February 9, 2024<\/p>\n
2 min read<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Michael Mann secured a win in his legal battle against conservative bloggers who said the climatologist \u201cmolested and tortured data\u201d and compared him to a convicted child abuser<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
By Pamela King<\/a> & E&E News<\/a><\/p>\n CLIMATEWIRE |<\/strong>\u00a0Climate scientist Michael Mann on Thursday secured a win in his long-running legal battle against conservative bloggers who once compared him to a convicted child abuser.<\/p>\n After a four-week trial, a D.C. Superior Court jury awarded the climatologist $1 million after finding that Rand Simberg, writing for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, writing for the\u00a0National Review<\/em>, had defamed Mann in blog posts published in 2012. They accused Mann of manipulating the science around his \u201chockey stick\u201d graph illustrating the exponential rise of global temperatures.<\/p>\n \u201cI hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,\u201d Mann said in a statement.<\/p>\n If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing<\/a>. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.<\/p>\n In a column posted in 2012 on the CEI website, Simberg had referred to Mann as \u201cthe Jerry Sandusky of climate science,\u201d comparing him to a former Pennsylvania State University football coach who was arrested for sexually abusing young boys. Simberg said Mann had \u201cmolested and tortured data\u201d on climate change.<\/p>\n Steyn later quoted Simberg\u2019s column in a post for the\u00a0National Review<\/em>.<\/p>\n Mann sued Simberg and Steyn after their articles were published. The case has had a long journey through the courts,\u00a0landing before the Supreme Court in 2019<\/a>.<\/p>\n The justices declined petitions from CEI and the\u00a0National Review<\/em>\u00a0to stop Mann\u2019s case from advancing the Washington court, claiming First Amendment protections. Justice Samuel Alito said he would have taken the case, writing at the time that \u201ca question of this nature deserves a place on our docket.\u201d<\/p>\n CEI declined to comment on the D.C. Superior Court\u2019s Thursday decision. Steyn\u2019s manager, Melissa Howes, released a statement suggesting that her client would appeal the $1 million the court awarded to Mann.<\/p>\n Conservatives had framed Mann\u2019s trial as though climate science itself were taking the stand.<\/p>\n \u201cClimate Change Is ON TRIAL,\u201d Ann McElhinney, the Irish filmmaker behind the documentary \u201cFrack Nation,\u201d wrote Jan. 11 on X, the social media platform formerly known as Twitter.<\/p>\n \u201cMichael Mann & Mark Steyn will battle in court,\u201d she continued. \u201cThe case will explore the hockey stick climate graph that rattled the world. Mark Steyn claims it\u2019s a fraud. Michael Mann believes it is our future.\u201d<\/p>\n An attorney for Mann said the writings from Simberg and Steyn had knowingly caused the climate scientist personal and professional harm.<\/p>\n \u201cToday\u2019s verdict vindicates Mike Mann\u2019s good name and reputation,\u201d said Pete Fontaine, chair of the environmental practice at the law firm Cozen O\u2019Connor. \u201cIt also is a big victory for truth and scientists everywhere who dedicate their lives to answering vital scientific questions impacting human health and the planet.\u201d<\/p>\n Reporter Timothy Cama contributed.<\/em><\/p>\n![\"Michael](\"https:\/\/static.scientificamerican.com\/sciam\/cache\/file\/A3AE6A16-60E2-45BD-A0D152C8A3188053_source.jpg?w=600\")
On supporting science journalism<\/h2>\n