Mark Steyn Moves to Endgame in Legal Battle with Michael Mann

Once again you offer ZERO evidence of defamation while I pointed evidence that the $1 fine indicates no evidence of defamation and the $1 million fine is unconstitutional will be reduced to $9 or less.

It is clear you have nothing here.

 

And even if that's true, a jury still vindicated Mann and said the deniers were lying frauds.

All the deniers here are supporting that fraud by deflecting from it and running cover for it.

Deniers, you've all been lying about Mann for over a decade, because the cult ordered you to lie, and you were too brainwashed to disobey. Now you were busted for lying, you can't weasel out of it, so you're throwing epic scale tantrums.

 

Thank you for admitting that Dr. Mannbearpig was LYING about his claims of being defamed as his jury awarded $1 attests this is a reality you are trying hard to ignore which tells others a lot about you and your disdain for the truth.

No, his paper has been thoroughly refuted over15 years ago it is YOU who can't accept the fact that Bristlecone Tree Ring data was never temperature data it was for the CO2 "fertilizer effect" on plant growth as pointed out by Dr's Graybill and Dr. Isdo who collected the data which I have posted on which you have ignored, and his papers coverage area is only around 20% of the Northern Hemisphere and it is land only thus a poor sampling size from a niche plant species which isn't a representative sample of the American west as it grows in just a few dozen acres a rare plant in a rare niche climate zone.

The 260 NO Hockey Stick papers LINK that doesn't show hockey sticks with often far more comprehensive data makes clear the ONE Holyshit stick is the outlier and historians have well established the RWP, MWP and the LIA as being major climatic change to the way the people lived under which the FRAUD Holycrap paper denies.

It is YOU who have a problem with the truth and the evidence which is why your replies are constantly bare of reality and couched in emotional angry emotions.

 

Mann remains a charlatan.

 

Another climate alarmist lost in DC court.
Stanford prof who sued critics loses appeal against $500,000 in legal fees

Mark Jacobson

Mark Jacobson, a Stanford professor who sued a journal and a critic for $10 million before dropping the case, has lost an appeal he filed in 2022 to avoid paying defendants more than $500,000 in legal fees.

As we have previously reported, Jacobson:

…who studies renewable energy at Stanford, sued in September 2017 in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for defamation over a 2017 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) that critiqued a 2015 article he had written in the same journal. He sued PNAS and the first author of the paper, Christopher Clack, an executive at a firm that analyzes renewable energy.

The fees, based on an anti-SLAPP statute, are “designed to provide for early dismissal of meritless lawsuits filed against people for the exercise of First Amendment rights.” Jacobson tried to argue that, by dropping the suit, he was no longer liable for legal fees because the statute requires that defendants “prevail.”

But the three judges in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals disagreed. Justice Joshua Deahl, writing on behalf of himself and colleagues, held:

under Jacobson’s preferred approach, a plaintiff could engage in harassing and meritless litigation up until the point at which they sense the court might dismiss the case, and then voluntarily dismiss the suit themselves, all the while keeping the threat of refiling hanging over the defendants’ heads and running up their legal bills.

The specter of repeat litigation by Jacobson is not farfetched. In his briefing to this court, Jacobson continues to take issue with “the refusal of Dr. Clack and NAS to correct the false facts to this day, in reckless disregard for the truth.” Much of his brief rehashes his claims that NAS and Clack defamed him and he persists in condemning Clack’s article. In arguing that NAS and Clack have not “prevailed,” Jacobson repeatedly asserts that he retains the ability to refile his defamation suit, “keeping the defendant at risk.”

Indeed, Jacobson told us in a statement – available here – he is “evaluating whether to appeal the DC decision to the full DC Appellate court”:

It appears the court decided to set a precedent, ensuring that future voluntary dismissals before a ruling in similar-type cases would be subject to the risk of a fee award.

 

Here's a reminder why Mark Steyn went after Michael Mann.
Hockey Stick Trial: Science Dies in a DC Courtroom

Rupert Darwall, RealClearEnergy

 

another thread with more information about this story:
Writers ordered to pay $1 million for accusing Climate Change researcher of fraud (Feb 11, 2024 in Law & Justice)