Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message
Release Date: 02/14/2024
Who Pays for Plastic? Inside the Law Quietly Shifting the Bill to Producers
How To Protect The Ocean
For decades, the honest answer to "who pays to deal with plastic packaging once it leaves the shelf" was taxpayers, quietly, through municipal budgets that funded garbage trucks and recycling plants running at a loss, whether or not the packaging actually got recycled. That's the system extended producer responsibility (EPR) is built to replace: a legal requirement that the companies making and selling packaging fund what happens to it after a customer buys the product, not the city that collects it afterward. Seven US states have now passed packaging EPR laws. Oregon has been charging...
info_outline
Inside Ocean Conservancy's Fight to Make Washing Machine Filters the Law
How To Protect The Ocean
Ocean Conservancy's "Not Safe for Wash" campaign is built around a simple premise: the fix for washing machine microfiber pollution already exists, so the fight isn't about inventing new technology, it's about forcing a nearly two-decade-old idea into law. Its own May 2026 poll of 1,010 Americans found concern about microplastics up 32% since 2023, nearly 9 in 10 people concerned, and 81% in favor of requiring filters on new washing machines. The public isn't the obstacle. The real opponent is AHAM, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, the trade group representing the companies...
info_outline
Your Washing Machine Sheds Up to 18 Million Microfibers a Load
How To Protect The Ocean
Every wash cycle sheds plastic. Last Monday, Andrew talked with Dr. Anja Brandon of Ocean Conservancy about microfiber pollution, and one question from that conversation stuck with him: has anyone actually fixed this yet? In this solo follow-up, Andrew traces a microfiber's actual path, from the moment agitation, heat, and detergent work it loose from a shirt, through the drain, into a wastewater treatment plant, and out the other side into biosolids, farmland, rivers, and the ocean, with a growing body of research suggesting some of it ends up in human lungs and even in the human placenta....
info_outline
Can Bacteria Actually Eat Plastic?
How To Protect The Ocean
Bacteria that eat plastic sounds like the fix everyone's been waiting for, and Andrew gets sent videos about it constantly. So on this solo episode, following Monday's interview with Dr. Anja Brandon of Ocean Conservancy, he goes looking for the real state of the science. The short version: it's promising, it's roughly a decade of real research deep, and it is nowhere close to running at the scale the ocean plastic crisis actually needs. The bacterium that started this whole field, Ideonella sakaiensis, was discovered breaking down PET plastic in Japan in 2016. A 2025 breakthrough from NREL,...
info_outline
The 90 Percent Fix Hiding in Your Laundry Room
How To Protect The Ocean
Every time you run a load of laundry, your washing machine sheds plastic. Not metaphorically: synthetic clothing made from polyester, nylon, and rayon releases microfibers with every wash, and depending on the study, a single load can shed anywhere from a few hundred thousand to millions of them. Most of us have never thought about it, because unlike a plastic bag on the beach, you can't see it happening. In this episode, Andrew talks with Dr. Anja Brandon, Director of Plastics Policy at Ocean Conservancy, about the plastic pollution problem hiding in plain sight behind the more familiar...
info_outline
A New PBS Documentary Wants You to Care About Coral. Meet the Man Behind It.
How To Protect The Ocean
A new documentary called Descent – Into the Blue starts airing on public television stations nationwide on September 1, 2026. It's narrated by Peter Coyote, directed by Rory Fielding, and one of its central voices is Mike Goldberg, co-founder of the Florida Keys coral restoration nonprofit I.CARE and owner of Key Dives in Islamorada. Andrew sits down with Mike for the full, unedited version of the conversation this week's four solo episodes have been building toward: 30-plus years running a dive shop, more than 10,000 dives, and a front-row seat to watching the reefs he built his life around...
info_outline
Show Me the Receipts: Why I.CARE Monitors Every Coral It Plants
How To Protect The Ocean
Most coral restoration groups check on a sample of what they've planted, often around 20 to 30 percent, and report that sample as if it represents everything in the water. I.CARE checks on all of it. Every single coral outplant gets monitored at one week, one month, 90 days, then one, two, and three years, with no substitute and nothing left unaccounted for. That rule was built in by co-founders Mike Goldberg and Dr. Kylie Smith before I.CARE ever planted its first coral, and Mike frames it as a matter of fiduciary duty, the same obligation he'd expect from anyone handling someone else's...
info_outline
The Nursery Hack That Pays for Itself
How To Protect The Ocean
Coral nurseries need constant maintenance, and that maintenance is expensive and relentless. When Andrew talked to Mike Goldberg, co-founder of I.CARE, his answer wasn't to hire more staff. It was to let paying customers do it for the fun of it. Mike owns a dive shop in the Florida Keys, so the paying customers are scuba divers, and over the years he's built a funding model so small that nobody has ever really complained about it. None of that makes sense until you understand what coral actually is. It's an animal, not a plant or a rock: what looks like one coral "head" is really a colony of...
info_outline
He Almost Quit the Dive Business. Then a Coral Reef PhD Student Walked In.
How To Protect The Ocean
Mike Goldberg had over 10,000 dives and decades running a dive shop in the Florida Keys, enough time to have seen the reefs at their pristine best. Then came a coral bleaching event in 2008, and a few years later, Stony Coral Tissue Loss Disease, a still-unexplained outbreak that's killed coral tissue outright across more than 20 of Florida's roughly 45 stony coral species since 2014. At one point his wife told him directly: the reef isn't what it used to be, and it's not getting better. Get out of the business before there's nothing left to sell. He didn't know what to do about it. Then,...
info_outline
84 Percent: Inside the Worst Coral Bleaching Event Ever Recorded
How To Protect The Ocean
This year, most of the coral on the planet went through heat stress severe enough to bleach it. That's not a rounding error: 84 percent of the world's reef area, across the Pacific, Atlantic, and Indian Oceans, and NOAA had to add three brand-new alert levels to its Coral Reef Watch scale because the existing one had no category for what was happening. In this episode, Andrew breaks down exactly where global coral reefs stand right now: how the fourth global mass bleaching event on record got declared, why NOAA waited until 2026 to confirm it had actually ended, and why every global bleaching...
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.