THE WAR ON CLIMATE SCIENCE: THE DENIERS’ LATEST ATTACK ON TRUTH—AND ME!
HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YET? Because I HAVE! The fossil fuel puppets and their misinformation machine are at it AGAIN! This time, they’re not just trying to kill the planet with their greed-driven lies—they’re trying to financially ruin those of us who DARE to expose them!
THE FACTS: A DECADE-LONG SMEAR CAMPAIGN
Let’s be CRYSTAL CLEAR about what’s happening here. Years ago, I published the now-famous hockey stick graph—an airtight, peer-reviewed, scientifically indisputable demonstration that human activity is WARMING THE PLANET AT A TERRIFYING RATE! And what did the climate deniers do? They FREAKED OUT! They knew they couldn’t argue with FACTS, so they did what they always do: they ATTACKED.
National Review, CEI, and their goons Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg—professional liars for the fossil fuel industry—launched a VICIOUS smear campaign against me, throwing out insane, defamatory claims that compared me to a CHILD MOLESTER. Yes, you read that right. This wasn’t just a case of disagreeing with science. This was a DELIBERATE, MALICIOUS attempt to destroy my career, credibility, and personal life.
THE LAWSUIT: A LONG, INFURIATING FIGHT FOR JUSTICE
I wasn’t about to let them get away with it. I took them to court, not just to defend my name, but to send a message: YOU CAN’T JUST LIE ABOUT SCIENCE AND EXPECT TO GET AWAY WITH IT!
And guess what? I WON. A jury ruled that Steyn and Simberg HAD DEFAMED ME. The verdict was in: these people had engaged in a calculated, bad-faith smear designed to damage me and, by extension, the entire fight against climate change. They were ordered to pay damages—because that’s what happens when you LIE.
BUT THEN—THE TWIST!
As if we needed more proof that the system is rigged in favor of the corporate elite, the court then turned around and ORDERED ME TO PAY OVER HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN LEGAL FEES TO NATIONAL REVIEW!!! Yes, you heard that right—after fighting for truth for over a decade, after being smeared, defamed, and dragged through the legal system, I am the one being punished.
This is a tactic straight out of the climate denialist playbook. They don’t need to be right. They don’t need science. They just need DEEP POCKETS and a willingness to use the legal system as a weapon to intimidate and silence their opponents.
THIS ISN’T JUST ABOUT ME—IT’S ABOUT THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE ITSELF!
Make NO MISTAKE: this isn’t just about one lawsuit. This is about EVERY scientist, journalist, and activist who dares to stand up against Big Oil and their network of well-funded liars. This is about the existential crisis of our time—the planetary emergency unfolding before our eyes—while these corporate ghouls do everything in their power to gaslight, obstruct, and delay.
THE PLANET IS BURNING, AND THEY’RE STILL TRYING TO SHUT US UP.
They WANT scientists to live in fear. They WANT people to hesitate before speaking out. They WANT you to believe that fighting back will only get you crushed.
Well, guess what? I’M NOT GOING ANYWHERE!
A CALL TO ACTION: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
WE CANNOT LET THEM WIN. Every single day we delay is another step closer to irreversible climate collapse. Every distraction, every smear campaign, every phony legal attack is a calculated attempt to push us past the point of no return.
So what are YOU going to do? Are you going to sit back and let the liars win? Or are you going to FIGHT?
- SUPPORT CLIMATE SCIENCE.
- CALL OUT DISINFORMATION WHEREVER YOU SEE IT.
- DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE CLIMATE CRIMINALS WHO ARE DESTROYING OUR FUTURE.
This is NOT just a legal battle. It is a WAR for TRUTH, for SCIENCE, for HUMANITY ITSELF!
And I intend to FIGHT UNTIL WE WIN!
THIS ARTICLE IS A PARODY
His salty tears are too infused with water from that Egyptian river to be very tasty. But I enjoy them all the same.
I drank a glass with my delicious Niçoise salad at lunch. Or I wish I had, but I only discovered this article now.
Actually he doesn’t seem to understand the various rulings. You can lie about science it was covered under freedom of speech laws and why some of the news outlets won that bit. What you can’t do is in his own words “compare someone to a child molester” that is defamatory and cost Mark Steyn $5K.
The rulings make perfect sense you are more than welcome to lie about science that is your personal opinion what you can’t do is attack a person unless they are guilty of what you claim.
I think if he is going to keep fighting, he better go and understand the rulings because it had nothing to do with the science.
THIS ARTICLE IS A PARODY
Good parody requires a believability factor. With the illustrious Dr. Mann (cough), the parody seems believable.
Just imagine waking up as that guy, learning every day that your greatest achievement, publishing a bad paper about a false future that was nonetheless lauded by peer review (your buddies, pushing your agenda) continues to fail to predict worLd conditions. Mann Shouts at Clouds, for the rest of his life.
