Help asked for Dr. Tim Ball in legal battle with Dr. Mann


Dr. Ball at left, Dr. Mann at right

This is a scheduled auto-post done from my hotel WiFi last night.

This below sent to me by John O. Sullivan on behalf of Dr. Tim Ball. Like with the Sydney rally I posted on earlier, I have no dog in the fight. I’m just passing this on for interested readers with this comment: While the allegedly libelous phrase at issue is not repeated here, I find it amazing and ironic that Dr. Michael Mann is making the effort to sue about it.

Due to the extra attention Dr. Mann has attracted with the lawsuit, the exposure of the phrase is now far and above what it was when originally posted on the Canadian website. I didn’t even know of it until the lawsuit was announced. I’ve had far worse things said about me in this climate debate turned ugly, and the best legal advice I’ve seen given to public figures in the news business is that they generally are not successful when suing for alleged slander/libel, especially for something that is a critical opinion piece with what appears to be a satirical joke line. Criticism and satire in an opinion piece are generally hard to challenge legally in the USA, though it is different in Canada. In Canada, the law is broader. Even so, I don’t think Dr. Mann or his attorney are going to be prepared for the demands of discovery on this one, nor do I think he will prevail in his lawsuit, based on similar failed actions I’ve seen against anchors and reporters in the TV news business when challenged by a public figure. Whether Dr. Mann realizes it or not, he is probably the most well known public figure in climate science next to Al Gore and Dr. James Hansen.

But, buy popcorn, and if so inclined, there’s a link to help out Dr. Ball.

========================================================

Top Climate Skeptic Seeks Help in Double-barrel Courtroom Shootout

By John O. Sullivan

Esteemed climate scientist, Tim Ball faces two costly courtroom libel battles. Here he reveals his concerns and appeals for help with his legal fees.


Dr. Tim Ball is widely recognized as one of Canada’s first qualified climate scientists and has long been one of the most prominent skeptics taking a stand on corruption and unethical practices. Two exponents of the global warming scare Ball has targeted, professors Michael Mann and Andrew Weaver, are now suing him for libel.

Many suspect the David Suzuki Foundation is funding Vancouver libel specialist, Roger D. McConchie who is representing both Weaver and Mann against Ball. Suzuki is reported as wanting skeptics like Ball “put in prison.”

Savvy skeptics suspect that Ball, a 72-year-old pensioner, was singled out as a target because he has no big corporate backers and will capitulate under the emotional and financial strain before the case even gets to trial as his legal fees spiral. Such a fate befell Ball in a prior libel suit in 2006.

But buoyed by the public sympathy Ball is now gaining he is confident an appeal for donors will make all the difference. He is adamant that this is the perfect opportunity skeptics have been waiting for to expose climate change fraud in a court of law and he won’t be bounced out of this most crucial contest.

Below Dr. Ball (TB) speaks frankly to John O’Sullivan (JOS).

INTERVIEW

JOS: Now that you’ve been hit with two very expensive libel suits in quick succession rumors are mounting that well-funded environmentalists are now intent on using the law to kill off free speech in the climate debate. Would you agree with this assessment?

TB: I am not aware of specific evidence of such a campaign or the financing. The practice of bringing lawsuits has been going on for some time but it was spasmodic. More recently, that is over the last year or so, it has increased, particularly with the charges by Weaver through McConchie against the National Post. One change was the addition of important people to the Suzuki Board back in 2009, such as John Lefebvre, but also included Westport Innovation CEO Elaine Wong, that brought additional money as Chris Horner pointed out. Another addition to the Board was equally disturbing, not because of the money but because of the compromise of integrity. George Stroumboulopolos is the host of a weekly program on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC).

Other increased activities centered on publication of Hoggan and Littlemore’s book Climate Cover Up. This book includes attacks on specific people including me. It makes the usual list of false charges including that I am paid by the oil companies. Then there was Weaver’s book Keeping Our Cool: Canada in a warming World, with a cover note by Suzuki that says, A gripping narrative, this should be the final alarm.


JOS: Desmogblog, funded by the Suzuki Foundation, has been ‘showcasing’ such legal attacks on scientists like you. Do you fear this new trend towards litigation is the inevitable course for the climate debate, and if so do you see any positive outcome for science?

TB: As noted above this is not new litigation but the intensity has increased. As you also know, people like Fred Singer received such threats a few years ago like me. I have mixed feelings about the activities. Personally it is intimidating because of the costs involved if nothing else. Legally it is a threat to free speech and, in my opinion, a misuse of the law to silence open debate. What has been interesting is the cultural reaction to the legal challenges. Americans immediately recognize it as a threat to free speech, while Canadians are slower to acknowledge that threat. In the long term I think exposure of these tactics, particularly in the context that they are losing the scientific debate will backfire. It will be seen for what it is a use of the law as a form of ad hominem attacks.

I am also concerned that the credibility of science in general is in jeopardy because too many scientists, including Suzuki, Weaver, Mann and others have been involved directly or indirectly in the process.

JOS: You obtained your doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College way back in 1983 before much of the hype began about global warming. Yet your critics deride you as a “shill for ‘Big Oil”’ paid to ‘attack’ Weaver, Mann and the IPCC. Is that true?

TB: This is absolutely false. Here is the story. Several years ago a group of professional people in Alberta, including engineers, hydrologists, geologists were very angry about the bad science involved in climate research a particularly through the IPCC and the Kyoto Protocol. We met at Calgary Airport and out of that came the group Friends of Science (FOS). Their problem was they were based in Calgary, Alberta, the Canadian centre of the oil industry. Also some of them, because of their expertise had worked in the oil patch. I warned them to focus solely on the science and to make sure all funding was at arms length. They did both, with funding being handled through the University of Calgary. I acted as an adviser and contributed articles as well as spoke a couple of times at their AGMs.

David Anderson, The Minister of Natural resources said that all Canadian climate experts had been consulted on the Kyoto Protocol. Eight of us, all climate experts traveled to Ottawa and held a press conference to say we had not been consulted. The Minister counteracted us by announcing that he would release the governments Kyoto policy in the house at the same time as the press conference. This was amazing since no previous mention was made despite questions by the media. His move had the effect of drawing away virtually all media attention.

I received $800 for travel and expenses and incorrectly thought FOS paid it. Subsequently it turned out that it was paid by APCO a PR company. Then it was disclosed that FOS had received a donation of, as I recall $12,000 from an energy company. It was I understand about 7% of their total donations, the rest was from private citizens. Very quickly my belief that I was paid by FOS was converted to the charge that I was therefore in the pay of FOS who were in the pay of the oil companies. The fact that $800 was about 6% of the $12,000 was of no consequence. The issue, as it appears with everything they do is to take something and distort ti or use it out of context knowing that once it is out there is not pulling it back. Hoggan’s skills as PR expert are manifest. It is also why I find it amusing that the very property of the Internet they exploit is being attacked by McConchie in his charges against the National Post on behalf of Weaver and his demand that I contact web sites that have repeated my article. The futility of that exercise was that most were not interested and also some of the sites they listed indicated they had merely Googled keywords and came up with completely inappropriate places like a tennis site apparently because my name is ball.

JOS: If Weaver and Mann have been given a ‘blank check’ to use expensive lawyers against you are you and your attorney confident you can win, and if so why?

TB: I am confident that if it comes down to a science debate I can carry the day. I am encouraged in this because to date all have consistently refused or avoided debate. I base this claim on the almost five year challenge the cross-Canada Roy Green radio show has held out for someone to debate, with no takers. My lawyer’s main concern is whether I can afford the defense. The problem is I have no choice because if I don’t respond or say I was completely at fault they would pursue damages for defamation and all costs.

I am also confident that my lawyer says that all charges of defamation are unfounded and the only error was the incorrect claim that Weaver had resigned from the IPCC. I believe it was an honest mistake because the information was provided in the article with citations. We have acknowledged and pre-emptively apologized for this error.

JOS: Who is paying your legal bills?

TB: I am. I have paid out about $10,000 so far and am rapidly depleting my savings, these are meager because the only research funding I received during my career was from the National Museum of Canada. This occurred primarily because my research of reconstructing past climate records was deemed historical climatology. At that time it did not fit the very definitive line between Arts and Science research. The museum understood the problem.

JOS: I’ve heard you’ve started your new blog and you’ll be selling climate science pamphlets to help raise donations to pay your legal fees. Is this true?

TB: Yes. I had worked through other blogs and web pages to date, but disappointments, including being fired from a magazine that I wrote a column for monthly for 17 years led me to go it alone. The firing was just one of many instances where I know from direct reports that it was due to pressure on management because of my skeptical views. The blog allows me control and the opportunity to point out what is wrong with many of the stories appearing in the media. I am planning a series of booklets of about 80 to 100 page in length that provide explanations of major issues in the debate. The idea is that they are short, will fit in a pocket, and deal with one issue at a time. Since they will appear as a series people will be able to have in hand the answers to major issues in the debate in language that non-scientists can understand. I hope to sell these booklets through the web site and use the money to offset the legal costs. Meanwhile we continue to survive on pensions (wife and mine) and small amounts made from public presentations.

JOS: You have recently been working to expose the vast discrepancies between what the IPCC science reports say and what is in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers. Is this an important area of attack for skeptics?

TB: Yes. The science report itemizes all the problems including limitations of data, lack of understanding of mechanisms compounded in the inadequacies of the computer models. The public perception is that the IPCC science is solid and certain that human CO2 is causing global warming and climate change. The difference between the public perception and what the Science report attest is deliberately achieved by the structure of the IPCC system that has a Summary for Policymakers released before the Science report is available. It is understandable that the Mainstream Media and the public are unaware of the differences but it is not credible that the scientists involved are unaware. Their silence is deafening.

JOS: What else has really struck a chord with you in the Great Global Warming Debate?

TB: People find it hard to believe that the entire world could be so easily misled by so few people. They, particularly Maurice Strong, established control of all government weather agencies by co-opting the World Meteorological Organization. This gave them control of data collection and archives within each nation then its global dissemination. Each national weather agency controlled politicians and funding of research. They directed funding to one side of the science debate thus allowing later the circular arguments that claims that most scientists and most publications prove the science. The national agencies also determined who served on the IPCC thus providing complete control. The group of scientists who controlled the entire process became so small that Professor Wegman was able to name names in his report to the US Congress. As he demonstrated, they controlled the peer-review process thus allowing them to further control the publication process.

JOS: What has been toughest part of your skeptic’s journey so far?

TB: It is very difficult, especially when you have paid such a high price financially, emotionally, and in people’s public and personal views. It is not easy when your children, wife and friends hear a radio person say, “Oh, Tim Ball, he is that nut job paid by the oil companies that doesn’t believe in climate change.” It is not easy when people tell you that you are a fool for not using your knowledge and abilities to go with the flow and make a lot of money. As someone said after Climategate it must be nice to be vindicated. I replied there is no pleasure in I told you so. It is not easy when you are very aware of the sacrifices your family has been subjected to because you are determined to demand proof and the truth. As Voltaire said, It is dangerous to be right in matters where established men are wrong.

Thank you, Dr. Ball and good luck with the fund raising for both your cases.

Visit Dr. Ball’s site ‘A Different Perspective’ where you can read more of Tim’s expert insight and donate to his legal fund that is being handled independently by the Frontier Centre and Tim’s attorney (‘Donate’ button is in top right corner of Tim’s page).

http://drtimball.com/

Note: Donors will be issued with a tax receipt on request.

About these ads

263 thoughts on “Help asked for Dr. Tim Ball in legal battle with Dr. Mann

  1. Interesting legal procedures, but why is the word “sceptic” used in this way?

    I’m not sure this group of people and their approach to scientific data would fit well with the group of people I usually see referred to as sceptics: http://www.skeptic.com/

  2. I hope that Mann gets hit personally with the cost of this when the suit fails. It is totally frivolous.

  3. What Dr. Mann may not know, but Dr. Weaver should well be aware of, in Canada, in tort, loser pays. This is fundamentally different from the US. Dr.s Mann and Weaver may be supported in their legal bills. I’m wondering how far that support will go when they lose and Dr. Bell is awarded costs. Also, in Canada, the award is proportional to the damage done. Dr. Bell would be supported by evidence that Dr. Mann has already got a compromised reputation. The nice folk at MFGW could provide some evidence of this.

  4. The point of the lawsuit is to intimidate climate realists. The global warming clowns can’t win on the science so they are taking it to the courts to impose their ideological buffoonery. The next stage will be to get laws passed so that the heretics can be fined or jailed. Oppose global warming and you may go to jail !

  5. The laws are a little more slanted in Mann’s favour up in Canada, although the potential payoff is not nearly as large as down South. Note that Mr. Ball and the Frontier Institute may also be forced to make an effort to remove any repetition of the libellous material, so if you want to make their possible legal tab larger, feel free to repeat it.

    Mann’s lawyer is Roger McConchie, who is also involved in the Weaver suits agains Ball and the National Post. He is quite good, and you might want to note that Canada Free Press, Ball’s previous media outlet, where the alleged defamation against Weaver took place, has essentially disowned him (ie. Tim Ball).

  6. I read the allegedly libelous phrase and IMHO there is nothing libelous about it. Satire and mockery only.

    Certain industries which are feeling the weight of co2 regulations should stump up cash now to help expose this unwarranted scare story for what it is.

    I wonder how Michael Mann ever became such an expert in tree-rings?

    1998 Ph.D. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics (defended 1996)
    1993 M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Geology & Geophysics
    1991 M.Phil. Yale University, Department of Physics
    1991 M.S. Yale University, Department of Physics
    1989 A.B. (double), University of California-Berkeley, Applied Math, Physics (Honors)

    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html

  7. Good heavens. While I am seriously disappointed in the stupid rhetoric (which apparently is considered “libelous” in Canada) going on with our politicians on both sides, and gnat’s ass hair splitting over politically correct wording, stories like this make me glad to be living in the US of A, where snark is still king!

