Valin Posted January 18 Share Posted January 18 BNN January 17, 2024 A new podcast from the Ann and Phelim Scoop, titled ‘Climate Change: On Trial’, is set to explore the lengthy legal tussle between Professor Michael Mann and broadcaster Mark Steyn. The case, hinging on Steyn’s critique of Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph illustrating a surge in global temperatures, has been dubbed as the free speech trial of the century. Delayed Justice and Dismissal The legal proceedings have been marked by delays, including spans when Mann seemed to take no steps to expedite the case. This apparent lack of urgency on Mann’s part has led to the court ruling that justice necessitates the dismissal of the action due to the plaintiff’s failure to prioritize the lawsuit. The case, which has been portrayed as a straightforward defamation action, should have been settled long ago, according to legal observers. Climate Change: On Trial The new podcast promises to provide audiences with a gripping experience of the trial proceedings through dramatic re-enactments of testimony. The trial, part of a larger campaign against Mann by climate skeptics linked to the Charles Koch Foundation, has attracted widespread attention. Attacks on Mann escalated after he co-published the renowned ‘hockey stick’ graph in 1998, drawing attention from groups within the Koch network. (Snip) __________________________________________________________________________________ Jan 11, 2024 Climate Change on Trial is a daily podcast on one of the most significant court cases in America. It reveals the truth about Climate Change and asks: "Is there really Free Speech in America?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 Jan 17, 2024 Welcome back to the Ann and Phelim Scoop! We bring you today’s episode all the way from Washington, DC, where the free speech trial of the century is taking place. You might remember that broadcaster Mark Steyn is in the middle of a twelve-year legal battle because he called out Michael Mann’s shoddy science in the hockey stick graph, which reveals the spike in global temperatures following the Industrial Revolution after having remained stable for a thousand years. Funny enough, there’s no consideration of the Medieval Warming period or the Little Ice Age, but Steyn targeted one of the Left’s favorite orthodoxies, so of course, he’s being dragged through the courts. The trial between Professor Michael Mann and broadcaster Mark Steyn will determine whether climate alarmism or free speech is going to be the rule of the land. So we’ll be covering it through our new verbatim podcast - Climate Change: On Trial. We will have re-enactments of the day's most dramatic testimony and you can get a taste of Day One of the trial on the Ann and Phelim Scoop today. This is an episode you won’t want to miss. Find the first episode of Climate Change: On Trial here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 18 Author Share Posted January 18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 Podcast Ep. 3 | A Nobel Mann? Climate Change on Trial The trial really got underway today with three gripping opening statements. The defendants’ words “broke the bounds of decency,'' according to Michael Mann’s lawyer. His combative opening set the tone for what became a very, very combative courtroom as the day went on. And you can hear all the drama here. The jury heard the accusations against Michael Mann were “vile.” But both defendants got to hit back. Their opening speeches slammed Mann’s Climate Change Hockey Stick graph and the “whitewash” investigations into his scientific method. Rand Simberg’s lawyer said Mann is guilty of bullying, boycotting, and blacklisting members of his profession. She dismantled the idea that Mann was damaged at all by her client's statements. “Inflammatory does not equal defamatory,” she said. Then came the masterclass in oratory from Mark Steyn. He’s defending himself and left no doubt that he stands by everything he has ever said about Michael Mann. Steyn described Mann as a “vicious blowhard”....who discriminates against, harasses, and bullies anybody who disagrees with him”. He said Mann’s Hockey Stick graph was a fraud and Mann himself was a fraud. Mann falsely claimed on numerous occasions to have won a Nobel Prize. You won't want to miss this episode. Listen now to the riveting opening day of Climate Change On Trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 The Narrative Speaks After 12 Years, Climate Scientist’s Lawsuit Against Alleged Defamers Begins Trial Michael Mann asserts that conservative pundits defamed him and attempted to discredit his “Hockey Stick” graph in 2012. DeSmog Jan 19, 2024 A defamation lawsuit 12 years in the making brought by climate scientist Michael Mann opened January 18th in Washington, D.C., Superior Court. The two conservative commentators accused of defamation mounted separate defenses, and both continued to disparage Mann during the