Guest opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
I am extremely grateful for the judgment of a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against me by Andrew Weaver. It is a victory for free speech and a blow against the use of the law to silence people. As with all events, there is so much more that rarely receives attention yet is essential to understanding and improving conditions in the future.
While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer, Roger McConchie, in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In each case, he also filed lawsuits against the agency that published what I wrote or said. This is why Anthony Watts wisely asked me and I was willing to put the phrase “Guest Opinion” at the top of any column I wrote. Of course, the double-barreled lawsuits created complications in mounting any defense.
The first lawsuit was brought by Gordon McBean. In 1985, when he was Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada he chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in Villach Austria. My wife and I decided we could not afford to defend the case and so I withdrew the publication. This, in my opinion, achieved the objective of the lawsuit that many call SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). All the lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. BC had anti-SLAPP but for some unknown reason, it was withdrawn through legislation. The anti-SLAPP legislation is spreading as politicians and lawyers realize the dangers in using the law designed to protect people by silencing them. Eight of the other ten Canadian Provinces have anti-SLAPP legislation.
The second lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrew Weaver. At the time he was a professor of computer modelling at the University of Victoria and author on four of the IPCC Science Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, 2013). After filing the lawsuit, he was elected to the BC Legislative Assembly as a member of the Green Party. He later was re-elected as the leader of the BC Green Party.
Nine days after receiving the Weaver lawsuit I gave a public presentation in Winnipeg, including an explanation of the “hockey stick.” Afterward, I was interviewed by the Frontier Centre, and they published my flippant comment about the juxtaposition of Mann’s location. Within 24 hours I received the third lawsuit. That case was scheduled for trial on February 20, 2017, but after six years Mann sought an adjournment. We are now trying to get the case back into court. It was incorrectly reported that Mann was in contempt of court for failing to produce documents. He did not produce the documents, but he is only in contempt of the court when they so rule. That is part of what we will pursue now the Weaver trial is finished. How quickly that will proceed is hard to know because I understand Weaver is going to file an appeal.
The Weaver defamation case involved an article I wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. I referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. I made comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit. Meanwhile, Weaver’s lawyer arranged with the publisher of Canada Free Press (CFP) to print an apology he had written. I never knew about that until after it was printed. As a result, I withdrew all my articles on file with CFP and did not send them anything else.
I contacted a lawyer, Michael Scherr of Pearlman Lindholm to defend myself against the case. He wrote a letter withdrawing and apologizing for the unsubstantiated comment but not the main thrust of the article. Apparently, that was insufficient for Weaver because he continued the lawsuit. He did not call a single witness to the trial. It lasted three weeks, and the judge allowed witness statements into the record without objection from Weaver. On Tuesday, February 13 the judgement was released with the ruling that all claims against me were dismissed. The judgment is available on line, so I will not influence anyone’s view by commenting here.
I am meeting with my lawyer next week to reactivate the Michael Mann trial as soon as possible. We will discuss costs but cannot do anything until the Appeals procedure is over. I can tell you I am overwhelmed by the financial and support from around the world. The sort of comment that is particularly encouraging is a variation of Voltaire’s comment that I don’t necessarily agree with you, but you must have the right to say it. Of course, Voltaire understood the station because he also said what I discovered “It is dangerous to be right in matters where men in authority are wrong.”
From the judgment, available online here: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
The link also includes the original article by Dr. Ball, which spurred the lawsuit, under Appendix A. Here are some relevant excerpts from the court document.
[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.
…
[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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Dr. Ball: Have you thought about submitting this article to the Vancouver Sun and/or Victoria Colonist?
Weaver is an uber-pious poser, and needs to be taken down many notches in public opinion here in BC.
–Bad News
Perhaps if they are not interested in publishing it, we may need to donate to have it published as a paid advertisement.
Have still not seen anything in the media about this court decision.
One report here.
