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