Fake scientist Michael Mann slapped down hard by DC superior court
Fake leftist scientist Michael Mann
In the never-ending legal battle between fake climate scientist Michael Mann and his critics, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, Mann has once again lost badly in an appeal to a higher court, with the Superior Court in DC not only ruling that Mann must immediately pay Simberg and Steyn a total of more than $27K in court costs and fees, but blasting Mann for his lies to the court during the proceedings.
The fact remains that Dr. Mann throughout this litigation complained that he suffered lost grant funding directly stemming from the defamatory statements of Messrs. Simberg and Steyn, while providing very little in the way of specifics about the dollar amounts of his losses directly attributable to the statements (such as corroborating testimony from percipient witnesses), all while promising to illuminate the Court at trial. At trial, Dr. Mann elected through his attorneys to present to the jury a blown-up demonstrative, without redaction or explanation, a demonstrative intentionally prepared for its use at trial, which included a budget (loss) amount of $9,713,924.00, when the correct amount, previously corrected during a third round of discovery, was $112,000.
…the Court simply cannot condone such bad faith litigation tactics, particularly in a case that had been zealously litigated across several years and a case involving complicated facts. Thus, the Court’s ruling must stand. It is the Court’s duty to punish and deter bad faith litigation tactics.
In other words, Mann didn’t simply falsify his scientific results, using false data in his infamous hockey stick graph to create the illusion of human-caused global warming, when Simberg and Steyn called him out on this fake science, he tried to sue them using more fake data that was quickly revealed in discovery to be outright lies.
The court has thankfully decided it cannot tolerate such behavior.
What must be understood about Mann is that he is a very typical leftist radical, who thinks that because his cause is just and good, he is somehow immune from any consequences for bad behavior. Such leftists increasingly believe they are allowed to lie, cheat, defame, and even sometimes commit violence, because anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Mann did not do the last item (though many other leftists now are), but he did all the others, and truly believed he could get away with it. He is now finding out otherwise.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Fake leftist scientist Michael Mann
In the never-ending legal battle between fake climate scientist Michael Mann and his critics, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, Mann has once again lost badly in an appeal to a higher court, with the Superior Court in DC not only ruling that Mann must immediately pay Simberg and Steyn a total of more than $27K in court costs and fees, but blasting Mann for his lies to the court during the proceedings.
The fact remains that Dr. Mann throughout this litigation complained that he suffered lost grant funding directly stemming from the defamatory statements of Messrs. Simberg and Steyn, while providing very little in the way of specifics about the dollar amounts of his losses directly attributable to the statements (such as corroborating testimony from percipient witnesses), all while promising to illuminate the Court at trial. At trial, Dr. Mann elected through his attorneys to present to the jury a blown-up demonstrative, without redaction or explanation, a demonstrative intentionally prepared for its use at trial, which included a budget (loss) amount of $9,713,924.00, when the correct amount, previously corrected during a third round of discovery, was $112,000.
…the Court simply cannot condone such bad faith litigation tactics, particularly in a case that had been zealously litigated across several years and a case involving complicated facts. Thus, the Court’s ruling must stand. It is the Court’s duty to punish and deter bad faith litigation tactics.
In other words, Mann didn’t simply falsify his scientific results, using false data in his infamous hockey stick graph to create the illusion of human-caused global warming, when Simberg and Steyn called him out on this fake science, he tried to sue them using more fake data that was quickly revealed in discovery to be outright lies.
The court has thankfully decided it cannot tolerate such behavior.
What must be understood about Mann is that he is a very typical leftist radical, who thinks that because his cause is just and good, he is somehow immune from any consequences for bad behavior. Such leftists increasingly believe they are allowed to lie, cheat, defame, and even sometimes commit violence, because anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Mann did not do the last item (though many other leftists now are), but he did all the others, and truly believed he could get away with it. He is now finding out otherwise.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Wonderful news. Mann is a bottom-feeding, scum-sucking algae-eater (to quote a famous defender of freedom). The only regret is that his “science” isn’t taking the same beating as his wallet. One can hope that changes, too.
In a future Leftist Administration, Mann would be named The Climate Czar.
His Board Of Experts would include Paul Ehrlich,* AlGore, and AOC.
*Ehrlich – Yes, Ehrlich is still alive. Professor Emeritus at Stanford University. He is venerated as a sage of wisdom.
Isn’t lying to the court perjury? As in criminal charges?
There are very few people in this world that I despise more than the perpetually-hermaphroditic Michael Mann. He is a consummate liar at every level, from his laughable climate “science”, to his claim to be a Nobel laureate, to his defamation claims at trial. If not for an incredibly biased jury, he would’ve lost his defamation trial in the, as Mark Steyn coined it, the “sclerotic toilet” of the DC justice system.
