Mark Steyn V. Fraudulent Temperature Reconstructions

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.