The “green” movement is built on a foundation of lies. Climate change? Sure, the climate has been changing for millions of years. But Earth’s climate, over which we have little or no control, was politicized by, as much as anyone other than Al Gore, Michael Mann. Mann is the creator of the infamous “hockey stick” chart, showing Earth’s temperatures stable until the very recent future, and then spiking sharply upward. Mann’s work has been thoroughly discredited. The only question is whether he was innocently wrong, or perpetrated a deliberate fraud.
Mann sued Mark Steyn, Rand Simberg and others for defamation in Washington, D.C. The case had a long and tortured history, but finally came to trial. The case was an elephant that turned into a mouse: apart from the merits of his liability case, Mann had no damages. The jury ultimately awarded him $1 in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages that have now been reduced to essentially zero. Mann has lost a lot of money on the deal, as he was caught lying to the jury: he and his lawyers presented an exhibit to the jury that purported to itemize damages from loss of grants in the amount of $9,713,924.00. Oops: that claim had later been reduced to $112,000. Big difference, and the jury ultimately awarded zero.
But Mann and his lawyers obviously showed the fictitious calculation to the jury in hopes that the big number would stick in jurors’ minds, and they would award him a lot of money. The court, in the person of trial judge Alfred Irving, wasn’t amused. He issued an order excoriating Mann and his lawyers for their attempted fraud, and awarded costs to Steyn and Simberg.
For reasons I can’t explain, Mann made a motion to the trial court to reconsider his order sanctioning Mann and the lawyers. That gave Judge Irving an opportunity to reiterate his low opinion of Mann and his trial team:
Plaintiff [Michael Mann] left the jury with misleading evidence, suggesting that he suffered damages in at least the amount of $9,713,924.00. The Court rightfully concluded that Plaintiff and his attorneys acted in bad faith and that their litigation tactics cannot and should not be condoned in this jurisdiction.
***
As to Dr. Mann, in particular, he was indeed ultimately responsible for the conduct of the litigation of his case and it was his responsibility to ensure that the facts of his case were presented truthfully and straightforwardly, so that the jury could reach a fair and reasonable decision based on the facts. Furthermore, he was tasked with knowing the facts of his case, one he filed in 2012.
***
Thus, the Court’s ruling must stand. It is the Court’s duty to punish and deter bad faith litigation tactics.
So Michael Mann has officially been found by a court of law to be a liar. Mark Steyn asks a good question, via Steve Milloy:
If @MichaelEMann offers sanctionable false testimony in court, should media outlets that quote him asterisk everything he says with this?👇 https://t.co/FQde0tKTgQ
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) January 22, 2026
Good point! Are media outlets still citing Mann’s discredited research, and quoting him as a purported authority on “climate change”? I don’t know. They shouldn’t. But any reporter that even thinks about quoting Mann in a story should, at a minimum, disclose that he has been officially determined to be a liar by a court of law.
