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:
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.
what does 'climate denier' even mean? Seems a smear as well no?
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.
The climate deniers smeared Mann publicly and falsely, and need to be punished.
Are you a climate denier, too?