What Should We Think Of Michael Mann’s Defamation Trial ‘Win’?
Written by Roger Pielke Jr.
I was a witness in the case and testified on Tuesday.2 Here, I’ll offer my thoughts on the case and some personal reflections on my experience
Mann’s case alleged that he was defamed by statements made by the bloggers more than a decade ago, which harmed his reputation and career (I won’t rehash the details here, but you can get a full accounting of the trial at this comprehensive podcast).3
The defense built their case around making three points to the jury.
One was to bring in experts to testify that Mann’s methods in producing the so-called “Hockey Stick” graph were manipulative, and thus critics of the Hockey Stick were factually correct in saying so.
The second point was to demonstrate that the debate over climate at the time the blog posts were written was intense and vitriolic, with Mann saying things about others that were worse than what the defendants said about him.4
Finally, the defense argued that Mann hardly put on a case — he provided no evidence or witnesses supporting his claims of damage to his reputation or career.
In contrast, the prosecution was — in the words of the court, “disjointed” — and was reprimanded on multiple occasions by the judge, most notably for knowingly providing false information to the jury on alleged damages suffered by Mann.5
When I was cross-examined, Mann’s lawyer had considerable trouble getting basic facts right like timelines and who said what.6
Even so, in a trial that most neutral observers would surely see as favoring the arguments of the defense, Mann walked away with a resounding, comprehensive victory.7 How did that happen?
In my view, there were two absolutely pivotal moments in the trial.
One occurred when Mann was testifying and he explained that he felt that the bloggers were not just criticizing him, but they were attacking all of climate science, and he could not let that stand.
As the world’s most accomplished and famous climate scientist, Mann intimated that he was simply the embodiment of all of climate science.
For the jury, this set up the notion that this trial was not really about Mann, but about attacks on all of climate science from ‘climate deniers’.
The second pivotal moment occurred when in closing arguments Mann’s lawyer asked the jury to send a message to ‘right-wing science deniers’ and Trump supporters with a large punitive damage award.
Here is how an advocacy group called “DeSmog” accurately reported these dynamics:
Mann sued Simberg and Steyn for defamation, but the trial proved to be about much more than statements that harmed the scientist’s reputation — the entire field and validity of climate science was under scrutiny.
In closing arguments, Mann’s lawyer John Williams compared the climate deniers in this case to election deniers overall. “Why do Trumpers continue to deny that he won the election?” he asked the jury. “Because they truly believe what they say or because they want to further their agenda?”
He asked the jury to consider the same question about Steyn and Simberg: Did they believe what they wrote was the truth, or did they just want to push their agenda? …
“Michael Mann is tired of being attacked,” Williams told the jury. “You have the opportunity to serve as an example to prevent others from acting in a similar way” to Simberg and Steyn.
An underlying current throughout this trial has been that ‘climate denialism’, like what the two defendants practice, isn’t really about the science. It’s more about politics and policy that drives organizations and individuals to “attack the science and confuse the public . . .
This framing — ‘climate deniers’ versus climate science — has also characterized mainstream media coverage.
For instance, The Washington Post announced, on the day the case went to the jury, that this case was part of a “mounting campaign” against “right-wing trolls” (below).
Prominent climate scientist or right-wing trolls? Which side are you on?
The case was formally about defamation, but in reality, it was not at all about defamation.
As Michael Mann stated after the verdict, the case was really about politics and ideology:
https://principia-scientific.com/what-should-we-think-of-michael-manns-defamation-trial-win/
*********************************************Boiling Point Reached On Green Policies
Something rather amazing is happening across Western Europe, although American media outlets would like to pretend that nothing is happening.
The sea change is that ordinary people are pushing back against green policies that will destroy farming (and also destroy the food supply) and against the endless immigration that’s intended to wipe out Europe’s ancient populations in favor of entirely new populations from the Muslim world and Africa (both Muslim and non-Muslim regions).
The farmer protests began last year in the Netherlands when the government announced that it intended to cut livestock farming by 30 percent to prevent ‘greenhouse gases’.
It was a pure “you vill eat ze bugs” moment, and the farmers protested vehemently.
Indeed, they protested uber-conservative Geert Wilders right into a parliamentary majority, although the wacky parliamentary system means he hasn’t been able to form a coalition to lead the government.
Because those policies are not limited to the Netherlands but have spread across Europe (where post-WWII socialism provided a ready landing pad for environmental madness), the same farmer protests are now in other European nations.
