The Hockey Stick on Trial - Rematch?!
After what seemed like a bizarre end to the Hockey Stick defamation case - Steyn tries to fight on!
As I reported in the last Atlas Report, THE HOCKEY STICK WON!
Or so it seemed. Do check out my previous post for more detail...
The Washington D.C. jury found in favour of Michael E. Mann (author of the influential hockey stick graph), and ordered Mark Steyn (TV presenter, author and hockey stick critic) to pay a whopping $1 MILLION fine in *punitive* damages.
Both Steyn and co-defendant Rand Simberg were also ordered to pay a token $1 in compensatory damages, a fact that I think is quite telling in itself.
In other words, Steyn was clobbered with a heavy punishment for his criticisms of the hockey stick graph, in spite of Mann's inability to demonstrate any actual damages he incurred as a result.
For many that followed the case closely, the outcome seemed 'strange' to say the least. It was a decision that has no doubt had many in the climate 'blogosphere' re-thinking their own approach to covering contentious topics for fear of having their own (expensive) defamation case to fight!
BUT WE'RE NOT FINISHED YET, FOLKS!
Just last week, Mark Steyn filed an appeal for a NEW TRIAL.
Steyn has raised the following points as the basis for his appeal:
1. Mann's lawyer attempted to inflame a juror during closing statements (inflammation of this sort is strictly prohibited in court rooms).
''Comparing defendants to Donald Trump and election deniers was an inflammatory - indeed, incendiary - appeal to politics and the January 6th violence''
2. The presentation of knowingly false evidence to the jury by Mann's lawyers (this was a point over which the judge became frustrated during the trial and which almost collapsed the entire case)
"At trial Dr. Mann gave false testimony about his claimed loss of grant funding - testimony he knew to be false."
3. Mann did not prove he had been injured by the blog posts - except for the infamous 'mean stare' in aisle nine of Mann's local supermarket!
"The dirty look from a stranger in the supermarket is almost laughable as an attempt to show actual injury"
4. Steyn also believes that his statements were true, non-defamatory and protected by the US constitution.
"The hockey stick graph is fraudulent. It does not prove what it purports to prove... The clear weight of the evidence at trial showed the hockey stick graph was misleading.."
So it looks like this story - already painfully protracted over more than 12 years, looks set to continue...
While Mann's legal war chest is seemingly bottomless (astonishingly during the trial it emerged that Mann didn't even know who was funding his case!), I do wonder at how much more Steyn's resources (and ill-health) can withstand!
Will Steyn’s appeal for a retrial be successful, even? The grounds look solid enough. But if this trial has shown us anything, it’s that nothing can be taken for granted.
I'll keep you posted, either here or on LinkedIn!
Be careful out there.
-T