Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message
Release Date: 02/14/2024
Silence Is Taking a Side: Why Scientists Belong on the Campaign Trail
How To Protect The Ocean
Every scientist makes advocacy choices every day, whether they admit it or not. The questions you ask, the communities you engage, the issues you spend your time on, and the moments you stay quiet all push the world in one direction. Oceana's Chief Scientist, Dr. Katie Matthews, argues that staying silent on an issue you care about quietly props up the status quo, and in ocean conservation the status quo is usually the problem. Recorded between meetings while Katie was in Panama, this conversation previews her plenary at IMCC8, the 8th International Marine Conservation Congress in Edinburgh....
info_outline
What's New and What's Next in Ocean Science Communication
How To Protect The Ocean
Ocean science only protects the ocean when people outside the lab hear it. Dr. David Shiffman, interdisciplinary marine conservation biologist and author of Why Sharks Matter, returns to the show to preview the symposium he organized for the International Marine Conservation Congress: Ocean Science and Conservation Communication: What's New and What's Next. Andrew is one of the presenters. Dave explains why IMCC stands apart from other scientific meetings, with government officials, practitioners, advocates, teachers and artists in the same room as researchers, and why the tools and the policy...
info_outline
Our Ocean to Save: Emily Cunningham on Protecting Our Greatest Climate Ally
How To Protect The Ocean
Ask most people what the lungs of the planet are, and they'll say forests. Marine biologist Emily Cunningham would point you to phytoplankton: tiny drifting algae that produce about half the oxygen made on Earth. That gap between what the ocean does for us and what we think it does is why she wrote her first book. Our Ocean to Save: How to Protect Our Greatest Climate Ally is Emily's answer to the question she hears more than any other: "What can I do to help the ocean?" Not a list of don'ts, but a hopeful, practical guide for anyone, anywhere. In this episode, Emily tells Andrew how a manatee...
info_outline
Small Grants, Big Impact: How Sea-Changers Funds Community Ocean Action
How To Protect The Ocean
Have you ever had an idea for your community, like a beach cleanup, a water fountain, or a patch of shoreline that needs some love, and thought, "If I just had a little money, I could make this happen"? That kind of funding is hard to find. In the UK, there's a charity built for exactly that. Sea-Changers was founded about 15 years ago by Helen Webb and Rachel Lopata, two divers with no background in marine science who watched the places they loved underwater start to decline. Instead of starting one project, they started a way to fund hundreds. They bring in money from businesses and...
info_outline
From Small Towns to a Global Treaty
How To Protect The Ocean
"We'll never see that in our lifetime." You've probably heard it about the ocean. Andrew has heard it plenty, and admits he's said it too. For years it was the standard answer about protecting the high seas, the two-thirds of the ocean that lies beyond any country's borders. Then the High Seas Treaty was agreed, entered into force in January 2026, and passed 100 countries in September, Canada included. In this week's wrap-up, Andrew uses that win to show why a global plastics treaty can happen too, and how it gets built from the ground up. He walks through the ladder: a town like Tofino...
info_outline
The Straw Backlash: Why Guilt Doesn't Work
How To Protect The Ocean
"You can't care about plastic. Your phone is made of plastic." If you've ever heard that, you know what it's for. It's designed to make you feel like a hypocrite, so you give up. In this episode, Andrew goes back to one of the most famous moments in plastic pollution: the 2015 video of researchers in Costa Rica pulling a plastic straw from an olive ridley sea turtle's nose. A few months later, the same researcher pulled a plastic fork from another turtle. The straw video helped spark a global push against single-use plastics, and then the straw itself became a punchline. Andrew explains why...
info_outline
The Beach That Doesn't Need Cleaning Anymore
How To Protect The Ocean
Picture a beach cleanup. Two hours of hauling bottles, wrappers and foam off the sand. Now picture the same beach ten years later, where you walk the whole length and come home empty-handed. Not because nobody cleaned it, but because there's nothing left to clean. That's a real story, and it happened in Tofino, a surf town on the west coast of Vancouver Island. In 2016 its beaches were covered in plastic, and the local Surfrider chapter realized they could clean every weekend for the rest of their lives and it would never stop. So they changed tactics. They went to the businesses handing out...
info_outline
Too Enthusiastic? How to Find Your Place in Ocean Action
How To Protect The Ocean
Do you ever feel disconnected from ocean action? You sign the petition, you donate, you share the post, and you still don't feel like you're doing the work. Andrew knows the feeling. Fresh out of his undergrad, he emailed organization after organization offering to help for free, and mostly heard nothing back. In this episode he explains why that happens (it usually comes down to trust and how organizations take on volunteers), and how to get past it. He also retells the story of Lilly Woodbury from yesterday's episode: an environmental studies grad who kept hitting the same wall until she...
info_outline
Come for the Impact, Stay for the People: Inside Surfrider Canada
How To Protect The Ocean
Do you ever feel like ocean action is happening somewhere else? You sign the petition, maybe donate, but you're not really part of the work. Lilly Woodbury knows that feeling, and she found her way in by walking into a Surfrider meeting in Tofino in 2016. Lilly is the campaigns and storytelling director at Surfrider Foundation Canada. In this episode she tells Andrew how a small volunteer chapter helped Tofino and Ucluelet ban plastic straws, bags, cutlery and foam containers, and how Tofino became the first municipality in Canada to ban single-use plastic water bottles. Ten years in, she says...
info_outline
One Promise: How a Postcard Changed Behaviour for a Year
How To Protect The Ocean
Picture a kid at an aquarium in Durban, standing in front of the penguins with a pen and a postcard. She writes one sentence, a promise to change one habit for the ocean, and drops it into a little post box. More than a year later, researchers emailed visitors like her to ask if they'd kept their promise. About half could point to a real change they'd made. This week's episodes covered a lot: marine protected areas nobody can name, a reef that rebuilt itself, and why "fishing is bad" pushes people away. If all of that left you feeling heavy, this episode is for you. Andrew talks about...
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.