February 9, 2024
2 min read
Michael Mann secured a win in his legal battle against conservative bloggers who said the climatologist “molested and tortured data” and compared him to a convicted child abuser
CLIMATEWIRE | Climate 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.
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 National Review, had defamed Mann in blog posts published in 2012. They accused Mann of manipulating the science around his “hockey stick” graph illustrating the exponential rise of global temperatures.
“I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said in a statement.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
In a column posted in 2012 on the CEI website, Simberg had referred to Mann as “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science,” comparing him to a former Pennsylvania State University football coach who was arrested for sexually abusing young boys. Simberg said Mann had “molested and tortured data” on climate change.
Steyn later quoted Simberg’s column in a post for the National Review.
Mann sued Simberg and Steyn after their articles were published. The case has had a long journey through the courts, landing before the Supreme Court in 2019.
The justices declined petitions from CEI and the National Review to stop Mann’s case from advancing the Washington court, claiming First Amendment protections. Justice Samuel Alito said he would have taken…
Read the full article here
