On Thursday, Michael Mann, a climate scientist, prevailed in his defamation action against Mark Steyn, a writer for National Review, and Rand Simberg, a former adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The trial took onlookers back to 2012, when the blogosphere was at its peak and there were bitter debates about whether or not global warming is real. This period was described as “a feral time” by psychology researcher and climate disinformation blogger John Cook.
Following a four-week trial in the District of Columbia Superior Court and a full day of deliberation, the six-member jury announced its unanimous judgment. They found Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn guilty of repeatedly making false claims to defame Dr. Mann, and they gave the scientist $1 in compensatory damages from each of the authors. Additionally, the jury determined that the writers’ words were made with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance, or deliberate intent to harm” and assessed $1 million in punitive damages against Mr. Steyn and $1,000 against Mr. Simberg to discourage others from doing similar actions.
Understanding the Michael Mann defamation case
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy interviewed Tim Ball, who accused Mann of defamation regarding the CRU email controversy.
Mann sued the Centre and its interviewer, Ball, for false accusations. The Centre apologized for the accusations, but Mann continued to sue. Ball applied to dismiss the case for delay, which was granted. Court costs were awarded to Ball, but the actual defamation claims were not judged. Mann and his legal team were held responsible for the case’s dismissal due to delay, leaving Mann and his legal team responsible.
Mann, a climatologist, faced defamation allegations from Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) blogger Rand Simberg in 2012.
Simberg accused Mann of engaging in data manipulation and claiming that the Penn State investigation cleared Mann was a “cover-up and whitewash”.
CEI removed the sentence, but a National Review blog post by Mark Steyn cited it and alleged Mann’s hockey stick graph was “fraudulent”. Mann asked CEI and National Review to remove the allegations or take action.
The National Review and CEI filed a court motion to dismiss the case under anti-SLAPP legislation. However, the judge ruled against this motion and in January 2014, Steyn decided to represent himself in court. The D.C. appeals court ruled that Mann’s case against Simberg and Steyn could go ahead, and a “reasonable jury” could find against the defendants.
The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition without comment, and the DC Superior Court ruled that Steyn’s actual malice cannot be imputed to National Review. The lawsuit against Steyn and Simberg went to trial in January 2024, and Mann was awarded punitive damages of $1,000 against Simberg and $1 million against Steyn.
Michael Mann wins the defamation suit
Climate scientist Michael Mann bravely filed a defamation lawsuit in 2012 after being accused of fraud by writers for National Review and a well-known conservative think tank, who also likened him to serial child abuser Jerry Sandusky. Citing legislation from Washington, DC, that protects journalists against pointless lawsuits, the defendants asked to have the case dismissed. However, the application was denied by DC Superior Court Judge Frederick Weisberg on Wednesday, setting the stage for a trial.
Additionally, Weisberg defended Mann’s complaint against fraud allegations, arguing that they could pass the test. He dismissed the defendants’ claim that the allegations were “pure opinion,” which is protected by the First Amendment.
Factual allegations, such as fraudulent research, manipulation of data, or distorting scientific truth, are actionable and can be proven true or false. Mann’s case has been disrupted by several setbacks, including Steptoe & Johnson withdrawing as a law firm representing National Review and its writer, Mark Steyn, and plans to drop the publication as a client. The climate change skeptics’ case remains in turmoil.
However, a former Penn State football coach was accused of defaming climate scientists by Simberg and Steyn. Simberg called Mann’s work “fraudulent” and Mann, a former climate scientist, the “Sandusky of climate science.” The jury ruled that Simberg and Steyn defamed Mann through their statements, resulting in compensatory damages of $1 for each writer and punitive damages of $1000 for Mann and $1 million for Steyn. Mann did not respond to the verdict, but expressed hope that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.
