Great news (though how low is our bar, that it’s “great” that after seven long expensive years Tim Ball can speak freely?). As reported on WUWT: Tim Ball’s free-speech victory over Andrew Weaver – all charges dismissed!
Anthony Watts: I got word tonight from David Ball, son of Dr. Tim Ball via Facebook messenger:
This morning the judge dismissed all charges in the lawsuit brought against Tim by BC Green Party leader Andrew Weaver. It is a great victory for free speech.
Andrew Weaver launched the suit in 2011.
In 2014 Ezra Levant’s wrote: “Silencing Critics instead of debating them”
Weaver sued climatologist Dr. Tim Ball for, amongst other things, saying Weaver was “lacking a basic understanding of climate science,” according to a glowing New York Times article, cheering on his SLAPP suit.
Seriously? Suing someone, in a court of law, for saying you don’t understand global warming? This from a scholar, an academic, a teacher? And now a politician – an opposition politician, no less. Weaver is now a Green Party MLA in British Columbia, someone who hurls insults as part of his job description.
That’s not what true academics do. That’s not what politicians do – especially opposition politicians. Andrew Weaver is acting like a thug, not a scholar or a public servant. He is trying to censor and punish his enemies, not debate his opponents.
And from DeSmog in 2011 — all the prescience we’ve come to expect:
The suit arises from an article that Ball penned for the right-wingy Canada Free Press website, which has since apologized to Weaver for its numerous inaccuracies and stripped from its publicly available pages pretty much everything that Ball has ever written.
Ball, famously slow to notice the obvious, apparently didn’t realize that he was overmatched.
—Richard Littlemore, Feb 4th, 2011 at DeSmog Blog:
Congratulations to Tim Ball today, but most of all, a big thank you. Thanks for taking the harder road. We, all of us who value free speech, are sorry you had to do it, but so grateful you did.
See also Tim Balls Blog (though there is no announcement there yet).
*Headline edited. Weaver didn’t drop the charges. The judge dismissed the case. If only it had been done 6 years sooner.
Weaver “dropping the case” as in your headline, or was the case dismissed by the Court? These two things are different.
[Jo’s post states that the judge dismissed all charges made against Tim Ball. She quoted Anthony Watts about the dismissal.] AZ
30
rms, if the headline needs to be changed, let me know. Thanks. Jo
80
Saw you changed. I think that the right thing to do (given that my understanding, without reading the court documents) is that the case was dismissed.
20
Judging by what happened to several of my comments that didn’t get approved, Jo is very careful to avoid anything that could get her in legal trouble. There is no real freedom of speech in this world when your adversary has monetary backing and you do not or has the weight of law to use against you.
Dishonesty, by it’s very definition, does not follow the rules by which we say we’re governed. Thus we are at an immediate disadvantage when we chose to fight back.
23
“Freedom of speech” does not mean you can make up stuff about people. This is what deniers like Tim Ball do, they make up stuff about people in the hope of destroying that person’s character. It has nothing to do about a debate of opinion, it’s malice. The judge said this about Tim Ball very clearly.
People have a right to character, and the law protects this. It’s just a pity it is considered a civil matter.
14
Welcome back Harry, long time no see.
Unfortunately you bring your line of bull with you. Can you not even just once think about the whole situation before you go off spouting the party line about deniers?
If you could do that your comments would be so much more pleasant to read.
Funny thing, the judge dismissed all charges against Tim Ball. So what was made up and who was denying what?
42
“Unfortunately you bring your line of bull with you.”
Yawn. So I have hit a nerve, and you can only come back with insults. Typical.
I am amazed you would support someone like Tim Ball who himself has tried to sue people for defamation. As far as I am aware he has been completely unsuccessful.
So yeah, I just grab my bucket of popcorn and watch how the deniers shoot themselves in the foot and drown in their own hypocrisy. It’s all very very entertaining.
21
Anyone who quotes from DeSmogBlog immediately earns a Non-Thinking Liars Award in my book.
306
Good news, but I am sad that Tim Ball had to go so long being strung out over this.
224
This tie up in petty litigation tactic is not about the outcome in court but to string out and bankrupt the target in order to shut them up. It is also to make an example out of the opponent to scare off potential allies of the target. Isolating individuals and then discrediting them is secondary goal. All those who stood by Dr. Ball through this, whether in spirit or in deed, deserve credit too.
382
I’m far from an expert in US law, or any law for that matter, so I’ll quote wiki
Apparently Weaver chose a jurisdiction where they are not illegal. It still shouldn’t take so many years. No mention of costs, if awarded correctly they may discourage any more such frivolous law suits.
212
That’s the sad part. And ‘Bob and Weave’ moves on to a profitable coalition agreement by doing the Weaver thing by Providing the new Emperor of BC NDP Premier John his suit of clothes that only Andrew can see. Nice to see the Tim bit case come to an end.
https://notonmywatch.com/?p=1227
141
Throughout climate science today,
More skeptics can not have their say,
With their free speech denied,
Some sued and some tried,
By warmists who bully their way.
341
The guy who funds De smog went to prison for
fraud.[Richard, We always like to see some substantiation of a statement like this. ] AZ
21
I quite understand-
Controversies
Founded by a Convicted Money Launderer
John Lefebvre promotion shot. (via Wikipedia)
John Lefebvre promotion shot. (via Wikipedia)
While James Hoggan runs the site, the organization got its seed money in 2006 from co-founder John David Lefebvre, who plead guilty the following to felony money laundering charges. Lefebvre admitted to laundering billions of dollars in illegal gambling proceeds through his company, NETeller – a British online money transfer company that also traded in carbon dioxide emission credits.
Lefebvre cut a deal with the U.S. Justice Department and was sentenced June 29, 2007 by federal Judge P. Kevin Castel in the U.S. New York Southern District Court to 45 days imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and fined $750,000. On September 23, 2011, Lefebvre was ordered to pay a forfeiture obligation of $40 million. DeSmogBlog’s founding 2006 grant, which Hoggan says was more than $300,000, came from Lefebvre, who was engaged in criminal activity. This is ironic, according to Popular Technology, because DeSmogBlog’s “favorite tactic is to attempt to smear those they disagree with as funded by ‘dirty money.’”
DeSmogBlog has not distanced itself from Lefebvre and his criminal past, but has celebrated it. James Hoggan’s introduction on the website says, “The DeSmogBlog team is especially grateful to our founding benefactor John Lefebvre, a lawyer, internet entrepreneur and past-president of NETeller, a firm that has been providing secure online transactions since 1999.”
Lefebvre, 65, has continued as a climate activist and blogger at the site, and has funded other climate alarmist venues and events since his guilty plea.
252
Met him once, seemed like a nice guy; well known and generous in the community. His life as a busker, then to a law degree, makes a good story.
Lots of brains, but as a good friend and mentor once told me, everyone has a blind spot, and the whole desmog thing appears to be his.
111
Yes, but as someone who trades in carbon credits, he is blatantly using profits to perpetuate and grow the myth. This is not illegal. This is not a blind spot. It is unconscionable.
