It was a Pyrrhic victory at best.

Climate scientist Michael Mann, who sued Canadian conservative author Mark Steyn for defamation, maintained a narrow victory in court on Tuesday after the seven-figure punitive damages initially ordered were reduced to just a few thousand dollars.

Steyn was originally ordered to pay Mann $1 million in punitive damage charges for an article he wrote for the National Review in 2012 criticizing Mann, though the District of Columbia Superior Court reduced the charges to just $5,000. In January, National Review editors announced that a Washington, D.C. judge also ordered the climate scientist to pay over $500,000 to cover some of the outlet’s legal fees.

The final judgement order on Tuesday granted Steyn’s 2024 request to drastically reduce the punitive damages, which he argued should be “$5,000 or less,” from $1 million to the requested amount of $5,000.

The 13-year legal dispute started in 2012 when Steyn wrote an article for National Review, criticizing Mann and his hockey stick climate graph, which depicted a sharp rise in global warming. This led Mann to file a defamation lawsuit against Steyn. Subsequently, Rich Lowry, the editor, published a follow-up piece defending Steyn’s remarks, prompting Mann to extend his defamation suit to include the National Review as well.

Michael Mann has no qualms about suing people, like Mark Steyn and National Review, for posting criticisms and other comments about Mann and his work. But the Penn State scientist frequently insults critics of his notorious hockey stick graph calling them climate deniers. But insult or criticize Mann and you might get a lawsuit summons, or cease and desist letter.

Fortunately, after 12 years and millions of dollars later, it has all come to an end and Michael Mann came up short in the end.