• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Media Cheer Michael Mann’s $1M Libel Award, Silent After Court Slashes It To $5K

by Kevin Killough
March 10, 2025, 8:19 AM
in Lawfare, Media, News
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
4


Washington, D.C. district Judge Tuesday reduced the punitive damages award granted to celebrity climate scientist Dr. Michael Mann in a defamation lawsuit against Rand Simberg, an analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and National Review blogger Mark Steyn. [emphasis, links added]

In February 2024, a D.C. jury awarded Mann a single dollar in compensatory damages from Steyn but added $1 million in punitive damages. Judge Alfred Irving lowered the amount to $5,000.

The reduction in award — called “remittitur” — comes less than two months after Irving ordered Mann to pay the National Review Inc. more than $500,000 in the publication’s lawsuit against Mann over the same case.

The publication succeeded in having the case dismissed under D.C.’s “Anti-SLAPP law“, which provides for attorney fees to a successful libel defendant in a matter of public concern.

The D.C. jury’s $1 million award was widely reported in many legacy media outlets, most of whom protest defamation awards against journalists.

Yet, there’s been little coverage of the ruling against Mann in either National Review’s lawsuit or the reduction of the award even though they may benefit from rulings such as this.

“I have had no inquiries from them since the decision yesterday, so I think it is safe to assume they will not be correcting the record,” Melissa Howes, president of Mark Steyn Enterprises Inc., told Just the News.

Expert Report: Mann’s Methodology Was “Deceptive And Misleading”

In 2012, Simberg posted an article on his blog that compared Penn State’s investigation into assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who was found guilty that year of sexually abusing 10 young boys over 15 years, to the investigation of Mann’s research on global historic temperatures as shown in the scientist’s controversial hockey stick graph.

Steyn quoted Simberg’s post and called Mann’s research “fraudulent.”

Mann contended that as a result of these posts, his reputation was harmed. Other scientists have criticized the methodology Mann used to create the graph.

In an expert report prepared for Steyn’s counsel, Dr. Judith Curry, president of Climate Forecast Applications Network, wrote that in her opinion, it’s reasonable to call the graph “ ‘fraudulent’ in the sense that aspects of it are deceptive and misleading.’ ”

The hyperbolic comparison to Sandusky is what landed Steyn and Simberg in hot water.

Scientific American had described the original $1 million award as a “victory” and said the case was a “warning to those who attack scientists working in controversial fields.”

The Washington Post also described the verdict as a “victory” and said it comes “amid heightened attacks on scientists working not just on climate change but also on vaccines and other issues.”

When environmentalists are on the receiving end of a libel suit, legacy media like The Washington Post have rallied around the libel defendants by publishing a sympathetic story.

In the case against Greenpeace, the Post quoted Greenpeace executive Sushma Raman saying: “A bad ruling in this case could put our rights and freedoms in jeopardy for all of us, whether we are journalists, protesters or anyone who wants to engage in public debate.”

The question in Steyn’s case is whether the legacy media is concerned with protecting the rights of journalists who may be taking a position unpopular with journalists.

A New York Times article two days before the award was announced opened up with a dramatic recounting of Mann reading the offending blog posts.

“The court case has played out over a time period when outright denial of climate science has decreased, but scientists’ integrity has become a bigger target,” the Times reporter Delger Erdenesanaa wrote.

As with the Post and Scientific American articles, the Times article had no examples of these alleged “attacks” against climate scientists, such as screenshots or quotes.

The entire claim is based on climate scientists claiming they’ve been attacked, which makes it hard to determine if the statements they’re characterizing as attacks are excessive or just legitimate criticism.

To bolster its claim that scientists are being attacked, the Times article cites a study by the Center for Countering Digital Hate arguing that YouTube is profiting from what it calls a new form of climate denial.

Examples of this so-called “denial” are videos stating that clean energy won’t work, that climate policies are harmful, and suggesting there’s uncertainty in climate science — anything that criticizes climate activists’ political agenda.

Humble Scientists

While the legacy media celebrated the award and appeared to view disagreement with climate policies as an “attack” on climate scientists, critics of Mann’s research had worried the $1 million award would limit their ability to scrutinize his and other celebrity scientists’ claims.

[Mann] thinks he’s a rock star in the field of science, but what he really is is a rock star in the field of rhetoric

Anthony Watts, senior fellow for environment and climate at the Heartland Institute, told Just the News that Mann’s lawsuit was driven by his ego and not by science.

“Scientists are supposed to be humble. They’re supposed to be about the facts and not about rhetoric. Not about their vision and about their belief system, not about politics.

“Dr. Mann is all of those things. He thinks he’s a rock star in the field of science, but what he really is is a rock star in the field of rhetoric,” Watts said. …snip…

Grossly Excessive

Writing on the “The Volokh Conspiracy” blog, legal expert Eugene Volokh notes that in the decision to reduce the award, the judge didn’t dispute the jury’s findings that Steyn and Sandberg had libeled Mann. The issue was with the punitive award.

In a statement, Schaerr Jaffe LLP, which represented Steyn in his motion for remittitur, called the original award “grossly excessive” and the reduction a “significant victory.”

