I got word tonight from David Ball, son of Dr. Tim Ball via Facebook messenger:
This morning the judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Tim by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
At the moment, I have no other details, but will update as I have them.
The case has been ongoing since 2011, and arguments were heard in court in the fall of 2017.
From an article in the NYT: https://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/climate-scientist-sues-skeptic-for-libel/
Andrew Weaver, a climate modeler at the University of Victoria, filed the lawsuit against Tim Ball, a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg and a vocal critic of the science linking man-made emissions to global warming, over an article published by the Canada Free Press, a conservative Web site.
…
“I stand by the story,” said Dr. Ball, who was prominently featured as a climate change expert in the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle.”
The apology and retraction of the story by Canada Free Press “hung me out to dry,” Dr. Ball added, saying he was in the process of hiring a lawyer to fight the lawsuit.
The lawsuit against Dr. Ball is not the only libel action that Dr. Weaver is pursuing in Canadian courts. Last year, the scientist filed suit against The National Post, a conservative Canadian newspaper, for publishing articles that he alleged contained deliberate falsehoods designed to disparage and discredit him.
FULL DISCLOSURE: I was to be called as a witness in the trial, and did hours of preparatory work, but the case took a turn when Weaver did not call any witnesses on his behalf and I did not testify [on behalf of Ball]. The case was decided by a judge, who just today gave his verdict.
UPDATE1: here is the original lawsuit: Weaver-vs-Ball-lawsuit (PDF)
UPDATE2: Dr. Ball promises a report very soon. I’ll have it here as soon as possible.
UPDATE3: Here it is: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/tim-balls-victory-in-the-first-climate-lawsuit-judgment-the-backstory/
Don’t look for logic in what Mr. Stokes says. Like a scorpion, it seems that it’s his nature.
Stopped at Izuru to see if Mr. Shollenberger posted on this, because he argued here and at CA that Weaver had such a solid case. Nothing there, though near the top he had a post from Dec. ’17 attacking Judith Curry because she did not bow low enough before all-powerful (and totally preposterous) claims of rape and assault from (any person-name or sex matter not). Gonna have to stop looking if it makes the blood boil.
I gave up on Brandon several months ago. From my interactions, my view is that he’s got an ego similar in size to Mann, i.e. it’s impossible for him to be wrong and we are all just stupid.
Indeed. He has some worthwhile thoughts, but his attacks on Steve M (and now Curry) are bullet wounds in his own feet.
Here’s a link to Tim Ball’s note to Marc Morano about the outcome of the case.
Canada uses the English rule; ie loser pays all legal fees.
In the financial world, companies employ poison pills to prevent hostile takeovers.
Could a poison pill strategy be employed against SLAPPs and other forms of lawfare? IE if I am hit with a SLAPP should I immediately hire 10,000 lawyers? All the most expensive ones…
I just read Weavers suit document! Dr. Ball, you certainly pulled no punches! I’m surprised that there is a British Columbia Judge that would dismiss such a case! Maybe Canada is only half as bad as I thought. Well the plaintiff has at least moved 9n to a job he is qualified for- leader of the Green Party of BC, a failing party that even lefty Canadians are staying away from.
I see the judgment is posted here. On costs it says:
“Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue. “
The key para is:
“In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.”
The judgment is not always kind to the defence. For example
“Further, despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth. “
The reasons for deciding it was derogatory but not defamatory start out not very flatteringly:
“First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory”
Nick, thanks for that. So the ruling apparently did require that the judge be competent and unbiased. And Dr. Ball fell the right side of a knife edge by virtue of his bad writing. I’d have to say, Ball’s writings on WUWT often do leave a lot to be desired – there is often interesting information in them, but not always coherent, and sometimes rather rambling, hence I usually skim them.
Rich.
You can email Weaver below. Yes, he is every bit the loathsome windbag one would expect him to be, and deserves your commentary directed his way
andrew.weaver.mla@leg.bc.ca
Five Hundred Million years ago CO2 levels were 4,500ppm…..as grasses, plants and trees grew so the CO2 levels reduced to the point where todays 390ppm is in effect “starvation” level compared to previous times.
Earth Scientists both in the East and the West clearly show that the planet has been much warmer in the past….in fact I have two graphs on my mobile along with a graph showing historical CO2.
It is not and never has been a problem…it is of course the the trace gas that is most important to our atmosphere. It grows everything…greens up the planet.
As regards the heat from CO2…it is a logarithmic curve…you can have as much as you like.
Very clever is our planet!
Turn off computers and refer to empirical based information…..the future is in the past.
Scottish Sceptic February 14, 2018 at 1:22 am wrote:
It’s a bit unfair to politicians comparing them to climate modellers.
Mate, you shouldn’t be allowed to post things like that, especially when I have a mouthful of coffee.