Jury Awards Climate Scientist $1 Million In Defamation Lawsuit (apnews.com) 153
"The jury took little time to determine that Michael Mann had been defamed by conservative writers who likened him to a pedophile," writes longtime Slashdot reader BishopBerkeley in a follow-up to Wednesday's story. "He has received a $1 million judgment against the writers. This was likely because scrutiny of his data showed no malfeasance or misuse of data, but the 'conservative' writers' accusations continued, nevertheless." The Associated Press reports: Mann's research was investigated after his and other scientists' emails were leaked in 2009 in an incident that brought further scrutiny of the "hockey stick" graph, with skeptics claiming Mann manipulated data. Investigations by Penn State and others found no misuse of data by Mann, but his work continued to draw attacks, particularly from conservatives. "Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data," Simberg wrote. Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referenced Simberg's article in his own piece in National Review, calling Mann's research "fraudulent."
The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia awarded Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer; it also awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn. It announced its verdict after four weeks of trial and one day of deliberations. During the trial, Steyn represented himself, but said through his manager Melissa Howes that he would be appealing the $1 million award in punitive damages, saying it would have to face "due process scrutiny."
The jury in Superior Court of the District of Columbia awarded Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer; it also awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn. It announced its verdict after four weeks of trial and one day of deliberations. During the trial, Steyn represented himself, but said through his manager Melissa Howes that he would be appealing the $1 million award in punitive damages, saying it would have to face "due process scrutiny."
One mil is a bit low. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pedophile oil interests (not a joke; read a bit about Saudi Arabia).
Countries aren't pedophiles, people are pedophiles. Your post equating the two (whether right or wrong) is precisely the irrelevant tie-together-all-bad-things bullshit rhetoric that we're celebrating as being rejected in this court case.
It's no better when we do it. Try to keep your points separate and relevant to their own discussions, otherwise you come across as the same kind of a rambling lunatic as the climate deniers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Countries aren't pedophiles, people are pedophiles.
Let me just leave this here [buzzfeednews.com]. Countries aren't pedophiles, but some cultures explicitly protect pedophilia, and theirs is one of them.
Our culture isn't as much better as we like to think, though. For example SA is commonly criticized for not having any concept of spousal rape. But a certain former POTUS got away with spousal rape for the same reason, there was no such concept in the state in which he forced himself upon his wife at the time. And hey, let me bring up Waco for a second; the FBI allegedly move
Re: (Score:2)
Countries aren't pedophiles, but some cultures explicitly protect pedophilia, and theirs is one of them.
And we're talking about oil interests and investments. You're doing the same thing as the OP, shoehorning pedophilia into an unrelated discussion. Whether you call the money being spent on anti-climate lobbying pedodollars, or you equate a climate researcher to a pedophile, in both cases you're appealing to an unrelated emotion while your fundamental point lacks substance.
Pedophiles should be called out (and sentenced to an eternity of being kicked in the nuts). Climate deniers should be called out. Fossil
Re: (Score:2)
Whether you call the money being spent on anti-climate lobbying pedodollars, or you equate a climate researcher to a pedophile, in
Good thing I'm doing neither of those things.
$1 in compensatory damages from Simberg and Steyn (Score:2, Informative)
He won $1 in compensatory damages from Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn. However, the jury awarded $1000 punitive damages against Simberg, and $1 million against Steyn.
Rand's thoughts: [transterrestrial.com] I am pleased that the jury found in my favor on half of the statements at issue in this case, including finding my statement that Professor Mann engaged in data manipulation was not defamation. In over a decade of litigation, the sanctions levied against Professor Mann dwarf the judgment against me.”
Recurring theme (Score:5, Informative)
Looking at recent history, it's funny how many right-wing nut jobs have had their heads handed to them for lying, all the while claiming their lies are free speech. I guess it never occurred to them that yes, lying is free speech, but they are subject to the consequences of that lying. A short review.
Rudy Giiuliani - ordered to pay $150 million in damages [theguardian.com] to two election workers in Georgia after he lied about them changing votes and defaming them in general. Needless to say, he immediately filed for bankruptcy [bbc.com].