The National Review was rash to remain based in the Democratic Peoples Republic of DC. The jury pool there is guaranteed to be partisan Democrat, and skew towards bureaucrats. The judges, if possible, are worse.
Sounds a lot like a bad case of Psychological Projection if you ask me.
You nailed it.
“climate denialist playbook”
That’s funny! I didn’t know there was a playbook. Paranoid much?
Talk about liars!
I have been eagerly looking for this playbook. Can one of you kind people please send me a link to where I can find it?
It is inside Michael Mann’s head. He might give you a copy if you ask him nicely.
This article is not a parody. It is a paraphrase.
It did sound like his level of discourse and scientific persuasion, but the giveaway was there was no mention of being a Nobel Prize Winner.
It seems from the “approval” ratings that many, even here, fail to understand the significance of the /sarc tag or equivalent. Nice work, Charles.
If it wasn’t Mann.. it must be the Babylon Bee. ! 🙂
Hard to tell the difference.
Oh and the article neglects to show that Mann LOST to Tim Ball, and never paid.
The best parodies are almost entirely believable.
Aw Mann, I was almost in tears.
Nothing like a nice piece of comedic relief on rainy morning. 🙂
It is funny as written.. would be even funnier if Mann had actually written it. 🙂
climate denialist playbook
2/3rds correct. Need to change denialist to alarmist/activist.
They don’t need to be right. They don’t need science. They just need DEEP POCKETS and a willingness to use the legal system as a weapon to intimidate and silence their opponents.
Needs a context reversal (see above). This is straight out of the alarmist/activist playbook.
irreversible climate collapse
Anyone know a concise definition?
SUPPORT CLIMATE SCIENCE.
We do. We support legitimate science wherever it leads.
CALL OUT DISINFORMATION WHEREVER YOU SEE IT.
We do. Daily.
DEMAND ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE CLIMATE CRIMINALS WHO ARE DESTROYING OUR FUTURE.
I believe the recent verdict does exactly that.
To truly fit it needs to add:
USE GOVERNMENT FORCE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT PERSUASION AND EVIDENCE CANNOT!
I think you need “a complete lack of” before “evidence” to state that correctly.
Oh, and maybe change “pursuation” to “propaganda.”
I stand corrected.
I was about to respond just as you did. All attacks from climate alarmists and liars like Mann can be turned around by changing all the key words – llke having them face a mirror that magically changes all the key words.
Thanks for the bet comment yet.
WHAT?? Wow, i was totally taken in until I read that. So convincing.
(That was NOT sarcasm)
Had me going also until I read, “THIS ARTICLE IS A PARODY”.
It sounds so much like something he would say (and has said)!
Exactly, I was a bit suspicious, but did actually think it could be him writing.
He should be given permission to copy and paste onto his Facebook page or wherever he resides now.
So, to cut to the chase, were costs still awarded to Mann?
Some of them were. He’ll pay them the same day hell freezes over and pigs fly
Mann was awarded a nominal sum ($10?) for defamation because Steyn et al couldn’t prove everything they said. The Leftist, insane DC judges and juries awarded $1 million in punitive damages. Review courts reduced that to $5,000 because the million was grossly in excess of his actual defamation costs. Because of the vexations manner of Mann’s lawsuit (SLAAP) he was charged $500,000 in defendants’ costs. Anybody that knows any more about this can fill in for any errors on my part. I don’t care enough to look into this any further.
>> because Steyn et al couldn’t prove everything they said.
I am not sure what that even means.
But Steyn had A. A. Wyner testing on his behalf and the verdict of that statistician remained unchallenged by Mann or his lawyers.
So the state of the art is that the expert testified under oath that Mann (Bradley and Hughes) method is flawed!
It is actually quite easy to see yourself.. the most dominant proxy used in that article with a heavy statistical weight was based on “strip bark pines”.
Experts and nom-experts alike wonder how these survivalist trees ever could ever be used as a pure temperature poxy. Since this is so far unproven (and IMHO very unlikely) the whole method in that paper collapses.
David Fair – A few corrections to your post
1) Alfred Irving was the 4th trial court judge and he took over the case approx 6 years ago
2) Judge alfred irving is the trial court judge during the actual trial.
3) judge Irving is the judge that reduced the punitive damage award of $1m set by the jury down to $5k.
Several motions remain pending before judge irving
1) Mann has filed motion to remove the $528k assessment for legal fees.
2) several other motions that likely will become moot due to the punitive damage award reduced to $5000
$1 for defamation, because he wasn’t injured. $1 million in punitive damages to teach denier Steyn a lesson—per his lawyer’s jury instructions. The $1 million just got reduced to $5k. Still excessive IMO as SCOTUS ruled in State Farm v Campbell that anything over 9:1 is unconstitutionally excessive.
