Steyn loses and Mann wins in “hockey stick” defamation trial
The trial was held in DC. Increasingly, that’s all you need to know in order to predict the outcome.
This trial was apparently twelve years in the making, and it’s not over yet because there will be an appeal. Here’s John Hinderaker’s report:
Today the jury returned its verdict in the defamation trial of Michael Mann v. Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn. The verdict was disappointing to those of us who followed the case and thought that Michael Mann presented a pathetically inadequate case. The jury actually agreed: it found that the defendants had defamed Mann, but awarded only a token $1 in damages, since Mann had failed to prove any. But it found that both Simberg and Steyn acted with actual malice–they didn’t actually believe what they said about Mann–and awarded punitive damages in the amount of $1,000 against Simberg, and $1 million against Steyn.
As we’ve seen from the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, juries often express themselves quite prejudicially and vindictively when in comes to setting punitive damages.
More from Hinderaker:
In this case, there was no evidence whatever that Steyn and Simberg didn’t sincerely believe that what they said was true. Indeed, as Mark pointed out in closing argument, he has been saying the same things about Mann’s hockey stick for something like 21 years, and even wrote a book about it.
Ah, but the jurors were mind-readers, and they know better. Or perhaps they just meant to punish anyone who went against the current leftist position on global warming, and to reward those who promote it:
… [T]he case is destined for more years in the appellate courts. In John Williams’ closing argument on behalf of Mann, he said that the jury should award punitive damages so that in the future, no one will dare engage in “climate denialism”–whatever that is–just as Donald Trump’s “election denialism” needs to be suppressed. In 41 years of trying cases to juries, I never heard such an outrageously improper appeal. John Williams should be ashamed of himself, but he won’t be, because this jury apparently bought his argument: they want to make Mark Steyn pay $1 million out of his own pocket, to a plaintiff who suffered no damages but only made an ideological argument, so that no one will, ever again, try to challenge the regime’s global warming narrative. However false that narrative may be.
This is the direction in which the US legal system is going.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/02/08/jcs-expert-report/
Does anyone doubt that the true purpose of our civil justice system is to 1). enrich lawyers and 2). punish those who would dare question the globablist narratives on things like climate, colonialism, racial equity and the like?
its a trick they learned from the Arab power players who were challenged not only by major broadsheets, but independents like rachel ehrenfeld, truth is not a defense, see the judge that refused to fine maddow, for her fragrant insinuations against one America news, Guiliani wasn’t allowed to present his evidence in that Kangaroo case, known fraud peddlers like Marc Elias re the Danchenko dossier)are allowed to proffer other affirmations of dublous veracity, as they attack Cleta Mitchell and other voting integrity expert, in the Dominion case, opinions from figures who had no insight were allowed to predominate, Reid Hoffman who was involved in skullduggery about Roy Moore, using digital means who had tenuous ties to Epstein, they are funding dubious legal actions,
I commented in OT before this topic appeared. I’ll repeat it here because that’s how strongly I feel:
What I had not heard before was the genuine, irrevocable damage Michael Mann had done to climate scientist, Judith Curry, by calling her a “serial climate disinformer”:
_____________________________________________
Prior to this article, Mann had said a lot of very bad things about me. But this is the one that destroyed my academic career. I first spotted this article on Georgia Tech’s daily news feed, that highlights all the mentions of Georgia Tech in the media. A link to Mann’s huffington post article appeared near the top of the news feed, including the serial climate disinformer quote. For the first time in my life, I had the sensation of my heart falling to the floor. This news feed is emailed to all Georgia tech students, faculty members, administrators, alumni and donors. At the time I was under consideration for an appointment in the higher administration at Georgia Tech, I was one of three finalists for the position. Well this was definitely game over for that appointment.
