Climate scientist Michael Mann’s legal woes deepen: 1M defamation award slashed to 5K in blow to climate alarmism narrative

By willowt // 2025-03-06

Mastodon

Parler

Gab

Copy

A District of Columbia Superior Court judge significantly reduced a $1 million punitive damages award against conservative commentator Mark Steyn to $5,000 in a defamation lawsuit filed by climate scientist Michael Mann.
This decision marks the second legal setback for Mann in recent months, following a January 2025 court order requiring him to pay National Review over $500,000 in legal fees for a failed litigation attempt.
The lawsuit centers on Steyn's criticism of Mann's "hockey-stick" graph, which has been both lauded as evidence of human-caused global warming and criticized for relying on potentially manipulable proxy data. The case also touches on the "Climategate" scandal, which fueled skepticism about climate change research.
The judge's decision is seen as a win for free speech and a reminder of the importance of open debate in a democratic society. It underscores the judiciary's role in preventing the legal system from being used as a tool to intimidate and silence critics of the prevailing climate narrative.

In a stunning reversal, a District of Columbia Superior Court judge has slashed a $1 million punitive damages award against conservative commentator Mark Steyn to a mere $5,000 in a defamation lawsuit brought by climate scientist Michael Mann. This ruling marks the second legal setback for Mann in less than two months, following a January 2025 order requiring him to pay National Review over $500,000 in legal fees for his failed litigation. The case, which has dragged on for 13 years, underscores the dangers of weaponizing the legal system to silence dissent and highlights the growing skepticism surrounding the climate alarmism narrative.

The case that refused to die

The lawsuit stems from a 2012 blog post by Steyn, published in National Review, which quoted Rand Simberg’s comparison of Mann to Jerry Sandusky, the disgraced Penn State football coach convicted of child sexual abuse. Simberg wrote that Mann, then a Penn State professor, “could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science.” Steyn echoed the sentiment, calling Mann’s infamous “hockey-stick” graph—a visual representation of global temperature trends—“fraudulent.” Mann, best known for his hockey-stick graph, which has been widely cited as evidence of human-caused global warming, sued Steyn, Simberg, National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) for defamation. While CEI and National Review were granted summary judgment in 2021, a jury in January 2024 found Steyn and Simberg liable, awarding Mann $1 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages from Steyn, along with $1,000 from Simberg. However, Judge Alfred Irving ruled Tuesday that the 1 million punitive award was “grossly excessive” and reduced it to $5,000. Irving noted that Mann “presented no persuasive evidence suggesting that he suffered injury to his business” as a result of Steyn’s article. The judge also pointed out that the million-to-one ratio of punitive to compensatory damages was unprecedented and raised “a judicial eyebrow.”

A pattern of legal overreach

This ruling is the latest chapter in a saga that has exposed Mann’s apparent strategy of using litigation to silence critics. National Review’s editors revealed during discovery that Mann’s “explicitly stated intention was to use a ‘major lawsuit’ as a vehicle with which to ‘ruin National Review.’” While Mann failed in that endeavor, the magazine spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars defending itself against what it called a “malicious, meritless suit.” In January 2025, a court ordered Mann to pay National Review $530,820.21 in legal fees, a decision the magazine hailed as a victory for free speech. “The promise of American law is that there will be material consequences for bad behavior,” the editors wrote. “Now, he must pay up.”

Climate science and the specter of manipulation

The case also raises broader questions about the integrity of climate science and the politicization of data. Mann’s hockey-stick graph, which shows a sharp rise in global temperatures over the past century, has been both celebrated and criticized. Critics argue that the graph relies on proxy data—such as tree rings and ice cores—that can be easily manipulated to support a predetermined narrative. The controversy surrounding Mann’s work intensified in 2009 with the “Climategate” scandal, in which leaked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit appeared to show scientists discussing the manipulation of data to bolster the case for global warming. While Mann was not directly implicated in the emails, the scandal cast a shadow over his work and fueled skepticism about the broader climate change narrative.

A victory for free speech

The reduction of Mann’s punitive damages award is a win for free speech and a reminder of the importance of robust debate in a democratic society. As Judge Irving noted, the District of Columbia has a “general interest in upholding jury verdicts,” but it also has a duty to ensure that punitive damages are not used as a tool of intimidation. Steyn, for his part, has long maintained that his criticism of Mann was protected by the First Amendment. “Science inevitably involves disagreement,” National Review’s editors wrote. “And yet, Mann proved incapable of handling dissent. Instead of engaging in debate, he sued us.”

The bigger picture

This case is more than just a legal battle; it’s a microcosm of the broader cultural and political fight over climate change. For years, climate alarmists have sought to stifle dissent by labeling skeptics as “deniers” and using litigation to silence critics. Mann’s lawsuit against Steyn and National Review is a prime example of this tactic. But as this week’s ruling shows, the courts are not always willing to play along. By slashing Mann’s punitive damages award to $5,000, Judge Irving has sent a clear message: the First Amendment still matters, and the legal system cannot be weaponized to punish those who dare to question the prevailing narrative. For conservatives and climate realists, this is a moment to celebrate. The fight for free speech and scientific integrity is far from over, but this ruling is a step in the right direction. As National Review’s editors put it, “Hitherto, Michael Mann has engaged in his censorship campaign with impunity. The award of fees has finally exacted a price.” Now, it’s time for Mann to pay up—and for the public to continue pushing back against the green tyranny narrative that seeks to manipulate data in the name of climate alarmism. Sources include: JustTheNews.com NationalReview.com Reason.com