I’m happy Dr Ball won his suit because of the plaintiff’s abuse of court to shut down dissent on a matter far from settled and of such moment as to affect the lives of all. I have to say I was a bit disappointed, however, in the unprofessional loutish, angry language Dr Ball used in his article. It didn’t do him proud. His thoughtful essays on climate and the Grey Cardinals behind it all didnt prepare me for the Free Press diatribe. The Free Press was derelict in not asking Dr Ball to polish it up considerably without changing the criticisms he had.
My study of history is not my strongest assets, so I have to wonder: Did Einstein, or Feynman, or Ernest Rutherford, or Edward Jenner, or Watson & Crick, or Michelson & Morley, etc., etc. resort to law suits they were criticized?
I think not. I think the best scientists allow their work to stand for all to see.
Grammar corrections…
“…not my strongest asset” and
“…resort to lawsuits when they were criticized”
Grammar corrections are not one of my strongest assets.
Tim Ball sued the Calgary Herald and Dr, Dan Johnson of the University of Lethbridge. He withdrew the suit in the case in the light of strong defense depositions by both the Herald and Johnson.
False. The lawsuit was dropped because there was no money. No big oil money. No tobacco money. No government money.
Do not speak of which you do not know.
There seems to be a widespread failure in the understanding of the difference between advocacy and science, and it may accompany a rise in thin skinned juvenile responses. If one enters the tempting advocacy role, credibility in science is always affected. This seems to be on the increase in climate science and other areas where similar conditions such as political relevance and press coverage occur. Most scientists don’t want to go there even to correct blatant errors, but may suffer the consequences as well.
I have known and worked with a number of US attorneys over several past decades on non-climate scientific matters and have been warned about and observed the problem. It is in both the legal and academic professions. If Schedule “A” bothers him, he should be thankful, as it appears, that serious damaging defamation was not done behind his back. He may have thought such.
While I have only read a review and it does not excuse anything, the problem has been long recognized (Martin Anderson, “Imposters in the Temple”). Published in 1992, I first saw some clear evidence nearly a decade before. My sample size is small, but many, inside and outside academia, are long aware and know it has to be corrected. You are doing an important service.
Tim Ball is Victorious. Good has triumphed over evil.
“…In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views ”
What is that? Judge Snarky just had to slip in a nasty dig.
Is he/she up for re-election and in need campaign funds from the left. This looks really unprofessional to me.
This is Canada. Judges aren’t elected here, they are appointed.
It’s actually really funny.
To appeal the judgement, Weaver will have to argue that Ball’s comments were credible and substantial. ROTFL
And the defence will have to argue that they weren’t.
NS, you really should stick to your supposed expertise in data and statistics. When wandering off as here into legal matters, you expose both your ignorance and your warmunist bias.
Rist: You got there first. NS is patently wrong on this one. He does not explain why he has reflexively jumped to Weaver’s defense. He should be attacking Weaver for the damage Weaver has done to “climate communications”. Instead, he’s having too much fun riding Ball, who admitted his mistake before suit was filed. His credibility took the hit back then, and warmistas won’t likely let that go. Well, what’s sauce for the goose…. We may do the same if ever a warmunist admits error.
Nick,
They have to have grounds for an appeal first, and since the judge was clearly not a fan of Dr. Ball, I doubt they have a leg to stand on. So all Dr. Ball’s lawyer has to say is, “The plaintive has no grounds, your honor.”
“They have to have grounds for an appeal first”
I expect they would appeal the citation of Vellacott. The judge concedes that Vellacott was a more extreme case, so he’s lowering the bar. That would be a precedent, which they may well ask the Appeals Court to review. I have no view on whether that should succeed or not. Of course, if Weaver wins on that one, there are still other hurdles that the judge didn’t get to.
It’s true that the judge didn’t think much of Dr Ball’s credibility. But that is why he dismissed. If the defence can convince the court otherwise on that point, it will not help, following the logic of the dismissal.
And the judge is an expert in science?????
No, but for some reason, US judges need to in order to determine who is an “expert” and what expertise methods are sound. A job for which they may be unprepared, but those with academic “science education” probably even more so.
“…In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views ”
It shows the judge knows nothing about climate and as in the sex harassment cases, the judge needs “climate sensitivity” training.
