By Aine Gormley

Legal and moral issues on climate science have made a splash in 2010. This week, a leading climate scientist is suing Canada’s National Post for libel. In the UK, a climate scientist recently lodged a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission about the Sunday Times. The parliamentary inquiry into the behaviour of climate scientists also received ample coverage. But what legal issues surround these cases, particularly in light of the growing campaign for libel reform?

Simon Lewis, a researcher in human-induced climate change at the University of Leeds has filed a 31-page official complaint to the Press Complaints Commission (PCC).

Lewis complains that an article published in the Sunday Times breaches the PCC Editor Code of Practice Point One, Section i, which states “The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.”

The issue is that, in the article by Jonathan Leake, Lewis’ name was apparently used to back up a claim that the science behind the IPCC report was unsubstantiated where it refers to global warming wiping out 40 per cent of the Amazon Rainforest.

But Lewis said that this claim in the IPCC report is “basically correct, but poorly written.” Thus he maintains that his name and the science were misrepresented.

After the complaint was filed, the Sunday Times left a voicemail for Lewis stating, “It has been recognised that the story was flawed.”

Lewis says that, “The Sunday Times should simply take the piece down and issue a retraction and apology.”

The paper has, so far, only changed the online article title, from ‘UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim’, to ‘The UN climate panel and the rainforest claim’.

There is no legal obligation to be truthful as long as the reputation of the subject is not adversely affected. So, if the article drove an impression to the readers about Lewis’ integrity, he may have grounds to sue for defamation. But, if the paper could then, for example, prove the statement to be true, it may be covered by the defence of justification.

However, Lewis went to the PCC, not the courts. The PCC does insist on a moral obligation for journalists to be truthful. Thus, possible outcomes of this case are that the PCC will insist the Sunday Times editor take action such as publishing a correction or an apology.

George Monbiot is doubtful of this. “Good luck to Lewis, but as the PCC’s treatment of the News of the World phone-hacking scandal suggests, he’s likely to find himself shut out of another closed world – journalism – in which self-regulation manifestly doesn’t work,” Monbiot said in a recent blog post.

In Canada, Andrew Weaver, a climate scientist at the University of Victoria, has taken his case to the next level. He is suing the National Post for libel after they refused to remove online articles that will, according to Weaver, “poison the factual record, misleading people who are looking for reliable scientific information about global warming,” he recently told the Guardian.

According to the lawsuit, the articles make defamatory claims because readers are lead to believe that Weaver conceals scientific data and is driven by a corrupt pursuit to gain government funding.

Complaints to publishers, such as those from Lewis, seem to be occurring more often. But Weaver’s case appears to be the first lawsuit to be filed between a climate change scientist and the media. So is it likely to be the first of many?

Like the UK, libel laws in most of Canada are more plaintiff-friendly than its counterparts in the US. The New York Times Co v Sullivan (1964) case in the US altered the libel laws so that the publisher was only at fault if false information was published out of malice.

In the UK, a paper can be sued for publishing something even if the public has a right to know. It is only considered in defences such as the Reynolds defence, which originated from the Reynolds v Times Newspapers (1999) case. This allows a series of factors to be considered in defence of the publication, such as the urgency of the matter and the tone of the article.

Another defence that the public’s right to know is considered is in the defence of fair comment. But this can be difficult to prove. Clive Coleman, a BBC legal affairs analyst said, “In defending a libel action the difference between a statement of verifiable fact and one of opinion can be crucial.”

But this month saw a historic ruling from the UK Court of Appeal when it was decided that Simon Singh, who was being sued for libel, had the right to use the defence of fair comment, which the judges clarified as honest opinion.

Robert Dougans, Singh’s lawyer, said, “the judgment is clear that not only should the courts be ready to find that a statement is honest opinion, but that scientists should be able to engage in debate and research without facing expensive litigation.”

But Singh was defending his own journalism. Whereas Weaver and Lewis have built a case against the actions of journalists.

Perhaps the contrast between these legal and moral issues in science journalism highlights the need for trained science journalists reporting on scientific issues. Or perhaps they highlight the need for libel reform so that scientists and journalists (and those dabbling in both) are able to act in the public interest.

In the wake of his victory, Singh announced that our politicians must act on libel reform. All three major political parties have now pledged reforms of the libel law in their General Election Manifestos.