By now I’m sure everyone who reads this blog knows that there’s been a couple of extraordinary rulings in the Mann v Steyn case. On March 4th, Judge Irving reduced Mann’s punitive award from Mark Steyn from $1 million to $5,000. It should be noted that punitive awards are supposed to be no more than 10 times damages which in Mann’s case amounted to $1.00, so that’s still too high. To put my own spin on it, that’s still a multiple of half a million percent! Mann was also ordered to pay expenses to National Review of $1/2 million.

Well, yesterday there was another judgment:

The Court, pursuant to its inherent authority, must grant Defendants’ requests for expenses they incurred at trial in responding to Dr. Mann and his counsel’s bad faith misconduct

Ironically, “bad faith” is one of Mann’s favorite phrases. What this is about is Mann and his lawyers misrepresenting how much he claimed to have lost in grant money. In Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney’s podcast series, Climate Change on Trial, in the last 7 minutes of episode 8, they reenact Victoria Weatherford’s shredding of Mann on the witness stand on this issue. At 11 minutes in on episode 10, they do Judge Irving’s chewing out of Mann’s lawyers. This latest ruling could be very serious. I’m reading speculations of new charges and disbarment for Mann’s lawyers. But the big questions that I have are: Is the press going to report on these two rulings? Is Mann going to go on his merry way being the world’s premier climate pundit?

I think the general public, at least anyone who knows about this case, is going to go on believing Mann won and got $1 million. In fact, the biggest impression they will have is the picture (featured image for this post) of Mann walking out of the courtroom with his goofy, triumphant grin. This image is likely to become another icon in the so called climate wars just like his completely discredited, utter crap hockey stick graph. Is Mann going to keep his sweet gig? McIntyre and McKittrick’s papers, a congressional investigation, the Wegman Report, Climategate and the Nobel Prize laugh fest haven’t stopped him.

On a final note, Mann has a book signing coming up on April 7th. I note that it says, “Free and Open to the Public, Lecture” and “Q&A”. I wonder if Las Vegas is taking odds on whether this will happen?

Tags:

26 Comments

  1. Yes, the book signing – if it goes ahead – could be very interesting, especially when it comes to a Q&A session. I have little doubt that the MSM will ignore the two recent Court rulings, but surely a sceptic will attend the signing and ask some awkward questions?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Mark, I could be wrong, but I don’t think climate sceptics are the type to do that. Alarmists, yes. But I think on this side of the aisle, we’re generally a polite bunch.

    Searching for news today, the only mention of Mann relates to a protest against Trump’s cuts to NOAA.

    “If ever there were a time to ‘stand up for science,’ it is now,” Dr. Michael E. Mann, the director of the Center for Science, Sustainability, & the Media at the University of Pennsylvania, told The Independent in an email.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. The following quotes from one of the Court judgments are among the most remarkable I have ever read:

    ...Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through 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. Specifically, the Court finds that Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams knowingly violated the rules of professional conduct in eliciting testimony and offering evidence related to (1) the post-publication unfunded grant amounts depicted in Exhibit 517A,and as reproduced in Exhibit117, and (2) the post-publication funded grant amounts in Exhibit 116.The Court does not reach this decision lightly…

    ...Put another way, Mr. Fontaine offered evidence and elicited testimony emphasizing the disparity between pre-and post-publication grant funding, which presentation was accompanied by there presentation that the $2.8million disparity was a true and correct statement of the change in Dr. Mann’s funded grant amount. The record does not reveal any cognizable basis justifying the misrepresentation, especially where (1) grant funding was a longstanding, hotly contested issue between the Parties; (2) Dr. Mann had an incentive to maximize the disparity between his pre-and post-publication funded grant amounts as part of his damages case; (3) Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams personally reviewed the underlying information summarized in Exhibit 116; and (4) the “true” (as of June 2020) disparity was instead closer to $2.37million, a figure reduced byalmost16 percent of the figure presented to the jury.

    Second, in revising his responses in March 2023, Dr. Mann made three changes to his claimed post-publication funded grants. Setting aside questions of credibility or even perjury, Dr. Mann eliminated one grant entirely (grant number 11, $90,612), marginally revised the budget amount for another (grant number 10, reducing budget from $300,514 to $300,171), and inflated the budget amount for a third (grant number 13, increasing budget from $391,000 to$450,042).As such, the four funded grants now totaled $895,215, with a resulting disparity closer to $2.4million—still a far cry from the $500,000 in funded grants and $2.8million disparity figure presented to the jury. As with the inflated disparity figure derived from Dr. Mann’s superseded June 2020 interrogatory responses, the record does not reveal any cognizable basis justifying such misrepresentation or offer of plainly false evidence through Exhibit 116 and Dr. Mann’s accompanying testimony.…

    …Dr. Mann makes several arguments against the imposition of sanctions, all of which are unavailing.

    First, Dr. Mann’s assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel’s conduct borders on frivolity. Cf. In re Pearson, 228 A.3d 417, 424(D.C. 2020) (“Ultimately, a position ‘is frivolous when it is wholly lacking in substance and not based upon even a faint hope of success on the legal merits.’” (quoting In re Spikes, 881 A.2d1118, 1125 (D.C. 2005))). As detailed supra, 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.…

    ...It bears repeating that Dr. Mann and his counsel should not have engaged in the falsehoods and misrepresentations to the jury and the Court in the first place.

