PRESS

“This is not about what happened to me, it’s about what could happen to others,” Virginia Burkett, the scientist, told Nature, emphasizing that stronger protections are needed regardless of who wins the US presidential election in November.

"As scientists get more public about speaking about their research, especially about the importance of taking action on climate change, it has made a number of them targets, and there are groups out there that are trying to get them to stop talking."

For worried scientists, whether in the United States, where Donald Trump could return to power following the presidential election next November, or in France, Lauren Kurtz gives the following advice: "Be prepared, know your rights, what you can and cannot publish, for example.

Researchers from Columbia University and the nonprofit Climate Science Legal Defense Fund report that Trump’s effort to undermine scientific research included 154 documented cases of federal government censorship of scientists. That’s horrifying, and we can’t let it happen again.

The Washington DC Superior Court convicted two people on February 8 of defamation, with more than $1 million (approximately 928,000 euros) in compensatory damages. Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn claimed that climatologist Michael E. Mann had tampered with his data and compared him to a child molester.

If you’ve been following the news, you know that last week, Climate scientist Michael Mann won a million dollar award against science denial grifter (and Lounge Singer) Mark Steyn.

“It’s perfectly legitimate to criticize scientific findings, but this verdict is a strong signal that individual scientists shouldn’t be accused of serious misconduct without strong evidence,” says Michael Gerrard, a legal scholar at Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law in New York City.

Although the heyday of blogging is long past, and the consensus on global warming has grown stronger in the dozen years since Mann launched his case, climate scientists continue to face personal and professional attacks in the polarized battle over the future of fossil fuels.

The ruling is a victory for climate researchers who have been frequently attacked online over their work and especially for Mann, who has faced the brunt of it, says Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund. “The actual facts in this case are just so dramatic.” In a statement, Mann said, “I hope this verdict sends a message that falsely attacking climate scientists is not protected speech.”

Mann's trial comes at a time of increasing attacks on climate scientists, says Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, who notes that her fund helps more scientists each year than the year before. "I don't think there's been anything like it. There's never been a case like this," says Kert Davies, director of special investigations at the Center for Climate Integrity, a climate accountability nonprofit, "No one has ever taken the climate deniers to court like this."

“Calling Michael Mann’s work fraudulent is just patently false,” said Lauren Kurtz, executive director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, a group that helped defend scientists facing legal attack in 54 cases last year. Mann, she added, has been “exonerated” of wrongdoing by multiple investigations into his work.