A dozen years ago Rand Simberg wrote a piece that said climate scientist Michael Mann had "molested and tortured" data to produce his famous hockey stick analysis of rising global temperatures in the 20th century. National Review's Mark Steyn agreed, adding explicitly that Mann's conclusions were "fraudulent." This all happened a couple of years after the furor over the Climategate email leaks in 2009.
Mann sued both Simberg and Steyn, and today a jury finally passed judgment. Simberg was ordered to pay punitive damages of $1000 and Steyn was ordered to pay $1 million. When I wrote about this in 2013 (!) I said:
I’m personally a little uneasy about this, since I’d normally think of Steyn’s post as hyperbolic and stupid, but still fair comment on a public figure. It’s a close call, though. I suspect Mann will lose his case, but that’s for a jury to decide now.
The question is whether you take "fraudulent" to be just an offhand insult or a serious charge of scientific misconduct. I still think that's a little tricky to say in this case. Still, Simberg and Steyn both had chances to retract and apologize if they weren't serious about alleging misconduct. As far as I know, neither of them ever did.
For scientists, calling their work fraudulent is as serious and offensive as it gets. There are no other insults or accusations that carry more weight or negative implications for the career of a scientist than being called that.
Yeah, this. Calling someone's published work in print fraudulent is absolutely libel.
Honestly, I'm surprised the $1000 judgement wasn't higher given that it was a punitive damage and those kinds of things are supposed to be tailored to things like the net worth of the defendant, who in this case is certainly worth enough that $1000 is nothing.
People get fraudulent work published all the time. This case is about shutting down scientific discussion, which is bad for science.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/02/a-bitterly-disappointing-verdict.php
It’s actually possible to disagree without calling the person with whom you’re disagreeing a fraud—unless, of course, you’re prepared to back that up.
After all, truth is always an absolute defense to a defamation claim.
I didn't think it was possible to troll this hard, but you've done it. Congrats!
Yeah, sure. Heard of a guy named Dan Ariely? Look him up.
Thank you for reminding me why I insist that people actually make their point instead of saying "go look (X) up" - because I did so and I have no fucking clue why you'd say look him up or his relevance.
Maybe you could just enlighten us all instead, as just saying crap like "heard of X? look X up" is a non-point unless X is so widely known that it is reasonable to expect every person to at least know of X.
Just came here to say this! In some careers (politics?) it might not mean as much, but for a scientist it could damage their reputation and hurt careers. I don't know if it would have in this case, but it's a specific, damaging charge, like calling a reporter a "fabricator".
Let's hope the courts ram that hockey stick up the fundaments of more Republican "commenters".
Bankrupt them; it's the only way to stop the lying.
Nope. Mark Steyn went pro se and they argued over the data in court.
Either he miraculously became a climate science expert and steeped in law, or he's just a fool of the Dunning-Kruger vintage.
If he's the guy I'm thinking of-- plummy accent, oozing self-regard from every pore-- in going pro se he was that proverbial lawyer who had a fool for a client; the kind whose every word is deeply alienating to most normal humans.
LMAO that's amazing. I always figured that Steyn was just a cynical manipulative jerk who just knew which buttons to push to rile up the rightwing base. Nope, turns out he was a narcissist true believer who figured that he was also a legal genius!
Steyn represented himself because he was running out of money. Plenty of experts testified that the famous hockey stick had problems.
Mann has spent years shutting down anyone who questioned his science. Talk about a narcissist. Like Fauci, Mann believes he is science. Don't question him, climate denier. Don't suggest that maybe the government mandating electrical vehicles is necessary.
In the end, Mann was correct and his work was not fraudulent.
That you're railing about Fauci, who has nothing to do with climate science, tells me everything I need to know about the worth of your opinion on Mann.
In the end we don't know that Mann was correct.
I know Fauci is not a climate scientist. But did you not find it disturbing that Fauci was arrogant enough to say that he was the science and his facts were above debate. Science should be the process of deliberation and debate. That is what makes it self-correcting. We are losing that.
Yeah, the graph at the top of this post means nothing compared to Mark Steyn's gibberish.
That "hockey stick" was published 25 years ago and it has since been coroborated multiple times in multiple studies using multitudes of different datasets and multitudes of different methods which have all produced similar hockey sticks. And on top of that, in the 25 years since Michael Mann's hockey stick was published, the "blade" has grown longer in one constant direction, up.
So, yeah, sorry, Mann was correct.
If you knew what you were talking about, you would provide scientific facts. Telling if someone is full of it in science is really that simple. Mann had facts, Steyn had bullshit. Which do you have?
