Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message
Release Date: 02/14/2024
The Boat Sharing Economy Is Exploding, Here's Why You Shouldn't Buy a Boat
How To Protect The Ocean
The boat rental market is bigger than most people realize, and it's growing fast. In this episode, Andrew shares a personal story about his dad, boats, and why he's spent the last few months considering buying one, before walking through the data that changed his mind about ownership altogether. Andrew breaks down the numbers behind the boat sharing economy: a market valued between nineteen and twenty three billion dollars US, growing five to seven percent a year, with electric propulsion emerging as the fastest growing segment in boat rentals. Peer to peer platforms like Getmyboat,...
info_outline
Why Cargo Ships Are Bringing Back Sails to Cut Emissions
How To Protect The Ocean
Global shipping moves roughly 80 to 90% of the world's trade, and it comes with a real climate cost: the industry is responsible for a little over 2% of global CO2 emissions. On today's episode of the How to Protect the Ocean Podcast, Andrew looks at one of the more surprising fixes the industry is turning to: sails. Not the old canvas kind, but massive rigid wing sails retrofitted onto modern cargo vessels to cut fuel use and emissions without waiting on next-generation fuels. The centerpiece example is the Pyxis Ocean, a bulk carrier fitted with two 37.5-meter WindWings that fold down like...
info_outline
Can Hollywood Go Green? Inside the Sustainable Production Movement
How To Protect The Ocean
Hollywood might not be the first industry you think of when it comes to protecting the planet, but film and TV production has been quietly transforming how it operates behind the scenes. In this episode, Andrew sits down with Zena Harris, founder and president of Green Spark Group and co-host of The Tie-In podcast, to unpack what sustainability actually looks like on a working film set. Zena walks through the surprising ways major productions are cutting fuel consumption, swapping diesel generators for solar power and battery stations, and building a circular economy for set materials instead...
info_outline
Greenwashing Exposed: Why 400+ Companies Got Caught Lying About Sustainability in 2026
How To Protect The Ocean
Businesses love to say they are sustainable. Andrew breaks down why that word is no longer enough on its own. A new EU consumer protection regulation now requires companies to prove environmental claims with evidence, and it has helped drive more than 400 greenwashing-related enforcement actions across the US, UK, EU, Canada, Australia, and India in 2026 alone. Andrew draws on his own university experience with food labeling regulation to explain how vague standards let companies technically comply while misleading the public, then walks through real cases including SEC fines against Goldman...
info_outline
People and Sustainability: The Human Cost Big Business Keeps Ignoring
How To Protect The Ocean
Sustainability conversations usually center on ecosystems, emissions targets, and corporate pledges, but this episode makes the case that people belong at the center of that conversation too. Andrew looks at how communities living closest to refineries, extraction sites, and industrial waterfronts carry a disproportionate share of the pollution burden, often without having consented to the risk in the first place. Using a Philadelphia refinery as a case study, Andrew walks through how fenceline communities experience higher poverty rates, higher rates of residents of color, and elevated cancer...
info_outline
Why Sustainable Companies Actually Save Money
How To Protect The Ocean
Sustainability isn't just good PR; it's good business math. In this episode, Andrew breaks down why companies are shifting toward circular business models, using Philips Lighting as a case study in selling light as a service instead of a product. He digs into the economics behind the shift: a British industrial symbiosis study that saved companies significant money and cut CO2 emissions, a PwC Sweden study showing double-digit operating cost reductions in circular electronics, and the rise of sustainability-linked loans that reward companies for hitting circularity targets with lower interest...
info_outline
Why Sustainability Is Becoming a Business Requirement
How To Protect The Ocean
Sustainability anxiety is real. Watching wildfires spread, sea levels rise, and ice melt while governments drag their feet on climate policy can leave anyone feeling stuck. Andrew opens today's episode by naming that frustration directly, then makes the case for where real momentum is actually coming from: business. This episode breaks down why companies are adopting sustainability practices, sometimes because they want to and sometimes because regulation and consumer pressure leave them little choice. Andrew walks through the European Union's corporate sustainability due diligence directive,...
