Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message
Release Date: 02/14/2024
Ocean Conservation Disconnect with People: Straws, Sharks, and Science Barriers
How To Protect The Ocean
Ocean Conservation Disconnect defines the state of ocean conservation today, where public enthusiasm rarely translates into real impact. The viral plastic straw campaign proved that a simple symbol could spark global conversations, yet it shifted focus away from the systemic changes needed to reduce ocean plastic. Swapping plastic for metal straws may feel empowering, but it does not challenge the corporations and industries fueling the crisis. Ocean Ramsey represents a modern paradox: charismatic advocates who bring sharks to mainstream attention, but sometimes offer shallow solutions. As her...
info_outline
Tuna Sustainability and The Work of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation
How To Protect The Ocean
Tuna sustainability is more than a buzzword—it’s a complex challenge tackled head-on by the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). In this episode, Susan Jackson, ISSF President, joins host Andrew Lewin to unpack their groundbreaking 2024 Annual Report. From developing biodegradable jelly-FADs to advancing electronic monitoring standards, Susan explains how ISSF works with fishers, corporations, and NGOs to make global tuna fishing more sustainable and transparent. Electronic monitoring takes center stage as Susan discusses how vessel-level cameras and sensors are...
info_outline
How French Polynesia Protected 4.8 Million km² of Ocean: The World’s Largest MPA
How To Protect The Ocean
French Polynesia marine protected area is now the largest in the world, covering nearly 4.8 million square kilometers of ocean. This groundbreaking conservation effort was announced during the United Nations Ocean Conference and includes large no-take zones near the Society and Gambier Islands, along with expansive areas that restrict harmful activities like deep-sea mining and bottom trawling. The MPA recognizes traditional fishing rights while also preserving critical marine habitats. Marine conservation leadership by French Polynesia demonstrates how small island states can make bold...
info_outline
The Problem with Seaweed Aquaculture: Hidden Threats to Marine Life
How To Protect The Ocean
The problem with seaweed aquaculture is that it’s not always as ocean-friendly as it seems. While seaweed farming is often praised as a climate solution—able to sequester carbon, improve water quality, and support sustainable food systems—scientists are now warning that its rapid, unregulated expansion could be damaging vital marine ecosystems. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, we dive into how seaweed farms are being placed over seagrass meadows, disrupting fish nurseries, smothering biodiversity, and altering water chemistry in ways we’re only beginning to understand....
info_outline
UN Ocean Conference 2025: Big Promises, Global Funding, and the Push for Ocean Protection
How To Protect The Ocean
UNOC 2025 brought major headlines in ocean conservation—from billions pledged to protect biodiversity, to significant movement on the High Seas Treaty. In this episode, Andrew Lewin returns from the UN Ocean Conference in Nice, France, with a firsthand account of what was announced, what was promised, and what might actually happen. Ocean finance was a hot topic this year. Governments, development banks, and private investors pledged record-breaking funding to tackle everything from plastic pollution to marine ecosystem restoration. But Andrew dives into why these billions still fall...
info_outline
Why Cayman Islanders Voted to Stop a Cruise Ship Pier and Save Their Reef
How To Protect The Ocean
Why Cayman Islanders Voted against a massive cruise ship pier is a rare and powerful story of reef protection over profit. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, Andrew Lewin unpacks the bold decision by Cayman citizens to reject a development project that would have severely damaged their coral reef ecosystem. The vote sent a clear message: the long-term health of the ocean matters more than short-term tourism dollars. Why Cayman Islanders Voted is also a reminder that grassroots action can be effective. Andrew explores how this vote happened, what it means for ocean conservation around...
info_outline
How US Climate Policy Affects Renewable Energy and Ocean Conservation
How To Protect The Ocean
Climate policy in the U.S. has taken a wild ride in recent years. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, I speak with Chris Moyer, founder of Echo Communication Advisors, about the turbulent shifts in federal policy—especially during the Trump and Biden administrations, and how these shifts have disrupted progress in renewable energy. We examine the implications of these changes for energy development, environmental protection, and the impact of public messaging on political will to act. Renewable energy isn’t just a technological challenge—it’s also a communication challenge....
info_outline
Oceans Day: A Message of Hope and Action for Ocean Conservation
How To Protect The Ocean
Oceans Day is more than a date on the calendar—it’s a moment to reflect on the state of our blue planet and our role in protecting it. In this heartfelt episode, Andrew Lewin shares a personal message for Oceans Day 2025 (and any day after), speaking directly to those who feel overwhelmed by climate anxiety and unsure of their place in ocean conservation. His reminder is clear: the problems may be big, but so is our potential to create change. Ocean conservation isn’t only for scientists or policymakers—it’s for everyone. Andrew emphasizes that small, intentional actions taken by...
info_outline
Surfacing Secrets: Mavericks and Visionaries
How To Protect The Ocean
Ocean Networks Canada (ONC) began as a bold idea—to create a real-time, always-on listening system for the ocean. In this episode, Surfacing Secrets: Mavericks and Visionaries, we go behind the scenes with the people who made that idea real. From laying cables deep in the Pacific to building trust with research institutions and government partners, this is the untold story of how a world-leading ocean observatory came to life. Our guests—Kate Moran (President and CEO of Ocean Networks Canada), John Delaney (Professor Emeritus, School of Oceanography, University of Washington), and...
info_outline
Ocean Conservation and the Rise of the WaveMaker Movement
How To Protect The Ocean
Ocean conservation is more than protecting ecosystems—it’s about empowering people to lead change. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, Andrew, Serena, and Amanda explore the WaveMaker identity, what it means to be part of a movement, and how The Undertow is creating a community where action and support go hand-in-hand. WaveMakers aren’t just scientists or campaigners—they’re everyday people standing up for the ocean. This episode is a behind-the-scenes look at the launch of The Undertow and the people who are already making waves in ocean conservation worldwide. Join The...
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.