Followup: Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Case

Mark Steyn (pictured here) and Rand Simberg
lost a lawsuit brought by climatologist
Michael Mann, who contended the pair
defamed him in inflammatory blog posts. 

A followup for you from a post I made last month about climatologist Michael Mann's defamation lawsuit against climate deniers he said defamed him.   

Last week, a jury agreed. 

Reports the Washington Post: 

"A jury in a civil trial in Washington on Thursday found that the two writers, Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, defamed and injured the researcher in a pair of blog posts published in 2012, and awarded him more than $1 million. 

'I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,; Mann said in a statement.

The jury awarded Mann $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn in punitive damages, meant to punish wrongdoing. And it granted Mann $1 for compensatory damaged from each writer for Mann's actual losses."

The verdict comes as scientists are increasingly under attack from the far right ring and a variety of fringe, conspiracy-oriented whack jobs who are attacking not only climate science but a wide variety of subjects. 

These include vaccines, and a wide variety of other scientific facts, including - unbelievably - whether the world is flat.  

Although I think the verdict was justified  - I, and many others apparently judging from the Washington Post article -  worry about how the case might stifle free speech and open debate  

WaPo:

"Inflammatory does not equal defamatory,' Victoria Weatherford, an attorney for Simberg repeatedly told the jury during the trial.

True, but it's telling that the jury decided Simberg was for liable for comparing Mann to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky but not for other statements he made criticizing Mann's scientific work

It sounds like the jury wisely tried to avoid stepping on potential First Amendment rights, no matter who noxious that "free speech" from Simberg might have been. I'm slightly more comfortable with inaccurate criticism of a scientist's work than I am with baselessly tying the scientist to a heinous crime. 

Mann's fellow climate activists and lawyers seemed to say the same thing.   

Michael Mann, among the world's most prominent
climatologists, was defamed in an inflammatory blog
posts and was awarded a bit more than $1 million
in a jury trial last week. 

 As Nature reports:

"It's perfectly legitimate to criticize scientific findings, but this verdict is a strong signal that individual scientists shouldn't be accused of serious misconduct without strong evidence,' says Michael Gerrard, a legal scholar at Columbia University's Sabin Center for Climate change Law in New York City."

Lyrissa Lidsky, a defamation expert at the University of Florida similarly chimed in for the Washington Post: "We normally let scientists fight it out amongst themselves to discover what the truth is....In these science cases, theres's a lot of leeway for opinion. It doesn't mean there's carte blanche to lie about another scientist"

The lying Lidsky refers to was one of the central subjects of the lawsuit. The defendants accused Mann of illicitly manipulating data to support his conclusions. Close to 10 organizations, including the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the National Science Foundation investigating Mann after the allegations.    

As I wrote last month: 

"All the organizations that investigated Mann found that his science was solid, all of his research was properly conducted, and the facts he presented in his work were indeed facts. The hockey stick was proven to be a real thing."

Despite that widely accepted legal precedents, you still gotta give Steyn credit for being, um, headstrong.  

WaPo again:

"During closing arguments, Steyn, a radio and TV personality who spoke for himself during much of the trial, said he still 'stand(s) on the truth of every word I wrote about Michael Mann, his fraudulent hockey stick and the corrupt investigation process at Penn State.'"

Mann told Nature that he hopes the win "signals the beginning of the end of the open season on scientists by ideologically motivated bad actors. And maybe, just maybe, the facts and reason still matter even in today's fraught political economy."

Given the hyperbolic state of everything from politics to social media these days, Mann ought not hold his breath. 

This whole lawsuit thing got started in 2012 and only now got to a verdict. And it's not over yet. 

Mann said he plans to appeal a 2021 D.C. Superior Court decision that held National Review and Competitive Enterprise Institute not liable for defamation even though they published the attacks by Simberg and Steyn.

 In addition, it looks Steyn will appeal the $1 million in punitive damage.

The libertarian publication Reason opined that the punitive damages are the most vulnerable part of the jury's decision.  There is Supreme Court precedence that excess punitive damages violate Due Process.  Is the $1 million in punitive damages excessive?

I have no fricken' idea. 

But it's clear the legal battle will go on.  I do think people should be held accountable for wild ad hominen  attacks that pass for "discourse" these days.