Tim Ball's Victory in the First Climate Lawsuit Judgment – The Backstory

Jack Dale,
It is clear you didn’t read the actual decision since you run to a website that doesn’t contain a link to it as it does here. Your site took small quotes way out of context which distorted what the Judge was stating in support of his decision.
You need to keep in mind that Dr. Weaver sued him for DEFAMATION, not about poorly written articles.
Straight from here are the Judges own words
“Analysis
General Observations About the Article
[58] Before turning to the elements of the tort of defamation, it is first worth making some general observations about the Article, given that the impugned words must be considered in the context of the Article as a whole.
[59] I accept Dr. Ball’s characterization that the Article is an opinion piece directed at an issue of public interest, namely, climate change and the role of humans in contributing to global warming. While Dr. Weaver is mentioned in the Article, he is not its primary focus.
[60] 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. For example:
a) He purports to cite a paper from Michigan State University stating that most college students do not understand the scientific basis of the carbon cycle, when in fact, he was referring to an online article written by a professor of education who was describing a study published in the science journal BioScience;
b) He suggests that Dr. Weaver has consistently refused to debate the climate change issue, an allegation not borne out in the evidence;
c) When describing his presentation at UVIC, he alleges that Dr. Weaver’s students showed up to disrupt the presentation, which again, was not established on the evidence, and Dr. Ball had no basis for making that allegation in the Article; and
d) He alleges that Dr. Weaver had announced his intention to withdraw from the next IPCC and had advocated for the resignation of the IPCC chairman. Dr. Ball said he took this information from a newspaper article, the veracity of which he did not confirm, and which was disputed by Dr. Weaver.
[61] While each of these errors, looked at individually, may seem quite minor, collectively, they illustrate that Dr. Ball’s approach to gathering facts in support of his opinion or thesis is less than rigorous.
[62] Dr. Ball is also less than forthright in the Article about his interaction with Dr. Weaver. He states that he met with Dr. Weaver in his office at Dr. Weaver’s invitation and he recounts a rather odd conversation about whether he was recording their conversation. He fails to disclose however, that this meeting occurred in 1997, over thirteen years prior to the date on which he wrote the Article. I note that Dr. Weaver denies Dr. Ball’s version of that conversation. Dr. Ball also fails to disclose the subsequent email exchange, referred to above, at para. 12, in which the two men engaged in a lengthy debate.
[63] While Dr. Ball presents his central thesis that climate science has been corrupted by politics, the Article offers little in the way of support for that thesis, apart from vague references to missing or falsified data and political manipulation, unsubstantiated and erroneous references to Dr. Weaver as referred to above, and a recommendation that people read a 45-year-old text on climate science written by Professor Hubert Lamb.
[64] Overall, even as an opinion piece, the Article presents as poorly written and it provides little in the way of credible support for Dr. Ball’s thesis.
Are the Words Defamatory?
[65] In his notice of civil claim, Dr. Weaver alleges the following inferential meanings of the impugned words set out in the Article:
a) He is not competent or qualified to teach climate science to university students;
b) He cheated Canadian taxpayers by accepting public funding for climate science research although he has little or no knowledge about climate science;
c) In the meeting in his office with Dr. Ball, he displayed symptoms of paranoia because he fears his incompetence, lack of academic qualifications and corrupt exploitation of the Canadian taxpayer will be exposed;
d) He bribed university students with research funds so they would participate in useless computer modeling studies which had little scientific value, with the objective of continuing to receive unwarranted personal financial benefit from government funding;
e) He dishonestly claimed on his website to be a “climatologist” but removed that claim when challenged by Dr. Ball;
f) He shuns involvement in public debate about global warming because it would publicly expose his professional incompetence, his inadequate knowledge about climate science, and his corrupt exploitation of public resources;
g) He shamefully conspired to have his students interrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation at UVIC in order to suppress the truth by preventing honest and open debate about the existence of global warming and/or whether humans are causing or contributing to global warming;
h) He shamefully conspired with his students to deter people from attending Dr. Ball’s UVIC presentation in order to stifle Dr. Ball’s views and prevent people from learning that his views on global warming have no scientific basis;
i) He teaches his students little or nothing about climate science because he lacks the requisite knowledge, does not have academic qualifications, is nothing more than a computer technician, and is blinded by personal bias;
j) He knows that the reports of the IPCC concerning global warming are unscientific and corrupt, and is therefore dishonestly trying to dodge personal responsibility for his involvement in those reports by dissociating himself from the IPCC; and
k) He dishonestly obtained substantial public funding from Environment Canada for climate science research despite knowing that he lacked the necessary education, training, and intelligence to carry on competent research.
