Defamation and Climate Science: Did the Lawsuit Send a Message
Release Date: 02/14/2024
Ocean Book You Need to Read: Amanda Leland’s Vision for a Sea Change
How To Protect The Ocean
Ocean Book you need to read introduces listeners to Sea Change by Amanda Leland, a powerful and hopeful exploration of how individuals and communities can unite to protect our oceans. Amanda draws from her expertise and experience to highlight the urgency of tackling climate change, overfishing, and pollution, while also showcasing the innovative solutions already underway. Ocean conservation is not only about science, it is about people taking action. In this episode, Amanda shares inspiring stories of collaboration and resilience that prove change is possible. From grassroots initiatives to...
info_outline
Great White Shark Populations Have Interesting DNA
How To Protect The Ocean
Great white shark DNA is one of the most puzzling mysteries in marine biology. Recent research has revealed that despite being one species, great whites have split into three distinct genetic groups across the globe. What’s even stranger: their nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA tell conflicting stories, leaving scientists scratching their heads. Shark philopatry—the tendency of females to return to their birthplace to give birth—adds another layer to this mystery. While philopatry has been well documented in species like lemon sharks and blacktip sharks, great whites show patterns that...
info_outline
How Scientists Can Become Advocates
How To Protect The Ocean
Advocacy for scientists is a skill that can transform how research impacts the real world. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, host Andrew Lewin reflects on an article by Melissa Varga from the Union of Concerned Scientists that encourages scientists to step into advocacy roles. Andrew shares why many researchers hesitate to speak out, the cultural challenges within academia, and how advocacy can be integrated into a science career without sacrificing credibility. Ocean conservation also depends on people outside the scientific community. Andrew emphasizes that anyone, scientist or...
info_outline
Sustainable Fashion with Courtney Barriger: Protecting the Ocean Through Clothing Choices
How To Protect The Ocean
Sustainable fashion is more than a trend, it is a movement that connects what we wear to the health of our planet. In this episode, Andrew Lewin speaks with Courtney Barriger, CEO of Holding Court Inc., about how clothing design can reduce waste, prevent microplastic pollution, and empower people to make responsible choices. The discussion reveals the hidden costs of fast fashion, from synthetic fibers shedding microplastics into waterways to the massive environmental toll of textile waste. Ocean protection is at the heart of this conversation. Courtney shares her journey of creating stylish,...
info_outline
Terracycle: Recycling Everything from Plastics to Global Waste Solutions
How To Protect The Ocean
Terracycle is proving that almost anything can be recycled, from cigarette butts to ocean plastics, transforming how the world thinks about waste. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, Andrew Lewin speaks with Tom Szaky, the founder and CEO of TerraCycle, to explore how his company is creating global recycling programs that redefine sustainability and consumer responsibility. TerraCycle has become a leader in connecting corporations and individuals to solutions that keep waste out of landfills and oceans. This conversation dives into the economics of recycling, why certain materials are...
info_outline
Shark Meat Fed To Students: Brazil’s Hidden School Lunch Scandal
How To Protect The Ocean
Shark Meat Fed To Students in Brazil’s public institutions has sparked outrage after Mongabay uncovered thousands of tons of mislabeled shark meat, including endangered species like angelsharks, being served in schools, hospitals, prisons, and elderly care centers. Labeled as “cação” or “angel fish,” these meals were consumed by thousands of unsuspecting Brazilians, raising urgent concerns for both public health and ocean conservation. Shark meat in Brazil carries dangerous risks due to high levels of mercury and arsenic that accumulate in these apex predators. Scientists warn that...
info_outline
Oceana Working to Protect Endangered Species: How Legal Action Safeguards Whales and Sea Turtles
How To Protect The Ocean
Oceana, working to protect endangered species, is at the heart of this powerful episode featuring Tara Brock, an environmental lawyer advocating for ocean life. Tara unpacks how the Endangered Species Act is used to protect humpback whales and sea turtles, and how legal tools like this remain essential to ocean conservation. As threats like ship strikes, climate change, and bycatch continue to rise, Tara explains why this legislation is still one of the strongest protections we have—and how it’s enforced. Throughout the episode, we explore Oceana’s litigation strategies, real-world wins...
info_outline
Starting an Environmental Nonprofit: The Balean Founders Story with Bart Oor and Sander Brienen
How To Protect The Ocean
Starting an environmental nonprofit often begins with a vision and the determination to make a difference, but it also comes with challenges in funding, community support, and long-term sustainability. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, Bart Oor and Sander Brienen share the story of how they created Balean, a platform designed to help independent projects and nonprofits access the support they need to thrive. Independent changemakers are reshaping how conservation work is done. Bart and Sander explain the obstacles they faced, how collaboration shaped their journey, and why Balean is...
info_outline
Pacific Islands Marine Monument Rollback and Court Reversal Explained
How To Protect The Ocean
Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument: For over a decade, these waters stood as one of the largest no-take zones on Earth, safeguarding corals, fish, and migratory species. But on day one of his presidency, Donald Trump erased the U.S. commitment to 30x30 and soon after issued Proclamation 10918, opening parts of the monument to commercial fishing. Marine conservation at risk: The rollback sparked lawsuits and reignited the debate over whether U.S. marine protections are too vulnerable to political swings. Just two weeks ago, a court overturned Trump’s proclamation on a...
info_outline
Less than 400 Left: How Media Coverage Shapes the Fate of North Atlantic Right Whales
How To Protect The Ocean
Less than 400 left — that’s how many North Atlantic right whales remain in the world. These critically endangered whales are at the center of an urgent conservation story, but how the media communicates about them plays a powerful role in shaping public awareness and action. In this episode of How to Protect the Ocean, Andrew Lewin sits down with Dr. Marcus Reamer, a new PhD graduate in science communication, to explore how newspapers and digital outlets covered right whale crises over the past decade. Science communication emerges as a critical conservation tool, with Dr. Reamer sharing...
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.