For those who may not have followed this one — here is my March 2024 backgrounder, on it all.

The court ruled today as follows:

…According to Mr. [Simberg’s own admissions, and the guy who is Hinderaker’s hero, here!], a reasonable jury could find that the gist of Mr. Simberg’s article was that Dr. Mann committed deceit and misconduct to such a degree that it rose to a level of criminality on par with that committed by Jerry Sandusky. To be sure, the Court of Appeals noted, a jury could find that by calling Dr. Mann “the [Jerry] Sandusky of climate science,” the article implied that Dr. Mann’s manipulation of data was seriously deviant for a scientist. These noxious comparisons, a jury could find, would demean Dr. Mann’s scientific reputation and lower his standing in the community by making him appear similarly “odious, infamous, or ridiculous.” CEI, 150 A.3d. at 1243-44 (quoting Rosen v. Am Isr. Pub. Affairs Comm., Inc., 41 A.3d 1250, 1256 (D.C. 2012)). It appears the jury made such a finding, here. As such, the Court is constrained to uphold the decision of the jury….

And the above leads John Hinderaker to write:

…The jury awarded $1 in compensatory damages against both Steyn and Simberg, and punitive damages in the amount of $1,000 against Simberg and $1,000,000 against Steyn. Most observers expected the punitive damages award against Mark Steyn to be reversed or reduced. [They were.]….

Hinderaker even travelled to DC to watch most of the trial, so convinced that these frothy right wing nuts would eviscerate the real science — and the scientist publishing it… but it came out the other way. And yet, clearly, even today — Hinderaker thinks it acceptable — to refer to a climate scientist with whom one disagrees… as “morally equivalent to” a child molester. DAMN.

Yep that’s what John’s been advocating for — for about ten years. He even tries to make the case that the parties committing this libel were the winners here, by forcing those they libeled to spend perhaps north of $1 million — in bringing the defamation case.

What a reprobate Hinderaker is. This was about principles, it seems to me. [Calling a completely moral family man (with growing children — and one who is a fine academic researcher) “a child molester” in a widely published set of online news outlets and papers… is something to stand up, and take action about, where I come from.] Again, here is my March 2024 backgrounder, on it all.

Disgusting, John. Typical Hinderaker, though. But that is all over — today. Good riddance.

Onward.