Climatologist Mann’s Defamation Suit Victory: Can It Help Resolve the Crisis of Expertise?

Abstract

When a jury awarded one million dollars in punitive damages to climatologist Michael Mann, in his defamation suit against writer Mark Steyn (who accused Mann of scientific fraud), it was newsworthy, even surprising, because opinions regarding scientific matters are rarely actionable. And yet it was not seen as a groundbreaking event in terms of legal doctrine, since the outcome was easily justifiable — Steyn’s accusation was provably false. However, even if the Constitutional contours of defamation law did not change, the Mann verdict has far-reaching implications for a major contemporary social phenomenon, namely the so-called crisis of expertise, a term identifying a distrust of consensus science by a large segment of our society. That phenomenon is but a part of the current polarization between left and right in the United States, and the Mann verdict sends a message to those who would casually encourage distrust of a credible scientist. Any such constructive move toward resolving the crisis of expertise could help reduce the dangerous effects of ignoring scientific expertise, whether with respect to healthcare or protection of the environment.