Michael E. Mann, known for his infamous ‘hockey stick’ climate graph, must pay over $500,000 in legal fees after spending years trying to silence National Review with a baseless lawsuit. Here’s an excerpt from their response:
For more than eight years, the climate scientist Michael Mann harassed National Review through litigation over a blog post — until, eventually, the First Amendment brought an end to his attack. This week, a court in our nation’s capital ordered Mann to pay us $530,820.21 worth of attorney’s fees and costs, and to do so within 30 days. It is time for him to get out his chequebook, and sign on the dotted line.
This restitution is welcome, if incomplete. As was made clear during the discovery process, Mann’s explicitly stated intention was to use a “major lawsuit” as a vehicle with which to “ruin National Review”. Happily, Mann failed in this endeavour. But, while all’s well that ends well, his failure exacted costs nevertheless. Between 2012 and 2019 — with the courts inexplicably refusing to apply legal provisions ostensibly designed to prevent frivolous lawsuits such as Mann’s — we were forced to spend a considerable amount of time and money defending ourselves against his malicious, meritless suit. …
The promise of American law is that there will be material consequences for bad behaviour, and, after twelve years, there finally have been. Mann’s behaviour throughout has been appalling. Now, he must pay up.
Worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Good to see Mann brought down a peg or two. This is the calibre of the “scientists” the greenists refer to when they claim “scientists say”.
This decidedly shines a spotlight on the Mark Steyn case which was an appalling example of a corrupt judicial system. I doubt Mr Steyn will receive due reconsideration.
Spot on.
After Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick – over 20 years ago – exposed Mann’s hockey stick as being (the bloke is notoriously litigious, so I shall use the term “inacurrate”), and the subsequent Climategate emails, it is astonishing that he has any credibility whatsoever.
The sooner that the majority of people realise that the whole “CO2 is the primary driver of climate change” narrative is deeply flawed, the sooner that the Net Zero nonsense is crushed. I’m hoping that the incoming Trump administration will be a huge helping hand in bringing that day forward.
It seems those who should be given the least credibility, somehow appear to receive the most.
Thinking Neil Ferguson at Imperial College and his staggeringly poor record.
Thinking Bill gates, who has no medical training or credentials, but is somehow seen as an authority on medical matters.
Thinking Ed Miliband!
Thinking the head of WHO (who’s name I can’t even be bothered to recall).
Thinking Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, who have credibility for what?
We seem to live in the Age of the Charlatans!
Dr Richard North used to write about this very issue over a dozen years ago. He often appeared frustrated that his carefully crafted, well-argued and fully referenced research didn’t reach a wider audience, whereas the views of a politician or journalist “with prestige” seemed to gain widespread acceptance – despite having little evidence backing them up.
How some of these people gained that prestige (despite being complete bufoons), is often a complete mystery.
My thoughts exactly.
Thank you God and whatever State judiciary the case against Mann was settled under.
Presumably not the ideologically-bent Washington D.C. court that found in favour of Mann in the case against Mark Steyn’s home truths.
Beggars belief that this disgrace in the name of science has been getting away with making stuff up for nigh on 30 years. Likewise the rest of the climate mafiosos.
It is part of the same case involving Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. As the National Review points out they had asked for $1m in damages from the crooked Mann and have spent way more than even that defending themselves against him. Shame he doesn’t have a house in LA but today there is news that the fire is approaching a house that Cackles Kamala owns as well as a Schwarzenegger property.
Screw your freedoms Schwarzenegger, he was one of the few childhood heroes in the 80s. they say never meet a TV idol, you will always be disappointed.
As has been said before, the process itself of legal attack is so often the aggression or punishment rather than the outcome itself.
And in this case being forced to pay legal costs covers the legal expenses of the aggrieved party but doesn’t compensate for the aggression of the process.
Why is Mann not made to pay an exemplary crippling fine, so that actions like his aren’t repeated?
That is exactly what happened with Alex Jones. His penalty far exceeds the value of the damage suffered by his plaintiffs and is designed to destroy him financially and terrify anyone else who also dares challenge the establishment.
Mann has been let off lightly and clearly continues to have the protection of the establishment.
Quite right.
100 million dollars would seem a reasonable sum.
His rich backers would doubtless bail him out.
Maybe 100 billion would be better – they’d feel that alright.
Punitive damages were awarded against Steyn, but don’t hold your breath for them to be awarded against Mann. This is two tier justice American style.
Funny – I can’t find this news anywhere on the BBC…
Unfortunately Mann’s case has been massively supported by
fossil fuel green industrial complex interests, so he won’t personally suffer.My thoughts exactly. Disgusting as he is, he is just a front man, his backers will foot the bill and he will carry on as normal.
Not that he will pay anything. It hasn’t cost him anything to drag Mark Steyn through court after court for over a decade. It’s all covered by ‘supporters’.
Mann will not pay a bean, his backers will.
Last year’s disgraceful defamation trial where Simberg and Steyn were found guilty, Mann admitted he was not paying his lawyers and any of his legal teams costs.
But at least this may be the beginning of the end of this odious little man’s lawfare arainst those that disagree with his hockey stick.
The tab will probably be picked up by those who fund his research or those getting taxpayer subsidies from wind and solar, in other words vested interests
If someone covers your court fees etc, isn’t that income so the IRS needs to persue the tax.
Finally!