<!–

–>

March 16, 2024

Climate bully Michael Mann, with mixed results, has been suing those who criticize his “hockey stick” graph of climate history. This 1998 graph purported to show that global temperature was stable until about 1900 when human-induced warming struck. In February, Mann scored a $1 million libel judgment against Canadian columnist Mark Steyn in a court in the District of Columbia. Steyn has responded with an appeal.   

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

Punitive damages are typically calculated as a ratio to actual damages. With only $1 in actual damages, the ratio in this case is a staggering million to one. This amount is so excessive that there doesn’t seem to be any precedent for it, according to Steyn’s appeal.

On the other hand, the appeal does cite numerous precedents to support a decision to reduce an excessive award. In one example, the DC court of appeals referred to a 1:145 ratio as “staggering.” An award can be overturned based on DC law, on the First Amendment, or as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. A more reasonable five-to-one ratio would result in Mann taking home $6 instead of a million.

Steyn called Mann’s graph “fraudulent.”* Opinions are protected free speech, a principle that should cover both of these statements.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

Mann’s lawyer stressed the need for punitive damages to punish “climate deniers.” This is a propagandistic description designed to encourage association with “holocaust denier” and “election denier.” To punish a defendant for his political opinion is to turn the First Amendment on its head.

Steyn’s case has been before the courts for twelve years. Nobody involved lives in DC. Mann won through the use of court shopping. In 2019, he lost a similar case against Tim Ball in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

DC would not seem to be a promising jurisdiction for Mann’s lawsuit. In 2010, the district adopted an “anti-SLAPP” (strategic lawsuits against public participation) law to limit libel suits that attempt to influence a debate on public policy. This law allows a defendant to file a “special motion to dismiss” if the underlying issue is a subject of an official proceeding or concerns a matter of public interest.

At trial, Steyn represented himself, but with the assistance and advice of an appellate lawyer who was present for the entire trial, and who continues to make post-trial motions. Mann also sued National Review, his publisher. NR used the anti-SLAPP law to get the case dismissed in May 2019. Steyn also filed an anti-SLAPP motion, but it was denied.

Where did Steyn go wrong? For one thing, he defended himself instead of hiring a lawyer. One juror laughed at Steyn’s jokes during the trial. But humor is a funny thing and the other five jurors were less appreciative.

Here is an example of Steyn’s humor from his opening statement: “But in Mr. Mann’s world, there’s his take and everyone else has to be Hockey Sticked into submission and silence.” Here is another one: “I thought life is too short to waste even three minutes on a cable news hit in talking about complete codswallop like that.” So Steyn is an acquired taste. Not every juror responds to a good codswallop joke. Lawyers exist for a reason.