192
One then has to beg the question in the bigger picture when is a hoax that has clearly been proven to be as such based on real observational and scientific evidence not illegal, and more to the point criminally illegal because of a financial fraud as a result of the hoax, which then becomes a scam? I suppose one answer is when it’s taken to court to be tested. All it would take is someone with lots of money and time to make such a case to see where it would lead. There is certainly no shortage of expert witnesses to prove in a court of law that a hoax has been perpetrated on the public. The evidence against the man-made global warming hypothesis is overwhelming as we all know. Of course I won’t hold my breath for this to happen. Instead what I expect will happen is people will eventually wake up after being taught a very harsh lesson thorough a pragmatic approach, namely economic survival. It might require us to go through hell on earth but at least we should come out of it at the other end, leaving the extreme leftists behind, much wiser. Those left behind can move to North Korea or similar.
134
Peter. Ignore the red thumb.
As you say, it’s a hoax.
Any real scientist knows that it is a hoax but the problem is the waters have been muddied so much using irrelevant factors that most of the public and all of the politicians just don’t know.
The basic concept of CAGW is that CO2 is a heat trapping gas.
IT IS NOT A HEAT TRAPPING GAS and must resolve to equilibrate with gases surrounding it.
Instantly.
Why has this point never been examined in court?
The answer, of course, is money.
KK
144
and power. I’m afraid too they will win for a number of reasons, not the least of which is most people either don’t care or are effectively brain dead.
91
http://leftexposed.org/2016/08/desmogblog/
Lefebvre served 45 days in prison. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lefebvre
133
Next Mickey Mann !
Discovery !!!
227
A similar outcome in Mann v Steyn (with costs) would be most satisfying
242
Yes and it would destroy the other long running cases such as the one against Mark Steyn. Effectively and deliciously, in losing his case against Ball’s joking statement that he belonged in the State Penn not Penn State, Hockey Stick Mann would be deemed a criminal in Canada and this would be reflected in US law as well. A long series of domino cases would fall. It would be the beginning of the end for the primary enabler of the whole ‘scientists say’ story.
174
Wot? That Steyn has so little credibility so reasonable person would take he/she/it seriously?
And whats this where people expect costs, like get paid money, for being declared a bona fide not particularly smart person with no credibility??
Seriously?
58
“That Steyn has so little credibility “
Way more credibility than you do, phlop. !!
53
Andy misses the point.
Weaver’s case against Ball failed because the court deemed Ball’s opinions to be so lacking in credibility that no reasonable person could be influenced by them.
If Mann’s case against Steyn fails *also* because a court finds that Steyn has no credibility, then that is not exactly a ringing endorsement for Steyn, is it?
Let me know if you need this concept dumbed down even more, Andy.
61
“bona fide not particularly smart person with no credibility”
You expect the dole, don’t you ?? !
44
Seven years to dismiss all charges? What decision takes seven years? This is justice? At what cost in money, time, emotion, suffering, punishment for an innocent man? Time served, seven years.
271
The legal side is complex and slow moving, but it has the potential to get a discussion going. Crowd funding a cause is good copy.
‘Censure of Professor Peter Ridd over comments of scientific integrity a troubling development.’
Daily Telegraph
141
Then there is the sheer cost in massive dollars, time, worry, disruption of your life, loss of privacy, stress. All charges dismissed is hardly adequate. All costs should be paid, but they never are paid. The victim here is Dr Ball and his family. Seven years is aan amazing sentence for innocence. Lesser people would have crumpled long ago.
233
As climate changes to global cooling, then obviously both will be lauded as a heroes of the revolution.
In the meantime the JCU battle will open a can of worms, speeding up media debate on the GBR.
124
The Replication Crisis
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/02/13/delingpole-australian-professor-sues-his-own-university-for-right-to-tell-the-truth-about-the-dying-great-barrier-reef/
71
In a perfectly fair and honest world he and many others could counter sue for the Greens perpetrating the biggest scam of all time and win easily. In a perfectly fair world the result would be that all the top Greens people would end up in prison along with other scam artists, such as Bernard Madoff. We all know this is not a perfectly fair world so it most likely won’t happen. So, we have to take the longer road and see the scam hurt our economy so badly the people eventually wake up and treat the Greens for what they really are – ardent enemies of the West who want to destroy it. What do we do with such people who are actually far worse than a thousand Bernard Madoffs? Placing them in prison for life would appear not to be enough but that would have to do.
113
Peter they have the ‘precautionary principle’ on their side and cannot be touched.
So let us concentrate our effort in supporting Professor Ridd, the judge won’t throw the case out of court because the economic ramifications are huge. Think of the impact on public perceptions if the court rules Ridd is telling the truth, coral bleaching is a natural phenomenon.
This from the Townsville Bulletin last year, its an easy sell.
‘CLIMATE change sceptic and geophysicist Professor Peter Ridd has questioned research that blames global warming for devastating coral bleaching on the Great Barrier Reef.
Prof Ridd also says the work of a US schoolteacher, who claims a drop in sea level caused by the El Nino phenomenon might have caused bleaching, should not be discounted.’
102
Yes I know all about their so called use of the precautionary principle but that’s not the only thing. The main thing about the leftists is they are doggedly persistent and will continue to spread all the untruths for as long as they are allowed to do so, which appears for as long as it takes for them to win. It’s not so much what’s on their side – it’s what is on the people’s side: ignorance, disinterest and aloofness. Such qualities, which account for much of the public will allow the leftists to win. As the saying goes, the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. I would update that for Australian conditions to say the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for enough voters to keep on supporting either of the two main political parties.
71
Yea well …. I have some leftist leanings, but I’m not a pseudo Marxist.
32
Let’s hope tht in addition to Tim Ball’s great win that some very heavy penalties and costs are brought down upon Andrew Weaver and the Greens.
195
The trick in the legal profession is that the only costs on the table are those in the courtroom. Everything else is paid by each party, no matter what the verdict. As for hurt and depression and stress and time, nothing at all. The punishment is the process.
161
Even if that were possible it would be not be enough and certainly would not stop the scam from continuing. The only way to defeat the scam is to treat the alarmists like criminals, the same way other scam artists are handled in the courts. Until that happens nothing will change and the leftists will keep laughing behind our backs – and keep progressing to destroy our Western way of life. Of course things would be much easier for us if we had a government on our side. That’s only ever possible if enough people stopped voting for the two major parties. So to stop the scam sooner it’s up to the people to decide whether the scam artists continue on their merry way to achieve their goal or not, not the politicians nor the lawyers.
62
You seem to have missed the fact that the defamation was deemed to not have occurred specifically because Tim Ball’s opinions are so completely wrong nobody sensible takes them seriously.
So we now have a judgment in a court of law that says that the opinions you are typing here indicate you aren’t a rational, sensible person.
1237
That’s ridiculous.
176
“the opinions you are typing here indicate you aren’t a rational, sensible person.”
Certainly NONE of your opinions could ever be called RATIONAL, or sensible
Tim Ball: 1, Andrew Weavel: 0
Get over it. !!!
189
Andy, the court decided Tim Ball is not credible. That was the decision.
We have a court of law that has judged his opinions to be worthless.
It’s not a win for Ball, but a stupendous own-goal.
51
C’mon Moickle,
’bout time you sent your suit to the dry cleaners.
76
for the red thumbers: my great grandparents were from County Fermanagh and I understand what Ireland has been through.
Some people might take offense at somebody using the image of Michael Collins in vain.
Who is Craig.
Does he even know? Seems not. He’s Moickle.
86
Craig says:
Hah Haha HaAAAh whayyyyhhhaaaa Ha Ha HAAAjh
You have nothing except for a disturbing inability to detect truth Craig.
Obviously a talent acquired from the riff-Raff you acquaint.
Ball wins and riff-Raff slip lower and lower
146
“Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.”
