| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Signs, Portents, and the Weather- |
| Steyn, Simberg Found Liable in Mann Suit |
| 2024-02-10 |
| [PJMedia] The D.C. Circuit Court has ruled: Commentator Mark Steyn and space blogger and sometime PJ contributor Rand Simberg, after 13 years of legal maneuvering funded by a dark money group... That would be the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund ...are indeed liable for defaming Michael Mann by reporting on the way he was lying about being a Nobel laureate and engaging in a concerted effort to defame other climate scientists — including accusing Judith Curry of sleeping her way to the top, using statistical methods to generate the results he wanted (research malpractice for mere mortals).For which he was awarded $1 each from Steyn and Simberg in compensatory damages. This would be a laughable award, except the jury then piled on punitive damages: $1,000,000 from Steyn and $1,000 from Simberg. Mann's attorneys made a play for the D.C. jury and cashed in. I reported on the climate controversy extensively at the time. A good summary is in "Climategate: The Big Picture" and "Climategate: Violating the Social Contract of Science." The biggest complaint against Mann was that the Hockey Stick was actively fraudulent. The Climategate emails revealed a lot of bad science, including things like Mann adjusting his data in order to get the result he wanted. (This became known as what Mann was doing to "hide the decline" when the raw data didn't provide the results he wanted.) Curry has published what was to be her statement in Steyn and Simberg's defense. It wasn't accepted into evidence, but it is a good summary of the problems with Mann's work. As she says: Accusations that the Hockey Stick is a "fraud" have permeated the public debate about the graph for more than twenty years. In one of the most famous of the Climategate emails, Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia referred to Michael Mann’s "trick" in the Hockey Stick graph when he wrote: "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."55 This phrase — "Mikes Nature trick . . . to hide the decline" — went viral. And it stoked an already politically and scientifically charged debate. Honestly, at this point, my reaction to the most idiotic decisions by a D.C. jury mostly just makes me think, "Well, that happened." But this one is a head-scratcher. I imagine there will be an appeal. Indeed. Related: Mark Steyn: 2023-10-12 Did Hamas just jump the shark? Mark Steyn: 2023-09-29 Mark Steyn: The Dames of Descending Darkness Mark Steyn: 2022-02-18 Quite remarkable how openly they admit what they are doing. Related: Rand Simberg: 2014-08-18 In heated war of words, my money is on Mark Steyn Rand Simberg: 2014-05-17 Declare space independence from Russia Rand Simberg: 2010-06-09 A simple question |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #8 "Willfully blind" I have found there is little imrovement with age. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2024-02-10 12:17 |
| #7 "Willfully blind" I have found there is little imrovement with age. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2024-02-10 12:17 |
| #6 Rand Simberg will likely bow out at this point. After all 1,001 $US is probably what he spent just staying in DC for the trial! Steyn is now the last man standing. Still, this case is the very reason that the SLAPP laws were passed. You would have to be be wilfully blind to miss it. |
| Posted by: magpie 2024-02-10 11:56 |
| #5 I think the more serious problem is the rationale presented by Mann's attorney for the excessive punitive damages. Paraphrasing, he said the figure was effectively to discourage any potential 'climate deniers' in the future. Or, so much for free speech in the DC hive mind. |
| Posted by: Cesare 2024-02-10 10:51 |
| #4 Incidentally, Watts Up With That links to an analysis that points out In a statement, a spokesperson for Steyn said the $1 damages award proves the jury found Mann didn’t suffer any losses. “We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue. And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages,” said Steyn’s manager, Melissa Howes. “The punitive damage award of one million dollars will have to face due process scrutiny under U.S. Supreme Court precedent.” The U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that punitive damages awards 10 times greater than compensatory damages awards are generally unconstitutional. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2024-02-10 10:06 |
| #3 Are you thinking of the Dr. Tim Ball lawsuit in British Columbia, Bobby? The court dismissed it in 2019, and Professor Mann had to pay Ball’s legal costs. Dr. Tim Ball Defeats Michael ‘Hockey Stick' Mann's Climate Lawsuit. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2024-02-10 10:03 |
| #2 Whatever happened to the Mann vs. Steyn suit in Canada - where the level of proof is somewhat lower? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2024-02-10 08:25 |
| #1 Better chance of a accused black man getting fair trial in the Deep South of the 30's than anyone right of Karl Marx getting a fair trial in DC. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2024-02-10 06:43 |