Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message
Release Date: 02/14/2024
Half of Murres seabird population dies after this happened
How To Protect The Ocean
In this episode of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast, host Andrew Luan discusses the significant decline in the population of common murres, a seabird species in Alaska, which has seen about half of its population die off—approximately 4 million individuals—since the marine heat wave known as "the blob" occurred from 2014 to 2016. The primary reason for this drastic decline is linked to the effects of the heat wave on the marine food web rather than direct thermal stress on the birds themselves. The heat wave caused shifts in the availability of food sources, leading to starvation among...
info_outline
Mind Your Plastic Pollution: A Conversation On Changing Behaviors
How To Protect The Ocean
Mind your plastic pollution is a conversation that we all need to have because we all partake in using single-use plastic as the system is set up that way. In this episode of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast, host Andrew Lewin engages in a conversation with Natasha Tucker, the Executive Director of Mind Your Plastic, a Canadian charity focused on eliminating plastic pollution. The discussion centers around the pervasive issue of plastic in our environment, emphasizing the need for behavioral change among individuals and businesses to reduce our dependence on plastics. Key points from...
info_outline
Plastic Pollution Clean Up Through Absorption
How To Protect The Ocean
Plastic pollution clean up through absorption is now a possibility by using a combination of cotton and chittin to take microplastics out of the ocean...but can this work at scale? In this episode of the "How to Protect the Ocean" podcast, host Andrew Lo discusses the pressing issue of microplastics in the ocean and introduces a promising new method for their absorption using a combination of cotton and chitin. The mechanism involves creating a sponge-like substance called CT cell biomass, which combines cellulose from cotton and chitin from squid. This innovative material is designed to...
info_outline
Climate Action When Governments Won't Help
How To Protect The Ocean
In this episode of the "How to Protect the Ocean" podcast, host Andrew Lewin discusses the pressing issue of climate change and the challenges posed by government inaction. With the recent political shifts in North America, particularly the incoming administration in the United States, there are concerns about the rollback of environmental regulations and policies that protect the ocean and climate. Key points include: Government Inaction: The episode highlights the potential consequences of a new U.S. administration that may prioritize economic interests over environmental protection,...
info_outline
Orcas Playing with Their Food: Wearing Salmon on Their Head
How To Protect The Ocean
Orcas playing with their food is not a new behavior; however, wearing salmon on their heads is not usual. In this episode of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast, host Andrew Lewin discusses a fascinating phenomenon involving orcas wearing salmon as hats. A recent photograph captured an orca in Puget Sound sporting a salmon on its head, reminiscent of similar behaviors observed in the 1980s when orcas from the southern resident population also donned salmon hats. Lewin explores the potential reasons behind this behavior, suggesting it could be a playful act, a celebration of a successful...
info_outline
Leave the seashells on the Seashore
How To Protect The Ocean
Seashells on the seashore are being taken in large quantities and it's increasing erosion along beaches. A new study reveals the tourism industry is taking too many seashells along coastlines in Costa Rica. In this episode of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast, host Andrew Lewin discusses the environmental impact of taking seashells from coastal areas, particularly in Costa Rica. He highlights a growing crisis where the removal of seashells, driven by tourism, destabilizes beaches, accelerates erosion, and harms marine ecosystems. Seashells are essential for various marine species,...
info_outline
Abandoned Fish Farms in Greece: Ghost Farm Clean Up by Healthy Seas
How To Protect The Ocean
Abandoned fish farms in Greece are plaguing the coastline with marine debris; however, Healthy Seas is working to clean up some of the sites and raise awareness for support to tell the Greek government that fish farm owners should be responsible for cleaning up their sites once the business is done operating. In this episode of the "How to Protect the Ocean" podcast, host Andrew Lewin discusses the pressing issue of ghost farms—abandoned fish farms that are polluting oceans, particularly in Greece. The episode highlights the work of the organization Healthy Seas, which is actively...
info_outline
Solar Panel Efficiency Improvements Mimicking Giant Clam Algae
How To Protect The Ocean
In this episode of the "How to Protect the Ocean" podcast, host Andrew Luan discusses the fascinating connection between giant clams and the efficiency of solar panels. He highlights the vibrant colors of giant clams, which are not only visually stunning but also play a crucial role in coral reef ecosystems, particularly in the Southeast Pacific. The key focus is on the algae, specifically zooxanthellae, that live within the soft tissue of giant clams. These algae absorb sunlight and are essential for the clams' survival, as they facilitate photosynthesis and contribute to the clam's calcium...
info_outline
Orcas vs. Whale Sharks: A New Apex Predator Dynamic
How To Protect The Ocean
In this episode of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast, host Andrew Lewin discusses the fascinating behavior of orcas, particularly their recent predation on whale sharks, the largest fish in the ocean. Orcas, known as apex predators, have been observed hunting whale sharks in the Gulf of California. This behavior was documented in a new study published in the journal Frontiers of Marine Science, which includes video footage and images of the attacks. The orcas target the whale sharks by striking their underbelly and grabbing their pectoral fins, aiming for the nutrient-rich liver,...
info_outline
Buy Now The Shopping Conspiracy: A Marine Biologist Reviews
How To Protect The Ocean
Buy Now: The Shopping Conspiracy is a documentary that was released on Netflix a week before Black Friday. The movie reveals the shocking truth about how large corporations manipulate consumers to increase their profits at the peril of the consumer's wallet and the planet's health. In this episode of the How to Protect the Ocean podcast, host Andrew Lewin discusses the recently released Netflix documentary, Buy Now: The Shopping Conspiracy. The episode focuses on the themes of consumerism, overconsumption, and their environmental impacts, especially in the context of the holiday shopping...
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.