UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann “hides the decline” AGAIN

Original title before update: Breaking: Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay

See the update below.

Readers surely recall that the easily offended Dr. Michael Mann launched a court case for defamation against climate skeptic Dr. Tim Ball of Canada.

In Feburary 2018 there was a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against Dr. Ball by Andrew Weaver of Canada, also for “defamation”.

The Weaver defamation case involved an article Ball 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. Ball referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. Ball made some comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit.

That case was completely dismissed, you can read more here.

Now in the Mann case, which goes back to 2011, there’s also a complete dismissal. Ball wrote to me less than an hour ago, asking me to announce it here.

He writes:

Hi Anthony  

Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs.  

Tim Ball

This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more.


UPDATE:

Dr. Mann Has Posted On Twitter In Reply To This Article

Mann’s statement is here: https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1164910044414189568

For those who are blocked by Dr. Mann: (including me)

And if you’re blocked on Facebook by Dr. Mann, here is that statement:

John O’Sullivan of PSI wrote to one of our moderators with this intro and statement given by Dr. Ball that I was not aware of. Mann of course does not tell his readers this other very important fact, sort of like what he did in “hide the decline” by not reporting negative results that compromised his argument. Mann was doing most of the foot dragging that caused such long delays as the case has been active since 2011.

As Mark Steyn once pointed out; “the process is the punishment “.



O’Sullivan writes:

In short, Mann’s responsive statement is:

  1. Stark admission he lost fair and square
  2. A disingenuous argument that the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in a timely fashion.

The case has gone on an entire nine years.

On that point, this is where readers may wish to refer to the article ‘Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann‘ (July 4, 2017). In it they offered analysis as to Mann’s fatal legal error. As Dr Ball explained at that time:

Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.

As I explained in the article, Mann (and his crooked lawyer) had shown bad faith, thereby rendering his case liable for dismissal. I urged Tim to pursue that winning tactic and thankfully he did.

Assisting Dr Ball has been a huge honor for me and probably one of the greatest achievements of my life. But Tim only won this famous courtroom battle thanks to massive worldwide grassroots support.



Anthony: So, as usual, in my opinion Dr. Mann’s ego interprets the facts only in ways that suit his viewpoint, which is the whole reason he got into trouble with the hockey-stick in the first place.

And it isn’t just me who thinks Mann’s arguments are merit-less, in the other defamation case he is pursuing, he has no friends:

Mann’s media buddies leave him high and dry – oppose his lawsuit

Twenty-four media organizations, including The Washington Post, NBC Universal, and Fox News, have sided with the conservative National Review and free market-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) over a defamation lawsuit brought by a leading climate scientist.

The organizations, which also included the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia, were signatories to a Feb. 13, letter filed with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in which both the National Review and the Competitive Enterprise Institute requested a rehearing of their case before the full appeals court.

In December 2018, a three-judge panel amended a previous ruling against them. But according to the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press, which represents the two-dozen media groups, a full rehearing of the case is now “warranted.”

“The panel’s decision on the merits of plaintiff’s defamation claim … may have unintended and undesirable consequences in future cases implicating the exercise of amici’s right to freedom of speech and of the press,” attorneys for the Reporters Committee stated.

Read it here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/02/22/manns-media-buddies-leave-him-high-and-dry-oppose-his-lawsuit/

These two quotes seem relevant to Dr. Mann’s travails, and I think the first one speaks loudly to his “save the planet from global warming” machinations:

When any man is more stupidly vain and outrageously egotistic than his fellows, he will hide his hideousness in humanitarianism. –George Moore

Egotism is the anesthetic which nature gives us to deaden the pain of being a fool. Dr. Herbert Shofield

UPDATE #2

Then there is this:

Advertisements

705 thoughts on “UPDATE – Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann “hides the decline” AGAIN

    • Congratulations Tim.

      Tim Ball was lucky to win, because he got a good judge (actually a good “Justice” – federally-appointed judges are called Justices).

      Based on my experience, Liberal-appointed federal Justices do not even follow the basics of our laws. They do what they are told by Ottawa.
      They routinely plunder:
      – Innocent until proved Guilty
      – Rules of Evidence
      – the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

      I presented to about a dozen federally-appointed Justices through the Court of Queen Bench of Alberta, the Alberta Court of Appeal, not counting the SCC that refused to hear my case. Most of these Justices apparently were politically-appointed hacks – like the recent Leblanc appointees.

      FOUR OF SIX JUDGES APPOINTED TO NEW BRUNSWICK COURTS HAVE LINKS TO LIBERAL CABINET MINISTER DOMINIC LEBLANC
      https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-four-of-six-judges-appointed-to-new-brunswick-federal-branch-have/
      Sean Fine, Justice Writer, July 2, 2019

      Jason Kenney is hoping to have the Courts reject the Carbon Tax, but in my opinion he has no chance – the Liberal-appointed Justices will follow Ottawa’s instructions and uphold the Carbon Tax – the laws won’t matter – just like the science.

      Regards, Allan

        • Jim – both systems have their problems.

          Your elected judges are beholden to those who contribute to their election campaigns. In the oil and gas business, we are particularly cautious about Texas and Oklahoma courts.

          Our federally-appointed Justices are beholden to those who appointed them.

          But in terms of transparency of judicial appointments, Canadians have none, whereas you have beaucoup.

          • Our federally-appointed Justices are beholden to those who appointed them.

            Once they’re appointed, they are independent and can’t really be influenced. Just look at the s**t storm that resulted from “Dances with Unicorns” trying to influence the AG (Wilson-Raybould).

            The best the government can hope for is to get judges who are naturally conservative or liberal. Even so, judges have changed their colors after being appointed.

          • I know little about the Canadian legal system, but it seems they got it right this time. The only thing I can complain about is that it took them eight years rather than eight seconds.

            I first met Dr. Ball in the comments-section of this website (I think) when this website was young. As I recall he was just “Tim Ball” and I had no idea I was exchanging ideas with a man who was an expert. He had the nice habit of redirecting me to links that were full of fascinating information, regarding the Medieval Warm Period. (I knew a fair amount about Greenland Vikings, but little about climate.)

            This was in stark contrast to Mann, who was amazingly rude. Even the “Climategate” emails show his fellow Climate-scientists tended to back away from his tendency to get very nasty when faced with differing views. One thing that could make Mann explode was to say the Medieval Warm Period even existed. Mann’s “hockey stick graph” basically “erased” that idea.

            I don’t object to Mann proposing a new theory. What I object to is the way he attacks others. In a sense his theory disregards the life’s work of a great many historians, archeologists, geologists, and even climate-scientists such as Charles Lamb. If any one has attacked anyone, it is Mann, in attacking prior ideas.

            Considering Mann in essence attacked the life’s work of Dr. Tim Ball, Tim was quite gracious, especially initially. Mann dealt out many scornful and belittling statements, and Tim never sued him, instead resorting to what scientists are suppose to resort to, which was facts and science. It was only after considerable provocation that Tim began to fight back with more heat, including the line (which I think is great) that stated Mann belonged not at Penn State but in the State Pen.

            Mann could dish it out, but couldn’t take it. He has wasted everyone’s time and money in a frivolous lawsuit based on vanity, bullying, and other people’s money. I think he intended to break Tim without ever presenting any evidence, perhaps by merely dragging the case out until Tim died of natural causes.

            The great thing is that Tim refused to die, or even to simply roll his eyes and head off to a quiet retirement someplace far away from political nitwits. He puts me to shame, because I’m tired of political nitwits, and don’t battle as much as I used to.

            Tim is an inspiration. May he live to be 110, and never retire!

      • dear allan:

        you are spot on sir!!! the liEberal judges are truly fraudsters all. over 25 years ago i proved MANY TIMES by review of IPCC researchers’ reports and decision summaries that the IPCC researchers’ work was fraudulent. i know tim ball, and he luckily got a smart lawyer tHAT HAD TIM ALSO PREPARE A GRAPH OF WORLD TEMPERATURES FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF BC ACTION FILED BY MANN, BUT WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. MANN REUSED TO COMPL;Y WITH THAT COURT’S ORDER TO FILE THE DATA SUPPORTING HIS “HOCKEY STICK” GRAOH BY FEBRUARY 2017. I THINK THAT IS WHY THEY THREW OUT HIS DEFAMATION SUIT AGAINST TIM. AND RIGHTLY SO.

        • Well done james, you manage to capitalise just about everything except people’s names.

          Congrats to Dr Ball, Mann will have to get out his begging bowl again to get others to pay the costs of his rediculous “defamation” delusion.

        • I haven’t followed this much, but have read many of the updates and findings here. I do agree with everyone that Mann is easily triggered, arrogant and extremely rude. I’m confused as to what the real meaning is behind the results of this outcome. Mann never produced what he was asked to. But it doesn’t appear that Ball really won anything here. I’d love for Mann to be hopelessly embarrassed.

          But this confuses me.
          https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/06/michael-mann-wins-court-case.html

          • When you are the one being sued, the best possible outcome is to end up not paying anything yourself and to have the other side pay your bills.

            That happened.

          • In the same case the FCPP, who were co-defendants with Ball, apologized to Mann and retracted the post by Tim Ball. Not confusing at all.

          • From the slow moving Appell link,

            Mann says he has not settled his claims against Tim Ball, who remains a defendant in the lawsuit. We’ll see about that “humor.”

            That is what he LOST Dale, this part where Mann sat on his ass after requesting an Adjournment of Trial back in early 2017, which was granted.

          • It would appear to me that Mann & the IPCC clan realised that they couldn’t actually back up the case with real data and the only recourse (to fake a semblance of dignity) was to run out the clock, pay the piper quietly and move on to the next bogus suit …

          • DEAR MR. DALE: It appears you are another IPCC/Mann fraudster. You ignore Mann’s incessant delaying tactics of his 2011 suit. He was ordered to file his data in October 2016 by February 2017. He refused to comply. Ball filed his graph, with supporting data without order. Mann probably knew if he filed his data, Ball would prove Mann’s research was fraudulent. Even i proved IPCC research was fraudulent over 25 years ago by examination of IPCC reports and resulting decision summaries. If you had a double digit IQ you could do the same.

          • Some with all those initials behind their name would know that “Ball’s graph” is actually the graph produced by Hubert Lamb in 1965 and modified in 1982. It is based on “”data from the realms of botany, historical document research and meteorology ” from Central England.

            I look forward to seeing your 25 year old proof that “IPCC research was fraudulent”. Please provide us with the journal in which it was published.

          • DEAR Mr. DALE; i said i proved it from IPCC reports (=/- 1500 pages) prepared by many climate scientists and the resulting decision summaries (prepared by IPCC people. If you took the time to read them you would note several errors and omissions between the two related documents. All in the same direction!!! In support of the IPCC theory!!! Conclusive proof of fraud in all reasonable courts!! Reconfirmed in each set of IPCC documents i reviewed!!! Even in the 1990’s I offered to sponsor a court room style debate on the IPCC theory, offering $50,000 to the winner and $25,000 to the loser, and to work hard to get additional sponsors to raise the prize money by a factor of 10 to 100. One major rule “full, true and plain disclosure in all communication”, similar to that imposed on officers of publicly listed corporations, (with similar penalties (huge fines, long jail terms and prohibition from ever being involved in the industry ever again). I could get lots of scientists to take the negative side but not one supporter of the IPCC theory!!! I thought that liars never want expert cross examination. I have an outstanding background in finding fraud. Found my first one as a first year articling strident out of high school. By the end of third year the senior partner to whom i articled and worked for called me into his office and said “Jim, last year you found more fraud than the other 32 offices in the firm combined – you have a sixth sense – use it>”. i have found about 100 during my career in practice and industry. In the 1980’s the managing partner for Canada asked me to rejoin the firm to manage the forensic, valuation and litigation support practice for western Canada out of Calgary, which i did for 4 years. What is your record in finding fraud??? And denouncing fraudsters???

      • Sorry if this is inappropriate but the practice of Dr Mann of blocking people could have unintended consequences. To note President Trump was ordered by the court to unblock people because of his public presence, AOC has a pending case against her for similar reasons.
        Dr Mann is by his actions a public figure and spokes person. He is involved with public policy and thus his blocking of other views is a violation of freedom of speech rights.
        A lawsuit to force him to unblock his media accounts, would be interesting

        Michael

        • Normally, I would agree but even if you are blocked, you can still read the tweets if you log out of your account. You just can’t respond. Is that problematic? I don’t think so considering there are other ways of communicating.

          • You’d think so, but the courts set the precedent with the Trump case that public figures involved with public policy can’t legally block the public from their official social media feeds. The question isn’t “is it problematic?” (the courts already ruled on that) but rather is Mann a public enough figure for the Trump precedent to apply.

          • Rnt,
            Snail-mail shouldn’t be considered a sufficient legal remedy to blocking in our communication age!

        • It’s wrong, though not inappropriate.

          It is, however, a false claim lots of people are making who do not understand the ruling against the President (and that’s a hint).

          The court ruled that a government actor may not stifle the dissemination of governmental communications made to the public unequally treating different members of the public – which isn’t really interesting, as it follows from many cases over more than a hundred years.

          Where this gets more interesting (though again, not too surprising) is in how they determine what a governmental communication channel is. In short, if a governmental actor (elected, appointed, hired, etc) use a channel for official announcements or official communications (such as announcing new tariff policies, or the nomination or appointment of government employees) then they turn that channel from a private one into a public one which cannot block others from reading it.

          Let’s look at the specifics.

          President Trump has two Twitter accounts: @POTUS and @RealDonaldTrump. Prior to his election, @realdonalttrump was his personal account. After his election he started to use that account for official government business, transforming it into a governmental channel which cannot block people. After he leaves office he’ll no longer be able to make policy. So that account will revert back to a private account. He could also do so now by segregating his official and personal conduct. “Melania is the best”, “I eat KFC with a fork”, “Kaepernick is a loser” would all count as personal, but so long as he even occasionally uses it for official communications (“were raising a tariff on China. Very bad. USA good”) then he can’t block anyone.

          AOC does the same, and will have the same result. The only interesting question with her is whether this ruling counts as “clearly established” yet, which would make her liable under 18 USC 1983 for violation of civil rights, and would pierce her limited immunity. Trump was not liable under that law because it definitely wasn’t clearly established that’s how the law would work out, now it is (especially as to him), so he’s unblocked everyone who was previously blocked and has asked to be unblocked.

          None of this of course requires that he read their tweets, and he can safely ignore them.

          So let’s look at Mann. The court ruling requires that all governmental actors not block people. Mann is not a governmental actor, so the law doesn’t apply to him. The end.

          But you say, he’s a public figure. Very true, and immaterial. The Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution requires that the government treat people the same, not that they treat each other the same. Even if a new statute were written to force public figures to unblock people, that itself would also violate the right to assemble under the first amendment, in the specific case of the right not to assemble with people you don’t want to.

          • Robert you mention “the right not to assemble with people you don’t want to”.
            Makes me wonder about its application to mailing lists.
            Would it apply to private action (email listing) as well as Government – surely in our private life we have “the right not to assemble with people you don’t want to” which must include private behaviour.
            What do you think – does being put on an email list violate one’s ”right not to assemble with people you don’t want to”?
            Does having one’s metadata on the Internet “taken” constitute a violation of this right?

            The Shoals of Litigation loom.

        • All great to hear! Is there a official judgment with case Nr. and so on? I want to proof this to some people her.

    • For those interested, I’d like to give a legal perspective on the lawsuit, and on Michael Mann’s comments:

      1) It is in many ways unfortunate that Tim Ball won the case on a procedural basis, i.e. because of delays on the part of Michael Mann, since this means that the court will not be judging whether Tim’s comments amount to defamation. Suppose it sided with Tim on this issue, the ruling might possibly also show that some of Tim’s allegations against Mr. Mann were in fact correct. Now, this question will not be adjudicated by the courts.

      2) While it’s abhorrent to try to silence your opponents in a scientific debate by suing them for defamation, what I’ve read of Tim Ball’s writings suggest that there is sometimes a sound basis for suing him for defamation. The easiest way to avoid more costly lawsuits would be for Tim to scale down his comments and make sure he doesn’t accuse people, or alledge wrong-doings, that he cannot prove.
      I mean – there’s ample evidence that many of the people advocating that the registered global temperature increase prior the year 2000 is caused solely or mainly by the increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere – are wrong – and that some of them use fraudulent and/or unscientific methods to support their own theory (see the “ClimateGate” mails, for instance) – so why not just stick to provable facts? If you do so, you can never lose a defamation lawsuit!

      3) For those readers who don’t have law degree, and don’t know basic procedural law, I’d like to point out that Michael E. Mann’s comment to the case is grossly misleading. Below you’ll find his Facebook comment, with my comments inserted in brackets [].

      “There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:

      The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.
      [Ball DID win the case, on the procedural matter, namely because Mann didn’t provided the necessary documents within the (very long) time he was given to do this]. Precisely because Ball won on the procedural issue, the court could not decide on the matter of the case, namely whether Ball’s writings amounted to “defamation” of Mann. All lawyers are aware of this risk of dismissal, and all parties know beforehand that the lawsuit will be dismissed if the deadline isn’t met. It follows from this that Mann chose to loose the case by dismissal (most likely on the informed advice of his lawyer). Why would he choose to loose it like that? Most probably because he was informed he would not be able to win the case on its merits (i.e. prove defamation), and then chose to lose it before this issue was settled. This has the advance of lowering the costs that Mann will be obliged to pay to Ball ].

      The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days. [That is amusing. Since the dismissal is due to delay, an appeal will only be appealing the question of whether the lawsuit was rightly appealed because of the delay, and the dismissal is almost 100% certain to be upheld. So Mann won’t be appealing – as we shall see in the future, because if he does, he will lose again,and will have to pay further case costs, plus of course the salary of his own lawyers.]

      The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.
      [No, for the payment of the loser to the winner of the case normally doesn’t cover all of the winner’s legal fees; but it does cover SOME of them!]

      This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment [Very true. By losing on a procedural question, Mann avoided a decision as to the matter of the case]. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.” [ROTFLMAO! The person showing the world he doesn’t want a verdict on the real issue is Mann, who could have avoided the loss by simply producing the needed documents in time, OR simply asking for an extension until he was able to produce them.]

      Sincerely,
      M. Kaastrup, M. Sc., L.L.M.

      • Thanks. What is your source regarding the substance of the ruling — is there a written order or a transcript?

        • My source is Mann’s and Tim’s summary of the ruling, I don’t have the ruling itself – but it’s easy enough to figure out on the basis of their summaries.

      • So what you are saying is that this was not a victory stating that Tim Balls assertion that Mann’s research was fraudulent and he should be in jail was valid. It does not address whether Ball’s comments had any scientific validity, nor that anybody Mann’s research was in any way incorrect?
        As I read Soloman’s statement it was the defense demanding all of Mann’s research, not the court, is that correct?
        So the worst case scenario for Mann is he thought it unlikely he would be able to legally prove defamation and was cutting losses.
        And in the intervening years since the suit began, all the research including Koch funded research that involved 2 well known climate skeptics reconfirm Mann’s paper that Ball claims was fraudulent.
        So Tim Balls assertions that were the basis for the suit have no scientific validity and Mann’s reasons for suing Ball were perfectly justified, if not strong enough to merit legal justification.
        Is there anything inaccurate in my analysis?

        • Nope. The 2017 adjournment which was requested by Mann was granted by the Court. The adjournment was only consented to on the condition that Mann produce his source documents/data. So the Court was demanding Mann’s research be turned over to Ball; it would not have granted the adjournment otherwise.

