Mine, oh, mine, the worm change.
Thirteen months ago, New York TimesUniversity of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his attorney Peter J. Fontaine won the victory in federal court a few days ago. [emphasis, links added]
They were pleased to have decided in a jury in Washington, D.C. that defendants Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn in the case had slandered Mann.
The jury awarded Himberg and Stein a good dollar for compensation. It also awarded Simberg $1,000 in punitive damages and $1 million to Steyn.
Mann claimed that the jury’s decision was “a victory for science, it was a victory for scientists.”
On February 15, 2024, Mann and Fontaine said, “We hope this will convey a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists are beyond the scope of protected speech and have consequences…But we regret the lost time in this battle. The case is part of a larger cultural war in which research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is stripped of. ”
Yes, OK.
It turns out Mann – He is “Distinguished Professor of Presidential Earth and Environmental Sciences, Director of the Pennsylvania Center for Science Sustainability and Media”, and “Inaugural Vice Provost of Climate Science, Policy and Action” in Pennsylvania – Fontaine is a scatterer.
Breaking In: Judge Sanctions Michael E.
“The record clearly demonstrates the intentional and misconduct of Dr. Mann’s attorneys in eliciting false testimony from Dr. Mann and misrepresenting his grant funds.” pic.twitter.com/xvbd5rajpa
— Steve Miloy (@junkscience) March 12, 2025
As Roger Pielke Jr., federal court in Washington, DC. Mann and his attorneys acted in “malice” and “made false statements about the damage caused by the jury and courts to the loss of funds.”
As Pielke explains:
The ruling followed closely by the same court, reducing the punitive damages awarded by Mann to one of the defendants from $1,000,000 to $5,000. Reduced the court order that Mann paid $530,820.21 in legal fees, and his lawsuit led to Country Review – Mann also sued which one, but the case was dismissed.
Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. (Alfred S.
The 46-page decision was a bubble for Mann and his legal team. Judge Irving was appointed as the bench by President George W. Bush in 2008, writing:
Irving ruled that Mann's attorney “malicious misconduct is an insult to the authority of the court and an attack on the integrity of the lawsuit.”
As Pielke explains, Mann and his attorneys now face a court fine, which, as Pielke explains, could reach tens of thousands of dollars. As mentioned above, Mann also has to pay National Comment Legal fees.
According to sources close to the case Mann appealed the ruling and asked the court to waive his claim to issue a deposit to obtain a deposit before appealing.
Mann “gets a $1 million verdict from Steyn to attorney fees that may be owed or more.”
I emailed Mann twice for comment. He did not answer.
On Wednesday afternoon, I discussed Mann's case with Pielke. He pointed out two amazing results:
He said, first Mann's case is “all about distorting evidence and data, but Mann is the one who endorses evidence manipulation.”
Second, he said Steyn and Simburg could ask the court to make a ruling Force Man to pay their legal fees as well. So Mann “gets a $1 million judgment from Steyn to a legal fee that could be owed or more.”
Mann's malicious act in the case of defamation is a match – Even more than – By law, Stanford academic Mark Jacobson used his critics.
As I reported in 2017 National CommentJacobson filed a $10 million libel lawsuit against the National Academy of Sciences and Chris Clack, the lead author of a paper published by NAS that has thoroughly debunked a Jacobson paper.
Jacobson, a thin-skinned engineering professor, wrote a paper claiming that the United States can run entirely on Alt-Energy by 2050.
I explained that Clark's paper found:
Jacobson exaggerated the potential of hydroelectric power. The land use requirements for wind power generation are also cartoonish. Clack determined that Jacobson's all-renewable plan would need to cover more than 190,000 square miles of turbines, a larger area than California.
Given the rapid rebound of the storm towards the shore, this concept is ridiculous in the face.
Jacobson's lawsuit claims the document damaged his reputation and made him and his co-author look bad. Instead of debating these issues, Jacobson filed a lawsuit.
Context is essential. Jacobson's work is a favorite among climate activists and Hollywood elites, including Leonardo Di Caprio.
In 2016, Bill McKibben, founder and senior climate activist, was New Republic He praised Professor Stanford's work, saying that “the ultimate proves” that the United States “can produce 80 to 85% of its power from the sun, wind and water by 100% by 2050.”
Except for nothing. And not.
In February 2018, Jacobson apparently regretted and suddenly withdrew his lawsuit against Nas and Clack. But the case was not forgotten.
As I'm in Forbes In 2020, a federal court judge in Washington, D.C., joined NAS and Clack and ordered Jacobson to pay his attorneys' fees.
I explained the conclusions drawn by the judge in the case:
The District of Columbia's anti-SLAPP bill prohibits litigation aimed at restricting public participation. She wrote that comments made by Clack and his co-author in his 2017 paper, “Simply Not”, accused Jacobson of “any misconduct or undermining his integrity.” The court reviewed the complaints, motions and related complaints and its attachments. , and found that the three assertions of “serious mistakes” were statements that reflected the disagreement of science… They did not attack Dr. Jacobson's honesty or accuse him of misconduct at all. “It continues to say whether Jacobson's methodology and conclusions are good or bad, which is “the problem that can be solved best in a scientific or academic forum, not a court.”
Wingo wrote in the conclusion “An anti-SLAPP bill was enacted to protect advocacy rights on public interest issues from litigation aimed at punishing or reviewing speech. The safeguards provided by the Act, including reasonable attorney fees and fees, are a key part of the regulation and must be achieved and maintained. The defendant is entitled to charge such fees…” (emphasized added.)
What has happened since then?
Jacobson spent years getting out of the way in court and made ongoing attempts to avoid paying those fees.
NAS's attorneys apply for a legal fee of $535,903.65. Clark's legal team asked for $75,000. As I pointed out on Quillette in 2022, Clark told me that Jacobson paid $75,000.
Jacobson dragged Stanford into his chaotic lawsuit.
According to a document posted on rectractwatch.com, Jacobson said the California Labor Commission has ordered Stanford to reimburse him:
$62,101.99 in legal fees and $7,452.24 in interest (and therefore, total $69,554.23) before California Labor Law 2802, my 3-year legal fees arising before that date, for “necessary expenses or losses” that the company incurs losses incurred by its or her bonds. The Commissioner also ruled that if I did not win the DC appeal, it would decide on a payment of $75,000. This probably applies to the NAS for $428,000, too.
In addition, in 2022, Jacobson sued Stanford University. The case will be resolved in 2023. According to withdrawal viewing, Jacobson lost in the appeal to avoid paying for NAS.
How much did Stanford pay in Jacobson’s SLAPP lawsuit? Brad Hayward, Stanford vice president of communications, did not respond to two emails or phone calls, asking questions about litigation and the university’s payment of Jacobson’s legal bills.
Jacobson declined to answer the list of email questions, answering only: “The question has been resolved.”
Top image taken via CBSNews/YouTube screenshot
Reading break at Robert Bryce