There is a special circle of Hell reserved for Mann where the thermostat gets cranked up at the rate of the blade of his hockey stick, forever.
Truly evil person who deserves distain the rest of his days.
Chuck aspired: ” The only regret is that his “science” isn’t taking the same beating as his wallet. One can hope that changes, too.”
It already is. The past two years, the whole ‘global/warming/climate change’ edifice is falling, and falling hard. Entire Governments ‘committed’ to ‘greenhouse gas reduction’ are changing their tune, rapido. People have noticed that, like the Doomsayers of the late 19th-Century, and the multitude of self-haters before, nothing prophesied, is here. The Prophets of Gaia are profiting immensely from Gaia. And, not inconsequentially, many have bought ocean-front property. Oh, the irony!
Private jets, private compounds, private ocean-front property? We must purge the Planet of these Evil-doers! Oh, wait.
Sad that people aren’t more curious as he was an obvious fake. What that “university” did was equally bad.
Jerk got what he deserved. Well actually he deserves to have to pay out much more for such trail antics. Isn’t there som perjry aspect to his lies at trial?
Terrific. Unfortunately, “the process is the punishment.”
“The only regret is that his “science” isn’t taking the same beating as his wallet. One can hope that changes, too.”
Many years ago he was asked to turn over his “science” papers to be reviewed, to which he could not comply because somehow in the moving process when he was given a bigger office after his Nobel prize… He lost all his data! (An inconvenient truth for everyone)
Although variations of the hockey stick came out later, none were based upon the same information or reproduced the same results.
As everyone knows, the end of the world warming trend predicted never happened, it was all “a hoax” which has bankrupt many nations. never has a fraud been perpetrated on this massive scale.
Thats a face I would love to slap..
What people who are not familiar with academic research papers is just how many of them are just junk. Lots of fancy math. With fancy graphs. But the conclusions rarely match the data. And the math used is often inappropriate or just wrong.
Mann’s “Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium (1999) ” paper is pretty typical. Collects a bunch of low grade, low density, very localized data sets. Combines them with a very different low density, localized heterogeneous data sets. Then do some pointless math which will not negate all the fundamental flaws in the data set when applied to drawing any defensible conclusions about the physical characteristics of the lower atmosphere over a hemisphere and – voila – 1998 might be the warmest year in a millennium.
That’s the “science”
This sort of verbiage is standard from grad slaves trying build up enough of a published track record to get a stab at tenure track. Or a better chance of getting another few years of research grants. But defendable science? Not in any way.
Depending of research area the amount of “garbage papers” runs from reasonably low (but still way too high compared to 50 years ago) in areas like geophysics, pure math, astrophysics etc to very high / most of them in some areas of bio-science, the social sciences and of course, climate science. Usually conclusions not marching data. Plus bad math. Always the bad math.
These “junk science” papers only become a real problem when people appropriate them for political reasons. If there is a paper about the geological history of a region that might have badly presented conclusions that are not really supported by sloppy data that’s not a big deal. Sooner or later the question will be settled. But when people use the same kind of low quality “junk science” papers to support attempts to forcibly defacto deindustrialize Western economies that is another matter.
Too many people dont know the disastrously history of Lysenkoism.
Science + Politics = Politics.
Every time.
“Ehrlich” is the German word for ‘honest.”
If you follow Mark Steyn you know that Mann has not paid a cent of his own money for his legal fees, nor any of the judgements against him.
The history books can not be written until the sources of his legal funding is known. I wonder if somebody is going to fund the lawsuit he might have against the law firm that allowed the lie about his losses to be presented at trial? But of course he signed off on that, which is the point about the bad science. Bad science attracts and cultivates bad (motivation) people and fosters bad organizations and culture, and it forms a feedback loop without checks and balances.
Boy, talk about a self-goal. I doubt that the blog posts that were the subject of the defamation lawsuit had much impact on Mann’s reputation among academics. Being exposed as a scheming liar by a liberal and otherwise sympathetic court could do lasting damage.
Mann was one of those who figured out what the grantees wanted to see about the climate and was more than happy to give it to them. Mann will always be associated with the Hockey Stick graph which, rather than being evidence of global warming, serves as an example of faulty research.
zealously litigated
Zealously delayed is more like it. Mann spent a huge amount of court energy delaying the whole thing.
more fake data that was quickly revealed in discovery
Quickly? By what standard? Mann drug this thing out over more than a decade (IIRC). It mangled Steyn’s life.
But, the truth did out. Mann should be a pariah, selling pencils on the street corner, instead of still living and working as a “scientist.”
Unfortunately, this clown is symptomatic of the degradation of the scientific community. Things that would have resulted in a F grade are now published in journals. Lazy or nonexistent data gathering, falsified data, bogus study subjects and politicalization plague the current crop of “scientists”. Their motivation is simply is money and influence. Discovering the knowledge is not even on their radar. Mann is the epitome of this situation.
