"The fact that the jury awarded him only $2 in actual damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages (send a message!) supports this interpretation — The defense won on merits, and Mann won on the framing and the politics."
And the fact that Mann was awarded only $2 in compensatory damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages means the punitive damages will almost certainly essentially eliminated on appeal.
It is very rare to have even a 100-to-1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single U.S. civil verdict with a 1000-to-1 ratio...let alone a 1,000,000-to-1 ratio. So I predict, on appeal, Michael Mann will end up with a *combined* total (that is, from both defendants, and including compensatory and punitive damages) of less than $500.
You heard it here first. Well, maybe you've heard it elsewhere, because I don't think there's much doubt. From wonderful Wikipedia:
"There is no maximum dollar amount of punitive damages that a defendant can be ordered to pay. In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court carved out a notable exception to this rule of proportionality in the case of TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., where it affirmed an award of $10 million in punitive damages, despite the compensatory damages being only $19,000, a punitive-to-compensatory ratio of more than 526-to-1. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that disproportionate punitive damages were allowed for especially egregious conduct."
Nobel laureate Doctor Mann has definitely lived up to his hype. He gets to disparage anyone that disagrees with him, deny researchers access to his methods and data, and now intends to weaponize the effects of this lawsuit. The "Arc of History" indeed. Except that this Arc is heavily dependent on censorship, the destruction of unwanted voices and making a mockery of libel. At least we won't be subject to any more "original research" by Mann. Please leave our tree rings to somebody who cares about the truth!
Well written, Roger. The way you have characterized the verdict, without any hyperbole or reaching, is clearly residing within (an unfortunate) reality.
It’s evidence of a new mechanism by which western society is enhancing the rate of institutionalized disconfirmation erosion. This mafia-style weaponization of the U.S. legal system against anyone who disagrees with the rubber-stamped view of those in power (currently the climate crisis lobby) will likely have the intended effect of sending reasoned professionals into silence and hiding.
Not a lawyer (but have seen some actors playing lawyers on TV).
Over at National Review Online (conservative magazine), a lawyer said even a 10-to-1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is extremely rare. I did a query/prompt at Gemini (formerly Bard), which indicates that the records for punitive to compensatory damages are like a little over 100-to-1. Therefore, the lawyer and I predict Mann's compensatory plus punitive damages from both Simberg and Steyn will be reduced to *at most*, on the order of $100 each.
P.S. Some of Michael Mann's claims seem laughable. (So sue me! ;-))
For instance, apparently he felt he got a "mean look" from another customer at Wegman's, and attributed that to the articles/blog posts by Simberg and Steyn. (No wonder the compensatory damages were $1 each!)
I followed the Mann trial a bit and remember many years ago reading something about Mann not sharing the data behind his work. I also saw something this week that maybe he ultimately did share the date behind his work.
Can you shed any light on this? Did he initially withhold his data? If so, did he fully disclose it at some point? If he he did, when was that?"
RP: There has been no greater distraction or waste of time in the climate debate than the Hockey Stick. There is plenty of legitimate debate over the science and a lot of noise and nonsense as well. There is absolutely nothing in the world of climate policy that depends in any degree on the Hockey Stick. So I pretty much tune out when it is raised. But there are plenty of folks who still wish to discuss it!
This is of note, and I'm posting here just so I have it.
In the Climategate emails, there was a request by Phil Jones to delete emails subject to FOIA release.
Writing in an op-ed the Washington Post in 2009, Michael Mann said:
"Some statements in the stolen e-mails reflect poor judgment -- for example, a colleague referring to deleting e-mails that might be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request -- but there is no evidence that this happened."
We live in sad times. Science is I fear entering a Scientific Dark Age. Courts, at least at the trial level, are entering a sort of reverse Star Court era where the misdeeds are done for all the world to see rather than behind closed doors. It really is very dystopian.
Thank you Roger, a very level headed essay on what happened.
In a statement, Mann said, “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.” This really bothers me. Mann is unhinged.
Dr. Pielke, you wrote that "the larger issues here are not about Mann, but rather the continued failures within the climate science community to uphold fundamental norms of conduct among its own ranks." That is 100 percent correct! Why doesn't the National Academy of Science step yo here? At least issue a reprimand, or perhaps, at the other extreme, outright expulsion. Michael Mann is not the only climatist to pursue litigation; Mark Jacobson did the same thing against Christopher Clack when Clack shredded his "100% WWS" thesis. There have probably been others as well, though I grant each case is different.
My point is we have professional societies whose role is to promote and protect the professionalism of science. These societies are prestigious, and carry a strong reputation. I hate to use the word "policing," but it is the best term I can think of at this writing. If these societies are going to stand for something, then they should stand up to egregious behavior.
Well said, and it is not over. Michael Mann have proven to be far more interested in building political rather than scientific credibility. In the end history will treat him as what he is, a political opportunist. Regrettably, he survives because his peers are fearful apologists.
This ruling is utterly preposterous. When preserving the ideological narrative trumps freedom of speech and due process, how exactly are we supposed to have any civil discourse or scientific integrity?
Mann is absolutely rage-Tweeting today about me, McKittrick and especially McIntyre and Curry. Having a perfectly normal Saturday. I'm pretty sure there are laws against going after witnesses in a civil trial.
"The fact that the jury awarded him only $2 in actual damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages (send a message!) supports this interpretation — The defense won on merits, and Mann won on the framing and the politics."
And the fact that Mann was awarded only $2 in compensatory damages and $1,001,000 in punitive damages means the punitive damages will almost certainly essentially eliminated on appeal.
