'Mann and his legal team filed court documents April 8 [2024] asking Judge Irving of D.C. Superior Court to reconsider the sanctions he ordered against them. As far as the data errors, they claim they were using exhibits to show an accurate list of unfunded grants, not for the incorrect amounts of awarded grants that were listed in the exhibits, and that the judge erroneously found that Mann’s legal team had intentionally provided false evidence.'
I don't know why Judge Irving refused to admit corrected documents as evidence. But I wonder why these inaccurate documents weren't checked for errors before submission:
(from the desmog article):
“Neither Mr. Fontaine nor I ever denied that the grant amounts [presented at trial] differed,” Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, of Harty Williams, claimed in the court filings. “Indeed, the very reason the grant amounts differed in the first place was because we caught errors — and tried to correct them.”
Thank you for all your excellent and honest work. Could you please tell me where I can find the research papers quantifying the co2 attributed portion of the anthropomorphic warming?
Dr. Pielke ==> How can you say "I will not allow any comments that are insulting or of a personal nature against Michael Mann, his lawyers," with a straight face. Nothing more insulting or personal could be said of a 'scientist' than what the Court says:
"...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."
"....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."
"...the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent; "
I certainly hope the Judge in this case recommends brings charges against Mann for perjury and against his lawyers for "deliberate and knowing misconduct ". Maybe even charges for attempted fraud....
Given that this case addresses two tweets dated to 2012, I would say that mule is blind, swaybacked, spavined, and appears to hobble forward on three legs.
The strangle-hold that "Mannian Climate Science" has held on the press and public, not to mention on Mann's peers, has finally been broken by a clear-thinking jurist - one obviously not beholding to the mad mad world of group think of the Climate Science Alarm cabal.
It is my considered opinion that climate science, or more specifically the study of anthropogenic global warming, has ceased to be a science and has become a religion. The difference between a science and a religion is that the former starts from observable facts and uses these to postulate a disprovable theory, whereas a religion start with a theory, or perhaps the term belief is more appropriate, and selectively uses observable facts to support that belief.
One of the characteristics of a religion is that its adherents have an unquestioning acceptance of its beliefs. The thought that they may be wrong strikes at the very heart of their being. Those who do not accept their beliefs are not merely mistaken, they must be either grossly misguided or just plain evil, which justifies the true believer using loaded epithets such as denier. Moreover, telling untruths in a formal setting such as a law court is perfectly acceptable because in their eyes they are defending a holy truth. If an ice age were to appear tomorrow, true believers would still ascribe it to the use of fossil fuels.
I encounter the use of "belief-based 'thinking' " often when I attempt to debate people opposed to nuclear power. The best summary from one of them was, "Don't bother trying to convince me of the benefits of nuclear power. My mind is already made up!"
This is such an important judgement, for all of us, since it brings the world back towards enlightenment rationality and truth speaking, as opposed to the beliefs and medievalism that has taken hold of the climate community. Roger, thank you, a critical post on THB.
If one "leading climate scientist" and his legal counsels haven't had any other mean than misconduct to obtain a judgment in his favor, if the so-called "climate scientist community" has systematically argued in his support (being cancelled if not), and if policy makers in almost all countries and all of the UN institutions (UNFCCC first) have ben eager to found their actions on such falsehoods (willful exaggeration is a lie), what should we understand about climate alarmism, the immediate need for energy transition and carbon budgets at any cost?
In https://www.desmog.com/2025/04/22/climate-scientist-michael-mann-fights-new-court-penalties-in-2024-defamation-trial/ "Climate Scientist Michael Mann Fights New Court Penalties in 2024 Defamation Trial" - Apr 22, 2025 @ 16:02 PDT
'Mann and his legal team filed court documents April 8 [2024] asking Judge Irving of D.C. Superior Court to reconsider the sanctions he ordered against them. As far as the data errors, they claim they were using exhibits to show an accurate list of unfunded grants, not for the incorrect amounts of awarded grants that were listed in the exhibits, and that the judge erroneously found that Mann’s legal team had intentionally provided false evidence.'
I don't know why Judge Irving refused to admit corrected documents as evidence. But I wonder why these inaccurate documents weren't checked for errors before submission:
(from the desmog article):
“Neither Mr. Fontaine nor I ever denied that the grant amounts [presented at trial] differed,” Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, of Harty Williams, claimed in the court filings. “Indeed, the very reason the grant amounts differed in the first place was because we caught errors — and tried to correct them.”