        • JUST THAT YOU IGNORE IMPORTANT FACTS. MANN’S “HOCKEY STICK” GRAPH OF WORLD TEMPERATURES SHOWS 2000 YEARS OF SLOWLY DECLINING TEMPERATURES, THEN 200 YEARS OF RAPIDLY RISING TEMPERATURES. BALL’S GRAPH FILED WITH THE COURT, WITH SUPPORTING DATA, SHOWS 2200 YEARS OF SLOWLY DECLINING TEMPERATURES!!! PUTS INTO PROPER CONTEXT THE EMAIL MANN GOT EARLIER FROM A FELLOW IPCC RESEARCHER COMMENDING MANN FOR “HIDING THE DECLINE” !!! AS OPPOSED TO THE NONSENSICAL EXPLANATION MANN GAVE EARLIER. MANN WAS ORDERED IN OCTOBER 2016 TO FILE THE SUPPORTING DATA WITH THE COURT AND REFUSED TO COMPLY. AND YOU WONDER WHY??? YOU BROADCAST YOUR IGNORANCE, AT BEST, BY YOUR POSTS ON THE SUBJECT.

          (Second warning for Capitalizing every letter, the BLOG POLICY is very clear on this: “Publishing comments in SHOUTING MODE (all caps) is not acceptable.”) SUNMOD

          • My eyes were “deafened” by this very loud post No more caps please except for grammatical reasons

        • There are quite a few inaccuracies.
          1) In the course of the lawsuit, Mann’s own legal position was that the originally published reconstruction was invalid.
          2) No research has confirmed Mann’s paper and several reconstructions oppose his “hockey stick’, showing significant variations in temperature prior to the 19th century.
          3) As mentioned by others, the court demanded Mann’s research.
          4) To have any scientific claim validated, the research would need to be fully released to the general public.

          There hasn’t been a shred of evidence presented that Tim Ball’s claims weren’t completely accurate, just a claim that others got results somewhere in the ballpark of what Mann claimed after the fact was the general concept he meant to claim in his original paper.

        • So what you are saying is that this was not a victory stating that Tim Balls assertion that Mann’s research was fraudulent and he should be in jail was valid.
          CORRECT
          It does not address whether Ball’s comments had any scientific validity, nor that anybody Mann’s research was in any way incorrect?
          CORRECT
          As I read Soloman’s statement it was the defense demanding all of Mann’s research, not the court, is that correct?
          CORRECT
          So the worst case scenario for Mann is he thought it unlikely he would be able to legally prove defamation and was cutting losses.

          MK: I think that is what he did, yes. But the worst case scenario for Mann would be if he had given up the information, and it could be used by Tim and others to prove Mann had falsified the temperature records by creating a program that tampered with them.

          And in the intervening years since the suit began, all the research including Koch funded research that involved 2 well known climate skeptics reconfirm Mann’s paper that Ball claims was fraudulent.
          So Tim Balls assertions that were the basis for the suit have no scientific validity (no evaluation of this has been made!) and Mann’s reasons for suing Ball were perfectly justified, if not strong enough to merit legal justification (no evaluation of this has been made, but IMO Mann’s suit was NOT justified. That is, however, because my impression is that he is a liar and a fraud, but Tim would have to prove that in court).

          Is there anything inaccurate in my analysis?
          -See above 🙂

        • Nonsense. Mann made a claim of libel. The libel claim was predicated on the accuracy of his government funded research, the results of which should be at least partially public property. To defend against the libel claim asserted the “Truth Defense” which has its counterparts under American law. This if Ball could show knowing error or outright fraud in the collection, weighting or organization of Mann’s data then his opinion statements would provide the factual foundation to Dr. Ball needed to fend off the lawsuit. Ergo the necessity of the Plaintiff providing discovery to the Defendant or suffer dismissal.

          Your reference to outside “confirmation” research, without any point citation to it, is inapposite and irrelevant regardless of any findings.

          Mann had an absolute obligation to produce the requested data failing which he suffered a court reversal and bad outcome. When you have possession of the critical evidence and refuse to produce it in order to advance your own lawsuit it is pretty reasonable to infer that you didn’t produce it because you knew it hurt you and did not help you. But Leftist members of the Latter Day Church of AGW aren’t known for their rationality are they?

          • Dear MARK FISHER: Extremely well said, SIR!!! You have expressed the facts of the case exceedingly well and your excellent opinion logically follows. I read my first IPCC Report and resulting Decision Summary over 25 years ago and was able to prove fraud from those IPCC documents. I reconfirmed the fraud by examining IPCC documents over 20 times in the following years. Mann refused to comply with the court order to file his supporting data as he knew Ball would prove Mann’s “HOCKEY STICK” graph would be o\proven fraudulent. After all, Ball’s similar temperature graph showed no “hockey stick” for the last 200 years!!! Mann never challenged Ball’s graph even though Ball filed the supporting data!!!

      • “The easiest way to avoid more costly lawsuits would be for Tim to scale down his comments and make sure he doesn’t accuse people, or alledge wrong-doings, that he cannot prove.” Maybe that is the point, Mann et al do not disclose their code or raw data as well as hiding behind ‘pal review’. Getting Mann et al to court where they must disclose the info is one of the objectives.
        Anyway, thanks for the great summary from a legal point of view.

        • Yes, Bob that may indeed be the point of Tim’s actions, and if so, it’s a ballsy thing to do. Unfortunately, it didn’t work in this case, as Mann didn’t release his calculations. But suppose he’d released falsified calculations that had then proved Tim wrong? That’s what I would have done….:-D

      • M Kaastrup LLM – One additional comment regarding the non submission of documents

        Mann made the claim in one of his recent twitter posts that the “codes” have been made available for 10+ years and he include a citation on where those codes could be located/obtained.

        It is my understanding that documents have to be admitted into evidence – even if they are publiclyknown or common knowledge or available at the local liabrary. Without being formally admitted into evidence in court or in a court filing, then the information can not be used. Same

        Fwiw – this is the same error in the Gore V Bush case where the trial court was the only court that got the correct decision (the US SC got the correct result but for the wrong reason). At the trial court, while there was considerable evidence that would have placed the election in doubt, the gore team did not put into any evidence to support that fact.

      • You’re missing a point of US law that might matter (I’m ignorant of Canadian law, and choice of law across national border is beyond my expertise).

        Under US law Mann would have to prove all of these:
        A) Balls statements were statements of fact, not opinion
        B) the statements were false
        C) Ball knew them to be false, or was reckless in his disregard of their falsity
        D) they’re not derived from true stated facts
        E) and it’s not hyperbole

        C only applies to public figures, and Mann certainly qualifies as a “limited purpose public figure” under US law, which basically means it’s the higher standard for anything to do with climate, but C wouldn’t apply if you were to accuse him of bank robbery, for example.

        D is a clause that often doesn’t matter in defamation cases, but from what I remember of Balls comments would apply to all of them. This part of US law comes from the idea that even an apparent statement of fact, if made as a part of a deductive logic chain, is really an opinion. For example, “Mann robs banks” would be actionable, as it implies some undisclosed specific knowledge. “Mann’s a climatologist, therefor he’s a bank robber too” is a protected statement as it uses deductive logic – noting very explicitly that the conclusion doesn’t actually have to make sense, just that it show the persons method of determining perfidy.

        E of course also covers a lot, but since I don’t have a perfect memory of even my own postings I can’t be sure it applies to all of Balls.

        One more point which might matter. US law requires that for a foreign defamation judgement to be domesticated it has to show that the protections for speech the US has wouldn’t have prevented the judgement. In other words, that the same result would have obtained in the US, so Mann obtained a Canadian judgement under different rules he’d have to relitigate to show that under the US standard he’d have won too, if he wants to seize assets in the US. Of course, if all of Balls assets are in Canada that’s immaterial.

        • Hi Robert,

          Thank you for your insightful comment. I guess for the sake of clarity I should point out that my law degree is from Denmark, and I might be equally (or more) ignorant of Canadian law than you. I wrote my first comment because it was clear that many contributors didn’t know the first thing about the effects of the case being discussed). Having said that, it is quite obvious that there are many many similarities between both Danish law, US law and Canadian law (the two last law systems derive from the same roots in the British and Common law tradition, while Danish law is closer to the continental (Freench/German) tradition).

          As for the “international aspect” of the case, you can safely assume that International Private Law rules dictate that the case is adjudicated according to Canadian law. (A Canadian citizen, being sued in Canada, is not subject to US law and likewise (Praise the Lord!) as a Danish citizen sued in Denmark, I am not subject to US law). The questions about seizing assets and the like are purely speculative, since there will never be a verdict on the reality of the case (is this defamation? nor on the related issue: Is Mann a fraud and a liar?).
          But thank you for the tabulation of A) to E). They correspond well with the legal situation in Denmark in cases where a person is sues for libel or defamation (“injurious accusations”).

      • All great to hear! Is there a official judgment with case Nr. and so on? I want to proof this to some people her.

    • What a joke! The court tossed the case because Ball pleaded that he was ill and the case was taking too long. Mann has published all the hockey stick research years ago.

      • Well, technically David, he already spent it on the lawyers – “costs” – this would thus be considered a refund which he can now spend as he pleases.

        • I was pleased to donate to his defence. Hopefully any money which is returned gets rolled over to a similar cause.

  1. Well done Tim!!

    Maybe the twerp Mann will learn to keep his gob shut in future.

    8 years is one helluva long time to go through all this just for costs though Tim.

    • Mark Stein filed a countersuit against Mann’s suit, just so’s that wouldn’t happen, and thereby forcing a jury trial if Stein wanted. Guys like Mann should be hammered when justice happens, or the justice isn’t complete. Who more deserving?

    • Wonderful! Hearty congratulations to Dr Tim Ball and thanks to WUWT for sharing the good news. However, I agree with you HotScot – simply having court costs covered by Mann is a poor recompense after 8 years of worry and anxiety as a result of his bullying tactics.

      • Woefully inadequate recompense for a frivolous lawsuit. I’ve read places, including here, that Dr. Mann is not widely respected either professionally or personally. He strikes me as the kind of creep who runs around yelling … “I’ll sue!” … at the slightest slight.

        Thank goodness not ALL our courts are infected activist Judges, err Justices.

        • Somebody other than Mann has to have been financing his adventures in the courts. Even in the absence of anything resembling court proceedings, sustaining a lawsuit for years on end is an enormously costly business, made the more so by drawing out the process, and Mann has demonstrated an infinite willingness to prolong the Bell and Steyn cases indefinitely.

          Sadly, I don’t imagine that Dr Ball or Mark Steyn will ever see a penny of compensation.

          • His delay tactics are purely because the doesn’t HAVE the data to back up his claims. He is a fraud. An any further court cases should be thrown out if he can’t produce his data on filing. He has already lost on this point.

      • What do we do that we know not, Bill?
        It used to be that the ignoramuses that relied on bullying tactics and lies always won! Being cordial was never a sufficient defensive measure!
        But when we started to bully with the truth and with courage was when the tide turned!
        So if that’s what we do that we know not, it should be exposed more often considering the nefarious goals of the Globalists!
        Don’t be a shill for M. Mann; he is the least deserving person on the planet to get sympathy!

    • Mann effectively admitted to the world he does not want the case to continue forward by getting the trial stopped by not providing court ordered data. Or that he doesn’t actually have it.

      • The most fundamental principle of jurisprudence is “Put up or shut up!”
        Mann failed to “put up” and to make matters worse, has also failed to “shut up”!
        He is such a loser!

    • I think Mark Steyn said that, and that’s part of the case against him.

      OTOH, I suspect Mann won’t be suing many more people over that dumb joke.

      It seems to me that you can safely call Mann a loser, though.

      • Ric Werme,

        I suspect Mann won’t be suing anybody else over anything as a result of the victory of Tim Ball and the reactions of Mark Steyn.

        I congratulate Tim Ball on his victory which I would like to think will get much publicity (but I suspect will not),

        However, I regret that I think Ball’s victory means Mann will not make good his threat against me. That threat was revealed by Climategate and throughout the years since then I have been hoping it was more than bluster because I could use the money I would make from claiming damages.

        Richard

      • “Mann in name only.”
        That’s a wild assumption using proxy data; can it be proved Empirically…
        & pity the poor researcher who attempts to find out.

        • “Mann-made global warming”.

          “Michael ‘Piltdown’ Mann”, inventor of the “hokey stick”.

          Question:
          If atmospheric CO2 is the primary driver of global temperature, how is it that “CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales”?
          Answer:
          Simple! It is obvious that the future is driving the past!

    • Yes! And thank you Dr. Ball for continuing to write and publish in an effort to educate during those 8 years, despite the stress you must have endured.

  2. Thanks for the great news!

    Will Mann’s exalted sense of Nobelity permit him to settle with Steyn?

    • Of course not! NO amount of Nobelity is enough to reverse that much ego. A fitting settlement in the Steyn case would be for the court to force Penn State to remove him from his exalted position.

      • A truly fitting resolution would be for Mann to pay the damages and legal fees and whoever is funding his lawyers to be identified and required to pay the triple punitive damages.

        I want to know who has been funding his legal harassment endeavors and want them to pay for the harm they have done.

    • John, I believe Mann is locked in by Steyn’s countersuit for 20M+. If Mann abandons the case, Steyn’s suit is a slam dunk. When Mann sued, a large number of commenters here who knew Steyn, opined that Mann had made the mistake of his lifetime! He was funded by some Climateering Defence League and Ibelieve Steyn will bankrupt this ill thought out org, too. Also, discovery from Mann looms. All his homespun ersatz stats (which McIntyre reported always formed a hockeystick with ‘white noise’), his weighting of one Yamal larch tree ring to get the upturn (WUWT had an article about the single most important tree in climate science “Once you’ve seen one you’ve seen ‘Yamal'” ). Plus a Finnish contaminated lake sediment proxy that the Finns said wasn’t usable but he went ahead and used it upside down because it supported the h- stick!!

        • Mark Styne? the man who is on Fox News with Tucker Carlson? WOW……OH WOW…Mark is a pitbull!!!!!!Deserves him right Mann is going to get his just deserts! Big Time…… Beautiful

          • No we can not. Pink noise has equal energy per octave, white noise is equal energy across the bandwith and red noise is just that random noise that all over the place. Now that I have pramterized them just may Dr Mann might read this and learn something, although being the fraudster he is not much chance of that.

      • Gary, you’ve got a lot of stuff wrong there. You might want o go back to Climate Audit and brush up on the facts.

      • Maybe, we’ll get to see if Manniacal’s financial backers are the ones that pay for Mann’s defeat?

        We should report Mann to the IRS; since that defense league’s payments to Mann’s lawyers and covering his legal loss constitutes financial earnings. And, it’s only right that Uncle Sam gets his portion of Mann’s largess.

      • The same thing happened, as I recall, when Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” went before a British Court as was found, essentially, not to be a “documentary” but a naked propaganda vehicle loaded with scientific gaffs.

        Truth always wins in the end, but it is often financially ruinous and personally risky, and not a gauntlet to be run by the squeamish. Hat’s off to Tim Ball.

        • That is of course completely the opposite of the judgement in case against An Inconvenient Truth. The Judge actually said the film was generally accurate, but pointed out 8 or 9 instances where the facts were not clear or they could be easily misinterpreted . The ruling was quite accurate and the film was able to be shown for educational purposes as long as caveats on those points were included.
          But don’t expect Anthony’s cheerleaders to correct you.
          You are welcome!

          • Tony,
            You are totally wrong.
            Read the penultimate paragraph ( Paragraph 45) of Justice Burton’s judgement in Dimmock v.State of State for Education and Skills (2007) EWHC 2288 (Admin).
            It is available on line at BAILII.
            No fee.
            Justice Burton notes that the original “ Guidance Notes” (aka list of errors) prior to the litigation were inadequate and indeed the “ Guidance Notes” at the hearing had to be updated (by agreement of the parties counsel) as they were not comprehensive and sufficient.
            He specifically ruled that without the corrective material being sent out with the video ( not merely referenced to an internet site) he would rule the movie propaganda not science and in breach of sections 306 and 307 of the UK Education Act.
            The Guidance Notes to accompany the movie to schools highlight errors ( not “errors”) and are not available to the public at large although summarised by his Honour in the Judgement.
            It was not the case that the errors were “ facts that were not clear or that could be easily misinterpreted.”
            The Wikipedia entry on the court case is misleading by omission.

          • The standard position of the internet troll.
            Totally dismissive towards anyone who dares to disagree with what the troll is paid to say.

  3. The only way these global warming hysterics will ever stop persecuting anyone opposing their agenda is if courts award damages against them if they are found to have lied. Mann has fed for decades at the trough in pursuit of his private cabal’s agenda (i’m Looking at you Phil Jones, James Hansen, Gavin Schmitt). Time to pay up, then shut up.

  4. Does this mean that the glacial pace of that so-called court has increased? Will we see adjudication of Mark Steyn’s case, or must another decade pass?

      • Losing side can always appeal.
        For that matter the winning side can appeal as well if they feel the award wasn’t big enough.

      • You likely need grounds for an appeal (new evidence, error in law). Losing in itself isn’t grounds.

      • ferd:

        Sleazy lawyers can always come up with a reason to appeal… and if you get a Liberal-appointed Justice, you will get your appeal, and you may win it!

        It has little (or nothing) to do with the facts, or the law.

        • Keep it civil, Sherrington. Macrae’s comment was on-topic, pithy, accurate and reasonable. Your reply was just rude.

          (That was NOT Geoff making that comment, it was a imposter loser doing it) SUNMOD

        • IMPOSTER ALERT !!!
          The comment above was not written by me, the original Geoff Sherrington, well known to you all from a decade of active blogging and articles on WUWT.
          You might search for your own Internet names to see if IMPOSTER SLUG has stolen your identity also.
          Geoff S

          (It is being taken care of, thanks for the tip once again. It is likely the same person who did it before) SUNMOD

        • SUNMOD
          If you are able to identify who has been hijacking Geoff’s name, would it be possible to post his real name?

          (We have a likely suspect, but Mods will not publish them, that is for Anthony to decide) SUNMOD

    • DEAR JEHILL:

      ONLY TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA, WHICH HAS TO APPROVE THE APPEAL. DOUBTFUL THEY WILL.

      • @CJB
        No it is not completely dead. Mann *could* appeal from the dismissal. Without seeing the actual Order it is difficult to say how hard that would be. From what has been published it appears that Mann has been in contempt of Court Orders requiring him to produce documentation. The Courts take a very very dim view of that sort of contempt. He is the instigator but does not want to play by the Court’s rules. He was given lots of time to fix his errors. The Court of Appeal will not look on that with any favour.
        But give it 30 days, and then we will know.

        @Shutiak. Shut up about things you know nothing about. Any appeal goes to the British Columbia COurt of Appeal first, and only after that, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

        • Mann would have to comply with the court’s order to produce his data before he could appeal, would he not?

    • Hoist with his own petard.
      Impailed with his own busted hockey stick.

      This is painful.
      The documents he wisely refused to produce obviously had a lot of damaging “science” in the form of a threat exposing fudging the numbers.

      The curtain falls on the tree ring circus.

    • Three years of legal wrestling with my family over a will cost me $250k. It isn’t cheap. I bet Dr. Ball has had to spend a lot of money over the eight years, as the paperwork and stuff never ceases, as the lawyers get to run up the bill with many little issues.

  5. Great news and a load off the shoulders of Tim Ball.
    I will be looking at our main stream news outlets for this story.
    I might be waiting a long time as the story doe’s not fit the agenda here .
    The win that Peter Rudd gained in Australia was not reported here in New Zealand .
    I googled Peter Ridd and Stuff had an article that the case was about to be heard but nothing more .
    Graham

    • I’ve started going to sites like HuffPo and posting zingers. Of course, they try to delete all such comments but I’m finding that they can’t keep up. Maybe their funding to pay censors is dwindling. At least I like to think that.

      This seems to me to be a way of getting the word out although you have to have an ego big enough to handle someone asking you “What’s the weather like in Moscow Boris”. Seriously. I might even try the Guardian sometime. In fact, when this news comes out in more detail, I think I’ll make it a half hour weekend project getting the word over to Libtardia.

      • The Guardian doesn’t allow comments, Phil. They may be dumb but they ain’t plum dumb. They don’t want pesky readers correcting their mistakes!

