Jury to decide on climate scientist Michael Mann’s defamation suit over comparison to molester

WASHINGTON — It’s been 12 years since a pair of conservative writers compared a prominent climate scientist to a convicted child molester for his depiction of global warming. It was included in a report by a United Nations climate panel in 2001, and a version of it was featured in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning 2006 climate change documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” It also brought him skeptics — two of whom Mann took to court for attacks that he said affected his career and reputation in the U.S. and internationally. Another writer, Mark Steyn, later referenced Simberg’s article in his own piece in National Review, calling Mann’s research “fraudulent.” Mann sued the two men and their publishers, seeking monetary damages. Mann’s attorney, John Williams, questioned in his closing whether Simberg and Steyn believed the accusations they leveled at Mann or whether “they just advanced their political agenda.” He told jurors that by awarding damages they could “set an amount not just to punish but to serve as an example to prevent others from acting in the same kind way.” Kate Cell, whose work as senior climate campaign manager at Union of Concerned Scientists includes tracking climate disinformation, said Mann’s case is well-known among other climate scientists. She said many were hoping a favorable verdict for Mann would “reduce the comfort and regularity with which those who do not accept climate change science speak, and speak very nastily, about climate scientists.” Mann needed to prove that the writers not only made false and defamatory statements, but acted with actual malice — a higher threshold for cases involving public figures.