info_outline
How to Network at Marine Science Conferences Like a Pro
How To Protect The Ocean
Conferences can feel intimidating, expensive, and overwhelming, especially if networking doesn't come naturally to you. In this episode, Andrew shares what more than a decade of attending marine science and conservation conferences has taught him about making real connections, from picking the right event for your career stage to crafting an elevator pitch that actually works. Andrew walks through how to choose a conference that fits your specific field, why in-person events build stronger professional relationships than virtual ones, and why even seasoned scientists like Dr. David Ebert still...
info_outline
Marineland Canada Shuts Down: The Beluga Whale Rescue Begins
How To Protect The Ocean
Marineland Canada is officially closing, and this week the park began moving its remaining beluga whales out of Niagara Falls. Six belugas were flown out on a single flight this week, four to the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago and two to SeaWorld San Antonio, marking the start of a rescue effort that has been years in the making. Andrew walks through how the park got here, from its 1961 founding through decades of protests, whistleblower allegations, OSPCA charges, and a failed 2025 attempt to export the belugas to a Chinese aquarium. The episode traces the full timeline: the 2012 Toronto Star...
info_outline
American Samoa Said No to Deep-Sea Mining. The US Government Doubled The Area
How To Protect The Ocean
The US government is moving toward the world's first commercial deep-sea mining lease sale, and it's happening in federal waters off American Samoa. In this episode, Andrew breaks down how we got here: a California startup's 2025 request to mine polymetallic nodules, the Request for Information process that followed, and the 75,000-plus public comments that came in during the 30-day comment window, with 80 to 98% opposed to mining. Despite that opposition, and despite a standing moratorium from American Samoa's own governor, the federal government expanded the proposed mining area from 18...
info_outlineAndrew Lewin discusses a lawsuit involving Dr. Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist. Dr. Mann sued Rand Simberg and Mark Stein for defamatory online posts made over a decade ago by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review. Lewin also explores the history of attacks on climate scientists by right-wing climate deniers and the misleading tactics used by oil companies to downplay environmental concerns.
Tune in to learn more about the case and the importance of speaking up for the ocean.
Link to article: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/08/1230236546/famous-climate-scientist-michael-mann-wins-his-defamation-case
Connect with Speak Up For Blue:
Website: https://bit.ly/3fOF3Wf
Instagram: https://bit.ly/3rIaJSG
TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@speakupforblue
Twitter: https://bit.ly/3rHZxpc
Dr. Michael Mann, a prominent climate scientist, filed a lawsuit against individuals who defamed him online by comparing him to a child molester and calling his work fraudulent. The defendants in the case were Rand Simberg, a policy analyst, and Mark Stein, a right-wing author. The defamatory statements were made in online posts published over a decade ago by the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the National Review, respectively.
The lawsuit brought attention to the issue of attacks on climate scientists, particularly those who advocate for action on climate change. Dr. Mann is well-known for creating the famous "hockey stick" graph, which visually represents the increase in global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution. The graph gained widespread recognition after being featured in former Vice President Al Gore's documentary on climate change.
The defamatory comments made by Simberg and Stein were not only false but also highly offensive. Simberg compared Dr. Mann to Jerry Sandusky, a former football coach at Penn State University who was convicted of child sexual abuse. Simberg accused Dr. Mann of "molesting and torturing the data," equating his scientific work with the heinous actions of a child abuser.
The lawsuit resulted in a mixed verdict. While Dr. Mann was awarded compensatory damages of only $1 from each defendant, the jury ordered Simberg to pay $1,000 in punitive damages and Stein to pay $1,000,000 in punitive damages. The relatively low compensatory damages raised some controversy, but the verdict still sent a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.
The case highlighted the increasing attacks on climate scientists and the need to protect their credibility and careers. Organizations like the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund have been working to support scientists who face harassment and defamation for their work on climate change. The verdict in Dr. Mann's case may serve as a deterrent for public figures, including politicians and CEOs, who engage in attacks on climate scientists.
However, it is important to note that the ruling may not have a significant impact on anonymous online attackers. The liability verdict and the relatively low damages may not deter individuals who hide behind anonymity to spread false information and defame scientists. Nonetheless, the case sets a precedent and emphasizes the importance of evidence-based discourse when discussing climate change.
