The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, an official partner of the March for Science, has released an educational pamphlet, “March for Science: Know Your Rights” to help science advocates ensure that their march-related activities are constitutionally protected. The brochure is available as a free download to print and share. We’ll also mail copies free of charge to academic departments, organizations, and individuals to distribute.
The Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is pleased to announce that it is an official partner of the March for Science, which will occur in Washington D.C. on April 22, 2017 and at more than 400 satellite locations around the world. The mission of the March — call to support publicly communicated scientific research and evidence-based policies — is closely aligned with our mission to protect the scientific endeavor.
In this series we profile scientists who have been threatened with legal attacks or harassed by politically and ideologically motivated groups. What these researchers experienced, how they responded, and the lessons they learned provide valuable guidance for other scientists, and will help all readers understand the issues climate scientists may encounter because of their work. First in the series is Scott Mandia, Professor of Physical Sciences at Suffolk Community College.
At CSLDF, we have seen well-meaning scientists and academics experience problems after advocating for science (e.g., here) or taking a personal political stance (e.g., here or here). What’s a scientist to do? Don’t fret; prep. If you are one of the many scientists considering participating in the March for Science or engaging in other science-related activism, we are here to arm you with tools that will help you avoid ending up in political crosshairs.
The new political environment in the United States poses a serious threat to climate scientists. We want to occasionally call your attention to climate contrarians in the federal government and its main departments and agencies. Today we introduce Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) — and his protégés.
On March 2, the California Supreme Court ruled that the emails and texts of public employees dealing with official business are to be considered a matter of public record even if they are sent from private devices or accounts. The case demonstrates the importance of not commingling personal and professional email accounts, understanding how open records laws may affect you, and knowing how to keep your private communications private.
We’re excited to announce the launch of our Campus Rep Program for law school faculty. Now more than ever, it’s important that scientists understand how to handle political harassment and legal intimidation. The Campus Rep Program expands our reach by building a national network of attorneys who will serve as the first point of contact at their institution for scientists with questions about legal issues.
Donald Trump’s presidency has climate scientists concerned about the implications for U.S. environmental policies, the worldwide effort to curb the impacts of climate change, and the ability of scientists to freely to continue their research, which can be insidiously undermined through funding cuts, gag orders, or punitive measures and retaliatory attacks against scientists who publicly discuss their research.
Climate contrarians have falsely accused NOAA scientists of manipulating data that demonstrates there was no "pause" in global warming. Here's how other researchers have proven the allegations wrong, and how the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund is participating in and monitoring the lawsuit.
On Friday, March 25, CSLDF filed a brief (available here) as amicus curiae before the Pima County Superior Court in Arizona, arguing for protection of climate scientists’ private files against invasive open records requests by the Energy & Environment Legal Institute (“E&E Legal”). Since 2013, E&E Legal has been attempting to use Arizona open records laws to access 13 years of emails and other documents from University of Arizona climate scientists Dr. Malcolm Hughes and Dr. Jonathan Overpeck. E&E Legal claims it deserves these files because it ...