  8. Here’s a good op-ed on Climategate by Rex Murphy a Canadian commentator on CBC. CBC, and Rex Murphy would be considered liberal by US standards, but he is disgusted by what he sees in the emails. I think Tim Ball will win this case, and just sent 100 CAD towards that cause.

  9. Here is an opportunity for an open debate – although where the law and lawyers are involved, one has to be sceptical of just how good the debate can be. Nevertheless, I will certainly be donating presently. Good luck Mr Ball.

  10. I have donated. I hope tousands will do likewise. Good luck, Dr. Ball !

    I sure hope you win this battle against pseudo-science.

  11. I don’t know the publishing law in Canada but in EU it is the publisher who is responsible for what they themselves publish.

    And wouldn’t this open up for Weaver Mann et al to get sued as well for their own slip of the tongue so to speak?

  12. Epic battle of bald guys. Seriously though I hit Dr. Ball’s donation jar pretty hard. We need to do what we can to support him and others under these repressive, punitive legal threats. Make no mistake, this has all the “fingerprints” of a coordinated attack by the usual suspects designed solely to silence people who speak against the alarmist gravy train. Orwellian response, hurt and silence your foes because you can’t defeat them with facts. This is exactly the result of all the efforts the alarmists are doing to “refine” the message and it is coordinated and paid for.

  13. The Voltaire quote was spot on. I wish Dr. Ball well in the struggle.

    As Garrett Hardin noted years ago “The great challenge facing us now is to invent the corrective feedbacks that are needed to keep custodians honest.”

  14. “purpose of harming the plaintiff and exposing him to hatred, ridicule and contempt, lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of others, and causing him to be shunned and avoided.”

    I highly doubt that its possible to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of others.

    Cash to Dr. Ball… Come on people, help a brother out.

  15. And now we enter the final phase of the total destruction of Mann!

    So far Mann only had his lawyers issue Dr. Ball with a second official notice of an intention to sue so it appears to me who is going to blink first! Suzuki had better understand what his foundation is taking on and what a bad horse he is betting on!

    Added to that is a whole bunch of us ready to push the “Paypal” button!

    Bring it on! Mann in court? Who will get there first? Suzuki or Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli?

    Mann really should read the emails again to see what his “Friends” think of him!

  16. What I find most ironic in the Courthouse link is the opening line “A Pennsylvania State University professor claims climate-change denier Timothy Ball defamed him“.

    An article about defamation while using a defaming term “climate-change denier”

  17. “Many suspect the David Suzuki Foundation is funding Vancouver libel specialist, Roger D. McConchie who is representing both Weaver and Mann against Ball. ”

    Does Canadian law not require disclosure?

  18. Mann is screwed under discovery, and it would not surprise me if he is forced to pick up Tim’s tab. Dumb move.

    Mark

  19. By the way, who was it railed against Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli for going for Mann a few months ago?

    Some senior people on WUWT said it was wrong! I will leave it to you people to say what you think now!

  20. I’m surprised Mann and Weaver have not filed a human rights complaint. That is the preferred vehicle in Canada for shake down artists and totalitarian thugs for extorting money from their enemies. Even though the libel laws in Canada have recently been changed to give better protection from these sorts of lawfare suits, Dr Ball will indeed be hit with some hefty legal bills. Bloody awful.

  21. “Savvy skeptics suspect that Ball, a 72-year-old pensioner, was singled out as a target because he has no big corporate backers”

    I find this shocking.

    After countless declarations at RC and CP that all “anti-science” skeptics are tools of Big Oil and other corporatist interests how is it that Dr. Ball has not hooked up with the dark side?

    Of course the Joe Romm-Gavin Schmidt brand of integrity is the kind of ethics now common place in most of academia where they’ve elevated self interest above honesty like our sleaziest politicians.

    Dignity and honor have been replaced with pompous arrogance and a type of elitism which has Mann believing he is deserving of compensation for the personal discomfort that he himself created.

    Hey Michael, you’re number 1. Figure it out.

  22. It is no accident that this lawsuit is occurring in British Columbia. What people don’t realize is that the British Columbia court system, local and provincial governments have been absolutely corrupted by the “green” machine. You need to work at the local government level here to really see it in action. It truly is a religion to a lot of useful idiots with too much money and their appointed government enablers.

    See Vivian Krauses excellent expose of how “environmental” organizations have bought the local government machinery in B.C.:

    http://www.citycaucus.com/2010/10/north-vancouver-mom-exposes-us-millions-for-oil-sands-activism

    P.S. The Financial Post link in this article doesn’t work anymore – it’s parent newspaper, the National Post has been recently sold again. Every time this happens, the National Post becomes more and more like every other yellow sheet in the country. The Ecofascists have a long reach.

    Every morning I wake up and give quite thanks for SDA and WUWT. Otherwise we would be overwhelmed by these sheeple.

  23. Haha. That phrase is not so original — I heard once heard the same pun made in a rap song.

    Not long ago science journalist Daniel S. Greenberg called Mann a “gravedigger of science.” I wonder if he got served too.

  24. Dr Ball, to hedge your position I suggest that you place a bet that if you lose then the story will be all over the Mass Media. I’m sure similarly Dr Mann would be wise to place a bet that if he loses then the story won’t be all over the Mass Media.

    Donation made.

  25. Let it not be forgotten that this lawsuit is filed by a man who himself has been spreading untrue statements using extremely professional language about his most prominent critics, the also Canadians Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, who in 2005 filed a complaint about him to the University of Virginia.

    From the complaint:

    Dr. Mann sent an email to a European science magazine, Natuurwetenschap & Techniek, in response to some technical questions during their preparation of a story for publication. This email has been published on the Internet. http://www.natutech.nl/nieuwsDetail.lasso?ID=2565. We object to Dr. Mann’s hostile, uncivil and personally derogatory comments, especially to a reporter preparing a story for international publication. We object in particular to his accusation that we have been “plainly dishonest.” We object to Dr. Mann’s dissemination and endorsement of an ad hominem attack against us by the Environmental Defense Fund, containing an untrue suggestion that our work was financed by ExxonMobil. We object to the statement that one of us (McKitrick) was “prone to publishing entirely invalid results apparently without apology.”

    The University did nothing – they not even acknowledged the complaints.

    Says Steve McIntyre, thoughtful as always:

    “Climate scientists are quite willing to blame “skeptic” sites for this language, but are unwilling to look into the mirror of their community and acknowledge the substantial contribution of their “community” to the deterioration of conduct.”

    See

    http://climateaudit.org/2010/05/03/correspondence-with-the-university-of-virginia/

    Maybe Mann should sue his mirror.

  26. Canadian defamation law is a bit squirrelly, and is used heavily by the left to shut up their critics. In Canadian defamation, no injury is required to be proved. Further, if the lawsuit is kept under $50,000 in damages sought, no discovery will be held. This latter part is regularly used to bankrupt critics, as the issues at the core of the alleged defamation will not be subjet to cross examination other than by what comes out in the actual trial. The victory here is the bankruptcy of the alleged defamer. It is almost routine for certain individuals in Canada to sue their detractors for under $50Gs just to bury them in debt. And sadly it works. Its especially a tactic used by advocacy lawyers who can draft their own court documents without the legal costs that will burden the alleged defamer. Most of these suits are without merit. Its simply a tactice to quench dissenting voices.

    I note that a tax receipt is being issued. For Canadians, unless Dr. Ball is or has a registered charity to receive the funds, the receipt will do you little good for taxes – be warned. Americans and other jurisdictions may have other rules.

  27. Donation sent.

    One of Dr. Ball’s articles was the first I remember reading on skepticism towards the IPCC’s policy recommendations and its collection of “scientific” works and references.

  28. And I though Canada was a beacon of Freedom of Speech! Turns out that the one with the biggest bank account can shut up anybody. What a disappointment.

  29. http://www.citycaucus.com/2010/10/north-vancouver-mom-exposes-us-millions-for-oil-sands-activism

    Tides, and the U.S. foundations that fund it, have incredibly deep pockets. A large part of Tides’ funding comes from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, the William & Flora Hewlett Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. These are The Big Five. They give away about US$1.2-billion every year. If these foundations decide to undermine a foreign industry, they probably can.
    These Big Five have poured at least US$190-million into Canada’s environmental movement over the last decade, but their American logos are nowhere to be seen. Instead, we see a pageant of Canadian icons: dogwood, herds of caribou, wild salmon, First Nations and loons. U.S. tax returns show that the David Suzuki Foundation has been paid at least US$10-million from American foundations. This hasn’t exactly been out in the open.

  30. Donation happily sent. Two of the personalities involved here, Suzuki and Strombolopolous (CBC) , are reason enough to fill the war chest.

  31. There are so many things wrong here I don’t even know where to begin. First, whatever suffering Mann is enduring is of his own doing. Nobody forced him to participate in the events leading to his own very public humiliation of which many, not just Dr. Ball, have publicly commented on.

    David Suzuki, although once respected for his work in education and conservation, has, IMO, gone totally off the rails because of his obsession with climate change. It seems evident Dr. Ball is being targetted due to his lack of funds because he certainly isn’t being targetted on the legal merit of the case. If so, winning is not the point, but rather the point is to elicit fear among climate sceptics everwhere. This is a silencing campaign. Indeed, it has the appareance of an abuse of the Canadian legal system, with the revered Suzuki allegedly at its helm.

    Dr. Ball has earned my utmost respect. He could have chosen the easy path, like so many others, and kept silent about what he knew, but instead he chose the arduous, principled road. I sincerely hope the truth comes out and this case brings increased public awareness to the vast wealth and unscrupulous nature of the environmentalism (“green”) industry.

  32. Pete H says:

    “By the way, who was it railed against Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli for going for Mann a few months ago?”

    Pete, have some apples to go with your oranges.

    [Donation sent, BTW.]

  33. “…harming the plaintiff and exposing him to hatred, ridicule and contempt, lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of others, and causing him to be shunned and avoided.”

    Based on that, couldn’t just about every so-called climate “denier” sue Mann, Jones, etc.?

    It would be amusing to see the results of that!

  34. jack morrow says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:28 am

    Most happy to help anyone fighting Mann and Suzuki.

    ——

    Well said and ditto! Sent $100 but fear it will not be enough. Why aren’t there any millionaires on our side?

  35. If, in the unlikely event that, Mann wins this frivolous case, does that give climate realists and CAGW sceptics the right to sue alarmists everytime they falsely claim that we want to destroy the earth, and when they claim we should be jailed or worse, even executed?

    They would be bankrupted inside a few months.

  36. After 15 years of using a computer, I have broke my golden rule to never do transactions over the internet. But Dr Ball represents the gold standard as an honest, decent human being, who is being bullied by a nasty disreputable group of Ecofascist’s and there henchmen, This is big (super-wealthy) heavily financed and extremist environmentalist group, financed by the Suzuki foundation. Susuki is a high flying, high living wacko elitist using up CO2 and the earths resources at an astonishing rate to promote his intolerant warmist religion, he wants all skeptics thrown in prison for crimes against humanity.
    To think I once admired and watched every nature show he was involved in, I thought he had a genuine concern for nature and the environment (which I do) but he dropped of the cliff and choose the dark side of climate science and trying to use CO2 as the whipping boy to punish humanity back into the dark ages. And going after a vulnerable retired pensioners like Dr Ball takes the cake, Dr Ball who has devoted his life to education and the planetary sciences has never sold his soul to the AGW crowd.
    As for Mann what can be said, he is un-redeemable, ditto for the mean and nasty Andrew Weaver.
    On many occasions had the pleasure of hearing and was once lucky enough to meet Dr Ball. When it comes to the earths history and climate science Dr Ball is one of the most knowledgeable human beings on the planet. He has a photographic memory and needs no notes. In addition he is a genuine down to earth nice, friendly guy, in a word he’s brilliant.
    These nasty rat’s that are suing him are pure evil and given the chance and enough money Dr Ball will make mince meat of them in court.
    Anyway for the first time I sent money over the internet via a credit card, I found opening up an account with Paypal painless and easy, I urge you all to send whatever you can afford, this is one of the most important donation any of us who love the search for truth and freedom will ever make, It could be a ground breaker, it’s that big.
    Good luck Dr Ball I will be pulling for you.
    Please visit his website and donate it’s on the right hand side of the page, also there are lots of great articles and info at:

    http://drtimball.com/

  37. Donation sent. I feel angry. I hope we will all wake up and fully realize how dangerous the green warriors are.

  38. As a Canadian, I feel it is both a duty and a privilege to support Dr. Ball to defend against these lawsuits. I have sometimes winced at Dr. Ball’s harsh criticism of some of the CAGW proponents, but his credentials allow him to speak with some authority on these matters. At his senior age, he could have retired to a comfortable but unexciting life and left the battles to the younger crowd but instead has endured the ad hominems that come with doing battle on the contentious issues of climate. Donation made with pleasure.

  39. I wonder if there are tax implications for Mann if he is indeed receiving funding for his lawyer?

    Mark

  40. Ken Hall says:
    April 8, 2011 at 9:08 am

    I tend to agree. The warmers have said far far far worse than what Dr Ball said. If Ball fell on his sword here, or better yet, counter-sued (can you counter sue in Canada?) all the calls for the lives/heads/voices of skeptics, this could go very badly for Mr Mann.

  41. Donation sent.
    We really cannot allow people like Mann to silence reasonable criticism via the Law and friends with deep pockets.

  42. Bigcitylib seems to imply that the material that Tim ball has published is libellous.

    “Note that Mr. Ball and the Frontier Institute may also be forced to make an effort to remove any repetition of the libellous material, so if you want to make their possible legal tab larger, feel free to repeat it. ”

    Well BigCityLib, I have news for you, the case has not even been heard yet.

