SLAPPed

My, oh my, how the worm has turned.

Thirteen months ago, in the op-ed pages of the New York Times , University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann and his lawyer, Peter J. Fontaine, were crowing about their victory in federal court a few days earlier. They were thrilled that a jury in Washington, DC, had decided that the defendants in the case, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, had defamed Mann. The jury awarded the combative academic $1 in compensatory damages from Simberg and Steyn. It also awarded Mann punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn.

Mann claimed the jury’s decision was “ a victory for science and it’s a victory for scientists. ”

In their February 15, 2024, op-ed, Mann and Fontaine said, “We hope this sends a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences...However, we lament the time lost to this battle. This case is part of a larger culture war in which research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is dissembled.”

Yes, well.

It turns out that Mann — who is the “presidential distinguished professor of earth and environmental science and director of the Penn Center for Science Sustainability, and the Media” as well as Penn’s “inaugural vice provost for climate science, policy, and action” — and Fontaine, were the dissemblers.

As reported here on Substack by Roger Pielke Jr., a federal court in Washington, DC, ruled yesterday that Mann and his lawyers acted in “bad faith” and “made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding.” As Pielke explains:

This ruling follows closely on the heels of the same court reducing the punitive damages awarded to Mann against one of the defendants from $1,000,000 to $5,000 . That reduction follows the Court’s order that Mann pay $530,820.21 of legal expenses that his lawsuit resulted in for The National Review — which Mann had also sued, but whose case was dismissed.

In his ruling , the judge on the case, Alfred S. Irving, Jr., said that Mann and his lawyers:

Each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information. (Emphasis added.)

The 46-page decision is a blistering takedown of Mann and his legal team. Judge Irving, who was appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush in 2008 , writes that:

Dr. Mann makes several arguments against the imposition of sanctions, all of which are unavailing. First, Dr. Mann’s assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel’s conduct borders on frivolity. (Emphasis added.)

Irving ruled that Mann’s lawyers’ “bad faith misconduct is an affront to the Court’s authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings warranting sanctions.”

Read the rest of this piece at Robert Bryce Substack.

Robert Bryce is a Texas-based author, journalist, film producer, and podcaster. His articles have appeared in a myriad of publications including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, Time, Austin Chronicle, and Sydney Morning Herald.

Photo: Stanford's Mark Jacobson and Penn's Michael Mann, tried to use the courts to silence or intimidate their critics. They failed. Both men have been ordered to pay more than $500,000 in legal fees to the defendants. Source: Robert Bryce Substack