4.9 • 942 Ratings
🗓️ 9 February 2024
⏱️ 13 minutes
🧾️ Download transcript
The verdict is in, and it’s a shocker. We break down the jury’s shocking decision to:
Find Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg liable for defamation
Decide the defendants knew their statements were false
Punish Mark more than Rand for mostly repeating Rand’s words with some context
We have an exclusive comment from Mark Steyn on how he feels, and his next steps. The fight is not over. And, we ask if Free Speech still exists in liberal American cities. Or are there protected people and ideas that are just Too Big To Question?
But let’s not forget what we learned about Michael Mann during these four weeks of trial, like those emails about “human filth” colleagues and the female scientist he falsely claimed slept her way to the top. We also learned how the independent investigation into his scientific malfeasance was nobbled at the last moment. Will the Streisand Effect work against Mann? We intend to keep working to let the public know about the emails and documents that were presented in court but that the mainstream media have been ignoring.
Thanks for coming on this ride with us. This story is not over.
Click on a timestamp to play from that location
0:00.0 | We've got a verdict today and it's bizarre. In fact we think it's pretty insane. We'll break it down for you, but first this is what the jury decided. |
0:12.0 | So these are the statements that the jury found were defamatory. |
0:16.0 | First of all, from Rand Simburg's blog post, |
0:20.0 | this statement was found to be defamatory. |
0:22.0 | We saw what the university administration this statement was found to be defamatory. |
0:22.9 | We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes |
0:28.0 | and even let them continue rather than expose them. |
0:31.1 | Should we suppose in light of what we now know they would do any |
0:35.0 | less to hide the academic and scientific misconduct was so much at stake? So |
0:39.7 | that apparently was defamatory. The second statement they found from Rans Simburg to be defamatory was, and you read it there. |
0:49.3 | Man could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children |
0:57.3 | he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet. |
1:06.8 | So just to remind you, Jerry Sandusky was the football coach at Penn State who went to prison for molesting children. The president, |
1:15.2 | Graham Spannier of Penn State, went to prison for facilitating that and covering up. |
1:20.3 | So that's what Ron Simberg was referring to when he talked about covering up reports and covering up investigations. |
1:27.0 | Then the jury also found two parts of Mark Stein's blog post defamatory. They found first Stein |
1:35.0 | re-quoted Simburg's quote from the passage above, man could be said to be |
1:39.6 | the Jerry Sandusky of climate change, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested |
1:44.5 | and tortured data in the service of politicized science that equative of dire economic consequences |
1:49.8 | for the nation and planets. |
1:51.1 | So that is actually Ran Simburg's quote but Mark |
1:53.6 | re-quoted it in his piece and by the way he also put the context then I |
... |
Transcript will be available on the free plan in -411 days. Upgrade to see the full transcript now.
Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Unreported Story Society, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.
Generated transcripts are the property of Unreported Story Society and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.
Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.