Mark Steyn to pay punitive damages of US $1,000,000. The wicked have won.
Michael Mann set out to sue a high-profile conservative magazine, The National Review, Inc., and a much-despised right wing think tank, The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), for questioning the cross of climate change denial, the infamous hockey stick graph.
After 12 years, and probably much more than $12 millions dollars in legal expenses, Professor Mann has never been sent a bill. Others pick up this tab – Mann’s legal expenses – just as they might pay the tab, he has running at a bar.
That is a long time to keep the tab running, and there are some very rich people with very deep pockets in this world. And those people are mostly on the side of virtue, when it comes to issues of ‘climate science’, as it is called.
A jury in the Washington DC Supreme Court has ruled in their favour. And the damages are being awarded against the men who wrote the articles suggesting the hockey stick chart is a fraud. The National Review, Inc. and the CEI, the publishers they stepped away from this fight, leaving the foot soldiers holding ‘the baby’, so to speak.
The compensatory damages are US$1 from each of Mark Steyn who wrote the article that was published by the National Review and Rand Simberg who wrote the article published at the CEI blog.
The punitive damages are $1,000,000 for Mark Steyn and $1,000 for Rand Simberg. Though Steyn was actually quoting Simberg.
Punitive damages, to be paid to Michael Mann are punishment.
Doesn’t everyone believe in catastrophic human caused climate change. Is that what the jury were thinking?
They have thrown the book at Mark Steyn, with three times the force, perhaps because Mark chose to represent himself.
Perhaps because Mark Steyn has not been to university. Perhaps because Mark Steyn is the example that needs to be set.
- Dr. Michael Mann qualifications:
Education: A.B. applied mathematics and physics (1989), MS physics (1991), MPhil physics (1991), MPhil geology (1993), PhD geology & geophysics (1998). Institutions: University of California, Berkeley, Yale University
Academic career: tenure-track assistant professor in the department of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; associate professor in the department of meteorology Pennsylvania State University; Director of PSU Earth System Science Center; full professor in 2009; Distinguished Professor of Meteorology. Lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report
Awards: American Geophysical Union Fellow (2012); Hans Oeschger Medal (2012); Member of the National Academy of Sciences (2020), etc. etc..
- Mark Steyn qualifications:
Went to school.
The above information as it pertains to Mann’s expertise and qualifications versus’ Steyn’s is, as far as I know true, and it is quoted from a guest post by Richard Law, at Matt Briggs’ blog.
How dare Steyn a well-read commentator and musician, question Mann the almost noble laureate, and much respected scientist.
Is Steyn saying the king has no clothes.
I guess, looking on the bright side, Steyn comes away with his head. Simberg too. In the olden days in England, that would not have been the case, they would have been beheaded for being on the wrong side of the mob and the King.
Judith Curry tweeted ‘a huge blow for freedom of speech’. No. This was always a trial about ‘climate science’. It is also a huge blow for the integrity of historical temperature reconstructions.
Well may we say God bless Mark Steyn because nothing will save the climate scientists. Not now.
*********************************************
This is part 5 of ‘Men at War’, you can read part 4, part 3, part 2 and part 1, at the respective links. And you can listen to the podcast series for much more background, the series by investigative journalists Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer entitled ‘Climate Change on Trial’.
I will be writing much more about all of this, particularly the interesting issue of statistical uncertainty that was discussed by one of the expert witnesses, Professor Abraham Wyner. I will be discussing this issue as it applies to proxy temperature records but also the more recent and shorter instrumental record. I will also be discussing it as it relates to assessments of coral cover at the Great Barrier Reef, and whether it is even possible to apply an uncertainty value to categorical data. If you would like to follow along, please subscribe for my irregular email updates.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/qbdnq0k800jh2ksab109u/Consensus-Has-Hysteria.pdf?rlkey=4rlir71dvkddwi078nsvgktzt&dl=0
You may be correct about a court room loss but eventually the real climate will win.
file:///D:/Users/Owner/Documents/CLIMATE/A%20DRAFTS/Sticks%20Hockey/Hockey_Sticks_Principal_Components_and_Spurious_Si.pdf
It was a DC jury, in the highly politicised US legal world Steyn never had a chance with a jury drawn from this demographic. It was like being judged by a jury of Greens.
