But the iconic graph engendered attacks, including calls for into the validity and veracity of the research. Subsequent investigations by the National Academy of Sciences, The National Science Foundation and Penn State all found the research both honest and solid.

Mann is quick to point out that there are two entirely distinct debates taking place when it comes to climate change research. One is the legitimate scientific challenging of research results that is part of the give and take of the scientific method all done in good faith to help advance the forefront of our knowledge. The other consists of bad faith attacks on scientists and the science, intended to advance some agenda -- political, religious or economic.

The debate over the that last sentence - over the many detractors of Mann and his theory - have provided an interesting tangent to Mann's career, with Mann suing bloggers Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn for defamation.  Mann initially prevailed...:

In a unanimous decision, jurors agreed that both Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann in blog posts that compared Mann to convicted sex offender Jerry Sandusky, former assistant football coach at Penn State University. They announced that Simberg will pay $1,000 in punitive damages and Steyn will pay the larger $1 million.

Standing in front of the courthouse smiling with his legal team after the verdict was read, Mann told DeSmog that he trusted the jury to see through the “smoke and mirrors” that the defense used during the trial.

“One million dollars in punitive damages makes a statement,” he said in an exclusive interview. “This is about the defense of science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine scientists who are just trying to do our job.”

...before having that million dollar judgement turned like, dare I say, an inverted hockey stick:

Earlier this [year], the [appellate] judge threw out the $1 million penalty owed by one of the writers, Mark Steyn. The verdict against Steyn had been “grossly excessive,” said Irving, who reduced the damages to $5,000.

And in January, the court ordered Mann to pay more than $530,000 in legal expenses to National Review, one of the publishers of the commentary, under rules meant to prevent critics from being burdened with the cost of a legal defense.

These developments amount to a remarkable reversal in legal fortunes for Mann, best known for his “hockey stick” chart showing how global temperatures have risen sharply since humans began burning massive amounts of fossil fuels during the Industrial Revolution.

But this article is about a different climate - the climate of dis-proportionality, rage and violence that today's left is inflicting on society.  

Because Mann thinks now is the time to turn out the militia - in the constitutional sense of the term:

Michael Mann, a climate professor and senior administrator at the University of Pennsylvania, appeared to threaten President Donald Trump on Thursday evening, writing on social media that "we're in second amendment territory" if the president doesn't comply with a federal court injunction.

"If Trump doesn't comply, we're in second amendment territory," Mann wrote on Bluesky. Mann—whom the University of Pennsylvania named as its inaugural vice provost for climate science, policy, and action in late 2024—later doubled down and defended his comments.

On the one hand - a leftist who supports the Second Amendment.  

"The second amendment refers to the right of the people to rise up and defend democracy," he added in a follow-up post Friday morning. "To argue this is a threat against Trump is very dishonest."

Yay!

On the other hand - on whose behalf is the esteemed professor calling for insurrection, or dare I say civil war? (Emphasis added):

Mann's comments came in response to a report that a federal judge blocked Trump's plan to dismantle the Department of Education. Trump issued an executive order in March directing the Education Department to close, arguing that states are better equipped to handle the agency's main functions.

"Hang on, Mitch", you might say.   "He's not calling for the citizens to turn out in full battle rattle just to defend the DoE.   It's to defend...a district court's power to enjoin the entire executive branch over his or her interpretation of the law".  

And you'd have a point, although I'm not sure it makes Professor Mann's stance any less insurrectiony or, to frank, deranged.  

Or, for that matter, morally high and mighty:

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights froze $175 million in funding for the University of Pennsylvania last month over its decision to allow a biological male to compete on the women's swim team, which the office said denied women equal opportunities. In response, the university's president blasted the administration and said the loss of funding "will be felt by society."

They got one right:  launching a civil war to defend the imperial judiciary's power to unilaterally defend entrenched bureaucracy would be felt by society.   

You betcha.