That day, as I was trying to evaluate the fallout from this, I googled my name. The first page of the google search was filled with Judith Curry climate denier, judith curry science misinformer, Judith Curry climate heretic and so on. My first reaction was that this is really bad for Georgia tech’s brand. My second thought was that all this also made me unhirable at any other university. My third thought was that Michael mann’s destruction of my reputation and academic career was now complete. This is what real damage to someone’s career looks like.
https://judithcurry.com/2024/02/08/jcs-ethics-complaint-against-michael-mann/#more-30985
_____________________________________________
I have my heroes. Mark Steyn and Judith Curry are two. Michael Mann is on a different list.
We’ve lost the Rule of Law in liberal jurisdictions. The HI S. Ct. just abolished the Second Amendment.
If the judge had any guts, he’d grant a JNOV, vacate the jury’s verdict and find for the defendants. The jury ignored the instructions; a type of jury nullification.
This case must be reversed.
Vivek had this idea and I agree. Radically shrink the DC and give back to Maryland and VA the remainder.
One wag wrote on X than we are now in a Hunger Games model. The elites live in DC and we plebes out in the districts just live to support the elites.
I think even the 9th circus, might take exception to that, I can’t confirm that,
as one wag, auron mcintyre noted they cited a line from the Wire, the all too realistic depiction of the Baltimore dystopian landscape,
we are now in a Hunger Games model. The elites live in DC and we plebes out in the districts just live to support the elites.
Cornhead:
When I first noticed the Hunger Games, I took note of such cynicism emerging in Young Adult literature.
I wondered, perhaps, whether the young might be noticing that problem.
I guess the trick is whether they make the connection that the elites are not rich heartless conservatives in top hats, but seemingly friendly, yet cutthroat, woke oligarchs.
My niece is 24. She sees through most of this stuff. There may yet be a youth rebellion brewing but against the left.
Cornhead, Vivek’s idea is good; but the Virginia part of DC was already returned to Virginia, before the Civil War. The parts on the north and northeast sides of the Potomac should be returned to Maryland now, with only the immediate federal district around the Mall, White House, and Congress remaining.
so elon is challenging some of this dei, he still subscribes to the skydragon mythos, but ackman, is incurable in his misunderstanding of how we got here the entire infrastructure of leftist, that has reared it’s scorpion tentacle,
20 years ago, thereabouts Pat Fitzgerald enabled the kneecapping with the conviction of Conrad Black and the Telegraph and the National Post among others became a shadow of themselves, that was probably the daily that had most heterodox opinions on this matter, it didn’t matter that the Supreme Court
found fault, the damage was done, when you add that to the Libby case and other litigation on behalf of Michigan state vis a vis Larry Nassar, the Devils persecutor is not an inapt name for them
of course Comey was a player in that matter as was Mueller and Wray for that matter,
I find the term ‘climate denialism’ to be offensive, almost obscene. By attempting to mirror ‘holocaust denialism, it conflates a historical event…documented by photographs, written records, eyewitness testimony, and in many other ways..with an extremely complex set of physical phenomena, the understanding and future projection of which requires knowledge of chemistry, physics, meteorology, mathematical modeling, and botany, AND the making of many assumptions about unknown factors about these fields.
re the whole ‘misinformation’ / ‘disinformation’ thing, see these three essays from the thoughtful Ruxandra Teslo:
https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/misinformation-studies-as-scientific
https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/the-road-to-mental-serfdom-and-misinformation
https://www.writingruxandrabio.com/p/misinformation-iii-the-response-from
yes its a multistage process, the data that is misrepresented in the models, leads to a certain conclusion, that conclusion justifies draconian policies like those bandied about at Davos, similar to the models that underlay the lockdown,
1) supposed temperature increase of 1.5
2) increased impacts on agriculture, on water supply, supposed greater storms
3) solution curtailments of consumption of fossil fuels, meats other elements
Back in December, a post I did referencing one of Ruxandra’s above-mentioned essays on ‘disinformation’, along with the Wright Brothers, Robert Goddard, the New York TImes, and Vannevar Bush, with ensuing discussion:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/70374.html
A jury committed to “cutting down all the laws” to get after those who dare to disagree. People like them with their vindictive, ‘righteous’ bile are paving their own road to hell.