  43. In the end it is largely the US taxpayer that is funding these efforts to silence freedom of speech. Wealthy individuals make contributions to charitable foundations and receive a tax deduction in return. The cost of these deductions is then paid for by taxes on US working men and women.

    These funds are then used by the charitable foundations to mount legal challenges to drive competitive industries out of the US and Canada, so that the wealthy individuals making the contributions can further benefit. By investing early, they can shape public policy and then make a killing when these policies are enacted.

    It is no different than the robber barons of the past that bought up land along the path of the railways, before the public knew where the rails were to go. The same strategy was used time and time again to make fortunes when the highway systems were built. Insider knowledge allowed the wealthy insiders to gain windfall profits.

    Now the same strategy is being used with “Green” industries. The investments have been made and anyone that tries to speak up will be silenced. There is too much money at stake to allow anyone to interfere at this late stage in the game.

    The name of the game isn’t global warming or CO2. It is called making money the old fashioned way, by taking it from the poor and giving it to the rich. After all, the poor can’t defend themselves. If you try and take money from the rich, they have the resources to stop you.

    Even now there is a high stakes poker game on-going in the US capital over this very issue. Will the EPA in the US dictate which industries succeed and which will fail, through the control of the energy sector? Which companies will remain in the US, and which will relocate to China and India? Who stands to make a killing as a result?

  44. I find myself hoping they both lose. One for being pathetically thin-skinned or vexatious (I can’t tell which one applies), and the other for juvenile taunting.

  45. This is how they silence all criticism.

    Professor David Mackay made the lodicrous and deliberately deceitful claim in his book* that electric vehicles were five times as efficient as fossil fueled vehicles. This is utter nonsense, as you might expect, for when comparing like with like a modern diesel is much more efficient then an electric vehicle, powered by today’s fossil-feulled electrical grid.

    Professor Mackay’s counter was not that he disagreed or I had made a mistake – but that I had libeled him. They are scientific cowards who will not admit to their religious bias, and hide behind threats of court action. It is time they were all exposed.

    I will send £200 to Dr Ball.

    .

  46. This is so disgusting, trying to deliberately bankrupt a 72 year old pensioner for speaking the truth, this can only be the action of an evil fraudulent Mann.

    I want to make a donation, but the Paypal process is just too complicated.

  47. Of course it could all be a misunderstanding. Maybe Dr Ball meant that Dr Mann is so good at protecting data that he would make a good prison warder.

  48. Donation sent with calendar reminder to send another donation next month and so on. It will be a long expensive process for Mr. Ball and he needs all the help we can provide.

  49. Stand firm Dr. Ball – there are a vast multitude on your side and who will help you defeat ‘Mannianism’, donation sent via PayPal.

  50. AntonyIndia says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:29 am
    And I though Canada was a beacon of Freedom of Speech! Turns out that the one with the biggest bank account can shut up anybody. What a disappointment.

    Canada his home to the witch-hunting Human Rights Commissions. Live in fear if you besmirch the wrong individual or group.

  51. Kristoffer says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:10 am

    Interesting legal procedures, but why is the word “sceptic” used in this way?

    Perhaps skeptic or sceptic doesn’t jump out at you here in a post on a law suit, but Dr. Tim Ball’s work is that of one skeptical of the establishment stand on CAGW- skepticism is a time-honoured and brave employment for a scientist in all ages. I looked at your site and you are clearly on the side of the science is settled folks on this issue even in the face of climategate (you had to have swallowed all the whitewashes and accepted the egregious behaviour uncovered) – this is a hi-jacking of the term skeptic. You obviously label those skeptical of the consensus science as something other than skeptics (deniers?). There is a hysterical crowd on both sides of the issue – the true skeptics are thoughtful, knowledgable people of integrity but it suits such as you to identify them with “disbelievers” who need no knowledge or insight to be such. Some questions: 1) where do you obtain your knowledge on climate science 2) has your stance moderated over the past 15 years with the planet stubbornly refusing to heat up with continued rising CO2? or are you buying into the colder is warmer newthink. If you haven’t changed during the past 15 years, note that your consensus has been changing the name of the phenomenon from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (few cling to this one now) to Climate Change which skeptics have suggested has always been the state of the earths climate (that way it doesn’t matter whether it warms or cools although they still suggest it will warm to unbearable levels) to Climate Disruption which focusses on hurricanes, snow storms, droughts, floods, leaving the warming unspoken as the cause. This is a big comedown. Also note that the former top spokesmen for CAGW have changed from the unbridled alarmist position to quieter positions, either making about-turns like Dr. Phil Jones of CRU in the UK or publishing a heck of a lot less and taking more moderate positions. Don’t get left behind by yourself Dr. Kristoffer

  52. Go J.J. at 8:17 AM!!

    Donation sent, and I urge all “deniers” to donate. Any of us who have expressed our scientific opinions regarding Michael Mann’s pre-determined results and “voo doo” statistics could find ourselves in a similar situation. Support Dr. Tim Ball in Canada and hope Va. Attorney General Ken Cuchinelli is successful here. All of Michael Mann and the rest of the team’s dirt needs to be finally exposed.

  53. Not surprised to read that David Suzuki is behind this. However, how many are aware that it is American Corporate Wealth funds that are behind groups like David Suzuki. Ultimately it is these American Corporate Wealth funds that Tim Ball is fighting.

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/02/18/kevin-libin-environmental-activists-hide-behind-a-screen-of-u-s-money/

    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/david-suzuki-foundation-70-million.html

    http://fairquestions.typepad.com/rethink_campaigns/usa-foundations-paid-tides-canada-nearly-57-million.html

  54. It seems like Ball is being ‘hoist by his own petard’ here, several years ago he started a defamation suit against Prof Dan Johnson about a letter to the editor which suggested that Ball’s credentials were overstated. After Johnson showed that his statements were in fact correct Ball withdrew the suit and Johnson was awarded costs.

  55. Anyone care to explain at what point an ad hominem becomes a libel. Is it the point at which the object of such a comment finds someone to fund their legal action. So much for equality under the law?

  56. Isnt there a “sceptic” lawyer who could take on the case pro bono ?I would if I was a lawyer.

  57. Phil. says:

    It seems like Ball is being ‘hoist by his own petard’ here, several years ago he started a defamation suit against Prof Dan Johnson about a letter to the editor which suggested that Ball’s credentials were overstated. After Johnson showed that his statements were in fact correct Ball withdrew the suit and Johnson was awarded costs.

    Except that what Ball has said is not libelous.

    Just keep on sniffing the glue, Phil., that’s about all you’re worth to such discussions.

    Mark

  58. “First, they ignore you. Then, they ridicule you. Then, they attack you. And then you win.” — Mahatma Gandhi

    That is quoted all the time in my political circles. The alarmists are no longer able to ignore the actual scientist, so they are attacking, and below the belt at that.

    The real well-being of the biosphere is on Ball’s side, so this is a truly worthy fight.

    Our enemies like to bring up the non-issue of money. Or maybe it IS an issue. We do NOT get much funding from the oil companies. They DO have tons of funding, but we have been letting them shine in on as “public” or taxpayer funding, which sounds objective. FOLLOW THE MONEY.

  59. (above got sent before I was done)
    Follow the money. AGW proponent keep talking about money. Why have we refused to hear them? There is something peculiar about their own funding. In effect, they keep saying so. It is about time we turned the mirror on them. Something will be scuttling for cover!

    And as to the credibility of science, it should be under very severe scrutiny. What we have in this field is NOT science, and this has poisoned many other disciplines. I am almost in tears over what can be published now in biology. Are other disciplines unharmed by peculiar money distortions? Those of us who love real honest science, the thrill of exploration, of adventuring all day and getting paid for it and being worth more to humanity by playing all day instead of working–we have to attack what is now called “science.” The game isn’t any fun if we cannot announce our actual results.

  60. Good Lord. Talk about a nuisance lawsuit, how thin-skinned is this guy, anyway?

    What if George Bush had done this to everyone who called him names?

  61. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
    Mann belongs in the state pen, not at Penn State.
    – and anybody may quote me!

  62. I give support to prof.Ball,he has been attacked over and over again and he does not waiver.Donation made and will donate again and again.Please keep this in the forefront as he truly does need help.I live in BC,the most frustrating province in canada .

  63. I just donated and would hope every other farmer would do the same. We could all use more of Dr. Ball’s common sense and a little levity never hurts either. Suzuki is one of the biggest threats to agriculture today and in my opinion an embarrassment to Canada and if he or his foundation are anywhere behind this that’s a double incentive to help out.

  64. Donated and noticed that our American dollar is now only worth 93.7 Canadian cents. Thanks a lot Ben!

  65. Paul Coppin says:
    April 8, 2011 at 8:03 am
    Canadian defamation law is a bit squirrelly, and is used heavily by the left to shut up their critics. In Canadian defamation, no injury is required to be proved. Further, if the lawsuit is kept under $50,000 in damages sought, no discovery will be held. This latter part is regularly used to bankrupt critics, as the issues at the core of the alleged defamation will not be subjet to cross examination other than by what comes out in the actual trial. The victory here is the bankruptcy of the alleged defamer. . . [my emphasis]

    Aside from justice for Prof. Ball—no small matter to be sure—the possibility of legal discovery into the claims and faux science of Mann and the Climate Alarmists would be the most significant outcome of this process. Is there some way under Canadian law that Prof. Ball’s lawyer could force the court into discovery, even if the damages claimed are under $50K?

    Sending donation.

    /Mr Lynn

  66. Is there any way to make Dr Mann and his lawyers wait until after the Ken Cuccinelli investigation is complete? It would seem to be very relevant to the case at hand.

    Just a thought.

  67. One of the biggest users of the libel laws in Canada was Conrad Black, he would sue anyone who looked at him sideways. The left was very upset that they couldn’t criticize C. Black, now they (Suzuki et al) are using this same tool of libel chill to shut up their perceived enemies.

  68. Mann’s a first class ars* , when he falls there is going to be quite a que of people wanting to stick the boot in , some of which are actual on his side such is the ‘nature’ of the man.

  69. I’d sue ‘im right back for calling me a ‘denier’.
    This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to get aired in court. If the jury can be presented with evidence to expose what Mann, et al have been up to and the court isn’t agenda driven, then the AGW crowd will be exposed just that much more.
    I don’t actually hold much hope for that consequence, due to the power of those in Gov’t. and behind the scenes who are pushing the whole agenda.

  70. Over the years, I have donated money to exactly TWO places: WUWT, and now Dr. Ball. And I feel very, very good about both.

    Anything that smears that idiotic twit suzuki is welcome by me. And as I’ve said, the man is personally odoriferous. Maybe he should use some of his foundation money to buy a shower.

  71. It seems Mann has an axe to grind, rather than a science to pursue. It would therefore be appropriate for Professor Ball to explain the scientific background and the context to the allegation, and to steer clear of personality and ad hominem. It is the scientific representations of Mann that are spurious and easily disprovable.

  72. $50 CDN paid in .
    Let’s get this going.
    I cannot imagine anyone more deserving of legal defeat than Mann.

  73. Good luck Dr. Ball! Donation sent! Now kick Manns teeth down his throat! Figuratively of course.

  74. Dr. Ball is in a dis-advantage ($$$ to defend him self) until it gets to court where it is very hard to win a defamation case. The warmists will lose and be forced to pay Dr. Ball. Like the Human Rights Tribunals the system is used to force the defendant to ‘give-in’ early and cut thier losses.

  75. I’m not rich but I made a donation. May do it next paycheck, and the next and the next…. I urge you all to keep on giving again and again.

    The Liberals are still pushing a cap and trade system which could cost us billions in economic activity, jobs and growth.

  76. Never a good idea to imply a guy did something criminal without being prepared to explain yourself. I just think of Mann as a smart guy who let a zealous belief in a moral matter and in the methods of science mislead him in his views.

    I really wish someone would write a good piece that would convince me that models are a worthwhile thing. Most of the time I end up feeling that models aren’t really models. Someone looks at the numbers and creates a intricate program that pictures the operation of data through time but without really modeling in a way that allows using it for prediction.

  77. What are the immediate needs in dollar terms, the expected total cost, and, can you post a running total of donations and pin this to the top for a while?

    Are there any limits for donations, and, are there any issues with Americans donating to a Canadian legal defense fund?

  78. From Bebben on April 8, 2011 at 8:03 am:

    Maybe Mann should sue his mirror.

    Maybe he should, considering what it said when Mann asked “Who is the fairest climatologist of them all?” Yep, the tree slices were bouncing off the walls after that.

    BTW, Dr. Ball, be extra cautious of what you eat if you hear Mann is collecting “specimens” from apple trees…

  79. This is absolutely ridiculous, people suing each other about maybe a 0.2C rise or fall in temps . Who the hell knows, I certainly have not felt any chnage in climate since I was born 58 years ago

  80. Donation on the way. Next will be a letter to my Senator and House Rep:

    In balancing the budget eliminate most non profit tax breaks,

    If you are not a church, university, or provide aid directly to the needy, forget about getting non-profit status.

    And for those that do qualify, do not even think about getting involved in politics.

    And all government organizations (especially NOAA and the EPA) should be immediately prohibited from donating any funds to any non profit.

  81. Well, I had thought that David Suzuki had more integrity than that idiot Michio Kaku. I guess I was wrong.

  82. Just sent $100 CAN to the good professor.

    As an aside, I just took IRS to court. It was settled in tax court in December, and the court awarded me the amount I asked PLUS interest. I mention this, because one does what is right because it is the right thing to do!

    It cost me $30K in legal fees, so I lost money in real terms, but it was well worth it!

  83. This isn’t Dr. Ball’s fight. It’s “our” fight. We must not let him be fed to the sharks. We must provide him the means to defend himself just as we would if it were Anthony in Ball’s position. If the Suzuki Gestapo are allowed this victory, absolutely no one will dare speak against them again.

