It would not have been surprising at all that a visitor to Mark Steyn’s home in New Hampshire, USA, on the evening of March 4th would have heard the popping of bottles of champagne being opened and the clinking of glasses amidst cheerful toasts. On that Tuesday, Justice Judge Alfred S. Irving Jr. of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued a long (over 14,000 words) Final Judgment Order, reducing the punitive damages charged against Steyn from an astronomical $1 million to a modest $5,000 in a 13-years long defamation suit launched by the plaintiff Michael Mann in October 2012.
If that visitor would have gone to Mr Steyn’s home on March 12th he would probably have heard more popping of corks and clinking of glasses celebrating a further decision by the same judge. In an eviscerating judgment, the court ruled that Dr Mann and his counsel acted in “bad faith” on multiple occasions in presenting false claims related to the plaintiff’s grant funding. Judge Irving said:
Here, the Court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that Dr Mann, through [his lawyers] Mr Fontaine and Mr Williams, acted in bad faith when they presented erroneous evidence and made false representations to the jury and the Court regarding damages stemming from loss of grant funding. … The Court does not reach this decision lightly.
The judge didn’t mince his words about Mann and his two lead lawyers:
They each knowingly made a false statement of fact to the Court and Dr Mann knowingly participated in the falsehood, endeavouring to make the strongest case possible even if it required using erroneous and misleading information.
The judge went on:
Dr Mann’s assertion that there was no falsehood or misrepresentation in his testimony or his counsel’s conduct borders on frivolity… the record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding… Dr Mann’s counsel’s bad faith misconduct is an affront to the Court’s authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings warranting sanctions.
The court was convinced that “the record plainly shows deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony” which was presented to the court and jury. The court decreed that each defendant (Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn) can now sue for expenses incurred in responding to Dr Mann’s “misconduct”.
The misconduct of Dr Mann and his counsel (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent and intent; (2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr Mann’s case, but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury’s impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary; (3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and (4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time-and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgement of the nature of the misconduct by Dr Mann or his attorneys.
Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: the Process is the Punishment
I wrote in these pages on Sunday (March 10th) about the legal ‘hockey stick’ saga which took place over 12 years with multiple suits, counter-suits and interlocutory actions and costing millions in legal fees. The judgment delivered yesterday is probably not the end of the matter, and it is not clear what the quantum of fees will be that each of the defendants can claim from Mann’s misconduct in the trial. But recovery of legal costs by the two defendants cannot compensate for the time consumed, the toll it took on their mental and physical health and the sheer anxiety that such legal ordeals can cause their victims.
For interested readers, a short timeline of the main events of the ‘climate trial of the century‘ will be informative:
- July 2012: Rand Simberg of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) published a blog post criticising Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ chart, controversially comparing him to convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky by stating that Mann had “molested and tortured data”. Shortly after, Mark Steyn referenced Simberg’s post on the National Review’s blog, labelling Mann’s work as “fraudulent”.
- October 22nd 2012: Michael Mann filed a defamation lawsuit in the District of Columbia Superior Court against Mark Steyn, the National Review, Rand Simberg and the CEI, alleging that their statements were defamatory.
- December 22nd 2016: The DC Court of Appeals ruled that Mann’s case against Simberg and Steyn could proceed, stating that a “reasonable jury” could find against the defendants.
- May 2019: National Review‘s Special Motion to Dismiss prevailed in large part, with the court dismissing Mann’s libel claim based on Editor Rich Lowry’s ‘Get Lost’ post and the broader intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against National Review. However, the defamation claim based on Mark Steyn’s blog post was not dismissed, allowing that part of the case to continue.
- March 19th 2021: The DC Superior Court granted summary judgment in favour of the National Review, stating that actual malice could not be imputed to the company based on the state of mind of an independent contractor like Steyn.
- January 16th 2024: The rescheduled trial commenced. After deliberations, the jury found that both Simberg and Steyn had defamed Mann. The jury awarded Mann $1 in compensatory damages from each writer, $1,000 in punitive damages from Simberg and $1 million in punitive damages from Steyn.
