Steyn, Simberg Found Liable in Mann Suit

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...

🧵
Who is funding Michael Mann's lawsuit?

Let's ask Dr. Mann
From Facebook 2012 on the NRO/CEI lawsuit
Mann asks for funding support for the effort

Please donate to the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund! pic.twitter.com/6k4xJWhGfR

— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) February 8, 2024

A co-founder of the CSLDF identified Michael Mann in 2014 (2 years after Steyn/Simberg lawsuit was filed) as the organization's top priority for fundraisinghttps://t.co/BDp71Xko9Q pic.twitter.com/BNqlOfZJin

— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) February 8, 2024

...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.

DC jury awards @MichaelEMann $1 in compensatory damages from each defendant; and $1,000 in punitive damages against Rand Simberg and $1 million against @MarkSteynOnline in travesty of justice.

I guess last day @washingtonpost jury tampering and the inappropriate last minute…

— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) February 8, 2024

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.