    I am delighted at the level of the response I’m witnessing so far and am inspired to increase my support as a result. As you may infer from my moniker, the money I send will have the sweet scent of West Texas Intermediate. Oil money? Damn right! And well spent.

  84. Double standards here aplenty. This “72 year old pensioner” himself sued numerous parties because Dr Dan Johnson had suggested that he (Ball) was not really a climatologist.

    I note that while there are protestations that what Ball said about Mann was not libellous, the post is careful not to repeat it. And is wasn’t just a slip or passing snark. His current website headlines:
    “Evidence Points To Mann’s Criminal Misconduct”

  85. .
    .
    Oh, this is delicious! I liked Barbra Streisand singing, but what I now like far more is the “Barbra Streisand effect”. Actually, after reading about that “effect”, I lost interest in her sound.

    Tim Ball is a good guy, a really good guy. He’s one of those rare scientists who hasn’t been corrupted by the mimetic left-leaning ideology that encourages dishonest funding proposals.

    It so happens my degree (in a subject somewhat related to climate science) was issued by the same University that employs Andrew Weaver. Rather than remove and rip-up my diploma from our vanity-wall we’ll do something more positive in its memory. Instead of flowers we’ll make a donation to the Tim Ball defence fund.

    Some folks offer their two cents worth. We’ll do a little more, and up our two cents worth by 50,000 times.

    I know that’s not much compared to David Suzuki’s monthly energy bill, and only the tiniest drop compared to any of his ego-friendly efforts, or those of his fakir fakers.

    This generation will not see the end of the “global-warming” pandemic, nor its evolution into “climate-change” or “climate-disruption” or “climate-hiccup” — Not even “kinetic klimate kold-lapse”. But we will help to boost the next generation’s historical humor.
    .
    .

  86. Of some note in my not so humble opinion.

    These CO2 carnies from the CO2 midway hustle did lie and committ fraud to get to this moment in time. It is clear they will not cease the lies and fraud now due to a new found moral compass.

    Consider these facts and act upon what is known. The guy from not so BEST this Muller of Berkley, consider the source “Berkley”. Now add in the fear factor of loss of funding. These little lost weather stations where the temature record has been being recorded. They know that is the former data base and will be the new data base.
    Now ask yourselfs why they would leave the data base along and not adjust it once more to fit the CO2 tax needs. All they have to do now is revisit the scene of the crime and change out the roof, the mecruy in the place, adjust the orientation of the site, and or many other things such.

    Your in a knock down drag out low class bar fight. Act like you want to keep your teeth.

  87. UEA, the sweet smell of napalm in the morning
    “I wasn’t going to crow, really I wasn’t. But I’m afraid I can’t resist, especially since it’s my last blog post for a while and this is an event of some significance. I’m talking about the Press Complaints Commission’s ruling on a complaint brought against this blog by our old friends at the University of East Anglia. They lost. We won. (And I do mean we: I’m hugely grateful to my legal advisers, as well as to experts including Steve McIntyre, Andrew Montford, Richard North and Christopher Booker.)”

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/

  88. Long time reader of this outstanding site but this is my first post.

    I wanted to express my support for Dr. Ball. As a fellow Canadian, Dr. Ball’s frank, and often humourous, assesments of the whole AGW/Climate Change fabrication has filled me with pride when ever I have come across them.

    On the other hand, Suzuki and his ilk fill me with disgust.

    A donation has been made to Dr. Ball… it’s the least I can do.

  89. Moderators,

    I’d like to request to keep this post on top for while.
    This case could be THE court case to force full and complete discovery of shenanigans done by AGW alarmists crowds, but only if Dr. Ball has enough money to properly defend it. Keeping this post on top for a few days will help make it happen.

  90. Tim Ball is no saint. He has written a lot of opinion articles in which he attacked the honesty and integrity of a lot of people. He has been forced to back track a number of times.

    Ball has inflated his academic record, was called on it by professor Dan Johnson. After initiating a $250,000 defamation suit against Johnson, Ball withdrew it. Ball has only 4 peer reviewed papers to his credit, none of them in Climate Science, and was actually an undistinguished professor of Geography.

    The Canada Free Press was forced to withdraw articles Ball wrote defaming Professor Andrew Weaver, and issue an apology. Weaver is a prominent Canadian Climate Scientist at Victoria University, and expert in Climate Modeling. Ball Charged Weaver with being unqualified to teach and compromised by lavish funding. He is being sued by Weaver.

    Ball’s claim that he is not significantly subsidized by big oil rings hollow. A University fo Calgary Audit found that Friends of Science and Professor Cooper conspired to hide the origin of money from big Canadian Oil companies.

    Canada is a different kind of nation than the US. They expect more decorum and civilized debate than in the US, where opinion is polarized, and truth is less valued in public discourse. As an American, I can see there is something positive about this kind of culture. Political polarization is tearing this country apart and causing widespread disaffection and suspicion. The quality of the discussion about global warming is an example.

  91. “The guy should be in the state pen and not Penn State.”

    So telling a Rodney Dangerfield-type joke can get you sued in Canada?

    Are you kidding? They say Canadians lack a sense of humor, but that’s ridiculous.

    I wish Mann would try and sue someone over such a comment in the US. He’d be laughed out of court.

  92. I am not a Canadian lawyer, so take this with a grain of salt, but if the plaintiffs have managed to tailor their suit to deny defendant meaningful discovery, in the US, I would immediately file counterclaims (defamation, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, fraud . . . in the US, it never ends) and get my discovery that way. I cannot believe that a country steeped in the common law would permit a claim for which truth is an absolute defense to go to judgment without discovery as to the truth of the claim. Alas, much in Canada of late seems sad.

    As soon as I figure out how to set up a PayPall account, my donation is on its way.

  93. Perhaps Phil. would be kind enough to tell the truth about what happened between Tim Ball and Dan Johnson. Perhaps he would be kind enough to tell us where Dan Johnson teaches and what he teaches. Then maybe he could show us the retraction printed by the Calgary Herald. You should not believe ANYTHING that is written on DesmogBlog, should you Phil. To me it seems that DesmogBlog can dish it out, but they cannot take it. Soon it will be time to established how much damage these people have done to Dr. Ball’s career. That’s gonna leave a mark!!

  94. Is it feasible to countersue Mann and/or Weaver for more than $50,000 and thereby secure the right to discovery of evidence? What can the right to discovery of evidence accomplish under these circumstances?

  95. HankHenry says:
    April 8, 2011 at 2:02 pm
    “Never a good idea to imply a guy did something criminal without being prepared to explain yourself. I just think of Mann as a smart guy who let a zealous belief in a moral matter and in the methods of science mislead him in his views.”

    You might be right. I for one think Mann’s face says it all. After you see his face you do not need to learn more.

  96. I sent a donation, only $30 Canadian, but if a lot of people do that it does add up. We can’t sit on the sidelines and see Mann and his cohorts sue Dr Ball for saying less than most of us would like to say! I’d say a lot worse about Dr. Mann, having read a number of books on the science and the emails and seen how Dr. Mann operates. He’s a bully, he’s always been a bully (note the underlying fear in some of the emails, about getting him angry…) and he won’t stop until he is ruined.
    Keep your spirits up, Dr. Ball… more of us are with you than you could possibly know.

  97. Nick posted this over at
    Lucia Shop
    I think the problem was due to the links but I want to see if his accusations were true. Should Anthony sue for libel?

    Open thread? OK – here goes.
    I don’t normally have much trouble with moderation at WUWT or CA, and I appreciate that. However, it seems at WUWT when fund-raising is on, that doesn’t apply. They’re currently rattling the tin for Dr Tim Ball in his defence of Mann’s lawsuit. And it seems nothing negative can appear.

    I wrote the following. It’s logged there at 4.08 pm, awaiting moderation. Comments have been appearing, the latest at 7.08pm. But not mine, which said:

    Double standards here aplenty. This “72 year old pensioner” himself sued numerous parties because Dr Dan Johnson had suggested that he (Ball) was not really a climatologist.

    I note that while there are protestations that what Ball said about Mann was not libellous, this post is careful not to repeat it. And it wasn’t just a slip or passing snark. His current website headlines:

    “Evidence Points To Mann’s Criminal Misconduct” “

  98. As a matter of routine, I hereby confess that I am an old retired bureaucrat in a field only remotely related to climate, with minimal qualifications and only half a mind.

    Two thoughts.

    Has not a judge somewhere recently commented that the courts should not be asked to adjudicate on scientific matters?

    Cannot the cognoscenti that frequent this blog not think of a well-funded organization on the skeptical side of the CAGW argument and discreetly ask it to consider providing Dr Ball with more insurance than is likely to be raised by the laudable donations reported above?

  99. Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta says:
    April 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm
    As you may infer from my moniker, the money I send will have the sweet scent of West Texas Intermediate. Oil money? Damn right! And well spent.

    Will add 100 USD (yeah, it’s dropping like a rock) from my CVX & RDS dividends.

  100. I’ve done my bit,. Remember, as we say in Scotland, “mony a mickle mak’s a muckle…”.

  101. Aren’t there lawyers from CEI, Cato, Heartland, SPPI, etc., that can work pro bono on this? Certainly there is enough legal brain among them to do this.

  102. Since Mann is being investigated now for criminal fraud in VA, I hope Cuccinelli takes note of this action.

    I don’t know if anyone knows the RICO federal statute. What it defines as racketeering includes extortion by any means pursuant to criminal enterprise. Filing a nuisance lawsuit in the context of engaging in activities to coerce or strong-arm people into silence and submission, while engaging in such activities that deprive others of the fruits of their livelihood, seems to me to be motivation by the Feds to proceed with a RICO investigation.

    The extortion, then, goes beyond the speech issue, and may be an actionable offense.

  103. Donation sent this AM. Will repeat as available. Money well spent to support an honourable man against an egotistical vengeful person. I would be concerned if this case is heard in BC. Our former premier has been trying to outdo California in enacting idiotic “green” laws. Not sure to what extent he contaminated the provincial courts. Mann should not feel too comfortable with the backing he’s getting in Canada. That ancient old hippy Suzuki has totally lost it and Stroumboulopolos has his own problems.

  104. Should I call the people I know at Koch? Soros sock puppets claim Koch has bought the planet.
    Mann is going to hurt himself. It is incredibly far fetched for Mann to show damages.

  105. Before you rush to donate your hard-earned money, you might want to check up on the comments by Phil. and Nick Stokes, and ask Dr. Ball some important questions. This article and “interview” make no mention of Tim Ball’s previous failed lawsuit brought against Dan Johnson and the Calgary Herald (!) for libel.

  106. Donation sent.
    Someone needs to make a stand and we should be prepared to stand behind him.

  107. I’ve just contributed $100 Canadian to Tim Ball’s defense fund, and encourage everyone to do the same. Truth will be an absolute defense here, I believe. Besides, the statement in question (and I admit I’m not a practitioner in Canadian law, only Texas law) is not and does not appear in itself to be defamatory; it is also the expression of an opinion in regards to a public figure in a matter of public concern. But Canadian law doesn’t ever seem to respect free speech these days.

  108. Please keep us informed on how Dr Ball’s doing money wise. These things can go on and on. If we need to hit the button again later….

    Like so many, we owe him (and you) a lot.

    Thanks for posting this.

  109. It is heartening to see so many others also donating to help with Dr. Ball’s defense. Denying someone their right to free speech is absolutely deplorable. Trying to shut them up because you disagree with what they are saying is un-democratic.

    I sent $100 Canadian a few minutes ago. Paypal told me thats about $107 USD.

    I’ve bookmarked his site and will make additional donations if needed and as the case progresses.

    Lets all hope that where Cuccinelli has yet to succeed, that Dr. Ball will. We may yet finally see what is in those emails and other records!

  110. smarm·y/ˈsmärmē/
    Adjective: Ingratiating and wheedling in a way that is perceived as insincere or excessive; unctuous.

    This is a little off subject……but, everytime I see this particular photo of Mann….well.

  111. I had already donated….but slightly reluctantly. Tim Ball may be right, but his language always was a bit wild. A bit silly to give people even the opportunity to sue.
    (P.S. I am an ex-lawyer, so have a slightly jaundiced opinion on this!)

  112. “Nick Stokes says:
    April 8, 2011 at 4:08 pm
    Double standards here aplenty. This “72 year old pensioner” himself sued numerous parties because Dr Dan Johnson had suggested that he (Ball) was not really a climatologist.”

    Actually, the way I read it, Dan Johnson publicly implied that Tim Ball really didn’t have a Ph.D. or somehow was in possession of a Ph.D. which really wasn’t a Ph.D., although it actually was…? That was why Johnson was sued.

    On the other hand, it would appear that lack of a Ph.D. is quite all right if you are a lead author for the IPCC:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-strange-case-of-sari-kovats/

    or

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/peer-into-the-heart-of-the-ipcc-find-greenpeace/

    However, if you don’t have the “right kind” of Ph.D. and you are a retired professor from Winnipeg and AGW skeptic, this is sign of malfeasance?

    What was that about that double standard Nick?

    Cheque is in the mail.

  113. A hundred of those Canadian dollars (“loonies”? Whose idea was that!) on the way…

    FD

  114. Looks like a Scopes monkey trial all over again. Science vs faith.

    I predict that this will be less like the Ascent of Mann, and more like the Decline and Fall of the Ro-Mann Empire by a Gibbon. Could be quite a show.

    .

  115. Elizabeth (not the queen) says: April 8, 2011 at 8:46 am

    There are so many things wrong here I don’t even know where to begin. First, whatever suffering Mann is enduring is of his own doing. Nobody forced him to participate in the events leading to his own very public humiliation of which many, not just Dr. Ball, have publicly commented on.