“That’s a face I would love to slap”.
That is outrageous. To talk of assaulting a ‘Nobel prizewinng scientist’ for publishing ‘his truth’ like that is horrible.
Michael Mann deserves no less than a full-on punch in the face.
Or two
BTW He has never paid the costs of his fraudulent and losing B.C. lawsuit against the late Dr. Tim Bell.
I found your website and this article today, Sat. 24/1/2026 after reading a post by MtnClimber on Free Republic (Posted at 08:35 ET)
Since 2012 I have done a great deal of research about “Man Made Climate Change”, Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases. It didn’t take me long to realise MMCC was not a real existential threat to any nation now, soon or ever. Tony Heller’s counsel on this front has been invaluable to my education about the subject. He is a real terrier for the truth. Michael Mann on the other hand is a preening, arrogant, shyster who pushes a false theory and narrative for attention, money, fame and status. He is the complete opposite of a good scientist.
כבודו של מלך הוא לחפש את האמת על עניין.
😎
Adam Neira
Founder of World Peace 2050
Founded in April 2000
Paris – Jerusalem – Melbourne
I don’t know…I kinda liked his movie HEAT
[SLAP!]
Ow!
How’d Mr. Z hit me through the keyboard?
I think it is this Mann who directed THE KEEP….
I want to see him counter-sued for unfounded litigation AND publicly disgraced for publishing fraudulent science.
Not just my opinion.
Cherry picking data is explicitly labeled as “scientific fraud”.
tfourier wrote: “What people who are not familiar with academic research papers is just how many of them are just junk. Lots of fancy math. With fancy graphs. But the conclusions rarely match the data. And the math used is often inappropriate or just wrong.”
That wrong math is often used to prove the conclusion is correct. Hypothesis testing is one such abuse of math. The test is on a hypothesis not presented and ponders data not seen, then conclusions are made about the actual hypothesis and the real data that was seen. Thus, garbage papers are accepted as factual, because the hypothesis test passed, and the papers are never retracted, because they proved themselves with the hypothesis test.
“These ‘junk science’ papers only become a real problem when people appropriate them for political reasons.”
Or when someone references them for scientific reasons. Conclusions based upon false conclusions are at best suspect, they could be wrong. Then more papers reference the additional wrong conclusions, formulating a waterfall of error that is treated confidently as true. We become overconfident in what we think we know, but much of it is bogus, even if unintentionally so.
A classic example of using bogus research for political reasons is the Cook, et al., paper that was used to show the world a consensus of 97% of scientists agreeing that the global warming hypothesis was a real problem. The abstract alone said that two thirds of the scientists had no opinion at all, which means that at best it was only 97% of the remaining third. But that was not what the politically biased told everyone. Worse, the method used to determine the thinking of these scientists was not to ask them but to divine their thoughts through the abstracts of papers that they had written. Thus, the method has a high danger of confirmation bias, since Cook, and his others, had a point to make.
No math was required to make this a junk science paper that was still used to make a point that the desired condition was real. Decisions are still made by using this and other bogus science.
An aphorism I read is: the love of theory is the root of all evil. What scientists won’t do to prove their favored hypotheses correct. And when a hypothesis conforms to the political needs of the day, then it is treated as theory, is treated as scientific law (or consensus), is treated as fact, used by government, or others, for their own ends.
Thus, in one decade there is a coming Ice Age, requiring government tyranny to prevent, and in the next decade there is runaway anthropogenic global warming, requiring government tyranny to prevent, and in the next decade there is catastrophic climate change, requiring government tyranny to prevent, and it goes on and on, using The Science (politically expedient junk science) to prove each point.
So, what is the danger of having government be the financier of all the nation’s science? That paradigm began just after WWII. It took less that three decades for The Science to appear, and it only got worse from there.
Add to this the climatology models that were reifgied into reality (the map was confused for the territory) and we can understand why NOAA and NASA modified their global average temperature datasets. This modification was done without explanation, without telling anyone, and with all changes going in the direction supporting the favored hypothesis (the very definition of fudging the data) and the models derived to support them, which were being shown to be wrong; the “pause” that the scientists were lamenting was eliminated and Mann’s “Hockey Stick” hypothesis supported. Satellite instruments that measure global temperatures were also recalibrated to support the global warming hypothesis that the models support.
Edward and tfourier: You both outline the reasons why I try to always link to the actual paper when I post a science story. First, it provides my readers the source of the story to check for themselves. Second, it allows me to check the veracity of the press release before I post the story.
Trust me, a large percentage of stories get trashed and never appear at this website after I have reviewed the paper, even as numerous mainstream news outlets go gaga over them.
See also this earlier BtB essay: Junk science now dominates the reporting of the propaganda press