[/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]

$1 MILLION VERDICT IN DEFAMATION TRIAL  
[[link removed]]


 

Diane Bernard and Adam M. Lowenstein
February 8, 2024
DeSmog
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ Victory over climate deniers sends a strong message in defense of
climate science and scientists. _

Professor Michael E. Mann's lawyer called attacks on the scientist
"vile.", Julian Meehan/Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

 

In a victory for climate scientists, jurors in Michael Mann’s
defamation case against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn
[[link removed]] awarded Mann $1 million in
punitive damages for defamatory comments made in 2012.

In a unanimous decision, jurors agreed that both Simberg and Steyn
defamed Mann
[[link removed]]
in blog posts that compared Mann to convicted sex offender Jerry
Sandusky, former assistant football coach at Penn State University.
They announced that Simberg will pay $1,000 in punitive damages and
Steyn will pay the larger $1 million.

Standing in front of the courthouse smiling with his legal team after
the verdict was read, Mann told DeSmog that he trusted the jury to see
through the “smoke and mirrors” that the defense used during the
trial.

“One million dollars in punitive damages makes a statement,” he
said in an exclusive interview. “This is about the defense of
science against scurrilous attacks, and dishonest efforts to undermine
scientists who are just trying to do our job.”

Mann also noted that the trial was about defamatory statements made in
an effort to discredit scientists “whose findings might prove
inconvenient to certain ideologically driven individuals and
outlets.”

“It’s about the integrity of the science and making sure that bad
actors aren’t allowed to make false and defamatory statements about
scientists in their effort to advance an agenda,” he added.

Peter Fontaine, one of Mann’s lawyers, told DeSmog he was
“thrilled with the outcome.”

Climate Science on Trial

Mann sued Simberg and Steyn for defamation, but the trial
[[link removed]]
proved to be about much more than statements that harmed the
scientist’s reputation — the entire field and validity of climate
science was under scrutiny.

In closing arguments, Mann’s lawyer John Williams compared the
climate deniers in this case to election deniers overall. “Why do
Trumpers continue to deny that he won the election?” he asked the
jury. “Because they truly believe what they say or because they want
to further their agenda?” 

He asked the jury to consider the same question about Steyn and
Simberg: Did they believe what they wrote was the truth, or did they
just want to push their agenda?

Mann has “been attacked in all the ways that a climate scientist can
be attacked,” Lauren Kurtz, the executive director of the Climate
Science Legal Defense Fund, told DeSmog. “He’s been remarkably
public about what’s happened to him, [and] willing to fight back in
ways that other scientists haven’t necessarily wanted to take on.”

These attacks, however, take their toll
[[link removed]],
and Mann’s lawyers expressed hope that this case could help protect
other climate scientists from abuse and harassment.

“Michael Mann is tired of being attacked,” Williams told the jury.
“You have the opportunity to serve as an example to prevent others
from acting in a similar way” to Simberg and Steyn.

An underlying current throughout this trial has been that climate
denialism, like what the two defendants practice, isn’t really about
the science. It’s more about politics and policy that drives
organizations and individuals to “attack the science and confuse the
public,” as Michael Mann wrote in his 2016 book, “The Madhouse
Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet,
Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy,” co-written with
cartoonist Tom Toles. 

In fact, as the jury heard when Williams cross-examined Simberg on
Tuesday, Simberg hadn’t even read Mann and his coauthor’s two
reports on the hockey stick graphs before writing his infamous 2012
blog post accusing Mann of scientific misconduct.

THE ROOTS OF DENIALISM

In both “The Madhouse Effect” and his 2021 book, “The New
Climate War
[[link removed]]:
Fighting to Take Back Our Planet,” Mann focuses on the tactics the
fossil fuel industry has used for decades to delay climate action.
These have included spending millions of dollars recruiting
“contrarian scientists” and lobbyists to participate in a massive
public disinformation campaign, “aimed at discrediting the science
of human-caused climate change, including the hockey stick curve
itself.”

These tactics have developed into to what Robert Brulle, a sociologist
and visiting professor at Brown University’s Institute at Brown for
Environment and Society, describes as the climate change
“countermovement”
[[link removed]]:
a broad, ever-evolving industrial and ideological campaign against
climate action.

One technique deployed by the countermovement “to undermine the
science of climate change,” Brulle writes, has been to “attack the
veracity of climate science, as well as high-profile climate
scientists.”

Brulle’s finding about the continually evolving face of climate
denial were echoed last month in a new report
[[link removed]] from the
nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which studies
abuse and harassment on the internet and social media. 

“Old” denialist tactics focused on simply denying the existence of
human-caused climate change, but what CCDH calls “new climate
denial” uses “attacks on climate science and scientists,” to
create doubt and uncertainty about their research findings.

New denial has been on full display
[[link removed]]
throughout this trial.

One of the defense’s expert witnesses, University of Pennsylvania
statistician Abraham Wyner, focused on raising doubts about climate
science
[[link removed]],
spending hours on the witness stand explaining why he thought that
Mann and his colleagues used manipulative techniques to produce their
infamous “hockey stick” graph of rising global temperatures.

Meanwhile, other witnesses seemed more intent on challenging Mann’s
character.

Judith A. Curry [[link removed]], a
climatologist and former university professor, was asked by defense
attorney Victoria Weatherford about the many times she testified
before Congress on climate issues. Curry began describing a hearing
during which she and Mann were both testifying, calling Mann’s
remarks to Congress “mostly self-promotion.”

Curry told the jury that she has a “small climate footprint,”
unlike the “jet-setting celebrities calling me a climate denier.”
(In his closing argument, Steyn made a similar spurious argument about
Mann, asserting that “the only communities he cares about [are]
celebrities, climate scientists, and politicians.”)

