Breaking news from The Superior Court of the District of Columbia in Mann vs Steyn:
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
Here are some highlights from today's decision (my emphasis in bold):
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.
As our friend Steve Milloy asks:
If @MichaelEMann offers sanctionable false testimony in court, should media outlets that quote him asterisk everything he says with this?👇 https://t.co/FQde0tKTgQ
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) January 22, 2026
Indeed. 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.
ANOTHER UPDATE: Over at Hot Air, Beege Welborn suggests ending the day with a cocktail and "a happy musical number".
MANN'S RESPONSE (as of Friday afternoon): Whilst Mann doesn't appear to have publicly addressed the judge's findings that he is a liar, liar pants on fire, he has made time to obsessively retweet old tweets supposedly "validating" his hokey stick along with his usual vile attacks on our witnesses at trial.
IN RELATED NEWS: According to reporting by Charlies Creitz at Fox News, the fraudulent Mann is cited in a federal reference manual currently under federal investigation. House Judiciary Committee members Jim Jordan and Darrell Issa said they've found evidence of efforts to "influence judges who potentially may be presiding over lawsuits related to alleged climate change claims..." Creitz adds:
Mann, a climate change academic in Pennsylvania, authored a book called "The New Climate War," and the judges' guide cites the book to claim the energy industry has sought to deceive the public.
He resigned from a role at the University of Pennsylvania in 2025 after disparaging social media comments about Charlie Kirk that invoked the Hitler Youth movement, and previously successfully sued conservative commentator Mark Steyn for $1 million – later reduced to $5,000 by the court and resulting in an added sanction on Mann – over aggressive criticism of his famous "hockey stick graph" that resulted from his study of human influence on global warming over the centuries.
UPDATE (Feb 5): Mann has appealed the sanction to the Court of Appeals.
Thank you for your support of Mark in his continued defense of free speech.
The definitive resource:
"A Disgrace To The Profession"
The World's Scientists, In Their Own Words, On Michael E Mann, His Hockey Stick And Their Damage To Science
Volume I
Compiled and edited by Mark Steyn, with illustrations by Josh
also, available in audio form for Mark Steyn Club members here.
