Climate Change on Trial

The bad news keeps coming for Professor Michael Mann. The Judge has declared that he and his lawyers presented false data to the court - ironically in a case where he was denying using false data. Mann has also had his million dollar punitive damages award slashed. This story will run and run. We bring you a special update episode.

The verdict is in, and it’s a shocker. We break down the jury’s shocking decision to: Find Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg liable for defamation   Decide the defendants knew their statements were false  Punish Mark more than Rand for mostly repeating Rand’s words with some context We have an exclusive comment from Mark Steyn on how he feels, and his next steps. The fight is not over. And, we ask if Free Speech still exists in liberal American cities. Or are there protected people and ideas that are just Too Big To Question? But let’s not forget what we learned about Michael Mann during these four weeks of trial, like those emails about “human filth” colleagues and the female scientist he falsely claimed slept her way to the top. We also learned how the independent investigation into his scientific malfeasance was nobbled at the last moment. Will the Streisand Effect work against Mann? We intend to keep working to let the public know about the emails and documents that were presented in court but that the mainstream media have been ignoring. Thanks for coming on this ride with us. This story is not over.

And now the end is near….. Listen to each party give their closing statement in the Free Speech trial of the century. Is Mann’s lawyer’s casual, disjointed summary some kind of jury mind game? Will Victoria Weatherford’s clear, organized, and factual arguments convince them? And will Mark Steyn’s oratory work against the mostly poker-faced jury? I think we recorded several laughs at his jokes. Is the jury warming to the undocumented Free Speech warrior? You’ll get to decide for yourself about Mark’s speech because we’re giving you the whole thing, unredacted and reenacted. Stay tuned until the end to hear Mann’s lawyers make one last attempt to muddy the waters. All that’s left is for the jury (a DC jury)  to decide.

You’ve heard of Climategate, but now we bring you: Stalkergate. It was a day of high drama, both inside and outside the courthouse.  This trial of the century is rapidly coming to its close. In today’s episode, you’ll hear from five separate witnesses for Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. There is a theme running through all the testimony: Witness after witness spoke about how Mann was the driver of the bullying and vindictive tone of the climate debate both before and after the Climategate scandal.  We also got to hear some of the science behind the criticism of the hockey stick, and how the investigation into Mann’s scientific misconduct was secretly guided by former Penn State president Graham Spanier.  The day ended with Mann’s lawyers making a false statement to law enforcement and almost getting a certain journalist assaulted. We ask, does Michael Mann have the lawyers he deserves?

As this case progressed, we believed Michael Mann’s case was getting weaker and weaker. But we never thought the judge would agree. It’s a devastating development for Michael Mann and his lawyers. Hear Judge Irving describe their case as “disjointed,” and wondered aloud just what the purpose of two of their witnesses was. It kept getting worse for Mann. Listen to Dr. Judith Curry describe how his private and public smearing of her reputation devastated her professional life. We’ll also hear convincing evidence that the Penn State investigation into Mann’s scientific misconduct was indeed a whitewash, and from researcher Steve McIntyre, who’s behind some of the most enduring criticism of the hockey stick graph. You won’t want to miss this explosive testimony.

Is the free speech trial of the century about to collapse? Did Michael Mann's lawyers deliberately show an error-filled document to the jury? High drama in the DC Superior Court as the defendants push for the dismissal of all charges because of the plaintiff's misconduct. Even the judge seemed appalled. Speaking of dodgy figures, listen as an expert statistician explains how Mann manipulated data to produce the hockey stick graph. And, hear a witness condemn “jet-setting climate celebrities who are calling me a denier”. Who could she be referring to? And we tackle the biggest question of all: Will the jury ever turn up on time?

Has Michael Mann’s case collapsed? Is the trial over before the defendants even present a  witness? It was a drama-filled day in court as Mark Steyn and his co-defendant’s lawyers urged the judge to dismiss the case. They claimed, and the judge appeared to agree, that Mann and his lawyers had failed to submit the allegedly defamatory articles to the jury. Was the case about to collapse on a technicality? The judge also heard that Mann had failed to prove that the articles were damaging to his reputation, or even that he had suffered any injury. Apart from a mean stare in a supermarket, does Michael Mann have any proof he was damaged by the Steyn and Simberg articles? Or was he damaged by his “ClimateGate” emails, as his own witness accidentally blurted out? And did Mann’s lawyers present a false document to the jury? And then you can hear one of America’s foremost data experts describe how Mann “manipulated” the figures to get a Hockey Stick We await the judge's decision on whether to dismiss the case before it even gets to the jury.

Michael Mann’s legal team yet again tries to admit a controversial report into evidence. The document has been a source of controversy since it was first examined by the appeals court, and has been a subject of furious litigation throughout the trial. The judge finally makes a ruling on the report, but the big question remains: Why don’t Mann’s lawyers like the DC metro system? And, can Mann’s case survive the laughter of Berkeley students? Welcome to episode nine of Climate Change on Trial. Don’t just take our word for it that this is the best podcast series out there. Just take a look at the reviews.

Michael Mann spends all day in the witness box facing tough questions from Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg‘s lawyer.  Does he have all the answers? Hear his defense for falsely and frequently claiming to have won a Nobel Prize. Will the jury be convinced by his rather convoluted explanation for this scientific stolen valor? And does  Michael Mann really have a strong case for defamation? He himself frequently spreads false and malicious rumors about colleagues who challenged his science. Listen to his explanation for falsely accusing a female scientist and former colleague of “sleeping her way to the top”.

Welcome to a special bonus episode of Climate Change on Trial. Mark Steyn‘s opening statement was our most popular episode by far. However we felt bad only giving you excerpts in episode three, so now we present you Mark Steyn’s full uncensored, unredacted opening statement. It is a joy to listen to and a speech for the ages. It’s a brilliant oratory and a brilliant summary of the case, the issues, and just what is at stake if Professor Michael Mann wins. Welcome to the best defense you’ll ever hear of Free Speech Vs The Hockey Stick. Enjoy!