Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist, previously won over $1 million from allegations that two columnists defamed him over his claims that humans worsened climate change, but the amount in damages previously awarded to him was significantly reduced Tuesday.
Mann, previously a professor at the Pennsylvania State University and now the inaugural “vice provost for climate science, policy, and action” at the University of Pennsylvania, created a “hockey stick” graph asserting that human activity led to global warming, according to a report from Reason.
Blogger Rand Simberg and columnist Mark Steyn criticized Mann and wrote about a Penn State investigation of wrongdoings into Mann, prompting the scientist to sue for defamation.
The comments from the two writers accused Mann of “misconduct” and “wrongdoing,” as well as “manipulation” and “torture” of data to prove his global warming thesis.
The scientist had examined growth rings on trees and corals, ice cores from glaciers, and similar natural phenomena in an attempt to track climate trends over time.
Mann also accused the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute of repeating Steyn and Simberg’s commentary.
Though both conservative outlets were granted summary judgment in 2021, Steyn and Simberg were found liable in early 2024.
The court awarded $1,000 in punitive damages from Simberg.
Steyn, meanwhile, faced $1 million in damages.
Should all punitive damages be canceled?
Although D.C. Superior Court Judge Alfred Irving declined to contradict the jury’s finding that Mann was indeed libeled, he significantly reduced the damages awarded, according to an excerpt of his lengthy judgment cited by Reason.
Irving wrote that the “million-to-one ratio of the instant award necessarily raises a judicial eyebrow, as the punitive and compensatory awards vary by a staggering six digits.”
He also observed that the “evidence at trial was mixed as to the true extent of injury Dr. Mann suffered.”
“Unlike several of the previously cited cases, in the instant case, Dr. Mann presented no persuasive evidence suggesting that he suffered injury to his business as a result of Mr. Steyn’s article,” Irving continued.
“Dr. Mann presented no persuasive evidence that Mr. Steyn’s conduct was motivated by an intent to harm Dr. Mann’s employment.”
Irving instead ruled that Steyn would have to face $5,000 in punitive damages rather than $1 million.
“An award of punitive damages here remains appropriate given the reprehensibility of Mr. Steyn’s conduct,” Irving made clear.
“However, given the dollar amount of the punitive award and the lack of support of similar awards in this jurisdiction or elsewhere, a remittitur is appropriate.”
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.
