A recent tweet from our old friend Stephen McIntyre:
Recently, Michael Mann has been back in the news after the judge in his libel trial sanctioned Mann and his lawyers for presenting false information to the court...
Mann had claimed that, prior to the articles, he had been "bringing in" "just under a million a year" over the previous four years and that, after the articles, that was reduced to "a little more than 100,000 a year".
The judgement cited numerous exhibits, but unfortunately they weren't included in the judgement itself. For interested readers, I've attached an exhibit illustrating the decrease in grants claimed by Mann at the trial.
See here:
Hokey Schtick!! That top graphic is just a bit of dark court humour from Steve - but the second graphic taken from Mann's testimony under oath is all too real....
Steve has further noted:
I've done some digging on Mann's grants testimony. The judge barely scratched the surface. There's a much bigger deception that neither judge nor defense picked up. They were bamboozled by Mike's DC Trick. :)
— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) March 22, 2025
Hint: why did Mann choose four years for his before and after...
At the end of the day, it really is a case built on absolutely nothing - as Mark so eloquently put it in his most recent Clubland Q&A.
Yet, as famed landlord/ tenant jurist Natalia Combs-Greene - the first judge on this case - put it: "all this paperwork gives me a headache!"
So, we thought we would try to make it less headache-inducing for those among our readers interested in knowing more about the case but overwhelmed by the extraordinary amount of information out there. Herewith, an at-a-glance guide:
Pending Appeal in the DC Court of Appeals
- Mann has appealed Judge Irving's decisions removing former co-defendants National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) from the case.
- Mann has appealed the award of SLAPP fees to National Review. (see below)
Mann has been ordered to provide a monthly report to the Court of Appeals re the status of the post-trial motions still awaiting decision in the DC Superior Court (below).
The most recent report was March 2025.
Awaiting Decision from Judge Irving in the DC Superior Court
1) Mann's motion seeking six figures in "court costs" from Mark and his co-defendant Rand Simberg.
This is mostly bollocks - especially the bit attempting to collect a ridiculous sum for storage of electronic discovery - with an in-house "vendor".
2) Mark's co-defendant Simberg and CEI's Motions for
- Costs Under Rule 54.
- Litigation Costs, Including Attorney's Fees, Under DC's Anti-SLAPP Act.
- and, Supplemental Motion for Attorney's Fees Under the D.C. Anti-SLAPP Act.
This is Mann's motion requesting a stay on enforcement of the half-million-dollar judgment he has been ordered to pay National Review - pending his appeal of it.
In this motion, he argued that he should not have to pay NR as he hopes to bring NR back in the case to make them pay his one-million dollar award against Steyn - and more! (oops! he got a little ahead of himself on that. That award has been reduced to a mere 5k. See below..)
Recent Decisions
* On March 12, 2025, the court ordered that "Plaintiff Michael E. Mann, Ph.D., is SANCTIONED for bad-faith trial misconduct relating to his use of Exhibit 517A, Exhibit 116, and Exhibit 117, and his counsel's misrepresentations concerning the same"
The court ordered that Mann is liable to Mark and Rand for the time spent addressing Mann's presentation of false information to the jury. Mark and Rand must submit those costs to the court for its consideration on March 26th.
* On March 4, 2025, the court denied Mark and Rand's motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)*
Judges are reluctant to supplant a jury decision.
The court also denied Mark's motion for a new trial on the basis that the court of appeals has not yet provided guidance on improper "send a message" calls to the jury.
However, the court did grant Mark's "Alternative Motion for Remittitur of Punitive Damages" reducing the jury award from an unconstitutional one million dollars to a mere five thousand dollars.
Basically, our motion said we don't think there should be any punitive award. However, if the court were minded to, it should be no more than $5,000. And, the court accepted this argument.
[* Mann's report to the Court of Appeals incorrectly lists this as still pending.]
The deadline to file a notice of appeal above is in the next few weeks.
* On January 19, 2025, the court affirmed a sanctions award against Mann for behavior during the discovery process. Mann had to pay CEI and Simberg $9k.
* On January 7, 2025, the court ordered Mann to pay National Review $530,820.21for legal fees associated with the Anti-Slapp portion of Mann's case against them (which was dismissed).
* On January 6, 2025, the court denied Mann's motion seeking to collect attorney fees from early on in the case when Mark was a counter-plaintiff. Mann has not appealed.
As my old pal and attorney for Simberg/ CEI tweeted:
He's already paid CEI more in sanctions than he won in the final judgment, and that's not counting the $530k in fees he owes to National Review and any fee award to CEI.
— Andrew M. Grossman (@andrewmgrossman) March 4, 2025
We will keep you apprised of further developments as they occur. Meanwhile, if you are just diving into this case, please check out the following binge-worthy audio delights:
1) The Climate Change on Trial podcast hosted by Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney of The Unreported Story Society.
A new special episode titled "Mann's Infrivolity to Man" -including reaction from Mark's attorney Christopher Bartolomucci - is available here.
2) "A Disgrace to the Profession": The World's Scientists ~ in their own words ~ On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science, Volume I
* Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn, with illustrations by Josh*
The narration is by yours truly and is available here.
Thank you to all of our readers who have stuck by Mark during the ongoing battle for free speech. As he always says, "the process is the punishment". But, these last few rulings give us a glimmer of hope that justice will prevail in the end.