- March 11th 2024: National Review filed a motion in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia to recover a portion of the legal fees incurred during the litigation, seeking over $1 million from Mann.
- January 7th 2025: The court issued a decision awarding National Review $530,820.21 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
- March 4th 2025: The Superior Court of the District of Columbia reduced the punitive damages against Mark Steyn from $1 million to $5,000, deeming the original award “grossly excessive and unconstitutional”.
- March 12th 2025: The court sanctioned Michael Mann’s legal team for misconduct during the trial, ordering it to pay a portion of the defendants’ legal fees. The court cited improper conduct during discovery and trial proceedings as the basis for these sanctions.
Free Speech and the Corruption of Science
After jury deliberations in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia found the defendants Simberg and Steyn guilty of defamation in January 2024 – resulting in the extremely steep punitive damages against Steyn – Mann co-authored an article in the New York Times entitled ‘A Slap Shot Against Climate Denial’. He claimed that scientists like himself documenting the “fact” that Earth’s temperature has been rapidly rising since the early 20th Century due to the use of fossil fuels “continue to face attacks that threaten their research, reputations and livelihoods”.
He asserted that “the assault on climate science has grown broader and more sophisticated”. In support of this, he cited the Climate Science Legal Defence Fund, which warned that sweeping and “invasive open records requests” to harass and intimidate and “other misuse of the legal system” continue to “threaten climate scientists’ ability to freely conduct research and openly share it with the public”.
Mann said he hoped the finding of the Washington DC jury against the defendants for defamation “sends a broader message that defamatory attacks on scientists go beyond the bounds of protected speech and have consequences”. He asserts that his legal case against Steyn and Simberg “is part of a larger culture war in which research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is dissembled”.
Calling his critics “climate deniers” engaged in a “broader war on science”, Mann claimed that the trial “has drawn a line in the sand”. “Scientists,” he said, “now know that they can respond to attacks by suing for defamation.” Mann and his academic and political allies cast those who disagree with them as “climate deniers”. The mainstream media (e.g. here and here) largely portrayed the ‘hockey stick’ trial as one that pit ‘climate deniers’ against ‘climate science’.
Climate science of course is cast as settled and indisputable. The epithet ‘climate denier’ is intended to invoke Holocaust denial, an objectionable, tasteless and inapt comparison. Climate change is not like the Holocaust, nor is questioning the accuracy and predictive power of climate change models like questioning the historical fact of a genocide that in which six million Jews were murdered.
In March 2025, the tables turned against Michael Mann when Justice Judge Irving Jr. slashed the $1 million punitive damage awarded against Steyn to $5,000. Judge Irving took cognisance of the Supreme Court’s suggestion that a “single-digit ratio” (e.g. 4:1, 5:1 or even 9:1) between punitive and compensatory damages is generally the upper limit for constitutionally permissible awards. While the $5,000 award in punitive damages is still 5,000 times the compensatory damage award of $1 (a four-digit ratio), nevertheless the absolute amount charged against Steyn was no longer prohibitive. It was within Steyn’s 2024 request to the judge to drastically reduce the punitive damages, which he argued should be “$5,000 or less”.
The March 2025 order no doubt helped prevent the legal system from being used as a tool to intimidate and silence critics (like Mark Steyn) of the prevailing climate narrative. When Steyn and Simberg petitioned the Supreme Court (unsuccessfully) to take the case in 2019, Chief Justice Alito made a rousing defence of free speech in his dissent. Justice Alito observed that “when allegedly defamatory speech concerns a political or social issue that arouses intense feelings, selecting an impartial jury presents special difficulties”.
Alito continued: “When… allegedly defamatory speech is disseminated nationally, a plaintiff may be able to bring suit in whichever jurisdiction seems likely to have the highest percentage of jurors who are sympathetic to the plaintiff’s point of view.” Liberal Washington DC juries were bound to punish Steyn, a high-profile conservative commentator. He has appeared in conservative national media networks such as Fox News and as a guest host for Rush Limbaugh on contentious topics including the culture wars and Covid.
