According to a judge at the Special Columbia Court, University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his lawyers presented misleading information to the ju judge in a honour-loss case against critics of his work.
Mann has won a honour-loss lawsuit against conservative writers Mark Stein and Rand Singberg. Both criticized Mann’s signature “Hockey Stick” climate model as crude work after filing a lawsuit in February 2024 for over a decade. However, DC Superior Court Judge Alfred S. Irving said on Wednesday that Mann and his lawyers had admitted to the “extraordinary scope, scope and intent” during the trial, and that in his submission he and his team had provided the ju judge with false information about what he had really missed out on due to the allegations of fam humiliation.
Mann and his lawyers “each of which intentionally makes false statements of fact to the court, and Dr. Mann deliberately participates in false and strives to make the strongest case possible, even when necessary, using false and misleading information.” Irving wrote in his submission. (Related: DC ju umpire discovered that “hockey stick” critics slandered scientists. What does that mean for scientific discourse?)
DC Superior Court filed Michael Mann by Nick Pope With scribd
“The court will hold that the appropriate sanction is to award each defendant the approximate fees incurred in responding to the misconduct of Dr. Mann’s malicious trial, starting with Mr. Fontaine’s redirect examination,” the filing country referring to Attorney Peter Fontaine. “The court arrives at such sanctions because the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his lawyer (1) was extraordinary in its scope, scope and intent. (2) the ju judge is likely to have been unavoidable, not only false evidence and tragic misrepresentation about a key part of Dr. Mann’s case, but also additional court proceedings to correct the records and impressions of that ju judge, otherwise unnecessary. (3) What has become even more complicated is already complicated and difficult legal and practical problems. (4) the defendant and the court who have borne a centralized task of time and resources to confirm the true scope of the misconduct and determine appropriate corrective actions for the same, without any meaningful recognition of the nature of the misconduct by Dr. Mann or his lawyer.” (Related: Climate scientist who wanted to “smash” a national review ordered to check out outlets)
Singberg’s lawyer, Victoria Weatherford, asked him to explain how ju judges are confident that the complex statistics at the heart of Mann’s model are “not auxiliary.” Mann responded by saying that the ju-decides should believe “If I make a mistake, I own it.”
Mann filed a lawsuit against Singberg in October 2012. Singberg summoned the Jerry Sandusky scandal in relation to the data massage of Mann’s “hockey stick” model in a competitive Enterprise Institute blog post, and submitted conservative critic Mark Stein, who referenced Singberg’s blog post in his own writing about the model. That’s what Singberg was like order To pay $1,000 in punitive damages and $1,000 in compensatory damages, Steyn was ordered to ponny $1 million in punitive damages in addition to $1 dollar in compensatory damages.
Two critics argued that the “hockey stick” model, which appears to have demonstrated a greater jump in global temperatures in recent decades compared to the previous centuries, is not a reliable model given the underlying data and the flaws they identified.
Mann and his representatives did not respond to requests for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation is an independent, nonpartisan newswire service that is free to use for legitimate news publishers that can provide large audiences. All republished articles must include logos, reporter signatures and DCNF affiliation. For questions regarding our guidelines or partnerships with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