Alex Jones - originally ordered to pay $1.5 billion in damages [cnn.com] to families of Sandy Hook after he repeatedly and knowing lied the kids were never slaughtered, might only have to pay $85 million if he follows the court's directions on payments. He also filed for bankruptcy, all the while continuing to live his extravagant lifestyle to the tune of $65,000 to $90,000 per month.
Fox News - ordered to pay $787 million [cnn.com] after knowingly and repeatedly lying about Dominion Voting machines. Needless to say, the tabloid continues to insist it did nothing wrong, that its free speech was attacked and oh yeah, by settling, we don't have to go to trial and have all the other lies recorded for posterity.
Fox News and Rudiy Giuliani, again - Smartec, another voting company, has a $2.7 billion lawsuit [cnn.com] against both the Fox tabloid and Rudy Giuliani for, what else, knowingly and repeatedly lying about Smartec voting systems.
Multiple attorneys - after repeatedly lying about the 2020 election then going to court over those lies, several attorneys have been sanctioned [theguardian.com] by the courts for their lies and even bringing the case to court in the first place.
Roger Stone - sued for $100 million [businessinsider.com] for defaming a Chinese businessman on a conspiracy web site called InfoWars, by calling him a “turncoat criminal who is convicted of crimes here and in China" and alleging without evidence that Guo had violated US campaign finance laws by making campaign donations as a foreign national, which is illegal. Like the Fox tabloid, Stone chickened out and retracted all his lies and instead of paying money, ran advertisements in newspapers across the country apologizing for his lies as well as using social media to retract all of his lies.
The Oompa Loompa - First ordered to pay $5 million to E. Jean Carroll [pbs.org] for both sexual assault and defamation, only to have his great attorney Alina Habba upgrade to an additional $83 million award [nbcnews.com] after her client continued to defame Carroll.
So yeah, free speech is great so long as you can pay the piper.
Re:Recurring theme (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia has a really good article [wikipedia.org] that discusses free speech and links off to other good articles about the harm principle and the 1st amendment.
It goes some way to explain how freedom of expression and slander can co-exist.
Re:Recurring theme (Score:5, Insightful)
+1
Wikipedia has a really good article [wikipedia.org] that discusses free speech and links off to other good articles about the harm principle and the 1st amendment.
It goes some way to explain how freedom of expression and slander can co-exist.
The conservative definition of "freedom of speech" is "I can say and do whatever I like and you have to silently agree with it". I think it's too often ignored that criticism is freedom of expression as well and arguably the far more important part and the "mah freeze peach" is far too often used as an excuse to silence critics.
Freedom of speech is the ability to speak your mind.
Responsibility is not abusing that freedom to spread lies and/or do harm.
Integrity is being able to back up your arguments with evidence and solid reasoning (hiding behind freedom of speech just means the best argument you have is that it is literally not illegal to say).
Finally, wisdom is the realisation that, just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.
Freedom without responsibility is just anarchy, without integrity it's worthless, freedom with responsibility, integrity and wisdom is the greatest gift we can give to mankind.
Re:Recurring theme (Score:5, Insightful)
The intent of the lawsuit is very transparent, it is to increase risks of dissent and to discourage any kind of questioning of climate science research.
If you can't support your point without lying through your teeth, then does it not occur to you at any point that your point is unsupportable.
They weren't "dissenting" or "questioning climate research", they accused him outright of fraud.
You know that was the case, so why tell lies about it being some nefarious plot to prevent "dissent"?
Means for that was an activist judge blocking expert witnesses and preventing defense from establishing their case
More lies. This is another common tactic I've noticed about pathological liars. Linking to an article to provide a citation that has some loose commonality with their claim, but only on deeper reading does it turn out to directly contradict the liar. You clearly hope you can influence the more casual readers. Or maybe you're just virtual signalling to your fellow denialists.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
More lies. This is another common tactic I've noticed about pathological liars. Linking to an article to provide a citation that has some loose commonality with their claim, but only on deeper reading does it turn out to directly contradict the liar.
What is in your view inaccurate about "an activist judge blocking [reason.com] expert witnesses" statement that I made? Here is the direct quote:
Re: (Score:3)
What is in your view inaccurate about "an activist judge blocking expert witnesses" statement that I made?
Oh I don't know, possibly the fact that it's utter bollocks? Yes that's it.
Here is the direct quote:
So the judge struck all of Mann's expert witnesses and only most of the defendant and somehow that's biased in favour of Mann?