It is very rare to have even a 100-to-1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages. As far as I know, there hasn't been a single U.S. civil verdict with a 1000-to-1 ratio...let alone a 1,000,000-to-1 ratio. So I predict, on appeal, Michael Mann will end up with a *combined* total (that is, from both defendants, and including compensatory and punitive damages) of less than $500.
You heard it here first. Well, maybe you've heard it elsewhere, because I don't think there's much doubt. From wonderful Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages
"There is no maximum dollar amount of punitive damages that a defendant can be ordered to pay. In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court carved out a notable exception to this rule of proportionality in the case of TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., where it affirmed an award of $10 million in punitive damages, despite the compensatory damages being only $19,000, a punitive-to-compensatory ratio of more than 526-to-1. In this case, the Supreme Court affirmed that disproportionate punitive damages were allowed for especially egregious conduct."
Nobel laureate Doctor Mann has definitely lived up to his hype. He gets to disparage anyone that disagrees with him, deny researchers access to his methods and data, and now intends to weaponize the effects of this lawsuit. The "Arc of History" indeed. Except that this Arc is heavily dependent on censorship, the destruction of unwanted voices and making a mockery of libel. At least we won't be subject to any more "original research" by Mann. Please leave our tree rings to somebody who cares about the truth!
A great disgrace… Mann, and the trial, both
thanks. I'll look into this.
Well written, Roger. The way you have characterized the verdict, without any hyperbole or reaching, is clearly residing within (an unfortunate) reality.
It’s evidence of a new mechanism by which western society is enhancing the rate of institutionalized disconfirmation erosion. This mafia-style weaponization of the U.S. legal system against anyone who disagrees with the rubber-stamped view of those in power (currently the climate crisis lobby) will likely have the intended effect of sending reasoned professionals into silence and hiding.
https://www.hefner.energy/articles/institutionalized-disconfirmation
Hi Roger,
Not a lawyer (but have seen some actors playing lawyers on TV).
Over at National Review Online (conservative magazine), a lawyer said even a 10-to-1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages is extremely rare. I did a query/prompt at Gemini (formerly Bard), which indicates that the records for punitive to compensatory damages are like a little over 100-to-1. Therefore, the lawyer and I predict Mann's compensatory plus punitive damages from both Simberg and Steyn will be reduced to *at most*, on the order of $100 each.
P.S. Some of Michael Mann's claims seem laughable. (So sue me! ;-))
For instance, apparently he felt he got a "mean look" from another customer at Wegman's, and attributed that to the articles/blog posts by Simberg and Steyn. (No wonder the compensatory damages were $1 each!)
I got this by email, and will respond here:
"Different subject Roger - The hockey stick.
I followed the Mann trial a bit and remember many years ago reading something about Mann not sharing the data behind his work. I also saw something this week that maybe he ultimately did share the date behind his work.
Can you shed any light on this? Did he initially withhold his data? If so, did he fully disclose it at some point? If he he did, when was that?"
RP: There has been no greater distraction or waste of time in the climate debate than the Hockey Stick. There is plenty of legitimate debate over the science and a lot of noise and nonsense as well. There is absolutely nothing in the world of climate policy that depends in any degree on the Hockey Stick. So I pretty much tune out when it is raised. But there are plenty of folks who still wish to discuss it!
This is of note, and I'm posting here just so I have it.
In the Climategate emails, there was a request by Phil Jones to delete emails subject to FOIA release.
Writing in an op-ed the Washington Post in 2009, Michael Mann said:
"Some statements in the stolen e-mails reflect poor judgment -- for example, a colleague referring to deleting e-mails that might be subject to a Freedom of Information Act request -- but there is no evidence that this happened."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html
We learned in the trial last week that Eugene Wahl did in fact delete emails subject to FOIA.
Who made the request to delete them?
Michael Mann
Poor judgment indeed
We live in sad times. Science is I fear entering a Scientific Dark Age. Courts, at least at the trial level, are entering a sort of reverse Star Court era where the misdeeds are done for all the world to see rather than behind closed doors. It really is very dystopian.
Thank you Roger, a very level headed essay on what happened.
In a statement, Mann said, “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.” This really bothers me. Mann is unhinged.
Dr. Pielke, you wrote that "the larger issues here are not about Mann, but rather the continued failures within the climate science community to uphold fundamental norms of conduct among its own ranks." That is 100 percent correct! Why doesn't the National Academy of Science step yo here? At least issue a reprimand, or perhaps, at the other extreme, outright expulsion. Michael Mann is not the only climatist to pursue litigation; Mark Jacobson did the same thing against Christopher Clack when Clack shredded his "100% WWS" thesis. There have probably been others as well, though I grant each case is different.
My point is we have professional societies whose role is to promote and protect the professionalism of science. These societies are prestigious, and carry a strong reputation. I hate to use the word "policing," but it is the best term I can think of at this writing. If these societies are going to stand for something, then they should stand up to egregious behavior.
Well said, and it is not over. Michael Mann have proven to be far more interested in building political rather than scientific credibility. In the end history will treat him as what he is, a political opportunist. Regrettably, he survives because his peers are fearful apologists.
This ruling is utterly preposterous. When preserving the ideological narrative trumps freedom of speech and due process, how exactly are we supposed to have any civil discourse or scientific integrity?
Mann is absolutely rage-Tweeting today about me, McKittrick and especially McIntyre and Curry. Having a perfectly normal Saturday. I'm pretty sure there are laws against going after witnesses in a civil trial.
just posted this for those of you interested. Helping Mann be a Mensch: Have Scientific Institutions (And the Rest of Us) Let Him Down?
.https://paxsilvarum.substack.com/p/helping-mann-be-a-mensch-have-scientific?r=e6x28&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
He would be my last choice of a friend; I am not alone on that assessment.