        • Strange, because I’ve read comments on here where people have been banned by the Guardian. I used to post on APNews before they did away with comments – possibly at the request of Seth Goebbelstein, who used to get his ass handed to him every time he peddled his propaganda there.

    • NZ Stuff news media is part of the Nine Entertainment Co/Fairfax Media group. No different in ideology than The Guardian or our ABC. So I am not surprised.

      • Stuff “encourages debate, but will not give oxygen to climate denial”. They have a permanent section entitled “Quick, save the Planet”.

        Stiff is the Grauniad Down Under

        • The stand taken by STUFF is this :
          “Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity. We welcome robust debate about the appropriate response to climate change, but do not intend to provide a venue for denialism or hoax advocacy. That applies equally to the stories we will publish in Quick! Save the Planet and to our moderation standards for reader comments. ”

          Their articles on the climate ’emergency’ are dangerous and as in other jurisdictions I suspect are having serious effect on the mental health of the young and the easily manipulated.

          • “Stuff accepts the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity.”

            Right out of the starting gate they are wrong. There is no “overwhelming scientific consensus” and there is no evidence that CAGW is real. These people couldn’t prove either statement if their lives depended on doing so.

            I love saying those kinds of things. I never get any pushback from the alarmists. That would be because what I said above is true, and they know it, and they know they don’t have any evidence to offer to show otherwise, so they remain silent and allow me to lambast their delusions with impunity. 🙂

            And to all those out there who don’t know whether CAGW is real or not, it ought to tell you something when a skeptic challenges those promoting CAGW for some evidence of it, and all the skeptic gets is silence from the other side. If the alarmists had any evidence they would be falling all over themselves trying to show how ignorant the skeptics are. But they don’t do that and we know the reason why, don’t we.

    • it was hardly reported in Aus either.

      but I sure shared it around;-))
      as I will be doing with this also
      excellent news for Dr Ball
      hooooray!!!

    • Ridd won on all 17 counts. JCU is foolishly appealing.
      Jennifer Merohasy’s blog keeps up to date on it. I get email briefed directly by Peter since gave him a rather large financial contribution to support his legal costs.

    • . but remember, Rome wasn’t burned in a day.

      Good one THX1138!
      I believe it burned until Nero was all out of fiddles.
      Cheers
      Mike

  6. HOOAH! The question now is why is he employed at all at a university? Shameful. He should be relieved for cause. As John suggested, “he ignored scientific principles and ethics.” Where is the accountability?

    • Would they “relieve” him the British way, i.e. “Early” retirement on health grounds or somesuch excuse, or “moving on to pastures new to persue another career, etc?

    • OMG! I wish we all could be there. You’re in PDT so the night is still young. Please convey our heart felt congratulations. I’m pretty sure I’m speaking for at least 97% of the WUWT audience there.

  7. We were looking forward to Dr. Mann being forced to produce discovery. Did that happen?

    I am just dying to be able to read the Judge’s decision.

    I wonder if Mann can/will appeal.

  8. Pass me a tissue, I am gonna well up!
    This news makes me unreasonably happy and cheerful.
    The only thing better would have been if there was a countersuit which Mann lost resoundingly.
    Hey, anyone that can tell me about the Mark Steyn lawsuit w/ Mann dealio?

    • It’s still pending. The ACLU, WaPo and other news organizations have filed amicus briefs for Steyn because if Mann wins, it’s the end of freedom of speech for the Press and others, as I understand it. No date set, yet, that I’ve heard.
      This is great news about Dr. Ball. I am thrilled for him. I wonder if Mann will think about withdrawing his suit against Steyn? Nah, I doubt.

      • I am no expert in the legal field, come to think about it, I am no expert in most fields but as I understand it, if Mann withdraws he is liable for all costs incurred.
        That might be the lesser evil for him better than the actual costs he will have to fund up plus damages when he eventually has his time in court.
        Can#t wait for the Steyn case to be heard in court, I might even take a holiday to be there, well only if i am still alive in twenty years time….

        • As I understand it, Steyn counter-sued for $20M saying Mann was making defamatory statements about Steyn. If Steyn were to drop the part of the case, the part where he is a defendant would still move forward and be even more likely to be a so.

  9. The liberal democrat machine can never let this stand. Couldn’t it chisel into the huge phony climate mountain? Expect the appeal to be held in an Obama appointed judge’s court and be reversed. But still great news….wonder who appointed this judge?

      • Writing Observer,
        oops, I didn’t realize there was more than one suit. This is the one I knew about”. Do you know anything about the status?
        JONATHAN H. ADLER |THE VOLOKH CONSPIRACY | 2.11.2018 12:08 PM

        [Herewith is another post wondering what has happened with Mann v. NR, et al., repeating (with a few updates) what I posted last fall.]

        In 2012, climate scientist Michael Mann filed a defamation suit against National Review, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and Rand Simberg over a hyperbolic blog post written by Simberg for the CEI and quoted approvingly by Steyn on National Review Online.

        In December 2016, after sitting on the case for years, the D.C. Court of Appeals (not to be confused with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) held that Mann’s suit against the CEI, National Review and Simberg may proceed to trial (Steyn having gone his own way in the litigation).

        • Steyn’s book on this is excellent. The reason for delay of this trial: Mann won’t show up to discovery. He’s a confirmed chicken shit. Don’t be fooled by Mann trying to make the best of this Ball victory. Mann lost because again, he could not or would not show his “facts” to the world, since he knows they are bogus.

          Why suffer such harm to the World with the crap on which he based his thoroughly discredited papers and research.

    • Well, we don’t have to worry about an Obama appointed judge because the case was heard in Canada.

  10. Congratulations, Tim. I am very appreciative of your efforts to bring truth to the climate discussions.

  11. Just curious – did Mann EVER produce the docs and data he was ordered to?

    If not, isn’t that contempt of court?

  12. Meanwhile, over at the D.C. Federal Court in Mann v. Competitive Enterprise Institute, Steyn and ors. the sclerotic litigation drags on.
    As Dr.Hugo Z.Hackenbush (aka Groucho) said, “Either this man is dead or my watch has stopped”.

    • Or as WC Fields said: ‘If you can’t blind them with science, baffle them with bulls**t’

  13. Good result, BUT –
    “court costs” usually don’t amount to much, covering only the statutory filing / scheduling / officers costs.
    Lawyers costs are a separate matter.

    But I hope D Ball bankrupts Mann.

    • I am sure that Mann will have to pay all Tim Balls legal costs .
      That is how it works in New Zealand in call civil cases.
      Otherwise a person with deep pockets could lose the case but bankrupt his opponent.
      Graham

    • Mr.

      I can’t wish for such an eventuality as a goal. I wish that those who have gamed the funding system have to return the money if the research has been applied for, obtained or spent on a fraudulent basis. Bankruptcy is a possibility depending on the scale of the offences.

      Receiving monies on a competitive basis then failing to provide the results including data, methods and code shall not be overlooked. Breach of contract. Evading FOIA requests is another example. Avoiding and evading are different acts, in law.

      I hope the judgement favour of Tim Ball was made on the basis of evidence supplied to show that what he said, though uncomfortable for Prof Mann, was true. The suit was made on the basis that things said were not. And it has been rejected by the court. That indicates that the statements were true, or were not made with malice.

      Which?

      • DEAR CRISPIN:

        DR. BALL WAS SPEAKING TO A GROUP IN WINNIPEG, MANITOBA IN 2011. HE HAD A QUESTION AT THE END OF HIS PRESENTATION FROM THE AUDIENCE ABOUT THE RESEARCH OF DR. MANN. TIM HAS A GREAT SENSE OF HUMOUR. HE REPLIED ” DR. MANN IS WITH PENN STATE, BUT HE MAY END UP IN THE STATE PEN”. MANN FILED THE DEFAMATION SUIT THE NEXT MORNING! HE HAS DRAGGED IT OUT FOR YEARS TRYING TO BANKRUPT THE RETIRED TIM BALL. THAT TIM FINALLY WON IS OUTSTANDING.

          • OF COURSE SILLY GOOSE!!! I HAVE MACULAR AND THEY HELP ME CATCH MORE OF MY TYPOS. HAVE YOU NOTHING USEFUL TO ACCOMPLISH IN LIFE EXCEPT CRITICIZE PEOPLE WHO USE CAPS??? I FIND FRAUDSTERS AND DENOUNCE THEM.

        • Sorry to hear of your vision issue, if you use a PC when posting I’d be more than happy to write a program for you to type in normal case but review in upper case, of course you could also open notepad and change the font size to something large enough to not be an issue. After typing and reviewing in another program, you can copy and paste to your post.

          To the mods, I’m also willing to write code for the website to detect all caps posts and convert everything to lower case if it exceeds a certain percentage of upper-case letters.

          (He was given a change to work something out, but his rudeness and ignoring suggestions, and continued policy violations, has him BANNED. Thanks for trying to help) SUNMOD

    • You are probably thinking of the costs which are awarded in some US Federal Court actions.
      Not so in BC (or the rest of the common law world.
      In general, costs ‘follow the event’, and are granted to the winner on one of two levels. Generally costs are awarded on a “party and party” basis, (or partial indemnity) which covers probably 2/3 of the actual legal fees and costs incurred. Or costs can be awarded on a “special” basis (‘solicitor and client’ or ‘substantial indemnity basis) which would cover about 90% of the actual legal bill. Actual disbursements are covered and included. Costs in BC can be granted on 3 increasing scales (A through C). The Weaver v Ball claims are a in a nuanced and difficult area of law, so the highest scale is likely appropriate.
      Unfortunately, the actual Judgment does not give us any information about the costs determination. It states: ” Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.”

      But in general terms we can assume that Ball would receive from 66% to 90% of his actual out of pocket costs, paid to his lawyers. (And of course, Weaver has to front his own lawyers too: a double hit.)

      HOWEVER: Weaver v Ball is not DEAD and BURIED
      On May 21, 2019, the Court of Appeal granted a Motion by Weaver, to re-list his appeal for hearing. He had failed to perfect his appeal within the prescribed time limits, and it had be (administratively) struck off the list (not by a judge’s order). It has been returned to the list, to be heard, probably some time this fall.

      So even if the Judge granted special costs on Schedule C, Ball will not have seen a penny of it yet.

  14. Very good news. Gosh, I’d almost forgotten about this case, it’s been rumbling along for many years now. This is a significant victory against one of CAGW’s most pernicious, public-facing and insistent propagandists. I wish Dr. Ball all the very best and thank him for his courage in taking this case all the way to its happy conclusion.

  15. Love it when justice prevails. Doesn’t seem to happen so often these days,

    Now high time for someone to prosecute Mann over the fraudulent H.S.

  16. Great news! I suspect it will still be difficult to get paid. Hope this is the start of more legal victories for the sceptics.

  17. Will watch for updates on this. I hope that Dr. Ball is awarded attorney fees AND an amount equal to that which Mann sued for or greater.

  18. Force Mann to sell his Nobel Prize to pay Dr. Ball…hit him where it REALLY hurts….huh?….he LIED about being awarded the NOBEL PRIZE?…MANN?…LIED?….

    • TEWS_Pilot August 22, 2019 at 7:08 pm

      Oh dear, discovery,, is that not wheres you must list all things of value? Is not a Nobel Prize a thing of value.
      Did he not say in court documents that he won one. This could be a great inconvenience for him.

      evil laugh.

      michael

      • Mike: from Wikipedia: “Discovery, in the law of the United States and other countries, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties by means of discovery devices such as a request for answers to interrogatories, request for production of documents, request for admissions and depositions.

  19. More good news….
    “Protests erupt after DNC puts kibosh on climate change-focused debate”
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/protests-dnc-kibosh-on-climate-change-debate

    “The Democratic National Committee’s summer meeting in San Francisco erupted into a hail of protests on Thursday, as unruly environmentalist activists condemned the party’s decision not to hold a presidential primary debate focused exclusively on climate change — a demand long sought by left-wing activists.”

    LOL

    • Get it into the comments sections of climate nut case stories. If enough of us do it, the censors can’t keep up.

    • supreme court of BC has nothing about it in its record of official judgments

      MSM Folks usually wait for publishing of actual court papers.

      If there was a dismissal, Ball should have a copy to post. Personally I will wait
      to see the court official filing.

      • Steven you have a first hand account from one of the participants in the suit – the MSM usually waits for publishing of court papers because they’re not participants in the suit. unless you have reason to believe Dr Ball is lying about what transpired in the courtroom mere hours ago at the time you responded, you are just being petty in your response (as usual).

        • “unless you have reason to believe Dr Ball is lying about what transpired in the courtroom mere hours ago at the time you responded, you are just being petty in your response (as usual).”

          Given his previous misrepresentations I do have reason to wait

          • mark. you are welcome to go to the supreme court of BC. pay 6 dollars and get the actual court record including the action on the 20th.

            chuckles

          • The imagination has to do with your delusional belief in various prevarications allegedly committed by Dr. Ball.

            What you fail to realize is that disagreeing with your sainted opinions is not the logical equivalent to lying.

          • Well well Steven Mosher ,
            Are you a backer of Mike Manns .
            You believe that his hockey stick was legitimate ?
            Why take eight years to bring forward his proof ?
            Why did he not produce his code and proof?
            What about listing your proof Steven. and what about listing Dr Ball’s lies that you are insinuating .
            Come on Steve Mann up.
            Graham

          • Mr. Mosher: After your wait and the Decision is filed, please do return for more comment. Because then we’ll all be waiting for your apology to Dr. Ball. Given your previous representations, you’ll have to adjust something along the way, and I won’t hold my breath.

          • “Mr. Mosher: After your wait and the Decision is filed, please do return for more comment. Because then we’ll all be waiting for your apology to Dr. Ball. Given your previous representations, you’ll have to adjust something along the way, and I won’t hold .my breath.”

            Apologize?

            For what? I dont trust Mann or Ball.

            I trust an official court document

          • I wouldn’t hold my breath if I were you paul, regardless of his past glories, Mosh has long since proven himself a disingenuous troll on these boards the past few years, and trolls never apologize.

          • MarekW: You do have quite the imagination, don’t you.

            Mark, trolls usually do. Steven is no exception.

          • mark. you are welcome to go to the supreme court of BC. pay 6 dollars and get the actual court record including the action on the 20th.

            steven, you are the one that insists on waiting for the court documents (despite both Mann and Ball agreeing that there was a dismissal even if they disagree on the details of it), so if anyone needs to pay the 6 dollars to get the actual court record, that would be you. Mark doesn’t need the court record as he takes it as read that when the participants in the suit say it was dismissed that means the suit actually was dismissed. So when are you going to pay the 6 bucks to get those record Steven?

          • “For what? I dont (sic) trust Mann or Ball.”

            Once again, rather than deal with the original question, Steve determines that his safest route is to change the subject.

            The claim was that when the court documents show that you are wrong, will you apologize.
            As you have demonstrated, you aren’t man enough to do that.

      • Now that both Mann and Ball (both sides of the suit) have said there was a dismissal (even if they disagree on the details) do you still need to wait for “publishing of actual court papers”to acknowledge that the court did indeed dismiss the case? :rollseyes:

  20. I looked into whatever info was available on the suits Mann brought against Dr. Ball.
    Here are links to what I found for past history.
    Dr Ball’s sceptic lawyers in big win…Mann loses
    Posted on November 11, 2011
    https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/02/13/alert-canadian-judge-dismissed-all-charges-in-lawsuit-against-skeptical-climatologist-dr-tim-ball/
    The judge ruled that Weaver was not defamed by me and dismissed the claim completely. This was after almost seven years and thousands of dollars in legal costs. 
    Court Battle: Michael Mann Losing, Gives Tim Ball ‘Concessions’
    http://bit.ly/2HbByrK
    The judge ordered Mann to turn this data over. He refused.
    .…Seems more like it is Mann who is assaulting science. If temperatures have risen “dramatically” and Mann’s work is “key” to proving it then journalists should do their job and challenge him for cynically keeping secret his disputed R2 regression data
    Now we prepare to bring the Mann case back to the court. 
    ______
    Breaking: Fatal Courtroom Act Ruins Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann
    July 4, 2017
    https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/
    …As Dr Ball explains:

    “…Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”
    …s Ball explains:

    “We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.”

    More here.
    Should Michael ‘Hockey Stick’ Mann be Prosecuted for Climate Fraud?
    May 23, 2018
    https://principia-scientific.org/should-michael-hockey-stick-mann-be-prosecuted-for-climate-fraud/

  21. Best news of the month!!

    Congratulations Dr. Tim Ball. We all missed you at ICCC 13 in DC last month, but enjoyed the video.

    Well-earned award for “Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science” presented by the Heartland Institute.

    Carry on!

  22. So at least in this case, crime does not pay! And the good guys win one. I have a big smile on my face. I hope to smile even more in the future!

  23. COSTS? 8 years of work defending himself and all he gets are costs?!

    That is not justice yet.

    But Steyn sued Mann–let us know how that one goes.

  24. Thrilled to hear this good news for Dr. Tim Ball, whom I am enjoyed reading for many years since the the days of The Western Producer many years ago. Keep up the good fight Tim, stay healthy, keep writing and speaking. Your voice has been from the political and scientific wilderness for many years, but it is now becoming main stream thanks to your dogged determinism to tell the truth about climate science, you being one of the true first geographical climate scientists from many years ago.

  25. Mann’s legal cases attorney fees are being funded by the GreenSlime.
    That’s why he appears at the drop of a hat on TWC to yell “It’s Climate Change” with every tornado or tropical storm they profile. It’s a Quid pro quo for they GreenSlime paying his legal bills.
    Tom Steyer can afford these legal costs. He just dropped $10M on Facebook ads to get enough support to make the September DNC debate. So legal costs are chump change to the GreenSlime, where they’ve got 10’s of Billions invested in wind and solar scam on the middle class.

    • I wonder if the financial backers of Mann will pay Ball? In another 8 years? After forcing Ball to come up with more legal costs “upfront.” As Steyn has said many a time, “The process is the punishment.”

  26. Congratulation Dr. Ball

    It must have been a relief after all those years at the courts against this creature…

  27. So what will become of poor Michael Mann?

    Absolutely nothing. He will add ‘martyr’ to his highly contrived resume and successfully flip this into another way to enrich his ego and his pocket book. I would be surprised if those court costs were not already covered by those with a vested interest in keeping the Mann afloat.

    I am very happy that Tim Ball has finally been relieved of this unwarranted burden, but he deserves more than relief.

    • Mike makes himself out to be a martyr anytime he is in the public eye. That is part of his MO. It makes his congregation (The Model Fellowship Of Mann) more determined to uphold his authority, confident he is trying to save the planet from anthropogenic ruin and is being hobbled by the deniers.

  28. Winning!!!!!!! Keep it up Dr. Ball! Sadly the courts are probably the best way to defeat the AGW fraudsters.

  29. Great news. Justice is now served, despite the punishment of the process.

    The wheels of justice are indeed slow. 8 years, nothing should ever take that long.

  30. Peter Ridd wins his case against James Cook University.
    Then Tim Ball wins his case against Michael Mann.
    Could it be that the tide is finally starting to turn?

  31. Heartiest congratulations Tim from “Down Under” New Zealand. A great, well deserved victory far too long in the coming!

  32. You know what’s strange? I’ve been in a war of words with a climate kook using the pseudonym ‘Derpitudinous_Neologism’. He hates and viciously attacks Tim Ball.

    I’d drop-kicked Derp so hard that he’d gone silent, but he continued marking my comments on CFACT and Climate Depot as spam to make them disappear.

    Today, my comments remain in place.

    Is Michael Mann my kicktoy kook and the village idiot of CFACT and Climate Depot? LOL

    Because if so… boy howdy is that going to be a major embarrassment for Mann and for the climate alarmism industry as a whole. LOL

    • Yes, I have enjoyed letting that nasty troll make a fool of himself and do serious damage to CAGW Alarmism. He really outdid himself during an exchange with me on CFACT recently. He is probably just a fool who can use a search engine and can blindly copy and paste whatever he finds on CAGW Alarmist blogs with NO comprehension of the content.

