Michael E. Mann Responds

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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
4.5 50 votes
Article Rating
97 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AlanJ
March 6, 2025 12:20 pm

Bravo to National Review, but they are arguing that Steyn’s malice cannot be imputed to them because no staff member of National Review ever looked at Steyn’s work before it was published on their website. So they win the legal battle, but sacrifice any semblance of journalistic integrity they might have had in so doing.

Reply to  AlanJ
March 6, 2025 2:34 pm

What a dumbo Mann was then. That really could cost him over half a million.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  AlanJ
March 6, 2025 7:30 pm

They are correct and there integrity is fine, it was Steyn who made the Child Molester slight not them. I think everyone thinks the win/loss was about the science but actually the science but that isn’t the case it simply comes down you can’t make unsubstantiated attacks on a person.

KevinM
March 6, 2025 12:22 pm

THIS ARTICLE IS A PARODY
Needs to be up top.

Reply to  KevinM
March 7, 2025 8:05 am

It should stay at the bottom for effect BUT a note at the top saying “Be sure to scroll to the bottom” would be in order.

Reply to  Gunga Din
March 8, 2025 9:38 am

Looking at it today, “parody” is the category the post was listed as.
(I don’t know if that was the case when it went up. Probably was.)

March 6, 2025 12:44 pm

The walls are closing on this putz…. it is inevitable despite this parody.

joe-Dallas
March 6, 2025 1:09 pm

1) I agree with mann that both simberg and styen that they insult Mann with malice!
2) I agree with everyone commenting here that Simberg and Steyn’s statement was factually true!
3) I agree with most everyone here that Mann should be insulted with malice

Leon de Boer
Reply to  joe-Dallas
March 6, 2025 7:32 pm

The ruling says you can’t do 2 & 3 it will cost you $5K … well publish it in public anyhow.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  joe-Dallas
March 6, 2025 8:58 pm

1) I agree with mann that both simberg and styen that they insult Mann with malice!
Where, when? That quip about state pen and Penn state, or the statement about data molesting?
I think they were working on setting the record right, with a blog post using interesting language.

  • Most importantly I think you cannot prove malice here!

3) I agree with most everyone here that Mann should be insulted with malice
That seems to be supporting and encouraging criminal actions.

Most importantly I do not think that is particularly helpful, beside Mann´s uh unique personality.
Why don’t you try sharing a few facts for a change? (like my other post on here stating that for “strip bark pines” it yet needs to be shown that they are temperature proxies and the potential selection bias need to be reflected in the conclusion of that article)
It seems less criminal and more helpful over all.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Laws of Nature
March 6, 2025 9:06 pm

Agree but it cuts both ways

“National Review, CEI, and their goons Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg—professional liars for the fossil fuel industry”

That is also defamatory

March 6, 2025 1:21 pm

Okay – the question no one has asked yet that I saw –

How much direct or indirect US A.I.D money did MMann or his climate orgs get?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  _Jim
March 6, 2025 1:27 pm

Well, Stacy Abrams new ‘climate Justice fund, established three months ago, got $8 billion of Biden money via the EPA in January 2025. Zeldin is trying to claw it back.

March 6, 2025 1:42 pm

Parody, but unfortunately too close to that deluded asshole’s true persona.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  AGW is Not Science
March 6, 2025 1:51 pm

Even though I originally missed the parody in the URL, I certainly believed that this was something M.Mann would post.

So yes. Too close.

jack rodwell
March 6, 2025 1:51 pm

Glad you said it was a parody every desperate bleat sounded like every CAGW advocate I’ve ever encountered.

Reply to  jack rodwell
March 6, 2025 4:23 pm

Yeah the tone for say Andrew Dessler or Naomi Oreskes would be similar.

Eamon Butler
March 6, 2025 3:04 pm

”The planet is burning…” Yes, very scientific, full of integrity.How could anyone not take him seriously. (sarc. as if needed)

Editor
March 6, 2025 3:43 pm

How can we tell if it’s a parody?

Reply to  Mike Jonas
March 6, 2025 4:24 pm

The red words at the bottom. Otherwise, not so much.

Uzi1
March 6, 2025 6:10 pm

Mann has always been a grifting SOB who should not receive a nickel from this suit….

March 6, 2025 6:24 pm

 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!

I would like to invite Mr Mann to come onto this forum and justify this claim.

leefor
March 6, 2025 7:51 pm

Maybe he will start a Go-Fund-Me page.

Jeff Alberts
March 6, 2025 10:09 pm

You should put the parody label at the beginning, because apparently not very many people read to the end.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
March 8, 2025 9:42 am

It’s in the cartoon of Mann on the cliff today. (2 days later)
It was probably there from the start.

CampsieFellow
March 7, 2025 4:01 am

This parody was very realistic. It seems to have fooled quite a few people. However, there was one big omission. It missed out the bit about sending money.

John XB
March 7, 2025 6:23 am

“Years ago, I published the now-famous hockey stick graph—an airtight, peer-reviewed, scientifically indisputable…”

Comprehensively taken apart and revealed as scientific fraud in “The Hockey Stick Illusion” by Andrew Montford 2010.

Yet… no law suits by Mann against the author or publisher. Since he is a serial litigator to protect his “reputation”, his lack of action does indicate the book contains no actionable libel therefore the conclusions of its author must be true.

Trying to Play Nice
March 7, 2025 9:38 am

I’d like to pound his little bald head into the ground. This little twerp gets me very angry.

Ancient Wrench
March 7, 2025 11:57 am

The article is a parody, but Michael Mann is a joke.

March 7, 2025 3:41 pm

😆 Hahaha

March 7, 2025 4:01 pm

Use the anti-Trump playbook and compel Mann to post bond for the judgement before he is allowed to appeal.