GUEST POST By Roger Roots, J.D., Ph.D.
The jury pool in Washington, D.C., is more Marxist than the jury pools in San Francisco or New York City.
DC residents consistently vote for Democrats over 90 percent of the time. Most DC residents are either government employees or big government advocates in some way. Prosecutors and plaintiffs know they are virtually guaranteed a victory whenever they prosecute or sue conservatives or libertarians.
On Wednesday, February 8, a jury of six DC residents rendered its verdict in the defamation trial of Ivy League Professor Michael Mann versus Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg.
The jury held that Steyn and Simberg each defamed Mann, to the tune of one dollar each, in compensatory damages. But the jury also held that Simberg owes one thousand dollars—and Steyn owes one million dollars—in punitive damages.
Dr. Mann’s lawyer used his closing argument to urge the jury to punish Steyn and Simberg to stop “attacks on climate scientists.”
Steyn and Simberg both wrote separate essays back in 2012 which compared Penn State University’s investigation into Professor Mann’s misleading “hockey stick” temperature graph to the investigation into Penn State’s pedophile football coach Jerry Sandusky. Both investigations were whitewashes, designed to brush scandals under the rug.
Professor Mann, now at U-Penn, used his deceptive hockey stick temperature chart to catapult himself to academic superstardom.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published the preposterous chart on the cover pages of its 2001 Report.
Today, Dr. Mann is the face of contemporary doomsday “climate crisis” science.
Dr. Mann is friends with Hollywood celebrities and major Democratic Party figures.
Mann’s claims that global temperatures are catastrophically rising are cited as grounds for trillions of dollars in government spending around the world. Now there are people freezing to death in Texas and going hungry in Europe due to government “green energy” impositions.
In spite of the jury’s ultimate verdict, evidence at trial plainly showed that Mann concealed, disregarded or buried data that did not support his catastrophic global warming claims.
Dr. Abraham Wyner, a renowned statistician, testified that Dr. Mann made numerous choices regarding data selection along the way to producing the hockey stick chart. And Mann consistently—deliberately—chose options that produced the startling hockey stick graph. Another witness, Steven McIntyre, testified that he repeatedly asked for the data supporting Mann’s hockey stick chart but that Mann (and others) were hiding the data, along with their computer coding.
Some of the testimony was astounding, given that the entire Western world is now barreling in the direction of policies based on Mann’s and the mainstream “climate science”’s demands.
The trial showed that what passes for climate science is more akin to a government-subsidized religion.
Additionally, defense witnesses exposed Mann as a truly horrible person. Despite Mann’s own thin skin, Mann regularly defames critics of The Science™ as “deniers” “white supremacists” or paid shills of industry.
Mann bullies and leads boycotts against academic journals unless they turn away skeptical research studies. Mann buries and hides data that undermines his scientific claims.
Mann urges his fellow liberal professors to blacklist and attack scientists who disagree with him.
Mann withholds data from skeptics who seek to examine it.
Mann destroys the careers of scholars who criticize “climate crisis” claims. Mann even helped fellow alarmist professors illegally delete emails to evade the Freedom Of Information Act.
Although a 2012 Penn State report purported to exonerate Mann of scientific misconduct, lawyers for Rand Simberg showed that Mann’s Penn State colleagues wanted to censure Mann for unscientific behavior. But Penn State’s president—who later went to prison for helping cover up Jerry Sanduski’s child molestation spree—interfered with the investigation of Mann.
One of Mann’s fellow professors admitted that the Penn State “investigation” committee took Mann’s explanations at face value. They would have needed the “resources of the FBI” to investigate Mann’s computer manipulations and fudging of tree-ring data.
Supporters of the government’s catastrophic-warming-by-man-made-CO2 theory appear to be amping up their efforts to use courtroom lawfare to silence questions and criticism.
Stay tuned!
This story originally appeared on TheGateWayPundit
