(Julianna Frieman, Headline USA) Notorious climate alarmist Michael Mann, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, was ordered to pay more than $500,000 in legal fees to National Review, the publication revealed on Friday.
Mann filed a defamation lawsuit against the publication in 2012 after National Review editor Rich Lowry wrote a post titled “Get Lost.” The so-called scientist initially threatened to sue National Review after its blog, the Corner, ran a piece criticizing Mann’s research as “intellectually bogus and wrong” — a threat he made good on after Lowry published his article.
National Review ran the headline, “Pay up, Mr. Mann,” on Friday, more than a decade later, revealing that the climate change kook must fork over $530,820.21 within 30 days.
A court in our nation’s capital has ordered climate scientist Michael Mann to pay us $530,820.21 worth of attorney’s fees and costs, and to do so within 30 days.
It is time for him to get out his checkbook, and sign on the dotted line. https://t.co/lrt9BKcTEp
— National Review (@NRO) January 10, 2025
“For more than eight years, the climate scientist Michael Mann harassed National Review through litigation over a blog post — until, eventually, the First Amendment brought an end to his attack,” the outlet wrote in part. “It is time for him to get out his checkbook, and sign on the dotted line.”
Mann admitted during discovery that his lawsuit was meant to “ruin National Review,” according to the publication.
The editors blasted Mann for trying to subvert the First Amendment, especially as a scientist — someone who was “supposed to be devoted” to open debate.
Dr. Michael Mann, the nation’s leading climate scientist, thinks anyone who disagrees with his narrow world view should be “destroyed.” Totally normal behavior from an academic educating your children, and influencing energy policies in the U.S. pic.twitter.com/W5MAZ2Rwzp
— Chris Martz (@ChrisMartzWX) March 1, 2024
“Science — to which Mann is supposed to be devoted — inevitably involves disagreement. And yet, Mann proved incapable of handling dissent. Instead of engaging in debate, he sued us — for defamation and for the infliction of emotional distress. This, suffice it to say, is not how debate in America should work,” National Review wrote.
The publication acknowledged that their years-long legal battle had not been full of victories, noting that a jury made Steyn and fellow blogger Rand Simberg, who wrote posts accusing Mann of fudging data in his global warming “hockey stick” graph, pay damages to Mann. While Simberg owed just $1,000, Steyn was ordered to pay $1 million in punitive damages, according to Courthouse News.
Remember the hockey stick they used to program your mind with Climate Change?
Unsurprisingly it didn't quite work out (the last peak was 2015). #ClimateScam pic.twitter.com/GWB8pOtZLW
— Man in a shed (@herbthefox420) June 14, 2023
“The legal system hasn’t covered itself in glory, either. Our own justice was repeatedly delayed, and, when it arrived, it was via the back door rather than as part of a ringing endorsement of the right to free speech. And, disgracefully, both of our co-litigants, Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, have been ordered to pay damages,” National Review stated.
National Review added, “The promise of American law is that there will be material consequences for bad behavior, and, after twelve years, there finally have been. Mann’s behavior throughout has been appalling. Now, he must pay up.”
Julianna Frieman is a freelance writer published by the Daily Caller, Headline USA, The Federalist, and the American Spectator. Follow her on Twitter at @JuliannaFrieman.
