Earlier in the week, Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. in the Superior Court in Washington DC found in favour of Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn is one of my heroes in the fight for some integrity in historical temperature reconstructions.
One of the main reasons we now have such unaffordable energy in the West is because fraudulent historical temperature reconstructions – most notably Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick reworking of the last 1,000 years of European temperature history – have frightened policy makers into believing we have a climate catastrophe. Of course, many have been keen to be ‘frightened’ because they have found financial and other advantage in the mandated transition to ostensibly ‘clean’ energy.
It is the little people who are now paying for all of this, including through ridiculously unaffordable energy bills.
At the recent Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London there was much lamenting the consequence by so many polite conservatives now with political power, but a complete denial of the cause. Shame.
Back to the case at hand. Earlier in the week, Judge Irving found clear and convincing evidence, that Mann, through his lawyers, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court in the defamation case against Mark Steyn. So, eventually, Steyn may get some of his costs paid, and by Mann.
How is it that Michael Mann ever thought he was going to get away with presenting such erroneous evidence? And why did Mann bring the defamation case against Mark Steyn in the first place?
These are important questions that are not being discussed, perhaps because they show just the extent to which we live in a culture dominated by fraud within our institutions especially those concerned with science.
I have been writing now for over a decade about the many ways the Australian Bureau of Meteorology ruin the Australian historical temperature series. Despite valid attempts with my husband John Abbot, including by bringing a case against the Bureau through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, we are getting nowhere. At least not yet.
Mark Steyn has had more success. Despite bad health and near bankruptcy, he has never given up. With his extraordinary work ethic, he is perhaps finally winning through, at least he is starting to show Michael Mann up for what he is, for what much of modern climate science is: fraud. That may be his legacy. For that I will be forever grateful.
Some 13 years ago, the much lauded and absurdly creative climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, did take Mark Steyn to court for defamation. The case dragged on, almost never making it to court until it was finally heard in Washington DC just over a year ago, in January 2024. The jury, mostly ignoring much of the evidence, some of it well presented by Steyn who represented himself, found that while Mann had NOT suffered financially from the claim by Steyn of fraud –- specifically Mark Steyn claims that Michael Mann’s most famous historical temperature reconstruction is an invention with the intention to deceive –- he, Steyn, should nevertheless be punished.
And so, in accordance with the zeitgeist, but against the evidence, Steyn was ordered by the court to pay US$1 in nominal damages, and US$1,000,000 in punitive damages.
Mark Steyn was ordered, in effect, to pay US$1 million for being disagreeable – for offending the majority.
The injustice. I sobbed that day, February 9, 2024, as I penned Part 5 of a series about the court case on my weblog, click here. And I thank Ann McElhinney for taking my call, for letting me lament with her over the phone. And I thank Ann for the brilliant podcast series she has created about all of this with the Phelim McAleer, click here.
A year later, and earlier this month, specifically on March 4, 2025, on appeal, the US$1,000,000 in punitive damages was reduced to US$5,000. You can read more at SteynOnline including the judgement, click here.
Then on March 12, there was another ruling, that Michael Mann’s lawyers had mislead the court. Justice takes time it seems. And I have new hope. Again the judgment can be downloaded from SteynOnline, click here.
In bringing legal action against Steyn all those years ago, Mann claimed to be making a stand for science. In reality, he was seeking to quash any resistance, and in the highest profile way possible. He picked on, not just Steyn who was published by the National Review, but also Rand Simburg who at the time was blogging for the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Mann was in search of a fight with those he thought he could further malign, Mark Steyn and Rand Simburg, over the unfashionable demand for some integrity in historical temperature reconstructions.
Mark Steyn and Rand Simburg fought back, and with great persistence, tenacity and courage never mind the real financial and also significant personal costs.
Meanwhile The Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review Inc, who Mann was perhaps really hoping to be fighting against, stepped away, hanging Simburg and Steyn out to dry, so to speak – leaving them to defend themself.
Last year the jury found against both men, but more so against Steyn. Simburg was awarded punitive damages of US$1,000 while for Steyn it was orders of magnitude greater at US$1,000,000.
