The Washington, D.C. District Judge Tuesday reduced the punitive damages award award to celebrity climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann, a defamation lawsuit against Rand Simberg, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, National Comment Blogger Mark Steyn. [emphasis, links added]
In February 2024, a District of Columbia jury awarded Mann one dollar to Steyn, but added $1 million in punitive damages. Judge Alfred Irving lowered the payment to $5,000.
In a lawsuit that Irving ordered Mann to order Mann to rule that the bonus was reduced (called “remittance”) was less than two months.
The publication successfully dismissed the case under DC’s Anti-SLAPP Act, which paid attorney fees to successful defamation defendants in a context of public concern.
In many traditional media, the $1 million award from the District of Columbia jury has been widely reported, with most protesting journalists protesting against the slander award.
However, Little reports of Mann's ruling National CommentEven if the ruling may benefit from such rulings, the same will be true of their lawsuits or reductions in rulings.
Mark Steyn Enterprises Inc. Just news.
Expert report: Mann's approach is “deceptive and misleading”
In 2012, Simberg published an article on his blog comparing the Penn State survey with assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who felt guilty of 10 years of sexual abuse in 15 years with a study of Mann's global historical temperature, as shown by scientists' controversial Hockey Stick.
Steyn cites Simberg's post and calls Mann's research “fraud”.
Mann believes his reputation has been hurt due to these positions. Other scientists have criticized the method Mann used to create graphics.
Dr. Judith Curry, president of Climate Forecast Application Network, wrote in an expert report for lawyer Steyn, she believes it is It is reasonable to call a chart “fraud” in the sense that it is in its aspect deceptive and misleading. transparent
Comparison with Sandusky's hyperbolic line is what makes Steyn and Simberg landing in hot water.
Scientific American Have described it The initial $1 million reward is “victory” And say The case is a “warning to those who attack scientists who work in controversial fields.”
this Washington Post The verdict was also described as a “victory” and said “this is increasingly attacking scientists not only working on climate change, but also working on vaccines and other issues.”
When environmentalists are on the receiving end of defamation lawsuits, traditional media like Washington Post Aggregate around the slander of the defendant by posting sympathy stories.
In the case of opposing Greenpeace postal “In this case, a bad ruling could bring dangerous rights and freedoms to all of us, whether we are journalists, protesters or anyone who wants to participate in a public debate,” said Sushma Raman, a senior executive of Greenpeace.
The question in the Steyn case is whether traditional media cares about protecting the rights of journalists who may be unpopular with journalists.
one New York Times Two days before the award was announced, Mann read the dramatic narrative of harmful blog posts.
“The court case is in a time period that completely denies the decline in climate science, but the integrity of scientists has become a bigger goal” era Reporter Delger Erdenesanah wrote.
and postal and Scientific American article, era The article has no examples of these alleged “attacks” against climate scientists, such as screenshots or quotes.
The entire claim is based on statements that climate scientists claim they have been attacked, which makes it difficult to determine whether their statements are represented by excessive attack or simply legitimate criticism.
To strengthen its claim that scientists are attacking, era The article cites a study against the Center for Digital Hate that YouTube is profiting from a form of climate denial called a new form.
This so-called “denial” example is to say that clean energy doesn't work, climate policy is harmful, and suggests uncertainty in climate science – anything that criticizes the political agenda of climate activists.
A humble scientist
While traditional media celebrated the award and seemed to see climate policy as an “attack” on climate scientists, critics of Mann's research fear that the $1 million award would limit their ability to double-check its claims and other celebrity scientists.
[Mann] Think of him as a rock star in science, but he is really a rock star in rhetoric
Anthony Watts, senior researcher at the Heartland Institute for Environment and Climate, told Just news That Mann's lawsuit is driven by his self rather than science.
“Scientists should be modest. They should be about facts, not about rhetoric. It has nothing to do with their vision and belief systems, and has nothing to do with politics.
“Dr.man is everything. He considers himself a rock star in science, but he is a rock star in rhetoric,” Watts said. …Sniper…
Severe excessive
Written in “Volokh conspiracyLegal expert Eugene Volokh pointed out that in the decision to reduce the verdict, the judge did not challenge the jury's findings, that Steen and Sandberg had initiated Mann. The problem is the punitive reward.
In a statement, the statement made on behalf of Steyn, Schaerr Jaffe LLP said the original award was “seriously overexcessive” and reduced “significant victory.”
Legal expert Jonathan Adler predicted shortly after the initial judgment that punitive damages would be easy to appeal.
Very good news @MarkSteyNonline. The judge reduced the (incorrect) punitive damage award from $1 million to an insulting $5,000.
Meanwhile, more than $500,000 in legal fees have been awarded against Mann to support the state review. I'm wondering why CEI didn't commit a similar commit… pic.twitter.com/awvbmy4qms
– Stephen McIntyre (@climateaudit) March 4, 2025
“Under the precedent of the existing Supreme Court, excessive punitive damages violate due process. Therefore, for example, in BMW v. Gore, North Americathe court ruled that the punitive damages of $2 million were too high given the plaintiff's only $2,000 in damages.
The court held that this 1000-to-1 ratio even takes into account the extent to which the defendant engages in serious behavior, and there is no reasonable reason. ” Adler isVolokh conspiracy” 2024.
Mann's attractiveness to reduction depends on his ability to prove that reduction is “abuse of discretion.”
The Court of Appeal will only overturn the trial court's decision to approve remittances if the decision is unreasonable or based on incorrect legal standards.
Mann must argue that the 1,000,000-to-1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages is not an exaggeration.
The court may have decided that Steyn and Sandberg's criticism of Mann's “Hockey Stick” image was too much, but criticism of Mann's “Hockey Stick” image and other aspects of scientists' behavior remained safely protected by the First Amendment.
Read the full post in the news