What facts does Mann have? Did you listen to the trial? Because I did.
Point out Steyn's bullshit, please.
Point out, from the scientific literature, where Michael Mann's graph is fraudulent.
Child, I don't give fuck if you watched the trial.
calling a scientist's professional research fraudulent doesn't seem tricky to me at all. it's clearcut libel.
A number of years ago I was at a small conference for spaceflight enthusiasts. They were fortunate to get Lori Garver, then Deputy Administrator of NASA, to give the opening speech in front of a couple of hundred people. Afterwards they opened the floor to questions and one of the first to get up was Rand Simberg who then spent minutes haranguing her about, in his opinion, NASA's missteps and poor decisions. I cringed the whole time and she left quickly aftewards instead of staying around. Honestly I was disappointed they only pinged him for $1K. I would have liked to see that bloviator get hit with something a lot more substantial.
Why is NASA above criticism?
"You're ugly and your mother dresses you funny" is an offhand insult. "Fraudulent" is a serious accusation.
I went over to Wikipedia and this is what stood out for me:
The lawsuit against writers Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, filed in 2012, went to trial on January 18, 2024. On February 8, 2024 Michael Mann was awarded "punitive damages of $1,000 against Mr. Simberg and $1 million against Mr. Steyn".
Twelve years in court! And is it even truly over for the poor guy? In any case, I hope he feels vindicated.
Just to pile on, but as a lawyer, stating that scientific work is fraudulent is clearly libel. I remember when this libel was first reported. Frankly, using the word 'fraud' in most cases implies very specific actions or statements that need to be proven. If someone lies on a resume the employer is entittle to fire that person - and if in the job long enough and in a high enough position, would likely also be sued for damages. This case was much more serious. I had forgotten about this matter. What is striking is the 12 year period and the traffic ticket size of punitive damages. It would be nice to know why this case took 12 years to litigate.
1) Our court systems (especially in DC) are broken. The court moved very slowly.
2) Michael Mann was not cooperative. It didn't matter to Mann how long the case lasted to him. I don't know who financed Mann's legal costs or how many of his lawyers were pro bono. But I know that this case costs Mann almost nothing. So, what did he care about the legal costs of the people he dragged through court?
3) I listened to much of the trial. Michael Mann is not a nice man. https://judithcurry.com/2024/02/08/jcs-ethics-complaint-against-michael-mann/
Whether Mann, personally, is a jerk or not does not give Stimberg and Stein the right to call him a scientific fraud and compare him to a convicted child molester.
Also, why would Mann himself intentionally delay or not cooperate with a suit that he himself filed?
You would have to ask Mann that question. Steyn kept people informed as the case went through the septic sewer of the DC justice system.
Steyn and Simberg never compared him to a child molester. They did suggest that the investigation into Mann's methods and his involvement in Climate Gate was a cover-up, just like Penn State covering up for Jerry Sandusky's child molestation. In Sandusky's case, they let the abuse go on because Sandusky was their football star. So, why wouldn't the university employ similar methods to protect its climate science star? Both cases were overseen by the same university president who ultimately went to jail for his part in protecting Jerry Sandusky and disregarding the abuse.
Finally, if I think something is fraudulent, I am protected by the First Amendment, and so are Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. Or we were.
“Finally, if I think something is fraudulent, I am protected by the First Amendment, and so are Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. Or we were.“
That’s the tell, isn’t it? Look, you can think—even say—whatever you want. That’s the First Amendment. No one is altering your brain or gagging you.
But you’re not allowed to escape the consequences of your lies destroying the livelihood of another.
Right-wingers are always trying to escape the consequences of their malevolence. Huh.
"if I think something is fraudulent, I am protected by the First Amendment, and so are Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. Or we were."
Geez, it floors me sometimes how people can know practically nothing about something seemingly so important to them.
Without taking a side on this particular question, I think it's worth pointing out that Mann was specifically targeted in 2010 by Ken Cuccinelli, the Virginia AG who soon afterward ran for governor, because of his public visibility on climate issues (as I remember, it involved some kind of falsification charge). Mann had moved to Penn State by then, at a time that turned out be just before the PA fracking boom started in around 2008. He was very visible in the overheated political fights around fracking.
His move had a cost for Penn State, as his position at UVA ended up costing them for legal fees defending against Cuccinelli. A little OT-- I've never seen it discussed anywhere-- but I've always suspected that the Sandusky case, which broke in 2011 and came close to destroying the university, was driven by gas interests as retribution for keeping Mann on the faculty, whether by exposing something that really had been going on or by manufacturing something out of whole cloth. One of the biggest players in the Marcellus is Chesapeake Energy, which had (as far as I know still has) a reputation for being particularly aggressive (also shady about payments to landowners), and which was a major donor to the then-governor (who knew of the state investigation, was an active member of the PSU board, and mentioned nothing about what was coming).