    I’ve long maintained that what Mann needed was peer review by a group of my “peers” in a jury. But strategically this is suicide by Mann. The whole defence has got to be that Mann is responsible for his own appalling reputation – which is undeniable unless he suddenly starts claiming the emails weren’t his, and then it seems fair comment to say such behaviour ought to be a crime – that is just a statement of what the law should be – that those who try to mislead the public by “hiding the decline” should be locked up. It is also very clear that he actively passed of correspondence which was part of a conspiracy to break the law of FOI in Britain. That in itself may arguably not be a criminal offence in the US, but again you could easily argue that it should be an offence and so someone in that position should be locked up.

  116. well when Climategate occurred I started to look into the evidence substantiating AGW and non AGW
    And I found Dr Ball’s articles most illuminating
    I’m donating a large amount (for me) and will continue donating
    I do thank the scientists including of course Dr Ball who were not influenced by the money trail
    and they deserve support

  117. TIM good luck we have to bring this giant fraud to a end Tim please do not worry the whole world will be following this case

  118. T.C. says: April 9, 2011 at 12:20 am

    No, according to Ball’s statement of claim that I linked, Johnson said:
    “newspapers ought to report factual summaries of authors credentials. You note he ‘was the first climatology PhD in Canada and worked as a professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg.’

    Ball received a PhD in geography in the UK in 1982 on a topic in historical climatology. Canada already had PhDs in climatology and it is important to recognize them in their research.”

    And he goes on to say what Ball’s employment status was – not a prof for 28 years, and the claim does not appear to say that he’s wrong.

    So there you have it – Ball suing someone who said that his PhD wasn’t really climatology and he wasn’t the first, and here an outcry over Mann suing about Ball saying that he should be in jail and accusing him of criminal misconduct. And Mann’s the bully boy?

  119. Well some good news from the UK. The Press Complaints Commission has not upheld a complaint by UEA against Telegraph blogger James Delingpole:

    “To its enormous credit the PCC stuck up for fair comment and freedom of speech. This is a massive victory not just for me and Telegraph blogs, but for bloggers everywhere…”

  120. Clearly – and not without some measure of irony – Mann and Weaver have chosen to take a leaf from the book of denier par excellence, David “I see you, I sue you” Irving.

    David Irving, a major promulgator and purveyor of Holocaust denier drivel, has never been known to be reticent in the “free speech for me, but not for thee” department (viz, inter alia, Irving vs Penguin Books & Deborah Lipstadt). Nor, it would seem, are Mann and Weaver.

    Dr. Ball, I don’t always agree with your approach (btw, in the interest of truth in responding to questions … Stroumboulopoulos gets CBC airtime 5 days a week, not merely weekly), but I do respect your commitment and I shall contribute to your defense of these ludicrous bullying by frivolous lawsuit attempts on the part of Mann and Weaver.

    Elsewhere in this thread , some have mentioned that the bar for requiring discovery in a Canadian libel suit is a $50,000 claim of damages. Even a very smal claim of damages in a wrongful dismissal suit does not preclude discovery proceedings, It may well be that in some instances, the legal fees incurred by a defendant -up to and including discovery – could amount to $50,000.00.

    I could be wrong (it has been known to happen!) but even here in beautiful BC -with all the travesties of natural justice that have been perpetrated over the years – I do not believe that there is such a $50,000 stipulation before discovery kicks in on libel suit claims.

  121. The ONLY reason Mann feels powered to sue for libel is because not enough scientists have been prepared to stand up and speak out against what happened. Thus you get theb Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government saying weasel words such as “I have never sought to defend the Hockey stick … ” when he ought to have been denouncing it in no uncertain terms.

    That’s why I back Tim Ball.

  122. Frederick Davies says:
    … (“loonies”? Whose idea was that!)
    //–//–//–//

    It wasn’t supposed to be that way as the original dies for the first one-dollar banknote replacement, the one-dollar coin were “lost” in transit, and that design didn’t have a loon on it but a canoe laden with furs and two men inside. An alternative design, featuring a loon on on side (and one might say on both sides if Prince Charles had become king) was the alternate that was choosen. Didn’t want someone making their own Canadian one-dollar coins (now worth about $1.04 us).
    We also have the “toonie” coin.

  123. Well, let’s hope the Koch brothers are reading this site and decide to push the donate button real hard. They have been libelled so many times it would have to feel good to give some back. If I were them I would fund the entire defense and possibly go after Mann with a counter-suit.

  124. Whilst any libel suit will depend upon its own special facts (and of course, the law of the forum in which it is being decided), perhaps Mr Ball’s attorneys should read and consider:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/

    Phil Jones/the UEA pursued various complaints in front of the Press Complainst Commission regarding various statements made by James Delingpole and posted on his Daily Telegraph Blog post. The Press Complaints Commission dismissed Phil Jones/the UES’s complaints and basically held that what Delingpole had blogged was fair comment. It is a finding which upholds free speech.

    I do not know enough about the action against Mr Ball but it may be that similar principles apply and whilst the ruling of the Press Complaints Commission is in no way binding it is indicative as to the approach that should be taken in journalistic matters.

  125. “….Mann should be in the state pen, not Penn State….” –that’s hilarious! This Mann fellow must have absolutely ZERO sense of humor…..my my, isn’t he the touchy one?

    Guess I’ll cancel my planned mail parcel to Mann’s office of a “horizontal striped suit with matching cap” gift…..

  126. Some of you having been jumping to conclusions concerning my comments about discovery and the$50G bar. I have not seen the statement of claim in this case, so cannot speak to whether discovery is on the table in this case or not. My comments were intended to reflect the general case and frequent use of the defamation to suppress public comments: SLAPP (strategic legal action to prevent (public) participation) suits.

    Nick Stokes tried to bring up the issue of prior suits in which Ball was a plaintiff, but it needs to be said that they are immaterial to the facts of the matter in this case. This case, like any other before the courts, must stand on its own merits. Ball is not the plaintiff here. The schoolyard antics may be shared by both sides, but Ball didn’t raise the bar in this file. This is, in no uncertain terms, a SLAPP suit.

    And Eadler, I don’t know what BC bud you might be smoking, but Canada and Canadians are nothing like you describe, of this I can guarantee you. We can be as slimy and singularly obtuse as anyone in the western world; its just that there are fewer of us, so we don’t catch notice as often. Being forthright, demure and obsequious makes a great cover :).

  127. Nick Stokes, you can have all the discovery in the Ball v. Johnson case. Just let me have all the discovery in the Mann v. Ball case.
    =============

  128. Donation happily made.

    Question for the AGW cheerleaders here: how does forcing your opponent (The Calgary Herald) into publishing a retraction letter constitute a failed law suit? Friendly advice for the sake of your own credibility: stop your vapid whinging and nudge-wink insinuations. People here are not as stupid as you believe, or as susceptible to the mindless propaganda you are so eager to swallow.

    I’m going to donate an additional dollar for every piece of desperate muck raking I read about Tim Ball in these comments. Good luck to him. Hopefully the UK Press Complaints Commission ruling against UEA will give him heart.

  129. On 23 June 1988, NASA’s Dr James Hansen gave testimony to the US Congress alerting the public that global warming was underway and he gave warning of unprecedented runaway global warming if Co2 emissions were to continue rising.

    Have global warming alarmists checked the latest satellite temperature data at the following link?

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

    How ironic, that despite rising CO2 levels since 1988, the global average temperature (AGT) at March 2011 was lower than the 1988 AGT. In fact, the temperature is on a par with the 1980 AGT.

    Is this not the empirical evidence that debunks the IPCC’s mantra… so simple yet so elegantly effective?

    I say to Tim Ball, you have the truth on your side… you can hold your head up high and with pride… for over the last three decades, there clearly has not been any global warming, despite a significant increase of Co2 in the atmosphere.

  130. “Due to the extra attention Dr. Mann has attracted with the lawsuit, the exposure of the phrase is now far and above what it was when originally posted on the Canadian website. I didn’t even know of it until the lawsuit was announced.”

    Somebody should include this story in the Wikipedia page on the Streisand Effect.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

  131. I’ve been doing a bit of digging on the 50G threshold issue I mentioned above, and as one might expect, its likely much more complicated than that. The 50G figure arose out of a widely discussed joint action from an Ontario lawyer against a number of bloggers. Since this is an issue of procedural court rules, it varies with the province and the specific court jurisdictions and statutes involved. In Ontario, apparently, courts have imposed procedural rules which limit discoveries in civil tort cases under $100,000 claim at the provincial bar to no written interrogatories and a 2 hour limit to oral interrogatories (discovery). Other provinces may have other rules in this regard. Discoveries may not ordinarily request documentation not directly associated with issues foundational to the statement of claim, ie, no fishing for evidence to support the defendant that is not referenced or directly alluded to by the claim. Therefore, it can be difficult to bring related material into a discovery process that speaks to the larger issue on which the claim is based, unless the claim directly addresses it. Herein lies part of the heart of a SLAPP suit – carefully worded claims can effectively bar the defendant from obtaining a true defence where there are deeper issues at the heart. The remedy is a motion for a Norwich order to produce documentation, but you’re now in the realm of rapidly expanding court and legal costs. In Canada, Quebec is the only jurisdiction which has anti-SLAPP suit legislation on the books, apparently. BC had an anti-SLAPP statute but repealed it only about 6 months after it was passed.

  132. Donation gladly made. However, I now feel a tinge of guilt that I’ve given as much to Dr. Ball’s legal defense as I gave to the Canadian Red Cross for Japan disaster relief. Time to head over to redcross.ca to give again.

  133. David Ball says:
    April 8, 2011 at 7:15 pm
    Perhaps Phil. would be kind enough to tell the truth about what happened between Tim Ball and Dan Johnson. Perhaps he would be kind enough to tell us where Dan Johnson teaches and what he teaches. Then maybe he could show us the retraction printed by the Calgary Herald. You should not believe ANYTHING that is written on DesmogBlog, should you Phil. To me it seems that DesmogBlog can dish it out, but they cannot take it. Soon it will be time to established how much damage these people have done to Dr. Ball’s career. That’s gonna leave a mark!!

    Actually I didn’t read DesmoBlog, I read the court papers. Tim Ball claimed to have been a Professor at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years rather than the actual 8 years. He obtained his B.A. in 1970, 26 years before his retirement in 1996, in other words he claimed to have been a Prof while an undergrad! Sounds like an inflated resume to me. The damage to his reputation results from that.

  134. Given that Mann has done nothing under PA or VA law (that we know of) that could land him in the State Pen, Ball would do well to publicly retract his little witicism, apologizing to Mann if anyone misunderstood his joke and took it literally. Then he should thank Mann for giving it so much publicity! :-)

  135. I can report that Tim is overcome with emotion at the support and monies already given generously by the good folks on WUWT. Tim is especially grateful to Anthony for his even-handedness in this contentious matter. WUWT readers alone have already given in excess of $7,000, a not insignificant sum in these hard times.
    In response to Nick Stokes who commented: “Ball received a PhD in geography in the UK in 1982 on a topic in historical climatology,” I asked Dr. Ball to show me his Ph.D Diploma from the University of London. It says clearly that Ball’s Field of Study was “Climatology” and the thesis was entitled, ” Climatic Change in Central Canada: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forte at Yorke Factory and Churchill Factory. 1714-1852.”
    Sadly, Mr. Stokes hasn’t checked his facts or is cynically doing a good man down.
    The goal is to raise $200,000 for Tim’s legal fund. So we have a long way to go yet. But even if Tim’s supporters cannot donate themselves they would be performing a huge service by spreading the word to others who they feel may be able to donate. We feel sure there are wealthy folk out there, who in all conscience would certainly help if they knew of Tim’s circumstances.
    Indeed, for larger sums Tim’s lawyer will agree in writing to reimburse donors in the event the court awards Tim legal costs and damages. Also, all U.S. donors wishing to make a tax deductible donation via a registered charity should contact Tim’s Canadian lawyers,‘Pearlman Lindholm’ and send attention: ‘Tim Ball Legal Fund’, 201 – 19 Dallas Road, Victoria BC, Canada, V8V 5A6

  136. Mann is corrupting science by coercively seeking to silence a scientist supporting another theory rather than addressing the evidence. As a scientist/engineer, I condemn Mann’s cowardly base attack.

    Mann is a [snip] for attacking a pensioner, destroying his meager savings, and driving him into bankruptcy, while hiding behind a safe secure job. Mann’s lawsuit against Dr. Ball is politically motivated. Those backing Mann are the more contemptible.

    Please help Dr. Ball and write to Mann at mann@psu.edu.

  137. So much for this McConchie guy being a top notch lawyer. He can’t even get basic pleadings right. (I have been a solicitor for many years here in the UK and have trained many newly qualified and trainee lawyers over the years – given up the law now I’m getting older, though). The pleadings refer to the “Ball Words” but do not define anywhere in the pleadings what these are (they are previously referred to as the “Ball Interview”) – very sloppy and something that a rookie lawyer would be expected to have got out of his/her system before he/she qualified. If this is the measure of this guy’s attention to detail then he isn’t that good!!

    Also, note from the pleadings:

    “Express Malice

    The defendants published the defamatory expression for which each is responsible with the knowledge that the meanings conveyed by that expression were false, or alternatively, with reckless indifference whether they were true or false, and/or for the predominant purpose of harming the plaintiff and exposing him to hatred, ridicule, and contempt, lowering the plaintiff in the estimation of others, and causing him to be shunned and avoided.”

    I appreciate that the action rests on an interpretation of Dr Ball’s intention or his recklessness, but we should make it absolutely clear that there was no risk of Dr Mann being damaged in the way stated – i.e that the damage claimed could not have flowed from the statement.