      He mocked a statement I had made that temperature changes are in the same direction as changes in pressure.

      Pressher is the same as tempercher, y’all!

      *snicker*

      , “‘Derpitudinous_Neologism the DOPE” doesn’t even understand BASIC GAS LAWS yet knows how to make a SPECTACLE of himself ridiculing them.

      PV=nRT

      OK, third graders, if P increases, what does T do?

      http://www.calctool.org/CALC/chem/c_thermo/ideal_gas.png

      • PV=nRT does not tell you what the rise in temperature is when a gas is adiabatically compressed. It is Boyle’s law and Charles’ combined into one equation, that is all. This is very widely misunderstood at WUWT.

        Just to make it obvious, think about the change in temperature when a given mass of gas is adiabatically compressed to half its previous volume. The absolute temperature does not anywhere near double.

        • Now don’t create a strawman out of my very simple assertion that TEMPERATURE and PRESSURE move in the SAME direction if they are the only variables that can change. Regardless of additional conditions being imposed and holding the others constant so as to examine ONLY the relationship between TEMPERATURE and PRESSURE, if the PRESSURE increases, the TEMPERATURE also INCREASES. That was the ONLY assertion I made, and the TROLL rejected it, showing his utter IGNORANCE…and his arrogance.

          • Exactly, you said nothing about V changing. I give cement-for-brains a half strawman. He doesn’t deserve a whole one.

          • What has happened to our beloved Science over the past half century or so? I still pull out my old (copyright 1960, 1962) “Physics for Students of Science and Engineering”, Halliday and Resnick that carried me through my undergraduate degree in Physics as an intern working for NASA on the Apollo Program as a contrast to some of the nonsense that passes for textbooks today.

            We put men on the moon using slide rules and computer programs loaded with IBM cards and paper tape…today, could we repeat that feat even with all the advances in technology we have made during the intervening years if we can’t even get CLIMATE SCIENCE correct?

  33. God Bless Dr Tim Ball. Having the fortitude to take that fake malicious phony scientist actor and paid lunatic to court and prevail. It will be a cold day in hell when these eco-fascist climate phony’s prevail with their fake false and misleading scientific claims design to defraud the people of Canada and the united States of America. Braveo…..Well Done there Dr Ball. You can be proud of your long troddened foray into the corporate corrupt court systems but in this instance you have succeeded in exposing that Fraudulent fake false deceptive crony Piece of fecal mater Michel Mann. Salute you sir. Best wishes to you and your family from an American who believes in the Rule of Law, the power of your work and the tenacity of your spirit.

  34. Most fantastic good news to start a Friday up with ! 🙂
    Plenty, huge Congrats from Sweden, Dr. Ball ! 🙂
    Brgds
    //ThomasJ

  35. This is a day of victory for the world’s Climate Realists! Put the flag up, especially here in Norway, who discgraced the world by issuing the Nobel Peace Prize to these thugs of the Universe….!

    • After a bit more research it appears to me that the phrase “cost follows the event” includes an award of attorney fees to the winner as is the usual practice in Canada.

  36. Congratulations Dr. Ball. It’s been far too long – but victory is all the sweeter for all that.
    Well done

  37. We need to find out just how far we can go in terms of criticizing bogus science so we know what will now be known to be safe from prosecution. This should allow a flood of valid criticism which dodgy scientists will have to cop on the chin. From there, we can make inroads in to the BS science out there as we push the boundaries.
    Mind you, as Mann has basically infinite legal financial resources at his disposal, we can not rule out an appeal or another action. Ideally, Mann should also compensate Dr Ball for stress, time and work expended on his defense. Given the years of trauma, this part of the settlement could go in to the millions. Perhaps some of this money can go in to a Conservative legal fund to fight such cases. This will help neuter the current lawfare we are seeing. BS artists will think twice about frivolous litigation if they know we have a legal fund behind us that is likely to grow to encompass us taking them to court.

  38. The Stalinist Megafraud is finally defeated!
    HOOOORAY.
    I never tire of recommending Dr. Tim’s great little handbook for the layman:
    Human Caused Global Warming The Biggest Deception In History
    Only 121 pages reveals all: the science & scandals, the politics & profiteers.
    Names the multi-billionaires funding the warming/climate fraud:
    bankster Rockefellers & sidekick Soros, Ted Turner & Maurice Strong etc.
    Names their motives.
    Names the frauds who concocted the 97% consensus lies: Naomi Oreskes & John Cook.
    Dr. Tim Ball, & his family, are genuine heroes.
    A great way to start a Friday.

  39. Congratulations to Dr Ball – a well deserved win.

    But, I also feel sorry for Mann. As detestable a character as he is, he’s still a human and will be feeling pretty devastated finding his view of reality is not supported by the judge. Like many others he too has been swept along by the wave of groupthink. Yes, he’s clearly got some nasty character flaws – but he who has not got a character flaw should cast the first stone.

    • Ahem…I have great respect for you sir, but F*CK HIM! He’s one of the key players in the “smash the hopes of the western middle class” movement, a dyed-in-the-wool eco-fascist. No sympathy at all.

    • Mike,
      Another realist here. However, I think Mann deserves no sympathy. Yes, we are all human, but that’s not the point here, is it?

      • Not the point at all, no indeed. Josef Goebbels was human, Charles Manson was human. I am human and flawed as can be – but I’ve never helped spearhead a movement designed from the ground up to, as Maurice Strong admitted to the world at Rio, dismantle the western powers and condemn billions of my fellow human beings to penury.

    • . . . he’s still a human and will be feeling pretty devastated finding his view of reality is not supported by the judge.

      Nonsense. He’s just ramped up his propensity to bear false witness against his neighbor (emphasis added):

      “This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.”

      Furthermore, he cares nothing for this court’s opinion of his suit. Rather than being “devastated,” he’s defiant that it continue (emphasis added):

      “The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.”

  40. Congratulations Tim Ball, !!
    Perhaps 2019 will go down in history as the year the world “woke” up to the fraud of Mann Made Climate Change.
    Peter Ridd won against JCU, Tim Ball wins against Mann. Who knows the Steyn versus Mann case might accelerate beyond the OK glacier rate….

  41. Prediction: it won’t get a mention on the BBC, Guardian, Independent, New York Times, Washington Post or CNN. I hope I am wrong.

    Anyway, well done Dr Ball. WE hope Mark Steyn can follow soon.

    • Nor in Australia. Nothing that sheds a “bad” light on renewables and “climate science”. We didn’t get to hear Walmart is suing Tesla. Elon Musk the “electric Jesus”…

  42. All we need now is for the James Cook University’s appeal against the Peter Ridd win against them to be dismissed and the world will be a better place and restored to a level of sanity we haven’t known for more than two decades.

  43. Fantastic news. Mann wasn’t even spending his own money. Evil corrupt bastard.

    Should have been punitive damages to Ball as well but in US courts this is almost common sense.

    • As I understand it, Dr. Ball didn’t file a countersuit, so there would be no damages at all, let alone punitive damages. A pity really – your sentiment is correct.

    • At your service. Here is Mike Mann’s account. He says there was no finding on the merits of the case. Each party pays their own costs. The case was dismissed because of excessive delay.

      • Each party pays their own costs.

        Not really, no.

        According to Dr. Ball above, Mann pays court costs. Mann admits as much:

        “The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.”

        I think the court confirms both claims to be true:

        Terms of Order:

        1. Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
        2. Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed

        “The case was dismissed because of excessive delay [on the part of Mann].”

        There. Fixed it for you. You’re welcome!

        🙂

      • Nick,
        And we all know that Mann is famous worldwide for his honesty, humility and “Nobel Prize” winning efforts.

        • Toronto August 25, 2019 at 10:01 am
          Hi I pulled the “Legal costs” section from your link.
          looking further in the link there is a section the states foreigners could be required the post a bond which would be used in the event they lost. Interesting did the deep pockets post a bond to cover Dr Ball’s legal expenses?
          This is going to be fun. The Canadian system seems be set up to punish frivolous suits.
          So is a dismissal considered a loss to the person bringing the suit?
          Oh and thank you for the link

          michael

          Legal Costs

          Unlike in the United States, the general rule in Canada is that the successful party is entitled to be compensated for at least some of its legal costs (i.e. fees and disbursements) by the losing party. This rule applies to virtually all proceedings in Canadian Courts whether it be in respect of an interlocutory motion, a trial or an appeal. Depending upon the circumstances involved, the Court generally awards the successful party its legal costs on one of two scales: partial indemnity (i.e. approximately 30%-50% of actual legal costs), or substantial indemnity (i.e. approximately 65%-80% of actual legal costs). In making such orders for the payment of legal costs to the successful party, the Courts in Canada discourage frivolous proceedings and encourage litigants to make and to consider reasonable offers to settle.

  44. Congratulations to Dr. Tim Ball!!!
    Fortunately M.Mann can no longer claim to be a respectable “Nobel Laureate”

  45. I’m not super well informed on legal matters, but didn’t The Frontier Centre for Public Policy Inc settle with Mann and issue an apology and retraction of their defamatory claims against him? The case against Ball was part of this suit. I can only imagine that the case against Ball individually was dismissed because of that settlement. This doesn’t seem like a win for Ball to me at all.

    https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1137079201863995392/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1137079201863995392&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fgrist.org%2Farticle%2Fmichael-e-mann-took-climate-change-deniers-to-court-they-apologized%2F

  46. wrt much of the above, a definitive account of Mann’s hockey sticks and the immoral manoeuvres of the Hockey Team are to be found in Andrew Montford’s ‘The Hockey Stick Illusion’. Challenging math, but was nearly complete when Climategate broke so the final chapter dissects that scandal in detail. AM says that he’s not surprised – the released emails from UEA and CRU are just what he expected.
    I complained to the BBC about Mann being given a slot in their ridiculous TV documentary “Climate – Change the Facts” when he is known as a Disgrace to the Profession and perhaps the most discredited scientist on the planet. An insult to your taxpayers, I said. Usual self-exculpatory boiler plate came back, but I think the Beeb took a bad hit with that programme.

    • I too complained to the BBC, and as their responses were unsatisfactory I escalated the complaint to OFCOM. Still waiting for response but I’m not holding my breath.

  47. Before anyone gets excited, Ball should provide the specific judgment or court order dismissing the case. For, example, court costs could be $200 or $50,000.

    JD

  48. What is now needed is a class action lawsuit against all these climate crackpots so that everyone can get compensated for their damages.

  49. Congratulations Dr. Ball. I’m sure this victory came a great personal cost to you and your family but history will be very kind to you and what you accomplished here. Well done and a victory for the scientific method!

  50. Hopefully Dr. Ball is awarded client/solicitor rather than party/party costs. If so, that would say a LOT about this case.

      • Is that the same Michael Mann who posted in his Bio at Penn State that he was an actual RECIPIENT of the Nobel Prize that had been awarded ONLY to the teller of Inconvenient Falsehoods Albert Gore only to have to take it down and admit that he was as much a RECIPIENT as the janitor who cleans the TOILETS for the IPCC?

        Wasn’t he actually awarded some sort of “consolation prize” from the disgraced U.N. scoundrel who resigned due to “allegations” of….?, well, I’ll leave it at that.

      • In other words, Mann didn’t (couldn’t) pursue the matter and costs were awarded to Ball. Man you are dense. You don’t know much about the law, do you?

        • “costs were awarded to Ball”
          Evidence? Ball says Mann has to pay court costs, but as jdohio says, that could be anything from $200 up. Mann says he doesn’t have to pay anything to Ball. You asked specifically about client/solicitor costs.

          I think it’s odd that a day after this banner headline, there is no further information from Ball; the only specifics are from Mann.

      • Nick, in Canada, “costs follow the event”. Although it is “true” that the Court did not find that Ball’s defences were valid, it also true that the Court did not find that any of Mann’s claims were valid. It also did not find that any of Mann’s claims were invalid, since it did not adjudicate on ANY CLAIMS.
        Mann was required to produce his work. He was given an adjournment in the trial date from February 2017. As of mid 2018, he still had not produced for discovery, the materials which he was required to produce, and which he had undertaken to provide. In May 2019, Ball moved to dismiss the claim. I am a little surprised that it took the judge until now to release his reasons. I suspect that they are long and detailed, so as to exactly explain why he (or she) has exercised his discretion to dismiss the action for delay (most likely on the grounds that Mann was procrastinating and effectively in contempt of his undertaking to Ball, and to the Court, in refusing to produce his documentation. Mann has had lots of time to do what was required of him, so -> fail.

        *Of course* Ball’s motion meant that there would be no trial. Why should Ball go to trial on what had become a slam dunk (as Mann could not prosecute his claims in the absence of his documents. But ‘no trial’ was what Mann needed. Without producing his documentation, there was no way he could afford to go to trial. Any attempt to introduce *anything* related to his work would be objected to and refused admission

        “The provision in the court’s order relating to costs does not mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees”. HAH. For a guy who has been embroiled in lawsuits for 8 years in BC, he sure does not listen to his lawyer. Mann probably thinks that the reference to ‘costs’ means the same thing as in some US Federal Court actions, where ‘costs’ means the out of pocket filing fees of a couple of hundred bucks. BZZZZT WRONG. In BC, “costs follow the event”. And that means partial or substantial indemnity for the legal fees and disbursements Ball has incurred. Since the action has been dismissed for delay, the costs award will likely be on a partial indemnity basis, so Ball should receive about 2/3rds of his actual out of pocket expenditures, including disbursements.
        And Mikey Mann, the oh-so-noble Nobel Laureate, will have to pay those costs.

        • It appears that I was likely wrong about the timing of this, when I wrote on August 23rd at 9:57 pm.
          Ball probably first *served and filed* his Motion to Dismiss, back in May. The Motion was finally heard on the 22nd. From Ball’s and Mann’s comments, the Judge delivered his decision verbally from the bench (quite possibly with written reasons to follow) and the gist was summarized in the Court system (likely entered by the Court Clerk) as set out above by Sycomputing on August 24th at 3:49pm
          Since the short notation has no extra modifiers, the Judge just ordered that the costs of the Motion, and of the Action are payable by Mann, to Ball, at the usual (median) party and party level. (Without more, this would mean that the parties either agree upon the number, or an Assessment Officer will review the dockets and bills and set a number. And that can be appealed from too….).
          But Mann has lost and is very highly unlikely to prevail on an appeal. He failed to do what the Rules and the Court required him to do: deliver copies of his documents to Ball, so that Ball could examine them to determine whether he, Ball, was correct in stating that Mann was a fraud *in that his calculations were fudged. Ball needed those documents to prove the truth of his alleged libel. Mann engaged in spoliation. The Court of Appeal will not look favourably on Mann.
          (Note also, that had this actually gone to trial, the results of McIntyre and McKittrick’s reviews and Wegman’s report on Mann’s calculations and methodology were guaranteed to be entered into evidence. Mann was toast from day one, in trying to actually win the trial.)

          Mikey Mann doesn’t think he *will* be paying Ball’s legal fees. He is ignorant or stupid. (Ignorant == does not know: Stupid == does not remember what he has been told).

          • Technically, Mr Mann may be correct about not paying costs. I am not aware of any means to ensure that the awarded costs come from Mr Mann’s pocket. Costs are awarded and they will (after God-knows how much argument) be paid from somewhere. Mr Mann still has (possibly embarrassed) supporters who may be reluctant to see one of their leading icons seriously damaged.

            When one is well-supported by the Establishment and MSM a considerable amount of damage can be taken with remarkably little observable effect. I expect that JCU will ultimately suffer very little for their shabby treatment of Science (generally) or Mr Ridd (specifically). Power and money tend to win.

        • JFD
          Nick has demonstrated consistently that he views the world through green-colored glasses. He has a unique capacity for putting a spin on anything, which makes it look like he and alarmists are always right, matter how many knots he has to tie his argument into. Unfortunately, his predictable behavior removes any hope that others will see him as being objective.

    • Dr. Ball specifically stated he was awarded court costs in his message to Anthony Watts above.

  51. Mann had a partial victory. He forced Ball to jump through legal hoops for 8 years. And it might have cost Mann very little in time or money if he had his lawyers do almost all the work, subsidized by his supporters.

  52. “There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:

    The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.

    The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.

    The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.

    This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.”

    Dr Mann, Facebook.

    • The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay.….

      …after delay….after delay…all initiated by Mann in hopes that the court would run out of dates on its calendar as well as patience and dismiss just as it has done. Mann accepted a “Contempt of Court” ruling rather than submit his metadata, so running the clock out rather than face a complete humiliation in a ruling against him was the BEST he could hope for. Let him appeal, it just keeps the issue before the science community and gives more impetus to those who hold Mann in utter contempt. MANN-UP (pun intended) and admit defeat and admit that you falsified data to create your infamous “HORSE HOCKEY STICK” graph.

    • In other words, Mann has no case. He filed a SLAPP suit and it’s going to come back hard on him. And if Mann commits contempt of court again, he could end up behind bars.

    • P. Clarke, AKA Phil Clarke, a well known Gorebot has nothing more that repeating the Piltdown Mann’s self-serving Facebook entry.

      Sad, Phil, and a little silly. Here it now, Eight More Years.
      =================

    • However, the both of them do know a little about ‘wildly untruthful’.
      =============================

  53. Congratulations, Dr Ball.
    I expect this result is welcome, yet small recompense for what this alleged person has put you through.

  54. Someone with better resources should check, but I believe Mr. Mann just might be the first Nobel Prize “winner” to lose two defamation suits…

  55. Now, Dr. Ball just needs to have the Canadian court’s ruling/order “domesticated” so that it can be enforced state side. Does Dr. Mann still live in Pennsylvania? Dr. Ball will need to engage an attorney that is licensed by the Penn. state bar to practice (or find a suitable representative) in the state and figure out what are the next steps.

    • Tank the mann POS into arbitration and have Dr. Ball do a conditional acceptance of the claims by Michael Mann upon proof of claim. Give Mann 10 days to answer all of the Proof of Claim that he has falsely made with the stipulation that each one of the un proven claims is a sum certain of 10 million dollars. any attempt to trespass upon the private arbitration process will be an automatic 100 million additional claim payable within 72 hours. All of this under 9 U.S. Code CHAPTER 1— GENERAL PROVISIONS of the Federal Arbitration Act. All parties that were involved get served a conditional acceptance upon verified proof of Claim. if they do not answer with 10 days, notice them with a Notice of Fault Opportunity to Cure with a SELF-EXECUTING IRREVOCABLE DURABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY COUPLED WITH INTEREST with which they have 3 days to respond. Mr. Mann and his phony coherts in fraud, deception and deceit will be calling Southwest Airlines to see if they have started service to Mars as of yet!!!LOL

  56. I don’t think this is over yet. Michael Mann put this up on his facebook page…..

    “There have been some wildly untruthful claims about the recent dismissal of libel litigation against Tim Ball circulating on social media. Here is our statement:

    The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.

    The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay. I have an absolute right of appeal. My lawyers will be reviewing the judgment and we will make a decision within 30 days.

    The provision in the Court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.

    This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.”

    • Mann didn’t lose the case, you understand. He will just have to appeal the ruling if he wants to win it.

      What a spin artist.

      • I won’t pretend to fully understand all this legal stuff, but what I gather is that Ball filed an application for dismissal from delay, which means Mann and his lawyers sat on the case for so long that something happened to infringe on Ball’s ability to see a fair trial. If that’s the case, the court takes these things extremely seriously so there must have been clear evidence of prejudice. Seeing that the Frontier Centre, which was the other defendant in the case, settled with Mann last month, it’s a solid bet that that’s what Ball’s legal team is arguing would prejudice the jury. Which is to say, given that half of the defendant’s in the case settled, it would be pretty much impossible for any jury to now be impartial.

        • Mann saw them as the weaker of the two camps of defendants and more vulnerable, the low-hanging fruit, and he managed to bluff them into dropping out and apologizing rather than face endless delays and perhaps bankruptcy from legal costs. It is too bad, but that is how winnable cases are sometimes abandoned when facing an adversary with bottomless pockets, even if those pockets belong to his backers, who have a lot to lose if he is shown to be a FRAUD.