This is a very sad happening.
The Jury pool in Washington watches the politicians and main stream media and it may not be possible to seat a jury that had not already decided the outcome before they were picked for the jury.
It was being judged by a jury of greens.
This is a set back for science, I don’t refer to climate science as science as it is so obviously not. It is unbelievable that people, a judge, a jury, and so many other people, are clearly scientifically illiterate and unable to comprehend the hand waving, uncertainties, assumptions, biased model parameters, the proxy data error range, and on and on it goes amounting to nothing more than a wild guess of future climate. But somehow Mark is guilty of critiquing the nonsense of the worst of climate science, The Hockey Stick. It is really a very bad joke and a living hell for Mark.
Don’t pay I guess. Did Mann ever pay Tim Ball’s bills,? I can imagine the fraudster gloating about all of this. Hope Steyn has a rich benefactor somewhere.
My understanding is the USSC requires punitive damages to be no greater than compensatory damages. Money aside, sad that anyone views this as an approval of Mann’s fraud.
To the person mentioning Tim Ball, Mann never paid Ball’s court costs and Tim died penniless.
than “10x” compensatory damages!
Just filing this here:
https://www.cpmlegal.com/publication-Punitive_Damages_How_Much_Is_Enough
A good result. I think it generally accepted that climate scientists have been under attack for decades from fossil fuel funded free market think tanks. It might have helped Steyn’s case if the hockey stick graph had not become increasingly obvious and validated by the science in the intervening years.
I hadn’t been following this case but on looking into it, it wasn’t questioning the science that was the problem, it was the words that were used. Freedom of speech comes with responsibilities and restrictions in every democracy and this was a defamation case not a case about the veracity of the research.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/feb/09/us-climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-1m-in-defamation-lawsuit
“… the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian thinktank, published a blogpost by Rand Simberg that compared investigations by Penn State University into Mann’s work with the case of Jerry Sandusky, a former assistant football coach who was convicted of sexually assaulting multiple children.
“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”.
A predictable result. Science comes through. Rob makes a lot of sense. Please tell me Jenn was trying to be funny with “noble” vs “Nobel”. I assume Jenn will cancel this post and wallow in the denier echo chamber.
In other actual news… “The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said the global mean temperature for the 12-month period through to January was 1.52 degrees Celsius above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average.”
A putative 1.52C over the pre-industrial temperatures. I’m glad you accept the precision of their measurements. Anyway, natural variability most likely and The system benefits from some gracious, mild warming.
Rob and Alan the Laurel and Hardy of the site.
Let’s be frank self representation NEVER works at court. Poor Mark did not have a chance against Mann and his powerful legal team. Let’s be clear too the Hockey Stick is repudiated. The damages for Steyn critiquing this is $1. The $1000000 is for Steyn defaming Mann. So the Hockey stick is worth $1 and Mann $1 million.
Steyn needs to get a good lawyer and appeal the $1 million.
As to Mann’s legal costs. In the US, unlike Australia, costs do not follow the event. Trump got costs against Stormy because her action against Trump was egregious. Unless the judge finds exceptional and extenuating circumstances Mann or his backers, will have to pay his own costs.
As for this: ““The European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said the global mean temperature for the 12-month period through to January was 1.52 degrees Celsius above the 1850-1900 pre-industrial average.””
It did so because they did not include UHIE.
This result is a sad indictment for the legal system which have ruled in favour of ideology over science. It is a sad day for the human race.
I find it hard to understand why climate change ideologists feel so threatened by climate change sceptics. Could it be that deep in their psyche they know they might be wrong? I thought the hockey stick theory had been well and truly debunked. I hope that Mark Steyn does appeal this incredibly punitive decision.
