I will append here the comment I posted to Roger Pielke Jr.'s "False Equivalence" article about the verdict on his Substack, The Honest Broker:
From my perspective – that of a lawyer familiar with standards which are supposed to govern defamation claims – Mann’s verdict is not a “resounding victory” at all.
If the reports I read of the trial are accurate, Mann presented essentially no evidence of damages, without which a claim for defamation fails. This may be why the jury awarded him only $1 in compensatory damages.
The jury awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages against Steyn, but under the U.S. Supreme Court’s BMW v. Gore decision, punitive damages are generally limited to a single-digit multiple of the compensatory damages awarded. With Mann having been awarded $1 in compensatory damages, the most he can recover in punitive damages against each defendant is nine bucks. Anything more violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. As they say in the NFL, “this one is coming back.”
Climate change and climate science are “matters of public concern” and so the U.S. Supreme Court’s “actual malice” standard governs. As articulated in the Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan case, “actual malice” requires that to be found liable for defamation, a defendant must have made the statement at issue “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Mann failed to present any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find either of these preconditions to liability. Moreover judges (and ultimately the Supreme Court) have an independent obligation to review the evidence to determine whether this standard has been met. It wasn’t here.
In the rebuttal portion of his closing Mann’s counsel asserted (over the defendants’ objections) that the jury should award punitive damages to deter the defendants and others from “attacking science.” He argued that this punishment was analogous to that meted out to the January 6 arrestees to deter insurrection. This was totally (indeed, shockingly) improper. Attorney argument is properly limited to the issues and evidence presented at trial. A defamation trial is supposed to determine whether the individual plaintiff was subjected to reputational harm, not place general societal limits on discourse about a matter of public concern like climate change.
Indeed, the Court in Sullivan emphasized that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” making the use of punitive damages to stifle debate on such an issue generally a non-starter. Mann’s post-verdict comments to the effect that he now intends to go after others he disagrees with on climate issues (e.g., NR and CEI) starkly illustrate the need for the trial judge, or the U.S. Supreme Court, to step in and vacate the judgment.
Depending on post-trial motions and what the trial judge does with them, the U.S. Supreme Court may have the opportunity to grant cert and reaffirm that the “actual malice” standard and other protective rules established by Sullivan and its progeny “mean what they say.” These precepts seem to have been largely ignored, or parsed into meaninglessness, by the courts in this case. After a period in which some members of the court flirted with the idea of abandoning Sullivan on grounds that it did not reflect the “original understanding” of the First Amendment, the Court last year signaled that Sullivan remains good law. Time for the trial court, or failing that the Supreme Court, to actually apply its requirements, which are fatal to Mann’s claims and the jury’s verdict.
I don't have a scientific background, and am certainly not a Nobel Prize recipient physicist. But, when such a person speaks, I'll give him a listen.
"Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser has recently been in the spotlight for challenging prevailing climate models, which he said have ignored a key variable.
Mr. Clauser, who was a recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to quantum mechanics, holds degrees from Caltech and Columbia University. He has served in roles at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the University of California–Berkeley. In 2010, he was honored with a portion of the Wolf Prize in Physics.
Recently, Mr. Clauser joined another Nobel laureate and more than 1,600 professionals in signing the World Climate Declaration (WCD) organized by Climate Intelligence. This declaration asserts that there’s no “climate emergency,” that climate change science isn’t conclusive, and that the Earth’s history over thousands of years shows a consistently changing climate."
More follows at this link, with many embedded links and an excellent interview with Dr Clauser:
You mean that, where I sit today, there was twice (or more) a thickness of ice (kilometers?) so great that the ground is still rebounding from its mass?
Or do you mean when I am kicking around the dirt in the backyard and i come across fossils suggesting a shallow lake existed there filled with life that could not be sustained in that location today?
Or do you mean the discovery of human remains beneath glaciers?
You and the Michael Mann's of the world want to call those of us who recognize these and other facts 'climate deniers' because you believe we don't read 'The ScienceTM'? Let me be clear: the climate has changed, is changing, and will change regardless of whether humans exist and drive SUVs, vote for Donald Trump, don't recycle, or take part in any other activity that you and your fellow travelers believe causes 'climate change'.