          Justice delayed is truly justice denied.

        • The fact that Mann delayed so badly suggests that he was not serious in winning the case in court. His intention was to harass, or perhaps to win by exhausting the money or patience of Ball. It seems to have backfired.

    • Mann says

      “The defendant Ball did not “win” the case. The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.”

      Mann lives in complete denial of reality. Mann brought the case against Tim Ball and the case was dismissed. That, right there, is a win for Tim Ball with no other interpretation possible. Paying court costs vs paying legal fees is a measure of the pain Tim Ball has to endure.

      Mann went on to say

      “This ruling absolutely does not involve any finding that Ball’s allegations were correct in fact or amounted to legitimate comment. In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.”

      The real issues in the lawsuit dont involve climate, they involve libel. Mann has no clue.

      • “Mann lives in complete denial of reality.”

        In fact, Mr Mann lives with a very thorough and cynical comprehension of reality. He is well-funded and assured of favourable treatment in the MSM. He is supported by powerful interests. This loss will hardly faze him. He’ll bluff it out and the faithful will remain assured.

        With all the power on his side, the only thing likely to topple him from his perch is a sudden, indisputable cooling of the planet. There are indications that this may even be beginning, but certainty is not yet close.

        • ‘Mr Mann lives with a very thorough and cynical comprehension of reality.’

          Agreed – as he’s selling fraud. Cynicism is the word alright.

  57. Is this now legal to post again?

    ENCORE!!…and recap.

    Would you like to see the “Hide the Decline” videos again?

    Hide the Decline…the popular ‘Hide the Decline’ spoof video poking fun at Dr. Michael Mann, a prominent disgraced scientist involved in the Climategate scandal.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

    Hide the Decline II: the Sequel
    This is a sequel to the popular ‘Hide the Decline’ spoof video poking fun at Dr. Michael Mann, a prominent disgraced scientist involved in the Climategate scandal.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yrd3HYU80Dk

    And now Mann has actually admitted guilt per non disclosure of metadata in court.

    Remember, what they say about a wise man:

    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit

    Another one bites the dust…uh huh…AGW bites the dust…oh, yeah…AGW bites, AGW bites, AGW bites the dust!!

    [I believe I got the following from a John O’Sullivan article…sorry for not being able to cite it properly]

    Climate Scientists Discussed Ways To Make The 1940’s Warmth Disappear
    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer
    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

    The gatekeepers at “science” journals are absolutely real. We all remember Phil Jones words about stopping skeptics papers from being published: “.. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

    From: Phil Jones [Director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a Professor in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia University of CLIMATEGATE fame].

    To: Many. Nov 16, 1999

    “I’ve just completed Mike’s [Dr. Michael Mann] Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

    Michael Mann hid the post-1960 decline in the temperatures, as measured by Briffa in his paleoclimate studies using tree ring data. Mann claimed that the decline didn’t match the surface temperature record, and simply erased it.

  58. Wait a minute. My understanding is that Mann sued Ball for saying ‘Mann belongs in the State Pen, not Penn State’, and Ball defended himself not by saying it was humor, but that it was the truth.

    A dismissal would mean…

    • Your “reasoning” for “libel” would have been laughed out of court the minute the papers were filed.

  59. Great victory!!!

    Good point above concerning the emails that show evidence of what appears to me to be intent to deceive, to push an agenda by trying to make the medieval warming period go away.

    This is an excellent summary of the key technical issues concerning the hockey stick issue.

    It appears based on the evidence and analysis that Mann created the Hockey Stick graph that is displayed in IPCC AR3 report in the summary and four other promote location in the report) by cherry picked tree ring data (finding trees in a region where precipitation is reduced when the planet is warmer and increased when it is cooler, so tree rings width for the trees in that region is inversely proportional to temperature) and then used a analysis technique that enables cherry picked incorrect to make cyclic warming and cooling go away and create the desired hockey stick.

    http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/McKitrick-hockeystick.pdf

    What is the ‘Hockey Stick’ Debate About?
    … At the political level the emerging debate is about whether the enormous international trust that has been placed in the IPCC was betrayed. The hockey stick story reveals that the IPCC allowed a deeply flawed study to dominate the Third Assessment Report, which suggests the possibility of bias in the Report-writing…
    …The result is in the bottom panel of Figure 6 (“Censored”). It shows what happens when Mann’s PC algorithm is applied to the NOAMER data after removing 20 bristlecone pine series. Without these hockey stick shapes to mine for, the Mann method generates a result just like that from a conventional PC algorithm, and shows the dominant pattern is not hockey stick-shaped at all. Without the bristlecone pines the overall MBH98 results would not have a hockey stick shape, instead it would have a pronounced peak in the 15th century.

    Of crucial importance here: the data for the bottom panel of Figure 6 is from a folder called CENSORED on Mann’s FTP site. He did this very experiment himself and discovered that the PCs lose their hockey stick shape when the Graybill-Idso series are removed. In so doing he discovered that the hockey stick is not a global pattern, it is driven by a flawed group of US proxies that experts do not consider valid as climate indicators. But he did not disclose this fatal weakness of his results, and it only came to light because of Stephen McIntyre’s laborious efforts.

    Another extension to our analysis concerned the claims of statistical significance in Mann’s papers. We found that meaningless red noise could yield hockey stick-like proxy PCs. This allowed us to generate a “Monte Carlo” benchmark for statistical significance. The idea is…. …. In other words, MBH98 and MBH99 present results that are no more informative about the millennial climate history than random numbers. …”

  60. Best news for months in this whole miserable saga. Just waiting for the BBC to feature the item in its news and current affairs output. Pigs will fly first!!!!

  61. For years, I’ve amused myself with:
    You could put baseball scores into Mann’s Climate Model and it would create the Hockey Stick.
    And condemned Mann’s reckless ambition.
    He “disappeared” two indelible geological events.
    The Medieval Warm Period, which provided enough prosperity to build magnificent churches and cathedrals.
    The Little Ice Age, with recurring famines.

  62. The same thing happened, as I recall, when Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” went before a British Court and was found, essentially, not to be a “documentary” but a naked propaganda vehicle loaded with scientific gaffs.

    Truth always wins in the end, but it is often financially ruinous and personally risky, and not a gauntlet to be run by the squeamish. Hat’s off to Tim Ball.

  63. Mann’s tweet…

    • Mann delayed presenting the data that the court ordered him to present for over a year, and he claims that he is thinking about appealing the dismissal?

      This guy really wants to land in jail for contempt of court.

      • Mann is all hat and no cattle. A total fraud from the word go. He’ll never spend a day in court with Steyn, he’s too much of a coward.

      • Note the weasel wording “we will likely challenge” not “we will challenge”. If his lawyers are any good, they’re advising him to quietly drop it, and there will be no challenge as long as they can keep his over-inflated ego in check.

    • What exactly in the assertions by Dr. Ball and the other defendants was incorrect? The truth is supposed to be a legitimate defense against libel and slander. I read the copy of the suit to which you linked at “The Smog BOG (sic intended) and found the accusations to be well supported by evidence posted all over the Internet, even the evidence hidden from the public.

      • Oh, I’m not questioning Dr. Ball’s characterization of Dr. Mann. I’m just curious to see an exact wording by the court stating the court’s official judgment of Dr. Ball’s characterization.

        If the court does not see the view we favor or at least show an openness to the view we favor or an allowance for the view we favor, then I’m not sure where the victory lies.

        Why EXACTLY was the case dismissed? I’m wanting to see the court record of this and the explanation of this.

        • According to both parties, it was dismissed because of delays.
          There was no ruling on the merits of the case.

  64. I like WUWT.
    The 30 minute delay of comments posted, kills any hope of a conversation.
    Now I see a post about …..Hajj’s with comments closed.
    Another one bites the dust…

  65. Gives me at least some faith in the court system. There are at least some judges out there that do their sworn duty to uphold the law and follow the law as it is written.

    Too many judges today make up the law or twist the law to their own biases. A judge with integrity knows his full duty is to the law itself.

  66. I am an American lawyer, not a Canadian lawyer, so I can’t speak with authority about the Canadian courts. Nevertheless here are a few thoughts: 1) A dismissal for delay is not something that would accidently sneak up on a lawyer such as a missed deadline. There would have numerous loud and clear signals before a court would take the extraordinary step of dismissing a case for this reason. It is reasonable to presume that Mann defaulted on purpose because he did not want a trial on the merits or did not want to comply with discovery. 2) Mann’s assertion that there is no written decision is certainly wrong. Courts speak through their journals. A statement from the bench cannot dismiss a case 3) In America each side pays their own attorney fees. In the English system and I presume the Canadian system, the loser pays the winners attorneys fees. I am not sure whether the rule applies only to a winner on the merits and perhaps not to one who wins on a procedural grounds. It might make a difference whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice.

    I wonder any Canadian or UK barristers could weigh in?

      • Here is the order from the docket:

        “Terms of Order
        Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
        Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed.”

        My thoughts: 1. The dismissal is with predjudice as the judge would have indicated “without predjudice” if he intended to allow refilling.

        2. There is no mention yes or no on Dr. Balls’s attorney fees. I would assume the judge is waiting for Dr. Balls attorney to file a motion for fees with documentation of the amount.

        3. Mann says he is likely to appeal. Good luck with that. The docket indicates it was set for a jury trial in February of 2017. More than two years later the case isn’t ready for trial for reasons the Judge assigned to Mann. The standard for appellate review in US would be abuse of discretion that would require a showing that the judge acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

        • MANY THANKS FOR THE INFO. MUCH APPRECIATED.

          (Stop capitalizing every letter) SUNMOD

          • Browsers have the built-in capability to zoom in or zoom out, thus increasing the size of the fonts and all other content on a web page. Locate the feature under “Settings.” Some have a key combination (such as CTRL +) that ZOOMS IN (CTRL – ZOOMS OUT). Most email clients do as well. For example, in Thunderbird, “CTRL +” (Control key and the + key) together will toggle the email like a “ZOOM IN” so that fonts and images are larger. CTRL and – will ZOOM OUT…and their is also the “Magnifier” ap that turns your cursor into a magnifier.

            Smart phones should also have a similar capability.

          • Most OSes have a way to magnify text, browsers have mouse keyboard shortcuts.

            Shift-scrollwheel for windows and linux.

          • TEWS_Pilot August 26, 2019 at 10:57 pm
            JEHILL August 26, 2019 at 11:04 pm
            Thanks for commenting guys. the problem with Macular is that you can sees ome things but not others.
            As the link states you can the numbers on a clock but not the hands. Magnifying will not help.
            I think he may have a program that transfers lower case to all caps, so he can read it.

            Macular is a nasty disease you can no longer trust your eyes. Learned about it many years age. Missed it when he first named it.

            michael

          • MS Word has a “Format –>Change Case–>Sentence Case” feature that converts all capitals to sentence case, so he could type in all caps and edit, then copy into a blank Word document, then convert to sentence case, copy that version, then paste it into the comment box. Other word processors may have that feature as well.

          • TEWS_Pilot August 27, 2019 at 11:38 am

            He may not know of sentence case feature, I didn’t. Also he may just type into comment box, (I do) and run with that.
            anyway at this point I think it is moot

            michael

        • After a bit more research it appears to me that the phrase “cost follows the event” includes an award of attorney fees to the winner as is the usual practice in Canada.

          • GREAT NEWS INDEED!!!

            (No more all letter capitalization) SUNMOD

          • SUNMOD: AND WHERE DO THE CAPS HURT YOUR DELIUCATE BRAIN (IF YOU HAVE ONE???) MOST??? I HAVE MACULAR AND CAPS HELP ME CATCH MORE OF MY TYPOS. I DENOUNCE FRAUDSTERS AND HAVE FOR MANY DECADES. WHY DON’T YOU FIND SOMETHING USEFUL TO DO WITH YOUR SAD LIFE???

            (It is based on blog POLICY, “Publishing comments in SHOUTING MODE (all caps) is not acceptable.”, your rudeness doesn’t help you here, your comment stays in the mod bin) SUNMOD

    • Hi Paul,

      I agree that a substantially important case being dismissed for failure to meet a deadline is a strong (but not determinative) indication of underlying problems. If Mann’s lawyer thought that Mann’s case was a strong one, he would be all over Mann to make sure that all deadlines were met.

      Also,I did some research on attorney fees in Canada and apparently the losing party generally pays.

      “Unlike in the U.S., where attorneys’ fees generally are not recoverable unless specifically permitted by statute or contract, in Canada, where the guiding principle is that “costs follow the event,” attorneys’ fees are awarded to the prevailing party in almost every action. In other words, the prevailing party at trial or on appeal can expect the opposing party to be ordered to pay anywhere from fifty to ninety percent of the prevailing party’s actual legal costs. Attorneys’ fees can also be awarded to the prevailing party on a motion. For instance, if a defendant brings a motion for summary judgment that is denied by the court, the defendant can be ordered to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees incurred in responding to the motion.

      …. Moreover, because judges have broad discretion in determining whether to award costs, some judges may be reluctant to award attorneys’ fees against a sympathetic plaintiff, even if the plaintiff’s claim lacked merit. ” https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c2370852-7e1b-46d2-9a30-e825fac1f754

      Similar to you, I am an American lawyer, not a Canadian one.

      JD

      • Hey, calling you lawyers – is Collateral Estoppel transferable from Canadian Courts to US Courts? I’m guessing not, otherwise his attorneys would have advised him not to lose this one as, despite what his butt-kissers here say, that would not be good for the Steyn case, where significant damages against him are a possibility. ….. and Steyn will clearly take this all the way, especially now.

        • Collateral estoppel usually requires that the lawsuits involves the same parties and requires that a court makes factual findings on a issue in common between the two lawsuits. Neither is present here.

          I think but I am not certain that US courts have discretion to apply CE to foreign judgment issued made in counties that provide substantially similar due process protections.

        • For readers not familiar with the term collateral estoppel means that what was decided in the first suit could bar someone from litigating the same issue in a second suit under a possibly different theory. See this link for an explanation of collateral estoppel and the related doctrine of res judicata. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/res+judicata

          I think there is an interesting issue regarding collateral estoppel. Mann apparently was claiming that he couldn’t turn over data because of intellectual property issues. If that is the case, the court definitely ruled against him on this issue. In long ago research I seem to remember that sometimes collateral estoppel can apply if even one party (Mann) litigated the issue although it was not litigated against another party in a different lawsuit, for example, Steyn.

          I should point out that if Steyn decides to represent himself, the collateral estoppel issue is way over his head, and he almost certainly can’t win it without legal help.

          JD

      • In reply to JDDOhio August 23rd at 10:40pm.
        I am a now-retired Ontario lawyer.
        In Ontario, it is an exceptional case where the losing party does NOT pay costs to the winner. I can only think of some first impression Constitutional question cases where that has happened. In the run of the mill, the loser pays. Always.
        Wrt motions, the Rules require that the costs of Motions shall be fixed and payable forthwith subject to the court’s discretion to vary that practice. It is rare for a judge to do so.
        In BC, it appears that the practice is that lawyers always ask, when successful, for “costs to be payable in any event of the cause, and forthwith” which has the same general end point, noting that in Ontario, it is exceptional for a Judge *not* to fix the costs and even more exceptional that they NOT be payable forthwith (exercising his discretion to overturn the usual rule).
        As I read the BC Rules and cases, a Judge in BC has a much larger amount of discretion wrt interlocutory costs orders than in Ontario.
        Both jurisdictions follow the common law rule: costs follow the event.
        Since the action is now dismissed, the question of ‘payable forthwith wrt the motion’ is moot. It will all be payable once determined by the assessment officer.
        A BC judge has the same partial v. special/substantial choice, but in addition, costs are calculated by standardized “units” for a large portion of the steps of an action, but the value of a unit varies from $60 to $170 per unit. I suspect that defamation actions will attract the highest per unit value.
        I expect that the Judge will issue written Reasons: it is a slam dunk appeal if there are NO reasons! So the Judge may elucidate on his second paragraph, and specify exactly how the costs are to be determined.
        ( There may be other twists and vagaries of BC law and procedure relating to costs with which I am completely unfamiliar!).

        • I am not a lawyer but am very familiar with BC civil rules, including cost rules, as I have been involved in extended litigation at both BCSC and BCCA versus a party with essentially unlimited funds.

          Chances are that the reasons will be published at https://www.bccourts.ca/supreme_court/recent_Judgments.aspx within the next few days, available to all at no cost. They could be short, merely a few paragraphs, to explain the summary dismissal of the action from the bench. They could be long, reciting the entire history of the case, in order to summarize the record in case of appeal.

          Unless there are very unusual circumstances – and I’m not paying for the whole docket to look for clues – Ball will get his costs at Scale B. Dollar amounts are limited and so are hours; the winner isn’t given a blank cheque. If the parties disagree as to amount, they can take it to a court officer called a Registrar to make a decision. Registrar’s decision can be appealed to the judge if party(ies) don’t like it.

          Likely recovery against actual costs incurred: 1/3-1/2 of legal fees plus 80-90% of disbursements. In Canadian litigation, the loser pays. But the winner pays too.

    • Mosher writes “Maybe folks will go buy the august 20 file for the case.”

      No need. Mann’s tweet and Ball’s post here sum up the situation. If the last update showed otherwise then whichever party was at advantage would be shouting it from the rooftops.

  67. As one who donated a modest bit to Dr Ball’s defense fund I can now say it was the best money I spent that year. Dang that was a long time ago. Great to hear.

    Hey Tim, if you want to put up a “Victory Celebration” button on your site I’ll chip in for some brew for you. You’ve earned it and way more. A big thank you for having the intellectual honesty and intestinal fortitude to stick it out.

  68. Excellent news. I first heard Dr Ball dismiss the then still muted hysteria about climate change back in 1996. He has made a lot of sense for a long long time.

  69. “This is a developing story, I’ll add more as we know more”
    Please let us know when you are up to speed. It’s been two days now…_

  70. This ending has been the plan since the suit was filed. The goal was to harass Dr. Ball and to warn other heretics to keep quiet. He was never going to submit to discovery which could be disastrous for the Team, and a dismissal is easily spun as we’ve already seen.

  71. I don’t agree with the headline of this post. There is a long way to go before it can be said that “justice has been served.”

  72. A Victory Against Scientific Tyranny; Insecure Bully Mann Loses

    Science is based upon the “Tyranny of the Status Quo.” It is the true foundation of science and the scientific method. The Scientific Method, Experimentation, Statistical Analysis, and Reproducibility define real science. It is incalculable the damage Michael Mann and his bully comrades have done to the reputation and foundation of Science. No longer is science the free exercise of intellectual exploration, it has become a legal and social battlefield where disagreements can lead the destruction of one’s career or worse. The “Tyranny of the Status Quo” has been unilaterally replaced with the “Tyranny of the Consensus,” “Science by Self-Anointed Authority,” Computer Models and legal intimidation.

    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2019/08/24/a-victory-against-scientific-tyranny-insecure-bully-mann-loses/

  73. I live in the beautiful province of BC. Andrew Weaver is the leader of the Green Party and is propping up the leftist minority provincial NDP government. (Those familiar with the Westminster Parliament system know about minority governments). I cannot find this story anywhere in this province, nor in national news. But this is great news indeed.

  74. I went and checked the Wikipedia page and I noted someone edited the page showing that the legal case had been won based on the WUWT page but another edited reversed it because WUWT is not a “good or true” source or some such nonsense. Does anyone one have any links acceptable to Wikipedia, i.e. links to an actual posted legal decision or a newspaper article so that the Wiki on Dr. Tim Ball can be updated? I suspect the Mann page will be untouchable.

  75. Only one question about the decision… The case was “dismissed”, but was it dismissed with or without prejudice? At least here in the USofA, a case dismissed with prejudice cannot be refiled. If without prejudice, then the plaintiff can refile the case and have another try for a bite of the apple.

