Posted on 03/07/2025 7:09:21 AM PST by Twotone
At the end of this week, I am - at least on paper - $995,000.00 better off than I was seven days ago. On Tuesday the dirty stinkin' rotten corrupt US justice system reduced climate mullah Michael E Mann's seven-figure judgment against me to a lousy five grand. Readers with vague recollections of The New York Times et al reporting on the stunning million-dollar victory for "climate science" have been waiting for those publications to update their stories and amend the headlines to a stunning thousand-dollar victory for climate science. Over at Just the News, Kevin Killough has noticed the silence:
The reduction in award -- called "remittitur" -- comes less than two months after Irving ordered Mann to pay the National Review Inc. more than $500,000 in the publication's lawsuit against Mann over the same case...
The D.C. jury's $1 million award was widely reported in many legacy media outlets, most of whom protest defamation awards against journalists. Yet, there's been little coverage of the ruling against Mann in the either National Review's lawsuit or the reduction of the award...
"I have had no inquiries from them since the decision yesterday, so I think it is safe to assume they will not be correcting the record," Melissa Howes, president of Mark Steyn Enterprises Inc., told Just the News.
That's true. Half-a-century hence, anyone who looks up the case in the archives of the worthless Yank media will come away thinking that Mann took me for a million bucks:
Scientific American had described the original $1 million award as a "victory" and said the case was a "warning to those who attack scientists working in controversial fields." The Washington Post also described the verdict as a "victory"...
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
I am amazed that Michael Mann won, but it was a DC court.
Questioning the “Science” is ... Science.
The Scientific Method does not have a step called “Policy”.
But it does have one requiring sharing findings, and scrutinizing them and criticising conclusions.
the process iterates until noone can think up valid criticisms and claims are considered knowlege, maybe even useful. For now.
“Scientific American had described the original $1 million award as a “victory”
There was a time SA was a respected Scientific Journal. Now it’s just leftist rag with woke cancer stage 4.
That was evident in the 1990s.
Michael Mann “hockey stick” curve was a clear, schoolbook example of scientific fraud.
Sticking apple and orange curves together to get the desirable result.
The global warming hoax was started by this fraud.
Right, there should have been a class action brought against Mann. That lying prick has cost us billions
Mark Steyn used a very salacious language to describe Mann’s fraudulent “science”.
He should not use that kind of language.
And, he defended himself by his first amendment rights.
The whole trial was mostly about first amendment use of salacious language.
I guess, that was the basic for the judgment.
But, the “global warming” crowd celebrated this as “science has won”.
Scientific American turned to fecal matter in the mid 60’s and has been less palatable than feed lot runoff ever since.
I received this magazine for 30 years before the reign of John Rennie (1994 to 2009) swung it way too left for me!
That’s when I bailed.
Likewise. Them and National Geographic in the same general time frame.
Yup, but I still get NatGeo.
I’ve over 60 years of them in a bookshelf.
Just got a new one today.
“The Truth About Viking Women” I can’t wait!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.