Climatologist Michael Mann wins defamation case: what it means for scientists

Somehow, I find Newsmax less amusing than Faux Noise. Maybe because it takes itself too seriously. Faux is like the Onion, but Newsmax is more like North Korean TV: just unwatchable.

 

Newsmax is also getting sued by Dominion Voting Machines. Both of them like to give liars air-time.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/18/media/dominion-newsmax-defamation-lawsuit/index.html

Dominion Voting Systems’ $1.6 billion defamation lawsuit against Newsmax over the right-wing network’s airing of 2020 election lies is scheduled to go to trial in late September 2024, a Delaware judge decided.

 

It ain't over until it's over.
ONE MILLION DOLLARS, (or maybe not) Steyn Files Appeal
From SteynOnline

I’ll have to spend another five million to prove that I don’t have to pay the lousy one mil. . . .

 

There will be protracted legal warfare.
Mann v. Steyn: Round 2
Posted on March 11, 2024 by curryja
by Judith Curry

The latest developments.

Continue reading →

New Trial:
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/14131.pdf

Judgment as Matter of Law:
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/14132.pdf
Stay of Execution:
https://www.steynonline.com/documents/14133.pdf

Further details at steynonline [link]

 

Good luck with that...

 

He has the resources to continue the case.

 

Just a grudge appeal. It won't go anywhere.

 

We shall see.

 

But does he have the brains to hire a lawyer?

 

I believe he has has back-up counsel throughout. That is the way self-representation usually works.

 

He was still a fool to represent himself. IMO it was just grandstanding, showmanship, all for the media circus, maybe even mostly an ego thing.

 

Did you tell him? Maybe he didn't know it was foolish to represent himself.

 

In his line of work, grandstanding, showmanship and media circus are all good things.

 

But don't translate so well into a courtroom.

 

I'm sure plenty of people told him, including his lawyers. IMO it's irresponsible because letting "Piltdown" Mann win even one of his absurd and dishonest lawsuits gives him an undeserved patina of respectability.

 

Let's see what comes next.

 

Unfortunately, it's unlikely to be justice.

 

Score one for Steyn.
Mann FINALLY has to pay…
Anthony Watts
In a recent development reported at SteynOnline.com, Michael E. Mann, known for his controversial “hockey stick” graph and his demeanor of lawfare, has been ordered to personally contribute to the…

 

Steyn beats Mann in final judgment. Mann ordered to pay $500,000 legal fees.
Breaking: A Victory for Free Speech: Mark Steyn’s $1 Million Judgment Slashed to $5,000 in Landmark Climate Case
Charles Rotter
Today, we raise a cheer for reason, justice, and the unyielding spirit of free expression! Today, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia delivered a resounding blow to overreach in the long-running defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against conservative commentator Mark Steyn. In a Final Judgment Order, Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr. reduced Steyn’s punitive damages from an astronomical $1 million to a modest $5,000—vindicating Steyn, protecting open debate, and sending a powerful message about the limits of legal bullying. . . .

The court’s ruling not only slashes Steyn’s punitive damages to a reasonable $5,000 but also declares the original $1 million award unconstitutional—too excessive, too punitive, and out of step with the actual harm (or lack thereof) Mann suffered. This isn’t just a win for Steyn; it’s a victory for every skeptic, scientist, and citizen who dares to question orthodoxy in the public square. The $5,000 figure, aligned with the jury’s nominal $1 compensatory award, restores proportion and reaffirms that robust debate—however sharp—remains protected under the First Amendment.

Adding to the celebration, Mann has been ordered to pay over $500,000 in legal costs to National Review, Steyn’s co-defendant in the case. This award, rooted in D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, recognizes the frivolous nature of Mann’s decade-long legal crusade against those who challenged his research. . . .

 

Oooops, you've been proved wrong again...

 

There was never any actual research behind Mann's hockey schtick, just disingenuous cherry picking and data splicing.

 

There's another thread about this story here:
Writers ordered to pay $1 million for accusing Climate Change researcher of fraud (posted in 'Law & Justice', February 11, 2024)

 

Why? The lawsuit had nothing to do with the science at all but comments made outside of the science.

So how in the hell is it a win for "truth in science and against denialism"?

 

Michael Mann's humiliation and defeat, in detail.
Hockey Stick Shenanigans and Fraudulent Climate Science
Tilak Doshi

 

It doesn't sound like a win for science and against "denialism" to me. Mann was libeled because they in essence called him a child molester, almost an open and shut case of libel. Mann didn't win his case because someone attacked his science.