Today, we raise a cheer for reason, justice, and the unyielding spirit of free expression! Today, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia delivered a resounding blow to overreach in the long-running defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann against conservative commentator Mark Steyn. In a Final Judgment Order, Judge Alfred S. Irving, Jr. reduced Steyn’s punitive damages from an astronomical $1 million to a modest $5,000—vindicating Steyn, protecting open debate, and sending a powerful message about the limits of legal bullying.
This decision marks a triumphant turn in a 12-year legal saga that began with Steyn’s 2012 blog post criticizing Mann’s iconic “hockey stick” graph, a cornerstone of climate change narratives. Back in February 2024, a D.C. jury awarded Mann a symbolic $1 in compensatory damages and slapped Steyn with a jaw-dropping $1 million in punitive damages, alongside a similar $1,000 penalty for Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The awards, disproportionate and chilling, threatened to silence critics of Mann’s work and set a dangerous precedent for free speech.
But justice has prevailed! The court’s ruling not only slashes Steyn’s punitive damages to a reasonable $5,000 but also declares the original $1 million award unconstitutional—too excessive, too punitive, and out of step with the actual harm (or lack thereof) Mann suffered. This isn’t just a win for Steyn; it’s a victory for every skeptic, scientist, and citizen who dares to question orthodoxy in the public square. The $5,000 figure, aligned with the jury’s nominal $1 compensatory award, restores proportion and reaffirms that robust debate—however sharp—remains protected under the First Amendment.
Adding to the celebration, Mann has been ordered to pay over $500,000 in legal costs to National Review, Steyn’s co-defendant in the case. This award, rooted in D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, recognizes the frivolous nature of Mann’s decade-long legal crusade against those who challenged his research.
For years, skeptics have watched this case with bated breath, fearing it could muzzle honest inquiry into climate science. Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, central to his reputation, has long been a lightning rod—challenged by statisticians, researchers, and commentators like Steyn for its methodological flaws and data handling. Steyn’s post, while biting, was an opinion, not a factual falsehood, and the jury’s initial $1 million penalty seemed less about justice and more about punishing dissent. Today’s ruling overturns that injustice, ensuring that critics of public figures like Mann can speak without fear of financial ruin.
This moment isn’t just about numbers—it’s about principle. The reduction to $5,000 sends a clear signal: courts won’t tolerate weaponizing defamation lawsuits to silence debate. It’s a rebuke to Mann’s “lawfare” tactics, which have drained resources from Steyn, National Review, and CEI while raising millions in crowdfunding from supporters rallying for free speech. Now, those supporters can celebrate a hard-fought victory, knowing their voices helped tip the scales.
Steyn himself has weathered this storm with grit, representing himself in court and refusing to back down. His resilience, paired with the court’s wisdom, has preserved a critical space for scientific skepticism and public discourse. Meanwhile, the over $500,000 in legal costs awarded to National Review—and the potential for CEI file for and secure similar relief—underscores the absurdity of Mann’s claims and the toll they’ve taken on his opponents.
Let’s raise a glass to this triumph! The slashing of Steyn’s penalty to $5,000 isn’t just a legal correction—it’s a beacon for free speech, a shield for honest inquiry, and a reminder that truth emerges from open debate, not courtroom battles. The fight for reason continues, but today, we celebrate a monumental step forward.
HT/Stephen McIntyre
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Let’s see what Mann does with this. Since NGO’s have been cut off for the most part, there isn’t going to be a lot of money circulating in the Green sphere and Mann may be on the hook mostly by himself. Doubt if any appeal would make a difference other than enriching the lawyers.
The rotten banana may appeal. I hope he does, so he can be squished again.
At least Steyn wouldn’t be up for legal fees in that case. They’d all be Mann’s costs.
Mann’s response to the assessment of the $530k is based on the “Banks” case whereby the reimbursement of legal fees for a failed SLAPP suit isnt valid under DC la. Apparently having to do with the sequence of events how the SLAPP law was passed in DC.
The Banks case is apparently on appeal (possibly for enbanc hearing). with the caveat that I havent read the case, so not sure of the actual status)
Well done 👍😉
It’s still 5000 times the compensatory damage. I don’t remember the ratio the Supreme Court has already set, but it’s closer to 4 or 5.
