fox files

In the high-stakes world of climate science, questioning the established narrative can come with serious consequences. And let me tell you, nobody knows this better than Mark Steyn and National Review, who found themselves on the receiving end of a defamation lawsuit after criticizing Michael Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph – that convenient climate model that helped launch a thousand carbon tax proposals and endless doomsday predictions that somehow never quite materialize. For over a decade, Mann, the darling of climate activism, has been locked in a bitter legal battle against those who dared challenge his work. But sometimes, even science’s elite must face the cold reality of the judicial system – a reality that doesn’t care about consensus or how many times you’ve been invited to speak at Davos.

Mann’s lawsuit against National Review began in 2012, a case that would stretch on for years, consuming resources and threatening to silence critical voices in climate science debate. The University of Pennsylvania professor, celebrated in climate advocacy circles (and boy, do they love to celebrate each other), had declared the publication a “threat to our children” in private emails. His rage was triggered after Canadian conservative commentator Mark Steyn wrote a post questioning Mann’s methodology, followed by National Review editor Rich Lowry publishing a piece supporting Steyn’s critique. Imagine that – journalists actually doing their job by questioning powerful institutional figures!

What Mann didn’t anticipate, however, was how this attempt to punish his critics might ultimately send him reaching for his own checkbook instead. Isn’t it funny how those who scream loudest about “following the science” are often the first to run to the courts when their work faces actual scientific scrutiny?

The Superior Court of the District of Columbia recently delivered news that likely sent shockwaves through Mann’s office. Despite his desperate legal maneuvers to delay the inevitable, the court flatly rejected his bid to postpone payment of a staggering $530,000 in legal fees to National Review – the very publication he sought to destroy through litigation. I guess silencing critics isn’t as cheap as it used to be.

Judge Albert Irving wrote in March that Mann and his lawyers had presented misleading information to the jury while the defamation case was at trial. Specifically, Mann and his representation misled the jury as to how much grant funding he missed out on due to the actions of the defendants, a key element of his defamation case, with Irving describing the deception as “extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.”

This decisive ruling comes after Mann had already requested a stay to delay payment, essentially asking the court for more time before having to sign a check to the conservative publication he had once hoped to financially cripple. In January 2025, the court had ordered Mann to pay approximately $530,000 within 30 days, and his subsequent attempt to get that deadline extended just crashed and burned – much like so many climate model predictions. In a fitting twist of irony, the very legal system Mann had weaponized against his critics is now demanding he pay up, and promptly.

A Pattern of Deception Exposed

What makes this ruling particularly damning is the court’s acknowledgment of Mann’s dishonesty during the trial process. Judge Irving’s blistering assessment that Mann and his lawyers misled the jury about the financial impact of the criticism he received cuts to the heart of his entire defamation claim. The judge didn’t mince words, characterizing the deception as “extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.” (And believe me, that’s saying something in Washington!)

The implications extend far beyond this single case. For years, climate skeptics have faced accusations of being “science deniers,” while attempts to question climate orthodoxy have been met with personal attacks, professional ostracism, and now, as Mann demonstrated, lawfare. This court decision represents a rare instance where the tables have turned – where the cost of attempting to silence legitimate scientific debate through litigation has been assigned to the silencer rather than the silenced.

Victory for Scientific Discourse

The court’s decision marks a significant moment for free expression in scientific debate. The $530,000 payment Mann now owes represents more than just compensation for legal expenses – it stands as a warning to those who would use litigation to stifle criticism rather than engaging with it on its merits. For conservatives who’ve long questioned the climate catastrophe narrative, this ruling feels like vindication.

In an age where climate policy drives trillion-dollar economic decisions and shapes international agreements, robust debate about the underlying science shouldn’t just be permitted – it should be encouraged. Mann’s lawsuit represented the opposite approach: an attempt to use legal intimidation to shield his work from scrutiny.

This case serves as a reminder of why the founders placed free speech as the first amendment in our Bill of Rights. Scientific progress depends on challenging established theories, questioning methodologies, and yes, sometimes criticizing the work of prominent researchers. When scientists attempt to use courts rather than evidence to vindicate their positions, they undermine the very foundation of scientific inquiry.

Key Takeaways

• A DC court rejected climate scientist Michael Mann’s attempt to avoid paying $530,000 in legal fees to National Review after his failed lawsuit.
• The judge issued a scathing assessment that Mann and his lawyers deliberately misled the jury about lost grant funding.
• This case exposes how climate alarmists often use legal intimidation rather than scientific evidence to silence critics.
• Free speech in scientific debate scores a major victory as Mann’s attempt to punish skeptics backfires spectacularly.