Climate Change Litigation Woes, By Chris Knight (Florida)

The article from NaturalNews.com, dated March 6, 2025, https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-03-06-climate-scientist-michael-manns-legal-woes-deepen.html

delves into the ongoing defamation lawsuit between climate scientist Michael Mann and conservative commentator Mark Steyn, spotlighting recent developments that have turned the legal tide against Mann. At the heart of the piece is a District of Columbia Superior Court judge's decision to slash a $1 million punitive damages award against Steyn to a mere $5,000, a ruling that came after a jury in January 2024 had granted Mann $1 in compensatory damages and the hefty punitive sum. Judge Alfred Irving called the original award "grossly excessive," pointing out Mann's failure to show any real business harm from Steyn's 2012 blog post. This isn't Mann's only recent stumble—earlier in January 2025, he was ordered to fork over $530,820.21 in legal fees to National Review after a failed attempt to sink the magazine through litigation, a move the outlet claims he explicitly intended to "ruin" them with, as uncovered during discovery.

The lawsuit itself traces back to that 2012 National Review post where Steyn amplified Rand Simberg's jab likening Mann to Jerry Sandusky, the convicted Penn State child molester, accusing Mann of "molesting and torturing data" in his famous "hockey-stick" graph—a visual claiming a sharp global temperature spike tied to human activity. Mann sued Steyn, Simberg, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute for defamation, though the latter two dodged the bullet with a 2021 summary judgment. The graph, a darling of climate alarmists, has long been a battleground, praised as proof of man-made warming yet slammed for leaning on shaky proxy data like tree rings and ice cores, a controversy fanned by the 2009 "Climategate" email leaks that hinted at data fudging in climate circles—leaks that didn't directly nab Mann but muddied his work's halo nonetheless.

Natural News frames this slashed award as a free speech win, a judicial rebuke to using courts as a bludgeon against dissent. National Review's editors cheer it as a blow to Mann's censorship campaign, arguing he's dodged debate for lawsuits, a stance Judge Irving bolstered by insisting punitive damages can't just be tools of intimidation. Beyond the courtroom, the article paints Mann's legal flops as a microcosm of a larger war over climate change, where alarmists allegedly wield litigation to muzzle sceptics, branding them "deniers" while dodging the messy business of open scientific sparring.

Now, let's tear into this climate change litigation nonsense with both barrels blazing, if that is the right metaphor. Mann's 13-year legal tantrum isn't some noble defense of truth—it's a power play, an attempt to bankrupt and silence anyone who dares poke holes in his precious hockey stick. The courts cutting his $1 million prize to $5,000 and saddling him with a half-million-dollar legal tab isn't just a setback; it's a glorious implosion of a strategy that's as intellectually bankrupt as it is morally bankrupt. This isn't about science—it's about control. That graph, with its questionable proxies, isn't sacred scripture; it's a punching bag for valid scepticism, as even the National Research Council in 2006 admitted with its tepid, caveat-laden nod. But instead of slugging it out in the ring of ideas, Mann scurries to judges, whining about hurt feelings over a blog post.

Look at "Climategate"—those 2009 emails didn't just spark doubts; they ripped the mask off the myth of pure, unbiased climate research. Mann's graph was already on thin ice; his lawsuit spree just adds to this. Reason.com pegged it back in February 2024: that million-to-one damages ratio was begging for a Supreme Court smackdown, a no-brainer when it reeks of spite over substance. And the cost? National Review bled years and cash defending against what they call a "meritless" suit. Now he's the one coughing up $500,000-plus, a delicious twist JustTheNews.com dubbed a hit to alarmism—but it's more like a stake through its litigious heart.

This isn't just Mann's mess; it's the whole climate litigation circus laid bare. From ExxonMobil battles to city cash grabs, it's the same tired script: vague harm claims, demonised sceptics, and a plea for courts to prop up a narrative fewer people buy each day. NPR in 2024 fretted over scientists under attack—sure, but what about the gag order Mann's suits slap on free thought? The gall of crying victim while swinging a legal club is stomach-churning. Thankfully, judges like Irving aren't always suckers. This ruling screams that courts aren't here to babysit fragile egos or shaky science—free speech isn't a doormat for climate zealots to wipe their boots on. Mann's fiasco proves this lawfare game is a loser's bet, and the next eco-warrior itching to sue better think twice: the law's not your personal thug, and truth doesn't need a muzzle to win.

https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-03-06-climate-scientist-michael-manns-legal-woes-deepen.html