“ Rob and Alan the Laurel and Hardy of the site.”
You should thank us for injecting a little balance into Jennifer’s micro echo chamber.
‘You should thank us for injecting a little balance into Jennifer’s micro echo chamber.”
Right; now go over to the abc and inject a little balance there.
On a serious note. An individual looking at rural temperature stations in the USA has observed that they demonstrate no warming over the pastb70-130 years. His summary of New York State is here: https://twitter.com/B____Sanders/status/1755949565386359260/photo/1
His criteria:
Far away as possible from buildings and streets
Not near concrete, brick, asphalt
Note that few stations meet the above criteria; equally due to unacceptable locations and short measurement duration.
With climate change all things are possible. Well, boiling oceans test credulity I guess. All things under the sun considered enjoy the post glacial.
cohenite,
Don’t be so unfriendly! If you drive off anyone with different views and sources of information all you are left with is a bunch of people nodding and agreeing with each other. The classic echo chamber.
I’m more than happy to discuss climate science with anyone, but it has to based on current science not a predetermined belief system or a political/economic agenda.
Rob
The BoM uses an ‘average’ of various forecast models for prediction purposes.
Thus, it is a simple matter to produce and select ‘models’ that are skewed to whichever ‘pole’ of preference the hierarchy determines might fit their narrative.
For example, the BoM’s 2023 ENSO prediction was obtained initially from Sea Surface Temperatures provided by NOAA in America. The enthusiastic forecasters of the BoM, then decided the chances of an El Nino taking over for Spring/Summer 2023/4 should rise from NOAA’s 70%, to a public presentation of 85%.
This fear-mongering caused farmers to sell off their stock and postpone/lose production –costing millions. ENSO never arrived (though the BoM still insists it did.)
The state of ‘Modern Climate Science’ says, it is OK to promote and operate on probability as low as 20% for a Hypothesis. This is taught at the Universities. The lack of intellectual rigour and the pandering to the ‘lowest common denominator’ this implies, results in the falling standards of Science education now apparent – and the pursuit and promotion of the popular over the real.
“I’m more than happy to discuss climate science with anyone, but it has to based on current science not a predetermined belief system or a political/economic agenda.”
Climate science is a predetermined belief system/political/economic agenda.
Humans don’t control the climate, especially through CO2 emissions.
Alas, perpetuated by mass media saturation that tries to convince everyone that natural disasters are solely the manifestation of man’s activities. Such is the state of information and the current science that feeds it.
The ‘Hockey Stick’ graph was always ‘Science Fraud’.
The Australian BoM’s imposed mantra of constant ‘record heat’, by manipulating temperature records and thinking if they said it enough times we would all believe it – is similarly Science Fraud.
The Media Presenters of this ‘concocted alarmism’ cannot avoid being held to account for their ‘head in the sand’ spouting of their Masters’ Voices. They are presumably all qualified Meteorologists, with relevant Science qualifications – and therefore able to discern when they are being used as ‘useful idiots’.
I acknowledge Peter Ridd’s opinion that ‘ALL of the players should not be sacked’ – but those above a certain level of the BoM Hierarchy SHOULD be removed.
The judicial system has spoken. If the decision had gone the other way, climate change deniers would be celebrating.
Nonsense. Plus you’re becoming a pest with your gloating attitude.
That sound is not a ‘tunnel-boring’ machine – it is Copernicus turning over in his grave….
Narr, It will go to supreme court, and win on appeal, then then quietly died in the media, as Trump winning the 24 election will dominate the news, and climate scare mongers will loose their funding and died out! So YANKS! At least, vote the socialist out! Please!!!!
“Alan says
February 14, 2024 at 3:01 am
The judicial system has spoken. If the decision had gone the other way, climate change deniers would be celebrating.”
The Judicial system spoke with Engoron’s Judgment in Trump’s trial. Engoron was corrupt and wrong; so was the Mann Judgment.