Case has been going on for 12 years. In 2020 Mann claimed $9,000,000 in damages as a result of lost grants in answer to formal discovery request (Interrogatories). In 2023 Mann corrected 2020 figures and only claimed a little more than $100,000 in damages. People should understand that interrogatories are important discovery responses and closely analogous to sworn affidavits.
At trial while testifying Mann insisted that the 2020 responses were correct but didn't name one grant that he lost. (He said he would come up with them later !!!) His stupid lawyers let him go on with this idiotic charade. It should be remembered that this clown received "the 2018 AAAS Public Engagement with Science Award...recognizes Mann’s “tireless efforts to communicate the science of climate change to the media, public and policymakers.”https://www.aaas.org/news/michael-e-mann-receives-aaas-public-engagement-science-award
The embarrassment that Michael Mann is shows what a clown show climate science is.
************
For people who want to read details here are excerpts from the defendant's brief that was filed backing up my statements:
"
Plaintiffs counsel knew that the evidence they offered to the jury was false because it was based on a 2020 discovery response concerning Dr. Mann’s grant-loss claim that counsel had been obliged to revise very dramatically just last year (2023). At trial on the 29th, Plaintiff s counsel chose to present the wildly misleading and deceptive 2020 data, which counsel for Defendant Rand Simberg had to correct on cross-examination. The difference between the incorrect 2020 data and the corrected 2023 data was striking. This Court noted that “One entry was for nine million, and then it was significantly reduced to something a little over a hundred thousand.”
Counsel for Defendant Simberg, Ms. Weatherford, rightly criticized Dr. Mann for merely throwing out a number and failing even to provide the names of the grants that he allegedly lost. Trial Tr. (1/24/24 PM) 67:17-69:2. She further emphasized on cross that Dr. Mann objected to the names of the grants as irrelevant. Trial Tr. (1/25/24 AM) 12:15-22. The only evidence he submitted on the grant funding issue was the paper pad summary.
Dr. Mann then testified at length—line by line, and grant by grant—about the false 2020 discovery responses, which he had blown up on a large board to draw the jury’s attention.
Dr. Mann agreed that he “made numerous changes to the grants that [he claimed] are at issue in this case.” Id. at 60:7-10. And he repeatedly placed the blame for the changes on his attorneys: “My lawyers actually put that information together " got this from comment here by CBKiteflyer on 2/1 https://judithcurry.com/2024/01/19/mann-vs-steyn-and-simberg-discussion-thread/#comment-1000417
At trial while testifying Mann insisted that the 2020 responses were correct but didn't name one grant that he lost. (He said he would come up with them later !!!) His stupid lawyers let him go on with this idiotic charade. It should be remembered that this clown received "the 2018 AAAS Public Engagement with Science Award...recognizes Mann’s “tireless efforts to communicate the science of climate change to the media, public and policymakers.”https://www.aaas.org/news/michael-e-mann-receives-aaas-public-engagement-science-award
The embarrassment that Michael Mann is shows what a clown show climate science is.
************
For people who want to read details here are excerpts from the defendant's brief that was filed backing up my statements:
"
Plaintiffs counsel knew that the evidence they offered to the jury was false because it was based on a 2020 discovery response concerning Dr. Mann’s grant-loss claim that counsel had been obliged to revise very dramatically just last year (2023). At trial on the 29th, Plaintiff s counsel chose to present the wildly misleading and deceptive 2020 data, which counsel for Defendant Rand Simberg had to correct on cross-examination. The difference between the incorrect 2020 data and the corrected 2023 data was striking. This Court noted that “One entry was for nine million, and then it was significantly reduced to something a little over a hundred thousand.”
Counsel for Defendant Simberg, Ms. Weatherford, rightly criticized Dr. Mann for merely throwing out a number and failing even to provide the names of the grants that he allegedly lost. Trial Tr. (1/24/24 PM) 67:17-69:2. She further emphasized on cross that Dr. Mann objected to the names of the grants as irrelevant. Trial Tr. (1/25/24 AM) 12:15-22. The only evidence he submitted on the grant funding issue was the paper pad summary.
Dr. Mann then testified at length—line by line, and grant by grant—about the false 2020 discovery responses, which he had blown up on a large board to draw the jury’s attention.
Dr. Mann agreed that he “made numerous changes to the grants that [he claimed] are at issue in this case.” Id. at 60:7-10. And he repeatedly placed the blame for the changes on his attorneys: “My lawyers actually put that information together " got this from comment here by CBKiteflyer on 2/1 https://judithcurry.com/2024/01/19/mann-vs-steyn-and-simberg-discussion-thread/#comment-1000417