Even in the febrile politically correct atmosphere of Washington DC, the irony of the latest twist in the ‘hockey stick’ trial cannot have escaped any reasonably objective observer. Dr. Mann was found guilty of fraud in a court of law. In short, the hero turned out to be the anti-hero.
In the “climate trial of the century”, Mark Steyn seems to have come out on top so far. And so has free speech in the contested area of climate change.
Dr Tilak K. Doshi is the Daily Sceptic‘s Energy Editor. He is an economist, a member of the CO2 Coalition and a former contributor to Forbes. Follow him on Substack and X.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
If I was a practicing Christian I’d by shrugging my shoulders and leaving the church for good!
I agree..what the heck is the point of it? If you keep chopping the salami, eventually there’s nothing left!
Although I suspect within the Church itself there are many who don’t agree, and hopefully carry on regardless….
Sadly we just see the stuff the media wants to exaggerate and promote….and I’m hoping it’s a bit like the ‘Rona Con’, make people think they are isolated, wrong and alone..when really they are not…..and again it’s some ‘high-ups’, just like our own Government, who are making crack-pot decisions, that the majority would never agree to if asked….
It seems to be the way with everything now!?
Sandi Toksvig moaning about lack of progress towards CofE recognising same-sex marriage:
“In a video, she said it was clear the “Church of England and the society it purports to represent are not remotely in step”.”
Sandi Toksvig says archbishop told her progress on same-sex marriage in Church of England will be ‘glacial’ (yahoo.com)
What on earth makes her think it’s the church’s role to “represent society”? Isn’t it supposed to represent the Word of God?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aQe4vHuXGXQ
great speech in Dutch parliament criticising the Dutch Covid inquiry.
I am not always in agreement with Baudet, but this one is good, despite the fact he does get a bit too shouty towards the end.
I really enjoyed this…and of course he is just speaking the truth…
I had really quick search to see who he was…..apparently, he’s far-right, associated with Russia, and a conspiracy theorist…I could have bet money that is what I would have found…LOL!
He will have to join Mark Steyn, Neil Oliver and all the others in the sin-bin, where all the factual truth speakers have to go!! LOL!
…another one of the good guys…Croatian MEP MIslav Kolakusic….
“The misinformation about COVID-19 spread by officials and public health workers around the world was not just harmful lies but a complete betrayal of citizens. Those lies have severely damaged the credibility of the public health systems, and the consequences will be permanent.”
https://twitter.com/mislavkolakusic/status/1623266467264319488
“Jewish group and MPs urge GB News to stop indulging conspiracy theories” Well, we all knew that this was coming, didn’t we? I mean you can’t have some wild haired presenters speaking their minds, can you? So the powers that be have been looking closely at the content and – oh, hang on, isn’t that anti-semitic? We’ll just go and check with our pet Jewish groups who sounds important and representative but really are there to get the ‘idea’ into the mainstream press and then we’ll call up our buddies at the Guardian and say ‘could you get that journalist, McFidget, to write a piece introducing the ‘idea’ that GB News is anti-semitic and we’ll make sure our chums at Ofcom are notified and …’ Barstewards! This is what those cowardly little people do when faced with unrelenting probing into their plans. They resort to underhand tactics that worked so well with others such as Jeremy Corbyn etc. So Neil Oliver, who is about as antisemitic as Ben Gurion, is the latest focus now that the wonderful Mark Steyn has effectively been neutralised. And they have the gall to say ‘conspiracy theories’ which torpedoes any rational, logical argument below the waterline so it hasn’t got a chance, among the sleeping masses, of gaining more traction. It’s all a well-worn script but how do you fight back? Mark Steyn was actually quite scathing of his former boss, Frangopolous or whatever his name is, calling him a habitual liar. So what we have is the demolition of free speech in plain sight and we all knew it would happen at some point.
Well, we are taking the fight local because this is where the battles will be fought, not in the pages of the Guardian or on the BBC, but in the council chambers, local meeting halls and in the streets of local council districts. First off, the 15 min city plans which councils are rolling out regardless of people’s objections. We clearly live in a totalitarian regime and the people bringing in these plans are going against the rule of law, the common law of this land. We are bringing back jural assemblies, the true indication of real democracy, and we will bend every sinew and nerve towards exposing this treason. They are not going to win this.
