Climate scientist Michael Mann recently won his $1 million defamation lawsuit against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn where the two men fiercely criticized his work. On Wednesday, he joined PBS’s Christiane Amanpour to take a victory lap for his efforts to squash free speech.
Amanpour began by noting, “A new report shows a sharp rise in personal attacks on climate scientists. Well, one widely respected scientist is fighting back. He is Michael Mann, distinguished professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. After a pair of conservative climate deniers accused him of faking his data back in 2012. Mann sued for defamation and he won. Last week, a jury awarded him a million dollars in compensatory damages. And Dr. Mann calls the decision a victory for science. And he's joining me now from Philadelphia.”
Writing in National Review in 2012, Steyn opined, “Michael Mann was the man behind the fraudulent climate-change “hockey-stick” graph, the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus. And, when the East Anglia emails came out, Penn State felt obliged to ‘investigate’ Professor Mann.”
Defending Steyn, National Review top man Rich Lowry wrote, also in 2012, about the problem with Mann’s argument, “In common polemical usage, ‘fraudulent’ doesn’t mean honest-to-goodness criminal fraud. It means intellectually bogus and wrong. I consider Mann’s prospective lawsuit fraudulent. Uh-oh. I guess he now has another reason to sue us.”
Mann originally sued National Review as well, but they were later dropped from the case, but now that Mann was won, he may very well re-sue them. “They’re next,” his lawyer declared.
Back in 2024, Amanpour welcomed Mann with none of this information, “So, firstly, you know, congratulations, especially as you, you know, frame it as a victory for science. What was it that -- you know, that caused you to take on this case and it took you 12 years?”
Patting himself on the back, Mann claimed, “Well, you know, we sort of drew a line in the sand. It's one thing to criticize scientists. That's all, you know, appropriate in science. In fact, good faith criticism, skepticism plays an important role in moving science forward, but making false and defamatory accusations, accusations of fraud and comparing a scientist to a convicted child molester, which is what the plaintiffs did -- what the defendants did in this case, clearly goes beyond the line.”
Back in 2012, Simberg wrote:
But now that we know how bad it was, perhaps it’s time that we revisit the Michael Mann affair, particularly given how much we’ve also learned about his and others’ hockey-stick deceptions since. Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except that instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data in the service of politicized science that could have dire economic consequences for the nation and planet.
Politics is full of nasty comparisons. It is not a glorious part of our political discourse that public figures are routinely compared to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, and others, but such comparisons should be protected by the First Amendment. If they aren't, the rest of the media is in big trouble.
Mann continued, “it did take 12 years to play out, but we're very pleased that the jury saw, you know, through the smoke and mirrors that they tried to put up during the trial, saw to the heart of the matter, that they had engaged in false and defamatory allegations. They had done so with malice, hence the award of a million dollars in punitive damages.”
Amanpour then quoted Mann for what she hopes the case means, “So, to be clear again, you have, you know, fought this because of the science and you said, ‘I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.’”
PBS and CNN—Amanpour and Company originally airs on CNN International— do not appear to value free speech. What about the rest of the media?
Here is a transcript for the February 14 show:
PBS Amanpour and Company
2/14/2024
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: A new report shows a sharp rise in personal attacks on climate scientists. Well, one widely respected scientist is fighting back. He is Michael Mann, distinguished professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Pennsylvania. After a pair of conservative climate deniers accused him of faking his data back in 2012. Mann sued for defamation. And he won. Last week, a jury awarded him a million dollars in compensatory damages. And Dr. Mann calls the decision a victory for science. And he's joining me now from Philadelphia.
So, firstly, you know, congratulations, especially as you, you know, frame it as a victory for science. What was it that -- you know, that caused you to take on this case and it took you 12 years?
MICHAEL MANN: Thanks, Christiane. Well, you know, we sort of drew a line in the sand. It's one thing to criticize scientists. That's all, you know, appropriate in science. In fact, good faith criticism, skepticism plays an important role in moving science forward, but making false and defamatory accusations, accusations of fraud and comparing a scientist to a convicted child molester, which is what the plaintiffs did -- what the defendants did in this case, clearly goes beyond the line.
And we sort of -- you know, we had no choice. We asked them to take down those defamatory posts and to apologize. They refused to do that. And so, we moved forward with the litigation. And it did take 12 years to play out, but we're very pleased that the jury saw, you know, through the smoke and mirrors that they tried to put up during the trial, saw to the heart of the matter, that they had engaged in false and defamatory allegations. They had done so with malice, hence the award of a million dollars in punitive damages.
AMANPOUR: So, to be clear again, you have, you know, fought this because of the science and you said, “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”
