Two days ago, the Canadian journalist Mark Steyn reported that the court sanction against Michael E. Mann was upheld by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. [some emphasis, links added]
Steyn’s article begins:
BREAKING: The Superior Court in DC just NUKED disgraced climate scientist Michael Mann AGAIN.
Last year, Mann was sanctioned for “knowingly feeding the jury false data” in a manner of misconduct that was “extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.”
Today, the court doubled… pic.twitter.com/fQff5YsM7V
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) January 22, 2026
The Court has considered Dr. Mann’s request for reconsideration. For the reasons Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn articulated orally during in-court arguments and presented in their pleadings, and as reasoned in the Court’s March 12, 2025 Order, the Court will deny the request….
The fact remains that Dr. Mann throughout this litigation complained that he suffered lost grant funding directly stemming from the defamatory statements of Messrs. Simberg and Steyn, while providing very little in the way of specifics about the dollar amounts of his losses directly attributable to the statements (such as corroborating testimony from percipient witnesses), all while promising to illuminate the Court at trial.
At trial, Dr. Mann elected through his attorneys to present to the jury a blown-up demonstrative, without redaction or explanation, a demonstrative intentionally prepared for its use at trial, which included a budget (loss) amount of $9,713,924.00, when the correct amount, previously corrected during a third round of discovery, was $112,000.
Dr. Mann and his attorneys explain that there was no harm in publishing the demonstrative to the jury because Defendants and the Court knew well that the $9.7 million was later corrected during discovery, while ignoring the fact that the trial’s factfinders, the jury, were never made privy to the discovery corrections through Dr. Mann’s in-court testimony…
This is particularly troubling given that the lost grant funding amounts were central to Dr. Mann’s case, and considering that Dr. Mann, indeed, was represented by very skilled and seasoned attorneys. The attorneys’ assertions that they knew Defendants would “deal with” making the corrections during re-cross strain credulity and nevertheless fail to explain why the use of an erroneous demonstrative was preferable over a non-erroneous demonstrative.
To be sure, without redactions or corrective testimony, Plaintiff left the jury with misleading evidence, suggesting that he suffered damages in at least the amount of $9,713,924.00. The Court rightfully concluded that Plaintiff and his attorneys acted in bad faith and that their litigation tactics cannot and should not be condoned in this jurisdiction…
As to Dr. Mann, in particular, he was indeed ultimately responsible for the conduct of the litigation of his case and it was his responsibility to ensure that the facts of his case were presented truthfully and straightforwardly, so that the jury could reach a fair and reasonable decision based on the facts. Furthermore, he was tasked with knowing the facts of his case, one he filed in 2012.
The Court observed during Dr. Mann’s own testimony that he often expanded his answers exceeding the bounds of the questions asked when it suited him. He could have done so, here, when his attorneys explored all aspects of the subject demonstrative except for correcting the incorrect loss amounts contained in the demonstrative…
Such a trial tactic does not explain why experienced attorneys and a sophisticated client would risk having the Plaintiff’s credibility unnecessarily brought into question when the stakes were so high.
The only explanation the Court could glean is that each knew that if the jury saw the $9.7 million figure, and it went unchallenged or inadequately challenged, the jury might have finally been presented with something tangible in deciding compensable damages.
While Plaintiff and his attorneys find nothing wrong with such practice, the Court simply cannot condone such bad faith litigation tactics, particularly in a case that had been zealously litigated across several years and a case involving complicated facts. Thus, the Court’s ruling must stand. It is the Court’s duty to punish and deter bad faith litigation tactics.
The court also ordered fake Nobel winner Mann to pay $28k to the defendants (Mark and Rand Simberg) as part of its sanction.
You may read the whole order here.
The initial order detailing Mann’s duplicity before the jury is available here.
If he’s willing to participate in a nine million dollar lie on the stand, what won’t he lie about?
Next stop in Mann vs Steyn? The Court of Appeals.
UPDATE: Phelim McAleer sums it up over at Substack thus:
In short, Michael Mann won a defamation lawsuit over accusations of data fiddling, only to be found to have fiddled the data to achieve his victory.
The tide is slowly turning against climate alarmism as the costs and fabrications are revealed, and this is a great victory for Steyn & Simberg, as well as one for truth over misinformation, data tampering, and lies.
Now we need a similar outcome in the attempts to get the fraudster to finally pay Tim Ball’s widow what he was ordered to when Tim defeated Mann’s libel suit in Canada in 2018 (yes, over seven years ago!)
As I was typing this, I remembered Tim Ball’s comment about where Mann should be residing, and it brought this album cover to mind.
Are Mann’s actions worthy of being labeled…?
See Mark Steyn’s article here steynonline.com
Read more at PSI
