Objection... Overruled

Mann vs Steyn Trial Day Thirteen

By Amy K. Mitchell February 6, 2024

Let's recap where the case stands as we enter the final days of the (Climate) Trial of the Century.

Michael Mann sued Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn in 2012 for defamation after the "statements at issue" were published. The case then languished in the DC court system for 12 years. It has cost the Defendants millions in legal fees — not to mention the immeasurable physical toll to Mark and Rand. Now, in court, the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove the Defendants acted with malice and that there was harm incurred due to the blog posts.

So, has the Plaintiff proven his case? Here are the facts after three weeks in court:.............

• After the "statements at issue," did Mann's grant monies decline? Nope. As proven in court this past week, the evidence provided by the Plaintiff was falsified.
• Finally, after the "statements at issue," has Mann incurred any legal costs from the last 12 years he has (relentlessly) pursued this case? Nope. Not a penny.

The Defendants' counsel spent the day hammering home the above to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Let's review some of the comments Michael Mann's peers made under oath today:

Regarding Mann's own behavior towards others? His emails and comments about others are "ill-advised and embarrassing" to the scientific community. And... those communications and statements not only cast "Michael Mann in a bad light," but the community writ large. And... he is "thin-skinned and quick to attack." And... seeks "conflict, seeking to pick fights." And... when he is confronted, he resorts to name calling including "human filth," an "evil person," "a Holocaust denier," And... perhaps most importantly... "society expects better" from scientists. Regarding that in-depth, iron-clad Penn State investigation into Mann? From a colleague, "Mann did in fact breach the ethical standards."...........................

Steyn showdown in the Financial Post. Barbara Kay in the Epoch Times delves into the implications of the trial for the First Amendment. Barry Cooper in the Western Standard provides the Canadian POV. Over in the Daily Telegraph Australia, Tim Blair recounts his own tangle with Michael Mann. Patch, in "Climate Libel Circus," explains why Mann wanted the trial held in DC. And friend, John Hinderaker at Powerline has his own climate story and excellent coverage of the trial here.

Press in Mann's world includes Esquire's usual teenage boy treatment, calling Mark an "Internet Yahoo," while the New York Times — which ironically set the modern era's precedent for the First Amendment in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan — attempts to make the trial about climate change v. deniers instead of, that's right, the First Amendment. And some of Mann's fans have reached out to the team with lovely (not) notes. Unlike some involved in this case, we're a bit thicker skinned so... Bring. It. On..............To Read More......

Spaghetti Alfredo for One - McAleer and McElhinney at the Steyn Trial February 6, 2024 -Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer are back with their dramatised reconstruction of Mann vs Simberg and Steyn, now installed in a far grander courtroom - 132 - at the District of Columbia Superior Court. Day Twelve began with Judge Irving unleashing what US legal scholars call a can of jurisprudential whupp-ass on the Plaintiff:..............The Court's dissatisfaction with Plaintiff had not abated when, an hour or so later, Mann's counsel John B Williams attempted to quiz Judith Curry about a hearsay document written by some anonymous person:..........Alas, as often with the ill-prepared Mr Williams, there was no pasta to hand.  After Dr Curry, it was the turn of Mark's fellow Torontonian Stephen McIntyre, who was denounced by Mann on the eve of trial - in a crude attempt at witness-tampering - as a "white supremacist". Mr McIntyre began his testimony by revealing that he is a distant cousin of Barack Obama..............