This case is fundamentally, at heart, about the accuracy of historical temperature reconstructions, something I have fought long and hard for, and that I will continue to fight for. In the end it is about integrity in science, that is worth fighting for.
It is the case that individuals and their families, not institutions, continually to prosecute the case against climate corruption as John Abbot and I have not given up despite the Administrative Appeals Tribunal being disbanded just as I thought I was going to be called as an expert witness; for some history that needs updating, click here.
I am no fan of Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller, but he does a good job of explaining how absurd the Mann historical temperature reconstruction is – that Steyn has repeatedly correctly characterised as fraud. You can watch and listen on YouTube, click here.
Indeed, Mann’s main claim to fame is his flattening of most of the last 1,000 years of European temperature history, up until the Industrial Revolution. So, instead of the official historical temperature reconstructions for the last thousand years showing a peak in warming 1,000 years ago corresponding to the period of cathedral building across Europe – as Russian historical temperature reconstructions still do – official temperature series from Western institutions, especially the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) now show the last 150 years to be a period of unprecedented warming following 1,000 years of very little change.
The sixty years of cooling to 1975, and the Little Ice Age when the Thames River froze over, is still evident in the Russian reconstructions but has been erased from the American reconstructions, as I explained in Part 6 of my commentary on the saga a year ago, click here.
******************
The feature image is a cartoon I commissioned from Josh, perhaps a decade ago. This is the first time I have published it. I was keeping it for a manuscript that I am adding to. As my daughter reminds me, “The hard part is finishing, but that’s also where the power is.” Thank you to Mark Steyn for staying around to finish what Michael Mann started.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Thanks to Jennifer, to Mark Steyn, to everyone who is and has opposed the fraudulent alarm-ism.
Champion Jennifer.
Is that a ‘wink’ from your grandson?
‘Record’ Rob Sharpe (at Sky News Weather/BoM,) seems to be wavering. I swear he is now only using the phrase ‘record heat’ in every second sentence….
Thank you Jennifer.
Do you think Michael M will ever be prosecuted for what he did?
I will never forget what he did to try to silence the elderly Prof Tim Ball.
Michael M engaged in lawfare before Trump’s opponents did….
As always, good lady, well written, informative, and authoritative.
Best to you and yours,
w.
Thanks for all your work exposing these climate frauds
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/02/12/cult-of-stupidity-naming-names/
Can anyone with a straight face still present Mann and his colleagues as serious and upright scientists? I am sure there will be some who try.
The question “will Mann ever be prosecuted?” is an interesting one. The judge’s judgement on 12 March is a long one, with much detail, and completely eviscerates Mann. It shows that if anyone is guilty of fraud and deceit and moreover lying in court it is Mann and his lawyers. That is not my opinion that is Judge Irving’s as his damning statement makes clear. Some excerpts:
“They each [Mann’s lawyers] knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavouring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.”
“Dr Mann’s assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel’s conduct borders on frivolity… the record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding… A lawyer’s representation to the court must be as reliable as a statement under oath…. Dr Mann’s counsel’s bad faith misconduct is an affront to the Court’s authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings warranting sanctions.”
“The Court determines that the appropriate sanction is to award each Defendant the approximate expenses they incurred in responding to Dr. Mann’s bad faith trial misconduct, starting with Mr. Fontaine’s redirect examination. The Court arrives at such a sanction because the misconduct of Dr Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent and intent; (2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr Mann’s case, but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury’s impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary; (3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and (4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time-and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgement of the nature of the misconduct by Dr Mann or his attorneys.”
Steyn and his co-defendants should be able to file for large costs and damages an d possibly even a mistrial on the bias of false evidence. Whether Mann and his lawyers will ever be convicted of fraud and lying in court must be uncertain though I would say the chances are greater now than they would have been a few years ago. They could of course claim that they ‘genuinely’ thought it was truthful information just like the hockey stick papers were ‘honest’ attempts to present an analysis of proxy temperatures – despite having been shown to be false by McIntyre.