[66] I agree with Dr. Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver are extreme and are not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking reader. This requires the court to assess the words objectively, and not to attribute the worst possible meaning or the meaning that might appear to the plaintiff or a person with an overly fragile sensibility (Color Your World, at para. 15).
[67] Specifically, I do not accept that the Article, read in its entirety and properly construed, alleges dishonesty on Dr. Weaver’s part or attacks his character in the sense of imputing moral fault or blameworthiness. For example, despite the inferential meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver, there is no allegation, explicit or implicit, that Dr. Weaver cheated taxpayers, dishonestly obtained public funding or shamefully conspired with his students to disrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation to suppress Dr. Ball’s views.
[68] In para. 8.1 of his amended response to civil claim, Dr. Ball pleads that the gist or “sting” of the Article is as follows:
The plaintiff is qualified by conventional standards to teach climate science but should not be qualified because the conventional experience and training of climate science has been corrupted by political advocacy and limited by inadequate data, and his students have accordingly been taught a biased perspective.
[69] Dr. Ball submits that the meaning conveyed in the Article, as reflected in para. 8.1, is that conventional climate science has been corrupted by political advocacy and is limited by inadequate data, and that accordingly, Dr. Weaver, as a supporter of the conventional view, has taught his students a biased perspective.
[70] Dr. Weaver seeks to put a different meaning on para. 8.1. He submits that para. 8.1 alleges that he has been corrupted by political advocacy, both his own and that of others like Maurice Strong, who is referenced in the Article. Dr. Weaver relies on a statement made by the agent for Dr. Ball’s counsel who appeared in Chambers on Dr. Ball’s application to amend his response to civil claim and who is recorded in the transcript as saying that the “defendant’s meaning is that Dr. Weaver was corrupted by political advocacy and limited by inadequate data, and his students have accordingly been taught a biased perspective”.
[71] I do not read para. 8.1 this way, and counsel’s paraphrasing of that paragraph in court does not displace the actual language used. In my view, para. 8.1, as interpreted by Dr. Ball, accurately captures the sting of the Article.
[72] That is not to say that the Article is wholly benign as it relates to Dr. Weaver. On Dr. Ball’s own interpretation, the Article suggests that Dr. Weaver is not competent to teach climate science or, at least, teaches it from a biased perspective. The Article suggests further that Dr. Weaver would not be qualified to participate in a multi-disciplinary panel on climate science.
[73] These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver’s professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball’s intent. Why else would he include a description of Dr. Weaver’s allegedly paranoid behaviour at the meeting in Dr. Weaver’s office, given that it has no direct relevance to the central thesis of the Article? (I note again that Dr. Weaver denies Dr. Ball’s version of that meeting.)
[74] However, not every derogatory statement is defamatory. The test again is whether the impugned words genuinely threaten the plaintiff’s actual reputation (Weaver, at para. 68). Here, I am not satisfied that the impugned words of the Article reach that level. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.
[75] 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.
[76] Moreover, as noted above, the Article is clearly an opinion piece, and statements of opinion are generally evaluated differently than statements of fact. As stated by Mr. Justice Lebel in WIC Radio, at para. 71 of his concurring reasons:
[71] Although distinguishing facts from comment may sometimes be difficult, a comment is by its subjective nature generally less capable of damaging someone’s reputation than an objective statement of fact, because the public is much more likely to be influenced in its belief by a statement of fact than by a comment. …
[77] In my view, it is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.
