Mark Steyn Accuses Michael Mann of Lying about Winning Nobel Prize in Heated Courtroom Exchange By Ryan Mills
During cross examination in his defamation trial on Monday, conservative pundit Mark Steyn hammered climate scientist Michael Mann on the charge that he had engaged in academic misconduct by falsely claiming to have been a Nobel Peace Prize winner.
And Steyn suggested that the Mann was not truly harmed by controversial comments he and a fellow defendant made in blog posts at the center of the nearly 12-year-old legal case.
In his 2012 legal filing against Steyn and Rand Simberg, a scholar who was formerly with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mann claimed to have been a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, a claim that Steyn said was “fake.” Instead, Mann was one of thousands of people who received a certificate from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, for contributing to its 2007 award, which it received along with former vice president Al Gore.
Taking aim at Mann’s credibility, Steyn suggested that Mann used his “fake status” as a Nobel prize winner to claim in his lawsuit that Steyn’s and Simberg’s criticism of his work was defamatory. Penn State University, Mann’s former employer, also pointed at the claim as part of an investigation in 2010 clearing him of research misconduct.
Mann called the characterization that he faked winning the Nobel Prize “unfair,” saying that “dozens of leading scientists” had made similar claims. Steyn’s focus on his Nobel Prize contributions, he said, were a distraction from the real issues in his lawsuit.
“This statement about the Nobel Prize has nothing to do with whether your accusations of fraud and data manipulation are valid,” Mann said.
Mann sued Steyn, Simberg, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, or CEI, in October 2012 for blog posts critical of Mann’s work that Steyn and Simberg made on the National Review and CEI websites.
In his post on National Review website, Steyn commented on a post by Simberg that made a crude analogy between Mann and Jerry Sandusky, Penn State’s infamous former football coach and serial child molester.
In his post, Steyn distanced himself from the Sandusky analogy, but said that “Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey-stick’ graph,” a reference to a graph that shows an abrupt rise in global temperatures in the 20th Century.
Mann sued, claiming the allegations were defamatory. National Review maintained that Steyn had offered opinion protected by the First Amendment and that it was posted by a non-employee. Both National Review and CEI were removed from the case in 2021.
Steyn contended on Monday that Mann’s status as a Nobel Prize winner wasn’t the only thing that the climatologist, now with the University of Pennsylvania, had concocted. Steyn noted that in one of his books, Mann misquoted Steyn’s blog post: “Mad Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockey stick’ graph.”
Steyn never referred to Mann as “mad.” He called it a “doctored quotation by a doctor.”
“It is not doctored,” Mann replied. “It is an incorrect transcription of the offending statement.”
Steyn began his questioning of Mann on Monday by asking why he failed to provide the defendants in the case with a complete list of people who have made false statements about him or his work that caused damage. Mann called it a “misunderstanding” and an “honest mistake.” Steyn said that because he and Simberg were on trial, it was important for Mann to prove that they, not others, were responsible for any harms Mann has endured.
Steyn noted a post on the Climate Depot website that accused Mann of being “the posterboy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science echo chamber.” Mann said he didn’t sue over that post because, while it does question the climate-change community generally, it “does not make a specific allegation of misconduct” against him, it “does not compare me to a convicted child molester,” and it “didn’t have nearly the reach that National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute posts have.”
Mann claims that his grant funding dropped substantially after the Steyn and Simberg posts. Steyn told Mann that he had “not introduced a shred of evidence to support the idea that Mr. Simberg and I are uniquely responsible for all the harm you’ve suffered.”
Mann said that Steyn and Simberg had “crossed a line.”
Steyn also suggested that Mann had overstated the damages he’s suffered. While his grants went down after the controversy ensued, Steyn said that Mann’s salary increased substantially, his book royalties went up, he received more money from speaking engagements, received more honors and awards, and made more “appearances with A-list celebrities,” including former president Bill Clinton and actor and activist Leonardo DiCaprio.
Monday’s questioning by Steyn was a continuation from Thursday, which was cut short because Steyn, who has had well-publicized health issues, was struggling with the heat in the courtroom. Monday’s hearing was in a different room.
On Thursday, Steyn also questioned Mann about the alleged damages he suffered as a result of his blog post, and specifically about Mann’s claim that he once got a “mean look that expressed revulsion” while grocery shopping with his family at a Wegmans supermarket.
He questioned Mann about his relationship with a former Penn State president, whom Steyn accused of being “Sandusky’s disgraced enabler.” He also questioned him about a 2012 email Mann wrote, in which he said he called Steyn a “pathetic excuse for a human being” and said that he hoped he could ruin him through the lawsuit.
Mann also wrote in private exchanges that there was “a possibility that I can ruin National Review,” which he referred to as “this filthy organization,” a “threat to our children,” and beholden to “greedy fat cat corporate masters.”
Steyn has long contended that the case’s long churn through the legal system shows that “the process is the punishment.” He is selling “limited edition” “Liberty Stick” hockey sticks for $100 on his website to help pay for his defense.
Comments are closed.
