by 
My,
oh
my,
how
the
worm
has
turned.
Thirteen
months
ago,
in
the
op-ed
pages
of
the
New
York
Times
,
University
of
Pennsylvania
climate
scientist
Michael
Mann
and
his
lawyer,
Peter
J.
Fontaine,
were
crowing
about
their
victory
in
federal
court
a
few
days
earlier.
They
were
thrilled
that
a
jury
in
Washington,
DC,
had
decided
that
the
defendants
in
the
case,
Rand
Simberg
and
Mark
Steyn,
had
defamed
Mann.
The
jury
awarded
the
combative
academic
$1
in
compensatory
damages
from
Simberg
and
Steyn.
It
also
awarded
Mann
punitive
damages
of
$1,000
from
Simberg
and
$1
million
from
Steyn.
Mann
claimed
the
jury’s
decision
was
“
a
victory
for
science
and
it’s
a
victory
for
scientists.
”
In
their
February
15,
2024,
op-ed,
Mann
and
Fontaine
said,
“We
hope
this
sends
a
broader
message
that
defamatory
attacks
on
scientists
go
beyond
the
bounds
of
protected
speech
and
have
consequences…However,
we
lament
the
time
lost
to
this
battle.
This
case
is
part
of
a
larger
culture
war
in
which
research
is
distorted
and
the
truth
about
the
climate
threat
is
dissembled.”
Yes,
well.
It
turns
out
that
Mann
—
who
is
the
“presidential
distinguished
professor
of
earth
and
environmental
science
and
director
of
the
Penn
Center
for
Science
Sustainability,
and
the
Media”
as
well
as
Penn’s
“inaugural
vice
provost
for
climate
science,
policy,
and
action”
—
and
Fontaine,
were
the
dissemblers.
As
reported
here
on
Substack
by
Roger
Pielke
Jr.,
a
federal
court
in
Washington,
DC,
ruled
yesterday
that
Mann
and
his
lawyers
acted
in
“bad
faith”
and
“made
false
representations
to
the
jury
and
the
Court
regarding
damages
stemming
from
loss
of
grant
funding.”
As
Pielke
explains:
This
ruling
follows
closely
on
the
heels
of
the
same
court
reducing
the
punitive
damages
awarded
to
Mann
against
one
of
the
defendants
from
$1,000,000
to
$5,000
.
That
reduction
follows
the
Court’s
order
that
Mann
pay
$530,820.21
of
legal
expenses
that
his
lawsuit
resulted
in
for
The
National
Review
—
which
Mann
had
also
sued,
but
whose
case
was
dismissed.
In
his
ruling
,
the
judge
on
the
case,
Alfred
S.
Irving,
Jr.,
said
that
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.
(Emphasis
added.)
The
46-page
decision
is
a
blistering
takedown
of
Mann
and
his
legal
team.
Judge
Irving,
who
was
appointed
to
the
bench
by
President
George
W.
Bush
in
2008
,
writes
that:
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.
(Emphasis
added.)
Irving
ruled
that
Mann’s
lawyers’
“bad
faith
misconduct
is
an
affront
to
the
Court’s
authority
and
an
attack
on
the
integrity
of
the
proceedings
warranting
sanctions.”
Read
the
rest
of
this
piece
at
Robert
Bryce
Substack.
Robert
Bryce
is
a
Texas-based
author,
journalist,
film
producer,
and
podcaster.
His
articles
have
appeared
in
a
myriad
of
publications
including
the
Wall
Street
Journal,
New
York
Times,
Forbes,
Time,
Austin
Chronicle,
and
Sydney
Morning
Herald.
Photo:
Stanford’s
Mark
Jacobson
and
Penn’s
Michael
Mann,
tried
to
use
the
courts
to
silence
or
intimidate
their
critics.
They
failed.
Both
men
have
been
ordered
to
pay
more
than
$500,000
in
legal
fees
to
the
defendants.
Source:
Robert
Bryce
Substack
Go to Source
Author: Robert Bryce