first day of this long-anticipated trial. The case centers around statements made in 2012 by right-wing blogger Rand Simberg and Fox TV personality Mark Steyn that attacked Mann, a scientist and professor who holds a doctorate from Yale. Simberg is an analyst at the far-right think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute, which has a long track record of platforming climate science denialists. In his opening statements, John Williams, Mann’s lawyer, claimed that Steyn and Simberg “attacked [Mann] because of his defense of science.” The defendants “broke the bounds of common decency and any First Amendment right” when they challenged Dr. Mann’s integrity, Williams added. “They were hostile to his findings and warnings about climate change, which showed climate change was real.” (Snip) But linking Mann with the powerful elite, and casting Steyn and Simberg as underdogs obscures the fact that National Review, where Steyn quoted Simberg’s Sandusky comparisons, and Fox News, where Steyn worked, are powerhouse outlets with heavy influence in the U.S. Steyn, in particular, has been a substitute host for Fox News’s Tucker Carlson, and for the syndicated Rush Limbaugh show, which at its peak was the most-listened to talk radio show in the nation. Steyn represented himself with much bravado. Both he and Weatherford promised the 10 jurors that the trial would be “entertaining.” In comparison, Williams’ opening statement consisted of straightforward facts, citing harassing emails and online attacks Mann received after Steyn and Simberg’s 2012 comments. The trial is expected to run through the first week of February. The defense plans to call well-known climate deniers Steve McIntyre and Judith Curry to testify. Mann’s legal team is expected to have testimony from Raymond Bradley, one of Mann’s co-researchers on the Hockey Stick graph. Stay tuned for future coverage as DeSmog follows the trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 23 Author Share Posted January 23 Jan 23, 2024 We went to ask Michael Mann questions about his climate lies. He was protected by an aggressive group of goon lawyers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 Podcast Ep. 5 | Mann In the Box Finally, after 12 years of litigation and delay, Professor Michael Mann goes into the witness box. Is he entitled to millions of dollars in damages for two short articles written over a decade ago? In a packed episode, you’ll also hear writer and broadcaster, Mark Steyn, in combative form, pushing back against Michael Mann's lawyer. You’ll hear Steyn explain why he believes Mann benefited from a corrupt Penn State “phony investigation“. And you’ll hear questions about Mark Steyn’s educational qualifications, and if he really is “Doctor Dropout.” Then Michael Mann gets to present his case to the jury. You’ll hear him claim that his reputation was damaged by the comparison of Penn State’s investigation into him with the investigation into Jerry Sandusky. Listen to Mann’s under-oath defense of the infamous “hide the decline” email from the ClimateGate dump. And Mann is questioned about describing an academic who questioned his statistics as “a white supremacist.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 What is Strange Nothing in Corporate Media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 Podcast Ep. 6 | Mann's Money Professor Michael Mann continues to give evidence in his defamation case against writer Mark Steyn and scientist Rand Simberg. The soft questions from Mann’s lawyer ended today. Listen as he comes under relentless, but rather charming questioning from Rand Simberg‘s defense. Mann is adamant that Simberg and Steyn’s statements were false. He says there was no fraud or misconduct in the creation of his Hockey Stick graph, and he refuted allegations that Penn State covered up his alleged scientific malfeasance. Listen as Professor Mann claims he suffered financial damage, and was treated like a pariah after the articles came out. Among the indignities were mean looks from people in supermarkets However, Simberg’s lawyer used Mann’s own career evaluations to show his career and income had improved since the articles were published. She made the case that he suffered no damage. She had Mann describe his glamorous life in recent years with trips to the UK, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, and Austria. Then we follow him to film festivals and book tours in between partying with Bill Clinton and Leonardo DiCaprio. And stay tuned to the end for bombshell revelation about who is funding Michael Mann’s 12-year legal odyssey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted January 29 Author Share Posted January 29 Jan 26, 2024 Climate Change Roundtable In the second week of the defamation trial, where serial litigator and special climate snowflake Michael Mann sued Mark Steyn and others for libel, the proceedings featured notable developments and surprising revelations. To