I note you don't of course quote any of the parts of the ruling, you just slap lies on top of something that's very superficially the right shape and hope that everyone reading is
Re: (Score:2)
said "an activist judge
Yes you lied about the judge.
You could not point to anything untrue in what I said
The bit about the judge being an activist was a lie.
The onus is on you to prove your point, not to just vomit out unsourced lies (no a single link to an article that link to a 55 page document is not a useful citation) and demand I prove you are wrong.
You're wrong
and a liar.
We're the only two reading this sub sub thread. There's no need for you to virtue signal, because there's no one left to virtue sig
Re: (Score:2)
To further elaborate. I think the judge is activist because this case was ought to be about accuracy of the scientific research that went into t
Re: (Score:2)
Stop lying.
That's what Mann sued for. The judge is no activist, you're lying about that because you wish the case was about something else because that's what you want to grind your axe over.
The judge's job is not to make the litigation about your personal bugbear.
Being wrong is not the same as being a fraud. The lawsuit is not about the scientific accuracy but and whether Mann is about fraud and comparable to a chIld molester. You're lying about the judge being an activist because you personally want clima
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't support your point without lying through your teeth, then does it not occur to you at any point that your point is unsupportable.
I was not on the jury that awarded Mann $2 in actual damages due to the defamation [science.org], but to me the defendant's rationale that Mann selectively omitted data [manhattancontrarian.com] fits the truth defense.Here is why I think that:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Recurring theme (Score:4, Insightful)
I wish I had mod points to mod this up.
The problem is that so-called "conservatives" have been able to lie with impunity for far too long. They make a ton of money doing it so they aren't about to stop over some quaint notion of honor or morality. They don't give a fleeting damn about who is hurt in the process of raking in the cash. You look at what someone like Hannity or Carlson or Jones makes and it is just nauseating.
As far as I'm concerned the awards are nowhere near large enough. And they should get them sentenced to public flogging on top of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, you're skating close to defamation yourself. "They don't give a fleeting damn about who is hurt in the process of raking in the cash" is, oddly enough, nearly even the same TYPE of comment which started this entire 12 year saga in the courts.
Re:Recurring theme (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful, you're skating close to defamation yourself.
There is the little difference that the OP's comment can be shown to be true, based even on judgements by courts (Jones, Fox/Carlson, this guy Stain and many others), so it is unlikely that anyone will even consider suing OP.
The comment that you think is "nearly even the same TYPE", on the other hand, just got hit with $1m in punitive damages because it was false, and that was proven in a court.
In summary, it generally works like this: true statements - not defamation or libel - no damages. False statements - defamation or libel - damages.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You cannot logic.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean you are talking to the person with perhaps the most ironic username this forum has ever seen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, I'm not an expert on UK libel law, and I've heard it is a bit messed up elsewhere as well, so I'll take your word for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So yeah, free speech is great so long as you can pay the piper.
I really despise this really common logical fallacy (ambiguity) that people spout about rights. This statement is patently false. Lying, libel, and slander are not free speech. Nobody has the right to libel or slander another person. You do not have a right to lie, especially not about another person, intentionally, in ways that damage them.
You can say damaging things about someone if they are true. If Mann had been compared to Ancel Keyes, that would have been accurate and defensible. The hockey stick mo
Re: (Score:2)
The hockey stick model was terrible.
"Model"? Do you even know the fuck about what you are talking about? Tell me more about this "hockey stick model".
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News - ordered to pay $787 million [cnn.com] after knowingly and repeatedly lying about Dominion Voting machines. Needless to say, the tabloid continues to insist it did nothing wrong, that its free speech was attacked and oh yeah, by settling, we don't have to go to trial and have all the other lies recorded for posterity.
To be fair, Fox settled this case out of court. They paid Dominion US$787 million to avoid going to court. A shame really, I would have loved to see the dirt Fox would have been forced to dish on itself that was worth 3/4 of a billion dollars. We might still see it with Smartmatic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Appeal to authority as opposed to a concise rebuttal. Classic.
Well, well, well. (Score:3)
I heard a lot of opinions the other day from slashdot legal experts with GED in law about how Dr. Mann is going to lose.
Will y'all apologize to the doctor now, or will you continue to spew bullshit instead?
Re: (Score:2)
I heard a lot of opinions the other day from slashdot legal experts with GED in law about how Dr. Mann is going to lose.
Will y'all apologize to the doctor now, or will you continue to spew bullshit instead?
Wingnut: **Clicks**, opion No. 2 ...
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously.
Don't despair though, hope springs eternal :-)
Re: (Score:2)
And even more importantly, verdicts with large punitive damages are exhausting to the losers.
Re: (Score:2)
Like that Trump lawsuit that was 5 mil and then got down to 85 mil "an appeal"?
Re: (Score:2)
I should be sorry for what exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
How am I "wrong" exactly?
Situation 1:
Situation 2:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The second event was not an appeal of the first which resulted in changing the 5 to 85.
Yes, that's what I said. Thanks for repeating that. Why don't you repeat all the other things I said, maybe you will understand the rest too.
Re: (Score:2)
You're preaching to the choir, I used to run 4 reactors as a day job.
Punitive Damages Likely to be Reduced (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Nobel Prize winning Michael Mann? (Score:2, Troll)
Is this the Nobel Prize winning Dr. Mann?
Washington Examiner writer Thomas Richard sent an email to Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute, pointing out how Mann claims to be a Nobel Prize winner. Richard asked if Mann’s Nobel Prize claim is true. Lundestad responded:
“1) Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
2) He did not receive any personal certificate. He has taken the diploma awarded in 2007 to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (and to Al Gore) and ma
Re: (Score:2)
Better watch out, or you'll be sued. Got $100k for a lawyer to fight it?
Re: (Score:2)
Washington Examiner writer Thomas Richard sent an email to Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute, pointing out how Mann claims to be a Nobel Prize winner. Richard asked if Mann’s Nobel Prize claim is true. Lundestad responded:
Has Dr Mann ever claimed he won a Nobel prize? As a scientist, it would be utterly stupid to claim to win a prize that every one in the field would know was never won. Or is it a straw man argument from the Washington Examiner to take a made-up claim to knock it down?
Re: (Score:2)
Washington Examiner writer Thomas Richard sent an email to Geir Lundestad, director of the Nobel Institute, pointing out how Mann claims to be a Nobel Prize winner. Richard asked if Mann’s Nobel Prize claim is true. Lundestad responded:
Has Dr Mann ever claimed he won a Nobel prize? As a scientist, it would be utterly stupid to claim to win a prize that every one in the field would know was never won. Or is it a straw man argument from the Washington Examiner to take a made-up claim to knock it down?
It's in his bio in his book https://junkscience.com/2021/0... [junkscience.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude your link never says he claimed he won a Nobel Prize. It says he won a Tyler award "often called 'the Nobel Prize for the Environment'". Even the quotes are there. That is a classic example of straw manning which you demonstrated.
No, you didn't look at the second picture which was his bio in his book. I can't post the picture.
Text says: "In 2007, he jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize along with other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".
He did not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dude your link never says he claimed he won a Nobel Prize. It says he won a Tyler award "often called 'the Nobel Prize for the Environment'". Even the quotes are there. That is a classic example of straw manning which you demonstrated.
No, you didn't look at the second picture which was his bio in his book. I can't post the picture. Text says: "In 2007, he jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize along with other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".
He did not.
Or to put it another way: why would he write "he did" and not "I did"? Or are you confused about pronouns and cases?
Re: (Score:2)
Dude your link never says he claimed he won a Nobel Prize. It says he won a Tyler award "often called 'the Nobel Prize for the Environment'". Even the quotes are there. That is a classic example of straw manning which you demonstrated.
No, you didn't look at the second picture which was his bio in his book. I can't post the picture.
Text says: "In 2007, he jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize along with other scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change".
He did not.
Or to put it another way: why would he write "he did" and not "I did"? Or are you confused about pronouns and cases?
It's cute that you think he would not have proof-read the bio on his book. Regardless here's his own Facebook post with the doctored certificate. He added his name to the bottom of it. https://www.facebook.com/photo... [facebook.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Spoiler alert: the IPCC received a Nobel Prize in 2007 [nobelprize.org]. He was a part of the IPCC so this 100% true. So what are you claiming? That he lied about a verifiable fact?
Re: (Score:2)
https://heartland.org/opinion/... [heartland.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The messenger matters? This was also discussed during the trial. It's a matter of public record.
Re: (Score:2)
And yes, when a right wing "think tank" famous for lying claims something, it sure matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"In court papers filed in connection with a defamation suit, Mann claims he was “awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.”
Citation needed. Or are you going to straw man this?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well. Since I'm not terribly busy today I went ahead and typed Mann Steyn Nobel Prize into Google for you.
https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
In his 2012 legal filing against Steyn and Rand Simberg, a scholar who was formerly with the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Mann claimed to have been a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, a claim th
Re: (Score:2)
The pedophile thing (Score:2)
The pedophile thing was more of a dig at Penn State. The point was Penn State covered up for a pedophile for decades in the Penn State child abuse scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] so covering up for science fraud would be nothing.
Let that be a lesson (Score:2)
Let that be a lesson to anyone who criticizes a climate "scientist."
Re: (Score:2)
If that's true, it should say who said it.
I think we can impute that from the judgement. $1000 from Simberg and $1,000,000 from Steyn.
Re:Who said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Investigations by Penn State and others found no misuse of data by Mann,...
You're welcome.
Re: (Score:2)
Correct. I cant imagine what the "Due Process" arguments here would be. Further if the argument is the Jury didnt deliver due process thats probably not going to have much success as part of the (I'd argue unfortunate) features of appeals is that Jury deliberations are somewhat off limits. I'm not sure what the historical reasons for this are, but I'd assume its to protect juries at a time when english courts where somewhat at odds with the powers of the King, thus protecting juries where paramount, and thi
Re: (Score:2)
I interpreted that as "due process allows me to ask an appeals court to exercise scrutiny".
Re:Due Process Scrutiny (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Due Process Scrutiny (Score:4, Insightful)
Not if you're a right-wing nutjob. Then any accountability is per se bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Due Process Scrutiny (Score:5, Insightful)
Another rightwing shill whining about being found liable
Re:Due Process Scrutiny (Score:4, Informative)
Nope. The preponderance of evidence is all that is required.
Another rightwing shill whining about being found liable
Except there was no preponderance of evidence. Mann received $1 in compensatory damages. That's not a vote of confidence in his case. They essentially voted to give Mann a million in punitive damages because Steyn was mean to him. And there's a pretty good chance that those damages are gonna go "Poof!" on appeal [reason.com]:
The punitive damages would seem to be the most vulnerable part of the judgment. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, excessive punitive damages violate Due Process. So, for example, in BMW of North America v. Gore, the Court held that a punitive damage award of $2 million was excessive given that the plaintiff had only been awarded $2,000 in compensatory damages. This 1000-to-1 ratio, the Court held, could not be justified even considering the extent to which the defendant had engaged in egregious conduct.
Mann also district-shopped his case, knowing that Washington DC would be friendly territory for him. But appeals courts are a different beast.
Re:Due Process Scrutiny (Score:5, Interesting)
Except there was no preponderance of evidence. Mann received $1 in compensatory damages. That's not a vote of confidence in his case. They essentially voted to give Mann a million in punitive damages because Steyn was mean to him. And there's a pretty good chance that those damages are gonna go "Poof!" on appeal [reason.com]:
You are confusing judgement with damages. Any award judgement says the jury found for Mann in that he was damaged; the amount of $1 says they did think the actual damages was minimal. However, punitive damages of $1M says they think Steyn's behavior was so egregious he needed to be taught a lesson. The general guidelines for punitive damages is the amount the jury thinks that will stop the defendant from doing this in the future. I can only guess the main reasons that Steyn's damages were higher than Simberg is 1) Simberg had an attorney while Steyn chose to represent himself and 2) Steyn probably did not stop defaming Mann after the suit was filed.
Mann also district-shopped his case, knowing that Washington DC would be friendly territory for him.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. The preponderance of evidence is all that is required. Another rightwing shill whining about being found liable
Except there was no preponderance of evidence. Mann received $1 in compensatory damages. That's not a vote of confidence in his case. They essentially voted to give Mann a million in punitive damages because Steyn was mean to him.
Odd, didn't the recent article say the trial was all about the insults (and could therefore not be won)? And why would a jury find them guilty if they didn't think the two were guilty?
Re: (Score:2)
Mann also district-shopped his case, knowing that Washington DC would be friendly territory for him. But appeals courts are a different beast.
Yeah, surely it had nothing to do that the insults were first hurled on the website of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) by one of their bloggers, Rand Simberg, The CEI being based in Washington DC, and initially also a co-defendant.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He got a jury of his peers in this case as well.
Re: (Score:3)
The whole case for defamation rested on the claim that Mann was financially hurt by these blog posts.
From the AP News story:
It awarded punitive damages of $1,000 from Simberg and $1 million from Steyn, after finding that the pair made their statements with "maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance or deliberate intent to harm."
So the $1 each was for damages. But the $1,001,000 was for the nature of the attacks. The pedophile language. That was uncalled for.
It's also good to see that the research community gave no weight to the misinformation from Simberg and Steyn. Well, only $2 worth. So evidently the misinformation by itself was harmless and no suppression of speech was called for. People can see beyond that. Let them talk. They just end up looking stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If what you're saying is true regarding the pedophile language, and I don't think it is, then why was Simberg hit for $1,000 when he originated the statement, and Steyn for a million for repeating it and saying he wouldn't go that far?
Well, I can only guess, it's because Simberg is a nobody with a tiny audience, and Steyn is a d-class celeb with a mediocre audience.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing with damages is theres always a back-of-napkin aspect anyway. Some damages can be quantified (Ie lost grants) and some damages are reputational and are a little more difficult to quantify. This is *absolutely* not to say they aren't real. Accounting practice often factors in something called "Good will" into asset calculations, that is to say the estimated value of client relationships and the like. Further theres implied lost opportunities. If Mann was so disheartened by the behavior of certain o
Re: Bah, I'd appeal this in a heartbeat (Score:5, Informative)
This isn't quite a dirty trick. Mann had no way of knowing what opportunities he lost because he was baselessly accused of manipulating data. (Maybe a book deal, lucrative speeches,etc. ) But it was all speculative, so he couldn't prove any of it.
People who believe everything Exxon tells them were using these fabricated attacks to manufacture 12 years of doubt and inaction. So congrats to the National Review for serving its masters, and Mann for being vindicated by both the courts and the climate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
(Moving this reply, since slashdot's awesome commenting system STILL doesnt have an edit function.) No, you can't just say "it's all speculative" and throw your hands up in a trial. A trial is ONLY granted if there is a specific, claimed harm, a harm which a court could force the parties to rectify. Mann went into the trial saying he had lost hundreds of thousands, but admitted on the stand that he couldn't give even one example. It was only later his lawyer pulled his trick of trying to admit the original
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You think that he has reason for a mistrial because the jury estimated actual damages at $1? He basically won that part, in a new trial he risks losing that too! No wait, on second thought let him proceed.
What do you mean "mistrial"? The trial is over; a motion for a mistrial is to stop the trial and restart with a new judge, jury, time, place, etc. Both sides can appeal the decision; and in very rare cases, there can be a re-trial if they were very unusual circumstances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't understand what you're saying.
Mann received a $1 million judgement. In other words, he received a $1,000,000 judgement, not a $1 judgement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Bah, I'd appeal this in a heartbeat (Score:2)
At least everyone seems happy this way. We can all be winners, even the idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole case for defamation rested on the claim that Mann was financially hurt by these blog posts. An award of $1 for damages makes it clear the jury didn't buy that at all.
No. In a civil case, there are two questions to be answered: 1) Was there damage and 2) How much was the damage? Any award says the jury found there was damage. An award of $1 found the actual compensatory damages were minimal. However an award of $1M says the jury found the defendant's behavior was egregious enough to send a message.
This may have had to do with the dirty trick Mann's lawyer tried to pull on the jury. Over the 12 year course of this legal fight, Mann initially claimed he had lost millions of dollars. Unable to list any specifics, he later corrected that claim to hundreds of thousands in lost grants. At trial, however, he was unable to identify any specific loss, but his lawyer tried to sneak in the original claim as evidence anyway!
You do know what someone claims in damages in a civil case and what the court ultimately decides in damages is not "a dirty trick." I can claim my car was worth $10,000 that wa
Re: (Score:2)
The whole case for defamation rested on the claim that Mann was financially hurt by these blog posts.
Funny, that's not what the recent submission here said. Not a word about financial damages. https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)