February 8, 2024

"The climate scientist Michael Mann on Thursday won his defamation lawsuit against Rand Simberg... and Mark Steyn...."

"The six-member jury announced its unanimous verdict after a four-week trial in District of Columbia Superior Court and one full day of deliberation. They found both Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn guilty of defaming Dr. Mann with multiple false statements and awarded the scientist $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. The jury also found the writers had made their statements with 'maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm,' and levied punitive damages of $1,000 against Mr. Simberg and $1 million against Mr. Steyn in order to deter others from doing the same."

From "Michael Mann, a Leading Climate Scientist, Wins His Defamation Suit/The researcher had sued two writers for libel and slander over comments about his work. The jury awarded him damages of more than $1 million" (NYT).

I'm very sorry to see this. I've been following the trial through the "Climate Change on Trial" podcast.

87 comments:

R C Belaire said...

Mann's "hockey stick" graph remains fine-tuned bulls**t.

rehajm said...

I'm sorry to hear. Hopefully the jury were home on time for dinner...

Anga2010 said...

You and me both.

Oso Negro said...

Should there even be a court in the District of Columbia?

boatbuilder said...

And yet you have no problem with the E. Jean Carroll travesty.

The $1 damages tells you what a pile of BS lawfare this case was. Punitives of $1Million on Steyn to make sure he and others shut up is completely anathema to what we are supposed to stand for as a country.

JZ said...

It’s hard to reconcile the verdict with the daily podcasts. I guess an appeal was likely either way. It will take another 10 years and Mark Seyn isn’t healthy. I look forward to their next report.

Dude1394 said...

Anyone thinking we have a just justice system any more is a fool.

dubbyhesspdx said...

Will there be a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a dismissal based on Mann’s misconduct relating to evidence he knew was false.

And Steyn is too ill to appeal this verdict.

Leland said...

For Simberg, as Steyn represented himself, the cost of 12 years of legal counsel and going to trial far exceeds the fines, but the whole thing is bullshit. Simberg is right that Penn State exonerated Mann for his scientific misconduct in a manner similar to how they dismissed Sandusky’s much worse behavior. That Mann manipulated the data was shown by many other scientists in the trial. That the Penn State investigation was manipulated by the University’s President seems clear by the defense witnesses. Mann’s claim he didn’t want to be associated with a child molester apparently doesn’t extend to proudly thanking a man that hid the child molestation and went to jail for it. Finally, Mann mischaracterized damages by nearly $9 million for 8 years of the trial, and then presented that mischaracterization as fact while testifying under threat of perjury.

I don’t understand the judge not carrying about the jury being late and was astonished by the podcast mentioning one juror checking their cellphone during Steyn’s closing arguments. In Harris County, cellphones are given to the bailiff the moment you are selected to be on the jury and while in court.

mccullough said...

The jury found them liable, not “guilty.”

The NYT displays its ignorance. Again.

Big Mike said...

NO!!!!

Original Mike said...

Crap.

hombre said...

Anyone who opposes the regime or the narrative will get it in the shorts from scofflaw DC juries.

Joe Smith said...

Un fucking believable.

Can the rest of the country secede from DC?

America is broken.

Mason G said...

Somebody whose business/livelihood has been damaged by this "global warming" nonsense being pushed by Mr. Mann should sue him- say, in Wyoming or Idaho. Let him defend himself as best he can and then be forced to suck up a "guilty" verdict, rendered by a jury who doesn't give a shit about his defense and then awards $10 million in punitive damages.

These are the new rules now, right?

rhhardin said...

DC jury.

Josephbleau said...

The Manhattan Contrarian blog has been good on this. Mann really proved himself to be a manipulator of truth, not merely in the hockey stick, but in his professional ethical dealings. This is really sad for the country.

One thing this does do is completely remove any stigma or shame for Trump in the rape case. We have seen the machinery work now. This is a Gell-Mann Amnesia event (ha ha, Mann). We see a DC jury find for a creature like Mann with no plausible evidence and then assume that the Trump jury in NYC was pure and pristine in unbiasedness. Not the case. But juries are not there to find the truth, they are just there to find.

Chalk up a win for the DC jury pool. The outcome really impresses me, negatively.

https://www.manhattancontrarian.com

Rabel said...

The proper function of our legal system depends on a degree of integrity from the officers of the court and the juries.

We have lost that in some jurisdictions. I don't see how we get it back.

