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).
Note: Donors will be issued with a tax receipt on request.
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.
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!)
“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.
Money on the way. Thank you for fighting for all us Dr. Ball.
A hundred of those Canadian dollars (“loonies”? Whose idea was that!) on the way…
FD
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.
.
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.
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
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
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?
Well some good news from the UK. The Press Complaints Commission has not upheld a complaint by UEA against Telegraph blogger James Delingpole:
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.
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.
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.
The following has just been posted on another thread. The UEA complained to the UK Press Complaints Commission against Delingpole and lost.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100083071/uea-the-sweet-smell-of-napalm-in-the-morning/
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.
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.
“….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…..
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 :).
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.
=============
My support to Tim Ball. Climate Sceptic Shop will be offering support through advertisements on his website.
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.
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.
“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
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.