  76. “We will likely challenge the dismissal of the suit…”

    “Likely?” So you’re claiming you have valid claims and Ball has no valid claims, yet you are only “likely” to challenge to keep the lawsuit going? Is your “likely” the IPCC “likely?”

    Pathetic admission. Pathetic lawsuit. Pathetic Mann.

  77. IANAL
    Ruling from the bench means the judge didn’t have to go away to study the matter.

    If the judge announces its decision on a motion during the hearing on the motion, the judge is said to be ruling from the bench. link

    Does that mean the matter is simple and does not need a lot of deliberation? Does it mean that Mann has little chance of being granted an appeal?

    • It could also mean that since nothing new was brought before the judge during the hearing, and since this case has been dragging on for more than 2 years, the judge had already had time to reach a decision.

  78. I get the distinct impression now that the Hockey-stick doctor is Mannipulating the exact cause of the dismissal.

    The court cannot find any of his claims not valid (sneaky use of a double negative to give the appearance of a positive), if the needed information to do so is not presented in a timely fashion, as requested. The court cannot find any of Dr. Ball’s claims valid for the same reason.

    So, my question to Dr. Mann is, “EXACTLY what was the cause of the delay? — was it YOU delaying (it looks like it was), or was it Dr. Ball?” I’m NOT getting the impression that it was Dr. Ball.

    If the delay was caused by Dr. Mann, then WHY did he delay? WHAT … EXACTLY did he delay doing? He appears to be talking all around this in his Mannipulated account.

    Let’s review:
    Dr. Mann indicates that he wants the case to go forward, but he claims safety from defeat because he somehow delayed the court’s ability to weigh all the evidence. Stopping play of the game does not indicate that it is not a victory for Dr. Ball.

    It’s called forfeiting, in other arenas. And the team NOT playing is the looser.

    • A judge only has to consider enough information to decide a case. Everything else is moot. Here’s an extract from the judgment in the Weaver vs. Ball 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. link

      Note that the judge explicitly ignores a whole bunch of stuff.

      It’s quite possible that everything Mann says is technically correct. IMHO, he got smacked down real hard. The best he can do is bloviate in the knowledge that most people won’t understand what really happened.

      • Thanks, I already read that.

        I want to read the judgment for THIS case, made by THIS judge. I have yet to read an exact official statement of THIS case’s dismissal.

        • “I want to read the judgment for THIS case, made by THIS judge. I have yet to read an exact official statement of THIS case’s dismissal.”

          There is no written judgement.

          last documented action on the case was august 20.
          no update on the BC supreme court website which lists daily judgements enter by the court.

          Both guys are trying to FRAME the story.

          wait for official court docs.

          • Official written order was placed in the docket on 8-22-2019. It is now posted in this thread by me and at least one other person.

          • Official written order was placed in the docket on 8-22-2019. It is now posted in this thread by me and at least one other person.

            Where? The closest I have seen to such a link is a link to a records site that asks you to pay to see it.

            You’d think that, with the strength of the claim of winning, there would be a direct, clear, unambiguous, direct link documenting the OFFICIAL outcome supporting this strong claim. I haven’t seen it yet. If it’s somewhere in all the comments that I have not read, then can you post that link again, thanks?

          • “Official written order was placed in the docket on 8-22-2019. It is now posted in this thread by me and at least one other person”

            Cool, the file I paid for ended on the 20th

          • You’d think that, with the strength of the claim of winning, there would be a direct, clear, unambiguous, direct link documenting the OFFICIAL outcome supporting this strong claim.

            Kernoodle:

            Yes I’m with you, in so far as your argument to “You’d think that…” reeks of that special redolence of “you” that an ilk of thee might continue to try to canvas with a rigger brush that’s gone wide.

            What did Dr. Ball say?

            Hi Anthony

            Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs.

            Tim Ball

            What then, given your particular Campanile de Guano, is wrong with the case documentation which has already been submitted for everyone’s review over multiple comment threads here?

          • You’d think that, with the strength of the claim of winning, there would be a direct, clear, unambiguous, direct link documenting the OFFICIAL outcome supporting this strong claim

            Hmm, let’s look at what Time actually said.

            Hi Anthony

            Michael Mann’s case against me was dismissed this morning by the BC Supreme Court and they awarded me [court] costs.

            Tim Ball

            There are two parts to what Tim said:
            1) the case was dismissed
            2) that costs were awarded.

            You’ve been given, numerous times, a link to the order. Here is the wording of that order

            Terms of Order:
            1. Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
            2. Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed

            you’ll note that the two points of that order match the two points Tim made. what further evidence do you need? If you’ll look at the update to this article, Mann himself acknowledges both that the suit was dismissed and that there is a costs portion to the order. Again, what further evidence do you need?

            Bottom line, the suit was dismissed (if you are the plaintiff, that’s a loss. If you are the defendant that’s a win) as Tim said, as Mann acknowledges and as can be plainly seen in the order as quoted. really, what else do you need to know?

          • [snip – WE HAVE A STRICT POLICY ON WRITING POSTS IN FULL CAPITALIZATION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING – even though we aren’t but we are still trying to get your attention – Anthony]

    • From what little I know of legal procedures, cases are never dismissed because of delays by the defendant. If that were to be the case, nobody would ever get convicted.

      • Indeed. Every defendants course of action in court would be to delay long enough to get the case dismissed. The lawyers would love it (lots of billing hours to be had), but everyone else involved wouldn’t.

  79. May be more to go in this court process. I know of a case in Oz that dragged for ten years but eventually one party has a costs order several hundred thou smackers against them. Message seems to be – if you do not settle reasonably when offers are made – eventually you can be stung.

  80. The court should notify Dr. Mann that any appeal filing not accompanied by the information Dr. Ball has requested will be summarily rejected. If the information is provided, Dr. Ball should be granted adequate time to determine that all of the requested information has been provided. If it has not, the appeal should be rejected without recourse.

  81. Collateral estoppel usually requires that the lawsuit involves the same parties and requires that the court makes factual findings on a issue in common between two lawsuits. Neither is present here.

  82. De Mann saying he will not be paying costs is curious. Does anyone know why he thinks this is the case?

    • @ Pete M
      There are 2 choices: Mann is ignorant OR Mann is stupid.
      He is ignorant if he does not know that he can be found liable to pay a substantial portion of Ball’s actual legal fees.
      He is stupid if he cannot remember that he was told that he could be found liable. (Stupid comes from the same latin root which gives up stupour (which precedes hangover!)).
      Since he has reasonably well known lawyers, we can presume that he was actually told the consequences of his refusal to produce discovery as required by the Rules. That eventually the action would be dismissed and that he would have to pay costs. I would be surprised if his lawyers did not deliver that advice, in writing and require that he acknowledge receipt of it.

      So there is a third choice: Michael Mann is a self-fooled fool:
      “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true. The other is to refuse to believe what is true. ” Soren Kierkegaard

      I think Mikey Mann fits that last sentence neatly.

  83. This article is a little confusing. After leading about one defamation I get the details a second, ending with a one liner that the first defamation case was won. I have know idea what the first defamation case was about and don’t know why the second was even mentioned. So, what are the details of the defamation case that Dr. Ball just won?

  84. The easily offended Dr. Michael Mann has long operated with the apparent game plan of
    a) The best defence is a good offence, and
    b) Get your retaliation in first.

  85. Congratulations to Dr. Ball. There is an old saying in law: When the facts are on your side, you argue the facts; When the law is on your side, you argue the law; When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, you just argue like heck. Mann could not argue the facts and he could not argue the law. It may be a small but important stone on the Go board. The strategic importance should not be understated. It is interesting that Mann’s defenders are vigorously arguing that he did not lose. Apparently, there is yet to be anyone (including Mann) that is arguing that he won. Once again, he has been forced to hide something. That is of great importance and another cut in the thousand cuts that it is going to take to place “The Hockey Stick” on the same historical shelf as Piltdown Man.

    • I have to agree with you Phil,
      I now think that this case is going to drag on as Mann will appeal the dismissal in an attempt to avoid handing over Tim Balls legal fees and court costs .
      Unfortunately we have not seen the last of this despicable human being .
      Both Nick Stokes and Steven Mosher should be ashamed to be batting for this person .
      He has had more than adequate time to get his case together and it is a well known ploy to drag out cases like this and never front to blead your opponent dry .
      He lodged the action against Tim Ball but has made no attempt to proceed .
      If he had a sound case he would have pushed the case along to court and it would been settled one way or the other .
      I had a very similar case over some leased land and after two years ( not eight ) the litigants finally accepted the first offer that I had made to them .
      It cost them over $100000 but the litigant was not paying the costs ,The costs were paid by the owners of the land a trust ,and that amount was more than the lease payments for two years.
      I did get some costs back from the Maori land court but it was an expensive exercise and the only thing was that I was able to continue farming the land for the two years .
      I had offered him the land back and he accepted but then backed out of the agreement
      Graham

  86. John O’Sullivan is not a reliable person, and has been lying about this case since it began. Can you get Tim Ball to verify details?

    • MikeN, Please cite examples of John O’Sullivan’s lying. Maybe he has maybe he hasn’t, your saying it doesn’t make it so and I have no reason to take you at your word because as far as I know *you* are not a reliable person either as you are merely some random anonymous person on the internet. Fail to provide concreate example of his lying about the case and I’ll only be able to assume it is you who is the one lying.

  87. Great stuff, Tim. This Down Under contributor is delighted.

    I too hope you have fun spending the money.

  88. Anthony you cite Mann as saying “… the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in a timely fashion.”
    Nowhere in the snippet you showed did I see such a claim.
    He does not state he was the cause of the delay.
    For all anyone knew, it was Ball’s fault!
    Mann might “hide the decline” but it would be better if instead, he did hide the malign!
    There are lies, and then there are partial truths, serving the same ends.

    • Where does Anthony quote Mann as saying “… the Dismissal was granted merely on the basis of Mann’s “delay” in not submitting his R2 numbers in a timely fashion.”
      I think you read it wrong…

      • Thanks Mark, you’re quite right.
        That will teach me to post AFTER the wine is finished, not before 🙂

    • jon2009, you might want to try some comprehension next time you read something, the quote you quote isn’t Anthony citing man as saying what you quoted. see the word “O’Sullivan writes:” before those two bullet points? O’Sullivan is saying that Mann is citing the delay as the reason for the dismissal and pointing out that the reason there was a delay was Mann’s own actions.

    • If the defendant could cause a case to be dismissed by merely ignoring court orders, no case would ever go to court.

      • Indeed. It would be a rather absurd legal system that lets a defendant delay the case and then let the defendant get the case dismissed because of the delays – which is what the situation would be under jon2009’s “For all anyone knew, it was Ball’s fault!” scenario.

          • Indeed, TEWS_Pilot. Least anyone be confused, to clarify: It was Mann (the plaintiff) who caused the delays that resulted in the dismissal. MarkW and I are pointing out the absurdity of jon2009’s suggestion (“For all anyone knew, it was Ball’s fault!”) that it was Ball (the defendant) who caused the delays.

  89. Mann is a small, angry, pseudo-narcissist of a man with no common sense or decency and an easily damaged ego. He’s cashing in big while pretending to fight for a cause under the guise of science, and when he’s called out, he uses others money to assuage his ego.

    It is my firm opinion that he’s a liar and a cheat at every level (for the cause of course). My unsolicited advice to him is to shut up about Dr. Ball and get really quiet before someone proves to a court that he is what he is.

    • I just completed Mikey’s “Nature Trick” and recreated his HORSE Hockey Stick Graph!! I went to AcuWeather and Wunderground.com , looked at the 10 day forecasts for “selected” locations, and by plotting the forecast precipitation for the next 10 days for those locations, I now have a duplicate “Hockey Stick” graph….easy, peasy….where’s my NOBEL PRIZE?

    • Jeff Id says:
      Mann is a small, angry, pseudo-narcissist of a pseudo-man.

      Fixed it for ya, Jeff. 🙂

  90. “The Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were “not” valid.”

    Couldn’t it also be said that Court did not find that any of Ball’s defenses were *not* valid and also did not find that any of Mann’s claims were valid?

    In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit.

    From what I gather on this case, Mann is claiming that he won’t provide the code, data, and/or whatever else Ball requested because it’s his intellectual property. Meanwhile, we’ve been constantly bombarded for several decades by the elite’s media outlets that the world is going to end soon, mass extinctions are going to occur, etc. etc. But this thin-skinned two-bit leftist activisit-scientist priorities are about keeping his code and data to himself instead of releasing it, which could prove Ball wrong which then would cause many skeptics to question their skepticism and then which then would move the world closer to preventing global CO2 induced annihilation.

    • The notion that Mann can withhold his data because it is intellectual property is nonsense. Court’s routinely address this issue by making protective orders. This type of issue comes up frequently in litigation and courts have developed protocols on how to protect everyone’s interests.

    • Mann’s excuses remind me of an automobile race between the Soviets and Americans. The Soviet car came in second and the American car came in second to last.

  91. Hmmm. Are Dr. Mann’s peer review contributions to be considered credible anymore? Methinks not.

  92. the delay is entirely due to Mann not submitting the required documents in support of his claim. He will likely appeal, which will entail more delay. If his appeal is not expeditiously denied, then really nothing has happened here — the delay merely continues. If the appeal is expeditiously denied, then he’ll likely appeal again to the next level.

    That the decision was not made [on the merits] is wholly Mann’s fault, which he is not acknowledging.

    In a manner of speaking, this decision is about as momentous as an announcement that Mann is still breathing. Not that I wish him to stop breathing, but I see this as mainly another day in the prolongation of the “process”. I would welcome a complete dismissal, but I am not “holding my breath”.

    • He failed to fulfill his agreement to provide documents, thus the reason why Dr. Ball’s lawyers moved for Dismissal, the judge agreed.

      His appeal with not succeed on that basis since he failed to follow thought with the concessions agreement back in 2017.

    • In a comment on the case, using the WUWT as a h/t , American Thinker says at one point :
      -“As Dr Ball explains:
      “Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.” “-
      https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/08/michael_mann_creator_of_the_infamous_global_warming_hockey_stick_loses_lawsuit_against_climate_skeptic_ordered_to_pay_defendants_costs.html
      If this is true then what possible grounds for appeal does Mann have? He failed to meet the conditions set by the Court. End of arguement surely.

      BTW : will be roundly criticised for quoting from a right wing and pro- Israel source. I know that it is, that is why I read it.

    • Actually, considering Canadian and BC laws, he’ll be lucky if he doesn’t get charged with contempt of court.

      “Criminal versus Civil Contempt of Court
      Civil contempt is where a person or corporation breaches a court order, and the nature of the conduct interferes with the interests of another private party. Criminal contempt is where a court order is breached, but the nature of the conduct interferes with the public’s interest in the “proper administration of justice”.[1] Conduct that is determined to interfere with the proper administration of justice is criminal contempt.[2]

      The Supreme Court of Canada defined criminal contempt of court as follows:

      “The gravamen [substance] of the offence is not actual or threatened injury to persons or property … [it] is rather the open, continuous and flagrant violation of a court order without regard for the effect that may have on the respect accorded to edicts of the court.”[3]”

      https://bccla.org/2018/04/are-you-charged-with-contempt-of-court/

    • “the delay is entirely due to Mann not submitting the required documents in support of his claim”

      You don’t know that. Mann has posted here a statement from his lawyer. He says that the Court made no mention of failure to produce documents, and that the grounds for Tim Ball’s submission requesting dismissal were
      1. his health
      2. the fact that his statements had received too little attention to create damage.

      • Mann stated on facebook: “…The dismissal involved the alleged exercise of a discretion on the Court to dismiss a lawsuit for delay…”

        Ball’s health and statements receiving too little attention to create damage have nothing to do with the delay Mann referenced.

      • Eight years that racehorse ran. Sumpin’ sound in wind and limb, likely the Piltdown Mann’s financial backers.
        =========================

      • From the above link…
        To Mann from his lawyer:
        “In summary, the Court’s brief ruling on August 22 made no finding whether your claims were valid or whether Ball’s pleaded defences had any merit.”

        My interpretation: With regard to its ruling on August 22, the Court did not need to consider Mann’s claims or Ball’s defences. A positive and unambiguous statement.

        Compare with [from the OP]:

        “Our” [Mann’s] statement:
        The court did not find that any of Ball’s defences were valid. The Court did not find that any of my claims were *not* valid.

        My interpretation – what his lawyer said, but paraphrased to insinuate that the court *did* look at claims and defences, finding that all of Mann’s claims had merit, and finding that all of Ball’s defences were invalid. Ambiguity introduced by substituting double-negatives.

        Steak in – Sausage out.

      • Nick Stokes: Mann has posted here a statement from his lawyer.

        I suppose I ought not dismiss that too soon.

      • Mann has posted here a statement from his lawyer. He says that the Court made no mention of failure to produce documents, and that the grounds for Tim Ball’s submission requesting dismissal were
        1. his health
        2. the fact that his statements had received too little attention to create damage.

        Indeed, that’s every reason in the world for the Canadian justice system to grant the Defendant’s (Dr. Ball) motion to dismiss the Plaintiff’s (Mann) case while at the same time taxing the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s court costs isn’t it?

        Why wouldn’t the judge accept the Defendant’s application to dismiss simply on the basis that he’s old and sick and that what he said, while indeed possibly libelous (this wasn’t adjudicated), didn’t do any damage anyway, so who cares about the law and/or the future precedent this ruling might set? We’ve got plenty of time to waste on these types of suits anyway don’t we?

        And then why wouldn’t that judge also subsequently punish the Plaintiff by awarding court costs to the Defendant? Even though the Defendant potentially libeled the Plaintiff, how dare the Plaintiff seek justice and future deterrent by bringing suit, since the Defendant’s sick and his libelous comments didn’t matter anyway? Thus the Plaintiff ought to be punished by paying court costs so justice can be served and that lesson inked into the record for all to see. Right?

        I suppose it’s possible, but so is being a rube. “Rube” much?

        • “to dismiss the Plaintiff’s (Mann) case while at the same time taxing the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s court costs isn’t it”
          Again so much speculation, so few facts known.

          • Again you are too dense to realize that a JUDGE made a decision to DISMISS the case.

            Why did Dr. Mann asked for a Trial ADJOURNMENT scheduled for Feb, 2017, when he had SIX years to develop his case?

            Then NOTHING for 2 1/2 years after that, what is he waiting for?

          • Again so much speculation, so few facts known.

            Well there you go. After reading you throughout all these threads for all these years it would seem you’ve borne an heir.

            🙂

          • Even Mann admits there’s a part about costs in the decision (“The provision in the court’s order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball’s legal fees.”) even if he thinks he’ll somehow get away from having to pay it.

            The only speculation to be had is why Mann thinks the provision awarding Ball costs (as even Mann admits in in the order) does not mean that Mann will pay them. Presumably Mann thinks his “absolute right of appeal” means he’ll get an appeal decision that will undo the costs award.

            And Nick, if the dismissal was merely based on health and no damage (as per Mann’s spin that you bought hook line and sinker), why the award of costs (as even Mann admits is in the decision) to Ball? Surely in that case there would be no reason to award costs. one would expect at worst (for the plaintiff) a neutral decision (each party pays their own costs) not one that awards the defendant costs.

          • Yes Nick ,
            That is the only comment that you have made here that is correct .
            There is so much speculation and there are facts .
            Fact 1 The judge dismissed the case.
            Fact 2 The judge will rule on costs .
            Fact 3 This case has dragged on for 8 years .
            Fact 4 Mann refused to file his defense .
            Fact 5 Mann missed deadlines to file his defense .
            Fact 6 We are all speculating and if we wait a week or two all will be revealed.
            Fact 7 Mann is a fraud .
            Fact 8 The people on this blog who have gone into bat for Mann should think very carefully why they are defending this fraud .
            Graham

      • Gee Nick,

        The JUDGE knows what is going on, certainly much better than YOU, he accepted Dr. Ball’s request for dismissal, for a good reason that amazingly eludes YOU.