    Accordingly we can help Dr Ball even if we don’t contribute financially. We should all write to Dr Ball (and send a copy to Mann’s lawyers) and explain that Dr Ball’s comment(s) about Dr Mann do not have the damaging effect alleged in the pleadings. We are included in the “others” in whose estimation Dr Mann is apprently lowered. In our letters we should state that these comments cannot lower Dr Mann in our estimation since he is already, based on our own knowledge, lowered in our estimation to the maximum extent. If we can produce thousands and thousands of letters like this it will help. I am sending mine to Dr Ball and to Dr Mann’s lawyers today.

  138. On reflection I wonder if there’s a practice in Canadian law to refer to the “Words” as an understood reference, in common usage in Canadian defamation law, so my criticism might not be founded. Anyway, the rest of my suggestion holds in any event.

    All thebest, all

  139. See: Climatologist Timothy Ball sends PhD to Canada Free Press
    Dr. Ball stated:

    I have a PhD in Geography with a specific focus on historical climatology from the University of London (England), Queen Mary College, . . .
    I used the remarkable records of the Hudson’s Bay Company to reconstruct climate change from 1714-1952 in large areas of Canada. The title of my doctoral thesis, placed in the public record at the library of Queen Mary College, university of London, England in 1983 is Climatic Change in Central Canada: A preliminary analysis of weather information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forts at York Factory and Churchill Factory, 1714-1850.

    Dr. Ball’s hard science is gaining traction:
    “Thousands of letters of support flooded CFP when Dr. Ball’s article, Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts? was posted on Monday’s Drudge Report. In the space of two days, CFP received 1 million page views courtesy of Drudge.”

  140. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all those who have contributed and understand the significance of the case. Words do not convey what this means to our family who have fought very hard to be heard in spite of the almost insurmountable road blocks put in the way. We thank you all from the bottom of our hearts.

  141. Phil is being misleading and using the “full professor” identification. The 28 years is accurate. Sorry.

  142. David Ball says:
    April 9, 2011 at 10:43 am
    Phil is being misleading and using the “full professor” identification. The 28 years is accurate. Sorry.

    Really, he was a Professor before obtaining his B.A.?

  143. Ah Nicky my boy, you are cherry picking the statement of claim in the Johnson situation…

    And by the way, “professor” is a designation and position title arrived at through collective bargaining between whatever union represents university professors on Canadian campuses and their management. Just like the title “research scientist” has absolutely no meaning unless you are trying to make an appeal to authority (or work for Greenpiece). And a publication record as long as your leg means nothing if it is full of contrived crap, like for instance IPCC models of AGW effects.

    Heck, I’ve worked with a “research scientist” who had nothing but a B.Sc. to his name (and had a respectable publication record to boot) and with technicians who had earned their post-docs. Plenty of Canadian campuses used people with B.A.s as professors in the past and all universities think nothing of tenured professors handing over their teaching duties to grad students – who are essentially un-tenured professors without a graduate degree. If Dr. Ball started out teaching with an undergrad degree and worked his way up to a Ph.D. – well that’s just fine as far as I am concerned. It earns him more respect from me because I have seen a lot of tenured professors without graduate degrees (as well as minimally credentialed unionized government “research scientists”) just sit on their fundament until retirement. However, to suggest publicly that this process was somehow second rate, or wasn’t valid as a means of credentialing Dr. Ball and use this argument as a means of detracting from Dr. Balls skeptical arguements, which is what Johnson did – well, this is simply an ad hominen and richly deserves a defamation suit.

    Also Nick, are you stating publicly in your comments above that Dr. Ball wasn’t a professor for 28 years? Careful now – you don’t want to get too SLAPP happy.

  144. Hi again all. Here is the text of the email I have sent to Dr Mann, ccd to his lawyers and to Dr Ball’s lawyers. I strongly urge like minded people to do likewise.

    To: mann@psu.edu
    CCd to: nphilpott@pearlmanlindholm.com; mcconchie@libelandprivacy.com

    Dear Dr Mann,

    I am writing to you in respect of your lawsuit against Dr Ball and others.

    I wish to place on record, and am copying this email to your lawyer and to Dr Ball’s lawyer, (hoping that many people do likewise), to let you know that Dr Ball’s allegedly defamatory remark(s) about you have no impact whatsoever on my regard for you.

    I and my family are widely read and informed on climate science and have taken a particular interest in your work.

    Regardless of any finding by the court about Dr Ball’s intentions or alleged recklessness I wish to make clear to you that it is not possible for any remarks by any individual to place you in any less regard than you are already held by me, my wife, and my adult son.

    The fact that a person who has never met you, will never meet you, and who lives many thousands of miles away from where you live and work and who has no affiliations whatever that could be criticised by you or axe to grind in any respect, feels compelled to make their position clear to you should give you a clear insight into the regard with which you are held by us, and I firmly believe by many around the world.

    Yours sincerely,

    Richard XXXXXXXX
    LL.B.(Hons.), PG Dip.
    Solicitor (Non-practising)

    [Address details]

    Note:
    To Pearlman Lindholm – please make this email available to the lawyer dealing with the above case and I give full permission for this email to be included in any trial bundle or other evidence presented in the above case.

  145. Speaking of donations by commenteres here, is there an update on the farming family in Australia?

  146. John O’Sullivan says:April 9, 2011 at 9:51 am

    “In response to Nick Stokes who commented: “Ball received a PhD in geography in the UK in 1982 on a topic in historical climatology,” I asked Dr. Ball to show me his Ph.D Diploma from the University of London. It says clearly that Ball’s Field of Study was “Climatology” and the thesis was entitled, ” Climatic Change in Central Canada: A Preliminary Analysis of Weather Information from the Hudson’s Bay Company Forte at Yorke Factory and Churchill Factory. 1714-1852.”
    Sadly, Mr. Stokes hasn’t checked his facts or is cynically doing a good man down.”

    John, it’s your facts that are astray. Firstly, it wasn’t my comment. I was quoting from Dr Ball’s earlier court submission, where he attributed the claim to Dr Johnson (and made it the basis of his lawsuit). Secondly, I actually can’t see any difference between the statement you quoted and your expanded version.

    But in any case, I’m not concerned with the actual issue of Ball’s professorship. I’m addressing your ridiculous characterisation of the case as a poor pensioner set upon by a big bad scientist. I’m contrasting the triviality of the case which Ball pursued against Johnson with the clearly damaging things he said about Mann.

  147. Mr Stokes,
    Clearly you have something in your eyes if you cannot see a key difference in the statements above. From my own certified copy, which to me looks perfectly genuine and will, of course, be part of Tim’s submission in his evidence bundle, Queen Mary’s College specifically certify that it is “in the Field of Climatology” that Dr. Ball has been eminently qualified for decades.
    I sense this irks your sensibilities but there it is. Thus anyone who imputes that Ball is not a Doctor of Climatology is defaming him.
    No doubt, if the tables were turned and Ball was as censorious of academic free speech and thin-skinned as Mann then Ball could have sued untold alarmist critics who, for decades, repeated the far more damaging lie that Ball falsely claimed he was a climatologist.
    But as we know, Tim Ball is a 72-year-old pensioner bled of the last of his savings and without Mann or Weaver’s deep-pocketed ‘Big Green’ friends eager to toss away $$$$,$$$’s from their “charitable donations” on two cynically timed and vexatious lawsuits. But if you have proof that what I’ve said is untrue then please relay your ‘evidence’ to Mann’s lawyer.
    As we stand, with the increasing awareness of the strength of Ball’s legal arguments, a groundswell of support is building a fund to help him obtain justice. Why don’t you simply reserve judgment, grab a box of popcorn and make yourself comfortable in your chair and watch Mann, Weaver, the IPCC and the David Suzuki Foundation crash and burn at trial.

  148. Nick, the people damaged by the Piltdown Mann’s work think his suit is trivial. It is compared to the damage they’ve sustained.
    =====================

  149. Funny story regarding the defamation suit against Johnson. The lawyer, who was Calgary based by the way, said to my father, ” Why don’t you just call up some of your buddies and ask for the money (to continue litigation)?” Not quite sure what he meant, dad asked “What buddies are you referring to?” The lawyer had actually assumed that there was going to be oodles of coin from “Big Oil”. The suit never actually went to court due to lack of funds, but was declared a victory to anyone who would listen by Johnson and DesmogBlog. They were hoping that no one would find out the truth. As is evidenced above, some people actually bought into that. The web is truly tangled.

  150. MapleLeaf says:
    March 9, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    Karmel @4,

    Going by the facts, I can only assume that you are referring to Mosher and Watts being busted (again) for lying and slandering respected climate scientists. Time to also ask Watts who Steven Goddard really is.

    Time for someone to take legal action against these SOBs (including Inhofe) for damages. and if Inhofe did leak confidential material surely that is actionable. This really does show how truly desperate Watts, Mosher, McIntyre, Morano and Inhofe are.

    Jim @9,

    Weaver has sued, but there has been no decision yet, so it also premature to say he has been “successful”. that said, it did send a very strong message to the media to get their facts right and address the real issues instead of libelling people and spreading lies. The tone of the media has improved as a result of Weaver’s brave actions.

    I urge anyone who is interested in understanding the “Weaver effect” to google “MapleLeaf” and “Andrew Weaver”. You should begin to understand the relationships between the parties involved in the current suit. I think this is just a test case for bigger game, and Watts and McIntyre are the target.

  151. Hey, Nick, go see what Steve’s just published about the conspiracy to protect the hockey stick. These pretended damages to Mann utterly pale in comparison to the damage wrought by this crew conspiring to hoax the world about the hockey stick. You are naive if you think there won’t be attempts to redress this. You should be careful who you defend, lest you get covered with some of their slime.
    ==========================

  152. John O’Sullivan says: April 9, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    “Thus anyone who imputes that Ball is not a Doctor of Climatology is defaming him.”
    John, your “facts” are really getting dotty. Ball is not a “Doctor of Climatology”. That’s not defaming him – I’m sure he doesn’t claim to be. He doesn’t have a PhD “diploma” either.

    I’ll say it again – I was raising this lawsuit to point out the bizarre world in which it’s unreasonable for Mann to sue over being called a criminal (and I believe the headline on Ball’s website about Mann’s criminal misconduct is actually from you), but it’s OK for Ball to sue an academic over the correct description of the topic of his PhD.

    But if T.C. and David Ball really want to argue that disputing the claim that TB was a prof for 28 years is defamatory, they could help by just giving some numbers. When is it claimed that he became a prof? Where?

  153. Sorry, quote above was from Climate Progress article “Inhofe, Horner, McIntyre and Watts fabricate another phony “despicable smear” against Michael Mann
    March 9, 2011″ The last paragraph was mine.

  154. .
    .
    Funny thing about the “Streisand Effect”: not only can it start to involve double-exponential statistics of extremes with regard to numbers, it also encourages those who have donated (or promised to) to donate more when they read the silly negative comments.

    Paraphrasing a poster above, “I’m a big-cheese, and I don’t care what Mann has done, might do, could do, should have done, I’ll stick with him come hell or high water. And the point of my remark is that I’m a big-cheese, and realists aren’t.”

    What is more interesting here, perhaps, than the “Streisand Effect” is the well known “Herd Effect”, now almost implicit or explicit in many university curricula. Graduates from our “schools” of higher learning often demonstrate their mimesis with exceptional clarity.

    I’ll say it again… Dr. Ball is a good guy, a really good guy. As for the Weaver, Mann, Suzuki types, well, it doesn’t take much reading or observing to make an opinion.
    .
    .

  155. David Ball says:

    “As is evidenced above, some people actually bought into that.”

    I believe the general definition is that because a lot is the number of people who wants to be told what’s what instead of having the courage to actually taking the time to read for themselves so as to do their own thinking for themselves.

    Personally I call em crazed hippies that wouldn’t stand up for themselves, let alone anyone else, if nobody “authoritarian” told ‘em to.

  156. From Deltoid:
    “Thanks Stewart @148.

    Aah, yes Tim Ball. The man just does not know when to stop discrediting himself– even the uber right wing Calgary Herald won’t touch him after the fiasco you referred to. Most recent example of Ball shooting himself in the foot was when he spoke to students at UofVic in Canada. Ball was expecting a gullible and friendly crowd, was he ever wrong. The students set him straight.

    IMHO, Dr. Weaver has a solid case. There are just so many blatant falsehoods in Corcoran’s and Foster’s pieces that it will be difficult for the judge to dismiss all of them. These “journalists” should be fired. Gunter too. And maybe that will happen if and when the Toronto Star buys out the NP.

    Posted by: MapleLeaf | April 24, 2010 5:08 PM”

  157. Fro Real Climate “O’Donnellgate” Feb 2011 by Eric Steig

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/02/odonnellgate/

    “MapleLeaf says:
    9 Feb 2011 at 4:59 PM

    Shouldn’t the quoted text read as follows (see square brackets for suggested changes)?

    “will help more people see what the steadily growing list of other scientists who’ve been [falsely] accused by McIntyre”

    and

    “to speculate that their may be truth in the [false] allegations made over the years against Mike Mann…”

    Wish we could see those emails sent to Eric from the CA gang….

    What a mess….if this had played out in Canada, Eric would have grounds to sue for libel.

    [Response: As I may well do. I’m a Canuck, it turns out.–eric]”

  158. From

    https://shewonk.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/denial-chum-curry-style/

    MapleLeaf says on Jan 21 2011
    “J Bowers,

    Alas, I do not think Weaver’s case has been decided. The article Willard linked to was a groveling (but sincere it seems) apology by the CFP for allowing a piece to go to print in which Tim Ball made libelous and fallacious statements about Weaver. And I see that Stephen McIntyre is only too happy to allow people to make equally defamatory and false statements about Weaver on his blog. By doing so, McIntyre is endorsing what Tim Ball is saying, not to mention aiding and abetting him.