In turn, I suggest you read 'the politics' and ask yourself why the only answer we ever hear from our supposed betters is increased taxation (read wealth transfer) and a suspension, if not complete removal, of rights? Steyn et al and their legal odyssey ought to tell any intelligent person that terms like 'climate change' and 'climate denier' are simply tools used in the advancement of a false narrative pushed by those seeking unearned power and control.
The fact is you and Michael Mann and many others may know 'The ScienceTM', but what you are professing isn't real science and never was.
It means that we, homo sapiens, have barely poked our heads out of the cave in regards to our understanding of something as complex as 'climate' and we shouldn't be terrorizing society with 'the world is ending' rhetoric that leads to a diminished existence and lawfare.
Also we should avoid the "Shut up, they explained" crowd.
It means we should keep studying it and other potential contributors to our understanding of 'climate' and avoid reacting with imposing policies on society based on incomplete knowledge and clubbing people over the head with $1million lawsuits for being critical of 'The ScienceTM'.
What it doesn't mean is "Shut up!" and it shouldn't lead to "give us money and more power over your life"
I will append here the comment I posted to Roger Pielke Jr.'s "False Equivalence" article about the verdict on his Substack, The Honest Broker:
From my perspective – that of a lawyer familiar with standards which are supposed to govern defamation claims – Mann’s verdict is not a “resounding victory” at all.
If the reports I read of the trial are accurate, Mann presented essentially no evidence of damages, without which a claim for defamation fails. This may be why the jury awarded him only $1 in compensatory damages.
The jury awarded $1,000,000 in punitive damages against Steyn, but under the U.S. Supreme Court’s BMW v. Gore decision, punitive damages are generally limited to a single-digit multiple of the compensatory damages awarded. With Mann having been awarded $1 in compensatory damages, the most he can recover in punitive damages against each defendant is nine bucks. Anything more violates the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. As they say in the NFL, “this one is coming back.”
Climate change and climate science are “matters of public concern” and so the U.S. Supreme Court’s “actual malice” standard governs. As articulated in the Court’s New York Times v. Sullivan case, “actual malice” requires that to be found liable for defamation, a defendant must have made the statement at issue “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Mann failed to present any evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to find either of these preconditions to liability. Moreover judges (and ultimately the Supreme Court) have an independent obligation to review the evidence to determine whether this standard has been met. It wasn’t here.
In the rebuttal portion of his closing Mann’s counsel asserted (over the defendants’ objections) that the jury should award punitive damages to deter the defendants and others from “attacking science.” He argued that this punishment was analogous to that meted out to the January 6 arrestees to deter insurrection. This was totally (indeed, shockingly) improper. Attorney argument is properly limited to the issues and evidence presented at trial. A defamation trial is supposed to determine whether the individual plaintiff was subjected to reputational harm, not place general societal limits on discourse about a matter of public concern like climate change.
Indeed, the Court in Sullivan emphasized that “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” making the use of punitive damages to stifle debate on such an issue generally a non-starter. Mann’s post-verdict comments to the effect that he now intends to go after others he disagrees with on climate issues (e.g., NR and CEI) starkly illustrate the need for the trial judge, or the U.S. Supreme Court, to step in and vacate the judgment.
Depending on post-trial motions and what the trial judge does with them, the U.S. Supreme Court may have the opportunity to grant cert and reaffirm that the “actual malice” standard and other protective rules established by Sullivan and its progeny “mean what they say.” These precepts seem to have been largely ignored, or parsed into meaninglessness, by the courts in this case. After a period in which some members of the court flirted with the idea of abandoning Sullivan on grounds that it did not reflect the “original understanding” of the First Amendment, the Court last year signaled that Sullivan remains good law. Time for the trial court, or failing that the Supreme Court, to actually apply its requirements, which are fatal to Mann’s claims and the jury’s verdict.
Thank you.
what does 'climate denier' even mean? Seems a smear as well no?
Yeah, it refers to those who are ruled by political prejudice instead of science, for obvious reasons, usually technical ignorance.
Exactly.
The Science™ isn't settled.
I don't have a scientific background, and am certainly not a Nobel Prize recipient physicist. But, when such a person speaks, I'll give him a listen.
