The court has dealt a huge blow to the famous climate scientists who sued critics – Wattwat?

From the Daily Caller

Nick Popp
Contributors

A court in Washington, D.C. rejected a bid from University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann, asking him to pay a nationwide review on Thursday, demanding hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The District of Columbia Superior Court ruled in January that Mann owed the state about $530,000 to pay attorney fees for the sale of the store, locked in a defamation lawsuit against the organization for more than a decade, and Mann then asked to stay to postpone payments. On Thursday, the court denied Mann's request, meaning he might have to bring the cash to the media he once described in an email, which was a “threat to our children.” (Related: DC jury found “hockey” critics slander scientists. What does this mean for future scientific discourse?)

Nick Pope submitted Mann on Scribd

Mann initially sued National Review in 2012 when Canadian conservative Mark Steyn lashed out at Mann and his famous “Hockey Stick” climate model in an article on the National Review website. Subsequently, National Review Editor Rich Lowry wrote the follow-up post to support Steyn, and Mann decided to sue the defamation channel along with former part-time jobs from the competitive corporate college Steyn and Rand Simberg. Although Mann's lawsuit against Steyn and Simberg was initially won, a high court judge determined in January that Mann had to pay $531,000 in 30 days, the editor of the State Review announced at the time.

In his request to file an application against the state review, Mann considered the move to be a “despicable and unreasonable request from a powerful organization” designed to intimidate and silence him.

It is worth noting that Judge Albert Irving wrote in March that Mann and his attorneys brought misleading information to the jury while the libel case is being tried. Specifically, Mann and his representatives misled the jury because of the defendant’s actions, how much grant he missed, which was a key element of his libel case, and Irving described the deception as “extraordinary in its scope, degree and intention.”

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation (an independent and nonpartisan news social service) does not need to be provided to any reasonable news publisher and can be delivered to a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our journalist’s adverb and its DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or working with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Related