    Re Steig and O’Donnell– now, now J Bowers had McIntyre stated what you suggest he would have been speaking the truth, and you know he does not do that very much ;)”

  159. Quoting MapleLeaf at Deltoid, Policy Lass, and Real Climate.

    hengav, you are so credible. I can’t stand it.
    ================

  160. Besides the ‘censored file’, besides the evidence Steve has of a conspiracy to support the hockey stick and to ‘hide the decline’, there is also email evidence of Mann being complicit in a conspiracy to delete emails and foil FOIA requests.

    There is a pattern of behaviour for which the legal device of discovery was tailor made. Michael Mann may well be faced with dropping this suit, or incriminating himself further.

    I think this lawsuit is evidence of further breakdown of Mann’s morale. This suit is a big mistake, and he is ill advised to pursue it. I’d feel sorry for him if I didn’t feel sorrier for his victims.
    ===========

  161. By the way, any here who are not familiar with SheWonk, the Policy Lass, please follow hengav’s link @ 4:11 PM. This post, about Judith Curry, is a particularly scurrilous introduction to the Policy Lass and her trained puppies. Read it, and weep for them.
    ===============

  162. kim says: April 9, 2011 at 3:36 pm

    OK, Kim, I read it. Can you please give a brief summary of who actually did what? A haiku will do, but be precise.

  163. T.C. says:
    April 9, 2011 at 11:01 am
    Heck, I’ve worked with a “research scientist” who had nothing but a B.Sc. to his name (and had a respectable publication record to boot) and with technicians who had earned their post-docs. Plenty of Canadian campuses used people with B.A.s as professors in the past and all universities think nothing of tenured professors handing over their teaching duties to grad students – who are essentially un-tenured professors without a graduate degree. If Dr. Ball started out teaching with an undergrad degree and worked his way up to a Ph.D. – well that’s just fine as far as I am concerned. It earns him more respect from me

    Well the timeline of his career means that to have taught at U of Winnipeg for 28 years means that he started teaching before he received his B.A., remarkable even with your rather elastic definition of a professor. Of course that would also mean that he was a professor there while earning his M.A. at the U of Manitoba and PhD at Queen Mary College.

    hengav says:
    April 9, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    Weaver has sued, but there has been no decision yet, so it also premature to say he has been “successful”.

    Unless the following is a forgery Ball published an apology to Weaver for “untrue statements about Dr Andrew Weaver” about a month ago.

    http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/current/ApologyFromTimBall.pdf

    David Ball says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:55 pm
    They were hoping that no one would find out the truth. As is evidenced above, some people actually bought into that.

    Based on the court papers it was your father who was “hoping that no one would find out the truth”, and a court who couldn’t subtract 70 from 96.

  164. Amino acids in meteorites,
    Jo Nova has a recent up date, they are still on their farm and will get their day in court. Some heads will roll if they win. Then they will have the right to sue for compensation.

  165. Nick

    The difference between Ball suing Johnson vs. Weaver (with the late addition of Mann) suing Ball?

    Three words Nick – “hide the decline.”

    Upon those words rest the following policy that has gouged B.C. taxpayers:

    1) A billion dollars in taxes spent by a scientifically illiterate premier on provincial government “greenhouse” initiatives in 2008 – 2009;

    2) Twenty-five million tax dollars spent on Pacific Carbon Trust, a carbon credit trading scam with no oversight, much like the defunct Chicago carbon exchange and the mafia infested European carbon exchange;

    3) The establishment of a $95 million provincial government slush fund for well- connected AGW activists, again with no oversight (perhaps it is being used for lawsuits?);

    4) A further 6 cents a litre gasoline tax on top of what I am already paying for a litre of gasoline.

    Not to mention all the AGW lobbyists infesting local government and being paid with tax dollars.

    My bet is still on Tim Ball.

  166. Three words come to mind. Grasping at straws. Sorta sad really. Why not debate the science instead of grasping at straws. What is the motivation to crush someone who just wants equal time? Unless it is not about the science. Nick?

  167. All this because climate scientists have been unable (unwilling? ) to list the uncertainties of their work. At least not where Joe Public can see it. Is this not the crux of the matter? It is unethical to bury the uncertainties, or worse, pretend they don’t exist.

  168. Donation moving through the ether now. Took an undergrad course from Dr. Ball at the U of W a number of years ago. Great guy who cared about his students and even facilitated summer job interviews with prospective employers.

    Dr. Ball contributed to my learning many years ago. Hopefully this donation (and potentially others to follow) will assist him in his fight to protect all of us from those who politicize and abuse the justice system.

    DLTBSGYD Dr. Ball.

    Regards,

  169. David Ball says: April 9, 2011 at 8:14 pm

    “Why not debate the science instead of grasping at straws. What is the motivation to crush someone who just wants equal time? Unless it is not about the science. Nick?”
    David, the case is not about debating science. The case is about your father’s proposal that Mann should be in the state penitentiary.

  170. Nick, have you ever read what has been printed about my father? Shall I trot some out for you? Your boyos are gonna have to grow a few extra layers of dermis. Total legal frivolity.

  171. Actually Phil, the definition of professor IS rather elastic, and although I wish I could take credit for the definition, I really can’t do so:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor

    Tell you what, why don’t you start dealing with the statement of claim from the current lawsuit between Ball and Weaver instead of trying to deflect attention onto a meaningless issue? Then lets see where that goes! I (as well as the other two people left in this string) am getting tired of your rather limited quibble over whether someone was called professor, sessional instructor, lecturer, reader or whatever. If you think it is such an issue, why not sue Ball yourself? And then come back and tell us how it went.

    Now I must get back to my professing on other blogs around the planet.

    Herr Doktor Professor T.C., lecturer to AGW wankers.

  172. What about the term “denier”? A less slanderous there is not!!! Suzuki called my father a denier in the media eons ago. You call us all “deniers”. JFK Jr. has called for skeptics imprisonment countless times.

  173. David Ball says:
    April 9, 2011 at 2:55 pm

    As is evidenced above, some people actually bought into that.

    Don’t worry, Phil.’s just not smart enough. It’s not his fault.

    Nick, either, apparently.

    Mark

  174. How would you feel if the shoe were on the other foot and you were the one whose research went against the “consensus”? You would hope that your voice were to at least be heard and the evidence weighed fairly. Wouldn’t you?

  175. I have been following Dr. Ball for some time now. It’s too bad that there are so few scientists with the gumption to tell the truth about the climate change industry. I applaud all those who do so. Dr. Ball deserves our support against the powerful forces that are persecuting him. Donation sent. Good luck.

  176. Steve M does all the time, and he also lives in Canada. However, I think his support base is much larger and, seemingly, he does a better job of keeping away from borderline claims such as these (definitely borderline from what I read about Canadian law, not so much IMO in the US.) Mann is afraid of suing Steve, though he regularly accuses Steve of lying about him… Hypocrite, as usual from the AGW crowd.

    Mark

  177. Will send donation. Keep up the good fight. Common sense and good science may some day prevail. To paraphrase the great physicist/teacher Dr. Richard Feynman (too tired tonight to look up the exact wording) –If you think the science is settled, well, then you are just wrong.

  178. Kristoffer says:
    April 8, 2011 at 6:10 am

    Interesting legal procedures, but why is the word “sceptic” used in this way?

    I’m not sure this group of people and their approach to scientific data would fit well with the group of people I usually see referred to as sceptics: http://www.skeptic.com/

    I too am pained by our sides’ use of that word, as dislike association the the capital-S skeptics covens you mention. I suggest:

    “Climate change” defiers
    (or dissidents, or dissenters, or deviationists, or contrarians)

  179. I was recently served with a notice of legal complaint by the noted law firm Dewey, Cheatum & Howe on behalf of several notable boxes of rocks, based on statements I was alleged to have made comparing their level of intelligence to that of Dr. Michael Mann, which were claimed to have inflicted great emotional distress and grievous reputational harm on said boxes of rocks.
    Since I have no real defense against these allegations, I have agreed, in lieu of financial recompense, to publish the following statement.

    To Boxes of Rocks everywhere;

    You have my sincerest apologies. The statements in question were indeed an uncalled for slur upon yourselves. In the heat of the moment I failed to recognize how unwarranted and unfairly slanderous this comparison was to honest BORS and I promise in the future to be more sensitive and circumspect when attempting to analogize the [snip] Dr. Mann.

  180. Dr. Ball’s comment appears to be more about the state of the law than about Dr. Mann personally. He is basically admitting that Dr. Mann’s conduct wasn’t illegal, but perhaps the law should be different. Since it is common knowledge (even in Canada) that there would have to be a charge, trial and conviction before substantial imprisionment in the US, unless Dr. Ball alleged a pattern of behavior and cited a corresponding statute, if there is any defamation it is of the inadequacies of the law, not of Dr. Mann personally. Furthermore, serving time in prison is not necessarily defamatory, if it was a form of civil disobedience or scientific violation in support of one’s political cause, the the person might actually be acclaimed and lionized as a martyr or person of conscience in the community of that political cause. Dr. Mann is still revered in some circles.

  181. PS: I forgot my favorite alternative to “skeptic” as a name for our side: scorcher-scoffer. (Or scorcher-scam scoffer.)

    I failed to copy edit my post above. I meant to post, “as I dislike association with the capital-S Skeptics covens you mention.”

  182. T.C. says:
    April 9, 2011 at 9:51 pm
    Tell you what, why don’t you start dealing with the statement of claim from the current lawsuit between Ball and Weaver instead of trying to deflect attention onto a meaningless issue? Then lets see where that goes!

    Well that’s easy, Ball told a number of untruths about Weaver, Weaver sued him for defamation and Ball has since published an apology.

    http://futurefastforward.com/images/stories/current/ApologyFromTimBall.pdf

    I (as well as the other two people left in this string) am getting tired of your rather limited quibble over whether someone was called professor, sessional instructor, lecturer, reader or whatever.

    It’s you who’s quibbling about that not I, I said that regardless of the definition of professor Ball’s claim of being a professor at U of Winnipeg for 28 years is nonsense since that would mean that he was a professor before he received his bachelor’s degree!
    Ball basically inflated his resume and when he was called on it in a ‘letter to the editor’ took offence and adopted the Monckton strategy of threatening to sue. However his bluff was called and when he actually sued it was clear that the facts weren’t on his side and he dropped the case.
    Having failed to learn his lesson he published some scurrilous statements about Weaver and was hoist on his own petard when he was sued for defamation and was forced to retract.

  183. eadler says:
    Political polarization is tearing this country apart and causing widespread disaffection and suspicion. The quality of the discussion about global warming is an example.

    Well, that’s what you get when one side’s idea of civil discourse is shutting up the other side.

  184. I am not sure if anyon ehas made this observation as yet but if Mann’s lawsuit is funded by third parties such as the david Suzuki Foundation then in Canada at least this could amount to champery or maintenance which is illegal (but not criminal) such that it would be a bar to Mann bringing the action. It is meant to prevent people with no interest in litigation to fund others to start it. I am not fully versed with the nuances of this somewhat arcane legal principle but it is worth investigation by Dr Ball’s counsel and would hope my e-mail could be brought to his attention.

  185. David Ball says:
    April 9, 2011 at 8:14 pm
    Three words come to mind. Grasping at straws. Sorta sad really. Why not debate the science instead of grasping at straws. What is the motivation to crush someone who just wants equal time?

    Your father couldn’t handle dealing with some students, constantly switching the subject when challenged on his assertions.

  186. If the Suzuki Foundation is found to be funding lawsuits against skeptics, then there will be pressure on the CBC to fire Suzuki. They won’t, but parliment may well force it.

  187. David Ball says:
    April 10, 2011 at 2:26 pm
    Nice try, Phil. Let’s just wait and see, shall we?

    Wait for what?

  188. Someone said that you have to set up a Paypal account to donate. This is not correct.

    But if you have had a Paypal account in the past, you must use a different credit card and different email address.

    You will be invited to open a Paypal account after you donate, but you can just close the tab or window.

  189. Nick Stokes clearly knows zip about libel and assumes that I don’t either (!). With such an asinine comment that Ball is not a “Doctor of Climatology” and he doesn’t have a PhD speaks volumes. I have let it be known to Dr. Ball that I am available to prosecute those who persist in defaming him like this. It will be like shooting fish in a barrel if this is the caliber of armchair lawyer telling real attorneys how the law works.

  190. I fear Phil has totally mischaracterized the legal matters he addresses above. Dr. Ball is vigorously defending himself against Andrew Weaver and Michael Mann. I am assisting him in these matters and I can advise you that we are extremely confident of winning both claims. Moreover, such is our belief that both Weaver and Mann have profited unduly and have mislead the public about the validity of their scientific claims, I am personally of the opinion that Dr. Ball will win counterclaims against them and expose them publicly as ill-principled scaremongers. If Ball’s legal fund continues to rise to the level we now hope it will (thanks to grassroots public support) then this will certainly become a more feasible prospect.

  191. John O’Sullivan says:
    April 11, 2011 at 2:19 am
    I fear Phil has totally mischaracterized the legal matters he addresses above. Dr. Ball is vigorously defending himself against Andrew Weaver and Michael Mann. I am assisting him in these matters and I can advise you that we are extremely confident of winning both claims.

    That doesn’t seem to be consistent with the published apology from Dr Ball in which he apologizes for “untrue statements” made about Dr Weaver. Are you saying that the apology is a fake?
    If it is not then “apologiz(ing) and express(ing) regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article” would seem to hamper your ability to successfully prosecute a counter-claim?

  192. Just donated.
    Good luck, Tim Ball. Many of us are with you, even from foreign countries like Germany in my case.
    Thumbs up!

    And, Mr. Mann, let me tell you… what you are going to do is bottom drawer.
    Not only you insist on your fraudulent work, you’re also a shame for science!

  193. Got back a message from paypal saying the payment is unclaimed. I sent it to info@drtimball.com Should I use a different address or just wait?

    REPLY:
    I’d send him an email, he may not know of it. He has to click on something I’m sure.

