Judge Issue Ruling In Bloggers Lawsuit
The long-running legal battle between climate scientist Michael Mann and two conservative bloggers has taken another turn, with both writers vowing to appeal a $1 million defamation verdict handed down last week by a Washington, D.C. jury. The case, which has dragged on for more than a decade, raises fundamental questions about free speech, public debate, and the limits of defamation law when it comes to contentious scientific discussions.
At the heart of the dispute are 2012 articles written by Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, both of whom sharply criticized Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph, which depicts a dramatic rise in global temperatures over the last century. Simberg, in an article for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, compared Mann to Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced Penn State football coach convicted of child molestation, arguing that Mann had “molested and tortured data” in his research. Steyn echoed Simberg’s sentiments in a piece for National Review, calling Mann’s work “fraudulent.”
— Ross McKitrick (@RossMcKitrick) March 12, 2025
Mann sued both writers for defamation, setting off a protracted legal fight that saw multiple appeals and motions over the years. The jury ultimately found Simberg liable for his analogy to Sandusky but not for his critique of Mann’s research. Steyn, however, was hit with a staggering $1 million in punitive damages, alongside a symbolic $1 in compensatory damages from each defendant.
The defendants’ legal teams have already signaled their intention to appeal, citing concerns over First Amendment protections. Simberg’s attorney, Mark DeLaquil, emphasized the broader implications of the case, arguing that the verdict threatens open debate on contentious scientific issues. “We think this is a very important case for First Amendment freedoms,” DeLaquil stated, adding that Mann failed to demonstrate actual malice—a crucial legal standard in defamation cases involving public figures.
— Ross McKitrick (@RossMcKitrick) March 12, 2025
That standard, established in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), requires plaintiffs to prove that a defendant knowingly made false statements or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. It was designed to shield public debate, even when it involves “vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials,” as Justice William Brennan wrote in the landmark decision.
The controversy surrounding Mann’s work is nothing new. His research, which reconstructs past temperatures using tree rings, ice cores, and other natural indicators, was thrust into the political spotlight after it appeared in Al Gore’s 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth. In 2009, the so-called “Climategate” controversy erupted when emails between climate scientists, including Mann, were leaked and scrutinized by skeptics who claimed they revealed data manipulation. Investigations, including one by Penn State, ultimately cleared Mann of wrongdoing.
The judgment is a total smackdown of Mann and his attorneys for knowingly misleading the court in his defamation case.
I wonder (not) if the fawning journalists at WashPo, SciAm and elsewhere that reported on his (now overturned) $1m award last year report this turnabout.— Ross McKitrick (@RossMcKitrick) March 12, 2025
But the defamation case extends far beyond climate science. Legal experts and media organizations worry that the ruling could have a chilling effect on journalistic freedom and political commentary. Seth Berlin, a First Amendment scholar, cautioned that the decision might encourage more lawsuits aimed at silencing critics rather than fostering robust public discourse. “Regardless of one’s views of climate science, people should be able to express opinions on either side without fear of being punished,” he warned.