From Jennifer Marohasy

January 21, 2024 By jennifer

I had been scrolling through Michael Mann’s Twitter account, until Friday when I discovered I was blocked. Blocked even though I was yet to retweet or comment on anything to do with the defamation trial that he has brought against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg – yet to comment on Twitter or anywhere else. I can’t image that he is blocking everyone because according to Google, Mann has over 20,000 followers and tweets so much that he is acknowledged as one of the ‘top 50 science stars of Twitter’.

But for sure he is blocking me, at least since Friday.

I can’t image that it is just for the weekend, that he has blocked me. Michael Mann doesn’t take weekends off. He didn’t even take Martin Luther King Jr. Day public holiday off.

If you listen to Mark Steyn’s opening comments in his defamation trail, on that day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Michael Mann the ‘vicious blowhard’ – as Steyn describes him in his opening remarks in court room 518 of the District of Columbia Superior Court where Steyn is defendant and also representing himself in a defamation case brough by Mann – Mann was suggesting on Twitter that because Steve McIntyre is sceptical of the consensus on climate change, sowing doubt and all the rest, he is a racist and homophobe. I would like to go and see exactly what is written, but I can’t – because I’m blocked.

As Steyn also commented in his opening remarks, it seems Mann can damn anyone he wants as a racist and homophobe but he himself, Michael E. Mann, should be protected from offensive commentary, by the defamation laws.

It is twelve years since Michael Mann began defamation proceedings against Steyn for insulting him, in particular for Steyn claiming that his last 1,000-year reconstruction of northern hemisphere temperatures is a fraud. Further, Steyn quoted from a Competitive Enterprise blog by Rand Simberg claiming:

Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.

It is the case that Jerry Sandusky was finally convicted in 2011 of 52 counts of sexual abuse of young boys over a 15-year period from 1994 to 2009, with senior Penn State university staff failing to tell police of reported incidences of rape dating from 1998.

It was in November 2009, soon after the release of the incriminating Climategate emails that Penn State University announced it was going to launch an inquiry into allegations about Michael Mann’s conduct:
1. Suppression and falsification of data
2. Deletion of emails and data
3. Misuse of confidential information
4. Deviation from accepted academic standards.

It ended up being nothing more than a two-hour interview with Mann, and without interviewing any of his critics, was done and dusted within a couple of months clearing Mann of all allegations. But not providing any documentation of the specific evidence relied upon. This was apparently in contravention of even the universities’ own policies.

In the lead up to the Mann v Steyn defamation case – that is now being heard in court room 518 of the District of Columbia Superior Court – Mann has been forced to hand over an e-mail where he described this Climategate inspired Penn investigation into his conduct as a ‘cover our A$$es’ exercise.

This trial is being promoted by Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer as ‘Climate Change on Trial’. I hope this is what comes to pass.

Ann and Phelim are going to great lengths to get the details of the trial to all of us, every day. They are in court, and have actors reenacting critical exchanges from the court room. They have a dedicated new podcast series, that you can subscribe to here:

SPECIAL EPISODE: Mann's Infrivolity to Man – 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.

1. SPECIAL EPISODE: Mann's Infrivolity to Man 24:15
2. Ep. 15 | Punitive Mann 12:52
3. Ep. 14 | Mann: Fly Me To The Moon 01:06:30
4. Ep. 13 | Mann and God 58:06
5. Ep. 12 | Mann at War 58:42

The court case is expected to run until about 6th February, we are three days into it now, but the first days were mostly procedural and jury selection.

I have much more to write about all of this. So much that I have been having trouble knowing where to start with a first blog post.

So here it is, my first blog post, so you can at least get yourself up to date by at least listening to Day 3, that is a good place to start.

I have known Mark for a long time, and he has included my take on the hockey stick in his book on this topic (A Disgrace to the Profession) and also in his deposition for this trial – yes, I am quoted in that document.

I will write much more about all of this soon. Because in the end it is about the veracity of historical temperature reconstructions, something that many of you will know has preoccupied me for over a decade, for almost as long as it has preoccupied Mark Steyn.

I had the pleasure of giving the vote of thanks for Mark Steyn when he was in Brisbane in February 2016. He gave a similar speech in Melbourne, as part of the same tour sponsored by the IPA. You can listen to his Melbourne IPA speech here:

*****
I apologise for having so many ‘parts’ to different blog series open at the moment. It is my intension that this series about Steyn v Mann will collide with my ARC series. But I’m still working on all of that: ARC part 5, and Kuranda part 2. I’m always thinking, and checking, to the extent I can already anticipate how if Mark Steyn is successful at making this trial about climate change, I will also be able to update you on my ongoing FOI saga with the bureau over the parallel data. You see I do have something in common with Mark Steyn, and it is not that I can sing (I can’t sing, Mark can sing), it is that we both care deeply about historical temperature reconstructions. We both want them to be accurate.