Mark Steyn (l) and Michael Mann (r), adapted from Wikipedia, licensed under CC BY 2.0 and CC BY-SA 4.0.

The public perception is that Dr. Michael Mann has become the standard bearer of climate change. After all, he invented the climate hockey stick idea, which has been relentlessly seared into the public’s consciousness by a complicit lamestream media. In effect, his graph has arguably been the premier example of real Science having been taken over by political science. It appears that this has largely been successful because 95%± of the population is technically challenged, so they are relatively easy pickings on complex scientific matters.

To critically thinking scientists, Mann has been a major stoker of climate alarmism. They understood that the “hockey stick” concept had several major weaknesses, rarely (if ever) acknowledged by Mann or the media.

For example, Mann apparently constructed his graph by pasting together two rather different sets of data. This is a scientific no-no. For example, Mann’s earlier data appears to be based on tree ring evidence from one or two trees in Siberia. There are several scientific concerns with this, like: 1) tree ring estimates of temperature are not very accurate, 2) having a sample size of 2± trees in a situation like this is not usually sufficient to draw meaningful conclusions from, 3) it is highly speculative that what happened in a tiny section of Siberia is representative of what happened in the rest of the planet, etc.

This is my layperson overview of the hockey stick issue. If you’d like a more in-depth technical discussion of the scientific weaknesses of this matter, there are several good references, like this (also here, here, here, etc.).

One of several people who had the temerity to speak up and object to Mann’s contentions was Mark Steyn. The short story is that Mann decided to sue Steyn (et. al.). This became a very public case (in which Steyn defended himself), and where the judge awarded Mann $1 million. Not surprisingly the lamestream media trumpeted this as a vindication of their sloven and uncritical thinking regarding the highly technical climate matter.

I wrote two Substack commentaries about the disturbing Mann v Steyn matter: here and here.

The Latest Developments —

Now that you have a bit of background, this week there was a major development. As expected, Steyn et al appealed. Here is the 3-12-25 court verdict. (Good discussions about what transpired are here, here, and here.)

The $1 million fine was reduced to $5000. Among several other determinations (page 43 & 44) it appears that Steyn will be awarded compensation of his legal fees. Most importantly, following a very detailed dozens of pages of evidence, the judge ripped Mann and his attorney. For example (page 40 [my emphasis]):

The record plainly shows the deliberate and knowing misconduct of Dr. Mann’s counsel in eliciting false testimony from Dr. Mann and misrepresenting his grant funding.

For example (page 41):

Exhibit 517A was appropriately admitted because Dr. Mann gave the information in Exhibit 517A under penalty of perjury…[but]… Dr. Mann gave testimony at trial inconsistent with the information in Exhibit 517A.

For example (page 41 & 42):

Dr. Mann’s arguments about Defendants’ alleged failure to preserve their objection are not well taken. Dr. Mann’s counsel’s bad faith misconduct is an affront to the Court’s authority and an attack on the integrity of the proceedings warranting sanctions… It bears repeating that Dr. Mann and his counsel should not have engaged in the falsehoods and misrepresentations to the jury and the Court in the first place.

When determining sanctions, the Judge went on with exceptional frankness (page 42):

The Court arrives at such a sanction because the misconduct of Dr. Mann and his counsel: (1) was extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent; (2) subjected a jury not only to false evidence and grievous misrepresentations about a crucial part of Dr. Mann’s case, but also to additional trial proceedings for correcting the record and the jury’s impressions thereof that otherwise likely would have been unnecessary; (3) further complicated a trial already rife with convoluted and difficult legal and factual issues; and (4) burdened Defendants and the Court with the time- and resource-intensive task of ascertaining the true extent of the misconduct and determining appropriate remedial measures for the same, all without any meaningful acknowledgement of the nature of the misconduct by Dr. Mann or his attorneys.

I did a quick search to see how many articles about this there were from his media allies. As of March 13, 2025, crickets.

[Editor’s note: For a detailed discussion of the new ruling, see Eugene Volokh’s “Punitive Damages Award in Mann vs. Steyn Reduced from $1M to $5K.”—ECB]

Featured image: Adapted from photos in public domain from Wikipedia, Steyn by by manningcentre – Flickr: _74P3236, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33420576; Mann by Karl Withakay, CC BY-SA 4.0.