In other words, its not defamatory.
94
It’s not defamatory because Tim Ball is not credible:
The Court adjudged:
“a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views”
“These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver’s professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball’s intent”
The court has found that Ball made derogatory comments in public about Weaver’s professional competence and these comments were completely untrue.
The court suggests that Ball knows these things are untrue.
The judgment is a massive smack-down to Tim Ball and anybody who is so not-thoughtful and uninformed that they agree with him.
61
And the judge’s climate qualifications are?
42
About as good as Tim Ball’s, with the added difference that the Judge has never lied about *his* qualifications.
42
Craig Thomas never read the actual Judicial Decision which is found HERE,
Here is WHY he Dismissed the case:
“[82] The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. As Justice Lebel observes, such debate often includes critical and even offensive commentary, which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder. It is only when the words used reach the level of genuinely threatening a person’s actual reputation that resort to the law of defamation is available. Such is not the case here.
[83] In summary, the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.
[84] Given this finding, I need not consider whether Dr. Weaver has established that the Article was published in the sense that it was downloaded and read in BC by anyone other than him. I also need not address the defences raised by Dr. Ball.
Conclusion
[85] Dr. Weaver’s claim is dismissed. If the parties cannot agree on costs, they may make arrangements to speak to the issue.”
It was dismissed BECAUSE Dr. Weaver failed to prove he was defamed.
52
” poorly written opinion piece” ” in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers”.
In other words it is not defamatory because nobody of sound mind would agree with Tim Ball’s idiotic opinions.
62
As usual you miss this part:
“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.”
It is clear that you didn’t read what the Judge and DR. Weaver stated about the article:
“Are the Words Defamatory?
[65] In his notice of civil claim, Dr. Weaver alleges the following inferential meanings of the impugned words set out in the Article:
a) He is not competent or qualified to teach climate science to university students;
b) He cheated Canadian taxpayers by accepting public funding for climate science research although he has little or no knowledge about climate science;
c) In the meeting in his office with Dr. Ball, he displayed symptoms of paranoia because he fears his incompetence, lack of academic qualifications and corrupt exploitation of the Canadian taxpayer will be exposed;
d) He bribed university students with research funds so they would participate in useless computer modeling studies which had little scientific value, with the objective of continuing to receive unwarranted personal financial benefit from government funding;
e) He dishonestly claimed on his website to be a “climatologist” but removed that claim when challenged by Dr. Ball;
f) He shuns involvement in public debate about global warming because it would publicly expose his professional incompetence, his inadequate knowledge about climate science, and his corrupt exploitation of public resources;
g) He shamefully conspired to have his students interrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation at UVIC in order to suppress the truth by preventing honest and open debate about the existence of global warming and/or whether humans are causing or contributing to global warming;
h) He shamefully conspired with his students to deter people from attending Dr. Ball’s UVIC presentation in order to stifle Dr. Ball’s views and prevent people from learning that his views on global warming have no scientific basis;
i) He teaches his students little or nothing about climate science because he lacks the requisite knowledge, does not have academic qualifications, is nothing more than a computer technician, and is blinded by personal bias;
j) He knows that the reports of the IPCC concerning global warming are unscientific and corrupt, and is therefore dishonestly trying to dodge personal responsibility for his involvement in those reports by dissociating himself from the IPCC; and
k) He dishonestly obtained substantial public funding from Environment Canada for climate science research despite knowing that he lacked the necessary education, training, and intelligence to carry on competent research.
[66] I agree with Dr. Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver are extreme and are not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking reader. This requires the court to assess the words objectively, and not to attribute the worst possible meaning or the meaning that might appear to the plaintiff or a person with an overly fragile sensibility (Color Your World, at para. 15).
[67] Specifically, I do not accept that the Article, read in its entirety and properly construed, alleges dishonesty on Dr. Weaver’s part or attacks his character in the sense of imputing moral fault or blameworthiness. For example, despite the inferential meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver, there is no allegation, explicit or implicit, that Dr. Weaver cheated taxpayers, dishonestly obtained public funding or shamefully conspired with his students to disrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation to suppress Dr. Ball’s views.
[68] In para. 8.1 of his amended response to civil claim, Dr. Ball pleads that the gist or “sting” of the Article is as follows:
The plaintiff is qualified by conventional standards to teach climate science but should not be qualified because the conventional experience and training of climate science has been corrupted by political advocacy and limited by inadequate data, and his students have accordingly been taught a biased perspective.
[69] Dr. Ball submits that the meaning conveyed in the Article, as reflected in para. 8.1, is that conventional climate science has been corrupted by political advocacy and is limited by inadequate data, and that accordingly, Dr. Weaver, as a supporter of the conventional view, has taught his students a biased perspective.
[70] Dr. Weaver seeks to put a different meaning on para. 8.1. He submits that para. 8.1 alleges that he has been corrupted by political advocacy, both his own and that of others like Maurice Strong, who is referenced in the Article. Dr. Weaver relies on a statement made by the agent for Dr. Ball’s counsel who appeared in Chambers on Dr. Ball’s application to amend his response to civil claim and who is recorded in the transcript as saying that the “defendant’s meaning is that Dr. Weaver was corrupted by political advocacy and limited by inadequate data, and his students have accordingly been taught a biased perspective”.
[71] I do not read para. 8.1 this way, and counsel’s paraphrasing of that paragraph in court does not displace the actual language used. In my view, para. 8.1, as interpreted by Dr. Ball, accurately captures the sting of the Article.
[72] That is not to say that the Article is wholly benign as it relates to Dr. Weaver. On Dr. Ball’s own interpretation, the Article suggests that Dr. Weaver is not competent to teach climate science or, at least, teaches it from a biased perspective. The Article suggests further that Dr. Weaver would not be qualified to participate in a multi-disciplinary panel on climate science.
[73] These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver’s professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball’s intent. Why else would he include a description of Dr. Weaver’s allegedly paranoid behaviour at the meeting in Dr. Weaver’s office, given that it has no direct relevance to the central thesis of the Article? (I note again that Dr. Weaver denies Dr. Ball’s version of that meeting.)
[74] However, not every derogatory statement is defamatory. The test again is whether the impugned words genuinely threaten the plaintiff’s actual reputation (Weaver, at para. 68). Here, I am not satisfied that the impugned words of the Article reach that level. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.”
Skipping your cherry picked section to show the real reason why Dr. Weaver failed:
[76] Moreover, as noted above, the Article is clearly an opinion piece, and statements of opinion are generally evaluated differently than statements of fact. As stated by Mr. Justice Lebel in WIC Radio, at para. 71 of his concurring reasons:
[71] Although distinguishing facts from comment may sometimes be difficult, a comment is by its subjective nature generally less capable of damaging someone’s reputation than an objective statement of fact, because the public is much more likely to be influenced in its belief by a statement of fact than by a comment. …
[77] In my view, it is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.
[78] Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.”
The Judge specifically says it is an OPINION piece, Opinions carry much less weight than a factual piece because readers will often not take it seriously as it was considered an OPINONATED viewpoint from one person, that of Dr. Ball.
Dr. Weaver understood the difference since his own defamation claims are not based on whether it is factual, but on the attacks on him that he perceived as being damaging to him and his career.
However his defamation lawsuit was damaged by his own actions and decision to convince the Judge he wasn’t really that distressed, since he disregarded a public strong apology that he had demanded and that he posted the article for others to see and read.
