The podcast discusses the shocking defamation verdict against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, questions the existence of free speech in liberal American cities, and highlights negative aspects of Michael Mann's character. It also mentions the possibility of an appeal and teases future projects.

Listen to the closing statements of the Free Speech trial involving climate scientist Michael Mann. Mark Steyn's oratory skills and jokes catch attention. The podcast also highlights the absence of evidence and lack of witnesses, investigation into Mann at Penn State University, and the financial aspect of the defamation case. The chapter explores the reactions of the jury and Williams' rebuttal.

In this podcast, the trial of Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg takes center stage. Witnesses reveal how Michael Mann drove the bullying tone of the climate debate. The criticism of Mann's hockey stick and the secret guidance of the investigation by Graham Spanier are also discussed. The day ends with Mann's lawyers making false statements and almost getting a journalist assaulted. Encounters outside the courthouse highlight stalking accusations

In this explosive episode, the DC defamation trial of Mark Stein continues with devastating developments for Michael Mann. The judge criticizes Mann's case as disjointed and questions the purpose of witnesses. Dr. Judith Curry describes the devastation of her professional life due to Mann's smearing. Evidence suggests a whitewash of Mann's scientific misconduct investigation, and Steve McIntyre's enduring criticism of the hockey stick graph is highlighted. Don't miss this explosive testimony!

Learn about the potential collapse of the free speech trial of the century and the plaintiff's misconduct. Dive into the manipulation of data in Michael Mann's hockey stick graph and hear a witness condemn climate celebrities. Discover the controversy surrounding the graph and the need for open debate in the scientific community. Explore false evidence and alleged misconduct during the trial that damages Dr. Mann's credibility. The hosts discuss the trial's end and appeal for support.

In this podcast, the podcasters discuss the dramatic day in court as Mark Steyn and his co-defendant's lawyers seek to dismiss the case against Michael Mann. The lack of evidence and failure to prove damages or injury cast doubt on Mann's case. The episode also features an expert describing how Mann manipulated data for his hockey stick. The judge's decision on whether to dismiss the case is awaited.

The podcast discusses the controversy surrounding a controversial report in Michael Mann's defamation trial. It also explores issues such as late jurors, admissibility of reports, lack of authentication, establishing malice, validity of climate science, and updates on the court case.

In this episode, Michael Mann defends himself in court against claims of false Nobel Prize claims and defamation. The hosts discuss the burden of proof, academic misconduct allegations, and accusations made against a female scientist. They also debate the use of derogatory terms, linking to controversial websites, and the impact of celebrity appearances. The episode concludes with a summary of the day's events in the trial.

Climate change expert and brilliant orator Mark Steyn delivers a powerful opening statement in a defamation trial, discussing freedom of speech and his commitment to the truth. He also highlights accusations against Michael Mann, Penn State's complicity in a child abuse scandal, and the similarities between the scandals at Penn State and the hockey stick graph controversy. The chapter explores corruption, the need for scientific debate, and Mann's response to criticism.

Mark Steyn questions Michael Mann in a long-awaited trial. Topics include Climategate leaks, the hockey stick graph, mean stares at supermarkets, and allegations of perjury. They discuss temperature records, tree rings, and Mann's crude calculations. The podcast gets heated with accusations of perjury and defamation, with a memorable incident at a supermarket. They also explore perception, indoor-outdoor cats, and the impact of the Sandusky scandal on grant funding. The debate on the accuracy of the hockey stick graph and a desire to ruin the other person end the episode on a dramatic note.