In his defamation suit against Mark Steyn, National Review, and CEI Mann is awarded 1,001,000 dollars in a travesty of jurisprudence. This suit was filed in 2012. Mark Steyn made one critical error. He chose to represent himself, and that mistake costed him a cool million.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...rs-defamation-trial/

Of course this will be reported as the science has been vindicated. Mann's statement...

quote:

“I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said in a statement

Did Steyn and this other fellow compare Mann with Jerry Sandusky. Yes, they did. Did these remarks rise to the level of defamation? No, they didn't. My understanding is the burden of proof is on the person filing the suit and they must prove harm. Mann offered two points. One is his grant money dried up after the comments. Two, he got a mean look in a grocery store from someone he didn't know, and couldn't possibly know what this guy was thinking.

After the Sandusky scandal, all departments at Penn State University experienced grant money drying up. Yet, attorney Victoria Weatherford clearly proved with Mann's W2's that his compensation went from 150k to 198k after the remarks. He also got two promotions. His work evaluations were stellar. She also proved he drastically downgraded 7 of 13 grants after the remarks. One from almost 10 million down to 100k. All of this from pretrial depo's under oath. Mann said the first depo was inaccurate and it was his lawyer's mistake. Weatherford also chronicled Mann working with Bill, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, and Leonardo DiCaprio. And, Mann charges 100k for speaking engagements. Weatherford clearly proved Mann was not damaged.

And, yet this DC jury proved if you're the right type you can walk into any court. Lie your ass off, and get a big payday.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: goose5,

You may be right. Mark defended himself brilliantly. With an English accent that makes him sound condescending, especially with his brilliant. put-downs of Mann.
Simberg did the original post which Steyn did a variation on, so it's ridiculous that Steyn should catch the brunt of it.
Perhaps because he's much better known.

In any case, the idea that "Now no one can dare to be a climate denier" is horrendous to contemplate.

I hope he will find a skilled pro bono attorney to do the appeal, which would almost certainly overturn the obscene verdict.

They also proved Mann lied about winning a Nobel Peace Prize. In 2007 the Nobel went to Al Gore, and the IPCC. The IPCC gave Mann and others a certificate recognizing their contribution to the IPCC winning a Nobel. The Nobel Committee sent a letter to Mann asking him to stop claiming he'd won a Nobel Peace Prize. He fought a pitch battle with Wikipedia when they dropped the Nobel from his description. Mann just continued to double down. I would have asked him did they give you a meddle? Did they give you 100 thousand dollars? No. Then you didn't win shit.

Another mistake in my opinion was the council allowing Mann to use the term "climate deniers." I would have pointed out the pejorative nature of this term. It was distilled from Holocaust denier, and designed to shut down debate. Mann used this term many times in open court.

They also drilled down on Mann referring to part of the Penn State investigation as "covering our a$$es." Yes, spelled with dollar signs. Mann's explanation was he used those figures to make sure his message cleared a spam filter.

During Weatherford questioning Mann a very interesting line of questioning came up. She asked if Mann how much debt had he ran up as a result of this case. Mann answered none. No attorney fees? No. You haven't paid your lawyers anything? No. A natural follow-up would have been who is paying? But, she just let that drop. Its obvious the big money left is paying for it, and the big money right needs to get off of its ass, and into the game.

They also drilled down on Mann telling another colleague that Dr. Judith Curry slept her way to her position. They did get him to recant that, but my God after all that how could a jury unanimously find in his favor of this abusive dirt bag?