Hockey Stick on Trial, The Verdict is In!
After a month of dramatic courtroom testimony, the Washington DC jury reached a (surprising!) decision..
I don’t think anyone could have predicted the outcome.
The jury found in favour of the plaintiff, Michael E Mann, author of the famous hockey stick and general ‘climate celebrity’.
In other words, The Hockey Stick won!
Well, sort of…
Defendants Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg were sued for damages related to two blog posts that they authored back in 2012, in which it was claimed that the famous hockey stick graph was a ‘fraud’.
(More detail about the case can be found in my previous article.)
From Simbergs blog post, the following was found to be defamatory1:
‘We saw what the university administration was willing to do to cover up heinous crimes, even let them continue rather than expose them. Should we suppose in light of what we now know they would do any less to hide the academic and scientific misconduct with so much at stake.’
‘Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science except for instead of molesting children he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicised science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.’
The jury considered the following content of Mark Steyn’s posts to be defamatory.
Steyn requoted the ‘Jerry Sandusky of climate science’ comment made by Rand, but its worth noting that he also added the qualification;
‘I wouldn’t go as far as the Penn State shower room, I wouldn’t go as far as Rand did.’
and
‘Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate change hockey stick graph, the very ring-master of the tree-ring circus.’
Defamation?
In order to be defamatory, the jury, technically speaking, needed not only to consider these statements to be false, but also that they were made knowing they were false.
After following the case day-by-day, I must admit the jury’s consideration in this regard seems strange. Steyn has been consistently criticising the hockey stick graph (as did many expert witnesses who gave testimony during the trial) for almost a quarter of a century. For the jury to doubt the conviction behind his claims, irrespective of their accuracy, seems questionable. Moreover, the plaintiff failed to present any evidence to show that Steyn knew his claims of fraud were false, despite having the burden to do so.
It is also interesting to note that the jury did not find the defendants liable for other quotations such as:
‘the poster-boy of the corrupt and disgraced climate science eco-chamber’,
or
‘the engaging in data manipulation to keep the blade on his famous hockey stick graph’
What about damages?
Another point of interest was that the Mann failed to demonstrate that he incurred any material damages. Yep that’s right!
Accordingly, both Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg were ordered to pay just ONE DOLLAR in compensatory damages. I can only assume that the one dollar amount was a technicality to allow the imposition of punitive damages.
And boy did they go to town with their punitive damages!
The punishment…
While Simberg was ordered to pay a relatively modest $1,000 in damages, Mark Steyn, who’s comments were on the face of it more qualified than Simbergs, was ordered to pay a whopping ONE MILLION DOLLARS in punitive damages!
Now I am no legal expert, especially not in the inner-workings of the court-system in Washigton DC. But as I understand it, and as the name suggests, punitive damages are a form of punishment, as opposed to compensation.
In other words, criticism of the famous climate change hockey stick graph is potentially a punishable offense!
And if the Steyn vs Mann case is anything to go by, apparently anyone suing for defamation won’t carry much (if any) burden on demonstrating whether the critics opinions are false, knowingly or otherwise.
There are of course grounds for appeal, and a statement made by Steyn’s lawyer after the case indicated that he will likely do just that. From what I have heard following the trial, there is precedent regarding the relative proportion of punitive damages to compensatory damages.
The damages handed to Steyn are of course WAY OUT of proportion and would, if sustained, set a completely new bar.
Are we set for a rematch?
So the case may very well run and run.
If there is one, I’ll be sure to let keep you informed (here in The Atlas Report or on my Linkedin account).
Be careful out there!
-Tristan
These posts refer to the Jerry Sandusky scandal that took place at Penn State University at around the same time as the hockey stick was produced in which their star football coach, Sandusky, was convicted of the systematic abuse of young boys over many years. Moreover, the university president was also found guilty of enabling and covering up for Sandusky - a crime for which he too has served time in prison. This same president was also responsible for, allegedly, facilitating a favourable outcome of an investigation that was carried out by he university into the production of the hockey stick graph.