{"id":3067,"date":"2015-03-09T15:09:44","date_gmt":"2015-03-09T20:09:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?p=3067"},"modified":"2015-03-09T15:09:44","modified_gmt":"2015-03-09T20:09:44","slug":"attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/","title":{"rendered":"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

On February 5, a trial court in British Columbia awarded $50,000 CAD (roughly $40,000 USD in current exchange rates) to distinguished climate scientist Dr. Andrew Weaver, finding that a collection of articles had defamed him.[1]<\/a>\u00a0 The judgment is controlling authority only within British Columbia, but it is still significant:\u00a0 the decision makes clear that smear campaigns against scientists based on untruthful and fraudulent claims are not legally defensible, at least under Canadian law.<\/p>\n

Dr. Weaver brought the lawsuit after Canada\u2019s National Post<\/em> refused to retract the articles that, in his own words, \u201cattributed to me statements I never made, accused me of things I never did, and attacked me for views I never held.\u201d[2]<\/a>\u00a0 In particular, four articles published in the National Post<\/em> in 2009 and 2010 claimed that Dr. Weaver fabricated stories to distract from the so-called \u201cClimategate\u201d[3]<\/a> incident, including that he had concocted tales that fossil-fuel industry agents were behind break-ins in his faculty office; that he had manipulated and distorted scientific data to mislead the public and promote a public agenda; that he had corruptly received government funding to further his biased research; and that he was generally unscientific and incompetent, among other accusations.\u00a0 The articles also referred to Dr. Weaver variously as an \u201calarmist,\u201d \u201csensationalist,\u201d and \u201cCanada\u2019s warmest spinner-in-chief\u201d who \u201ccherry-picked data\u201d and was an \u201cinsider\u201d for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which itself was accused of \u201ccooking the books.\u201d<\/p>\n

The court found that the articles went beyond the \u201cdebate [of] the merits of a theory\u201d and acted instead to \u201cimpugn a person\u2019s character with innuendos concerning honesty, ethics and competence.\u201d\u00a0 The articles \u201cimplie[d] a serious defect in character that impacts Dr. Weaver\u2019s academic and professional world\u201d and the court noted that \u201cDr. Weaver was deeply affected by what he perceived as a barrage of articles impugning his integrity and academic reputation.\u201d<\/p>\n

The defendants (the National Post<\/em>, its publisher, and the relevant authors) argued that these articles were protected by the defense of fair comment which, under Canadian law, shields even defamatory statements if they are made on a matter of public interest, based on fact and made honestly, and made without malice.\u00a0 The court acknowledged that these articles were on matters of public interest, and \u201c[w]hile some of these references may be characterized as simply derogatory. . . the factual foundation to the four articles was distorted or false\u201d in numerous ways.\u00a0 For example, the court found that while Dr. Weaver had made comments regarding the fossil fuel industry in the context of an interview regarding the \u201cwar for public opinion,\u201d he had never linked the fossil fuel industry to office break-ins at the University of Victoria, as several of the articles had claimed.\u00a0 The articles also falsely claimed that Dr. Weaver was trying to dissociate himself from the IPCC, and misquoted Dr. Weaver to falsely claim that he incorrectly conflated individual weather events with global warming trends.\u00a0 Ultimately, the court found that the \u201cselection of the words, the tone and misstatement of central facts distorted Dr. Weaver\u2019s words such that the articles were defamatory and not protected by the fair comment defense.\u201d<\/p>\n

These articles were widely published, including being \u201creproduced many times over the Internet,\u201d from blogs to electronic databases, and each article contained an \u201cinvitation to email the article to a friend.\u201d\u00a0 In addition, the publication of these articles followed several incidents where Dr. Weaver had been misquoted in the National Post<\/em> years earlier, and where he had previously worked with two of the defendants to correct the misinformation.\u00a0 Thus, this time around, these defendants specifically \u201cknew about Dr. Weaver\u2019s cautious views. . . and ignored them in the pertinent articles.\u201d\u00a0 And in contrast with the earlier misquotes where Dr. Weaver had succeeded in getting the National Post<\/em> to publish corrections, the defendants had also refused to remove the offending articles or publish any retractions or apologies, despite Dr. Weaver\u2019s pre-litigation efforts to correct the record here.<\/p>\n