Apparently the fools don’t believe that, as they have judged, so shall they be judged. But then, mankind has never lacked for fools.
David Foster.
That was my exact reaction when I first heard the phrase “climate denialism.”
The Left is expert at corrupting the language; just like Orwell told us in “1984.”
There is no justice. Justice is dead in this country.
Miguel Cervantes — I had forgotten about the injustice done to Conrad Black.
Rand Simberg, the other defendant, wrote ‘Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,’ and Mark Steyne repeated it online.
They should have taken Samuel Johnson’s advice:
‘Read over your compositions, and wherever you meet with a passage which you think is particularly fine, strike it out.’
No doubt Mann and a lot of other researchers are guilty of shenanigans, but journalistic hit pieces don’t travel well or age well.
I hadn’t heard the name Jerry Sandusky in a while, but the last time I did, people were writing that he may not actually have been guilty, but just may not have known how to defend himself effectively.
He was guilty. As sin.
IrishOtter:
I suggest you might want to take a look at this as well as this.
I find the term ‘climate denialism’ to be offensive, almost obscene.
David Foster:
Quite so. Back in the 2000s I was on climate websites arguing against the denialist/denier labels.
I argued in principle that it was an imprecise (doesn’t everyone deny something?), emotionally overloaded term with intentional Holocaust resonances.
I argued that since the climate change position was supposed to be based on science, they were damaging their position by resorting to emotional propaganda appeals — like political hucksters.
Which, in this case and others, such as Covid, has come to pass.
Science has lost credibility. People don’t trust scientists as being those eccentric brilliant guys in lab coats devoted to Scientific Truth. Scientists have traded in that reputation and are now another whorish special interest group with ties to Big Money and Big Power.
No one but themselves to blame. Though so far, they lack any self-reflection, while the likes of Judith Curry are metaphorically burnt at the stake.
“Scientific American” ran an article calling Curry a “Heretic” in the title.
@ huxley > “while the likes of Judith Curry are metaphorically burnt at the stake.”
Well, that was fast.
https://www.thenewneo.com/2024/02/07/open-thread-2-7-24/#comment-2722438
See the bombing of Hinderaker’s foundation offices.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/arson-update.php
Husband thinks that “climate denier” is such an incendiary and prejudicial (not to mention absurd) term that the defendants should have petitioned the judge to keep the prosecution from using it.
huxley et al,
Mann also falsely accused Curry of “sleeping her way” to her PhD and spread that rumor in the scientific community. A real class act, that guy.
I listened to two days of testimony excerpt re-enactments on Phileem McAleer and Ann McIlhenny’s podcast. Those two days happened to coincide with Michael Mann’s time on the stand in the trial.
The case should have been thrown out before it reached trial. There is no demonstrable way Mann was damaged. Steyn and Simberg’s attorney both clearly demonstrated that Mann’s income and speaking engagements soared after the articles were published and Mann’s one example of reputation damage was a dirty look he claimed he got in a grocery store. Steyn and Simberg’s attorneys gave example after example where Mann showed himself to be a thin skinned narcissist, including often claiming he won a Nobel Prize.
A true, travesty of justice.
Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/climate-change-on-trial/id1713827256
Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6jDpaNT18Yg0t8kIvfV0Du
$1 Million “punitive damages so that in the future, no one will dare engage in ‘climate denialism'” is the fine for wrongthink and wrongspeak, and should you commit an act of the same, you may also be similarly fined!
Wrongthink and wrongspeak have now been officially prohibited by a decree of the court (without any such law having been enacted).
Just The News has done an unusually lengthy post-verdict assessment on late Friday night. Entitled “Celebrity climate scientist’s libel suit win raises concerns about free speech protections.”
