Mann vs. Steyn
Inside the Ongoing Trial of the Decade
In 2012, former engineer and current aerospace consultant and writer Rand Simberg published a blog post at the website of the think thank Competitive Enterprise Institute. The post criticized climate scientist Michael Mann and his research methods as well as Mann’s employer, the Pennsylvania State University, which exonerated Mann after allegations of scientific misconduct. Simberg noted that the same University administrators that originally exonerated Joe Paterno and Jerry Sandusky during the institution’s child abuse scandal exonerated Mann. The post, “The Other Scandal in Unhappy Valley”, can be read here. Note the editor’s note at the bottom.
Mark Steyn quoted from the full, unexpurgated post at a blog post of his own at National Review’s The Corner. Steyn’s post included Simberg’s comments, removed by CEI’s editor, that Mann is “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science”. Simberg explicitly and unequivocally explained that he was not accusing Mann of child abuse but of “torturing and molesting data” (and also being exonerated by the same people). Steyn’s first sentence after quoting the above: “Not sure I’d have extended that metaphor all the way into the locker-room showers with quite the zeal Mr. Simberg does, but he has a point.” He adds that he is in general agreement with Simberg’s criticism, insinuates Mann is a fraud, and concludes that, although Mann may not be the Jerry Sandusky of climate change, “he remains the Michael Mann of climate change”. Steyn’s post, “Football and Hockey”, which uses his trademark Menckenian sardonic wit, can be read here.
Mann sued Simberg, Steyn, Competitive Enterprise Institute, and National Review for defamation of character. He filed his lawsuit in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Mann resides in State College, Pennsylvania. Steyn resides in Woodsville, New Hampshire. National Review is based in New York. I’m not sure about Simberg and CEI, but they are reportedly nowhere near the nation’s capital. Mann’s suit is widely regarded as a “SLAPP” lawsuit, or “strategic limitation of public partnership”. “SLAPP”s are generally filed not to win but to intimidate or bankrupt critics into silence. The location of the lawsuit certainly inconvenienced the defendants (and was also likely chosen due to the political and other sympathies of the judges and jury pool). The defendants tried to get the suit dismissed, citing anti-SLAPP laws. The District of Columbia jurists let it continue. Steyn and Simberg had disagreements with National Review’s legal staff, who wanted to continue to delay the trial. Steyn, who no longer writes for the conservative publication, decided that, absent a dismissal of the suit, he wanted to go to trial and confront his accuser as soon as possible. Critics of Mann (including Steyn) are convinced he had no intention of going to trial and didn’t expect to do so. He did not attend many pre-trial hearings and delayed the proceedings significantly.
But trial eventually, finally commenced, after many delays, in Room 518 of the District of Columbia Superior Court on Tuesday, January 16, 2024. Recently, sixty-four-year-old Steyn, who is representing himself, has had three heart attacks and is confined to a wheelchair.
Even in an infirm state, Steyn is a formidable opponent. I suspect Mann now regrets filing his lawsuit.
In the intervening years, Steyn compiled a book: “A Disgrace to the Profession”: The World’s Scientists, in their Own Words, on Michael E. Mann, His Hockey Stick, and Their Damage to Science: Volume 1. Steyn quotes many prominent climate scientists, many of whom agree with Michael Mann about anthropogenic catastrophic climate change, who excoriate Mann for what they regard as shoddy practices and deceptive work. (Steyn has been trying to enter his book as evidence; the trial judge has so far denied Steyn’s request.) And, in a not so surprising turn of events (even considering mounting attacks on free speech), climate catastrophists in the mainstream media, including Time, The Los Angeles Times, the Associate Press, and many more have filed amicus briefs in support of Steyn and Simberg. Evidently, some “liberals” still understand the importance of free speech and that they can be targeted by their critics in similar suits if Mann is victorious.
Mann’s famous “hockey stick” graph has a flat “handle” for all of human history, representing no warming, and a sharp, vertical blade, which he says represents warming due to human emissions since the Industrial Revolution. It has been criticized by many and used as a demonstration of anthropogenic catastrophic climate change by others (including Al Gore in his film An Inconvenient Truth). Detractors point out that Mann had to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period to keep his “blade” flat. Also, since temperature scales are a fairly recent invention, there are obviously no temperature readings for much of human history. Scientists use estimates from tree rings to determine temperature prior to recorded readings. These are estimates and anything but precise. When Mann used the tree ring estimates consistently, into the twentieth century (comparing apples to apples, so to speak), he did not get the “blade” he needed to support his case. Critics accuse him of replacing the tree-ring estimates after the Industrial Revolution with temperature readings, inappropriately combining two different methods to achieve misleading results (Steyn calls him “the very ringmaster of the tree-ring circus”).
Mann claims his reputation has been damaged and that he lost funding due to Simberg’s and Steyn’s publications. In court, he has recounted one baleful stare in a Pennsylvania supermarket as further evidence of damages he has suffered. The serial litigant Mann’s financial damages are less than they otherwise would be, as he was ordered to pay court costs after losing a similar suit to writer Tim Ball in Canada. Mann never paid, and Ball has since died.
This lawsuit is about much more than climate science, global warming, the degree to which humans are causing it, or the proper response to all of the above (all four distinctly different topics). Free speech used to be an issue that virtually all in the West agreed was a sacrosanct bedrock of human civilization, one that guaranteed robust debate and inquiry so that individual humans could reason to conclusions and find truth … or not, and be judged accordingly. The amicus briefs filed by the “liberal” media supporting Steyn and Simberg are evidence that, for now, that lingering commitment to free speech remains a core cultural value in diverse corners of the culture. But Mann’s lawsuits are just a few instances of an alarming trend demonstrating that free speech is under unprecedented attack. Despite serious disagreements with Steyn, I regard him as one of the most important writers and commentators left (certainly after the incalculable losses of Christopher Hitchens and PJ O’Rourke). His indefatigable commitment to freedom of speech, in this case and many others, is one reason he is a towering figure amidst a land of pygmy pundits and vacuous epigones.
The trial is open to the public and expected to last at least another week. The court meets every weekday except Friday and will resume Monday. Journalists and documentary directors Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney dramatize each day’s proceedings with actors, and their audio dramatizations can be heard at Steyn’s website.
The trial should be receiving significantly more attention; the outcome of this case and its implications are among the most momentous and consequential.