Mark Steyn's $1 million verdict cuts to $5,000 in landmark climate cases – Watt?

Today, we are cheered up out of a firm spirit of rationality, justice and free expression! Today, the District of Columbia Superior Court has dealt a huge blow to over-litigation in a long-term libel lawsuit filed by climate scientist Michael Mann against conservative commentator Mark Steyn. Under the final judgment order, Judge Alfred S. Irving.

The decision marks a winning twist in a 12-year legal legend that began with Steyn’s 2012 blog post criticizing Mann’s iconic “Hockey Stick” image, the cornerstone of the climate change narrative. Back in February 2024, a District of Columbia jury awarded Mann $1 token damages and paid Stein a low-key $1 million punitive damages, and sentenced Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) to a $1,000 fine. The award is disproportionate and chilling, threatening to silence critics of Mann’s work and setting dangerous precedents for freedom of speech.

But justice prevails! The court's ruling not only cut Steyn's punitive damages by a reasonable $5,000, but also declared the initial $1 million ruling unconstitutional – too excessive, too penalized, and suffered adverse measures with Mann's actual harm (or lack of damage). This is not just Shi Yang's victory. It is a victory for every skeptic, scientist and citizen who dares to question orthodoxy in a public square. The $5,000 figure is in line with the jury’s nominal $1 compensation award, reinstates the proportions and reaffirms the strong debate (regardless of that).

In addition to the celebrations, Mann was ordered to pay more than $500,000 in legal fees to cover Steyn's co-defendant state review. The award stems from the Anti-SLAPP in Washington, D.C. (Strategic Litigation Against Public Engagement), acknowledging Mann's decade-long legal crusade to those who challenged his research.

Skeptics have been watching the case in their breath for years, worried that it would honestly ask about climate science. Mann's “Hockey Stick” chart is at the heart of his reputation and has long been a lightning rod – statisticians, researchers and commentators with methodological flaws like Steyn and data processing. Steyn's post, while biting is an opinion, not a false fact, and the jury's initial $1 million fine seems to be related to justice, but rather to punish objections. Today’s ruling overturns this injustice to ensure critics of public figures like Mann speak without fear of financial destruction.

This moment is not only about numbers, but about principles. The reduction to $5,000 sent a clear signal that the courts would not tolerate weaponized defamation lawsuits to keep the debate silent. It is a condemnation of Mann's “legal” strategies that drained Steyn, National Review and CEI resources while raising millions of dollars in crowdfunding, with supporters raising millions of dollars from supporters of free speech. Now those supporters can celebrate the hard victory, knowing that their voices help to boost the scales.

Steyn himself used courage to survive the storm, representing himself in court and refused to back off. His resilience combined with the wisdom of the court has reserved a critical space for scientific doubt and public discourse. Meanwhile, the legal fees of $500,000 for the state review, as well as the potential of the CEI archives and similar relief – without any concealment of Mann’s claims and the offender’s charges against the opponent.

Let's raise a cup for this victory! Steyn's $5,000 fine is not only a legal correction, but a beacon of freedom of speech, a shield to honest inquiries, and a reminder that facts are drawn from public debates, not a battle in court. The struggle for rationality continues, but today, we celebrate a huge step.

HT/Stephen McIntyre

Related