And much more, such as Judith Curry’s defamation by The Mann is added.
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/celebrity-climate-scientists-victory-libel-suit-raises-concerns-about-free
Maybe our elected officials could work from home. The agencies could be evenly spread out over the nation, including the Terrtories. The citizens of DC could be wired off and supplied with such C-Rations as might still be found in various depots.
I kid. Sort of,but it beats nuking the place.
Donb, wrongthink, wrongspeak, and in the E. Jean Carroll case, wrongparty have all been made, if not quite illegal, very, very expensive. DC courts have at least two more opportunities to make the third on the list illegal. And at that point Democracy will have been saved.
This crusade against wrongthink and wrongspeak goes deeper, affecting whether students will be admitted to the study of climate related disciplines – think, energy economics, environmental studies, atmospheric chemistry, meteorology, etc. Even those who agree that humans can and currently do affect climate, the “Lukewarmers”, must sign on to the entire program (It’s all the human produced CO2, natural sources have no role in climate chemistry or weather) or be subjected to banishment and ridicule.
For those few who get through the academic sieves, professional opportunities will dwindle rapidly once the ‘denier’ label is placed on someone. Whether it is academic appointments, consulting engagements for energy investment projects, environmental impact assessments, membership on professional teams of environmental or energy scientists, or even speaking opportunities at professional conferences – the ‘science is settled’, there is no more to be discovered.
And on that score:
“X-rays will prove to be a hoax”
Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society, 1883
Albert Einstein, 1932 “There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean that the atom would have to be
shattered at will.”
“The abdomen, the chest and the brain will
forever be shut from the intrusion of the wise and humane surgeon”
Sir John Eric Ericson, Surgeon to Queen Victoria, 1870’s
“Louis Pasteur’s theory of germs
is ridiculous fiction”
Pierre Pachet, Professor of Physiology at Toulouse, 1872
“We are probably nearing the limit of
all we can know about astronomy”
Simon Newcomb, Astronomer, 1888
And here are 18 more failed predictions made on the first Earth Day (1970) by the Great and the Good of that era: https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/18-spectacularly-wrong-predictions-made-around-the-time-of-the-first-earth-day-in-1970-expect-more-this-year/
you forgot William Leahy’s remark about the atom bomb,
Miguel, I am sure I forgot a lot of nonsense from the past.
If you want to put the current climate hysteria in perspective:
Annual useful solar energy received by earth (i.e., what runs the tides, weather, photosynthesis, etc.) = 297 billion barrels of oil equivalent/day
Current hydrocarbon production = 386 million barrels of oil equivalent/day
Hydrocarbons as % of useful solar = 0.1299%
A 1% change in solar flux (happens all the time) is the same as a seven-fold increase in hydrocarbon use. And yet, we are supposed to believe that this hydrocarbon tail wags the solar dog.
he thought it would not work, yes its a question of scale and proportion, but the likes of mann and oppenheimer, who pioneered this tactic of catastrophic outcomes sans actual evidence, which I first saw illustrated in a novel by Whitley Striebers’ Collaborator Kinetka, later James Burke’s After the Warming, used similar scenarios, had the hockey stick come into being yet, this was around 1992,
Daniel Yergin suggests in his follow up to the Prize, that there was some basis for some of the data from Callender, a contemporary or Rivele, who was one of Gore’s professors, but after the ECRU hack, I have my doubts,
after they demoneticized anthony watts blog, I’m further skeptical, when you see that their goal is a variation on what they say will be the result, a mass die off, even concern,
the Klaus like villain in Kingsman, says as much to his spy interlocutor, the temperature readings are beside the point, that film whose centerpiece is a mountain lair much like Davos suggested too frankly the mindset of our ruling classes,
The only damage to Mann, imho, has been done by himself.
At this point he would not be welcome in my home or at any dinner where I was hosting. He is an utterly despicable human being.