If Weaver had accepted the apology, then he would have been the clear winner and Ball the big loser. But Weaver disregarded the public apology to pursue in his lawsuit only to lose, which now damaged HIS own credibility and partially rehabilitate Balls.
Now Weaver wants to pursue with an absurd appeal, which begins to indicate that he wants to drag it out. Ball will increasingly be viewed as a martyr since he had already admitted that he was wrong in writing the article and made that apology that was thrown back in his face.
“[29] Dr. Weaver, through his counsel, also demanded an apology from Dr. Ball. Letters were sent to various email addresses associated with Dr. Ball. Dr. Ball retained counsel and negotiations ensued about the wording of an apology.
[30] Ultimately, on March 3, 2011, Dr. Ball issued the following apology:
My article entitled “Corruption of Climate Change has Created 30 Lost Years” contained untrue statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. The article has since been withdrawn from the Internet website of Canada Free Press, where it was originally published in January 2011.
Contrary to what I stated in my article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”); (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010. I hereby unequivocally retract my suggestion that Dr. Weaver sought to dissociate himself from the scientific work of the IPCC.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. My article failed to mention these facts although they were publicly available.
I did not intend to suggest that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with my presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling me during my talk. Further, I do not dispute Dr. Weaver’s credentials or competence as a climate scientist and university professor. While Dr. Weaver and I have different views on the cause of global warming, I acknowledge that Dr. Weaver has at all times acted honestly and with integrity.
I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article.
[31] Dr. Ball’s apology was substantially in the form requested by Dr. Weaver, with one exception. Dr. Weaver had proposed language stating that students had not been deterred from attending, that Dr. Ball had not been heckled, and that “students who attended were polite and respectful and asked their questions in a manner and form which is customary and entirely acceptable on such occasions”. Dr. Ball declined to include this language because it was not consistent with how he perceived the students acted at his UVIC presentation.
[32] Dr. Ball forwarded his apology to the various websites on which the Article had been republished.
[33] Dr. Weaver posted Dr. Ball’s apology alongside the Article on his “wall of hate”.
Dr. Weaver is acting like a fool for continuing this. He is doing a splendid job destroying his own credibility in the process.
Dr. Weaver FAILED to show that he was defamed by his own actions and by the fact that his career continues undiminished. He refused Balls public apology over his skimpily written OPINION piece. It is revealing you and other warmists fail to notice that Dr. Weavers claims of harm are considered unsupportable and extremist:
“[66] I agree with Dr. Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver are extreme and are not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking reader. This requires the court to assess the words objectively, and not to attribute the worst possible meaning or the meaning that might appear to the plaintiff or a person with an overly fragile sensibility (Color Your World, at para. 15).
[67] Specifically, I do not accept that the Article, read in its entirety and properly construed, alleges dishonesty on Dr. Weaver’s part or attacks his character in the sense of imputing moral fault or blameworthiness. For example, despite the inferential meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver, there is no allegation, explicit or implicit, that Dr. Weaver cheated taxpayers, dishonestly obtained public funding or shamefully conspired with his students to disrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation to suppress Dr. Ball’s views.”
I could say that DR. Weavers claim of defamation is sloppily written, which helped DR. Ball have his case dismissed.
Next time, READ the Court decision honestly and stop ignoring 95% of the decision to advance a misleading idea, your dishonesty is noted.
33
sunsettommy
You are flogging a dead horse, mate.
41
Twinotter writes two fact free OPINIONS, to my fact filled replies to Thomas, who never made a counterpoint to them.
Harry writes,
““Freedom of speech” does not mean you can make up stuff about people. This is what deniers like Tim Ball do, they make up stuff about people in the hope of destroying that person’s character. It has nothing to do about a debate of opinion, it’s malice. The judge said this about Tim Ball very clearly.
People have a right to character, and the law protects this. It’s just a pity it is considered a civil matter.”
and,
“sunsettommy
You are flogging a dead horse, mate.”
Both you and Thomas have openly ignored the Decision as written by the Judge who make clear that Dr. Weaver failed to back up his charges as shown in the decision:
“It is clear that you didn’t read what the Judge and DR. Weaver stated about the article:
“Are the Words Defamatory?
[65] In his notice of civil claim, Dr. Weaver alleges the following inferential meanings of the impugned words set out in the Article:
a) He is not competent or qualified to teach climate science to university students;
b) He cheated Canadian taxpayers by accepting public funding for climate science research although he has little or no knowledge about climate science;
c) In the meeting in his office with Dr. Ball, he displayed symptoms of paranoia because he fears his incompetence, lack of academic qualifications and corrupt exploitation of the Canadian taxpayer will be exposed;
d) He bribed university students with research funds so they would participate in useless computer modeling studies which had little scientific value, with the objective of continuing to receive unwarranted personal financial benefit from government funding;
e) He dishonestly claimed on his website to be a “climatologist” but removed that claim when challenged by Dr. Ball;
f) He shuns involvement in public debate about global warming because it would publicly expose his professional incompetence, his inadequate knowledge about climate science, and his corrupt exploitation of public resources;
g) He shamefully conspired to have his students interrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation at UVIC in order to suppress the truth by preventing honest and open debate about the existence of global warming and/or whether humans are causing or contributing to global warming;
h) He shamefully conspired with his students to deter people from attending Dr. Ball’s UVIC presentation in order to stifle Dr. Ball’s views and prevent people from learning that his views on global warming have no scientific basis;
i) He teaches his students little or nothing about climate science because he lacks the requisite knowledge, does not have academic qualifications, is nothing more than a computer technician, and is blinded by personal bias;
j) He knows that the reports of the IPCC concerning global warming are unscientific and corrupt, and is therefore dishonestly trying to dodge personal responsibility for his involvement in those reports by dissociating himself from the IPCC; and
k) He dishonestly obtained substantial public funding from Environment Canada for climate science research despite knowing that he lacked the necessary education, training, and intelligence to carry on competent research.”
This what Dr. Weaver claims as the basis for being defamed. The Judge agreed with DR. Ball that most of it was way off base as shown here,
“[66] I agree with Dr. Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver are extreme and are not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking reader. This requires the court to assess the words objectively, and not to attribute the worst possible meaning or the meaning that might appear to the plaintiff or a person with an overly fragile sensibility (Color Your World, at para. 15).
[67] Specifically, I do not accept that the Article, read in its entirety and properly construed, alleges dishonesty on Dr. Weaver’s part or attacks his character in the sense of imputing moral fault or blameworthiness. For example, despite the inferential meanings advanced by Dr. Weaver, there is no allegation, explicit or implicit, that Dr. Weaver cheated taxpayers, dishonestly obtained public funding or shamefully conspired with his students to disrupt Dr. Ball’s presentation to suppress Dr. Ball’s views.
[68] In para. 8.1 of his amended response to civil claim, Dr. Ball pleads that the gist or “sting” of the Article is as follows:
The plaintiff is qualified by conventional standards to teach climate science but should not be qualified because the conventional experience and training of climate science has been corrupted by political advocacy and limited by inadequate data, and his students have accordingly been taught a biased perspective.
[69] Dr. Ball submits that the meaning conveyed in the Article, as reflected in para. 8.1, is that conventional climate science has been corrupted by political advocacy and is limited by inadequate data, and that accordingly, Dr. Weaver, as a supporter of the conventional view, has taught his students a biased perspective.”
Did you get it yet?