Just like Andrew Brigden, I think we will find strong Jewish voices coming out in support over the next few days…
I’m reminded that many millions more people have watched the Project Veritas Pfizer video, than have watched the ‘satanic’ Sam Smith Grammy video…I saw the numbers online yesterday….but we know which was the only one shown in the MSM….!!
I can smell their fear…LOL!
my annual synagogue subscription currently due includes an extra amount for the Board of Deputies which has been cancelled
Good man.
Neil Oliver
@thecoastguy
Anyone worried about me – don’t be. I’ve seen and had it all before. Onwards. X.
The guy is a legend..and I agree with you Ath, they are not going to win….
“Moon dust fired into space could help stop global warming” Lunacy at its most literal. Why give these clearly insane ideas column inches? Even I, with a severely limited appreciation or knowledge of astrophysics, can see how utterly stupid such a plan is. It reminds me of the totally preposterous plots I’ve seen in some Hollywood movies – the idea to restart the sun by sending nuclear missiles into its heart, or landing on an asteroid to divert its course. Do you remember Klaus Schwab’s plan to send huge mirrors into space to deflect sunlight? Are there no critically thinking journalists left at the Telegraph? And I seem to remember, but of course I could be wrong, that we are actually about to enter a period of global cooling. I mean how cold are they planning for us to be? Cold enough to be able to do away with fridges? And have they though that this might be permanent and interfere with ALL life and not only our miserable human ones? Bonkers! I hope their plans, if at all put into being, perish in the Van Allen belt.
…don’t tell anyone, but it’s not just Moon Dust, it’s moon dust mixed with Unicorn Farts, which apparently is the highly secret ingredient….!
Although the question could be moot as there could also be a shortage of actual Moon Dust….. due to China…..who else…?? LOL!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11590249/NASA-boss-China-claim-moon-territory-BAN-astronauts-touching-down.html
A chief at NASA is raising red flags over China’s ambitions to get to the moon.
In a new interview, NASA Administrator Bill Nelson says he and others within the scientific agency are growing increasingly concerned over what the country plans to do when they make it to the moon.
Nelson believes China could attempt to corner the market on resource-rich locations on the moon’s surface and try to block out the U.S. and other countries looking to make it to the lunar object.
‘There is potentially mischief China can do on the moon,’ said one other official monitoring the ‘space race.’
‘And it is true that we better watch out that they don’t get to a place on the moon under the guise of scientific research. And it is not beyond the realm of possibility that they say, “Keep out, we’re here, this is our territory,”‘ Nelson continued.
The NASA boss said he fears China will mimic their strategy when it came to claiming land- and water- in the South China Sea.”
LOL!
I’ll try not to buy it.
The madness of Khant’s net zero. I know it’s not him but he is the poxy proxy. We have to hope that all London Borough’s fight back because “first they came for…
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/khans-carbon-cult-is-tearing-london-apart/
…reality….! And just think if it was your baby or child for instance…
Low Traffic Neighbourhoods delay paramedics on 999 calls, says ex London ambulance chief…
Traffic-management schemes and other road changes that could delay life-saving treatments are being monitored, according to London Ambulance Service (LAS).
LAS confirmed it was working with traffic teams across the capital to avoid using physical barriers such as bollards on schemes designed to manage the flow of vehicles. It comes after a series of social media posts showed ambulance crews’ access to streets newly blocked by bollards in Palmers Green…..
Apparently the leader of Harrow Council sent a tetchy letter to Khan saying that the people came first and ignoring Khan’s bullying, HP. Worth a watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrjSkkxiiFw&t=364s
Thanks Aethelred I watched the video last night.
I hope the defiant councils are genuinely defiant and not putting on a show.
The article by Berenson in the round-up is worth a read..he ends with
…Fauci is 82 it will be up to the rest of us to deal with what he’s done.
