temperatures as shown in the scientist's controversial hockey stick graph.

 

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/climate-scientists-defamation-case-reveals-what-critics-say-plaintiffs

[TBoneTX 46,913]

5 hours ago, Dashinka said:

someone needs to find out who is paying his bills

First guess:  Soros or one of his groups.

[Dashinka 25,434]

5 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

First guess:  Soros or one of his groups.

Either him, or the CCP.

[Dashinka 25,434]

Going to post this here as well, but the Simian and Charles can move this to the Master Environmental thread if so desired.

 

The trial finally commenced in January 2024, and in the following month, the jury unanimously found Simberg and Steyn guilty of defamation. Mann was awarded nominal damages of $1 from each of the defendants but was also awarded $1,000 in punitive damages from Simberg and an astonishing $1 million from Steyn.

It would seem that the massively higher punitive punishment the jury meted out to Mark Steyn can only be explained by the latter’s high profile as a conservative commentator. He has appeared in national media networks such as Fox News and as a guest host for Rush Limbaugh on contentious topics including the culture wars and Covid.

In a laudatory article published in the Wall Street Journal in the flush of his court victory, Mann said that he felt “vindicated by his court victory and hopes it will embolden other climate researchers to defend their work as vigorously as he has defended his own.” He is lionized in the Journal article as follows:

Soft-spoken in person, Mann can be a tiger online. He spars with critics on his X account, where he has more than 220,000 followers. He punches back in frequent newspaper opinion pieces, letters to the editor, television interviews and on podcasts. In 2024 alone, he has done more than 20 interviews with major news outlets, from CNN to Le Monde. His public message is simple: The climate is changing rapidly, but it isn’t too late to save the planet.

Super-star, planet-saving Mann, has however received some adverse – some would say well-deserved -- news this year. On January 10^th, in an article entitled “Pay Up, Mr. Mann”, the editors of the National Review reported that “a court in our nation’s capital ordered Mann to pay us $530,820.21 worth of attorney’s fees and costs, and to do so within 30 days.” As was made clear during the discovery process in the long legal battle, Mann’s explicitly stated intention was to use a “major lawsuit” as a vehicle with which to “ruin National Review.” The court order will go some way in restituting the news magazine for legal fees spent in the long litigation.

In even better news, it was reported earlier this week that Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr. of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued a Final Judgment Order, reducing the punitive damages charged against Mr. Steyn from the astronomical $1 million to a modest $5,000. The order underscored the judiciary's role in preventing the legal system from being used as a tool to intimidate and silence critics of the prevailing climate narrative.

 

https://tilakdoshi.substack.com/p/hockey-stick-shenanigans-and-fraudulent

[Ban Hammer 13,994]

everything one needs to know about michael mann's research can be found in 

"The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science"

Paperback – March 1, 2010

by A.W. Montford (Author)

[Dashinka 25,434]

Hmm, Mann and his lawyers were admonished pretty hard by the judge.

 

Mark Steyn’s Last Laugh Isn’t Over Yet: The Latest Twist in the Hockey Stick Legal Saga

 

If that visitor would have gone to Mr. Steyn’s home last night (March 12th), he would probably have heard more popping of corks and clinking of glasses celebrating a further decision by the same judge. In an eviscerating judgement, the court ruled that Dr. Mann and his counsel acted in “bad faith” on multiple occasions in presenting false claims related to the plaintiff’s grant funding. Judge Irving said:

“Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding. . . The Court does not reach this decision lightly.”

 

The judge wasn’t mincing his words in writing of Mann and his two lead lawyers as follows:

“They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.”

 

The judge further admonished Dr. Mann in the latter’s claims denying these charges of bad faith and false representation of losses in grant funding, accusing of conduct “bordering on frivolity”:

"Dr. Mann's assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel's conduct borders on frivolity…the record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann's counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr. Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding…Dr. Mann's counsel's bad faith misconduct is an affront to the Court's authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings warranting sanctions."

 

The court was convinced that “the record plainly shows deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony” which was presented to the court and jury. The court awarded monetary sanctions to each defendant (Mr. Rand Simberg and Mr. Mark Stein) who can now sue for expenses incurred in responding to Dr. Mann’s bad faith and conduct. The monetary sanctions awarded to each defendant were appropriate in the Court’s view because “the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent; (2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr. Mann’s case, but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury’s impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary; (3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and (4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time-and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgement of the nature of the misconduct by Dr. Mann or his attorneys.”

 

https://tilakdoshi.substack.com/p/mark-steyns-last-laugh-isnt-over