[ad_1]
Climate scientist Michael Mann won a defamation case Thursday against two conservative writers who accused him of manipulating data and compared him to a convicted child molester.
Climate scientist Michael Mann was awarded over a million dollars in punitive damages.
Key Facts
A jury in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia found the defendants—Rand Simberg, a former adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a National Review contributor—guilty of defaming Mann by making several false statements in a blog post and an article published in 2012.
The jury ruled that each writer would pay $1 to the scientist in compensatory damages.
In addition to this, Steyn was ordered to pay $1 million and Simberg $1,000 in punitive damages for “maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm,” according to the New York Times.
Steyn’s representative told the Associated Press he plans to appeal the $1 million award while Simberg’s attorney said he was disappointed with the ruling and will also appeal the decision.
In a statement, Mann said he hoped the verdict would send a message “that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”
Crucial Quote
Pete Fontaine, Mann’s lawyer, said: “Today’s verdict vindicates Mike Mann’s good name and reputation. It also is a big victory for truth and scientists everywhere who dedicate their lives answering vital scientific questions impacting human health and the planet.”
Key Background
In 2012, Simberg wrote a blog for the libertarian think tank Competitive Enterprise Institute while serving as a fellow. Simberg’s blog compared the climate scientist to convicted child molester and former college football coach Jerry Sandusky, saying: “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’s comments were about an investigation into Mann’s research from 2009, in which skeptics had raised doubts about his “hockey stick” graph on rising global temperatures. Although investigations by Penn State and others found no wrongdoing or manipulation of data, Mann remained a target of conservative ire. Steyn later published a piece in the National Review, referencing Simberg’s blog and called Mann the “man behind the fraudulent climate-change ‘hockeystick’ graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus.”
[ad_2]
