Court Delivers Massive Blow To Famed Climate Scientist Who Sued Critics

A Washington, D.C., court rejected University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann’s bid to postpone his required payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars to National Review on Thursday.

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia ruled in January that Mann owes National Review approximately $530,000 to cover the outlet’s legal fees after spending more than a decade locked in defamation litigation against the organization, and Mann subsequently requested a stay to postpone the payments. On Thursday, the court denied Mann’s request, meaning that he will likely have to pony up cash to an outlet he once described in emails as a “threat to our children.”

Mann Filing by Nick Pope on Scribd

Mann initially sued National Review in 2012, when Canadian conservative Mark Steyn knocked Mann and his famed “hockey stick” climate model in a post on National Review’s website. National Review editor Rich Lowry then authored a follow-up post backing Steyn’s, and Mann decided to sue the outlet for defamation along with Steyn and Rand Simberg, a former adjunct for the Competitive Enterprise Institute. While Mann’s lawsuit against Steyn and Simberg prevailed initially, the superior court judge determined in January that Mann would have to pay the $531,000 within 30 days, National Review’s editors announced at the time.

In a filing opposing National Review’s request for compensation, Mann argued that the move was a “mean-spirited and unjustified request by a powerful organization” intending to intimidate and silence him.

Notably, Judge Albert Irving wrote in March that Mann and his lawyers had presented misleading information to the jury while the defamation case was at trial. Specifically, Mann and his representation misled the jury as to how much grant funding he missed out on due to the actions of the defendants, a key element of his defamation case, with Irving describing the deception as “extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.”