Jupiter said...

"I'm very sorry to see this."

Well, maybe you should help support Steyn's appeal.

Mike of Snoqualmie said...

Michael Mann couldn't climate scientist his way out of a paper bag. His predictions run 2.5x hotter than reality. His background is Venusian atmospherics, where CO2 pressures are 88 bar, instead of 0.04 bar in Earth's atmosphere.

Owen said...

What a disgrace: by the court, by Mann, by Mann’s counsel, by the six morons in the jury box.

A very dark day for Science, free speech and the rule of law.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

Wow, Democrats carry out miscarriage of justice! Story at 11!

awarded the scientist $1 in compensatory damages from each writer

Which means all teh punitive damages are going to get wiped

Josephbleau said...

Breaking news: Jury drones jump the shark to save the Mann.

Josephbleau said...

Lessons Learned: Blue juries don't tolerate people who tell the truth.

AlbertAnonymous said...

DC Superior Court ? Says it all.

OldManRick said...

Proof there is no justice from a DC jury. Just politics.

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...

This is beyond silly. If nothing else, Simberg's was the more inflammatory of the two posts, so why does he get off with a thousandth of the costs? Steyn, meanwhile, is broke.

I wanna say "DC juries," but I thought even one of those could have seen through this preposterous prosecution.

OldManRick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Joe Biden Is Corrupt said...

what a crock of shit.

George Binder said...

DC jury. Not at all surprising.

George Binder said...

DC jury. Not at all surprising.

Creola Soul said...

He may have won in the eyes of the jury, but he didn’t come out of this unscathed. He, and his hockey stick, took some serious damage……just not enough.

Rich said...

I image the Althouse Editorial Board might be worried this case could have a "stifling effect on free speech and open debate in science". I noted that too. Science is all about debate and evidence, but when you defame someone by calling them a liar and comparing them to a pedophile, that’s not scientific disagreement or protected speech. But you're probably considered a badass at recess...

Shane said...

I think it’s pretty obvious that DC juries are burying the idea that being judged by a jury of your elites is destroying faith in our judicial system.

Dave Begley said...

DC juries are plainly lawless. This was a political show trial. It proves the power of the CAGW scam.

If Steyn got hit for $1m, I can only imagine what the Libs would do to me for my OPPD comments.

Sebastian said...

Lefty lawfare works. In DC especially.

By the way, jury, what damages did Mann suffer?

Floris said...

I listened to the podcast as well, and I am shocked by this verdict. Two suppositions:

1) The podcast did not fairly summarize the evidence presented at the trial, or

2) A conservative can't get a fair jury trial in D.C.

Fred Drinkwater said...

Where's the gofundme or equivalent? If verdict upheld, I want to contribute. Heavily.

Humperdink said...

Another Commie-Pinko jurisdiction rules against a Conservative. Radio host Jesse Kelly has it right. If you're in one these areas, move. I realize Stein didn't live in DC, but he was trapped there anyway. Trump's next.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Very distressing.

When his university provided cover for him by saying "We investigated our guy and he's fine" it gve Mann's side a powerful weapon. Shameful.

Barry Dauphin said...

This is very bad. Michael Mann is a public figure, and there is a lot of latitude about the ways of criticizing him, mocking him and making fun of him. He’s done everything possible to make himself a public figure. It should be essentially open season on him with very little recourse for this kind of lawsuit. This seemed like such a slam dunk for Simberg and Steyn. This is real through the Looking Glass stuff. Beware of criticizing the climate change clergy.

TickTock said...

It is clear why DC is the favored venue of the Democrats. Such a travesty.

Static Ping said...

DC is the most corrupt place in the country.

We are truly ruled by the worst of us.

Josephbleau said...

Steyn says: So all I have to do is tell the truth, and then be convicted by your intolerant DC juries for telling the truth! OK let's go!

Josephbleau said...

As a hiring professional at a tech company, I am going to drift away from Penn State but silently. Mann has hurt the University.

tim in vermont said...

The Democrats have found the gash below the waterline of our system of "justice" and are exploiting it for all its worth.

Eva Marie said...

Michelle Dulak Thomson said...
“This is beyond silly. If nothing else, Simberg's was the more inflammatory of the two posts, so why does he get off with a thousandth of the costs? Steyn, meanwhile, is broke.”
If the podcast gave an accurate portrayal of the court proceedings, Mark Steyn did himself no favors by being his own lawyer.

tim in vermont said...

