Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message
Release Date: 02/14/2024
Why Tuna Might Be Doing Better Than You Think
How To Protect The Ocean
Tuna fisheries are often seen as one of the biggest challenges in ocean conservation. But that story is starting to change, and most people have not caught up to it yet. In this episode, you’ll hear how tuna fisheries in many parts of the world are actually improving. Better science, stronger monitoring, and more coordinated international management are helping rebuild stocks and reduce pressure on key species. To understand what’s really happening, I spoke with , President of the . She shares how data-driven decisions, harvest rules, and industry collaboration are changing the way...
info_outline
Who Decides How Much Fish Ends Up on Your Plate?
How To Protect The Ocean
Most people assume fisheries are either working or failing, but very few people know how the system actually works. In this episode, I break down the hidden process behind fishing limits, stock assessments, political negotiations, and the science that shapes what ends up on your plate. You will learn why fisheries management can go wrong, what happens when countries ignore the science, and how better systems like harvest rules and stronger accountability can help fisheries recover. This episode also sets up tomorrow’s interview with Susan Jackson from ISSF, where we will reveal just how far...
info_outline
Why the Tuna on Your Plate Didn’t Run Out
How To Protect The Ocean
Tuna sustainability might be the biggest ocean success story you’ve never heard about. Nearly 100 percent of global tuna catch is no longer experiencing overfishing, but that didn’t happen by accident. There is a hidden system behind the scenes that most people never see, and it is quietly changing how fisheries work around the world. Harvest rules for fisheries are replacing political negotiations with science-based decisions. Instead of arguing every year about how much fish to catch, managers now use pre-agreed rules that respond automatically to changes in fish populations. This shift...
info_outline
How Do We Know If Tuna Is Running Out?
How To Protect The Ocean
Tuna fishing is a global industry, but how do we actually know if we’re catching too much? Every time you eat tuna, you’re relying on a system most people have never heard of: stock assessments. These scientific models estimate how many fish are in the ocean, how fast they reproduce, and how much can be caught without causing long-term damage. Stock assessments are not about counting every fish, they’re about making the best possible decisions with imperfect data. Scientists use catch records, fishing effort, and biological information to understand whether tuna populations are healthy...
info_outline
The Tuna Story Nobody Is Really Talking About
How To Protect The Ocean
What if one of the most popular seafoods in the world isn’t the disaster story you’ve been told? Tuna has been at the center of overfishing conversations for decades. But something changed, and most people have no idea. In this episode, we unpack the hidden system behind tuna fishing, how it nearly failed, and what turned it around. This isn’t about saying everything is fine. It’s about understanding what actually worked, why it worked, and what it means for the future of ocean conservation. Because if tuna can improve, it raises a bigger question: Why isn’t every fishery doing the...
info_outline
The Ocean Career Path Nobody Talks About
How To Protect The Ocean
Ocean careers often look straightforward from the outside, but the reality is far more complicated. In this episode, Andrew flips the script and shares what actually happened behind the scenes as he landed his latest role, including the uncertainty, tradeoffs, and decisions most people never see. Career paths in ocean conservation are rarely linear. From networking to timing to unexpected opportunities, this episode breaks down how jobs really happen in this field and why chasing the “perfect job” can sometimes hold you back more than help you. If you’re trying to build a career in...
info_outline
Why Ocean Jobs Look Great, Until You Actually Start One
How To Protect The Ocean
A lot of people dream about working in ocean conservation, but far fewer talk about what it takes to actually stay in the field. In this episode, Andrew breaks down why so many careers in ocean conservation burn out, from low pay and short-term contracts to emotional exhaustion and unstable funding. You’ll hear the truth about the three major career paths in the field, why passion alone is not enough, and how building transferable skills, multiple income streams, and your own platform can help you create a career that lasts. This episode is for anyone trying to get into ocean conservation,...
info_outline
You Have the Skills, So Why Is Nobody Hiring You?
How To Protect The Ocean
You got the degree. You built some skills. Maybe you even started networking. So why does getting that first real job in ocean conservation still feel nearly impossible? In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, I break down the real reason so many early career ocean professionals get stuck. I talk about the experience trap, how to rethink what counts as experience, why small projects matter more than people realize, and how strategic volunteering can either help your career or waste your time. I also share how reputation, reliability, and offering value first can open doors that job boards...
info_outline
What’s Really Stopping You From Starting an Ocean Career
How To Protect The Ocean
A lot of people think the path into ocean conservation is simple: get the degree, get the experience, then get the opportunity. But that is not how it works for many people anymore. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, I talk about why waiting for permission, waiting to feel ready, or waiting for someone to teach you everything first can quietly kill momentum before your career even begins. I break down the myth that credentials alone will open doors, the real skills employers and collaborators notice, and why building proof of your abilities matters more than saying you are...
info_outline
Most Ocean Jobs Aren’t Posted, So How Do People Get Them?
How To Protect The Ocean
If you’ve been applying for ocean conservation jobs and hearing nothing back, this episode is for you. Too many people think opportunities come from polished resumes and endless job applications. In reality, many careers in ocean science and conservation are built through trust, familiarity, and real relationships. In this episode, Andrew breaks down the hidden job market in ocean conservation, why cold applications often fail, what networking actually means, where to build connections in this field, and how to reach out without sounding awkward. This is not about asking for a job. It is...
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.