9:1. Case is State Farm v Campbell
Could it be that Judge Irving didn’t want to totally dismiss what the previous judgement was, since that might seen as dissing the judge who presided over the $1m bullshit?
Professional courtesy and all that . . .
I’m opposed to punitive damages in civil cases.
Civil cases are about compensation for damages. They have the lower “preponderance of evidence” standard.
Punishment is the province of criminal cases with it’s tougher “shadow of a doubt” standard.
Mann can raise the $500K by selling his Nobel Prize
Only he did not get a Nobel Prize, he has nothing to sell.
Redge forgot the /sarc tag, though it wasn’t really necessary.
I didn’t think one was necessary
My bad
Mann “identifies” as a Nobel Laureate.
I guess that qualifies as the 87th gender identity.
Smile for the camera…
Am I 88 ? I identify as an astronaut.
(Yes I know what you Brits were thinking: philincalifornia identifies as two fat ladies).
I self identify as a black lesbian.
We’re not allowed to use that phrase in bingo any longer. Apparently, it’s body-shaming!
Thank you for that. I know there were many people wondering WTF I was going on about. Not the first time.
Is that another type of gender?
Sparta, sorry. I didn’t see your comment until after I hit <SAVE>.
His Nobel Prize is real.
As real as the Ice Age Scare and AGW combined.
And for his Storm prediction for 2024(he’s a storm expert now, cause hurricanes look tree ringish from above)he deserves another Nobel Prize ,cause his prediction was just a tiny 60% above target.
That’s way more accurat than everything Al Gores Nobel Prize documentary predicted..
His stupid followers don’t know that.
Is there a pawn shop near Penn State?
There’s one near the state penn
No, that’s a porn shop.
He’s actually at University of Penn in Philly. Lot’s of pawn shops there.
Only on the corners.
Oops – that’s Pittsburg.
Does this mean we can play “Hide the Decline” again without threats of prosecution?
That was a classic!
I was going to post both the original and the sequel, but I was afraid they would get me into trouble so I won…..RATS!!!! ….accidentally hit “Post Comment.”
https://youtu.Be/WMqc7PCJ-nc
https://youtu.Be/Yrd3HYU80Dk
I thank your “rat” for re-exposing a “climate rat” in a humorous way. 😎
So pleased for Mark. Just brilliant. But what was SO wrong in that first trial and judgement that allowed this travesty to ever happen. The evidence had nothing to do with the verdict. Something is rotten in the US justice system. Are judges easily bought, as the first one appeared to be?
In certain districts, conservatives are pretty much guaranteed to lose.
NYC and DC are two of the most blatant.
Any blasphemy to the global agenda gets massively punished where Soros rules .
And Soros owns the best judges.
Courts are supposed to be non political. I know this is not true today, and that is rotten.
I remember the VIOXX lawsuit. When a re[porter asked the jury foreman what did the jury make of all the science stuff he said Oh we didn’t understand any that science stuff
Neither does Mann.
The first three judges were A – hard core leftists and B – not even remotely competent in the law
$5,000 is $4,999.98 too much. After all Mark Steyn was merely airing his 2¢ worth.
Splendid post.
Steyn should pay him by global warming logic.
If 0.01% co2 are enough to change the world.
0.01% of 5000$ should be enough to transform Mann’s life.
= 50 cent(the only artist who knows the real value of his music and the value of Manns contribution to science)
I wonder how what the CO2 footprint is of Mann’s unless lawsuit. I’m guessing it’s pretty high given all the people who had to travel to the trail, not to mention all the lights, heating/cooling, computers, etc.
If Steyn had to pay nothing to Mann, he and free speech would still be losing. The only positive for free speech is that Steyn then wrote a book exposing Mann that he used to help pay for legal costs and that Mann could not stop it. But in the end, no one will dare to be so brilliant in opposition to BS because of “justice.”
I don’t see why Steyn should have to pay any punitive damages at all, so although FAR better this is still $5,000 punitive against free speech–but then I’m not a lawyer. I would be disturbed if I saw validity to even this outcome. The jurists who awarded the $1 million would make an interesting study; what were they thinking?
The judgement is still inverted in terms of logic, especially considering the disdain Mann showed through the dozen or so years that he delayed the case, but including the strange behaviour of the court itself. But then, again, I’m not a lawyer; I think that if a lawyer tried to explain it all to me I’d still be baffled.