The Judge agrees that most of Dr. Weaver claims are basically overboard and unsupportable because it was written as an OPINION piece.
Here is the Judge reply to Dr. Weaver,
[70] Dr. Weaver seeks to put a different meaning on para. 8.1. He submits that para. 8.1 alleges that he has been corrupted by political advocacy, both his own and that of others like Maurice Strong, who is referenced in the Article. Dr. Weaver relies on a statement made by the agent for Dr. Ball’s counsel who appeared in Chambers on Dr. Ball’s application to amend his response to civil claim and who is recorded in the transcript as saying that the “defendant’s meaning is that Dr. Weaver was corrupted by political advocacy and limited by inadequate data, and his students have accordingly been taught a biased perspective”.
[71] I do not read para. 8.1 this way, and counsel’s paraphrasing of that paragraph in court does not displace the actual language used. In my view, para. 8.1, as interpreted by Dr. Ball, accurately captures the sting of the Article.
[72] That is not to say that the Article is wholly benign as it relates to Dr. Weaver. On Dr. Ball’s own interpretation, the Article suggests that Dr. Weaver is not competent to teach climate science or, at least, teaches it from a biased perspective. The Article suggests further that Dr. Weaver would not be qualified to participate in a multi-disciplinary panel on climate science.
[73] These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver’s professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball’s intent. Why else would he include a description of Dr. Weaver’s allegedly paranoid behaviour at the meeting in Dr. Weaver’s office, given that it has no direct relevance to the central thesis of the Article? (I note again that Dr. Weaver denies Dr. Ball’s version of that meeting.)
[74] However, not every derogatory statement is defamatory. The test again is whether the impugned words genuinely threaten the plaintiff’s actual reputation (Weaver, at para. 68). Here, I am not satisfied that the impugned words of the Article reach that level. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons.”
The Opinion writing by Dr. Ball are considered Derogatory but NOT Defamation, by the Judge. He clearly doesn’t agree with Weavers interpretation of PARA 8.1 section.
To go on to read WHY the judge dismissed Dr. Weavers Defamation claims as shown here:
[76] Moreover, as noted above, the Article is clearly an opinion piece, and statements of opinion are generally evaluated differently than statements of fact. As stated by Mr. Justice Lebel in WIC Radio, at para. 71 of his concurring reasons:
[71] Although distinguishing facts from comment may sometimes be difficult, a comment is by its subjective nature generally less capable of damaging someone’s reputation than an objective statement of fact, because the public is much more likely to be influenced in its belief by a statement of fact than by a comment. …
[77] In my view, it is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.
[78] Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.”
Most dishonest warmists focus on just line 75, ignore all the rest from 76-78. It is clear you people are dishonest as hell. No it is YOU who make clear you are not here to be truthful or honest.
Meanwhile DR. Ball in reply to Dr. Weavers demand for article retraction and apology, made this reply which occurred BEFORE he was sued over it:
“[29] Dr. Weaver, through his counsel, also demanded an apology from Dr. Ball. Letters were sent to various email addresses associated with Dr. Ball. Dr. Ball retained counsel and negotiations ensued about the wording of an apology.
[30] Ultimately, on March 3, 2011, Dr. Ball issued the following apology:
My article entitled “Corruption of Climate Change has Created 30 Lost Years” contained untrue statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. The article has since been withdrawn from the Internet website of Canada Free Press, where it was originally published in January 2011.
Contrary to what I stated in my article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”); (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010. I hereby unequivocally retract my suggestion that Dr. Weaver sought to dissociate himself from the scientific work of the IPCC.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. My article failed to mention these facts although they were publicly available.
I did not intend to suggest that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with my presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling me during my talk. Further, I do not dispute Dr. Weaver’s credentials or competence as a climate scientist and university professor. While Dr. Weaver and I have different views on the cause of global warming, I acknowledge that Dr. Weaver has at all times acted honestly and with integrity.
I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article.
[31] Dr. Ball’s apology was substantially in the form requested by Dr. Weaver, with one exception. Dr. Weaver had proposed language stating that students had not been deterred from attending, that Dr. Ball had not been heckled, and that “students who attended were polite and respectful and asked their questions in a manner and form which is customary and entirely acceptable on such occasions”. Dr. Ball declined to include this language because it was not consistent with how he perceived the students acted at his UVIC presentation.
[32] Dr. Ball forwarded his apology to the various websites on which the Article had been republished.
[33] Dr. Weaver posted Dr. Ball’s apology alongside the Article on his “wall of hate”.”
At this point Dr. Weaver should have stopped and went on with his undamaged career since Ball made clear he was wrong in the way he wrote that article. Weaver innocent and undamaged, while Ball’s credibility damaged.
But Nooo Weaver decided to sue him anyway, which resulted in a partial rehabilitation for Ball, because the Judge rules that it was NOT Defamatory as Weaver believed it to be. Now it is announced they will appeal, which WILL damage him some more, as it is becoming an appearance of a vendetta developing since he did post the article and apology OUTSIDE of his office on a wall of Hate.
Quoting from the decision:
“[33]Dr. Weaver posted Dr. Ball’s apology alongside the Article on his “wall of hate”.”
and,
“[78]Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.”
It is really stupid as hell to throw away his apology, that was humiliating for Ball who also retracted all the articles from the websites.
It is YOU who keeps ignoring the overwhelming fact that Dr. Weaver failed to prove defamation based on his claims against the article.
It is YOU and other dishonest warmists who keeps flogging just ONE line of the decision, while the Judge said a lot more than that.
34
Bothering Twinotter with facts doesn’t seem to make even a small dent in his fact free life. Evidence and proof are as meaningless to him as the telephone book is to a fence post.
Opinion is everything in Harry’s world. Isn’t that right, Harry? Just find a handy easy to carry around opinion, like his apparent opinion that we deny something, and he’s happy. Then he can trot out that handy lightweight opinion and impress himself with it every time. He gets to call us deniers of something and he doesn’t have to even know what it is we’re supposed to be denying.
Harry, you should face up to the truth, don’t give up your day job. You aren’t handling it in either the climate change debate or the Ball-Weaver legal debate either. Definitely keep your burger flipping job… …or whatever it is that you do to support yourself.
44
And you sir,are an idiot!
13
Dr Ball may have won which is great but he has also spent a fortune defending himself, much of his life’s savings I believe.
162
Crowd funding helped to ease the way.
“We spent all our savings on legal fees before John O’Sullivan helped us set up a web site and a Paypal donation tab.”
Tim Ball
101
Maybe he shouldn’t be writing any more “poorly written opinion pieces” then, eh?
And maybe Tim Ball could reflect on what the court describes as, “…the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth”.
If Ball insists on publishing lies, it’s his own fault if he suffers for it.
72
None of these cases including the mann will ever get their day in court although California might be a different thing as they have shown themselves to be left wing hardline and ideological pursuit will win over truth because there are so many in the church .
32
How telling that the real reason they decided it wasn’t defamatory isn’t being quoted:
Ball’s article was “rife with errors and inaccuracies” that showed a lack of attention to detail and an indifference to the truth, Skolrood wrote.
The “article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science,” Skolrood wrote.
Ball’s words “lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory,” the judgment concluded.
http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/b-c-green-party-s-andrew-weaver-loses-defamation-lawsuit-1.23174209
Basically, Tim Ball is so full of @#!t nobody in their right mind would pay any attention to the utter garbage he wrote.