Seems so. Just throwing the alarmists a bone. which they are chomping on. Based on the examples he cited, he was stretching to find things to dismiss in Ball’s article. Save that, its a complete loss for them.
Congratulations Dr Tim. One small step for man…
Really, after Climate Gate was there any drought a small clique of “climate scientists ”
were sticking their thumb on the scale . A pattern of models running excessively hot
to sell the propaganda for climate capitalists and rent dependant
science fiction pretenders .
Bought and paid for with a great big fat bow on it . IPCC , propaganda central .
Way to go Dr Ball disarming climate con-men was never going to be easy just necessary .
Under this post, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/09/an-ode-to-climate-alarmism-at-the-museum/ ,I said this.
A tree ring
A Climate Ring
Cabal
A small part just went CABOOM!
You’re not alone, Dr. Ball.
Leftists want science to be settled by courts and for it to always adhere to their political agenda. They aim to silence all skepticism and opposition using agressive law-fare, which most people cannot afford, particularly scientists. This is APPALLING on so many levels and will seriously hinder scientific advancement that we so sorely need in climatology for economic and humanitarian reasons. It is bad enough that the humanities have been hijacked; now the left has come for science, too. Science is the one thing that is most sacred to me. This breaks my heart. That poor man, having to deal with BS this in his retirement.
So Ball won because the article was so badly written that no reasonable thinking person would take it seriously. Well I suppose a win is a win
Quoting Anthony:
““Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.”
Boom! End game. Doesn’t matter if Dr. Ball was viewed as credible or not. If the complaint doesn’t meet the tests, then it doesn’t fly.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/tim-balls-victory-in-the-first-climate-lawsuit-judgment-the-backstory/comment-page-1/#comment-2744354
It didn’t meet the first element, because the article was light weight/poor. Going to be very interesting to see what happens with Steyn/Mann. While I don’t agree with Steyn on a few issues, you can’t pass him off as a nut, so I doubt he will have the same out clause as Ball.
You’re saying he “Nut defense” won’t work?
Simon: And because Weaver is not credible in his claim. Don’t see how you could have overlooked that. Hope you never have to face a 7-year lawsuit only to get a decision that demonstrates it could (and should) have been decided in the first month.
Did you miss this Simon?
“[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.”
She clearly states that it WAS NOT Defamatory. End of story!
Weaver lost the case. Get over it!
Ball’s words “lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory,” the judgment concluded.
Sunsettommy – Did you actually bother to read your own post?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/tim-balls-victory-in-the-first-climate-lawsuit-judgment-the-backstory/#comment-2745188
[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.
The judge called diplomatically called Tim Ball a liar.
Sunsettommy February 15, 2018 at 3:12 pm
Gosh Dale, I already posted it FOUR HOURS earlier than your comment you snottily made to me. I already knew that Dr. Ball was wrong in writing that derogatory article, Here is what I posted to YOU FOUR HOURS earlier:
Sunsettommy February 15, 2018 at 3:12 pm
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.”
As you can see that I never disputed the fact that Dr. Ball was out of line, but the Judge goes on to explain WHY he didn’t consider it Defamatory: Continuing on to the rest of the comment I had posted to you FOUR HOURS earlier:
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”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/tim-balls-victory-in-the-first-climate-lawsuit-judgment-the-backstory/comment-page-1/#comment-2745188
Here is the section that tells us WHY he “dismissed” the Defamation case
[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.”
You finally get it Jack Dale?
His Defamation CLAIM was dismissed!
It was the fact that while it is was called derogatory , it didn’t rise to the level of Defamation, which means Weaver FAILED in his lawsuit claiming Defamation.
You finally understand?
According to the climate specialist Judge…
they found no reasonable person would believe ball because he is a nut.
“they found no reasonable person would believe ball because he is a nut”.
Hell Steven let me fix that ther english for you;
“they found no reasonable person would believe Mosher because he is a nut”.
Surprised you still bother,a few years ago you could almost manage a coherent argument, now you are beyond irrelevant.
Ad hom flatulence is all Steve can provide tonight? Meh….
