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 BC had anti-SLAPP but for some unknown reason, it was withdrawn through legislation.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.
Why does Tim Ball not mention the lawsuit he brought against the Calgary Herald and Dr. Dan Johnson of the University of Lethbridge. He withdrew the lawsuit in the face of strong defense positions by both the Herald and Dr. Johnson.
You really are desperate to distract from the issues of this case.
To say that Dr. Ball is a poor writer stretches credulity to the breaking point. He is a fine writer and thinker; it was a privilege to have dinner with him and his wife a few years ago, at which he displayed a range of erudition and knowledge that would (easily) put Weaver to shame.
I believe one of the problems with the climate debate is that it is waged between generalists and specialists. Generalists (like Ball) have a broad knowledge of many things; specialists (like Weaver) know a lot about very little. This is why specialists are so easily fooled into thinking that the little they think they know is Reality.
Another example of lawfare, where the *process* is the punishment.
It is high time some harassed sceptic not only gets all their costs refunded, but also compensation for time lost and distress from the frivolous or vexatious litigation.The one sided course of lawfare WILL result in the end of freedom of speech and thus, freedom itself.
Danielle Smith: Canadian climatologist wins a victory for common sense
https://globalnews.ca/news/4026679/danielle-smith-canadian-climatologist-wins-a-victory-for-common-sense/
Good for you Dr. Ball, am really happy to hear this!
Now we need the same outcome for Steyn…
Congrats to Tim Ball! As others have said, a win is a win, but let’s hope for something more in Ball and Steyn’s cases against Mann.
The judge dismissed the case. He did not make a finding for either the plaintiff or or the defendant. Neither side won. In chess it is called a stalemate.
Jack Dale. There was a finding. The court found Mr. Weaver was not defamed by Mr.Ball.
Rick
Conclusion
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.
Jack, if what you say was true, then there would be no need for the courts to get involved.
The clause you quote merely states that if the two sides can’t agree on how much Weaver owes Ball, they can return to the courts for adjudication.
Jack tries hard to avoid this part because he can’t face the fact that Dr. Weaver FAILED to prove he was Defamed.
Once again Jack ignores this section right above his misleading quote since he doesn’t want you to know WHY the Judge dismissed the claim:
[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.”
DR. Weaver LOST because the Judge doesn’t agree with his claim that he was being Defamed by that derogatory article that Dr. Ball wrote.
“[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.”
Jack and Rick, what was “Dismissed”?
DR. Ball damaged himself for writing that article.
Dr. Weaver damaged himself for not accepting the public Apology by Dr. Ball admitting his errors that shouldn’t been published, He then proceeded to push his claim of being Defamed, which the Judge specifically rejected.
Dismissing a case is a complete win for the defendant.
It is the courts way of saying that the case was frivolous and without merit.
Why are you so desperate to be-clown yourself?
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. Yes exactly correct.
Tim Ball won and so he should have .Weaver was trying to silence Tim Ball and Tim has every chance of winning costs against Weaver as he apologized and Weaver had posted the article that he had found on the web on his wall of hate for more people to read .Good on you Tim and good on WUWT for an open blog without fear of pressure from big money .
It’s not the judge’s job to determine the merits of scientific theories. He is not competent to do that. The charge is for defamation. And the accuser has not proven defamation. The accused is innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof is on the accuser and he has failed to do so. The ruling is correct but the reason given is wrong. The accused has no need to prove his credibility. The accuser must prove his reputation was harmed from an unjustified attack.
If the scientific theory the accused is espousing is credible, is that proof of defamation? No. But if the theory is dead wrong beyond reasonable doubt but it was used anyway to smear a person, that would be an unjustified attack on his reputation and a probable cause for defamation. Again, it is not the job of the judge to determine the merits of scientific theories. Defamation can be dismissed on the grounds that this is a scientific debate and not simply an attempt to destroy anybody’s reputation, or even if that were the case, the accuser has not proven it.
Absolutely. The sad truth is, the judge will be viewed as the “authority” here, and her statement will form the basis for many ad hominem attacks against Tim Ball.
Judge have the responsibility to establish the credibility of scientific claim all the time. It’s their role are final arbiters on who is an “expert”.
What I find amazing about this is that the judge’s written ruling comes closer to rising to the level of defamation (of Tim Ball… see para. 83) than any statements made by Tim Ball that formed the basis of Weaver’s argument.
The judge basically said that any “reasonably thoughtful and well-informed readers” would see that Tim Ball is an anti-science-conspiracy-kook that can’t write and entered it into the permanent public record. When you really parse that statement out, it’s as if the judge ruled for Weaver without ruling for Weaver. Weaver “technically” lost, but the end result is para. 83 exhaustively quoted in the liberal media and by truly anti-science enviro-fascists across the Internet and social media.
The judge needed only to state the obvious; Ball’s commentary did not fit the legal definition of defamation. Instead, the judge allowed Weaver to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
What I find amazing about this is that the judge’s written ruling comes closer to rising to the level of defamation (of Tim Ball… see para. 83) than any statements made by Tim Ball that formed the basis of Weaver’s argument.
The judge basically said that any “reasonably thoughtful and well-informed readers” would see that Tim Ball is an anti-science-conspiracy-kook that can’t write and entered it into the permanent public record. When you really parse that statement out, it’s as if the judge ruled for Weaver without ruling for Weaver. Weaver “technically” lost, but the end result is para. 83 exhaustively quoted in the liberal media and by truly anti-science enviro-fascists across the Internet and social media.
The judge needed only to state the obvious; Ball’s commentary did not fit the legal definition of defamation. Instead, the judge allowed Weaver to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.
As has been pointed out, Weaver has already claimed that he will appeal the ruling. This begs the question, who is paying his legal fees? Unless Weaver is independently wealthy, he has been spending a lot of money to defend his ego. Few people could afford this. As a member of the legislative assembly of BC and effectively, the co-premier of BC, the public has a right to know to whom Weaver is beholden for paying his legal fees.
I just sent an email to David Ebby, the BC attorney general (AG.Minister@gov.bc.ca), David Horgan, the premier (premier@gov.bc.ca) and Andrew Wilkinson, the leader of the opposition (andrew.wilkinson.MLA@leg.bc.ca). If anyone else wants to help take this up, please send them an email of your own.
(Mod, all of the above email addresses are publicly available.)
Great idea, Daryl. Will be following suit ( pardon the pun).
Small correction. John Horgan is BC’s premier ( coalition government with the assistance of Weaver’s green party, otherwise, neither would have any power other than what the opposition holds ).
I’m not sure this is a victory for Ball, and I’m certain it’s not a victory for global warming skepticism. The judge slammed Ball’s paper, and Ball himself. The grounds for dismissal were, essentially, that nobody really cared what Ball said.