The researcher sued two journalists for libel and defamation after they made comments regarding his study. The jury awarded him damages in excess of $1 million.
On Thursday, climate scientist Michael Mann won his defamation lawsuit against Rand Simberg, a former adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Mark Steyn, a National Review contributor.
The trial transported observers back to 2012, the height of the blogosphere and an age of heated debates over the fact of global warming.
John Cook described as "a feral time."
Following a four-week trial in District of Columbia Superior Court and one full day of deliberation, the six-member jury reached a unanimous verdict.
They found Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn guilty of defaming Dr. Mann with numerous false assertions and awarded the scientist $1 in compensatory damages from each writer.
The jury also determined that the writers wrote their assertions with "maliciousness, spite, ill will, vengeance, or deliberate intent to harm," and imposed punitive penalties of $1,000 .
Mr. Simberg and $1 million against Mr. Steyn in order to dissuade others from doing the same.
"This is a victory for science and it's a victory for scientists," Mann said in a statement.
In 2012, Mr. Simberg and Mr. Steyn made connections between the dispute over Dr. Mann's study and the Jerry Sandusky affair, in which the former football coach at Pennsylvania State University was convicted of sexually assaulting children.