The whole purpose of this lawsuit, and this award, is to shut down the climate debate.

" but when you defame someone by calling them a liar and comparing them to a pedophile, that’s not scientific disagreement or protected speech"

He has been shown to be a liar to the satisfaction of any disinterested person who has at least 12th grade math skills, his hockey stick has been demonstrated to be complete bullshit, if he earned his PhD with it, then he earned his PhD fraudulently, and since we can assume that he actually understood what he was writing in his famous paper, then we can say that he is a liar.

This is jury nullification of math. Not a surprise given the location of the trial.

Joe Biden Is Corrupt said...

Michael Mann is a brat, a liar, a fraud - and even his colleagues think so.
He is a thin-skinned loser - who needed to lose.

that he didn't lose, is proof our Leninst judicial system is broken.

Josephbleau said...

I will never hire anyone from penn sate again. I dont hire from Penn anyway.

Josephbleau said...

" but when you defame someone by calling them a liar and comparing them to a pedophile, that’s not scientific disagreement or protected speech. But you're probably considered a badass at recess..."

Rich, you are the one who defames.

The Genius Savant said...

Those damages don't fit that the jury actually wanted to find liability but likely thought they had to

traditionalguy said...

Again DC is all organized crime. No wonder the military has recruiting failures. Why risk one’s life to protect that continuous hoodlum criminality operation preying on brave white men?

Jonathan Burack said...

This is an astounding outcome. More evidence that we are in very deep trouble.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

That was an awesome podcast. Too bad the jury couldn’t watch it too.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

I wonder what the $999,000 difference was to the jury between Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg? Is it just that people have heard of Mark Steyn and haven’t heard of Rand Simberg?

Joe Biden Is Corrupt said...

"This is like being black and facing a jury in the Deep South in the 50’s."

Indeed.

Mark said...

"This is beyond silly. If nothing else, Simberg's was the more inflammatory of the two posts, so why does he get off with a thousandth of the costs?"

Which one hired a lawyer? Might have something g to do with how they fared in a court case.

Steyn was a fool and the amount of people acting like him representing himself was not a part of the result are complete idiots.

Here's a hint, when law is involved, hire an attorney.

Ceroth said...

We don't follow the dictates of the corrupt simpletons that sit on DC courts. Mann is corrupt and he lied. I hope they don't pay. I hope they keep saying the truth about Mann.

Jamie said...

I don't get what damage Mann suffered. He went from Penn State, a good regional school, to UPenn, an ivy. He continues to be invited to the same cocktail parties and conferences and boondoggles as before - I'm guessing actually to more of them and with larger role than before.

Naturally we don't know who's on the jury (do we? I saw no sketches of them or anything). But if it was, as everyone is saying, a "typical DC jury," odds are that Steyn's accent and inflection counted heavily against him. I don't give any jury in that place any benefit of the doubt at all for having tried to be finders of fact.

Dude1394 said...

He’s those are the new rules.

“ Blogger Mason G said...
Somebody whose business/livelihood has been damaged by this "global warming" nonsense being pushed by Mr. Mann should sue him- say, in Wyoming or Idaho. Let him defend himself as best he can and then be forced to suck up a "guilty" verdict, rendered by a jury who doesn't give a shit about his defense and then awards $10 million in punitive damages.

These are the new rules now, right?”

Josephbleau said...

How does it feel to be a lying sack of shit and win, mannhole!

Josephbleau said...

What are we proles to learn, that assholes will make us pay a million dollars if we make fun of them? Citizens are to be crushed under the man holes. Vote democrat, then you will have freedom.

Readering said...

USSC has basically capped punis at 10× compensatory, so the only thing that might sting is if Mann has a theory to get attorney's fees. He seened surrounded by a lot of lawyers. Meanwhile Steyn illustrates the adage, he who represents himself has a fool for a client.

PB said...

DC jury.

Howard said...

It's a horrible result

wendybar said...

Dude1394 said...
Anyone thinking we have a just justice system any more is a fool.

2/8/24, 6:20 PM

THIS^^^ Lady Justice's scales broke...only leans left permanently now.

typingtalker said...

Judith Curry's Ethics Complaint Against Michael Mann

Mann’s lawyer introduced into evidence an old ethics complaint against Michael Mann that I had addressed to the Penn State administration.

Climate Etc.