Overall, Dr. Mann's lawsuit against those who defamed him online sheds light on the challenges faced by climate scientists and the need to protect their integrity and reputation. It serves as a reminder that freedom of speech does not give individuals the right to spread false information or engage in personal attacks. By standing up for himself and other scientists, Dr. Mann has taken a step towards ensuring that climate scientists can continue their important work without fear of harassment or defamation.
The verdict in the case of Dr. Michael Mann suing Rand Simberg and Mark Stein sends a clear message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech. While the damages awarded may not have been substantial, the ruling has the potential to deter public figures and others from launching similar attacks on climate scientists.
The case highlights the increasing attacks on climate scientists and the need to protect their credibility and careers. Climate scientists, like Dr. Mann, face pressure and harassment from various sources, including politicians, higher-ups, and even common individuals on social media platforms. These attacks aim to undermine their work and discredit the scientific consensus on climate change.
The verdict in this case serves as a warning that there are consequences for defaming and falsely attacking climate scientists. While the compensatory damages awarded were minimal, the punitive damages send a stronger message. Rand Simberg was ordered to pay $1,000 in punitive damages, while Mark Stein was ordered to pay $1,000,000. Although the focus has been on the low compensatory damages, the significant punitive damages highlight the severity of the false accusations made against Dr. Mann.
The ruling may not directly impact anonymous online attackers, but it can deter public figures and those with influence from launching similar attacks. The liability verdict and the dollar figures associated with the judgment serve as a reminder that there are legal consequences for spreading false information and defaming scientists.
The case of Dr. Mann v. Simberg and Stein is significant because it represents one of the first instances where climate deniers have been taken to court for their attacks on climate scientists. The verdict sets a precedent and may encourage other scientists to stand up against false accusations and harassment.
Protecting climate scientists is crucial for the advancement of climate change research and action. Scientists who speak out about climate change and its impacts should not face harassment or defamation for doing their job. The verdict in this case is a step towards ensuring that scientists can continue their work without fear of retribution.
Overall, while the damages awarded may not have been substantial, the verdict in the case sends a strong message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech. It serves as a deterrent for public figures and others who may consider launching similar attacks. By protecting climate scientists, we can foster an environment where scientific research and evidence-based discussions on climate change can thrive.
The ruling in the case of Dr. Michael Mann against Rand Simberg and Mark Stein highlights the need to protect scientists who speak out about climate change and reduce the harassment they face online. Dr. Mann, a prominent climate scientist known for his famous hockey stick graph, sued Simberg and Stein for defamatory online posts comparing him to a child molester and calling his work fraudulent.
The verdict, although controversial due to the relatively low damages awarded, sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech. This is significant because climate scientists often face attacks on their credibility and careers when they speak out about climate change. The ruling may deter public figures, including politicians and CEOs, from launching attacks on climate scientists.
The harassment faced by climate scientists is a growing concern, as evidenced by the increasing number of cases handled by organizations like the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. Scientists who speak out about climate change are often targeted by online attackers who spread misinformation and attempt to discredit their work. This not only undermines the credibility of scientists but also hinders efforts to address climate change and protect the environment.
The ruling in Dr. Mann's case serves as a reminder that there are consequences for defaming scientists and spreading false information. It emphasizes the importance of protecting scientists who are working to raise awareness about climate change and its impacts. By holding individuals accountable for their defamatory statements, the ruling helps create a safer environment for scientists to speak out without fear of harassment or career repercussions.
However, it is important to note that the ruling may not have a significant impact on anonymous online attackers. The liability verdict and relatively low damages may not deter all individuals from launching attacks on climate scientists. Nonetheless, the ruling sets a precedent and sends a message that there are limits to what can be said without evidence or justification.
In conclusion, the ruling in Dr. Michael Mann's case highlights the need to protect scientists who speak out about climate change and reduce the harassment they face online. It serves as a reminder that defamatory statements and false attacks on scientists have consequences. By creating a safer environment for scientists to share their research and findings, we can foster a more informed and productive dialogue about climate change and work towards effective solutions.