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:
- Stark admission he lost fair and square
- 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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
+++ !
Great news. Nothing “fake” about this.
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.
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.”
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/
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.
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.
Natalie, try this source which is written by John OSullivan, he is the one who advised Dr. Ball to file for dismissal that succeeded.
Scientific Principia International
Breaking News: Dr Tim Ball Defeats Michael Mann’s Climate Lawsuit!
https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/
This source directs to a link that charges $6.00 to view the ruling.
Not gonna pay it — it should be somewhere in view without cost.
Not gonna pay it — it should be somewhere in view without cost.
You don’t have that option Kernodle, thus you’ve made your decision haven’t you?
Not gonna pay it — it should be somewhere in view without cost.
Kernoodle:
Well then you’ve made your choice. Either depend the data others have chosen to obtain and post for the community with their own money or STFU with your moral dissimilarity.
Reckon?
Patience. Alarmists are trying to hide bad news as long as they can, but the court ruling is public and it will show up in less than nine years.
Wasting your time. It will just be overwritten by the usual suspects.
https://anonhq.com/beware-wikipedia-never-trust/
https://www.heartland.org/topics/infotech-telecom/Wikipedia/index.html
Wikipedia is one of those entities that should be taken down by Cruz and Co.
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.
Man(n) must pay for his sins.
Really a great News. Thanks to Dr. Ball!
“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.
What? — not “very likely” or “extremely likely”?
Unbelievable that it took so long, and Mann continues to hide his “work”. Rather than continuing to argue about the various faults in Mann’s dubious hockey stick, there’s enough studies and data available to complete a global meta-study which conclusively demonstrates that the MWP was global and at least as warm as it is now.
https://principia-scientific.org/empirical-evidence-refutes-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Man up, Mann!
(Or is that to much to ask?)
IANAL
Ruling from the bench means the judge didn’t have to go away to study the matter.
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.
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:
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.
Me too.
“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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
There was SCO vs. the world. As far as I can tell, it was a scorched earth campaign financed by Microsoft to damage Linux. The legal bills totaled more than a hundred million USD.
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.
Piltdown Mann was always about fraud.
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.
De Mann saying he will not be paying costs is curious. Does anyone know why he thinks this is the case?
@ur momisugly 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.
Maybe someone else is footing the bill.
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?
Dr. Ball won TWO separate Defamation lawsuits.
The Dr. Ball/Dr. Weaver Lawsuit decision is HERE:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
The Dr. Ball/Dr. Mann Lawsuit decision is HERE:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840
or HERE:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/searchPartyResult.do?serviceId=55954860
=====
sycomputing states,
I used Dr. Ball’s first and last name to search. That should bring Mann’s case up first in the results.
From there, however, the Canadian court is extremely jealous of it’s information. To view you must pay. Note further, if you do pay, you get the information once and only once. After your browser is closed, so are you. Note even farther than the further before it, if you want documents related to the case, you have to pay additionally for each one of those!
I stopped at 6 CAD myself, since this was enough to confirm both parties independent “statements” about the ruling.
Is your court order an interim order or final dismissal of the action?
This is what I was able to view regarding the status of the case for 6 CAD:
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 order is final. This is externally evidenced by the Melodramatic Miscreant himself. He wouldn’t be squeaking all over his front side about an appeal were it not.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/23/media-reaction-to-tim-balls-court-victory/#comment-2778663
“The Dr. Ball/Dr. Mann Lawsuit decision is HERE:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840
or HERE:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/civil/searchPartyResult.do?serviceId=55954860”
These links do NOT lead to the actual decision — they lead to a records site where you have to pay to see the official document.
STILL … no link to the actual, official court statement of the decision. Why is this so obscure.
What … EXACTLY … did … the … actual … ruling … say ? Where is the EXACT … DIRECT link to THAT document ?
Why is this so obscure.
Kernoodle:
Good grief. Your “obscurity” has now officially become an embarrassing comedy of error [sic].
What … EXACTLY … did … the … actual … ruling … say ?
One … MORE … time:
Where is the EXACT … DIRECT link to THAT document ?
THAT … would … BE … right HERE:
https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840
That’s about as simple as it’s already been made for you a number of times there guy. No one can fail you now. Take care.
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.
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
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?
Can you get Tim Ball to verify details?
You mean these details?
Order 22Aug2019
Affidavit 20Aug2019
File Number VLC-S-S-111913
Date Filed: 22Aug2019
Filing Parties
Terms of Order
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 can get them here: https://justice.gov.bc.ca/cso/esearch/file/hearingDetail.do?fileID=2215840
Aargh!
It works for me in Firefox, you might have tweaked the browser setting to cause your problem?
The link didn’t work in my Firefox, which is pretty secure. It did work in Chromium, which isn’t configured in a secure manner. I use it when the security settings in Firefox keep something I need from loading.
It will cost six bucks (Canadian) to look at the file.
Odd. It works for me on FF 68.0.2
With regard to the cost, yes, that’s by design. See here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/23/media-reaction-to-tim-balls-court-victory/#comment-2778663
Could someone who has coughed up the 6 bucks please quote the entirety of this document here?
Could someone who has coughed up the 6 bucks please quote the entirety of this document here?
Sure thing:
Order 22Aug2019
Affidavit 20Aug2019
File Number VLC-S-S-111913
Date Filed: 22Aug2019
Filing Parties
Terms of Order
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
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.
Great stuff, Tim. This Down Under contributor is delighted.
I too hope you have fun spending the money.