Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message
Release Date: 02/14/2024
Right whale baby boom: The fragile hope that could decide the future of a species
How To Protect The Ocean
Right whale baby boom is giving scientists and conservationists a rare moment of hope, but it comes with a hard question: is this surge in newborn calves enough to save one of the most endangered whales on Earth? With only around 360 North Atlantic right whales left, every birth matters, and this episode breaks down why this moment is so important and why the clock is still ticking. North Atlantic right whale recovery has been painfully slow for decades due to ship strikes, fishing gear entanglement, and shifting ocean conditions. In this episode, we explore what led to 21 calves being born...
info_outline
Scientific Discoveries That Changed How We See the Ocean
How To Protect The Ocean
Scientific Discoveries are transforming our understanding of the ocean in ways that were once unimaginable. In this episode of Surfacing Secrets: Explore the Ocean. Know the Planet, Richard Dewey, Kohen Bauer, and Gwen Klassen of Ocean Networks Canada share some of the most exciting breakthroughs made possible by real-time ocean monitoring. From mysterious sediment flows to acoustic insights that map marine life, this conversation reveals how cutting-edge technology is unraveling underwater mysteries. Ocean conservation has never felt more urgent or more hopeful. Scientific discoveries...
info_outline
Marineland Beluga Whales: What Happens Next and Why This Decision Matters for Animal Welfare
How To Protect The Ocean
Marineland Beluga Whales are once again at the center of a national debate, and the outcome could shape the future of captive whales in Canada. Marineland Beluga Whales face uncertain futures as government decisions, export permits, and welfare concerns collide, raising a critical question, are these whales being protected or simply moved out of sight? Beluga whales in captivity reveal a deeper problem that goes beyond one facility. This episode breaks down the latest updates on relocation plans, the role of federal permits, and why animal welfare groups argue that sending belugas to other...
info_outline
Will the US move towards Deep-Sea Mining? What’s Really at Stake for the Ocean and Our Future
How To Protect The Ocean
Will the US move towards Deep-Sea Mining? This question is no longer theoretical, it is urgent, political, and deeply consequential for the ocean. As pressure grows to secure critical minerals for batteries and clean energy, the US is facing a decision that could permanently alter the deep ocean. In this episode, we break down what deep-sea mining really means, why it is suddenly back in the spotlight, and why scientists are sounding the alarm about what we stand to lose before we even understand it. Deep sea mining explained through real testimony, expert insight, and clear examples that cut...
info_outline
Should bull sharks be culled? The truth behind shark bites and how people can actually stay safe
How To Protect The Ocean
Should bull sharks be culled? Shark bites spark fear, outrage, and calls for action, but the real question is whether killing sharks actually makes people safer. In this episode, we unpack why bull shark incidents happen, what science tells us about risk, and why quick emotional reactions can lead to decisions that do more harm than good. Bull shark attacks are tragic and serious, but one surprising insight from this episode is that bull sharks often bite because they cannot clearly see what is in front of them. Murky water, river runoff, and warm summer conditions dramatically increase...
info_outline
Ethical climate storytelling: How honest stories move people from fear to action
How To Protect The Ocean
Ethical climate storytelling asks a hard question that most climate conversations avoid: why do so many people shut down when the science is clear and the stakes are high, and how do we tell stories that actually move people to care and act. In this episode, we explore how ethical climate storytelling can reconnect audiences to climate issues without fear, guilt, or manipulation, and why this approach matters for protecting the ocean and the communities that depend on it. Climate communication strategy often defaults to urgency and catastrophe, but our guest explains why that approach can...
info_outline
Who Decides Offshore Drilling, And Why Coastal Communities Pay the Price
How To Protect The Ocean
Who Decides Offshore Drilling is the central question behind decisions that shape coastlines for decades, yet are often made by people who never have to live with the consequences. This episode breaks down how offshore drilling decisions are made far from the coast, why public input often feels symbolic, and how risk quietly shifts from decision-makers to coastal communities. Offshore oil and gas leasing sounds like a technical process, but the impact is deeply human. Through firsthand voices from across the US, this episode reveals a surprising truth: once an area is leased, the future of...
info_outline
Cook Inlet Offshore Oil Drilling: Why Alaskans Are Questioning Another Generation of Fossil Fuels
How To Protect The Ocean
Cook Inlet offshore oil drilling is being pushed forward through new federal lease plans, but the people who live closest to these waters are asking a hard question: who really benefits, and who takes the risk. In this episode, we unpack why Cook Inlet matters so deeply for salmon, beluga whales, and coastal communities, and why offshore drilling decisions made far from Alaska can have permanent local consequences. Alaska offshore oil and gas leasing has shaped the state’s economy, politics, and identity for decades, and that history still influences how people talk about jobs, revenue, and...
info_outline
Distant water fishing fleets are stripping the ocean bare and the new high seas treaty may be our last chance
How To Protect The Ocean
Distant water fishing fleets are operating just beyond national borders, pulling massive amounts of squid from the ocean with almost no rules, and this episode asks a simple but urgent question: can the new high seas treaty stop ecological collapse before it is too late? Off the coast of Argentina, hundreds of vessels gather in international waters to exploit a regulatory loophole, threatening a keystone species that supports whales, seabirds, and entire food webs. What happens here does not stay here, it affects global fisheries, biodiversity, and the seafood on our plates. High seas squid...
info_outline
Hidden costs of seafood: Why “Sustainable” Tuna Is Being Paid for by Taxpayers
How To Protect The Ocean
Hidden costs of seafood are shaping the global tuna industry in ways most people never see, and this episode asks why it matters for the ocean, workers, and anyone who buys seafood. Hidden costs of seafood raise a simple but uncomfortable question: if an industry cannot survive without public money, can it truly be sustainable, and who is paying the price behind the scenes? Tuna fishing subsidies are at the center of this story. Drawing from new peer-reviewed research, this episode breaks down how fuel tax exemptions and government support keep European tuna fleets operating, even when they...
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.