The half million was to National Review for their legal costs. He hasn’t paid (yet).
The court case directly on point is the Harte Hanks case decided by the US Supreme Court after the Sulivan NYT case.
As long as the defendant had a reasonable basis to believe his statement was true, then it is not with malice. Lets assume for illustration purposes that Mann’s HS is valid and well supported by the scientific data ( bad assumption – but this is only for illustration purposes). Lets also assumme for illustration purposes that all of S McIntyre’s critique of the HS is crap (again bad assumption – but this is only for illustration purposes). In this hypothetical (again its a bad fact hypothetical) Simberg’s / SStyen’s statement is factually wrong, but they had reason to believe it to be true.
Therefore, under Harte Hanks standard, even though Simberg and Steyns statements were “false” they cant be malice since they had reason to believe their statements were true.
Again, the above hypothetical is for purposes of explaning the Harte hanks standard.
Note also that in my opinion, Simberg’s / Steyn’s statement was factually correct. Hope that helps
Screaming in all-caps.
Convincing.
I know someone else who does that….
Mann was dragged through the courts?
Last time I checked he’s always been the plaintiff in these cases.
Nicely Charles, a thoroughly convincing (and well-deserved) parody of the Mannian uber-whinge.
Thank you.
Well, that’s it!
Such a convincing, facts-grounded manifesto from Prof Mann.
I’m now convinced that my skepticism about the climate crisis is mistaken.
ps – are there any positions going for converts to “The Cause”?
A paid one of course.
Because, as some said in The Godfather –
“after all, we’re not communists . . . “
Whoa! Parody!
For a moment I thought MMann’s trolley had completely come off its tracks!!!
Or the coal trains of death? Ooops sorry, that’s the other loonie.
The one does not exclude the other.
Yin meet yang.
Karma is fantastic, is it not, at least in this case.
I am getting old. I missed the “parody” in the link.
Here’s the National Review article about this (not a parody):
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/01/pay-up-mr-mann/
Unfortunately, Mann will not personally experience any financial pain, because even if the courts force him to pay up, Mann’s shadowy climate industry backers, who’ve been paying for his lawfare against sound science, will surely cover the tab.
He’s not hurting for money, anyhow. I’ve been unable to find out what his usual speaking fee is, but I’m sure he’s expensive. Even Katharine Hayhoe gets US $20K to $30K plus expenses per speech, and Mann does a lot of speaking engagements.
https://www.allamericanspeakers.com/speakers/399830/Katharine-Hayhoe
It’s all about the Benjamins, baby. There’s big, big money in the climate grift.
https://sealevel.info/1.5_Trillion_Dollar_Piggy_based_on_1885_Bengough_cartoon_and_the_Benjamines02_1222x640.webp
Why would anyone pay for it when they can get climate propaganda for free at any of a dozen websites?
And god help us all the Royal Society made him a member. I sent a letter explaining MM’s nasty unscientific nature and his world wide reputation. No reply. Rotten
How much of the Northern Hemisphere warming since 1980 was caused by the Clean Air Acts and the consequential warming due to SO2 reduction vs CO2 increase. How much warming since The Little Iceage was due to CO2 vs Natural Change? Of what value is the Hockey Stick to real knowledge?
HAVE YOU HAD ENOUGH YET? Because I HAVE!
Of Mann’s alarmist claptrap.
Looks like it was AI generated.
“Air tight” hockey stick, is that the same as Air tight flat earth?
“Air tight = bogus,bastardized
What is remarkable is MM just confirmed (again) that he is the least self-aware person on the planet.
You missed the “bottom line” of the above article . . . it’s in bold red text.
Note to whoever: April 1 is 26 days from now.
It’s never too soon to take the piss out of climate worriers
Professor Mann, do you have a statement for the Media?
That also looks like the Democrats who attended Trump’s speech the other night.
Sore losers. Crybabies. Deranged. Discombobulated.
Hey, why give crybabies a bad name? 🙂
Here are a few ideas for Mann to make money quickly to pay legal bills.
Well, let’s try Professor Mann’s Magical Horse Hockey On A Stick Method using other data and see if we can create our own Hockey Stick graph….H/T Jo Nova.
Postal chart data is commentary on the defined benefit retirement plan.
I’m old enough to remember penny postcards and mail delivery twice a day.
Good point and correct.
Ditto–also milk and bread delivery to the door.
Impressive. 1¢ postcards were 1951 & earlier.
I do remember 4¢ postcards (1963-1967).
Postcard postage is now 56¢, and 1oz letters are 73¢ (which is not far from what Temu and AliExpress charge to ship a package from Shenzhen, China to my doorstep).
I also remember the global cooling scare.
https://sealevel.info/newsweek_old.htm