The point is that Mann and institutions around him have been hard-pressed for a quarter-century by some of the best-financed and underhanded interests in the country. If that was happening to me, I might tend to get a little vindictive myself.
Especially in a field where scientific differences and personal animosities seem to coincide so much. From the outside, climate science looks even more personal than literature, which is really saying something.
+1! Mann has been hounded by fossileer grifters for ages, and actually had his emails stolen by them.
Who "stole" his emails? Documentation please.
"A little OT-- I've never seen it discussed anywhere-- but I've always suspected that the Sandusky case, which broke in 2011 and came close to destroying the university, was driven by gas interests as retribution for keeping Mann on the faculty, whether by exposing something that really had been going on or by manufacturing something out of whole cloth."
Are you saying that big oil interests made up the Sandusky abuse story? Yeah, way OT.
The point is that Mann and institutions around him have been hard-pressed for a quarter-century by some of the best-financed and underhanded interests in the country. If you don't think that climate scientists who agree with the status quo don't have big money behind them. You are naive.
DC courts are "broken" because your side refuses to appoint enough judges and provide enough resources because you WANT IT BROKEN!
Remember when Republicans tried to “depack” the DC Circuit by asserting that none of the vacancies needed to be filled?
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/19/us/politics/republicans-block-another-obama-nominee-for-key-judgeship.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&sgrp=c-cb
The poor guy? As in Micheal Mann being the poor guy? You have no idea what you are talking about.
https://climatechangedispatch.com/tim-ball-defeats-michael-mann-lawsuit/
The Canadian court ordered Mann to pay the legal costs of Tim Ball because that is how it works in Canada. Mann never did, and Tim Ball died penniless.
Looking back at the 2013 comments, I have to wonder: what makes Mann a public figure?
If publishing makes you a public figure, does that mean every academic is a public figure? Seems like a very low bar - too low. Or do you become a public figure the second a conservative media outlet decides to go after you?
"The precedent set today, and as alluded to by Justice Alito when the case was petitioned before the U.S. Supreme Court, means that disagreement and/or criticism of a matter of public policy — the founding principle of this country — is now in doubt. And should you choose to give voice to any dissent, you can brought before a jury, held responsible, and fined."
https://www.steynonline.com/14085/a-bad-day-for-america
* snrk *
So Steyn thinks this is a bad ruling. I am shocked! Shocked!
And for the record, there is a big difference between disagreement and/or criticism on a matter of public policy, and calling someone a scientific fraud. Steyn crossed that line and, when called out on it, chose to double down rather than retract and apologize.
Steyn should die penniless and alone.
You sound like one nice guy, ColBatGuano ("if that really is your name"), both mean and ignorant.
You're really dense.
If I call your work fraudulent, even if I do so to boost a public policy position your work discredits, I am not engaged in disagreement about public policy or criticism of a public policy position.
I am calling your work fraudulent.
I have to make that claim good - or face the consequences. My free right to disagree on public policy or to criticise a public policy position is irrelevant to those consequences.
For my final post, I leave you this observation from blogger at Powerline blogger, John Hinderaker.
"The case is destined for more years in the appellate courts. In John Williams' closing argument on behalf of Mann, he said that the jury should award punitive damages so that in the future, no one will dare engage in "climate denialism"–whatever that is–just as Donald Trump's "election denialism" needs to be suppressed. In 41 years of trying cases to juries, I never heard such an outrageously improper appeal. John Williams should be ashamed of himself, but he won't be, because this jury apparently bought his argument: they want to make Mark Steyn pay $1 million out of his own pocket, to a plaintiff who suffered no damages but only made an ideological argument, so that no one will, ever again, try to challenge the regime's global warming narrative. However false that narrative may be.
Ironically, the case may have come full circle. Mark always wanted to try this case as a free speech issue. But that didn't quite work, since defamation has always been an exception to the First Amendment, or whatever free speech principles may apply. But now Michael Mann's lawyer has made it explicit: impose an arbitrary seven figure penalty on Mark Steyn, not to compensate the plaintiff Michael Mann, who didn't suffer any damages whatsoever, but rather to deter anyone from ever again arguing that climate change alarmists are wrong, however flawed their science may be.
It is hard to imagine anything more anti-scientific or anti-American."
Ciao
I hope this really is your final post! I won't be holding my breath though.