Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Turns Upside Down As He Is Sanctioned for A False Claim of Over $900K

A reader recently wrote that they couldn’t get enough of the Mann v. Steyn trial coverage as it revealed so much about the climate cult. I have decided, therefore, to offer some further thoughts on the recent imposition of sanctions on Michael Mann by the judge in the case.

Judge Irving’s order granting the defendants’ motions for sanctions against Mann and company is nothing less than stunning. It is a 46-page rant against Mann, his legal counsel and their tactics. John Droz covered some of the best parts here, but it’s important to understand what sparked the Judge’s outrage. It all relates to Mann’s central claim; that he and Penn State had lost huge amounts of grant funding as a result of comments made by Steyn and others. The Judge remarked upon the following cross-examination of Mann by Victoria Weatherford, one of the defense attorneys (emphasis added):

Ms. Weatherford identified two changes to the dollar amounts of certain unfunded grants:

[MS. WEATHERFORD:] I would like to start with grant number 11, which is September 15, 2014, water variabilities stressors and sensitivities (WAVESS) sustainability research network. Do you see that one?

A. Yes.

Q. In your June 2020 responses, you claim that the amount at issue for that grant was $9,713,924; is that correct?

A. Correct.

Q. And then in your March 2023 responses you change that amount down to $112,000; is that correct?

A. Yeah. Actually—

[. . .]

Q. Your counsel can ask you a follow-up about it. So, from your June 2020 answers under penalty of perjury to your March 2023 answers under penalty of perjury, the amount of that not funded grant after the blog post changed from about $9.7 million to $112,000; isn’t that right?

A. Yes, it did.

[. . .]

[Q.] Okay, so that one is wrong.

Yes, Mann admitted to overstating one of his lost grant claims by $9,601,960 or a staggering 8,573%.

The rest of the Judge’s order addressed how Mann and his attorneys tried to hide and/or soften the impact of this colossal change in Mann’s story from both judge and jury. His anger extended to these statements regarding the actions of Mann’s lawyers:

Both attorneys deliberately engaged in outright misrepresentations, with the intent of presenting false evidence in support of a crucial aspect of Dr. Mann’s claims…

Therefore, as Mr. Williams and Mr. Fontaine knowingly violated the rules of professional conduct, the Court finds that their conduct, in service of Dr. Mann, involves the requisite bad faith warranting sanctions pursuant to the Court’s inherent authority…

[T}he 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…

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…

It bears repeating that Dr. Mann and his counsel should not have engaged in the falsehoods and misrepresentations to the jury and the Court in the first place.

The sanctions imposed by the Judge amounted to paying the attorney fees of the defense, which is completely fair but will, no doubt, be appealed. Mann always tries to evade paying judgments of course, as he did in a Canadian case against Tim Ball that also went sideways for him. One can only imagine the fights that will now ensue between Mann and his lawyers and the sugar-daddy funder of the lawsuits, so there will be plenty more to write about.

Think about this, though. The real takeaway here is that Mann couldn’t tell a $9,713,924 grant from a $112,000 grant. He made an 8,573% error and then unsuccessfully tried to obscure it as much possible. And, we’re supposed to believe the research (largely hidden) behind his hockey stick? That’s a boomerang if there ever was one. His credibility is trending something like this today:

#Mann #Steyn #Lawsuit #Order #Sanctions

B