In the UK we have the situation of the recent Chairman of the Climate Change Committee – that tells the government what net zero policies to impose – who for more than ten years was also running a private company that made millions out of advice he gave to companies regarding policies that the CCC were ‘recommending’. This broke all civil service rules of conflict of interest and integrity and constituted very clear fraud under any serious definition of the word yet there are no signs of him being charged with such a crime.
Although the legal systems in the US and UK come from the same basis they are slightly different in application so hopefully the US can lead the way in greater accountability for these and many other similar reprobates.
Rather a long discourse I am afraid, but this is a very pertinent issue. Never forget that sitting at the top of the chain of fraud and deceit are the UN (with its resident idiot Guterres), its various sub-groups (IPCC, WMO, WHO, IMF etc.,) and the Davos elite. They may think they are formidable and unbeatable opponents with the money and power, but recent elections in Europe and the US suggest that the public are becoming less subservient and brainwashed. One need not support the parties that have made headway or some of those elected (for many reasons of which the iniquity of net zero is just one, though quite a big one) to acknowledge that some resistance is evident and has to be welcomed for that reason alone.
How many ‘serious and upright scientists’ continue to deny the Earth orbits the Sun once every 360 Day/Night Intervals, by not calling out the continuing intellectual fraud society has been burdened with since 1582 – the Gregorian (Judeo Christian) Calendar?
What about all those ‘serious and upright scientists’ since 1582? Did Einstein ever complain, while he searched for Easter eggs and waited for Santa Clause?
The truth is relentless.
Karen it would be in your best interest to accept reality.
The truth is relentless.
And it can be hard to sometimes get to the truth, especially when Peter Ridd so often just makes stuff up, as I explain in this blog post,
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2024/07/cyclone-causes-increase-in-coral-cover-if-you-believe-their-nonsense-number/
After Tropical Cyclone Kirrily absolutely devastated the reef crest at John Brewer back in January 2024, Ridd was off to Melbourne to deny any impact. He is one of so many that gets caught up within the paradigm to such an extent that he can’t see the cycles of devastation and so he will also miss the renewal.
You will find something of an overview in an interview I did with Unbecoming, here:
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-great-barrier-reef
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10958753/
Karen Klemp – thanks for providing the link to that article. I scanned thru a bit of it, but it was obviously biased as it attacks the opposition rather than their arguments.
Science has never been “settled” – so labels like “deniers” proves the authors know they’re on shaky ground.
Sky amplifies ‘the voices of contrarian scientists’.
Lumped in together as covert members of the denialati. Sky has done a fantastic job in getting the other side of the argument out to the general public.
Never forget, the worst coral bleaching happens during strong El Nino.
You can only ‘burn the candle at both ends’ until there is no wax left….
I invite Sky (along with their Catholic/Religious Right acolytes,) to acknowledge that the Judeo Christian (Gregorian ) Calendar is a Catholic fabrication.
The Inquisition vilified Galileo because (according to them,) he could not provide empirical evidence that the Earth orbited the Sun. The exact (observable) behavioural characteristics of the Solar-induced Orbital Dry Cycles, destroys the Religious Calendars of ALL denominations (and other various iterations of idolatry.)
Of course, the Religious Right Media,(and their embedded political lackeys,) cannot afford to admit that ‘God is NOT on their side’ – and never has been.
‘Religious Right Media’
In Australia they are left wing and not in the least bit religious.
Your dry cycle fits in nicely with the emerging El Nino.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/ocean/surface/currents/overlay=sea_surface_temp_anomaly/orthographic=-112.22,-11.23,530/loc=-68.229,-24.498
If you accept that the Solar-induced Orbital Dry Cycles are correct – then you also accept the ‘consequences’ in all of their iterations.
Its a happy coincidence that your SODC theory sees Australia experience droughty conditions later this year, during El Nino.
The scientific method: Question, Research, Hypothesis, Experiment, Data Analysis, Conclusion, and Communication.
I have a theory that ENSO is controlled by a submarine volcano in the south east Pacific.
