University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his attorneys presented misleading information to the jury in his defamation case against critics of his work, according to a judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.
Mann won his defamation suit against conservative writers Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, both of whom criticized Mann’s signature “hockey stick” climate model as shoddy work, in February 2024 after litigating the issue for more than a decade. However, D.C. Superior Court Judge Alfred S. Irving sanctioned Mann and his attorneys on Wednesday for conduct “extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent” during the trial and stated in his filing that Mann knew that he and his team provided the jury with false information about how much grant funding he truly missed out on due to the alleged defamation.
Mann and his lawyers “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,” Irving wrote in the filing.
DC Superior Court Filing Re Michael Mann by Nick Pope on Scribd
“The Court determines that the appropriate sanction is to award each Defendant the approximate expenses they incurred in responding to Dr. Mann’s bad faith trial misconduct, starting with Mr. Fontaine’s redirect examination,” the filing states, referencing Mann attorney Peter Fontaine. “The Court arrives at such a sanction 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.”
Simberg’s attorney, Victoria Weatherford, asked Mann to explain how the jury could be confident that the complex statistics at the heart of Mann’s model are “unimpeachable” given that he botched a comparatively easier calculation about how much grant funding he lost out on because of the alleged defamation, the filing shows. Mann responded by saying that the jury is supposed to believe that “if I make a mistake, I own up to it.”
Mann filed his lawsuit in October 2012 against Simberg, who invoked the Jerry Sandusky scandal in relation to Mann’s alleged massaging of data in the “hockey stick” model in a blog post for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a conservative pundit who referenced Simberg’s blog post in his own writing about the model. Simberg was ordered to pay Mann $1,000 in punitive damages and $1 in compensatory damages, and Steyn was ordered to pony up $1 million in punitive damages in addition to $1 in compensatory damages.
The two critics each argued in their writings that the “hockey stick” model, which supposedly demonstrates that global temperatures jumped more significantly in recent decades compared to preceding centuries, is not a credible model given the flaws they identify with its underlying data.
Mann and his representatives did not respond to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