It’s all he’s got.
It’s all he’s ever had.
Ball’s words “lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory,” the judgment concluded.
A pyrrhic victory at best.
I love it when trolls take quotes out of context.
It shows they aren’t being serious.
Mosh: So you’re criticizing Weaver for spending valuable “climate communication” resources on a seven-year pursuit of a nut?
No, the judge found that the article was an opinion piece and not a serious analysis of Dr. Weaver’s scientific credentials. That’s why your statement that Dr. Ball is a “nut” (insane) is not defamation, for which you should be happy.
“… BA’s [sic] in both English Literature and Philosophy” (berkeleyearth.org). At least you held real jobs in the technology sector, so you’re marginally more qualified to preach climate alarmism than weepy Bill McKibben (former gossip columnist) anyway.
The “they” was a judge, not a scientist.
In the realm he works in (even without SLAP laws) he found that, No reasonable person would believe that Weaver had a reason, grounds to sue.
(But he did it anyway. Just like Mann. “Sue into Silence” doesn’t always work.8-)
Sincere Congratulations, Dr. Ball!
You are greatly admired and can count on support going forward!
Science is not made by vote (97% consensus) and it is not decided in court. How far the alarmists are from true science can be seen in their hypersensitivity to deviant, skeptical opinions. Even the claim that a scientist is in error can not be an insult! To err is part of science and every scientist who thinks he can never be in error makes a big mistake!
I also need not address the defences raised by Dr. Ball.
Folks, read the judge’s remark above and ask yourselves why it is there. Seems to me the judge ruled the way he did in order to NOT deal with the substance of the matter. He managed to let Dr. Ball off the hook while not embroiling himself in the politically charged argument of who’s science was correct. Had he let Dr. Ball off on THOSE issues, he might well have ended his own career.
Read between the lines folks, the court system is no less tainted by politics than anything else.
davidmhoffer
I think you have hit the nail on the head .Pressure can be applied to people in high places who show a leaning towards climate skepticism by liberal green governments .
New Zealand now has a Labour {read liberal ) green coalition government and the pressure is starting , the screws are being tightened ..
CLIMATE CHANGE HAS BECOME VERY IMPORTANT.
Climate skeptics are being told that their views are not wanted in the news media .The science is settled how dare you question Us
The government has more than enough to do without diverting time and money away from their basic tasks
I think your point is good. A politically correct point of view rules the day in every walk of life today, including the law. Although the judge ultimately recognized the dangers to free speech, he simply could not leave himself exposed and had to make those comments.
As for Mr. Weaver adding Mr. Ball’s article to his own ‘wall of hate’ the purpose is clear to any student or associate of Mr. Weaver. Posting Ball’s article is Mr. Weaver ‘s clear warning to any other climate heretic who may be lurking in the vicinity.
‘These are the thoughts that lead to madness and ruin’
>he did in order to NOT deal with the substance of the matter.<
The "substance" is whether Dr. Ball is right or not. But that's not an issue the judge can decide on, because he's a judge, but not a scientist. So he decides within the categories to which he is entitled.
Judges are appointed – it is a plus. They can rule without fear or favor.
They can also ignore the law and rule on personal whim, without fear or favor.
Many judges in the US are elected.
Actually, I think the judge made his views on the substance of the matter clear. He just was able to separate that from the defamation ruling.
David, I think the Judge stated in that way because the failed arguments from Dr. Weaver against Dr. Ball was enough to disprove his defamation claims.
Don’t forget that Weaver never brought witnesses or himself into court for direct question, plus he posted the despised article outside of his office for others to see, that he refuse to accept Dr. Balls widespread apology.
Weaver wanted to smack Dr. Ball down in court is clearly obvious to me.
“Don’t forget that Weaver never brought witnesses or himself into court for direct question”
Much said here, of dubious relevance (did the defence bring witnesses?), and it seems, not even true. The judgement says
” [22] Dr. Weaver testified that he came across the Article by using a computer search of his name.”
I concede that he was at the trial, but you have yet to concede that Weaver lost because he failed to prove his Defamation complaint in court.