Again, no farmers means no food, except for the delightful Stone Age diet of bugs, scavenged fruits and vegetables, and gleaned grains.
Our famine-free era will be just a short interlude in the long history of human starvation.
As a reminder, when Stalin deliberately forced a famine on the Ukrainian people during the 1930s, the saying was that an orphan was a child whose parents died before they could eat him.
That’s the world leftists are pushing.
https://principia-scientific.com/boiling-point-reached-on-green-policies/
************************************************Biden’s Latest Climate Regs Hammer Manufacturing
The Biden administration finalized regulations severely tightening restrictions on fine particulate matter that the manufacturing and energy sectors are legally allowed to emit, an action that industry said would have devastating economic consequences.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unveiled the regulations Wednesday morning in a joint announcement with environmental activists, saying limiting particulate matter known as PM2.5 or soot would have health benefits for Americans nationwide.
The rulemaking lowers the annual PM2.5 standard from a level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter to a level of nine micrograms per cubic meter.
“Today’s action is a critical step forward that will better protect workers, families, and communities from the dangerous and costly impacts of fine particle pollution,” EPA Administrator Michael Regan told reporters in a call. “The science is clear. Soot pollution is one of the most dangerous forms of air pollution and is linked to a range of serious and potentially deadly illnesses, including asthma and heart attacks.”
“The stronger standard is designed to ensure clear, routine pathways for industry to continue to upgrade and build while maintaining cleaner, healthier air,” Regan continued. “We know that cleaner air and a strong and bustling economy go hand in hand.”
According to the EPA, the regulations will prevent up to 4,500 premature deaths and 290,000 lost workdays while yielding up to $46 billion in net health benefits by 2032. …snip…
However, industry associations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), and the American Petroleum Institute (API) have warned of the potentially wide-ranging impacts of more restrictive particulate matter restrictions.
In a September letter to Regan, those groups and 30 other industry associations said the regulations could lead to onerous permitting requirements that would “freeze manufacturing and supply chain investments.”
They also pointed to a May 2023 study conducted by Oxford Economics and commissioned by NAM that concluded more restrictive PM2.5 regulations would threaten between $162.4 and $197.4 billion of economic activity while putting 852,100 to 973,900 current jobs at risk.
“Tightening the NAAQS PM2.5 standard will grind permits to a halt for a large portion of our country,” Marty Durbin, the senior vice president for policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said Wednesday. “EPA’s new rule is expected to put 569 counties out of compliance and push many others close to the limit, which threatens economic growth.”
“Compliance with the new standard will be very difficult because 84 percent of emissions now come from non-industrial sources like wildfires and road dust that are costly and hard to control,” he continued. “While EPA states there are exemptions for wildfires, 70 percent of those requests haven’t been granted in the past, and the process for seeking one is time-consuming and difficult for states to manage.”
Durbin added that the EPA should have maintained the previous standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter and focused its attention instead on reducing non-industrial emissions. The regulations, he said, punish counties and the private sector “for situations largely out of their control.”
The regulations, meanwhile, will make the U.S. PM2.5 standards among the world’s most burdensome.
While Australia and Canada have annual standards lower than nine micrograms per cubic meter, Japan has a standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter, and the U.K. and European Union both have a standard of 20 micrograms per cubic meter.
China and India have annual standards of 35 micrograms per cubic meter or greater.
“Protecting public health and the environment is a top priority for our industry, and America has seen significant air quality improvements and reduced emissions over the past decades under the existing EPA standards,” said API Vice President of Downstream Policy Will Hupman.
“Yet, today’s announcement is the latest in a growing list of short-sighted policy actions that have no scientific basis and prioritize foreign energy and manufacturing from unstable regions of the world over American jobs, manufacturing, and national security,” Hupman continued. “As we review the final standard, we will consider all our options.”
https://principia-scientific.com/bidens-latest-climate-regs-hammer-manufacturing/
*******************************************Absurd: New Zealand courts can now decide on climate change
The World Justice Project ranks New Zealand 7th out of 142 countries on its ‘Rule of Law Index’, narrowly ahead of Australia’s 13th place. However, Australia still has hope – if only because of a recent decision by the Supreme Court of New Zealand.
The case is easily told. In 2019 Mike Smith, an indigenous activist fighting climate change, filed a lawsuit against seven large New Zealand companies – including Fonterra and Z Energy – for their carbon emissions. Smith claims that they are causing him harm.