1431
This is pretty much exactly how Lomborg got off after his country’s “Committe on Scientific Dishonesty” had pinged him: Lomborg pointed out that he isn’t a scientists and has no idea what he is talking about, the Committee accepted this was a valid defence to being found scientifically dishonest.
1230
You just can’t please some people.
‘Weaver’s lawyer, Roger McConchie, said that he plans to file notice of appeal of Justice Skolrood’s dismissal today.’
161
Without much doubt, Craig’s defense will use the same words.
85
I have noticed that a lot of scientists also have no idea what they are talking about, especially when commenting outside of their education and training. That includes practically every scientist commenting on the climate.
43
We have a Court Judgment now, saying that Tim Ball is not credible and suggests he is even “indifferent to the truth”.
Which other scientists have been found by a court of law to be careless with the truth?
93
Craig Thomas, you seem to be handling facts in your own way. It is true that the Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD)found Bjørn Lomborg to be objectively scientifically dishonest, based on a piece in Scientific American in 2002. However, it was the Danish Ministry of Science that found the DCSD to be at fault in their finding, and that they had performed a review that the Ministry called ‘dissatisfactory’, ‘deserving of criticism’ and ’emotional’, something a committee on Science should definitely not. The Ministry pointed out at least 3 different issues that alone destroyed the DCSD report. The Ministry found “that the DCSD has not documented where [Lomborg] has allegedly been biased in his choice of data and in his argumentation, and that the [DCSD] ruling is completely void of argumentation.”
Your argument that “Lomborg pointed out that he isn’t a scientists and has no idea what he is talking about, the Committee accepted this was a valid defence to being found scientifically dishonest” is itself totally dishonest and untrue.
This ended in 2004. You still haven’t got the memo, it seems. You really should try to challenge your beliefs, as the rest of us do all the time. You might actually learn something.
BTW, there was even a Dutch group, independent as such, that found the DCSD to be ‘totally political’ on this issue. The DCSD was put to shame in Denmark over this.
144
It’s telling that you give no reference to that analysis.
The Danish Ministry did not overturn the DCSD’s ruling, and Lomborg’s work was never considered to be anything other than spectacularly flawed with some very bizarre data handling errors which – had he been a real scientist – would have seen him severely censured.
The DCSD was not “put to shame over this” – the only people who took issue with Lomborg being pinged for his mistakes were Lomborg’s fellow pretend-scientists in social “science”, political “science” and so on, because Lomborg’s appalling inaccuracies are par for the course in all those pseudo-sciences.
Lomborg made so many “errors” that somebody was able to write a whole book full of them.
http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/
72
One should not assume, but since you try to come across as someone who knows I actually assumed you would do your homework. Shame on me.
The DCSD publishes its annual reports, easy to find on the web if you are interested in informing yourself. In the 2003 report you will find this: ‘The Ministry of Science delivered its ruling on 17 December 2003 and remitted the case to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty. At the same time, the ruling was made public. The ruling, which implied a reversal of DCSD’s decision, was critical of DCSD in a number of respects, partly DCSD’s reasoning for the decision, including the rationale for regarding the book as a scientific work (research), and partly DCSD’s use of the concept of “good scientific practice”.
Other, additional points of criticism were levelled against the decision and DCSD’s treatment of the case; these were predominantly of a formal legal nature.’
If you read further on the subject you will find that the Ministry reined in the DCSD after this incident, formally restricting its practice and field of investigation. That is not something you do to a body of integrity.
The DCSD was put to shame. And, since you uphold this nonsense, you are too.
12
Scientifically dishonest? As with the IPCC, https://judithcurry.com/2011/10/19/laframboise-on-the-ipcc/
“Rather, it is about the IPCC as an institution: the use of graduate students, WWF and Greenpeace sympathizers as IPCC authors; the use of gray environmentalist literature in IPCC (especially WG2); lack of conflict of interest oversight; the review process and the process producing the executive summaries; etc.”
103
I suppose the alarmists could use the same excuse to avoid being sued in the future given their arguments about a pending catastrophic climate change are easily and already totally falsified.
222
“Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person “
Poor judge, obviously a dyed in the wool AGW sympathiser, couldn’t accept the FACTS by Tim Ball, but also knew that Weavel didn’t have a leg to stand on.
Only people coming out of this lacking credibility are Weavel and the judge.
1710
The court found that Tim Ball wasn’t stating facts. In fact the judgment came very close to calling Tim Ball a liar.
“…suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth”.
Is this *really* the donkey you want to hitch your cart to, Andy?
73
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm
A finding that the article is an opinion piece in a charged
debate that both men participated in robustly each with a number
of implied inferences regarding the other.
110
Thanks for posting that.
30
joseph, re fake news, don’t we hafta’ look fer the
primary sources, like who paid fer dossiers ‘n such?
Its a swamp out there…or maybe ‘in’ there.
70
Can’t disagree with you. And thanks again even though I’ve already thanked you twice due to an over sensitive keyboard.
30
Thanks for posting that.
20
That’s rubbish. The judgement was that the article was derogatory, not defamatory. That’s it. The judge made no ruling at all on science.
123
Further the facts which were wrong were of attribution and timing. Again not science. The judge did not suggest either party was right or wrong in their professional roles. Dr. Ball’s article was not defamatory. Drawing wild conclusions about Dr. Ball’s professional competence is itself defamatory but such absurd provocative rubbish that he would not sur.
162
As for Lomberg, he agrees with global warming. He is an economist.
His argument is that there are far more urgent tasks and that the spending on trying to control global warming is poor value and possibly ineffective and that there are many more serious problems.
161
After 350,000 windmills and expenses at $1,500Bn a year for no effect on CO2 levels, you would have to think Lomberg is on to something.
50
It’s so good that you don’t write “gutter garbage”.
Just trash?
100
“Tim Ball is so full of @#!t”
No, your are WRONG as always, CT
The judge made no comment about the scientific accuracy of the comments.
Only one full of @#!t around here, is you, CT !!
138
The only person who made a comment about the accuracy was a publisher who wanted to keep sales up.
Commercial imperative is different from scientific accuracy.
KK
91
OK, guess who wrote the following then Andy?:
“My article entitled “Corruption of Climate Change has Created 30 Lost Years” contained untrue statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, …”
Was it,
a. Tim Ball
b. Tim Ball
c. Tim Ball
d. All of the above
Take your time, Andy, I realise that it may come as a shock to you that these “facts” you apparently believe in, are not facts at all, even in Tim Ball’s mind.
52
Your being rather disingenuous. What the judge wrote was not in the context of Dr. Ball’s scientific, work, facts, or credentials, being “full of @#$%'” (really?), but rather that the specific article in question was not well written enough to support his opinion about the corruption of science:
(My bolding) (From the ruling.)
Further, holding an opinion that climate science has been corrupted is perfectly fine, and many could argue not without grounds.
In my view, Dr. Ball is probably no great writer, but that does not detract from the substance of what he writes.
24
I notice a pattern where warmist loons like Mr. Thomas avoids quoting the REAL reason why it was dismissed.
They keep avoiding this part from his decision:
“[76] Moreover, as noted above, the Article is clearly an opinion piece, and statements of opinion are generally evaluated differently than statements of fact. As stated by Mr. Justice Lebel in WIC Radio, at para. 71 of his concurring reasons:
[71] Although distinguishing facts from comment may sometimes be difficult, a comment is by its subjective nature generally less capable of damaging someone’s reputation than an objective statement of fact, because the public is much more likely to be influenced in its belief by a statement of fact than by a comment. …
[77] In my view, it is very unlikely that the Article and the opinions expressed therein had an impact on the views of anyone who read it, including their views, if any, of Dr. Weaver as a climate scientist. Rather, the reasonably thoughtful and informed reader would have recognized the Article as simply presenting one side of a highly charged public debate.