"Nobel Prize laureate John Clauser has recently been in the spotlight for challenging prevailing climate models, which he said have ignored a key variable.
Mr. Clauser, who was a recipient of the 2022 Nobel Prize in Physics for his contributions to quantum mechanics, holds degrees from Caltech and Columbia University. He has served in roles at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the University of California–Berkeley. In 2010, he was honored with a portion of the Wolf Prize in Physics.
Recently, Mr. Clauser joined another Nobel laureate and more than 1,600 professionals in signing the World Climate Declaration (WCD) organized by Climate Intelligence. This declaration asserts that there’s no “climate emergency,” that climate change science isn’t conclusive, and that the Earth’s history over thousands of years shows a consistently changing climate."
More follows at this link, with many embedded links and an excellent interview with Dr Clauser:
https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/us/nobel-winner-refutes-climate-change-narrative-points-out-ignored-factor-5486267
Steyn wrote a whole book called "Disgrace to the Profession" quoting Manns own fellow scientists opinions of him
It is a available on his website (Styens)
Spoiler alert: they think he is a disgrace to the profession
I suggest you read the science, not rants of political prejudice.
Science?
You mean that, where I sit today, there was twice (or more) a thickness of ice (kilometers?) so great that the ground is still rebounding from its mass?
Or do you mean when I am kicking around the dirt in the backyard and i come across fossils suggesting a shallow lake existed there filled with life that could not be sustained in that location today?
Or do you mean the discovery of human remains beneath glaciers?
You and the Michael Mann's of the world want to call those of us who recognize these and other facts 'climate deniers' because you believe we don't read 'The ScienceTM'? Let me be clear: the climate has changed, is changing, and will change regardless of whether humans exist and drive SUVs, vote for Donald Trump, don't recycle, or take part in any other activity that you and your fellow travelers believe causes 'climate change'.
In turn, I suggest you read 'the politics' and ask yourself why the only answer we ever hear from our supposed betters is increased taxation (read wealth transfer) and a suspension, if not complete removal, of rights? Steyn et al and their legal odyssey ought to tell any intelligent person that terms like 'climate change' and 'climate denier' are simply tools used in the advancement of a false narrative pushed by those seeking unearned power and control.
The fact is you and Michael Mann and many others may know 'The ScienceTM', but what you are professing isn't real science and never was.
Well gosh, let's discuss that-there science stuff.
What is your take on the slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?
What does it mean? What do we do about it?
Tell me!
It means that we, homo sapiens, have barely poked our heads out of the cave in regards to our understanding of something as complex as 'climate' and we shouldn't be terrorizing society with 'the world is ending' rhetoric that leads to a diminished existence and lawfare.
Also we should avoid the "Shut up, they explained" crowd.
Once again:
What is your take on the slowing of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation?
What does it mean? What do we do about it?
Quit hiding.
Hiding? is that what I am doing?
It means we should keep studying it and other potential contributors to our understanding of 'climate' and avoid reacting with imposing policies on society based on incomplete knowledge and clubbing people over the head with $1million lawsuits for being critical of 'The ScienceTM'.
What it doesn't mean is "Shut up!" and it shouldn't lead to "give us money and more power over your life"
You may be missing my point.
My point is you're wrong. It is science, not opinion.
You want to argue extraneous red herrings because the science supports me. Either take some environmental science or go back to your own field.
The climate deniers smeared Mann publicly and falsely, and need to be punished.
Are you a climate denier, too?
They deny there's a climate? Weird.
Nobody smears other people publicly and falsely and needs to be punished more than Mann does.
Manns hockey stock is a fraud and so is Mann
If you do not understand it, speak up.
I understand it is fraudulent
And Manns professional colleagues think so too
See Marks book "A Disgrace to the Profession". Quoting many of them who think that and that he is an obnoxious charlatan too
Somebody told you what to think.
Let's discuss the science, not your opinion.
Can you do it?
Nope.
The judge let the trial become a referendum on "climate change"
The jury decision was a political one not a legal one
They punished the heretic
Steyn is lucky they didn't have the power to burn him at the stake
Oh, btw, Islam is going to kill you a lot faster than "climate change"
What is your education in Environmental Science?
I want to discuss the science not the politics.