Saint Croix said...

I don't get what damage Mann suffered.

He suffered $1 worth of damage.

Punitive damages have nothing to do with Mann and everything to do with shutting up Republicans.

Punitive damages are usually capped at 4 to 1 on appeal. Over 10 to 1 is usually said to be unconstitutional.

So a million to one? In a free speech case?

This is a train wreck of a defamation case. That it took so long is just as embarrassing for the judicial system as the result.

tim maguire said...

Would the outcome have been different if Steyn didn’t represent himself?

Tina Trent said...

Steyn was in terribly poor physical shape coming into the courtroom after three recent heart attacks: were he in fighting condition, things might have turned out differently.

He has fought valiantly for our rights; now it's time for us to pay the bill falsely placed on him by our joke of a justice system.

Another old lawyer said...

Stern might have come out ahead financially. He might have spent $1M or more paying lawyers to defend himself in the years since the suit was filed.

The process is the punishment.

Another old lawyer said...

Sorry, another "autocorrect" typo. Steyn, not Stern.

Rich said...

Steyn’s approach has been to treat the case as a fundraiser and clickbaiter from the start. The irony is that his co-defendant got hit with $1,000 in punitive damages and Steyn was hit with $1,000,000. The maxim is proved again: the man who represents himself has a fool for a client.

Tina Trent said...

Rich: you're speaking in ignorance. Mann misrepresented his purported grantee damages by many millions of dollars, under oath. Steyn did not make the comparison to Sandusky, and it is misrepresented anyway. I could go on because I followed the case, and not through podcasts, though they will do us a service in the future when we unpack the many iterations of destroying our freedom of speech.

That's why they call it the peanut gallery: it is from whence the lower primates fling their empty little shells.

H said...

We may lose the Presidency. We may lose the House and Senate. We may lose our majority on the Supreme Court. But we'll always (ALWAYS) have NYC and DC juries. That's why we have turned to law fare as our basic strategy.

H said...

We may lose the Presidency. We may lose the House and Senate. We may lose our majority on the Supreme Court. But we'll always (ALWAYS) have NYC and DC juries. That's why we have turned to law fare as our basic strategy.

Leland said...

USSC has basically capped punis at 10× compensatory, so the only thing that might sting is if Mann has a theory to get attorney's fees

Mann testified on the stand he didn’t pay any attorney.

Michael Mann is a public figure, and there is a lot of latitude about the ways of criticizing him, mocking him and making fun of him.

That theory was crushed when the DC court decided the lawsuit wasn’t SLAPP, which if you listened to testimony, it is hard to figure out how the court came to that conclusion. There were other people in the courtroom that said worse of Mann before Simberg then Steyn, but they didn’t have a connection to National Review. Evidence was presented that Mann brought this lawsuit to destroy National Review, and Mann’s funding for the lawsuit came from third parties. Note also that Simberg lives in California, Mann was in Pennsylvania, and Steyn was in Canada, but the case was tried in a DC court.

Rocco said...

Tina Trent said...
“Rich: That's why they call it the peanut gallery: it is from whence the lower primates fling their empty little shells.”

Or in Rich’s case, they fling something else.

Owen said...

Rich: gloating is bad enough: it spoils the tone of the conversation. Ignorant gloating is worse: it reduces the information content of the conversation and people have to stop and issue corrections for you.

Do better, OK?

RigelDog said...

I feel crushed.

Tina Trent said...

Fred: Steyonline has multiple ways to contribute. Content is free, and rich, from books read and discussed, to film and music reviews and music history, to interviews. If you subscribe, you can comment.

tim in vermont said...

Tina Trent is stealing my material. Must have stung.

Dr. Graphene said...

This outcome is criminal and must be overturned on appeal. Mann is patently dishonest and his counsel should be disbarred. I am not sorry, I am outraged. There simply is no way to reconcile this result with the evidence presented (or not presented at trial).

Jim at said...

but when you defame someone by calling them a liar and comparing them to a pedophile, that’s not scientific disagreement or protected speech.

But apparently it's OK to call them a rapist and when that person denies it, 83 large is coming your way, right?

You have no idea of the shitstorm you're creating. And excusing.
None.

Rich said...

Steyn treated the case like a circus from the start. Ten years ago he fired his attorneys and sued Mann for suing him, which is not a thing unless and until you win.

Tina Trent said...

If I missed something you said, Tim, I apologize.