You write,
“It’s true that the judge didn’t think much of Dr Ball’s credibility. But that is why he dismissed. If the defence can convince the court otherwise on that point, it will not help, following the logic of the dismissal.”
The Judge specifically stated that Weaver FAILED to support his claim.
“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.”
“you have yet to concede that Weaver lost because he failed to prove his Defamation complaint in court”
Of course he lost, and that is usually the reason. The judge dismissed the case. But he says explicitly why “the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers”. I quoted it above, and so did you:
“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.”
Ok,
He stated the main reason why he dismissed the complaint:
““[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. …”
Dr. Weaver never had sufficient evidence that he was defamed, the man who turned down a public apology on all but one demanded point. I am not impressed with his behavior when he could have accepted the apology and go on with his career.
Tim, What a hero you are! Here are some Aussie dollars and they are not the first from me! Hero!
Ball and his publishers both apologised for publishing unresearched information and withdrew all instances on the web.
In doing so they are admitting it was defamation.
This case has nothing to do with agw. It is about.damaging a person’s reputation and affecting his ability to earn a salary. The statements Dr Ball makes do just that.
He obviously made the statements knowing them to be false _he admitted this by his apology.
He wrote the article with malice in mind. I have no doubt that this would be construed as defamafion
The apology and the judge deciding that Tim Ball was not making creditable sense are the reason Ball got off.
If I were Ball I would not be spreading this result. It just makes him look like a mentally challenged old man unfortunately.
To repeat this once more this has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of agw or for that matter,free speech.
Only the press apologized.
“only the press apologised”
Not true according to the court report . The both used similar wording admitting inaccuracy and lies
Every sentence you wrote is utterly incorrect, as has been well documented above.
You didn’t read what the Judge stated at all, since you post this unsupported opinion.
Here is what the Judge said about the Apology:
““[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”.
DR. Weaver didn’t accept a public apology, withdrew the articles and propagated that apology.
Dr. Weaver failed his claim of Defamation, according to the Judge.
“Voltaire’s comment that I don’t necessarily agree with you, but you must have the right to say it”
I believe it was his biographer that wrote that.
oops, sorry to Sara above she has already addressed the comment!
Does Canadian law have a “loser pays” provision? Can Dr. Ball reasonably expect to recover legal costs from the plaintiff?
Alan – There was no loser or winner. The case was dismissed. In chess it is a stalemate.
Conclusion
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.
Once again, completely wrong.
If a case is dismissed, then the defendant has won.
As always, the portion you quote doesn’t say what you want it to say.
The section you quote is only in there precisely because Weaver has to pay Ball’s court costs. It just says that if the two sides can’t agree on how much Weaver has to pay, then they are free to let the courts decide.
If both sides were simply to pay their own costs, then there would be no need for the courts to get involved.
It probably wasn’t a good idea to take Tim Ball seriously but who can know how such an attack on another person’s reputation (even if his article was “rife with errors and inaccuracies”) can affect that person. We’re all human and no one should have to expect to put up with “clearly derogatory” comments just because they’re in the public eye. Well, at least we do now have a judgement about Tim Ball’s credibility, and that is a valuable weapon against him and his supporters: “a lack of attention to detail”, “an indifference to the truth”, “poorly written and does not advance credible arguments”, “a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views”. Ouch, that’s got to hurt even someone like him and his supporters! Good for the truth and future dialogue, though, because now everyone knows who is credible, who can be trusted and what to think of those who still think he is credible. Good job, judge!
If Dr. Ball has no credibility, why the need to sue him? Three times. Same lawyer. Same litigants as well.
Some people just cannot put 2 and 2 together.
Until the court said he had no credibility this was assumed but not proven.
If someone incorrectly states inaccuracies as facts then surely you have a right to defend yourself. When such inaccuracies are published on the web where they will be taken up and run with to all corners of the idiocracy you need to take rapid and notable action to limit the hurt.
Gord McBean got on the gravy train right after he retired from Environment Canada. A group started a hazardous weather program, getting gov money to run it. Was he an oceanographer?
then surely you have a right to defend yourself.
