Don’t question us, ever – you won’t win, there’ll be years of legal torture and then you’ll be whacked with a one-million-dollar bill at the end of it. That’s the takeaway from the peculiar jury verdict in the Mann v. Steyn defamation trial concerning that icon of 20th-century global warming alarmism, Professor Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph.

Mann’s lawyer John Williams gave the game away in his final remarks to the jury, with what amounted to a call to arms to defend the climate change faith. Having linked Trumpish election-deniers to science-deniers, Williams then said: ‘…you can set an amount not just to punish, but to serve as an example to prevent others from acting in… a same or similar way. These attacks on climate scientists have to stop, and you now have the opportunity….’ After objections, the judge reminded Williams that this was a defamation case, not a climate science case. Former top lawyer and court observer John Hinderaker later blasted, ‘In 41 years of trying cases to juries, I never heard such an outrageously improper appeal.’

Defence witness and Mann critic, scientist Roger Pielke Jnr, later tweeted a Washington Post story, saying: ‘I find it incredible that Mann’s lawyers said in closing arguments this case is about the jury sending a message to climate deniers on the same day that the Washington Post explained to DC residents this “campaign” is exactly what the case is about.’

But perhaps Williams knew his audience. Four weeks of expert scientific and character evidence for the defence went up in smoke as the jury in deep-blue Washington DC were reminded of the wider issue – climate science is sacred. The result was a derisory $1 actual damages finding against defendants Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, but punitive damages findings against Simberg of $1,000, and Steyn $1m. Punitive damages are awarded when actions are ‘malicious, violent, oppressive, fraudulent, wanton or grossly reckless’.

Plainly the jury felt Mann had not in fact been harmed by the two bloggers’ posts, written 12 years ago, but decided to punish them anyway, as a message of deterrence; don’t question the science. No wonder the legacy media was gleeful at the outcome, with Mann himself saying, ‘I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.’

Sending ‘messages’ is a well-worn political strategy and emphasises the partisan nature of the case. This is being treated like a Soviet-style show trial, making the weakness and error-ridden nature of Mann’s case pretty well irrelevant. That the ‘message’ of sacred science and scientists has been received was demonstrated later with a tweet from virologist Angela Rasmussen: ‘Anti-vaxxers and lab leak truthers should prepare to join their climate denialist brethren among the losers.’ Free speech for me, but not for thee, seems to be the point.

It’s likely that the DC jury found much to dislike in the Steyn presentation. Not only was he on the wrong side of the climate change bandwagon, he had a mountain of evidence and expert witnesses testifying to dodgy and manipulative science (let’s be careful here). The supposed good guy, fake Nobel prizewinner Michael Mann, turned out to be no hero but an activist academic whose repellent personal behaviour included destroying other scientists’ careers and retailing false gossip about female academics.

Nor was Steyn’s usual description of Washington as ‘diseased and depraved’ going to win him any friends, however appropriate it may be. But Steyn’s also a formidable joker, presenting gags and wisecracks amid the evidence with entertaining flair. No doubt many of his barbs slid home. Who does this uppity Canadian think he is, one can imagine the jury thinking. We’ve all seen this movie before, where the powers-that-be decide to smash down the spirited rebel. The Hunger Games movies look more and more prescient about modern-day Washington; one can almost hear Panem’s President Snow intoning, ‘The Capitol will not be mocked.’

In what is an extraordinary irony, much of the defamation case evidence showed Mann in a far worse light than anything either Steyn or Simberg had written. His actions smearing and attacking fellow scientists were detailed; and much evidence was led on the statistical and scientific weaknesses in his hockey stick graph. Scientist Judith Curry referred to a 2013 Huffington Post article ‘that destroyed my academic career’; Mann had called her a serial climate misinformer. Pielke Jnr told of being dropped as a writer from the website 538, and later finding out, through a Wikileaks email drop, that it was due to Mann and a climate group demanding his firing behind the scenes. ‘He’s thin-skinned, quick to attack… The attacks are not just, your science is wrong and here’s why, but you’re a bad person, an evil person and don’t deserve to be part of the debate.’

The jury verdict came out the same day as Special Counsel Robert Hur’s report into Biden’s classified documents case, which found the President mentally incompetent to face charges and stand criminal trial for wilfully retaining and disclosing classified documents. Who knew old age, a poor memory, and a sympathetic demeanour were exculpatory? Poor old Joe, Hur seems to be saying, we’ll just have to let him off. No such mercy for Trump, however – don’t get any ideas now. And across town on the same day a Washington jury agrees little or no harm was caused to Michael Mann in a 12-year defamation case, but decides to punish Steyn hard anyway, to deter others. A more perfect and timely example of Washington’s two-tier justice system would be hard to find. It is the political side you are on, not the legal technicalities, that determine what you can and can’t get away with in Washington.

The repressive effect of all this on free speech is undeniable. Conduct your science on the regime’s behalf and you are effectively sacrosanct. Dare to criticise and the might of the regime will come down upon you. The Capitol will not be challenged.

This case will continue in the appellate courts, despite Steyn’s poor health. Indeed, Steyn previously wrote that one of Mann’s lawyers, ghoulishly, had told him that the case would not end with his, Steyn’s, death. Let us hope it does not come to that.