    -A

  194. My donation via Paypal seems to have “bounced” from a wrong email address:

    email says:

    Two days ago you sent a payment to info@drtimball.com. This payment is still
    unclaimed. Often, unclaimed payments are a result of a payment being sent to a
    misspelled or otherwise incorrect email address. Please double-check to make
    sure you sent your payment to the intended recipient’s correct email address.

  195. I sent a donation to tim Ball via Paypal and his “Donate” button on his web page. I just got this message from Paypal:

    “Two days ago you sent a payment to info@drtimball.com. This payment is still unclaimed. Often, unclaimed payments are a result of a payment being sent to a misspelled or otherwise incorrect email address. Please double-check to make sure you sent your payment to the intended recipient’s correct email address.

    A common cause of unclaimed payments is that the intended recipient has two email addresses, but only one has been registered to their PayPal account.

    If you did not intend to send a payment to info@drtimball.com, it is easy to cancel the transaction:
    1. Log in to your PayPal account.
    2. Go to the ‘History’ subtab of the ‘My Account’ tab and find this transaction (with a status of ‘Unclaimed’).
    3. Press the ‘Cancel’ button in the ‘Action’ column.
    4. On the confirmation page, press the ‘Cancel Payment’ button to confirm. Your payment will be cancelled and the funds returned to your PayPal account.
    Yours sincerely,
    PayPal Operations”

    Has anyone else received such a message? I immediately thought “Dirty Tricks Department” but maybe Tim has just made an error in setting up his Paypal Account. If so he should be informed.

  196. Got the same thing (unclaimed notice from paypal). Has anyone emailed him to let him know that the email address he is using needs to be confirmed with paypal?

  197. I emailed Tim and received this back just now:

    “I apologize for the confusion over the donation button. Please cancel your previous payment as they (Paypal) advise and then, if you are still willing, submit the payment to timothyball@shaw.ca.

    I am grateful and overwhelmed by the moral, intellectual and financial support form so many people.

    Thank you.

    Tim Ball

  198. I rec’d same notice as marchesarosa. So I went my PP account as instructed. The payment was completed:
    Purpose: Tim Ball’s Legal Fund
    Date: Apr 8, 2011
    Time: 08:19:48 PDT
    Status: Completed

    Yet the “unclaimed payment to info@drtimball.com” email from PP arrived at 12:14 on Monday April 11. Seems odd that PP would send such a notice 3 days after the transaction was completed.

    Can someone offer an explanation? I’ll email Tim anyway.

    Thanks.

    Clive

  199. “A Pennsylvania State University professor claims climate-change denier Timothy Ball defamed him…..”

    Pots & Kettles anyone?

  200. Hey Phil

    Don’t know if you are still there, but I am still waiting for you to post Weaver’s statement of claim against Ball. I have been going over the local Times Colonist newspaper lately just to remind myself how much Andrew Weaver likes to have his name mentioned in the press. You can do that too at this site:

    http://www.timescolonist.com/search/search.html?q=tim+ball

    He comes up six times in 22 hits for the past year. Did you know he has opinions on logging practices and how they influence climate warming in B.C.? This is quite a range of expertise for a guy whose only publications seem to be writing about data generated by models! Quite a public figure, this man. And it seems his modeling group is trumpeting their global warming prognostications in the T.C. almost every week. Not that there is anything wrong with publishing science through press release, what?

    But you know I can’t find any press reports that might be construed as negative about the man and his numerous public policy statements. I guess that’s because he’s suing a pensioner as well as the newspaper that had the temerity to actually disagree with him and question his professional behaviour. So all the on-line articles that contain anything negative about Weaver have been removed. Kind of like what they do in Egypt or China when someone questions public policy. If a politician or public servant in Canada – a public figure pushing political policy – was acting in this way, there would be riots. But I guess that’s the vision the AGW crowd have for B.C.

    Strangely enough, if you search the T.C. database for “Tim Ball,” his name doesn’t come up at all. Boy, those editors over at the T.C. must get a lot of free lunches! I guess when one is a pensioner, you can’t use a government account to take newspaper reporters out for lunch on the taxpayer tab. No favourable articles published about you, you average citizen with a limited budget, you!

    Here’s a little gem from the T.C. dated Dec. 9/09.

    “Premier Campbell has an important role to play in Canada’s credibility,” said Andrew Weaver, Canada Research Chair on Climate Modelling and Analysis and a member of the Nobel-winning U.N. IPCC .

    Geez, pure science there – all that atmospheric circulation as Dr. Weaver blows smoke up the premiers ass. Old Gordo was probably fishing for a position at the U.N. , which is why he plunked down over billion $ of B.C. taxpayer to set up little AGW slush funds like the $95 million Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions:

    http://www.pics.uvic.ca/fellowships.php

    Not that I am against funding research, but why all in this one-pony show?

    From the same article:

    “Until Canada’s foreign and economic policy is separated from Alberta’s oil-sands, there will be difficulty in dealing with climate change, Weaver added.”

    Whoa – call me paranoid, but let’s see. Weaver is being represented by a “green” lawyer who has stick-handled cases for the Suzuki foundation. These are the same guys (along with others) identified as taking foreign money to influence local politicians and buying off liberal and NDP politicians in Ottawa so they could force a tanker ban on the west coast. This shuts off any hope of a pipeline from the oil sands to the west coast to feed Asian markets, making the American market our only option, or else results in the shut down of oil sands development altogether. The latter outcome is a warmista wet dream. Anybody who dares voice negative opinions of activities vilifying the oil sands, even in a indirect way, gets SLAPPed.

    Nah – couldn’t be… I must be paranoid.

    As for the your “professor” fixation Phil I think you should try thinking “outside the box” as they say in the real world. Try spinning up that hamster wheel in your head and think about why the definition of “professor” is so elastic and the circumstances which might very well allow Dr. Ball to call himself “professor” for 28 years.

    Now I must get back to my income tax return – have to pay the province for all those climate change programs. But I tell you what, I am going to return and write a little blog on why you, and Nick, but not Tim Ball, have actually dimished my regard for Andrew Weaver by your comments on this blog and why Weaver should also launch a defamation suit against you wankers.

    bye now, from the “Professor”

  201. Fourier analysis is clearly not well known to Mann, because if it was he would neve have made any claim against Tim Ball for fear of being caught out fabricating the perfect merge between the proxy data and the thermometer data.
    If stastistical data is all from thge same source it will have a spectral signature that is consistant with the resolution of the data.
    The proxy data shown in the 1990 IPCC report that includes both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age has a clear cut low frequency component that defines the cycle that caused both these events. This proxy data because of the low resolution typical of proxy data is not capable of showing the 33 year reversal in temperature from 1942 to 1975 that is clearly demonstrated on the thermometer data.
    Remarkably the MBH98 Proxy has no low frequency component capable of demonstrating either the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice age indicating that there is something fundamentally wrong with the proxy.
    The MBH98 Proxy does however show the global cooling from 1942 to 1975 which is quite remarkable considering that data incapable of showing low frequency events visible on all other proxies is capable of such high resolution that it shows a 33year cooling period not visible on all other datasets because of limited resolution.
    If somehow thermometer data was added to the proxy data to create this near perfect fit as intimated by “Mike’s Nature Trick” depicted in the climategate emails, there is a simple test to identify this fraudulent manipulation of data. An autocorrelation of the first 900 years of the proxy, and an autocorrelation of the last 100 years of the proxy should both have the same spectral content if there was no fraudulent insertion of thermometer data. If this fraud was committed the autocorrelation of the thermometer data will be more similar in spectral content to the last 100years of the MBH98 Proxy the than the first 900 years of the proxy is to the last 100years.
    Mann had better have one of his more mathematical astute colleagues check this out before it is brought up in court and he is exposed for fraud.
    Mann should also be aware that without realizing it his co conspirators at Hadley CRU manually removed the global cooling from 1942 to 1975 from the data in time for the 2007 IPCC report, so after going to all that trouble to make the MBH98 Proxy fit the thermometer data; his buddies removed the fit making the proxy invalid because it shows 33 years of cooling no longer shown on the HadCrut3 temperature data.

  202. Hey! I was expecting nothing but silence as Phil and Nick scuttled-off back to their masters for instructions, but Norm showed up!

    :o)

    Following-up on Phil’s professor fixation I decided to head on over to the University of Winnipeg to see how they are set up in the Geography Department. Guess what? It would appear that the term “professor” is sooooo elastic that it has morphed into a term inclusive enough that it couldn’t possibly offend any one:

    http://uwwebpro.uwinnipeg.ca/index/uwdirectory-app?dept=Geography

    Notice there is still one dinosaur still hanging on to his title of “professor.” Or maybe I am just mixed-up here. Maybe these “faculty members” aren’t professors at all? Could they be described as “professors” in a radio talk-show? Boy, I better be careful, since Phil says that any misrepresentation of the term “professor” can be used to discount the validity of any argument I might be making.

    And by the way, I don’t need Phil to post Weaver’s statement of claim anymore because I found it on this site:

    http://www.allgov.com/Controversies/ViewNews/Climate_Scientist_Sues_Climate_Change_Skeptic_for_Libel_110209

    I would like to invite everyone to emulate both Phil and Nicks approach to analyzing a defamation statement of claim. Take a look at Weaver’s claim – pick it over, find something trivial, and then insist that it proves culpability in trying to mislead a public audience.

    For example:

    “(a) The plaintiff is fully competent and qualified to teach climate science to university students:

    xi. The plaintiff has authored or co-authored over 190 peer-reviewed papers in climate, meteorology, oceanography, earth science, policy, education and anthropology journals. ”

    Jeez – I though the purpose of this part of the claim was illustrate Weaver’s competency in teaching “climate science.” What do papers in policy have to do with that, unless of course it’s about trying to force your alarmist views on people… or indoctrinating your students? Are Weavers policy views promulgated in his classrooms – you know, does he make statements like ““Until Canada’s foreign and economic policy is separated from Alberta’s oil-sands, there will be difficulty in dealing with climate change?” Is that actually “climate science?”

    What courses does Weaver teach over at U. Vic.?

    Well it seems that he doesn’t have much to do with modeling, or climate research, but he does have something to do with policy:

    https://www.uvic.ca/pls/BAN2P/bwckctlg.p_disp_listcrse?term_in=201001&subj_in=EOS&crse_in=365&schd_in=

    The actual technical side of climate seems to be taught by someone else:

    https://www.uvic.ca/pls/BAN2P/bwckctlg.p_disp_listcrse?term_in=201001&subj_in=EOS&crse_in=340&schd_in=

    Of course I could be wrong, but people like Phil are welcome to parse their way through the following site to pick out examples of why I am wrong:

    http://web.uvic.ca/calendar2009/CDs/EOS/CTs.html

    And Dr. Weaver publishes papers on anthropology! Wow! Good for him, but I thought this lawsuit had to do with his ability to teach “climate science” in the here and now, to undergraduate students concerned with understanding something about “climate.” WTF does anthropology have to do with that? Unless of course Weaver intends to overwhelm that poor old doddering judge with his expertise in just about anything. You know, baffle his worship with all those credentials, his medals and prizes, so nobody will look too closely at the underlying argument involving cooked data.

    And what do Weavers students actually think of him? Seeing as the issue is his competency in teaching, and more particularly “climate science,” I would hope that the results of his teacher evaluations by his undergraduate students are brought up in court. No doubt that would support Weaver in his claims against Ball. Or would it?

    When does the show start – I need to stock up on popcorn?

  203. As a Canadian concerned about the pseudo-science of AGW I am grateful to WUWT for spreading the word about Tim Ball’s defence fund and to those who, like me, have contributed. For those who don’t want to make a contribution using PayPal: following is the address for making a donation by mail, copied from Tim Ball’s web site (http://drtimball.com/ Click on the link, lower left panel of the home page for information about the defence fund.).

    Cheques can be made payable to ‘Pearlman Lindholm’ and sent attention:

    Tim Ball Legal Fund
    201 – 19 Dallas Road
    Victoria, BC, Canada
    V8V 5A6

    Like others posting here I received an email from PayPal advising me that my contribution had not been picked up after two days. I waited a few days, checked my PayPal account again and saw that the transaction had been completed. I surmise that the response to the appeal has been so great that there have been delays in picking up the contributions.

  204. T.C. says:
    April 15, 2011 at 7:25 am
    Following-up on Phil’s professor fixation I decided to head on over to the University of Winnipeg to see how they are set up in the Geography Department. Guess what? It would appear that the term “professor” is sooooo elastic that it has morphed into a term inclusive enough that it couldn’t possibly offend any one:

    How many undergraduate ‘professors’ did you find? By the way it is you who is fixated on Ball’s supposed Professorial status and keep bringing it up, I’m sure his connections would rather that you let it lie rather than keep raking up his ‘mis-statements’.
    And by the way, I don’t need Phil to post Weaver’s statement of claim anymore because I found it on this site:

    I was puzzled as to why you needed me to find it for you since it only takes a few minutes to do so.

    No doubt that would support Weaver in his claims against Ball. Or would it?

    When does the show start – I need to stock up on popcorn?

    Since Ball has admitted that he made ‘untrue statements’ about Weaver and has ‘sincerely apologized’ I assume there will be no show.

  205. Might be a broad effort if Suzuki is involved, he is revered by many people due to his years on TV promoting science and his seemingly nice manner.

    He has been criticized severely by many defenders of humans, including me.

  206. T.C. says:
    April 15, 2011 at 7:25 am
    Hey! I was expecting nothing but silence as Phil and Nick scuttled-off back to their masters for instructions,

    Don’t know who they are? More likely that my responses are getting ‘lost’ by the mods.

  207. Looks like the donation finally did get through on 4/11. Good!

    We have no influence on tyrannical officials, since they are protected by “democracy” from the need for public consent … but we can still help people who are being harrassed by those tyrannical officials.

Comments are closed.