But I’m reminded that this isn’t Fauci’s first rodeo….if you want to sit for an hour with a cuppa I can’t recommend this Substack highly enough….I read it when it came out, but it’s so pertinent to many of the things that have happened with Fauci/Covid….….and taken as an overview of the AIDS ‘scandal’ it’s really informative..
(Currently Dallas Buyers Club is showing on Sky movies, and I’m going to re-watch this weekend….)
https://filiperafaeli.substack.com/p/dont-watch-dallas-buyers-club
I was really impressed when I read the substack article a few weeks ago and subsequently bought the dvd. I’d not seen or heard of the film before that.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/are-king-and-country-worth-fighting-for/
A subject that has bothered me all my adult life. Would I stand and fight for King and Country? Sadly no.
First and foremost I would fight for my family, that is and will be ALWAYS my overriding priority.
I would fight for England, or England as it should be – honest, decent, proud, virtuous – but for the current establishment and the Windsor traitors, never.
I doubt I am on my own and I suspect many couldn’t care less.
I’d fight for the nation of which I’m part but not for the state that clearly hates everything about me other than the taxes I pay.
…it’s an interesting article….
….I think most people faced with a real enemy, that they felt had to be totally overcome, would fight…but I agree with you….not for King and Country, but for family, friends, the life they want to live..and leave for their children…
…..but I don’t think those things aren’t threatened externally..but internally…
I don’t think many would want to fight for our out of touch, WEF member, and fully Woke King, I certainly wouldn’t…..I also wouldn’t fight to fill the coffers of the military industrial complex…..which most people see through now, and are utterly cynical about…..
As you say honesty, pride, virtue and decency, the nuclear family….have all but disappeared from any thoughts or actions of the ‘elites’….so why would anyone want to die, or send their children to die on their behalf?…in the main I despise them…
We have a very different relationship with Government and Monarchy than our forbears did….
At the rate we are giving our military capabilites away to the Ukraine, I am more and more concerned by the threat of War being declared by the Isle of Man. We would surely have to capitulate and sue for peace.
The proudest of military traditions, to not being able to defend ourselves, in a single generation. All while no-one noticed…
Or, yea Gods, what if the wee screecher attacked over Hadrians Wall??
I have a distinct feeling that leaving the country so ill defended in a time of great turmoil and war is actually a treasonous act. I would have to check but it must be written somewhere about this.
Sadly yes Neil. 😔
Agree with all you say, HP. I think I might have done way back but I ain’t fighting for no WEF puppets. I would fight for England, for my fellow countrymen but definitely not the government or, indeed, the King if he continues to go along with the WEF stance.
Thanks Aethelred. 👍
I’m with you Hux me old fruit ! Used to think I might if The Queen asked but now it’s a no from me !
Cheers Freddy.
More dubious use of taxpayers money…
https://declassifieduk.org/uk-spends-over-80m-on-media-in-20-countries-around-russia/
Yet people in this country have to go cold and hungry while an illegitimate government pisses taxpayers money away in foreign lands and for which we have no legitimate interest.
Our government is treasonous but for how many years has this been so?
All the way back to Major I reckon.
I reckon that it goes back even further, early to mid 20th Century at least.
https://youtu.be/q1_5VrUunqI
The MET now admitting to recruiting coloured people who can’t write or speak English. I’ve posted on this previously.
Quel surprise!
I refer to the Guardian article about Neil Oliver’s broadcast. There was nothing anti-Semitic in it and if the Jewish community is ramping up its sensitivity to crazy levels that restrict free speech then they must be told to stop, or risk being ignored even when actual anti-Semitism occurs.
On the subject of “Hypocrisy from MPs regarding regulators”, New Scientist in November 2019 (just before the “pandemic”), had a front page article “Why the Medicine You Take Could Actually be Bad for Your Health”.
ISSUE 3258 | MAGAZINE COVER DATE: 30 November 2019 | New Scientist
The article was drawing attention to the increasing phenomenon of new drugs being rushed to market with insufficient testing, and of regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry.
It included this observation:
“Drugs are approved based on preliminary findings, or authorised for a particular use, then widely prescribed for something else. And hanging over the process is a worrying question: are these agencies working to protect the public or to further the interests of drug companies?”