‘Happy coincidence’?
You obviously have not read ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ thirty years on….or followed the extensive observational evidence therein…
As I have pointed out repeatedly; ENSO does not exist as an ocean generated phenomenon originating in South America. Sea Surface Temperatures fluctuate as a result of the onset of Solar-induced Orbital Dry Cycles and their progress around the planet. These Dry Cycles operate at a fixed Frequency and Duration in the course of their Longitudinal Terrestrial Footprint. The precise calculation of these Dry Cycle Frequencies and Durations, depend on the use of the Earth/Solar Orbital Calendar; i.e. The Earth Orbits the Sun through 360 degrees Solar Longitude once each Earth/Solar Year. (Alex S. Gaddes’ No 1 Constant.)
Thus, there are Twelve equal Months, each of of Thirty Day/Night Intervals – and Four equal Three Month Seasons,(Angle of obliquity.) (Alex s. Gaddes’ No 2 Constant.) (You may find a more detailed explanation of the Earth/Solar Calendar on pp 172-173 of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ thirty Years on….
Submarine Volcanic Activity does have a contributing effect on Sea surface Temperatures along with other Volcanic activity associated with the Pacific Rim – and at other locations such as the Indian Ocean etc – wherever there is an active tectonic ‘hotspot’. Volcanic Activity on Earth does NOT activate the Solar -induced Orbital Dry Cycles. It can, however ameliorate the effects of the Dry Cycles.
What may interest you, is the occurrence and seemingly haphazard ‘track’ of Cyclones along these largely undiscovered active Marine Volcanic Zones in various locations around the planet. That is a study yet to be done.
TW– Part 1
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VI_-2FuVXgUuObpBusFQP1j87Sc3xDJz/view?usp=sharing
TW– Part 2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nea7N5AiVoklvg9gGA1b3932Uq0-4qPK/view?usp=sharing
TW – Part 3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UqxyNzLq14Jv7-kf6ZKHDOdmjgfst9zp/view?usp=sharing
TW – Part 4
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qsbYVDYzzGFOOAfE5-cuuOlLPW8Pg3Df/view?usp=sharing
I only get a black screen with your links, so will your drought cycle be over Australia this Xmas?
‘ENSO does not exist as an ocean generated phenomenon originating in South America.’
Have you heard of the Peru Current?
Yes, I have heard of the Peru Current. I have also heard of the Humboldt Current, the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, The Indian Ocean Current, The Benguela Current, The Gulf Stream, etc. What is your point?
The current Two Year ‘Regional’ Dry Cycle, started over 50 degrees E longitude,(circa Madagascar) in early August, 2024 – and will affect Australia from early January to mid-May, 2026. The next One Year ‘Minor’ Dry Cycle will start over 140 degrees E Longitude(Central Australia,) in early November, 2026 – and affect Australia West of 140 E Longitude until July, 2027. (The Solar-induced Dry Cycles orbit from East to West at 15 degrees Earth Longitude per Thirty Day/Night Interval Month,)
I suggest you resist the urge to comment on a work, until you have read it.
I believe I have made you the offer before; If you provide me with an email address, I will send you the pdf directly.
The 2024 Update of ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’ thirty years on…. is available from dongaddes93@gmail.com
‘ … will affect Australia from early January to mid-May, 2026.’
Thanks, that is all I need to know. We can now test your theory in real time.
The Humboldt takes warm waters up the west coast of South America, its an ENSO mechanism.
The Humboldt Current is a ‘cold water’ current….
Get ENSO out of your head!
Its a cold water current until the hot water is turned on in the south east Pacific.
It is a ‘cold water’ current.
‘As it is a cold current, except at times of the phenomenon known as El Niño, the Peru Current brings fog to the nearby coast but also helps to keep the coast one of the most intensely arid areas in the world.’ (Britannica)
One other point of interest, during the Eemian Interglacial there were no anchovies, only small fish which could cope with the oxygen deprived environment.
The Atacama Desert is not caused by an Ocean Current…. I thought we were discussing to the Humboldt Current.