OPINION:
The peddlers of global warming propaganda almost got away with chilling criticism of their dire predictions. After a fierce courtroom battle spanning more than a dozen years, the right to express an opinion contrary to the “settled science” was vindicated last week in the District of Columbia Superior Court.
Under a freshly issued judicial instruction, former Penn State University researcher Michael Mann must come up with $918,750 within 30 days to cover the legal expenses of the people he sued for hurting his feelings.
Mr. Mann gained fame when he created the “hockey stick” chart, which stoked climate panic around the world. The chart depicted temperatures spiking sharply in the modern era, which United Nations reports and scary documentaries by former Vice President Al Gore said was proof that mankind was destroying the planet.
The hockey stick became a battering ram. Politicians used it to force nations around the globe to embrace socialist policies, replacing affordable sources of energy with inefficient “green” alternatives.
Along with the acclaim, this environmental science professor attracted the interest of sleuths who were determined to replicate his chart. As part of their investigation, they obtained a leaked set of emails between Mr. Mann and a group of fellow climate scientists where they discussed “Mike’s Nature trick,” the one used to “hide the decline” in global temperatures.
Data showing falling global temperatures was an inconvenient truth for the warming hucksters. The release of the Climategate emails inspired mockery of Mr. Mann’s work in viral YouTube videos and print columns. Rather than take the heat, Mr. Mann decided in 2012 to launch a libel lawsuit against the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Rand Simberg, National Review and columnist Mark Steyn.
These right-of-center commentators took verbal potshots implying Mr. Mann’s findings were erroneous. Last year, it looked like Mr. Mann had come out on top. A D.C. jury didn’t approve of Mr. Steyn’s musings, so they awarded the climate scientist $1 million in punitive damages. When the Supreme Court refused to intervene, it looked like the matter had been settled.
It turns out, however, that Mr. Mann’s courtroom victory was based in part on a chart containing numbers that couldn’t be replicated. That didn’t sit well with Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr.
“Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr. Mann, through [his attorneys], acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding,” his honor ruled.
For his legal perfidy, it appears Mr. Mann will now end up paying the individuals he sued a total of around $1.4 million. The $1 million verdict against Mr. Steyn has been reduced to $5,000, and Mr. Mann must pay National Review $500,000.
Now at the University of Pennsylvania, Mr. Mann recently took to Bluesky, a liberal social media enclave, to suggest that if Donald Trump “doesn’t comply” with a court ruling blocking the president’s moves to close the Education Department, “we’re in second amendment territory.”
We’ll take that not as a reckless call for armed insurrection but as an endorsement of the importance of prompt adherence to judicial directives, especially the Superior Court decisions that didn’t go his way. It may have taken more than 12 years, but the system worked.
Justice is possible, and free speech is alive, even in the most left-wing jurisdiction in the country.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.