Climate scientist Michael Mann has appeared in these pages before, the subject of some criticism for his less-than-honest science and public pronouncements. So a recent news story is worth sharing, even if we leave the commentary to you. Quoting from Roger Pielke, Jr.:
The DC Court that heard the defamation case brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against two bloggers has ruled today that Mann and his lawyers acted in “bad faith” during the case, by presenting false claims on multiple occasions related to Mann’s grant funding:
Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding… The Court does not reach this decision lightly.
This ruling follows closely on the heels of the same court reducing the punitive damages awarded to Mann against one of the defedents 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 National Review — which Mann had also sued, but whose case was dismissed.
Roger Pielke, Jr., “In Bad Faith” (March 12, 2025).
The judge was none too pleased with Mann and his lawyers:
They 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.
As those who have followed Michael Mann’s sorry career pushing Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) may remember, Mann has been caught conspiring to keep hidden in his data and graphs the reality of the Medieval Warming Period. As a public figure and one of the main faces of the AGW “climate change” hysteria, he has helped diminish the public’s confidence in scientists in general.
So maybe we should thank him? After he pays off the damages and court costs, of course.
“The irony here is deep,” concludes Mr. Pielke. “The lawsuit Mann brought on the basis that he was intemperately accused of misconduct winds up revealing that Mann engaged in misconduct that was ‘extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.’ It’ll be interesting to see what the climate science community does now.”
1 reply on “Extraordinary Misconduct”
“scientist”?