Thank you very much Roger for the work you do on behalf of us all.
Excellent news! I have long hoped for the truth about the alarmists false claims to finally bubble to the surface.
Hi Dr Pielke,
Thank you for all your excellent and honest work. Could you please tell me where I can find the research papers quantifying the co2 attributed portion of the anthropomorphic warming?
Keep up the great work.
Thank you
Fred
This case was covered in The Washington Post on 14 March 2025. "A famous climate scientist won a $1M verdict. Then his case took a turn. A judge vastly reduced climate researcher Michael Mann's award, sanctioned his lawyers for presenting false evidence and ordered him to pay $530,000." https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2025/03/14/michael-mann-climate-lawsuit-defamation/
wow comments+
the decision restores my faith in the law and humanity
It will be harder for him to avoid paying up this time, as opposed to his refusal to pay Dr Tim Ball in the Canadian court finding.
Mann has the ethics of a pimp. Tim Ball's widow is saddled with his legal bills as Mann carefully stays out of Canada.
Roger, on a different topic, the computer news has announced that Rep. Raul Grijalva just died. Care to comment?
I saw that
All best to his family and loved ones 👍
Sic semper tyrannis.
Perhaps he can withdraw the suit again... 😂
Dr. Pielke ==> How can you say "I will not allow any comments that are insulting or of a personal nature against Michael Mann, his lawyers," with a straight face. Nothing more insulting or personal could be said of a 'scientist' than what the Court says:
"...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."
"....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."
"...the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent; "
I certainly hope the Judge in this case recommends brings charges against Mann for perjury and against his lawyers for "deliberate and knowing misconduct ". Maybe even charges for attempted fraud....
Agreed
Mann’s own statements and those of the court speak loudly enough on their own 👍
Justice rides a slow mule!
Given that this case addresses two tweets dated to 2012, I would say that mule is blind, swaybacked, spavined, and appears to hobble forward on three legs.
The strangle-hold that "Mannian Climate Science" has held on the press and public, not to mention on Mann's peers, has finally been broken by a clear-thinking jurist - one obviously not beholding to the mad mad world of group think of the Climate Science Alarm cabal.
The Breakthrough Institute recently published "The Era of the Climate Hawk Is Over" by Alex Trembath. [ https://thebreakthrough.org/journal/no-20-spring-2024/the-era-of-the-climate-hawk-is-over ] .
Maybe the Climate Realists are beginning to win.
It is my considered opinion that climate science, or more specifically the study of anthropogenic global warming, has ceased to be a science and has become a religion. The difference between a science and a religion is that the former starts from observable facts and uses these to postulate a disprovable theory, whereas a religion start with a theory, or perhaps the term belief is more appropriate, and selectively uses observable facts to support that belief.
One of the characteristics of a religion is that its adherents have an unquestioning acceptance of its beliefs. The thought that they may be wrong strikes at the very heart of their being. Those who do not accept their beliefs are not merely mistaken, they must be either grossly misguided or just plain evil, which justifies the true believer using loaded epithets such as denier. Moreover, telling untruths in a formal setting such as a law court is perfectly acceptable because in their eyes they are defending a holy truth. If an ice age were to appear tomorrow, true believers would still ascribe it to the use of fossil fuels.
I encounter the use of "belief-based 'thinking' " often when I attempt to debate people opposed to nuclear power. The best summary from one of them was, "Don't bother trying to convince me of the benefits of nuclear power. My mind is already made up!"
This is such an important judgement, for all of us, since it brings the world back towards enlightenment rationality and truth speaking, as opposed to the beliefs and medievalism that has taken hold of the climate community. Roger, thank you, a critical post on THB.
If one "leading climate scientist" and his legal counsels haven't had any other mean than misconduct to obtain a judgment in his favor, if the so-called "climate scientist community" has systematically argued in his support (being cancelled if not), and if policy makers in almost all countries and all of the UN institutions (UNFCCC first) have ben eager to found their actions on such falsehoods (willful exaggeration is a lie), what should we understand about climate alarmism, the immediate need for energy transition and carbon budgets at any cost?