They bought into the lawyers closing statement that even though Mann had suffered no real damages, they needed to send a message to other people who might think about disagreeing with the government’s position on scientific questions.
(In my opinion, that closing statement alone should have been grounds for a mistrial.)
They bought into the lawyers closing statement that even though Mann had suffered no real damages, they needed to send a message to other people who might think about disagreeing with the government’s position on scientific questions.
(In my opinion, that closing statement alone should have been grounds for a mistrial.)
Yes, a pure partisan political statement.
The message was –
“find this guy guilty, or the (D) party gets it”
“Mann has been ordered to pay over $500,000 in legal costs …”
This is chump-change for some of the green crowd. If, when and by who it gets paid will be of interest – if it becomes known.
Respectfully, I don’t agree. That $500,000 will make a big mark on whoever is given the bill, and then there will be another one now, as Steyn’s attorneys will be all over getting his money back. If Mann has to come up with it himself, it will be a life-changing event.
At least his hockey stick will then become relevant – if he inverts it and labels it “Bank Account”…
And flips it upside down.
The legal team can now claim the Nobel award, house, cars, flight rewards from all the COP meetings. Oh, and don’t forget to go after those drink parasols from the conferences at the beach resorts.
Can the legal team now go after his private, protected data set and model used in all the fraud publications? Surely there is a bounty value for that material.
In my view the $5,000 punitive damage award is still a miscarriage of justice. It was Steyn who was harmed.
I agree. Steyn shouldn’t have to pay anything.
Does anyone think we, readers and contributors, Climate Deniers all, should raise the $5k for Steyn?
Yes. I’m quite sure that something crowd-funding set up here would raise that in no time.
Yes, Steyn deserves our support but the idea of raising money to give to Mann is antithetical to my very scientific and ethical principles.
Different way of looking at it. Not giving it to Mann. Giving it to Steyn, the true victim.
And if he gets 50 k extra, let the warrior keep it!
Make the $5000 a conditional loan from the Tim Ball estate, to be paid once Mann settles that outstanding payment.
Whilst the trial was on, he said he would prefer it if supporters bought books and merch rather than crowdfunding, I would presume that might still be his preference:
https://www.steynstore.com/page1.html
Shades of …
In the NFL v. USFL antitrust lawsuit, the jury found the National Football League liable for one antitrust violation but ordered the league to pay only one dollar in damages to the rival league.
The only winners in this case are the lawyers.
12 years
How is ANY judgement against Steyn a ‘win’ for free speech? Remember its FREE (as in $0) speech. While we may be happy this won’t bankrupt Steyn the finding for Mann should have been reversed in its entirety.
Yes, I agree, but if he brags about his big win on his Facebook page, people are really going to inquire into this guy’s honesty.
I hope Steyn gives him US$5,000-worth in Canadian quarters.
or Confederate money
Might be worth more on eBay.
Rubles
Well, no. The fine is reduced – GOOD – but the verdict was horse manure from the beginning. The process was inordinately punishing, and even the drastically reduced damage award is still insulting.
Allowing this to go to trial was a violation of the first amendment. The judge knew the whole thing would be overturned on him, so he reduced the fine so as to escape the humiliation and potential impeachment.
Without compensation to Steyn, justice is not served. Perhaps this will allow him to count it as over.
The process was the punishment.
I suggest we all nominate Steyn for a Nobel. He can pay the fine out of his real award.
TMK the p r i ck has yet to pay Dr Ball’s estate the court ordered legal compensation.
sorry bastid. UPenn is despicable by keeping the p r ick in their employ
mmann – mmoore without the scraggly facial feature (separated at birth?).
Mann is as honorable in paying his legal debts as he has been in his CliSy endeavors.
Very good news
Hey, Michael Mann, let me help you out here . . . and, wow, do you need all the help you can get:
A sum of
$5,000$5,001 received against a mandatory payout of $500,000 (per the above article) represents a return-on-“investment” of negative 99%. And that doesn’t even include any legal expenses you may have personally incurred!It’s back to counting tree rings for you . . . good riddance.
$5,000 versus $1,000,000…
Ok. Not quite CO2. 5000 ppm.
Thought I saw something there.