Legal expert Jonathan Adler had predicted shortly after the original verdict that the punitive damages would be vulnerable to appeal.

Very good news for @MarkSteynOnline. Judge reduced the (improper) punitive damage award from $1,000,000 to an insulting $5,000.

Meanwhile, over $500,000 in legal costs have been awarded against Mann in favor of National Review. I wonder why CEI hasn’t submitted similar… pic.twitter.com/aWvBmY4qMs

— Stephen McIntyre (@ClimateAudit) March 4, 2025

“Under existing Supreme Court precedent, excessive punitive damages violate Due Process. So, for example, in BMW of North America v. Gore, the Court held that a punitive damage award of $2 million was excessive given that the plaintiff had only been awarded $2,000 in compensatory damages.

This 1000-to-1 ratio, the Court held, could not be justified even considering the extent to which the defendant had engaged in egregious conduct,” Adler explained in “The Volokh Conspiracy” in 2024.

Mann’s appeal of the reduction hinges on his ability to show that the reduction was an “abuse of discretion.”

An appellate court will only overturn a trial court’s decision to grant a remittitur if the decision was unreasonable or based on an incorrect legal standard.

Mann must argue that the 1,000,000-to-1 ratio between compensatory and punitive damages isn’t excessive.

The court may have decided that Steyn and Sandberg went too far in their criticisms of Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, but the criticisms of Mann’s “hockey stick” graph and other aspects of the scientist’s behavior remain safely protected by the First Amendment.

Read full post at Just The News

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Energy

Professor Makes Stunning Discovery: ‘Absolutely, 100 percent, Offshore Wind Kills Whales’

Jul 15, 2024
News

Scientific Bombshell Undermines The Climate Doom Narrative

Oct 23, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 4

  1. Col Harkin says:
    8 months ago

    Mann has inflicted enormous reputational damage to science and he should be ignored from now on.

  2. slowlyclever6d4f2235e4 says:
    8 months ago

    The two tier treatment afforded the climate hype industry has cost not only money but also our freedoms. This defeat of Mann’s lawfare is an important step in reversing the climate hype industry’s assault on reality.

  3. Spurwing Plover says:
    8 months ago

    The M.S. Media Bottom Feeders and Gutter Dwellers are the Propagandists for Big Bother and the notorious Walter Duranty Stalin’s Propagandists for the NYT’s

  4. Steve Bunten says:
    8 months ago

    This couldn’t have happened to a more deserving person. Mann has gotten away with attacking his critics without ever daring to debate any of them since he would clearly lose. And I love the photo of the judge holding a hockey stick.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • COP30 Amazon17 Republican AGs Urge Trump Admin To Skip COP30 Over Green Energy Policies
    Oct 24, 2025
    The attorneys general say attending COP30 would back costly, unreliable wind and solar and risk U.S. energy security. […]
  • severe storm over cityClimate Expert Reveals Latest Scandal Tied To Billion-Dollar Disasters
    Oct 24, 2025
    Climate Central takes over the Billion-Dollar Disasters tabulation, sparking fresh controversy over its methods and motives. […]
  • ocean sun cloudsNew Study Finds 75% Of Rising Ocean Heat Likely Natural, CO2 Not A Factor
    Oct 24, 2025
    Study shows ocean warming driven mostly by natural cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions, challenging mainstream global warming narratives. […]
  • LNG terminal in germanyU.S. And Qatar Push Back On EU’s Climate Mandates That Threaten LNG Exports
    Oct 24, 2025
    U.S. and Qatari officials warn that the EU’s latest climate regulations under CSDDD could endanger Europe’s access to affordable natural gas. […]
  • marines trainingCrazy Hill Op-Ed Demands Generals Respond To Climate Change ‘National Security’ Threat
    Oct 23, 2025
    The Hill warns of climate Armageddon unless U.S. generals join the fight against ‘Mother Nature,’ now deemed a national security threat. […]
  • Shipping port near power plantEurope’s Energy Crisis Shows Net Zero Dogma Comes At A Cost
    Oct 23, 2025
    While China’s rare earth threat exposes U.S. supply chain risks, Europe’s energy crisis shows how net zero policies backfired spectacularly. […]
  • wind farm climate outDemocrats Ditch Climate Messaging As Rising Utility Costs Hit Voters
    Oct 23, 2025
    As Democrats struggle with climate messaging, voters feel the pinch from rising utility bills and the party's costly green energy policies. […]
  • Protest system change not climate changeLead Attorney Admits Real Goal Of Climate Lawsuits: Backdoor Carbon Tax
    Oct 23, 2025
    A top lawyer spearheading climate lawsuits says the quiet part out loud: litigation is a backdoor carbon tax on oil companies and consumers. […]
  • WMO reportHow The World Meteorological Organization Lies To You—Using Your Taxes
    Oct 22, 2025
    The WMO’s 2025 greenhouse gas report hides key data that undercuts the so-called climate 'crisis' narrative—funded by your tax dollars. […]
  • Hurricane generating ocean waves2025 Hurricane Season Is Flopping As Alarmist Predictions Fail
    Oct 22, 2025
    The 2025 hurricane season so far has seen no major U.S. landfalls, exposing alarmists’ failed predictions of catastrophic storms. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky