Climatologist Michael Mann Finally Won a $1M Defamation Suit - But Then a Judge Threw It Out (msn.com) 34
Slashdot has run nearly a dozen stories about Michael Mann, one of America's most prominent climate scientists and a co-creator of the famous "hockey stick" graph of spiking temperatures. In 2012 Mann sued two bloggers for defamation — and last year Mann finally won more than $1 million, reports the Washington Post. "A jury found that two conservative commentators had defamed him by alleging that he was like a child molester in the way he had 'molested and tortured' climate data."
But "Now, a year after that ruling, the case has taken a turn that leaves Mann in the position of the one who owes money." On Wednesday, a judge sanctioned Mann's legal team for "bad-faith trial misconduct" for overstating how much the scientist lost in potential grant funding as a result of reputational harm. The lawyers had shown jurors a chart that listed one grant amount Mann didn't get at $9.7 million, though in other testimony Mann said it was worth $112,000. And when comparing Mann's grant income before and after the negative commentary, the lawyers cited a disparity of $2.8 million, but an amended calculation pegged it at $2.37 million.
The climate scientist's legal team said it was preparing to fight the setbacks in court. Peter J. Fontaine, one of Mann's attorneys, wrote in an email that Mann "believes that the court committed errors of fact and law and will pursue these matters further." Fontaine emphasized that the original decision — that Mann was defamed by the commentary — still stands. "We have reviewed the recent rulings by the D.C. Superior Court and are pleased to note that the court has upheld the jury's verdict," he said.
But "Now, a year after that ruling, the case has taken a turn that leaves Mann in the position of the one who owes money." On Wednesday, a judge sanctioned Mann's legal team for "bad-faith trial misconduct" for overstating how much the scientist lost in potential grant funding as a result of reputational harm. The lawyers had shown jurors a chart that listed one grant amount Mann didn't get at $9.7 million, though in other testimony Mann said it was worth $112,000. And when comparing Mann's grant income before and after the negative commentary, the lawyers cited a disparity of $2.8 million, but an amended calculation pegged it at $2.37 million.
The climate scientist's legal team said it was preparing to fight the setbacks in court. Peter J. Fontaine, one of Mann's attorneys, wrote in an email that Mann "believes that the court committed errors of fact and law and will pursue these matters further." Fontaine emphasized that the original decision — that Mann was defamed by the commentary — still stands. "We have reviewed the recent rulings by the D.C. Superior Court and are pleased to note that the court has upheld the jury's verdict," he said.
Re: This guy is no more a climate scientist. (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This guy is no more a climate scientist. (Score:4, Informative)
Michael Mann is nothing more than another self enriching grifter
Just a grifter? The director for Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at the University of Pennsylvania is a grifter? The man who has authored many scholarly peer reviewed articles is a grifter? The guy with a PhD in his field from Yale, who has spent his career doing post-doc research is a grifter? A man who has a fellowship at several prominent institutions is a grifter?
Show us on the doll where he touched you, and let's get you the psychiatric care you need.
Did you know about the 4 lane super highway being built for COP30?
No they aren't. They are building a highway, full-stop. COP30 has nothing to do with it other than timing convenient for someone to complain about. COP30 is in November this year. The fact the highway will be finished in time for it means that it would have been planned long before Brazil was even nominated to host it. (Just over a year ago).
Re: (Score:1)
Just a grifter? The director for Center for Science, Sustainability & the Media at the University of Pennsylvania is a grifter? The man who has authored many scholarly peer reviewed articles is a grifter? The guy with a PhD in his field from Yale, who has spent his career doing post-doc research is a grifter? A man who has a fellowship at several prominent institutions is a grifter?
Here is a good overview from 10 years ago. While he may have won his defamation case he is certainly not someone I would hold up as the epitome of ethical science.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/l... [forbes.com]
Re: This guy is no more a climate scientist. (Score:1)
Human society has a fractal nature. You can see the sociopathy in the leader of your country, your state or large municipality. You can rail against the arrogance and questionable morals of the C suite of a large business. But you assume that a university president or head of a large academic department doesn't climb the same kind of greasy pole?
Of the career academics I've interacted with for more than half an hour in my life, a good 75% of department heads have delusions of grandeur and a little under hal
Re: (Score:2)
Forbes sometimes has some good articles, but it was definitely biased in favor of big business. Eleven years ago, it was still parroting the oil company line "the science is not settled." In this particular case, it accepts uncritically any negative statements about Mann, but when it gets to mentioning the four actual reviews that looked for actual signs of manipulation of data or bad science (and found none) it just dismisses them offhand.
Since the "hockey stick" graph was first published, 27 years of add
Re: (Score:2)
In this particular case, it accepts uncritically any negative statements about Mann, but when it gets to mentioning the four actual reviews that looked for actual signs of manipulation of data or bad science (and found none) it just dismisses them offhand.
If this is good science (regardless what the cops copping the cops think) it is legitimate fuel for skeptics. Certainly lowest common denominator science if nothing else. As for your other Forbes articles, I don't disagree with much of them, however,
Even with a wide confidence interval of $690 to 1,799 per ton, the key takeaway is that the social cost is far higher than the cost currently levied on emissions. This gap is paid by everyone, especially those who are most vulnerable and have the least resources and no government can afford to cover the difference.
They should calculate the social cost of not emitting carbon. Without an alternative to compare to it is kind of meaningless, see also Haiti, Somalia, et al.
In any case, I'm told (even by some people here) that we have endless renewables and they are cheap
Re:How does Mann even have a case? (Score:4, Informative)
"Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."
Why is that defamation.? It's hyperbolic, but true. Mann's models made hockey sticks out of basically any data series. If that wasn't deliberate "data molestation" then it was utterly incompetent.
As TFS points out, a jury found that it was in fact defamation, and Mann's attorney points out that this determination still stands. If the bloggers' statement were true, then it would not be defamation.
The question at this point is whether Mann misrepresented the level of damages he suffered as a result of the defamation.
Re: (Score:2)
As TFS points out, a jury found that it was in fact defamation
And it looks like that ruling still stands, (which IMO is a bit nutty -- "molesting and torturing data" is defamation? srsly?) but the amount was lowered to $5,000. The problem I keep running into is the same one the judge apparently is -- how on earth is he attributing that comment to a loss of grants? Especially when he himself can't even decide on an amount.
Also jury verdicts can get tossed if the appellant can show that the case never should have gone to trial, see Graves v. Warner Bros.
The website he s
Re: (Score:2)
You continuing to make such incorrect claims you shows how much his reputation was damaged by this propaganda.
Re: (Score:2)
It's hyperbolic, but true.
Because the use of words can be misconstrued, and while the underlying theme can be true the choice of wording can none the less be considered defamatory. It's not hyperbole or defendable to compare someone to an actual criminal child molester.
Re: (Score:3)
Morally, you are right. Legally, at least one jury found it defensible to actually call someone a paedophile on two separate occasions without any defence of truth: see Unsworth vs Musk. The sane world weeps.
Re: (Score:2)
Morally, you are right. Legally, at least one jury found it defensible to actually call someone a paedophile on two separate occasions without any defence of truth: see Unsworth vs Musk. The sane world weeps.
Different juries make different decisions, some of them wrong. In that case, the jury decided that nobody would have reasonably believed that Vernon Unsworth was a pedophile based on Musk's tweets (using the term "pedo guy" without actually stating he was referring to Unsworth), and hence there were no damages and thus no libel.
Obligatory cartoon: https://existentialcomics.com/... [existentialcomics.com]
Re:How does Mann even have a case? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hyperbolic, but true.
Because the use of words can be misconstrued, and while the underlying theme can be true the choice of wording can none the less be considered defamatory. It's not hyperbole or defendable to compare someone to an actual criminal child molester.
For a statement to be defamatory, it has to be: (1) false; and (2) harmful to someone's reputation. The jury decided both of these conditions applied to the bloggers' statement about Michael Mann.
I'll agree that what the bloggers said about Mann was hyperbolic. But it was also false and harmful.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the entirety of their false claims, not the words 'like child molestation that was found to be defamotory.
You cannot accuse a person of 'manipulating data' when he did not in fact manipulate data.
Re: (Score:1)
It is the entirety of their false claims, not the words 'like child molestation that was found to be defamotory.
You cannot accuse a person of 'manipulating data' when he did not in fact manipulate data.
He took two data sets that did not agree, and instead of trying to reconcile them he took the parts he liked from each and grafted them together. That may be what passes for science nowadays, but in the past it would certainly have been considered sketchy.
Re: (Score:2)
This is nonsense. I do not assume you are a scientist, are you?
Torturer (Score:3)
He appended the instrumental temperature record to one made from proxies. An honest scientist would have continued the proxy record in parallel. If you do this then according to the proxies (Briffa's tree rings being a particular bone of contention) you get a cooling trend.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would not use trees as thermometers, mostly they are rain gages.
McKitrick's takedown of the original hockey stick methodology was quite funny to read, torturing the data is a fair summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with an ounce of common sense would not use trees as thermometers, mostly they are rain gages.
He also cherry picked the trees. My high school science teacher would have been appalled.
Speculative damages (Score:1)
I think I remember an earlier round where he was unable to prove damages: how do you prove lost opportunities if payoffs from Soros and big solar aren't actually happening? (It isn't like Exxon was going to pay him a million dollars to tell them what they already know [harvard.edu].) Here's an article from 13 years ago describing the familiar playbook: https://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Your post is confusing, in a Poe's Law sense. Let's dive in.
I think I remember an earlier round where he was unable to prove damages: how do you prove lost opportunities if payoffs from Soros and big solar aren't actually happening?
You think Michael Mann was "damaged" by losing payoffs? Sigh.
(It isn't like Exxon was going to pay him a million dollars to tell them what they already know [harvard.edu].)
You don't seem to understand how scientists, in particular climate scientists, make money. They don't get "payoffs" -- they get grants to fund their research. Their salaries are set by the institutions where they work. Sometimes those grants come from non-government entities (like, oh say, Exxon) if the non-government agency has an interest in funding research. And scientists may be able
Eye for an eye (Score:3)
Anyone that makes this kind of unfounded and irrelevant allegations of any kind of sexual misconduct against anyone else, ought to be treated as if they are themselves guilty of said misconduct.
The reputational damage to others from this kinds of libel is too serious to be allowed to let stand.
And besides, most of us know that 'conservative' pundits are chronically wrong when it comes to their several decades of constant climate change doubt-mongering, so there's no need for confusion as to their intentions here: When you have no case, smear the opponent.
Re: (Score:2)
Eye-for-an-eye is Old Testament justice. The world has progressed since then. You should join it.
I do agree with your comment about climate-change-denying pundits killing the messenger.
Heritage foundation (Score:2)
That plan took almost 50 years but it's paid off spectacularly. You can't even really talk about climate change as a real thing anymore without being ripped to pieces and if you try to fight back our court system is so compromised You're just fucked.
I mean sure you can post ran
Good (Score:1)
His Dr. Evil "One million dollars" was reduced to a measly $5000 [steynonline.com].
Oh, and Mann still owes National Review about a half mil. Oops.
Hope it was worth it, to torture someone for years for using free speech.