[78] Second, despite professing to have been “saddened, sickened and dismayed” by the Article, I am not satisfied that Dr. Weaver himself perceived the Article as genuinely threatening his actual reputation. As noted, Dr. Weaver has been actively and publically engaged in the climate change discussion for many years. That included endorsing political candidates who advanced policies he agreed with and opposing candidates with whom he disagreed. It is also quite apparent that he enjoys the “thrust and parry” of that discussion and that he places little stock in opposing views such as those espoused by Dr. Ball, which Dr. Weaver characterized as “odd” and “bizarre”. Dr. Weaver went so far as to post the Article on his “wall of hate” located outside his office, alongside other articles and correspondence from “climate doubters”. It is apparent that he views such material as more of a “badge of honour” than a legitimate challenge to his character or reputation.
[79] The issue of climate change is a matter of public interest and, as noted, Dr. Weaver has been at the forefront of public discussion. It has long been recognized that where someone enters the public arena, it is to be expected that his or her actions and words will be subject to robust scrutiny and criticism. For example, in Lund v. Black Press Group Ltd., 2009 BCSC 937 [Lund], Mr. Justice Bracken stated, at para. 123:
[123] It is important to any community that matters of public interest are debated freely and openly. Sometimes, in the heat of discussions over a controversial issue where strong personal differences exist, persons on one side or other of the debate make comments that offend. But the fact that they offend is not enough. The comments must go beyond strong criticisms of a public man acting in his capacity as a public official. …
[80] Similar observations were made by Chief Justice Nemetz in Vander Zalm, at 535 and 536. While the plaintiffs in both Lund and Vander Zalm were elected officials, in my view, the principle applies with equal force to others who actively engage in matters of public interest.
[81] In WIC Radio, Justice Lebel again, in his concurring reasons said, at paras. 74-75:
[74] Members of the public will generally have a more solid basis on which to evaluate a comment about a public figure than one about someone who is unknown. Thus, although public figures are certainly more open to criticism than those who avoid the public eye, this does not mean that their reputations are necessarily more vulnerable. In fact, public figures may have greater opportunity to influence their own reputations for the better.
[75] People who voluntarily take part in debates on matters of public interest must expect a reaction from the public. Indeed, public response will often be one of the goals of self‑expression. In the context of such debates (and at the risk of mixing metaphors), public figures are expected to have a thick skin and not to be too quick to cry foul when the discussion becomes heated. This is not to say that harm to one’s reputation is the necessary price of being a public figure. Rather, it means that what may harm a private individual’s reputation may not damage that of a figure about whom more is known and who may have had ample opportunity to express his or her own contrary views.
[82] The law of defamation provides an important tool for protecting an individual’s reputation from unjustified attack. However, it is not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest nor to compensate for every perceived slight or to quash contrary view points, no matter how ill-conceived. Public debate on matters of importance is an essential element of a free and democratic society and lies at the heart of the Charter guarantee of freedom of expression. As Justice Lebel observes, such debate often includes critical and even offensive commentary, which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder. It is only when the words used reach the level of genuinely threatening a person’s actual reputation that resort to the law of defamation is available. Such is not the case here.”
LINK
54
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/tim-balls-victory-in-the-first-climate-lawsuit-judgment-the-backstory/
80
This comment from the judge is the real kick against Weavel..
“which is best met through engagement and well-reasoned rejoinder.”
Basically , the judge is telling Weavel to stop acting like a petulant brat and using the law to hide behind his inability for rational debate.
199
Well put.
93
If Dr. Weaver has accepted the public apology as demanded, then he would have come out well and Dr. Ball be badly tarnished.
“[26] Dr. Weaver very quickly retained counsel who wrote to Canada Free Press on January 14, 2011, demanding a retraction of the Article and an apology. Canada Free Press deleted the Article from its website on January 18, 2011, and published a retraction and apology which ran for a number of days.
[27] The terms of the retraction and apology were discussed by email exchange between Dr. Weaver’s counsel and Ms. Judi McLeod, the editor of Canada Free Press, although the final version was largely in the form requested by Dr. Weaver. It stated:
Apology to Dr. Andrew Weaver
On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.
Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.
Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk. CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.
CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little abut climate science.” We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.
CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.
[28] Canada Free Press also forwarded a copy of its retraction and apology to other websites on which the Article had been republished.
[29] Dr. Weaver, through his counsel, also demanded an apology from Dr. Ball. Letters were sent to various email addresses associated with Dr. Ball. Dr. Ball retained counsel and negotiations ensued about the wording of an apology.
[30] Ultimately, on March 3, 2011, Dr. Ball issued the following apology:
My article entitled “Corruption of Climate Change has Created 30 Lost Years” contained untrue statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia. The article has since been withdrawn from the Internet website of Canada Free Press, where it was originally published in January 2011.
Contrary to what I stated in my article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (“IPCC”); (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010. I hereby unequivocally retract my suggestion that Dr. Weaver sought to dissociate himself from the scientific work of the IPCC.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. My article failed to mention these facts although they were publicly available.
I did not intend to suggest that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with my presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling me during my talk. Further, I do not dispute Dr. Weaver’s credentials or competence as a climate scientist and university professor. While Dr. Weaver and I have different views on the cause of global warming, I acknowledge that Dr. Weaver has at all times acted honestly and with integrity.
I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article.”
Because Dr. Weaver didn’t accept the apology to push a Defamation lawsuit where he damages himself with his loss, in the process of partially rehabilitating Dr. Ball.
Dr. Weaver was the big loser for his stupid blunder.
52
worth noting at this time:
13 Feb: Washington Examiner: The trial lawyers behind the climate litigation racket
by John Burnett
(John Burnett is the founder and CEO of the consulting firm 1 Empire Group. He is also a financial services industry professional and former candidate for New York City comptroller)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/the-trial-lawyers-behind-the-climate-litigation-racket/article/2648919
61
13 Feb: Bloomberg: Exxon Sues the Suers in Fierce Climate-Change Case
By Bob Van Voris
A ‘conspiracy’ was hatched in La Jolla, Calif., company says
Exxon says the suits are violating its free speech rights
As climate-change lawsuits against the oil industry mount, Exxon Mobil Corp. is taking a bare-knuckle approach rarely seen in legal disputes: It’s going after the lawyers who are suing it.
The company has targeted at least 30 people and organizations, including the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts, hitting them with suits, threats of suits or demands for sworn depositions. The company claims the lawyers, public officials and environmental activists are “conspiring” against it in a coordinated legal and public relations campaign.
Exxon has even given that campaign a vaguely ***sinister-sounding name: “The La Jolla playbook.” According to the company, about two dozen people hatched a strategy against it at a meeting six years ago in an oceanfront cottage in La Jolla, Calif.
“It’s an aggressive move,” said Howard Erichson, an expert in complex litigation and a professor at Fordham University School of Law in New York. “Does Exxon really need these depositions or is Exxon seeking the depositions to harass mayors and city attorneys into dropping their lawsuits?”…
“It’s crazy that people are subpoenaed for attending a meeting,” said Sharon Eubanks, a lawyer who was at the La Jolla gathering. “It’s sort of like a big scare tactic: reframe the debate, use it as a diversionary tactic and scare the heck out of everybody.”