The court concluded that \u201cthe defamation in this case was serious.\u201d\u00a0 Quoting from the Supreme Court of Canada, the court wrote that free speech did not permit individuals to become \u201cregrettable but unavoidable road kill on the highway of public controversy.\u201d\u00a0 In addition to awarding Dr. Weaver $50,000 in damages from all defendants, jointly and severally, the court directed defendants to remove the articles from any websites over which they had control, to expressly withdraw any consent for third party publications and require these third parties to remove the articles, and to publish a complete retraction of the defamatory material.\u00a0 The National Post<\/em> is considering whether or not to appeal the decision.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

The court did make clear to distinguish the defamatory content in the articles in question from non-defamatory commentary regarding any debate over climate change:\u00a0 \u201c[w]hether or not a particular theory is \u2018debunked\u2019 is regularly debated in the scientific community.\u00a0 It would, in my view, impede the necessary debate to find such commentary defamatory in the circumstances of this case.\u201d\u00a0 The court also found that the defendants could not be held liable for defamatory reader comments because they had removed them within a day or two of being alerted to the offensive comments and \u201cthat is all the defendants could realistically do in the circumstances.\u201d<\/p>\n

While this decision is not controlling authority outside of British Columbia, as mentioned above, it may prove to be influential in a similar defamation case that is currently working its way through the U.S. courts.[5]<\/a>\u00a0 In 2012, Dr. Michael Mann filed a defamation suit, Mann v. National Review, Inc.<\/em>, over a National Review Online<\/em> blog post by Mark Steyn.\u00a0 The post claimed Dr. Mann\u2019s work was \u201cfraudulent\u201d and, using quotes from another blog post, called Dr. Mann \u2013 a climate scientist at Penn State University \u2013 \u201cthe Jerry Sandusky of climate science\u201d because \u201che has molested and tortured data.\u201d[6]<\/a><\/p>\n

In January 2014, the D.C. trial court in the Mann<\/em> case ruled that \u201c[o]pinions and rhetorical hyperbole are protected speech under the First Amendment,\u201d but \u201c[a]ccusing a scientist of conducting his research fraudulently, manipulating his data to achieve a predetermined or political outcome, or purposefully distorting the scientific truth\u201d are defamatory if proven to be false.[7]<\/a>\u00a0 The court denied the defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss, allowing the case to move forward towards a trial.\u00a0 Three of the defendants have appealed this decision.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

Protecting against defamation while also protecting free speech rights is a complex balance, and it remains to be seen if the D.C. trial court will go the same way as the decision in Weaver<\/em>.\u00a0 But either way, widely accusing peer-reviewed work to be products of fraud and comparing climate scientists to child molesters is, unfortunately, part of a larger trend of attacks on scientists.[9]<\/a>\u00a0 In the words of Dr. Mann, these attacks seek \u201cto dismiss, obscure, and misrepresent well-established science and its implications\u201d as well as \u201ccreate an atmosphere of intimidation.\u201d[10]<\/a>\u00a0 For more information on attacks on scientists, please visit https:\/\/climatesciencedefensefund.org<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Lauren Kurtz is the Executive Director of the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which previously assisted with the representation of Dr. Mann in a separate dispute over open records requests,[11]<\/strong><\/a> although it is not involved in Dr. Mann\u2019s defamation litigation described above.<\/em><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> https:\/\/www.courts.gov.bc.ca\/jdb-txt\/SC\/15\/01\/2015BCSC0165.htm<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> https:\/\/www.desmogblog.com\/2015\/02\/06\/climate-scientists-andrew-weaver-wins-50-000-defamation-suit-against-national-post-terence-corcoran<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> https:\/\/www.ucsusa.org\/global_warming\/solutions\/fight-misinformation\/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html#.VPNuSEu0HKE<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> https:\/\/news.nationalpost.com\/2015\/02\/07\/climate-scientist-wins-defamation-suit-against-national-post\/#__federated=1<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> It is also generally harder to prove defamation in the United States than in Canada:\u00a0 https:\/\/kellywarnerlaw.com\/chart-differences-between-united-states-and-canadian-defamation-law\/<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> https:\/\/www.salon.com\/2014\/01\/30\/a_defamation_lawsuit_may_kill_national_review\/<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> https:\/\/www.climatesciencewatch.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/01\/Mann_v_NR_Weisberg_Order_1-22-14.pdf<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/news\/volokh-conspiracy\/wp\/2014\/06\/09\/mann-v-steyn-steyn-goes-his-own-way\/<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> https:\/\/sciencecareers.sciencemag.org\/career_magazine\/previous_issues\/articles\/2015_01_28\/caredit.a1500026<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> https:\/\/bos.sagepub.com\/content\/71\/1\/33.abstract<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> For more on that case, see here:\u00a0 https:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/blogs\/local\/wp\/2014\/04\/17\/va-supreme-court-rules-for-u-va-in-global-warming-foia-case\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On February 5, a trial court in British Columbia awarded $50,000 CAD (roughly $40,000 USD in current exchange rates) to distinguished climate scientist Dr. Andrew Weaver, finding that a collection of articles had defamed him.[1]\u00a0 The judgment is controlling authority only within British Columbia, but it is still significant:\u00a0 the decision makes clear that smear […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1475,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5673,5671],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-3067","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-litigation","7":"category-international","8":"czr-hentry"},"yoast_head":"\nAttacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation - Climate Law Blog<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation - Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On February 5, a trial court in British Columbia awarded $50,000 CAD (roughly $40,000 USD in current exchange rates) to distinguished climate scientist Dr. Andrew Weaver, finding that a collection of articles had defamed him.[1]\u00a0 The judgment is controlling authority only within British Columbia, but it is still significant:\u00a0 the decision makes clear that smear […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Climate Law Blog\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-03-09T20:09:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Lauren Kurtz\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@sabincenter\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Lauren Kurtz\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/09\\\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/09\\\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Lauren Kurtz\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1\"},\"headline\":\"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-03-09T20:09:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/09\\\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1330,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Climate Litigation\",\"International\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/09\\\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/09\\\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\\\/\",\"name\":\"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation - Climate Law Blog\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2015-03-09T20:09:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/09\\\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/09\\\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/2015\\\/03\\\/09\\\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"name\":\"Climate Law Blog\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/02\\\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png\",\"width\":2752,\"height\":260,\"caption\":\"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/sabincenter\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1\",\"name\":\"Lauren Kurtz\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\\\/climatechange\\\/author\\\/lkurtz\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation - Climate Law Blog","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation - Climate Law Blog","og_description":"On February 5, a trial court in British Columbia awarded $50,000 CAD (roughly $40,000 USD in current exchange rates) to distinguished climate scientist Dr. Andrew Weaver, finding that a collection of articles had defamed him.[1]\u00a0 The judgment is controlling authority only within British Columbia, but it is still significant:\u00a0 the decision makes clear that smear […]","og_url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/","og_site_name":"Climate Law Blog","article_published_time":"2015-03-09T20:09:44+00:00","author":"Lauren Kurtz","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@sabincenter","twitter_site":"@sabincenter","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Lauren Kurtz","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/"},"author":{"name":"Lauren Kurtz","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1"},"headline":"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation","datePublished":"2015-03-09T20:09:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/"},"wordCount":1330,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Climate Litigation","International"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/","name":"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation - Climate Law Blog","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website"},"datePublished":"2015-03-09T20:09:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/2015\/03\/09\/attacks-on-canadian-climate-scientist-ruled-to-be-defamation\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Attacks on Canadian Climate Scientist Ruled to be Defamation"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#website","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","name":"Climate Law Blog","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#organization","name":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/files\/2023\/02\/21-SabinBlog_Banner-1.png","width":2752,"height":260,"caption":"Sabin Center for Climate Change Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/sabincenter"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/#\/schema\/person\/24391fadda6350506112790b673e59c1","name":"Lauren Kurtz","url":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/author\/lkurtz\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3067","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1475"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3067"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3067\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3067"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3067"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/climatechange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3067"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}