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!

Finally, the day Mark Steyn has been waiting for, for 12 years has arrived. Michael Mann is in the witness box and must answer questions from the person he has tried to destroy for over a decade. Now you will get to hear the true story of the Climategate leaks, the hockey stick graph, world temperature records, and mean stares at supermarkets. (It happened in aisle nine, by the way). On today’s episode, you’ll hear how Mann’s email accusing a fellow scientist of sleeping her way to a PhD actually proves he’s a Me Too supporter. Then we travel from the temperature records of 17th century England to the global tree rings of 1960. You’ll also hear, Mann admit he didn’t consult a statistician in constructing the hockey stick, and that his original calculations were “crude.” And in a dramatic opening, you'll hear allegations that Michale Mann perjured himself in court and his legal filings. Listen as the judge is forced to intervene between Mann and Steyn as tempers – and the room gets very, very heated.

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.

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.”

Finally after 12 years of litigation and delays, defendant Mark Steyn takes the stand in the most important free speech trial in over half a century. Steyn is being sued by climate scientist and activist Michael Mann for criticizing his hockey stick graph and the investigation into Mann’s alleged scientific malfeasance. Now Mann has a chance to question Steyn. But has he chosen the wrong opponent? Hear Michael Mann’s explanation of why he falsely claimed to have won a Nobel prize. And hear Mark Steyn’s response. Listen to the incredible details about Michael Mann's previous lawsuits and how they ended in tragedy. And hear Mark Steyn refuse to reveal the name of a journalistic source who leaked the “Climate Gate” emails revealing the alleged rot at the heart of climate science. This is a true courtroom drama with genuine twists and turns. The evidence takes you on a journey from the nude beaches of St Tropez, France to the photocopying room in the headquarters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Enjoy! And don't forget to leave a rating and review.

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.

Michael Mann’s war on journalism continues as his lawyers demand the court ban journalists from asking him questions. As part of his war, podcast presenters Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney became part of the courtroom drama today. Phelim’s questions to Professor Mann outside the courthouse didn’t please Mann or Mann’s lawyers. But does this justify Mann’s lawyer, John Williams, misrepresenting what happened? You won’t want to miss Mark Steyn’s eloquent defense of the rights of awkward journalists to ask awkward questions. Will we still be allowed to do our journalism? And what is Bill Nye the Science Guy doing in court?

Climate Change Theory is on trial in this long-awaited court case. The trial will ask which is more important in America: climate alarmism, or free speech? It has taken over a decade to get to court. On one side is Michael Mann, a climate scientist and activist who claims he was defamed in a 2012 blog by writer and broadcaster Mark Steyn. Ironically, a trial about climate change was delayed by a Washington DC snowstorm. The trial will also put the climate science field and the administration of Penn State University under the spotlight. Using re-enactments based on actual court transcripts, journalists Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney will bring you the day's most dramatic courtroom clashes in the hunt for the truth about one of the biggest issues of our age.

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?" Prominent climate scientist Michael Mann is suing writer and broadcaster Mark Steyn alleging an article by Steyn defamed him and his research. Mann is perhaps best known for producing the Hockey Stick graph alleging that global temperatures were basically stable for 1500 years until human industrial activity led to an ongoing spike in temperatures. Steyn claims the graph is fraudulent. Climate Change on Trail is a verbatim podcast using re-enactments based on trial transcripts. Tune in every day to hear the clashes, the lies, and the truth.