A Superior Court judge has sanctioned Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael E. Mann and his legal team for presenting misleading evidence to a jury in his high-profile defamation lawsuit against conservative writers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn.
Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr., in a scathing order issued today, accused Mann of knowingly feeding the jury false data about lost grant funding, a central pillar of his damages claim, calling the misconduct “extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.”
READ: Trump Admin Touts Economic Wins As Inflation Cools, Jobs Surge, And Border Tightens
The case, Michael E. Mann, Ph.D. v. National Review, Inc., et al. (2012 CA 008263 B), stemmed from 2012 blog posts where Simberg and Steyn compared Mann’s climate research to child molestation and fraud. After a four-week trial ending February 8, 2024, a D.C. jury awarded Mann $1 million in punitive damages from Steyn and $1,000 from Simberg, plus $1 each in compensatory damages.
But today’s ruling casts a shadow over that victory, granting the defendants’ motions for sanctions in part and ordering Mann to cover their trial expenses tied to the deception.
The trouble erupted mid-trial on January 31, 2024, when Judge Irving expressed shock at a chart (Trial Exhibit 117) Mann presented, listing funding proposals and amounts he claimed to have lost due to the defamation.
READ: Florida Senator Moody’s First Bill Targets Homeownership For Law Enforcement
Defense counsel exposed that 50% of it was “erroneous,” a revelation Irving called “stunning.” He demanded briefing, noting Mann had corrected the data during discovery yet still let the jury see the flawed version.
“The plaintiff was aware the jury was being presented with an exhibit that contained incorrect information,” Irving wrote, accusing Mann and his lawyers of wanting jurors to “deliberate on those figures.”
Steyn and Simberg pounced, alleging bad-faith misconduct and seeking dismissal, evidence bans, or a mistrial.
Mann countered that his testimony relied on accurate exhibits and blamed the defense for pushing outdated data into evidence. Irving dismissed most of their demands as moot post-verdict but wielded the court’s inherent authority to sanction Mann for what he deemed a deliberate abuse of process.
READ: Alan Dershowitz: Trump’s Deportation Push For Green Card Holder “Not A Slam Dunk”
“Dr. Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavoring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information,” the judge ruled, ordering him to pay the defendants’ costs for countering the ruse.
The sanctions mark a dramatic twist in a 13-year legal saga already marred by reversals—Mann’s $1 million award was slashed to $5,000 in March, and he was hit with $530,820 in National Review’s legal fees in January.
With Mann’s “hockey stick” graph still a lightning rod, this ruling fuels critics who see his win as tainted, while raising thorny questions about truth, accountability, and the courtroom’s role in settling scientific scores. Appeals loom, but for now, Mann’s triumph carries a costly asterisk.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Connect with us: Follow the Tampa Free Press on Facebook and Twitter for breaking news and updates.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
