Michael Mann’s $1 million libel judgment reverberates in the still-controversial world of climate science

Climate scientist Michael Mann, who won a $1 million judgment against two right-wing bloggers on Thursday, called the attacks as controversial as they were 12 years ago. It was a victory that has resonated throughout the world of climate change debate. .

“I hope this decision sends a message that unfairly attacking climate scientists is not protected speech,” Mann said following the unanimous decision by a six-judge jury in the District of Columbia Superior Court. said in a statement.

After a four-week trial, the committee deliberated for one day, and Mann was found guilty of defamation by Rand Shinberg, a former adjunct fellow at the Institute for Competitive Enterprise, and Mark Stein, a contributor to National Review. The court ruled that it had been received. The jury awarded Mann $1 in compensatory damages and $1 million in punitive damages. Only the bloggers received the verdict. Three years ago, a court ruled that publishers could not be held liable for the work of part-time contributors.

The heyday of blogging is long gone, and the consensus on global warming has strengthened in the decades since Mann first made his case, but in a polarized battle over the future of fossil fuels, climate scientists continue to face personal and professional attacks.

Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, said the New York-based organization provided legal assistance to a record number of clients in 2023, according to its annual report. In total, the number was 32 individuals and organizations). Kurz says he’s heard from scientists that the news of the Mann decision is gratifying, but he doesn’t expect it to change the beliefs of climate change deniers or put an end to attacks on scientists. said.

“It’s rare to see a scientist fight back as much as Michael Mann,” she says. “I don’t think many people realize the extent to which other climate scientists are being targeted, for legitimate personal and professional reasons, and to protect themselves from this level of publicity. I cannot accept it.”

Lawsuits filed against the National Defense Fund include threats of defamation for publishing new research, fear of employer retaliation for speaking on climate change, and invasive public records searches, including threats to Mann’s career. It’s the kind of thing we faced early on.

For example, the Legal Defense Fund’s annual report shows that in 2023, a professor at a public university was targeted by a subpoena from an oil and gas company and asked to hand over research on methane, a potent greenhouse gas. He says he represented him. The Defense Fund did not name her professor, but the company’s move to declare her pro bono work was a “clear attempt to silence her and discredit her.” He said he was able to protect her.

In the case decided this week, Mann faced an even more explicit attack. In separate blogs, Shinberg and Stein compared Mann’s science to the child sex abuse scandal that rocked Penn State University, where Mann taught at the time. They say the school has accused Mann of “abusing and torturing data” and failing to expose the violations of Penn State’s disgraced assistant football coach, Jerry Sandusky. He wrote that he had been “cheating” his science.

Mann said on the stand that he was made to feel like an “outcast” in his community and saw his research funding plummet. Mann has written some of the most influential science on climate change, including the so-called “hockey stick” graph depicting the dramatic rise in temperatures since the dawn of the industrial age.

As a public figure and now director of the Center for Science, Sustainability, and Media at the University of Pennsylvania, Mann faced a heavy burden of proof to prove that the blogs rose to the level of defamation. Under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, the defendant had to prove that he acted knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth. But the jury found that Mr. Stein, who is from Canada, declared at trial, before criticizing Mr. Mann in print, that “I have not personally assessed the details of your American investigation.” It was determined that he had cleared that hurdle.

After the verdict, Steynon posted on social media platform It reads in part: “Aside from monetary damages, the real harm caused by this lawsuit is to all Americans who still believe in the First Amendment.” . This decision did not silence Stein. He posted that he would answer questions from members of the Marc Stein Club live online on Friday at 3:00 PM Deep State Standard Time.

Posts on his website indicate Stein intends to appeal. A preview of his Q&A notes that the $1 million is “likely to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court,” and another article notes that the Supreme Court previously declined to hear the appeal in 2019. cites extensively the dissenting opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito. Mann’s lawsuit was blocked.

Since then, the high court has gained one more conservative vote, Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But it said Mann’s lawsuit over a blog that compared him to a convicted child molester was a threat to “robust and uninhibited debate about important political and social issues.” It is unclear how much support Alito’s views have.