[78] Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.
[79] The issue of climate change is a matter of public interest and, as noted, Dr. Weaver has been at the forefront of public discussion. It has long been recognized that where someone enters the public arena, it is to be expected that his or her actions and words will be subject to robust scrutiny and criticism. For example, in Lund v. Black Press Group Ltd., 2009 BCSC 937 [Lund], Mr. Justice Bracken stated, at para. 123:
[123] It is important to any community that matters of public interest are debated freely and openly. Sometimes, in the heat of discussions over a controversial issue where strong personal differences exist, persons on one side or other of the debate make comments that offend. But the fact that they offend is not enough. The comments must go beyond strong criticisms of a public man acting in his capacity as a public official. …
[80] Similar observations were made by Chief Justice Nemetz in Vander Zalm, at 535 and 536. While the plaintiffs in both Lund and Vander Zalm were elected officials, in my view, the principle applies with equal force to others who actively engage in matters of public interest.
[81] In WIC Radio, Justice Lebel again, in his concurring reasons said, at paras. 74-75:
[74] Members of the public will generally have a more solid basis on which to evaluate a comment about a public figure than one about someone who is unknown. Thus, although public figures are certainly more open to criticism than those who avoid the public eye, this does not mean that their reputations are necessarily more vulnerable. In fact, public figures may have greater opportunity to influence their own reputations for the better.
[75] People who voluntarily take part in debates on matters of public interest must expect a reaction from the public. Indeed, public response will often be one of the goals of self‑expression. In the context of such debates (and at the risk of mixing metaphors), public figures are expected to have a thick skin and not to be too quick to cry foul when the discussion becomes heated. This is not to say that harm to one’s reputation is the necessary price of being a public figure. Rather, it means that what may harm a private individual’s reputation may not damage that of a figure about whom more is known and who may have had ample opportunity to express his or her own contrary views.
[82] The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. As Justice Lebel observes, such debate often includes critical and even offensive commentary, which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder. It is only when the words used reach the level of genuinely threatening a person’s actual reputation that resort to the law of defamation is available. Such is not the case here.
[83] 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.
[84] Given this finding, I need not consider whether Dr. Weaver has established that the Article was published in the sense that it was downloaded and read in BC by anyone other than him. I also need not address the defences raised by Dr. Ball.
Conclusion
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.”
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
The Judge specifically stated,
“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.”
Early in the decision, the Judge pointed out that Dr. Ball Apologized BEFORE he was sued for defamation that met all but ONE of Dr. Weavers request, which Dr. Weaver decided was not good enough.
“[30] Ultimately, on March 3, 2011, Dr. Ball issued the following apology:
My article entitled “Corruption of Climate Change has Created 30 Lost Years” contained untrue statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. The article has since been withdrawn from the Internet website of Canada Free Press, where it was originally published in January 2011.
Contrary to what I stated in my article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”); (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010. I hereby unequivocally retract my suggestion that Dr. Weaver sought to dissociate himself from the scientific work of the IPCC.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. My article failed to mention these facts although they were publicly available.
I did not intend to suggest that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with my presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling me during my talk. Further, I do not dispute Dr. Weaver’s credentials or competence as a climate scientist and university professor. While Dr. Weaver and I have different views on the cause of global warming, I acknowledge that Dr. Weaver has at all times acted honestly and with integrity.
I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article.
[31] Dr. Ball’s apology was substantially in the form requested by Dr. Weaver, with one exception. Dr. Weaver had proposed language stating that students had not been deterred from attending, that Dr. Ball had not been heckled, and that “students who attended were polite and respectful and asked their questions in a manner and form which is customary and entirely acceptable on such occasions”. Dr. Ball declined to include this language because it was not consistent with how he perceived the students acted at his UVIC presentation.
[32] Dr. Ball forwarded his apology to the various websites on which the Article had been republished.
[33] Dr. Weaver posted Dr. Ball’s apology alongside the Article on his “wall of hate”.
Next time Mr. Dale read the actual court decision.