Mark Steyn V. Fraudulent Temperature Reconstructions - Jennifer Marohasy

Earlier in the week, Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. in the Superior Court in Washington DC found in favour of Mark Steyn. Mark Steyn is one of my heroes in the fight for some integrity in historical temperature reconstructions.

One of the main reasons we now have such unaffordable energy in the West is because fraudulent historical temperature reconstructions – most notably Michael Mann’s infamous hockey stick reworking of the last 1,000 years of European temperature history – have frightened policy makers into believing we have a climate catastrophe. Of course, many have been keen to be ‘frightened’ because they have found financial and other advantage in the mandated transition to ostensibly ‘clean’ energy.

It is the little people who are now paying for all of this, including through ridiculously unaffordable energy bills.

At the recent Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London there was much lamenting the consequence by so many polite conservatives now with political power, but a complete denial of the cause. Shame.

Back to the case at hand. Earlier in the week, Judge Irving found clear and convincing evidence, that Mann, through his lawyers, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court in the defamation case against Mark Steyn. So, eventually, Steyn may get some of his costs paid, and by Mann.

How is it that Michael Mann ever thought he was going to get away with presenting such erroneous evidence? And why did Mann bring the defamation case against Mark Steyn in the first place?

These are important questions that are not being discussed, perhaps because they show just the extent to which we live in a culture dominated by fraud within our institutions especially those concerned with science.

I have been writing now for over a decade about the many ways the Australian Bureau of Meteorology ruin the Australian historical temperature series. Despite valid attempts with my husband John Abbot, including by bringing a case against the Bureau through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, we are getting nowhere. At least not yet.

Mark Steyn has had more success. Despite bad health and near bankruptcy, he has never given up. With his extraordinary work ethic, he is perhaps finally winning through, at least he is starting to show Michael Mann up for what he is, for what much of modern climate science is: fraud. That may be his legacy. For that I will be forever grateful.

Some 13 years ago, the much lauded and absurdly creative climate scientist, Michael E. Mann, did take Mark Steyn to court for defamation. The case dragged on, almost never making it to court until it was finally heard in Washington DC just over a year ago, in January 2024. The jury, mostly ignoring much of the evidence, some of it well presented by Steyn who represented himself, found that while Mann had NOT suffered financially from the claim by Steyn of fraud –- specifically Mark Steyn claims that Michael Mann’s most famous historical temperature reconstruction is an invention with the intention to deceive –- he, Steyn, should nevertheless be punished.

And so, in accordance with the zeitgeist, but against the evidence, Steyn was ordered by the court to pay US$1 in nominal damages, and US$1,000,000 in punitive damages.

Mark Steyn was ordered, in effect, to pay US$1 million for being disagreeable – for offending the majority.

The injustice. I sobbed that day, February 9, 2024, as I penned Part 5 of a series about the court case on my weblog, click here. And I thank Ann McElhinney for taking my call, for letting me lament with her over the phone. And I thank Ann for the brilliant podcast series she has created about all of this with the Phelim McAleer, click here.

A year later, and earlier this month, specifically on March 4, 2025, on appeal, the US$1,000,000 in punitive damages was reduced to US$5,000. You can read more at SteynOnline including the judgement, click here.

Then on March 12, there was another ruling, that Michael Mann’s lawyers had mislead the court. Justice takes time it seems. And I have new hope. Again the judgment can be downloaded from SteynOnline, click here.

Source: https://jennifermarohasy.com/2025/03/mark-steyn-v-fraudulent-temperature-reconstructions/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJB76BleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHRx0BTRIA-48i4ocXGXLcw3-fuKTKHcZjaGYYysA2vQHROLd2ce9YWef1w_aem_WA4QWEtmPW4d3GRMb5o8vQ

Comment: Excellent article on the legal fight against the manipulation of the temperature records - that has devastating consequences when it comes to climate/industrial policy in the West. The hockey stick graph has no basis in reality when compared to the historical record. In science, if the model does not match observed fact, then the model is wrong. It's NOT the other way around.

Unfortunately people get caught up in what authority tells you about something rather than being cognisant to the hard underlying data. They assume that the model, or what authority tells them, has taken everything into account, that the Thames freezing over, or agriculture in Greenland, or the River Danube running dry, or tree stumps under glaciers etc, were just 'rare outliers', but not indicative of a changed climate for that time.

Ordinary people tend not to think too deeply about the fact that the model could be wrong.

And when you dig into the details about how the model was constructed then you can see it is actually a disgraceful concoction.

However, as Covid has shown us, many people are deeply attached to what authority figures tell them - especially if it is sold in terms of being socially responsible, that the information is being posted so we can help save the planet.

Wrapped up in these ideas many people have huge psychological problems seeing through the official misinformation. So we end up in another situation where 'the facts don't matter'. What a problem for human beings !

[Posted at the SpookyWeather2 blog, March 16, 2025.]