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.

[frank ballenger]

Regular Rush Limbaugh listeners remember Mark Steyn’s many guest appearances.

I didn’t follow his show later but saw this in a British site:
Mark Steyn has quit his show after claiming the channel wanted to hold him liable for paying Ofcom fines. The conservative presenter was under investigation for anti-vaccine comments made on his show last year and has been absent from the show in recent months after suffering two heart attacks.Feb 7, 2023 The Standard.UK

[A strike]

We are so fn fkd.
only DC nuked could save

[j.havenfarm]

I believe SCOTUS precedent hold that punitive damages in ratio to actual damages of more than 9 or 10 to 1 is a due process violation. That may be what’s referred to in the article

[TigersEye]

Mann’s research is fraudulent. There is no doubt about that.

[dennisw]

piing

[nickcarraway]

That’s crazy. He should have had an attorney.

[dadfly]

Mark’s whole case, deportment, reason, and evidence was magnificent. having heard the whole thing, i would have acquitted him in a NY minute if i were a juror. if i was the judge i would have dismissed the case faster than that.

however, as expected by all, including Mark, a complete and total injustice was perpetrated by a DC judge and jury, who decided the case on political grounds, just as they have done to all our political prisoners.

[dadfly]

nonsense. you obviously didn’t follow the case.

[montag813]

Seems like Steyn paid the price for the stupid Sandusky comments of the other defendant.

[Freest Republican]

Good reply.

I was wondering what he was referencing.

This is what I found searching after your reply-

According to the court, “Few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages... will satisfy due process.”

State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003)
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/408/

[dadfly]

i should add that this was, imho, a pyrrhic victory for mann and the climate fraud side. even though part of mann’s lawfare strategy was to stall and bleed Mark for 12 years, Mark stayed the course and destroyed mann and co in court, no matter what the verdict.

mann and co looked very, very bad in the end. poor Mark though. i know his health has suffered badly. i’m glad it’s over for now. Mark get’s some well deserved time off before offcom in the UK.

i can’t bless and thank Mark and Rand enough for taking this case to the mat. thanks to Mark and and Rand’s evidence and case, everything is now on record, penn state’s then administration and mann came out looking like corrupt, vituperative, vindictive, vapid, stupid, sexist pigs, and climate science was totally discredited as a leftist political sham.

and finally, i believe, Mark’s opening and closing statements will rank with the finest oratory in civil trial history. really magnificent.

[A strike]

Rush always claimed optimism, and good on him, but the forces of evil have the powerful hand, the strong record and we are not immune from their obvious clear severe tyranny.

It could take 100 years to throw off this murderous tyranny or more likey 1000 years with todays technology; in any case we are royally screwed.

-fJRoberts-

[ifinnegan]

Insane.

Courts are corrupt and compromised.

[j.havenfarm]

Thank you. That’s exactly what I was looking for. Unlawful awards of damages can be adjusted by the judge in post trial motions

[ScaniaBoy]

....and total injustice was perpetrated by a DC judge and jury, who decided the case on political grounds.....

And were asked by Mann's lawyer to do exactly that - to decide the case on political grounds.

I won't say justice is dead in the US, but it certainly is not alive in DC.

[SuperLuminal]

RICO is now a tool concept in the hands of our communist masters...

[crazycat]

Well said.......a travesty indeed.....but worse, as it was expected.....we have very serious problems.

[Antioch]

At least it wasnt a billion dollar fine as is the going rate for lawfare these days.

[nickcarraway]

I tried to follow the case as I could. The simple fact though is he lost. And though Mr. Steyn is very smart, people who represent themselves have a very poor track record. Do you really think he should have lost his case?