This gives new meaning to the term karma is a bitch.
A D.C. jury found last year that University of Pennsylvania climate scientist Michael Mann was defamed by two right-wing bloggers who said he falsified data about global warming. But a judge last week ruled that Mann and his attorneys weren’t honest during the trial — not about climate data but about grant funding.
Judge Alfred S. Irving of the D.C. Superior Court said in an opinion that Mann and his attorneys misrepresented data on the amount of grant money that the scientist claimed to have lost due to 2012 defamatory statements by two right-wing bloggers. The behavior was “an affront to the Court’s authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings,” Irving said.
The judge sanctioned Mann and ordered him to pay related legal fees. It is the third ruling this year against Mann, and represents a reversal of fortune from the $1 million verdict in his favor to the scientist owing those he sued more than $530,000.
The court determined that Michael Mann provided false statements regarding his grants during the trial. However, if a judge with a thorough understanding of the data had presided over the case, Mann’s alleged climate deception might have been fully revealed. Additionally, Mann faced sanctions from a judge for giving false testimony in his defamation case against Mark Steyn.
Essentially, Mann and even his legal team were sanctioned after having been found to have deliberately submitted inaccurate information and made deceptive claims.
This prompts the question: what other incorrect information might Mann have stated or published on different occasions that has not yet been legally contested or discovered? None the less, Mann has finally got what has been coming to him not only due to his questionable scientific claims but also his relentless lawfare against people who ridicule or even criticize his work.
Green Jihad 