        Your avoidance of this reality has become comical and stupid.

        One more time, the JUDGE knows the case much better than you……, DR. Mann can cry all he wants but the Judge has made his decision and for a good reason.

      • Earlier Mann said they are studying an appeal. Now it’s all about Ball’s health and they claim his statements received too little attention to create damage?

        That’s what they’re going to appeal?

        Which statement is Mann just blowing through his vent stack?

        As always, watch the pea.

        • It seems to be a common thing with Climate Science that people lose a case and think they can appeal, only to find out they can only ask to be granted an appeal. Same thing happened with Peter Ridd the uni vice chancellor just thought she could appeal.

          Both will find out once you get to the closure of a case it is a little more complex you have to seek leave to appeal you don’t automatically have the right.

  93. A “ruling from the bench”.
    A bench is made of wood.
    Perhaps Mann is too confident of his ability to manipulate a piece of wood?

  94. This is all very wonderful, but justice would have been better served had the Piltdown Mann produced his work and his Crook’t Stick been publicly derogated, debunked, demolished and destroyed.

    He’s basically won with his stonewall, and left the world a poorer place. Ah, justice.
    ==================================================

    • Kim,
      Personally, I believe that Mann’s “Crook’t Stick” has been completely debunked by Piltdown’s own actions. He failed to produce his ‘data’ – and has gone to great lengths to keep it secret. It should be obvious to anyone (except those with a horse in the race) that he is a fraud, hack, and completely full of shite.
      Science doesn’t work on secret data, and when one fails to provide their data and methodology for proper peer review, then their work/hypothesis should go straight in the toilet – where it belongs.

      • Heh, Rich; by your response, you are clearly no moron. But your telephone is.
        =====================================

  95. A lot of things are not adding up in Mikey Mann’s recent Twitter and Facebook posts regarding Dr. Ball’s win.
    Mann is claiming that Dr. Ball only sought the dismissal because of his ailing health.
    Mann is claiming that he will not have to pay Dr. Ball’s court costs.
    Mann is also claiming that he DID provide all requested documents required to the court by the February 20, 2017 deadline.

    This is interesting, given that he and Dr. Ball agreed to an adjournment (an adjournment that Mann requested, mind you) “with conditions” – and those “conditions” included that Mann hand over his hockey stick R2 regression numbers and computer code by that February 20th deadline in 2017.

    So, following logic – if Mann had actually complied with the conditions of the adjournment, as he so adamantly claims, then shouldn’t that been the end of the legal proceedings? Why would Dr. Ball have to seek a dismissal at all if Mann HAD actually complied?? And, if the court did in fact award Dr. Ball the dismissal with Mann responsible for Ball’s court costs – doesn’t that mean that Dr. Ball ‘won’ – as well as reaffirming that Mann failed to provide his data as required in the adjournment agreement??
    I think Mikey and his lawyer are under the impression that everyone else in the world are too stupid to see through their BS smokescreen…. And they’d be WRONG.

  96. Years ago I noted that the damage done to some individuals by the Penn State football establishment and administration were horrific, but the damage done to climate science and all seven billion of this world’s inhabitants by this State Penn’s ‘Scientifisist’ has far outweighed it in total damage. The victims are all of us and climate science may be half a century recovering its health.
    =======================================

  97. The next Mann case vs Mark Steyn should be interesting, assuming it ever winds its way through the US Courts.

    After all, he is suing, inter alia, for defaming a Nobel Laureate, which might have an inconvenient clash with reality.

    From what I’ve seen of Mann, he will not be discouraged.

    • Go back and read the citation that accompanied OwlGore’s Nobel Prize. it awards the Prize ONLY to Owlgore. It lists numerous contributors, including Mann, and the IPCC, but NONE of them are considered RECIPIENTS of the Nobel Prize, and NONE of them ever claimed the Prize on their bio pages. The JANITOR who sweeps out Mann’s office at Penn State contributed a tiny bit, but HE doesn’t get to claim he is a Nobel Prize recipient, either.

      ‘Michael Mann has never been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
      Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize’
      By Marc Morano –October 26, 2012
      https://canadafreepress.com/article/nobel-committee-rebukes-michael-mann-for-falsely-claiming-he-was-awarded-th

      Nobel Committee Rebukes Michael Mann for falsely claiming he was ‘awarded the Nobel Peace Prize‘. —Not a UN ‘certificate’—’Mann was one of a ‘select group’ of a mere 2,000 people to receive a ‘commemorative certificate of involvement’ — not from the Nobel committee, but from the UN’s Dr Rajendra Pachauri Oh, and BTW, Rajendra Kumar Pachauri was the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He held the post from 2002 until his resignation in February 2015, due to sexual harassment allegations.

  98. MOD – can you please not post my reply to Kim – I typo’d my name in a no-so-flattering way!

    Thanks!
    Rich Morton

      • Ugh! I know – this is why I HATE cell phones that love to change words! It always changes my name, thinking that the ‘other’ is what was intended. The worst is that I have to fight it repeatedly to get it to stop, and then it changes it again anyway AFTER I hit send. So infuriating!!
        Sucks having a last name that can be so easily misconstrued by anticipatory cell phone text language algorithms…

        • Yes auto corrupt (which is how I refer to the auto correct “feature”) can be more of a curse than a blessing.

  99. Here we are in an existing planetary emergency and Mann can’t open his 2-bit code/data to help save us.

    Gotta love his priorities.

  100. Mods & Anthony:

    Horse out of the barn now, but due to the sensitivity of the topic & Canadian lawyer & Justice words not easily, correctly & comprehensively understood by (without meaning disrespect to anybody) the vast majority of WUWT readers, his update might better have been a separate thread.

    Also, not being a (Canadian) Lawyer, some legal context in the top-of-thread post would be much appreciated.

    In any event, it is a darn good feeling to know WUWT has been a part of keeping Mann’s academic & award-winning fraud front & center.

  101. Congrats to Tim Ball.
    Once again the hockey schticker failed to come up with the programming code and procedures for his fraudulent tree-ring + ground temp data chart. He claims Tim did not win, but the fact is that Mann’s defamation lawsuit was rejected, and he has to pay the legal costs. None of this is Tim Ball’s doing, it’s all down to Michael Mann himself. Being the sore looser, Mann then claims Tim Ball did not win.

  102. I checked the court documents. The following is the result of the 22Aug2019 hearing Mann v Ball.

    Order
    Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
    Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed

    The last sentence can be translated as the winner takes all; meaning Tim may recover as much as 80% of what he actually spent.

  103. “Anthony: So, as usual, in my opinion Dr. Mann’s ego interprets the facts only in ways that suit his viewpoint, which is the whole reason he got into trouble with the hockey-stick in the first place.”

    In my opinion, Dr. Mann’s real breakthrough in Climate Science wasn’t so much the hockey stick as his ability to take an unambiguous phrase or sentence that just about every English-speaking person can understand, and explain it to lay-people. I’ll try to symbolize the process with a Data Flow Diagram:

    Plain Language -> Transform.English.Mannsplain() -> Doublespeak

    Perhaps an example will help:

    Mannsplain(“Mike’s Nature Trick”) = “*not* a Trick as trick is defined in any dictionary and not *Mike’s* Trick because climate scientists know that ‘Mike’ is shorthand for ‘the trade’, and *Nature*, well it’s ‘Mike’s trick’ which by now you have learned is ‘the trade’s’ trick so you can see that it has nothing to do with Mike *or* Nature *or* what anyone outside ‘the trade’ understands to be the definition of Trick”

    • Methinks you ought to make public the code of your ‘Mannsplain’ method. May I suggest you produce its inverse as well, one that takes the doublethinkmannspeak and returns what it means?

      • I’m sorry that’s intellectual property.

        Here’s another data point:

        Mannsplain(“Dear Participant… Enclosed is a sheet of cardboard with your name on it and a life-size picture of the Nobel Medallion that was co-awarded to Al Gore and the IPCC”) = (“I’M A NOBEL LAUREATE!!!”)

        and one final example…

        Mannsplain(“Embarrassing”) = “Intellectual Property”

        You are free to Reverse-Engineer it if you think you can.

    • No, congratulations for Dr. Ball to end the lawsuit absurdity. It was Dr. Mann who stopped the trial that was scheduled for February 2017, this after 6 years of preparation.

      YOU seems to have forgotten that Dr. Mann filed for Adjournment of the trial in February 2017 which was granted, and done nothing since, which is 2 1/2 years running.

      What was holding Dr. Mann back? Why did he stop his legal pursuit?

      It is obvious he hasn’t been defamed anyway, since he is still getting large grants, employed by the university and able to publish papers in journals, publish a dishonest book attacking a lot of people and getting a lot of money for it. He is a much wealthier man than he was in 2011.

      No, Mann destroyed his case over time…….

      Snicker…….

    • The process is the punishment. Scumbag Mann has won. I seriously doubt he’s paying his own legal bills so he’s getting off Scot free after putting Dr. Ball through the wringer for a few years. Like all bullies, Mann will claim that he is the victim.

  104. When the court tosses your suit, you lose. Period.

    Spin is the only thing Mann is good at, and he isn’t very good at that.

    • Indeed. It doesn’t matter how Mikey or his sycophant defenders (we all know who they are) spin it. The indisputable facts are that:
      1) For the plaintiff, having your suit tossed is a loss. period.
      2) For the defendant, having the suit tossed is a win. period.

      having the court award the defendant costs is a sweet bonus that just adds to the win for the defendant/loss for the plaintiff.

        • Thanks. The guy is a spinmeister par excellence. He got caught with his pants down calling Dr. Curry a climate science denier and then insists that isn’t the same as calling her a climate denier.

          Plenty of evidence was presented that demonstrated that Mann is a hypocrite.

  105. Mann still refuses to show the data behind his paper.

    Mann ex machina – TA DAAAA HOCKEYSTICK.

  106. Does anyone have links to the actual court submissions in this latest motion to dismiss the case, and the actual court endorsement/decision granting costs??? I WANT THOSE!!! I know a lot about the legal process so I could explain this result and comment on enforcement. (I’m not lawyer but a commentator.)

    (It has been posted numerous times now, try reading the thread instead) SUNMOD

    Try this comment:

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/22/breaking-dr-tim-ball-wins-michaelemann-lawsuit-mann-has-to-pay/#comment-2779999 (SUNMOD)

    • Sorry, mods,

      but what Dennis Rancourt asks for is what I have been asking for too, and, honestly, it just is not as obvious as you make it seem.

      I have read the comments, and I have yet to read any quote or see any reliable direct link that leads to any official court statement of any substance that would lead a person to claim any sort of victory with confidence that the article here proclaims.

      Why isn’t the obvious link or obvious quote placed in the article as an update? — that would be most helpful in justifying the title of the article of this post.

      • Robert the suit was dismissed. When you are the defendant, that is a WIN. When you are a plaintiff that is a LOSS. It doesn’t get much easier to understand than that.

        What Dennis and you have asked for has been given numerous times in this thread, as the mods pointed out. That you do not wish to acknowledge the links and the text of the order that has been provided as answering your question is your hang up. as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink.

        I have yet to read any quote or see any reliable direct link that leads to any official court statement

        then you haven’t, as you claimed, read the comments otherwise you’d have seen this quote (as well as the links to the court records that it comes from) numerous times by now:

        File Number VLC-S-S-111913
        Date Filed: 22Aug2019
        Terms of Order:
        1. Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
        2. Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed

        You have been given the answer you’ve asked for numerous times now, so stop pretending otherwise it’s getting tiresome.

        • Oh okay, I get it now. My bad.

          We take a terse, short, two-lined, mechanical, record-keeping, accounting statement of procedure to end a process of argumentation as a basis for claiming boldly that somebody has “won”. I apologize for my unseasoned expectation for something more. I was looking right at the answer all the time, but I just could not wrap my mind around the fact that this was all the answer there was.

          Sorry, but if that’s all there is, then the tone of the article seems way overblown to me. That’s a weak, weak, weak … “win”, in my way of accounting. Nothing was really settled, … just dismissed.

          Thanks, John E, for making this so crystal clear.

          • Sunset,

            I fully admitted my unseasoned expectation of more, and fully acknowledged that my question had now been answered with crystal clear clarity, and so, yeah, it hit me, in no uncertain terms, that this is all there is to it at this time.

            I was just thrown by the seeming internet frenzy over announcing a victory for a game that was merely called off or forfeited due to a technicality. Nothing in this case seems settled on the basis of any merit of either side’s arguments. Declaring a dismissal seems to avoid the confrontation of actually playing the game for real.

            I’m so stupid not to understand legal procedures any better and having such high hopes for them. I’m a child in this arena. I should go stand in the corner now as punishment for my greenhorn assumptions.

          • I hear you, sorry for being hard on you over it.

            Now we wait for more developments to come out, that hopefully shed a lot of light on this unexpected development.

            One thing I can say is that Dr. Mann is freaked by it, as shown in his tweets today!

      • There are no direct links to the court documents. They are behind a paywall at the Courts official website

      • Robert Kernodle,

        You say,
        “Sorry, mods,
        but what Dennis Rancourt asks for is what I have been asking for too, and, honestly, it just is not as obvious as you make it seem.”

        Actually, the information above is very clear; i.e.
        Mann raised a case for defamation which the Court dismissed and costs were awarded against Mann.

        The facts of this matter are provided above and say
        1.
        In 2011 Mann filed a legal case against Ball that claimed Ball had defamed Mann.
        2.
        The case dragged on until ““Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017.”
        3.
        Ball and his lawyers “had little choice” other than to accept the adjournment “because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable”. However, they “agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017.”
        4.
        Mann “failed to meet the deadline” for provision of the required documents (and he still has not provided them).
        5.
        In 2019 Ball and his lawyers called on the Court to dismiss the claim of defamation that Mann had brought against Ball in 2011 because Mann had failed to provide the Court with the documents the Court, Mann and Ball had agreed that Mann would provide in 2017.
        6.
        The Court dismissed the case and awarded costs against Mann.

        In other words, Mann failed to substantiate his claim for defamation and, therefore, Ball won his defence against that claim.

        That conclusion is “obvious” to me, but I am not pretending to be stupid.

        Richard

        • Richard,

          Thanks, yeah, I read all that and understood all that, but it was a secondary accounting of the official proceedings. No official document seems to say this, even if this was the actual cause of the dismissal. The official dismissal just says the case was dismissed, with zero mention of EXACTLY why, and EXACTLY what the details were for dismissing. Why does the actual, official dismissal ruling fail to say exactly why the ruling exists? It’s as if the court does not want to go on official record to support the strength of either party’s position, not even the procedural requirements of presenting the two positions. It just says bluntly, tersely, without reason, that the case was dismissed, and we are left with secondary, off-the-record accountings of why EXACTLY.

          If Mann caused the dismissal, then why do official statements not put it in his corner? He found a rock to hide under, and Dr. Ball couldn’t get at him. Again, that’s not any victory — it’s a technical gymnastic flip that avoids the game in earnest. Why would I expect otherwise?

          Thanks for your patience.

          • Robert Kernodle,

            You ask me,
            “If Mann caused the dismissal, then why do official statements not put it in his corner?”

            THE DISMISSAL WAS PUT IN MANN’S CORNER BY THE COURT IN AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT WHEN THE COURT AWARDED COSTS FOR BALL AND, THUS, AGAINST MANN.

            The matter could not be more clear.

            Richard

          • If Mann caused the dismissal, then why do official statements not put it in his corner?

            Awarding costs to Ball *is* putting it in Mann’s corner. The lawsuit was dismissed for delay (as even Mann admits). Who could cause a delay in the suit that would cause the case to be dismissed? (you’ve already been given the answer in the “secondary accounting but I want you to think about it, really think about it). It can’t be Ball (the defendant), if all it took to get a case dismissed (and for the plaintiff to pay the defendants costs) is for a defendant to delay, no case would ever proceed as every defendant ever would simply delay until the suit is dismissed and rewarded with costs. No, of the two parties, the only one who could logically and reasonably cause a suit dismissing delay is the plaintiff (IE Mann) because if the defendant was causing the delay the court would slap them with a contempt of court ruling and/or outright rule in favor of the plaintive due to the defendants failure to respond in a timely manner, not reward the defendant with costs.

          • Richard, as the saying goes there are none so blind as those who will not see. It’s crystal clear yet some refuse to see.

    • I paid the $6., twice, took all the screen shots. The actual documents cannot be viewed, can be ordered but these cost more, and the court only send them by either fax or snail mail. I did not order them.

      No doubt Ball won and got costs! These costs: https://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/default/files/web/Costs-in-Supreme-Court.pdf

      I think the best would be to ask Dr. Ball to instruct his lawyers to send the key documents to one person who would post them. The best would be at least:
      #59 Notice of Application
      Court decision/endorsement/judgement on the latter (heard August 22nd)

      But also:
      -Staement of claim in the action
      -Statement of defence of Dr. Ball

      (Thank you for the information, well done!) SUNMOD

      • [snip – WE HAVE A STRICT POLICY ON WRITING POSTS IN FULL CAPITALIZATION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING – even though we aren’t but we are still trying to get your attention – Anthony]

    • [snip – WE HAVE A STRICT POLICY ON WRITING POSTS IN FULL CAPITALIZATION BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SHOUTING – even though we aren’t but we are still trying to get your attention – Anthony]

      • Anthony
        Macular degeneration is a incurable eye disease. He stated earlier that he has it. I do not know if anyone picked up on it.
        Yes he has been rude be then no one likes to talk about a debilitating condition.
        as I said earlier other places he posts all caps.
        He is losing his vision.
        Below is a link on the condition. What happens to your vision is not pretty.
        I don’t know what else to say.

        michael

        https://www.aao.org/eye-health/diseases/amd-macular-degeneration

        (I have made a suggestion, he ignores it, I have quoted the blog policy, he ignores it, Anthony told him about the policy, he ignores it. He never makes an attempt work this out with the blog owner. Maybe YOU can help him try a way to write up his big letter comment elsewhere, then drop it into lower case, then post it here) SUNMOD

  107. 8 years… I can hardly call this a victory when Mann managed to harass someone for 8 years.

    A victory would be Mann having to pay substantial amounts of money for harassment, and made to apologize. Never going to happen. Mann will be able to just waltz on pretending he is a scientist and loved by the liberal elites.

      • Yep, one day Mann claims the court used its discretion to dismiss the case due to delay…the next he says it is because Ball is old, sick, and lacks credibility.

        • So Mann is congratulating himself for having harassed a sick old man for 8 years. What a douche.

    • “A victory would be Mann having to pay substantial amounts of money for harassment, and made to apologize. Never going to happen. Mann will be able to just waltz on pretending he is a scientist and loved by the liberal elites.” —- Not really. The policy reason for the costs order against Mann is intended to be a dissuasion. Mann has to pay all the incidental costs and a large fraction of the lawyer costs (see my link above on costs policy at BCSC). This is all the more true when a case is dismissed after much wasted resources. We will see what the amount ends up being. Also, Mann has to pay all his own legal and lawyer costs and travel to BC, etc., unless his university is paying. If his university is paying, then that is a violation of public policy. I would look into that using access-to-information law… And, Mann suffers the humiliation of the defeat after 8 years of effort.

      • Mann doesn’t pay a dime. Plenty of people on the side of “the cause” have him covered.

      • The policy reason for the costs order against Mann is intended to be a dissuasion.

        If you accuse someone of something, and the courts find that your allegation is unsubstantiated, you have damaged the defendant. So, the defendant should be made whole again, by you. You should pay all the costs, lawyers fees and everything else, that the defendant incurred. It’s real simple and that’s the way it works in Canada.

        In spite of posts by lawyers who are familiar with the Canadian system, some folks here cling to the idea that the costs don’t include everything. They do.

        • Actually, it’s complicated. link Judges have a lot of discretion. They can even make the winner pay the costs if it looks like the winner was abusing the system.

        • What should we expect in this particular case?

          A judge ought to be severe in awarding costs when he finds that expenses have been incurred through a wrongful suppression of material documents. link

          Never bet on the outcome of a court case. Even so, the above citation is ‘interesting’.

