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.
Now that the defo is finally over (hopefully), can we find a way to force Mann to reveal his so-called calculations for his hockey shtick?
Isn’t Steyn still liable for Mann’s legal fees? That would be way more than $5K.
Nope that was already settled each party to pay there own legal costs.
This truly is looking like the Climate Science Monkey Trial — a public spectacle shining a spotlight on climate science like the Scopes Monkey trial illuminated creationism with face saving verdict bringing a nominal judgment.
While the reduction is in the right direction, the whole trial and verdict were obscene miscarriages of justice.
It does offer a level of stress relief from Steyn and that is a positive.
It does not make up for all the years of drama and trauma Steyn suffered.
Just a side note: $5,000 punitive is still half a million percent over $1 in damages.
“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.”
That is worth celebrating.
Dragging out the case for twelve years is the punishment. National Review is seriously negligent for remaining based in the Democratic Peoples Republic of DC. The odds of any conservative getting other than a partisan Democrat jury there is like reaching escape velocity by bending over and spitting.
Michael Mann is a proven fraudster, as are NASA and NOAH. I have no problem stating the provable truth.
A fun side note just researched.
Mann was represented pro bono by Finnegan, a very small DC law firm at Finnegan.com. They were assisted by the very big (750 attorneys) law firm Cozen O’Conner, presumably also pro bono. Both bragged extensively on their websites about the ‘punitive damages’ victory they finally achieved from a DC jury of six on Mann’s behalf. Great ‘lawfare’ marketing.
Neither says anything as of now about the fact it got overturned bigly—NOT great lawfare marketing.
In a similar vein, the San Fran based Sher Edling LLP law firm boasts on its website about the dozens of lawsuits it has filed on behalf of cities and states against ‘climate polluters’—but not about the 100% lawsuit failure rate it has incurred to date. Sher Edling does NOT work pro bono. They feed off city and state green politicians ‘eager to do something’ with public funds.
Interesting information. How do they cover the cost of this pro bono work? Do they get a contingency percent?
You ask a good question, the answer is longer than what might fit in a comment reply here. The Energy in Depth website covered the shenanigans surrounding that firm’s ‘arrangement’ in the New Jersey AG’s Platkin v Exxon lawsuit (they had a hand in it; it was recently dismissed, though), and the Climate Litigation Watch website covered that, too. Use each site’s search window to drop in “Sher Edling”, there’s plenty more. The nutshell is that the firm gets gigantic cuts if one of the plaintiffs wins in one or more of their boilerplate copy series of multiple lawsuits, and no doubt major parts of any settlements if those get labeled as ‘wins.’ Btw, Vic Sher was the long-ago notorious “Spotted Owl” lawyer on behalf of the Sierra Club.
Don’t get me started on what I’ve gathered on the fatal faults in their lawfare efforts.
http://gelbspanfiles.com/?tag=sher-edling
“Mistakes. These Guys Make Mistakes. Big Ones.“
Not sure if you’re still here Rud, but Finnegan is not a very small firm. They have offices around the globe, including one here in Palo Alto. They have a particularly strong patent prosecution and litigation practice, which is very highly respected. I don’t know why they would do work for Mann pro bono. I guess that even as stupid as it is on its face, the hockey stick graph is pretty scary even to highly educated non-scientists.
Well, while I am happy for Mark Steyn that the draconian amount was reduced, I wonder what are possible next steps for him (besides accepting this outcome and quit)
What are likely pathways forward, and what are the potential cost/risk/durationof those?
Congrats to Mark for finally coming out victorious in this case. Now that the “climate change” cult is facing complete collapse in the near future, expect these kind of results everywhere.
Does not change the fact, as Steyn as often pointed out, that the process is the punishment. This case has destroyed Steyn’s health, prevented him from continuing to write his best-selling books. Too bad the judge didn’t totally reverse the verdict.
Excellent news.
Well done Mark Steyn.
One in the eye for the Mannish Inquisition!
The trial transcript revealed MM as a thoroughly nasty piece of work. Not surprising he only had one amicus, the absurd Science Guy
The podcast of the trial was brilliant, it showed how corrupt the American legal system is and what a horrible little man Mann is.
Ann & Phelim unreportedstorysociety
$5k is too much for a modeling manipulator like that. The damage done by him to science process and energy policy is at least $5 trillion. We want reparations from Penn State.
Yes, this creep and Hansen were (probably) the two guys that started the avalanche that literally killed people, destroyed young people’s educations and, as you say, did trillions of dollars in damages to humanity, all to feather their own nests, at first …… and then couldn’t dial it back.
Good but $5,000 is still ridiculous!
Bring forth the Mann Knew and Hansen Hussle lawsuits.
Who is footing Mann’s legal bills?