Of course you do. You can write a rebuttal and ask the publication to print it. You can write a rebuttal in other publications. You can post in blogs. You can set up your own blog. What Weaver did instead was try to shut down the debate. If Dr. Ball’s comments were so incompetent, why didn’t Weaver just make public mince meat out of his arguments? He didn’t, because those arguments have merit, and Weaver’s position would be exposed by engaging. So he sued to shut down debate instead. He’s afraid to engage on the facts.
Ghalfront, it is Dr. Weaver who is damaged here since he turned down a groveling apology over an article properly labeled as Derogatory, by the Judge.
Dr. Ball has publicly admitted that his article was bad with his apology. But Dr. Weaver sued anyway only to lose as the Judge stated:
“[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.”
Here is why she decided for the Defendant:
“[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. …”
Sunsettommy February 15, 2018 at 5:48 pm says;
“Dr. Ball has publicly admitted that his article was bad with his apology. “
Correction, Dr. Ball’s lawyers wrote the apology.
Ball is right about the diversion of funding and research into the narrow study of AGW. When my recent paper was peer-reviewed, a major bone of contention that stopped its initial publication, was that it did not support AGW.
How can science progress, if the outcome of research is being determined in advance??
Ralph
Dr. Ball, thank you for dedicated pursuit of truth and free speech.
Sounds like Dr. Ball won round one but has two, maybe three more rounds to go. What I don’t understand, and it might be different in Canada than the USA, is how these three brought liable law suits against Dr. Ball at all. They are not exactly private citizens. They have made themselves well known public figures. Weaver a politicians and head of a political party. Mann runs around in the public spouting off all the time. I was just a lowly high level administrator and was regularly attacked in the news media by people using totally made up lies. Yet when I got tired of it all my attorney told me I was too much of a public figure, been in the news media too much on my own during my career not to have a judge throw out any libel law suit I could bring. In other words I had to grin and bear it.
Weaver made the CBC news twice, for one lawsuit against the National Post, and one against Tim Ball. The National Post brought up Weaver’s connection to Climategate.
——————————————
Climate scientist Andrew Weaver wins defamation suit against National Post (Climategate)
‘Imputations of dishonest behaviour on the part of a scientist… can constitute defamation’
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/climate-scientist-andrew-weaver-wins-defamation-suit-against-national-post-1.2950286
B.C. Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver loses defamation lawsuit (Tim Ball)
Judge says article about Weaver was derogatory, but too poorly written to be legally defamatory
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/b-c-green-party-leader-andrew-weaver-loses-defamation-lawsuit-1.4536096
I cannot be the only person who worries about Tim and his wife’s mental state, this is a very brave stand to take under such unfair attrition.
Why does an individual have to stand alone on these matters?
Tim, I have watched your online lectures and read your Corruption of Science book from cover to cover and you are right.
Ball’s article was “rife with errors and inaccuracies” that showed a lack of attention to detail and an indifference to the truth, Skolrood wrote.
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,” Skolrood wrote.
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/b-c-green-party-s-andrew-weaver-loses-defamation-lawsuit-1.23174209
A Pyrrhic victory at best. The judge basically said that Ball won the case because he had no credibility.
Pyrrhic victory. Difficult to think of a riper example. He can consider himself lucky only his credibility was shredded.
The Judge doesn’t see it that way:
““[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. …”
DR. Weaver who turned down a public apology, damages his claim with his antics over the article indicating he wasn’t really damaged as he claims.
Turd polishing.
So why do you do it z?
Dr. Weaver’s credibility is shredded too since he REJECTED the public apology he had demanded from Dr. Ball to later push a claim of Defamation in court, a claim he failed to prove.
If he had accepted the Apology as demanded, he would have come out much better as a person who was a victim of an attack article. Then it would have been more like 100% Weaver to Ball 0%
Instead he partially rehabilitate Dr. Ball by losing in court against him, while tarnishing his own position in this sorry mess. It ends up more like 35% Weaver to Ball 65%