Let's recap where the case stands as we enter the final days of the (Climate) Trial of the Century.
Michael Mann sued Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn in 2012 for defamation after the "statements at issue" were published. The case then languished in the DC court system for 12 years. It has cost the Defendants millions in legal fees — not to mention the immeasurable physical toll to Mark and Rand. Now, in court, the onus is on the Plaintiff to prove the Defendants acted with malice and that there was harm incurred due to the blog posts.
So, has the Plaintiff proven his case? Here are the facts after three weeks in court:
After the "statements at issue," Mann became a faculty member at the University of Pennsylvania (a slightly more esteemed institution than Penn State).
After the "statements at issue," Mann has continued to pal around with the liberal left elite.
After the "statements at issue," Mann has only been able to point to one instance of public "revulsion" as he described it. The incident in question occurred in a grocery store during the fallout from the Penn State scandal.
After the "statements at issue," did Mann's grant monies decline? Nope. As proven in court this past week, the evidence provided by the Plaintiff was falsified.
Finally, after the "statements at issue," has Mann incurred any legal costs from the last 12 years he has (relentlessly) pursued this case? Nope. Not a penny.
The Defendants' counsel spent the day hammering home the above to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Let's review some of the comments Michael Mann's peers made under oath today:
Regarding Mann's own behavior towards others? His emails and comments about others are "ill-advised and embarrassing" to the scientific community. And... those communications and statements not only cast "Michael Mann in a bad light," but the community writ large. And... he is "thin-skinned and quick to attack." And... seeks "conflict, seeking to pick fights." And... when he is confronted, he resorts to name calling including "human filth," an "evil person," "a Holocaust denier," And... perhaps most importantly... "society expects better" from scientists.
Regarding that in-depth, iron-clad Penn State investigation into Mann? From a colleague, "Mann did in fact breach the ethical standards."
Regarding the decline in grant monies from the blog posts? Oh, that's right, grant review guidelines prohibit "external factors beyond scientific merit" to factor into funding decisions.
The Plaintiff's legal team tried to combat the volleys, only to have to quickly resort to numerous objections (overruled!) and linguistic gymnastics (potato/potahto) over substance.
Closing statements may begin tomorrow, so be sure to continue to watch (thank you for joining today, Francis Bacon, Go Mark!, and Liberty Stick 155) — Room 132 at the DC Superior Court.
Want more coverage? Terence Corcoran recounts the history and current state of the Mann-Steyn showdown in the Financial Post. Barbara Kay in the Epoch Times delves into the implications of the trial for the First Amendment. Barry Cooper in the Western Standard provides the Canadian POV. Over in the Daily Telegraph Australia, Tim Blair recounts his own tangle with Michael Mann. Patch, in "Climate Libel Circus," explains why Mann wanted the trial held in DC. And friend, John Hinderaker at Powerline has his own climate story and excellent coverage of the trial here.
Press in Mann's world includes Esquire's usual teenage boy treatment, calling Mark an "Internet Yahoo," while the New York Times — which ironically set the modern era's precedent for the First Amendment in the landmark New York Times v. Sullivan — attempts to make the trial about climate change v. deniers instead of, that's right, the First Amendment. And some of Mann's fans have reached out to the team with lovely (not) notes. Unlike some involved in this case, we're a bit thicker skinned so... Bring. It. On.
Meanwhile, Mark Steyn Club fans are the best!
"The brilliance of Mark Steyn brings truth wherever he goes and whatever he does... Lies are lies, whatever shape the wood takes." — Milton B.
The witnesses "in yesterday's proceedings came across as intelligent, respected and diligent scientists with integrity. Michael Mann throughout the trial has consistently come across as the opposite. It's a travesty that he's not the one on trial." — Carl P.
While we're all sold out of the popular Liberty Stick and the next cruise is completely full, you can still join the Mark Steyn Club yourself or buy a book for a friend to continue to support Mark. We thank you for your generosity and continued messages!