Washington — A jury on Thursday awarded $1 million to climate scientist Michael Mann, who sued two conservative writers 12 years ago after they compared their portrayals of him. Global Warming To a convicted child molester.
Mann, a professor of climate science at the University of Pennsylvania, rose to fame with a graph first published in the journal Nature in 1998. This graph was nicknamed the 'hockey stick' for its dramatic depiction of global warming.
The work gave Mann widespread exposure, but it also brought many skeptics to court, including two writers who said Mann influenced their careers and reputations both in the United States and internationally.
“I feel good,” Mann said Thursday after the six-member jury returned its verdict. “This is a great day for us, and it’s a great day for science.”
history of suits
In 2012, a libertarian think tank called the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a blog post by Rand Simberg, then a fellow at the organization, comparing their examination of Mann's work with the following example: Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Penn State University, was convicted of sexually assaulting multiple children. At the time, Mann also worked at Penn State.
Mann's research came under scrutiny after his and other scientists' emails were leaked in 2009, an incident that brought further scrutiny to the “hockey stick” graph, with skeptics claiming Mann had manipulated the data. Investigations by Penn State and other institutions We did not discover any misuse of Mann's dataBut his work continued to attract attacks, especially from conservatives.
“Mann could be called the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except instead of molesting children, he molested and tortured data,” Simberg wrote. Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referred to Simberg's article in his piece for National Review, calling Mann's study a “hoax.”
A jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia found Simberg and Steyn made false statements and ordered Mann to pay $1 in damages to each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn after finding that both men acted with “malice, malice, malice, vengeance or intent to cause harm.”
During the trial, Steyn defended himself but said through his manager Melissa Howes that he would appeal the $1 million in punitive damages and would be subject to a “due process investigation.”
Mann claimed he lost grant funding as a result of the blog post. Both defendants argued that Mann did not provide sufficient evidence. The writers countered during the trial that Mann had become one of the world's best-known climate scientists in the years since his remarks.
“We have always said that Mann has never suffered an actual injury as a result of the statement in question,” Stein said Thursday through his manager. “And today, 12 years later, the jury awarded him $1 in damages.”
Simberg's attorney, Mark DeLaquil, said his client was “disappointed with the verdict” and would appeal the jury's decision.
Both authors claimed that they were merely stating their opinions.
Matters Related to Litigation
Lyrissa Lidsky, a constitutional law professor at the University of Florida, said it was clear the jury found Steyn and Simberg “recklessly disregarded the falsity of their statements.” She added that discrepancies between the amounts a jury awards in compensatory and punitive damages can lead a judge to reduce punitive damages.
Many scientists have followed Mann's example for years as misinformation about climate change grows on some social media platforms.
“I hope people will think twice before they lie and defame scientists,” said Kate Cell of the Union of Concerned Scientists. As senior climate campaign manager, her work includes tracking misinformation related to climate change.
“We are well outside the scope of a civil conversation about the facts, so I hope this ruling will help us find our way back,” Sell said.
Alfred Irving, the judge presiding over the case, reminded the jury before it deliberated Wednesday that its job was not to decide “whether there is global warming or not.”
Climate change continues to be a divisive and partisan issue in the United States. A 2023 poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 91% of Democrats believe climate change is happening, compared to just 52% of Republicans.
On Thursday, Mann said he would appeal a 2021 decision by the D.C. Superior Court that ruled National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute were not liable for defamation in the same case.
“We think it was a bad decision,” Mann said. “They are next.”