The case falls under what lawyers call ‘tort law’. It is an ancient branch of the common law dealing with making good damage unlawfully caused to one person by another.
In his case, Smith argued that the seven companies were responsible for the torts of ‘public nuisance’, ‘negligence’ and a hitherto unknown tort of ‘damage to the climate system’.
Armed with these claims, and supported by pressure group Lawyers for Climate Action, Smith went to court. The defendants promptly applied to strike his claims out. In legal parlance, such a ‘strike out’ means that the court considers a claim too frivolous to be taken seriously.
In the first instance, the High Court struck out Smith’s public nuisance and negligence claims. However, the High Court allowed Smith to take his damage to the climate system forward, not least to see whether that fabled new tort really exists.
The Court of Appeal did not think so. It threw out Smith’s whole case.
This is where Smith’s case would have ended, had it not been for the New Zealand Supreme Court, the highest court in the land. A couple of years ago, it permitted Smith to argue his case.
Last week, we finally learned the verdict. The Supreme Court not only allowed Smith to have his claim of damage to the climate system heard in the lower court. It did so on all three alleged torts.
You do not have to be a lawyer to understand the problems with New Zealand’s top judges’ decision last week. But perhaps one must be a lawyer to come up with it.
To be clear, the Supreme Court did not decide that Smith will eventually win his case. But it does mean that the court believes that he might.
Still, is this a logical analysis of Smith’s claims?
To answer this, we need to consider a little background on climate change and New Zealand’s policy for dealing with it.
In the grand scheme of planetary emissions, New Zealand is a rounding error. Of every tonne of global carbon emissions, New Zealand is responsible for 1.7 kilograms. Since Smith sued only seven New Zealand companies, his case is effectively a few grams out of each global tonne of carbon emissions.
Now, in tort law, the general rule is that there must be a close link between a defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s alleged damage. The legal standard is that it cannot be “too remote”, i.e. the specific action must be causally connected with the harm.
Could any reasonable person think there is such a close link? Would anyone seriously believe that a (globally speaking) tiny amount of carbon dioxide from a specific emitter would cause specific harm in Mr Smith’s life? Had the Supreme Court followed the Court of Appeal’s lead, the case would have been closed.
If the link between action and damage is too loose, then anything goes. According to chaos theory, the flap of a butterfly’s wing can cause a hurricane. By Smith’s logic, if the butterfly had an owner, that owner should pay for the rebuild after the storm.
If this is already problematic, it gets worse. New Zealand has a legislative framework for dealing with carbon emissions: the Emissions Trading Scheme, or “ETS.” All non-agricultural emitters of climate gases in New Zealand must buy carbon units. These units permit them to emit these gases.
The seven companies Smith sued had such certificates for their emissions. So, they were complying with the rules and regulations put in place by parliament and administered by government.
A key part of the rule of law is predictability. If you play by the rules and obey the law, you should not have anything to fear. So how could the companies find themselves sued when they are complying with environmental law?
But wait, not even that is the end of this absurd story. That is because of the way the ETS works.
Under New Zealand’s ETS, the government auctions and allocates a fixed number of emission credits each year. Trading in ETS units only determines who emits how much of that total amount.
If Smith is ultimately successful in his claim, the seven companies will emit less in future. However, under the logic of the ETS, others will emit more. New Zealand’s total emissions will not change by a single gram.
Suing the government for not running a tighter cap would have had some coherence. Suing individual participants in the market does not. Again, one would have expected the Supreme Court to take this into account. Obviously, it did not.
Absurdities abound in this case. Law students learn that without a reasonably close connection between action and damage, there can be no tort. Not so, apparently, in this case.
Law students also learn that statute is the dominant source of law. Of course, this does not prevent common law from being applied and developed. But in this case, the Supreme Court has opened the door for climate change to be brought into common law when a sophisticated statutory regime is already in place.
Moreover, trying to deal with climate change through the common law is doomed to fail under the ETS. In effect, the existence of the ETS makes any common law tort toothless and superfluous.
All of this is, frankly, concerning. The most troubling thing about the Supreme Court’s decision is the signal it sends: Matters of policy and politics (such as climate change) can be decided by the courts.
In a democracy, however, voters elect parliaments to deal with the problems facing society. How democratic would it be for the courts to usurp such matters from elected lawmakers?
New Zealand is lucky to be one of the world’s highest ranked countries for the rule of law. But with decisions like the one just delivered by the Supreme Court, one may wonder for how much longer.
***************************************
My other blogs. Main ones below
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM )
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment