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.