    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 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.…

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Jit, I think there’s plenty of obnoxious people on our side too. In fact I though Phelim McAleer was excessively rude to Mann outside the court house at the trial. The judge even admonished him for it. I posted the video in the comments of the Mann v Steyn Weeks Away post. I’m probably being a little obnoxious by tweeting to McAleer that he might want to take a trip to Pennsylvania.

    https://x.com/DombroskiMike/status/1899930364191113520

    Like

  8. Here’s something I forgot to mention. Rud Istvan who has a Harvard law degree, made this comment at WUWT about who’s funding Mann’s lawfare:

    “A fun side note just researched.
    Mann was represented pro bono by Finnegan, a very small DC law firm at Finnegan.com. They were assisted by the very big (750 attorneys) law firm Cozen O’Conner, presumably also pro bono. Both bragged extensively on their websites about the ‘punitive damages’ victory they finally achieved from a DC jury of six on Mann’s behalf. Great ‘lawfare’ marketing.

    Neither says anything as of now about the fact it got overturned bigly—NOT great lawfare marketing.

    In a similar vein, the San Fran based Sher Edling LLP law firm boasts on its website about the dozens of lawsuits it has filed on behalf of cities and states against ‘climate polluters’—but not about the 100% lawsuit failure rate it has incurred to date. Sher Edling does NOT work pro bono. They feed off city and state green politicians ‘eager to do something’ with public funds.“

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/03/04/a-victory-for-free-speech-mark-steyns-1-million-judgment-slashed-to-5000-in-landmark-climate-case/comment-page-2/#comment-4044995

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Mann has tweeted about the latest court ruling on both his Twitter/X and BlueSky accounts. While his pinned X tweet says his account was going dormant, he appears to be tweeting pretty regularly. His X tweet has no responses and he only lets accounts he follows respond. His BlueSky tweet has 8 sycophantic responses along the line that the Trump administration is weaponizing the judiciary system against him. It’s starting to look like he’s going to go on his merry way.

    https://x.com/MichaelEMann/status/1901290744498774216

    Comment by my lawyers regarding (Republican-appointed) Judge Irving's subsequent actions following unanimous jury decision that I was defamed by National Review & CEI authors (www.thedp.com/article/2025…)

    — Michael E. Mann (@michaelemann.bsky.social) 2025-03-18T12:17:06.792Z

    Like

  11. Ironically, he seems to be seeking sympathy in his tweet for the fact that the case has dragged on for 14 years so far. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that many of the delays in the absurdly dragged-out case were down to him and his legal team.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. It might interest you that, after I learned of this development, I edited Mann’s Wikipedia page, adding the words: “The $1 million judgment against Steyn was later reduced to $5000 after it was discovered that Mann and his attorneys made erroneous claims in respect of lost grants.”

    The words after $5000 were deleted by a certain Tim Osborn 11 hours later. I have just now amended the words to a quote from the decision to the effect that Mann presented no persuasive evidence of damage suffered. Let’s see how long it will take for that to be deleted

    Liked by 1 person

  16. “Court Delivers Massive Blow To Famed Climate Scientist Who Sued Critics”

    https://dailycaller.com/2025/04/04/court-delivers-massive-blow-famed-climate-scientist/

    A Washington, D.C., court rejected University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann’s bid to postpone his required payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to National Review on Thursday.

    The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled in January that Mann owes National Review approximately $530,000 to cover the outlet’s legal fees after spending more than a decade locked in defamation litigation against the organization, and Mann subsequently requested a stay to postpone the payments. On Thursday, the court denied Mann’s request, meaning that he will likely have to pony up cash to an outlet he once described in emails as a “threat to our children.” …

    Liked by 1 person

  17. Steve B, I can’t find anything in Mann’s Twitter/X or blueSky feeds on whether or how it went. His pinned tweet says his account was going dormant in January, but he still seems to be tweeting almost as much as ever. My guess is that it was probably quietly attended by a bunch of Mann fanns.

    On April 3rd he did an online event for the Center For Inquiry (publisher of Skeptical Inquirer) that I actually registered for, but forgot to watch online. It’s on YouTube:

    He appears to be going on his merry way as far as his fanns are concerned.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Mike – thanks for the Mann link at Skeptical Inquirer, where he plugs his upcoming book “Science under Siege”.

    Watched about 10mts before I gave up due to his halting presentation skills.

    Don’t think I would learn much anyway from his “the 1-2-3 punch” key theme.

    1st punch – the existential climate crisis

    2nd punch – deadly pandemics (getting worse because of climate change natch)

    3rd punch – antiscience disinformation in the climate & health arena

    Skipped thru it & at 46mts we get “American democracy itself is under threat” and he draws inspiration from “the lord of the rings” when fighting this evil.

    ps – John – Orcs were not mentioned but monster was.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. It seems that democracy is under threat in several Western democracies. That’s why they have to ban certain individuals or parties from the ballot. Ya know. Purge the ballot box to save democracy. That type of thing.

    Liked by 2 people

  22. Needless to say, I don’t have much time for DeSmog, but I read their report with interest. It’s really sad that both sides have politicised this so much. This from the article rather makes me dismiss their take on things:

    …But now Judge Irving’s ruling would hand a victory back to climate deniers, at a time when the Trump administration is gutting climate change science and policy.

    “The current Trump administration is engaging in an aggressive effort to defund and marginalize climate science,” said Robert Brulle, professor of climate science and society at Brown University, in an email to DeSmog. “In this atmosphere, attacks on climate science and scientists have increased.”

    Brulle thinks Irving’s rulings in the Mann case is are in line with the political trend being set by Trump’s deregulation policies. “Mainstream climate science is now being pushed into a defensive stance to maintain its cultural credibility,” he said….

    Liked by 1 person

  26. Thanks Mike. What he said – if the WUWT commenters are correct in what he said – then it went far beyond partisan behaviour.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.