Mark Steyn Ordered by Jury to Pay Former Penn State 'Climate Scientist' $1M in Defamation Case

Red State ^ | 02/08/2024 | Becca Lower

[SeekAndFind]

Conservative pundit and radio host Mark Steyn has been ordered by a jury to pay a former Penn State professor and "climate scientist" $1 million in damages in a defamation lawsuit about blog posts, published in 2012, criticizing the professor's work.

via AP:

The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that [think tank fellow Rand] Simberg and Steyn made false statements, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer. It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm.”[...]

Mann, a professor of climate science at the University of Pennsylvania, rose to fame for a graph first published in 1998 in the journal Nature that was dubbed the “hockey stick” for its dramatic illustration of a warming planet.

The work brought Mann wide exposure but also many skeptics, including the two writers Mann took to court for comments that he said affected his career and reputation in the U.S. and internationally.[...]

In 2012, a libertarian think tank named the Competitive Enterprise Institute published a blog post by Rand Simberg, then a fellow at the organization, that compared investigations into Mann’s work to the case of Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach at Penn State University who was convicted of sexually assaulting multiple children. At the time, Mann also worked at Penn State University.

Mann’s research was investigated after his and other scientists’ emails were leaked in 2009 in an incident that brought further scrutiny of the “hockey stick” graph, with skeptics claiming Mann manipulated data. Investigations by Penn State and others found no misuse of data by Mann, but his work continued to draw attacks, particularly from conservatives.

Here are the exact words from the two writers that formed the crux of Mann's suit:

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data,” Simberg wrote. Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referenced Simberg’s article in his own piece in National Review, calling Mann’s research “fraudulent.”

It's worth noting that the judge cautioned the jury before releasing the members to deliberate, that the case wasn't about the veracity of climate change (which is correct, unbiased instruction from the bench).

But the jury's decision here does not mean this isn't over, Mann stated, mentioning Thursday that he will appeal another decision by the same Court, made in 2021. In that case, based on the same writings, the jurists did not find either defendant, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and conservative outlet National Review, responsible for the defamation.

Mann remarked, "We think it was wrongly decided. They're next."

Here are more details on Mann's case, and the argument from Steyn and Simberg's legal team:

Mann argued that he had lost grant funding as a result of the blog posts — an assertion for which both defendants said Mann had not provided sufficient evidence. The writers countered during the trial that Mann instead became one of the world's most well-known climate scientists in the years after their comments.

Both writers argued that they were merely stating opinions.

Steyn, who the Associated Press reported represented himself, released a statement via Melissa Howes, his manager, "that he would be appealing the $1 million award in punitive damages, saying it would have to face 'due process scrutiny.'”

His statement continued:

We always said that Mann never suffered any actual injury from the statement at issue,.And today, after twelve years, the jury awarded him one dollar in compensatory damages.

Amy K. Mitchell, a writer on Steyn's site, wrote about the decision on the "Steyn Online" website:

A Bad Day for America


https://t.co/AosRHq5oyw— Mark Steyn (@MarkSteynOnline) February 9, 2024

RedState will keep an eye on any updates on this story, and bring you follow-up stories, as they develop.

[dadfly]

sure. this podcast has verbatim reenactments from trial transcripts which are a public record. the professional voice actor(s) do a great job with the transcripts.

https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/unreported-story-society4/episodes/Bonus-Episode—Mark-Steyns-Full-Opening-Statement-e2f3c0v

i believe the closing is at the end of the ‘Mann: Fly Me to the Moon’ episode. enjoy.

[dadfly]

imho, you should go and look more closely at the trial transcripts or reenactments.

the DC jury just ignored the clear evidence presented, and the relevant civil law that favored the defendants. forget about mann himself who presented nothing but lies (impeached by other witnesses and his own contractions) and false evidence in court. surely you’ve encountered the leftist mindset. they simply issued the verdict they had decided on before the trial: all based on their pre-conditioned and pre-conceived political support for globull warming (aka climate ‘science’). the trial had little to do with the guilty verdict, which was expected.

i don’t know if Mark can do it given his health, but the real action and outcome here will be up the chain to the USSC. yes, not much hope against the left there either but it’s worth it to just document the wickedness of these lawfare thieves and charlatans.

[dadfly]

:) contradictions not contractions.

[StAnDeliver]

“His co-defendant compared Mann to Sandusky”

"No. He used Sandusky as an ANALOGY. It is a bit like saying, “Biden is like Hitler in XXXXX”. It isn’t saying he IS Hitler, or that he does the exact same thing as Hitler, but that in some way there are similarities. As I understand it, that is what happened here."

Let's put aside your attempt to conflate my use of the word "compared" into something else, which was not at your disposal to begin with.

This is Simberg's post in question:

“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."

To your use of "ANALOGY" in, "He used Sandusky as an ANALOGY.", it could be easily argued after the verdict that the jury was persuaded to overcome Sullivan precisely because Simberg's assertion indeed made Mann to be analogous to Sandusky.

"They said “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data...”. So the ONLY thing they accused him of was torturing DATA. They did not in any way accuse him of being a child molester."

ANALOGously, that was the jury's verdict.

"It is COMMON for “scientists” to be accused of torturing data because so many DO torture the data. I read a lot of papers that should never have seen the light of day."

Do these papers include blog posts where the author worked at the same university as Sandusky?

"That doesn’t “defame” someone. It indicates strong disagreement. That is all."

You act as though I approve of the verdict; go peddle your "ANALOGY" to the appellate court.

I reiterate: There wasn't any 'winning' this case, his co-defendant compared Mann to Sandusky, and Mark re-attributed it, thus both overcame Sullivan insofar as the jury was concerned. Mark's goal was to put 'climate science' on trial, and that he did, impressively. The verdict won't be overturned, but the punitive damages will be reduced.