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.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
PaulH

There is a PayPal link on Dr. Ball’s site headed, “Tim’s Legal Fund”.

John Q Public

Donation on the way.

Kristoffer

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/

ShrNfr

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

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.

Owen

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 !

bigcitylib

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).

jack morrow

Most happy to help anyone fighting Mann and Suzuki.

Jimbo

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

Pamela Gray

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!

Doug

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.

David, UK

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.

kwik

I have donated. I hope tousands will do likewise. Good luck, Dr. Ball !
I sure hope you win this battle against pseudo-science.

Vince Causey

Seems like you need to set up a pay pal account before you can donate.

1DandyTroll

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?

Severian

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.

Paul McCauley

My sincerest encouragement to Dr. Ball. Donation will follow.

mike g

Oh, Canada. How sad.

Quis custoddiet ipos custodes

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.”

kim

Discovereeee! Oh, shibbareeee!
======================

Alan Clark of Dirty Oil-berta

“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.

Pete H

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!

Dave

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”

Glenn

“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?

Mark T

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

Pete H

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!

Doug S

Donation sent via PayPal

Mark T

Hell, Tim has a right to access Mann’s emails now… no need for Cucinelli.
Mark

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.

Steve Oregon

“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.

T.C.

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.

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.

Peter

This posting is exactly 1 week too late.
Unbelievable!

son of mulder

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.

Bebben

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.

Paul Coppin

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.

Wiglaf

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.

Susan C

Donation made, will do it again if necessary

AntonyIndia

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.

ferdberple

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.

Grant

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

Elizabeth (not the queen)

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.

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.]

“…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!

TomRude

Hopefully Rex Murphy will expose this kaball against Tim.

vigilantfish

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?

Ken Hall

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.

Ted

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/

Alan

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

Robert Austin

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.