Weatherford repeatedly asked Curry and other witnesses about the
“tenor of the [climate] debate” in the late 2000s and early 2010s,
when hackers published countless stolen emails of scientists,
including Mann’s. The release of the hacked emails was designed to
make climate scientists appear to be conspiring to exaggerate the
evidence about global warming.

But in the trial, these questions about “tenor” around the time of
so-called “Climategate
[[link removed]]” seemed
designed to legitimize attacks on Mann.

Roger Pielke Jr. [[link removed]], another
witness for the defense, called Mann “thin skinned” and “quick
to attack.” 

Much of the defense testimony seemed designed to “victimiz[e] the
victim,” Williams said in his closing argument. For those who oppose
climate action, “Michael Mann has become a huge target.”

This strategy of “victimizing the victim” not only shifted days of
trial away from Simberg and Steyn’s articles comparing Mann to
Sandusky — it also gave the defense an opportunity to put the hockey
stick chart, and climate science more broadly, on trial.

As most know today, Mann’s hockey stick graph, which he first
created in 1998 with scientists Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes,
challenged the conventional wisdom at the time that climate change was
a natural phenomenon. The graph proved that the rise of global warming
was man-made from burning fossil fuels. 

Steyn has said that Mann’s hockey stick graph, was “almost
laughably fraudulent.” But the science behind the hockey stick
graph has been continuously upheld
[[link removed]] as
accurate, withstanding challenges from scientists around the globe
over the past quarter century since it was originally published. It
remains among key findings that prove burning oil, coal, and methane
gas is the primary driver of the climate crisis. 

In his closing arguments, Williams pointed out that Bradley, who
testified for Mann, said of the graph, “They huffed and they puffed
and couldn’t blow it down.”

“If the original hockey stick curve had indeed been wrong, we would
know by now. If assertions of global warming were wrong, we would know
by now,” Mann writes. 

As the moment when the judge would send the case to the jury drew
closer, Simberg’s lawyer,  Weatherford, and Steyn, who represented
himself, offered their closing arguments. Speaking directly to the
jury, though glancing regularly at Mann and his lawyers, Weatherford
repeatedly challenged Mann’s case and stated that “Rand [Simberg]
was right” to question Mann’s scientific credibility.

Steyn, on the other hand, at times appeared more intent on bitterly
attacking both the U.S. justice system — Steyn, who is Canadian,
claimed that “in my country,” Mann’s case would have been thrown
out — and Mann himself, calling the scientist a “vanity
plaintiff” and a “humbug with no case.”

The judge gave Williams a few minutes to rebut the defense’s closing
arguments. In a telling moment, the veteran lawyer urged the jury to
consider how punitive damages could serve not just as punishment for
Simberg and Steyn’s comments, but, more importantly — and perhaps
more constructively — as a deterrent for others pursuing a climate
denial strategy founded on baseless personal attacks against
scientists who disagree with them.

Williams’s voice rose as he began to exclaim to the jury that
“these attacks on climate scientists have to stop.” But his
statement drew immediate objections from Weatherford and Steyn.

After a brief conference, Judge Irving sustained the objections, and
ordered the jury to disregard Williams’s comments. “This case is
not about climate science,” the judge admonished.

In a literal sense, the judge was correct: Defamation laws say nothing
about climate change or climate science or climate scientists.

But it is also clear that, time and time again, Simberg and Steyn
succeeded in shifting the focus of the trial away from their rhetoric
that compared Mann to a convicted child molestor, and instead toward a
strategy of questioning and undermining Mann’s conclusions about
climate science.

Regardless of the jury’s verdict in Mann’s favor, this strategy of
attacking scientists and putting science itself on trial looks set to
continue.

In the end, Simberg and Steyn’s comparison of Mann to child molester
Jerry Sandusky was not just inappropriate but also factually incorrect
— and now a court found that it harmed his reputation. Looking back
on recent history, the attacks on Mann could be compared with attacks
on Anthony Fauci, the lead scientist in former President Donald
Trump’s White House COVID-19 Response Team, who faced a barrage of
vaccine skeptics and, in many ways, became a villain whose
demonization served as a tool to undermine an entire movement. 

Like Fauci, Mann is a truth teller in the face of denialism and
misinformation.

Yet decades of denial, delay, and disinformation about climate change
have made clear that simply letting facts speak for themselves —
exposing the truth, and assuming that will be enough to spark action
— is insufficient. 

“We would like to live in a world in which the facts speak for
themselves, but unfortunately that’s not always the case,” Kurtz,
of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, told DeSmog.

As a result, Kurtz said, “It’s not surprising that scientists are
doing more to fight back. Michael Mann, I think, is most prominent
among those who are fighting back, but I think there are a lot of
other scientists who have decided to become more public about what
they’ve experienced or tried to be more assertive in the ways that
they challenge some of these totally baseless accusations.”

The fact that Mann has continued to make his case and defend the
integrity of climate science could have a galvanizing effect, Kurtz
said.

“I’ve heard from scientists that it’s very heartening that
Michael Mann is taking a stand against this.”

_This article was updated on Thursday, February 8, 2024, at 8:06 pm ET
with comment from Mann and Fontaine._

DeSmog was founded in January 2006 to clear the PR pollution that is
clouding the science and solutions to climate change. Our team quickly
became the world’s number one source for accurate, fact-based
information regarding global warming misinformation campaigns.

* Climate Deniers
[[link removed]]
* science deniers
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[/contact/submit_to_xxxxxx?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [/faq?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Manage subscription [/subscribe?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]
Visit xxxxxx.org [/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]