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.
This be how “costs” work in the BC Superior Court:
https://www.supremecourtbc.ca/sites/default/files/web/Costs-in-Supreme-Court.pdf
So, yes, normally, if applied for, Dr. Ball will get payment for some of his lawyering costs.
Why the lawsuit? They are both scientists. I thought all scientists agree.
[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
(Snipped, due to policy violation) SUNMOD
James, rest assured Mary is well-informed. You sound like you need the /sarc tag to understand her. Hint: in settled science all scientists agree.
“I didn’t lose but I’m going to appeal” What a great twit!
Topic is getting a bit of press support….
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/08/hockey-stick-broken-scientist-michael-mann-loses-in-court-forced-to-pay-court-costs-global-warming-hoax-hit-the-hardest/
Check out my radio interview (campus radio in Ottawa) with Dr. Tim Ball, from 2012, when he was just starting to defend against this defamation lawsuit… interesting background…
http://trainradio.blogspot.com/2012/08/july-12-2012-show-climatologist-dr-tim.html
From South Africa, congratulations for breaking Mann’s hockeystick, now he can no longer play Ball !
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.
Here is a priceless token of Dr. Mann’s character:
He really plays the old-tired-sick-no-credibility card, doesn’t he?
Such class!
Looser for sure now. No official court statement needed. Thank you, Dr. Mann, for answering my question better than anybody here could.
Yours truly,
Former global-warming proponent who woke up and escaped the brain-dead zombie land of climate alarm
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.
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?
Never bet on the outcome of a court case. Even so, the above citation is ‘interesting’.
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.
The lawsuit had nothing to do with the paper, and there is no evidence the court even looked at it, let alone pronounced upon it.
If Mann’s work is unimpeachable, why does he not present his data?
Graemethecat –
Because he doesn’t want Nick Stokes to tear it apart.
/grin
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.
Any legitimate research would have included that in the original publication.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Look at the spin Mann puts on this story second or third paragraphs down
https://therealnews.com/stories/david-koch-is-dead-but-his-legacy-of-climate-denial-lives-on
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.
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.
So Mann wants to appeal so he can pay more in court costs?
Real smart!
Is it odd that a guy with 121,000 followers on Twitter typically nets low single digit replies and retweets on his tweets?
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
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.”
Sorry my typo. It should be “technocracy.news” not Technology News
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.
Nick, the event is the dismissal of plaintiff’s suit.
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.
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?
Should be interesting-
https://principia-scientific.org/rico-racketeering-probe-beckons-after-michael-manns-court-defeat/
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.
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
The verb ‘gulag’ is more appropriate that ‘google’.
====================================
eh? “gulag” is a noun not a verb.
It’s been verbed, as in “Google decided who should be gulag’d.”
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.
Bravo Eliza!
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
IOW: the process is the punishment. Cheers –
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.
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. 🙂
And Hitler didn’t lose WWII, he just opted not to contest it further.
LOL