discuss, Phelim McAleer, a filmmaker and journalist who is attending the trial in a federal court in Washington, DC, joins episode 95 of Climate Change Roundtable (Snip) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 2 Author Share Posted February 2 Feb. 2 2024 Climate Change Roundtable In the third week of the defamation trial in which climate “hockey stick” inventor Michael Mann is suing Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, Mann rested his case. And now the defense has begun to make its devastating case against the nasty serial litigator in the Climate Trial of the Century. The hockey stick itself is being broken into pieces in public. On episode 96 of Climate Change Roundtable, special guest Ann McElhinney joins The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, H. Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, and Jim Lakely to break down the latest bombshell moments of the trial. We are sure to mention the devastating testimony on Thursday of renowned statistician Abraham Wyner who exposed Mann’s hockey stick to be the fraud Steyn and Simberg (and many others) say it is. ___________________________________________________ BTW Still nothing in Corporate Media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 The Narrative Speaks This Trial Between a Climate Scientist and Some Internet Yahoos Has It All Didn't my mother teach me not to argue with morons? What is wrong with me? Charles P. Pierce Feb 06, 2024 There is an important trial coming down to the wire in Washington, D.C., a town now notorious for having important trials that never even make the starting gate. This one is a defamation case that involves neither E. Jean Carroll nor Fulton County (Ga) Inmate No. P01135809. It involves climate scientist Michael Mann and a couple of Internet yahoos who noticed that Mann worked at Penn State and, therefore, they were obliged to attack his work by comparing him to the notorious Penn State assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky, who molested children in the campus facility over a decade and a half. Thirty-odd years ago, Mann published the famous "hockey stick" graph that charted global temperatures through the ages. This made the urgency of the climate crisis much more easily understood by the general public. This got up the noses of the extraction industries and their various sled-dogs in politics and the media, and they launched an assault on Mann and his work. From NPR: (Snip) ________________________________________________________ The New York Times a former newspaper (Snip) “The nature of climate denial has changed,” said Callum Hood, head of research at the advocacy organization the Center for Countering Digital Hate. The group recently published a report analyzing YouTube videos, which found that personal attacks on scientists are now one of the most common types of online content dismissing climate change. The lawsuit has caught the attention of climate scientists and legal scholars, among others. This trial marks one of very few instances in American courts that a climate scientist has taken the stand to defend their research, according to Michael Gerrard, the faculty director at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law. “It’s a rare case where a climate scientist is fighting back against climate deniers,” said Mr. Gerrard, who also is a member of the board of directors for the *Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which previously helped Dr. Mann with a different legal battle. (Snip) ______________________________________________ * They are Fully Funding Mann's lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 6 Author Share Posted February 6 Ep. 12 | Mann at War Climate Change on Trial 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 Feb 7, 2024 In this Scoop episode, we’re bringing you the latest segment of our podcast “Climate Change on Trial”. You might remember that Mark Steyn is being sued by Penn State climate scientist and activist, Michael Mann. Mann alleges Steyn defamed him in a 2012 National Review blog post that condemned both Mann's hockey stick and the Penn State investigation into scientific malfeasance. This free speech trial of the century has entered its final stages and is rapidly coming to its dramatic close. On today’s show, we are coming to you from Washington, DC where we are covering the trial in a very special way. By having actors reenact court transcripts verbatim, we bring you the most exciting exchanges from the courtroom. If you haven’t listened yet to “Climate Change on Trial”, do yourself a favor, go over to https://climatechangeontrial.com or look up “Climate Change on Trial” on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and listen to the first 12 episodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valin Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 Ep. 14 | Mann: Fly Me To The Moon 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now