He swings. He misses.
reduced Steyn’s punitive damages from an astronomical $1 million to a modest $5,000
This is not a win. It’s a much reduced penalty.
Let’s raise a glass to this triumph!
If you say so.
Shouldn’t have been $5.
“Mann has been ordered to pay over $500,000 in legal costs”
But, will he really pay it? Or his supporters?
Or nobody?
Somebody else is paying Mann’s legal costs.
Pretty sure it will be paid from the Climate Defence Sludge Fund.
A reasonable $5000 for the defamation he was found guilty of. How is this a victory for Steyn, exactly? He lost in the most optimal way?
LOLOLOLOL, there was NO defamation apparent as he dragged the lawsuit along, made a lot of money as author and getting bogus cash prizes AFTER he was allegedly defamed.
You have a knack at being clueless and wrong, where did you learn that skill?
Cluelessness is not a skill.
It’s a genetic affliction.
(used to be called “retard”, but we don’t use that now.
Especially not “FULL retard”)
That is not what the jury found, after hearing the evidence against Steyn.
“…made a lot of money as author and getting bogus cash prizes AFTER he was allegedly defamed.”
He never showed he suffered the entire time; the Jury was given partial information as the criminal Judge prevented exculpatory evidence from being produced.
This is why leftism ideology is dying because it is based on continuous lies and BS.
Ah, it was all a vast criminal conspiracy. Got it.
Ah, you have run out of bullshit to offer.
Rest well fella.
You missed the most important part of the judgement: costs of $500k were awarded AGAINST MANN.
“Adding to the celebration, Mann has been ordered to pay over $500,000 in legal costs to National Review, Steyn’s co-defendant in the case. This award, rooted in D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) law, recognizes the frivolous nature of Mann’s decade-long legal crusade against those who challenged his research.”
Yes, after National Review distanced themselves from Steyn the court determined that Steyn’s defamatory remarks could not be imputed to NR because (apparently) no one at NR had ever seen Steyn’s column before they published it, so the action was dismissed, with NR awarded summary judgement.
That isn’t a win for Steyn.
It’s certainly a loss for Mann.
Of course. The headline of this article states that the loss is a victory for Steyn, which is objectively untrue.
Mr. J: Thanks for showing us that you are blind to “objective truth”. A few days ago, (as you note), Steyn faced a jury verdict of $500,000; the trial judge granted Steyn’s motion to reduce Steyn’s verdict to a judgment of $5,000. Steyn’s motion was granted, so “victory” is objectively true. You could also do the math and say it’s a victory for Steyn- oh, wait, you can’t do the math.
To readers interested in good faith reading of this (unlike Mr. J), note the trial court took almost a year to decide this routine post-trial motion. This likely prevented appeal until now. Although Steyn won the motion, commenters here understand that this case should have been thrown out when it was filed, vindicated by the tiny verdicts. In this case, Mann abused the Court, but the Court seemed to enjoy it!
VICTORY???? The outrageous verdict itself should have been reversed and Mann should have had to pay Steyn et al $1 Million. This still lets stand the improper ruling of Steyn as a LOSER and SLANDERER and is NO VICTORY for “Free Speech”….or am I missing something?
12 years of legal battling to get $5000.
Hard to celebrate what was essentially paying two teams of lawyers to exist while nothing happened.
Wonderful news! The original ruling was absurd, and dangerous.
Mann will still spin this as a resounding victory using some twisted logic
Doesn’t matter, he’s irrelevant, a footnote in history in the same category as Paul Ehrlich
I suspect he will largely disappear from view quite soon. There’s a rock somewhere with his name on it
He’s not talking about it at all.
“I suspect he will largely disappear from view quite soon.” Yes. Somehow he reminds me of Maximilien Robespierre, who … well, it didn’t end well for him either.
This grubby little man who doesn’t clearly (even now I’m sure) understand a basic technique like principal component analysis properly has managed to accumulate countless honours and awards.
There are many great minds of our era, of which he is certainly not one, whose achievements haven’t received even a fraction of this attention
It goes to show just what a joke ‘science’ has become and the utter meaningless these days of the title ‘professor’
Let history rather than the present be the judge. He will leave no lasting trace scientifically, only a stain of a certain hue
There is only one consolation: Mann will never in his life know the thrill and profound satisfaction of making a genuine scientific discovery.