  108. Shouldn’t Nature now withdraw the original Mann paper since he has now demonstrated clearly to a court that he is unable to supply his R2 data despite it being required for over 2 years.
    Ball went for a truth defence to the defamation charges and Mann’s inability to provide evidence in support of his paper means that he is conceding that his paper is indefensible scientifically.

    • I think this is the most important point now that he has lost this lawsuit. The paper should absolutely be withdrawn.

        • Mann was unable to produce the data he promised to the court after more than 2 years. Given that he sued for defamation and Ball was using truth as his defence, all Mann needed to do was produce a mathematical and methodologically sound set of data to back up his findings. Any legitimate researcher should have been able to provide this trivially. The fact that Mann could not is indefensible and a real denial of science.

        • Nobody said that the court has ruled on the validity of Mann’s work.

          You really are desperate to change the subject.

        • Mann’s CLAIM (defamation) had nothing to do with the paper. But putting on gloves and punching air isn’t a boxing match… the Lawsuit includes the Defence.

          Tim Ball was entitled to raise Truth as a defence, which I believe he must have. And the somewhat limited information publicly available (e.g. conditions given for the 2017 adjournment) implies that the paper is a hot button for both parties to the lawsuit.

          That being said, I agree with the second part of what Nick S wrote.

        • You are amongst the same disingenuous apologist bunch that defended Ben Santer when he refused to release his data in Santer 08, then Steve McIntyre had to threaten to sue to get it.

          Do you think the court looked at Santer’s paper?

        • Of course the lawsuit had nothing to do with any hockey stick paper. It had everything to do with Mann’s ego being too big and part of his anatomy being too small. It was BS from the get-go.

        • As soon as a defense based on truth was given, then the case was all about the paper. Mann would have won easily if he could show his paper was correct with data and method. Mann was unable to do that simple thing.

  109. Concerning update #2 – Obviously he has endless funding from the cult to put people through all of this. I wonder if you can charge harassment for repeated frivolous lawsuits.

    • Yes you can, but only if they are in the same Jurisdiction, so Ball in Canada being thrown out does not help Steyn as that case is in the US. Except for the information it provides ie that Mann is never going to release his data. However that may not if the US courts still allow Mann to claim proprietary rights.

  110. Great news Dr Tim.
    It has to be seen as a win but it still gives Mann et al bragging rights that it was a legal procedure and not a finding.
    The attack on Mann is simple to me and that is when asked to back up his claims with “science”, as in R2 workings, he chickened out.
    One doesn’t have to wonder why?
    If the Libel was so great why wait 9 years?
    Ditto for Steyn although I suspect he won’t get out of that one intact!

  111. Apologies if this has been answered elsewhere, but does anyone know what’s happened to Tim B’s website? I get a GoDaddy advert implying that his domain name (drtimball.ca) is up for grabs.

    • In the interview Mann says: ” The Canadian Court actually dismissed the case because they concluded that he has so little credibility that nobody would believe his defamatory comments about me anyway. And this is the second time Canadian Courts have come to a similar conclusion. Another prominent Canadian climate scientist, Andrew Weaver, had also brought a libel case against Tim Ball, and it was dismissed by the court because they said Ball isn’t credible in the first place.”

      His hubris knows no bounds.

      • Mann’s claim is easily debunked, if the court had actually thought that it would have awarded Mann costs, not the other way.

  112. I have to think that the dismissal of this lawsuit has done more damage to Michael Mann’s reputation than the so-called libel that got the thing started.

  113. Is it odd that a guy with 121,000 followers on Twitter typically nets low single digit replies and retweets on his tweets?

  114. Anyone,

    Neither of Dr Tim Ball’s websites load.

    https://drtimball.ca (Wikipedia lists this as his official website)

    DrTimBall.com

    Does he have another site or is there something nefarious going on?

    Any thoughts?

    Jack

  115. Update #3 : Zerohedge is posting the story along with some other very interesting items:

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-08-27/creator-global-warmings-infamous-hockey-stick-chart-loses-climate-science-lawsuit

    The quote an article from Technology News

    https://www.technocracy.news/fatal-courtroom-act-ruins-michael-hockey-stick-mann/?print=pdf

    “The defendant in the libel trial, the 79-year-old Canadian climatologist, Dr Tim Ball … is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions, including a ruling that Mann did act with criminal intent when using public funds to commit climate data fraud. Mann’s imminent defeat is set to send shock waves worldwide within the climate science community as the outcome will be both a legal and scientific vindication of U.S. President Donald Trump’s claims that climate scare stories are a “hoax.”

  116. Mann has quoted part of an affidavit stating that one reason for a dismissal was Ball’s age. Ball wrote the affidavit, so I am hoping he can provide the whole document here. Also, Ball should have Mann’s written response to his motion for a dismissal, and I would hpoe he could provide it to this website.

    JD

    • ” I would hpoe he could provide it to this website”
      It’s now five days since this post appeared, saying that more would be added. But the only supported details about the court case are coming from Mann’s side.

      • Actually, it appears that people unrelated to Mann posted the Court’s order. Mann selectively quoted from the affidavit and could easily post the complete affidavit. In light of his deceitful briefs filed in the Steyn case, I am highly skeptical that the portion he filed accurately represents the gist of the whole affidavit.

        Either Mann or Ball could easily post the litigation documents filed in connection with the motion to dismiss. So far, a dismissal with costs to Mann is indicative ofa major failure of his lawsuit.

        JD

        • “could easily post the complete affidavit”
          But, as you say, so could Ball. Why not?

          “a dismissal with costs to Mann”
          That remains unclear. I note that the heading of this post was edited to remove that claim.

          • But, as you say, so could Ball. Why not?

            Nobody named Nick once stoked: “Again so much speculation, so few facts known.”

            🙂

          • Sycomputing posted the order August 24, 2019 at 3:49 pm. It states:

            “1. Order that the claim made by Plaintiff be dismissed
            2. Costs will follow the event and of the action since the action is dismissed”

            Multiple sources have shown that when costs follow the event, almost always attorney fees are awarded. There is nothing good in that order with respect to Mann.

            The motion, response, affidavit and other relevant documents are almost certainly public records and will be published by someone. Additionally, either party could do it. When they are published, almost certainly shortly, we will know more about why Mann lost his case.

          • The question is, what was the event. If it was, as asserted here with little evidence, that Mann failed to produce documents or some such, then sure. But if dismissal was brought on by the defendants state of health, as Mann says, then it’s not so clear. The court seems to have discretion.

      • Supported details? What supported details are those?

        Mann sued.
        His suit was dismissed for delay.
        He throws out a few stipulations that Ball made in one of his pleadings, but not the whole pleading. This is similar to where Mann claimed to be a Nobel winner in a court pleading except more truthful.
        Mann lost his suit.

        Mann claims he can appeal. Maybe he can, but he will probably have to supply the materials that he has so far refused to supply be for the appeal can go forward.

        What other pertinent SUPPORTED details are there?

      • “…But the only supported details about the court case are coming from Mann’s side…”

        Mann himself posted that the court dismissed the case out of discretion due to delay.

        Then he posted stuff from his lawyers that the case was not dismissed due to delay.

        Yeah, “supported details,” lol.

    • Mann selectively quoted from the affidavit and could easily post the complete affidavit.

      jddohio:

      Your problem is your thinking is on the Ball when you need to Mann up. Your skepticism of Mann’s quotational selectivism is all just Ballocks. Rather than engage in Mann-Denial by claiming Ball won, you should rather be Stoked all the way from your head to your Nickers that Goodness, Purity, Truth and Love has instead struck him out.

      Just my two Mann-scents here.

  117. Someone should inform the judge what Mann said in an interview with Dharna Noor yestertay.

    ” The Canadian Court actually dismissed the case because they concluded that he has so little credibility that nobody would believe his defamatory comments about me anyway. And this is the second time Canadian Courts have come to a similar conclusion. Another prominent Canadian climate scientist, Andrew Weaver, had also brought a libel case against Tim Ball, and it was dismissed by the court because they said Ball isn’t credible in the first place.”
    https://therealnews.com/stories/david-koch-is-dead-but-his-legacy-of-climate-denial-lives-on

    Thanks Eliza.

    • Sounds like Dr. Ball needs to file a defamation suit against Mann.

      Since neither court case actually says what Mann claims they say. You can’t get out of a suit by delaying when you are the defendant.

    • So Dr Ball was not ‘credible in the first place’. But the case against him gets thrown out? How does that work?

    • Mann was accused (jokingly) of being a criminal, Mann then took action, but when asked to prove he wasn’t a criminal blatantly refused to produce the evidence.

      I agree there does appear to be strong grounds to investigate for conspiracy to hide criminal activity, because, given that Mann agreed a legal undertaking to produce the evidence, it seems the only reason Mann would withhold the evidence proving he “wasn’t” a criminal, is if the evidence didn’t show that.

  118. BTW way you can complete get rid of Google if you have microsoft 10 and RESET your PC it will get rid of all google stuff and will retain all your links ect which I believe is biased. Bing seems to be more balanced re News ect

      • eh? “gulag” is a noun not a verb.

        Gulag.
        [ˈɡo͞oläɡ]
        NOUN.
        Gulag, abbreviation of Glavnoye Upravleniye Ispravitelno-trudovykh Lagerey, (Russian: “Chief Administration of Corrective Labour Camps”) a system of labor camps maintained in the Soviet Union from 1930 to 1955 in which many people died.
        <blockquote.

  119. Btw Nick Stokes i am an Australian Citizen My father was an expert for the world meteorological Organization and set up WMO meterological stations in Bolivia and Paraguay in the 70s he studied with Eistein in the Max Planck Institut fur physics in Berlin 1932 in his old age age he told me in 2000 before he died that AGW ( I really believed in it as a young person ) was a TAX scam he did not even bother to explain the science to me he has published various papers in Nature in the 30 when it was a reputable journa. Peolple like you have degraded Australian science just for reference https://www.nature.com/articles/135654a0 you are a disgrace to Australian Science You wikll go down as non Australians who persecuted Prof Ridd and the late Prof Carter. You arwe a shame to Australia

    • Nick Stokes is part of the Aussie left wing spin machine. Spouts enough truth to look credible then adds the poison pill. Just look at his comments about the Amazon fires.

  120. The court found no fault with manns suit, they found no merit with Balls defence. The court dismissed the case because they got fed up waiting for Mann, and awarded Ball costs.
    Which is therefore a win for Mann –

    -Nick Stokes

    • The obvious question is why Mann didn’t produce the required discovery. For him to then claim any kind of victory is the very definition of disingenuity dishonesty. He knew his reputation would be trashed beyond recognition if he did produce the discovery. That’s why he didn’t produce it. It’s like not turning up at a game where you know you’ll be routed and then claim that you somehow won.

      As far as I can tell, Dr. Michael Mann is a flat out liar. He can prove me wrong by producing the required discovery for all the world to see. Until then, the conclusion seems obvious to me at least. If he does produce the required discovery then I will wholeheartedly apologize. I’m not holding my breath.

      • Darn, I missed a closing tag.

        The obvious question is why Mann didn’t produce the required discovery. For him to then claim any kind of victory is the very definition of disingenuity dishonesty. (We can infer that …) He knew his reputation would be trashed beyond recognition if he did produce the discovery. That’s why he didn’t produce it. It’s like not turning up at a game where you know you’ll be routed and then claim that you somehow won.

        As far as I can tell, Dr. Michael Mann is a flat out liar. He can prove me wrong by producing the required discovery for all the world to see. Until then, the conclusion seems obvious to me at least. If he does produce the required discovery then I will wholeheartedly apologize. I’m not holding my breath.

        What I’m referring to above is adverse inference. If Dr. Mann doesn’t produce documents, the court can use Dr. Ball’s reasonable interpretation of what was in those documents. Again, Mann’s attempt to spin the judgment as anything other than a defeat is a flat out lie, as far as I can tell.

        • What Mann will probably do is have a good friend (if he has any left), or colleague review his material and then proclaim to the world that it is solid and irrefutable.

          Then the usual suspects will proclaim that this settles the matter and only a climate denier would still have any complaints.

          • That’s standard operating procedure for sure. His crap must be really really stinko if he’s afraid to let it out into the wild. I think that’s a reasonable inference. 🙂

  121. So Mann is not only an ignorant dishonest fool when it comes to science , but also when it comes to legal matters.

    I’ll make it simple for the dummy. Your case was dismissed, you were ordered to pay defendants costs, you lost bigly and ugly.

  122. There was a Q&A with Mann, perhaps on Reddit, several years ago, where my question was deleted-
    “What’s the status of your lawsuit against Tim Ball? Has he paid up yet?”

    • do a private arbitration process…..name every one of the swinging lying parties…..give them 10 days to answer….claim a sum certain for abuse of process and elder abuse, material misrepresentation, deceptive and fraudulent business practices, false claims, 15 USC 1 and 2……all under Title 9 of the USC………Arbitration….Schein v archer white…….January 8 2019….Supreme Court case the right to private arbitration………..phuck these swinging liars swindlers and scam artist, fake actors, phonies, shrills …….

      • This flunks the smell test. If all Mann had to do to win the suit was point to that data, why did he not do it?

        • It has to be admitted into evidence and / or physically delivered to all parties in the case . Giving the URL adresss doesn’t count

          The second point is the data available may not include the r2 regression analysis

        • The most reasonable answer to your question was that the data was no good and embarrassing to release. His case was filed in 2011 (he has the burden of going forward), and the fact that nothing substantial was done even through August 2019 reflects poorly on him.

          JD

          • Well, none other than….As Dr Ball explained at that time:

            Michael Mann moved for an adjournment of the trial scheduled for February 20, 2017. We had little choice because Canadian courts always grant adjournments before a trial in their belief that an out of court settlement is preferable. We agreed to an adjournment with conditions. The major one was that he [Mann] produce all documents including computer codes by February 20th, 2017. He failed to meet the deadline.”

          • “As Dr Ball explained at that time”
            Dr Ball does not get to grant adjournments or apply conditions. What he does not say is whether the court made that a requirement.

            I just can’t imagine that the court would require him to produce his computer codes. What are they going to do with them? Look for illegal format statements?

            Courts are required to stick to what is relevant, and not follow Dr Ball’s fantasies.

          • Nick, old Racehorse, why should anyone follow your fantasies when you admittedly can’t imagine?

            Ball was there, you weren’t.

            The case was dismissed due to Mann’s delay.

            Mann brought the suit, he did not win it.

          • Nick Stokes: “I just can’t imagine that the court would require him to produce his computer codes. What are they going to do with them? Look for illegal format statements?”

            You have no idea how litigation works. The court is a referee and does not search for the facts on its own. Both parties search for and present the facts, and then the court rules on the facts as presented. Each party has rights to discover facts in the possession of the opposite party. [Very broad in the US] If Mann claims libel, Ball is entitled to see his work to justify his criticisms of Mann’s work. Mann is also entitled to documents in possession of Ball.

            JD

  123. The hockey stick is a result of “proxy calibration”. A statistically forbidden practice outside of climate science.

  124. I read some where that his refusal to forward the data was to protect his intellectual property rights ?

  125. Hey Nick I see you are still batting for Mann .As I said a few days ago any one that is defending Mike Mann the fraud should tread very carefully .
    Every thing you have written will come back to bite you.You might believe that man is making the world warmer
    releasing CO2 but what Mann has done is release a lot of hot air and garbage .Why are you going in to bat for him?
    Graham

  126. Question

    has anyone seen an ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENT wherein Mann is required to produce something
    ( code, data, whatever)

    I have not.

    I reserve judgement

    • Dear Mr. Mosher: you obviously are uninformed on this case. Mann was ordered by the court in October 2016 to file the data supporting his famous “hockey stick” graph of world temperatures (which forms the basis of the ipecac theory) by February 2017. HE refused to comply with that order. Ball had filed a similar graph with the court, with supporting data. Mann’s graph showed 2000 years of slightly declining temperatures then 200 years of rapidly rising temperatures. ball’s graph showed 2200 years of slightly declining temperatures!!! putting into proper context an email mann got earlier from a fellow ipecac researcher commending mann for “hiding the decline”!!! As opposed to the nonsensical explanation Mann gave earlier!!! Now you know the true explanation of that email. I proved the fraudulent nature of ipecac research over 25 years ago by examination of IPCC reports and the resulting decision summaries. Shortly after the February 2017 court hearing, Ball was called to Washington. On his return home, he predicted the USA would pull out of the IPCC Paris Accord, which happened.

      • James,

        Mr. Mosher asked a reasonable question, where are the COURT DOCUMENTS on Dr. Mann being required to produce his data.

        I do agree with you that Dr. Mann’s NORTHERN HEMISPHERE Hockey Stick paper is junk science.

        • Dear Sunsettommy: As i said, he was not informed on the file. Mann was ordered in October 2016 to file the data supporting his fraudulent “hockey stick” graph of world (not North American,. sir) temperatures by February, 2017. I told him facts. he does not need court documents concerning the order. The judge got tired of Mann’s 8 years of delays and threw his case out. Why in %$$%^&&^$ would anyone want to see court documents about the data order??? People get caught up in minutia and miss the forest entirely. I attempted to inform him of the critically important issues. Mann is a fraudster his theory is bunk.

  127. Mann’s research has been replicated over 3 dozen times by different researchers using different methodologies with different data sets.

    How many times has your research been replicated? In what journals.

    • Why don’t you e-mail Tim Ball and ask him? He actually replies.

      Also, the ‘alternate perspective’ you posted from quora lies blatantly or by omission.

      Look at his takeaways:
      1) The BC Court never made any finding that Mann failed to produce any data. – of course they didn’t, that was part of a Tim Ball’s requirement for an adjournment. Which Mann failed to meet by the deadline.
      2) Judge found written attack on Michael Mann too ludicrous to be libel – no, he found them to be part of an opinion piece, he also found Mann to be a thin skinned liar who was clearly not actually ‘harmed’ by the statements since he treated them like a badge of honor.
      3) Ball requested that the lawsuit be terminated – of course he did, Mann has dragged this out for NINE YEARS.
      4) Thus Michael Mann didnt lose the case. – When you sue someone and the court tells YOU to pay all of THEIR fees, that’s called losing.

      I could go on, but eh.

      • DEAR MIKEY L… WELL SAID SIR!!! He is obviously another IPCC/Mann fraudster. He refuses to accept facts and twists everything around in circles.

      • and refuses to acknowledge Ball filed his supporting data for his graph which showed no “hockey stick” warming for the lat 200 years. Also, Man never chllegthe ash blebby All!!!

        • oops! Darn macular and wonky keyboard!! Missed the last sentence. Meant to type Mann never challenged the Ball non-hockey stick graph at all.

      • Dear MIKEY L: In addition shortly after the February 2017 court hearing, Ball was called to Washington. On his return home, he forecast the USA would pull out of the IPCC Paris Accord, which happened!!! Trump recently appointed Dr. William Happer, a leading climate scientist skeptical of the validity of the IPCC theory to head a sub-committee of the National Security Council to verify the validity of the IPCC research. He will not need the 20+ proofs of IPCC fraudulent research I emailed him to re-confirm the fraudulent IPCC research. I think Happer will reconfirm the fraud before the 2020 election. Democrats will be reconfirmed as fraudsters!!!

    • Of course if replication means using the same suspect algorithm that produces a “hockey stick” curve regardless of the data, even with with random numbers as data, then yes it has been replicated.
      So what? Crapping twice, thrice, or more often, doesn’t make for a non-smelly output.
      No wonder he hid it for so many years.

  128. LMAO, so Mann claims that he did not lose, and the court did not reject his science, but fails to mention that is because he could not produce any relevant data to back his claim, or simply refused to have his study scrutinized. That says it all, and yet he still claims a victory for himself in having to pay court costs.

    • Dear BT: Mann is a typical fraudster. Always lying. Why he has anyone supporting his fraudulent work defies logic.

Comments are closed.