A statement which is entirely consistent with the facts:<quoted text>
So are you saying Mann knew he wasn't awarded the Nobel Peace Prize? If so, why did he claim he was awarded the prize in his upcoming lawsuit?
From his lawsuit:
"Dr. Mann is a climate scientist whose research has focused on global warming. In 2007, along with other researchers, he was one of the first to document the steady rise in surface temperatures during the 20th century and the steep increase in measured temperatures since the 1950s. As a result of this research, Dr. Mann and his colleagues were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize."
"The IPCC issued the certificates with the text on them to IPCC participants, including Mann. "
What you cretinous conspiracy theorists need to recognise is that the lies about Mann you have read and repeated are entirely inconsistent with the facts, something which the courts are about to confirm.
But of course arguing over petty semantic details is a lot more comfortable than recognising that your stupid conspiracy theory is about to be rejected by a court of law, one place where evifence is supreme.