Exxon has focused on the La Jolla meeting as ground zero for its conspiracy claim. Ironically, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, a nonprofit run by descendants of John D. Rockefeller who are pressing Exxon to address climate change issues, has funded organizations that led the La Jolla conference (Exxon, which grew out of John D.’s Standard Oil, also subpoenaed the fund to testify.)
At the gathering, participants met to discuss litigation strategies that could be applied to climate change, according to a 35-page summary that was later made public. Eubanks, a former Justice Department lawyer, talked about how the U.S. government used the racketeering law against cigarette makers, for example…READ ALL
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-13/exxon-sues-the-suers-in-fierce-bid-to-defeat-climate-lawsuits
61
more re Sharon Eubanks, quoted in the Bloomberg article:
24 Oct 2017: ClimateLiabilityNews: Climate Liability Gains Ground With New Research, Experts Say
By Karen Savage
The recent study (LINK) linking the largest 90 carbon producers with specific percentages of the rise carbon dioxide, global temperature and sea level rise is more than just an advance in climate science. According to some experts, it is potentially strong evidence in a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) case against the fossil fuel industry.
Attorney Sharon Eubanks, who led the RICO case against the tobacco industry for the Department of Justice, said the study is good, solid science and believes a RICO suit could succeed in holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for climate change.
“We’ve already been there, there’s a blueprint for a RICO lawsuit,” said Eubanks. “This is something I think should be considered to make the companies provide equitable relief.”…
Eubanks spoke at a panel discussion on climate liability Monday at the Columbia Law School, an event organized by the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, Earth Institute, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the New York City Bar Association’s International Environmental Law Committee.
While not all panelists agreed that the issue of climate change can and should be tackled through the courts in the United States, Eubanks said behavior by Exxon and other fossil fuels appears to fulfill the legal requirements for a RICO suit.
“Exxon funded climate denial long after its own scientists knew and determined that climate change was real. They knew it and they hid it,” said Eubanks, adding that the company’s misinformation campaign was not conducted alone, was associated with other groups and associations and it was done for profit.
“Exxon misled investors and the public about the risks of climate change and this was all about the bottom line, it was all about money,” Eubanks said…
The potential legal remedies extend beyond RICO suits, several panelists said, and include suing for damages to natural resources and public trust cases like the ongoing Our Children’s Trust lawsuit against the federal government…
Peter Frumhoff, director of science and policy for the Union of Concerned Scientists said certain institutions and companies are more responsible because they had choices unavailable to private citizens…
https://www.climateliabilitynews.org/2017/10/24/climate-liability-columbia-sabin-center/
51
Dr Ball spoke in Melbourne. Here is the video.
https://youtu.be/leS4nBpFKTE
The talk is entitled “Political Corruption and the Science of Climate Change”.
206
Wow! I got three red thumbs for posting a link to a video. The Lefties can’t handle the truth or otherwise refute any statement they disagree with.
164
They can’t handle losing. It is not about science. It was never about science.
133
I think we also saw him in Sydney.
30
“Tim Ball’s Victory in the First Climate Lawsuit Judgment – The Backstory”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/02/14/tim-balls-victory-in-the-first-climate-lawsuit-judgment-the-backstory/
And comments
81
I hope costs are awarded as I know this has cost Dr Ball quite a bit. Much of his 401k (superannuation) funded his defense.
42
Craig seems to think that Tim Ball has no credibility on climate science? Is anyone able to list his qualifications and experience Re climate issues?
43
http://drtimball.com/_files/dr-tim-ball-CV.pdf
30
Thanks Dave. He had a list of 60 major publications, almost all to with the study of climate – impressive.
His PhD was also, I believe, on climate science but was completed as a science doctorate within a Geography Dept. So his critics claim his qualifications have nothing to do with climate science? Sheeeessh!
33
That is why his opponents have gone to such efforts to shut Dr. Ball up and attempt to discredit him. He is an eminent authority on the topic.
51
Michael E Mann, PHD, climate catastrophe advocate and militant
campaigner against any scientist who disagrees with him.
http://leftexposed.org/2016/07/michael-e-mann/
32
Do you want a list of Tim Ball’s actual qualifications, or the different list of qualifications that he has over the years claimed to have held?
71
he was a shoo-in, with plenty of Harvard connections, but worth noting:
12 Feb: Harvard Gazette: Praise, optimism in reaction to Bacow choice
By Colleen Walsh and Jill Radsken
As news spread Monday about Harvard’s choice of Lawrence S. Bacow as the University’s next president, members of the academic community and others praised the selection of the former Tufts University president, lawyer, economist, and environmental policy expert, who in July will become Harvard’s 29th leader in 381 years…
“Congratulations to Lawrence S. Bacow … I look forward to working with him to address some of our most pressing global health challenges — including climate change,” tweeted Dean Michelle Williams of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health…
Williams expanded on that note Monday afternoon, saying, “Larry is deeply knowledgeable about Harvard, deeply familiar with the Harvard Chan School, and exceptionally well-positioned to lead the University at a time when higher education is facing new political headwinds and public health issues — particularly the issue of climate change and health — are in danger of being neglected or becoming needlessly politicized. Larry’s experience as a leader, his personal belief in the power of higher education to change lives, and his strong commitment to building on President Drew Faust’s legacy of positive impact through engagement with local and global communities make him the ideal president for our time.”…
Several students said they hoped Bacow would continue prioritizing environment issues. Ben Austin, a government concentrator, said he thinks Bacow should build upon President Faust’s recently announced climate goal that would make the University fossil-free by 2050.
“I like his commitment to environmental policy,” said the 20-year-old sophomore. “Harvard is a leader, and to set that precedent now is very important in a time when government is reversing regulations.”
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2018/02/praise-and-optimism-in-reaction-to-choice-of-bacow-as-president/
11 Feb: Harvard Mag: Harvard Names Lawrence S. Bacow Twenty-Ninth President
by John S. Rosenberg
Bacow’s decade of leadership at Tufts followed 24 years on the faculty of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he served as chancellor, chair of the faculty, and the Lee and Geraldine Martin Professor of Environmental Studies…
With scholarly interests that range across environmental policy, bargaining and negotiation, economics, law, and public policy, he is a recognized expert on the resolution of environmental disputes, and more recently has turned his academic focus to issues facing higher education…
As the search proceeded, he said, it came increasingly to focus on three characteristics judged most important for the next University president –
someone “who also clearly sees and is ready to confront the great challenges facing us at a moment when the value of higher education is being questioned, at a moment when the fundamental truth of fact-based inquiry is being questioned and called into doubt.”…
Similarly, he said of climate change that the science is “set,” but debate continues about the responsibilities of one generation to another: that is, the policy questions are matters of ethics and values, where again a broad university has much to contribute. “That excites me.”
https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2018/02/lawrence-bacow-harvard-president
AUDIO: 11 Feb: WBUR Public Radio Boston: Harvard Taps Lawrence Bacow As Its New President
Bacow has three graduate degrees from Harvard and currently holds an academic appointment at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government…
Bacow said he feels a commitment, in a time when our nation is divided, to help the university leverage its resources to make the world a better place. He sees a role for Harvard fostering conversations about climate change.
He spent much of his career worrying about problems of the environment, he said, and is a scholar of environmental policy and law…
http://www.wbur.org/edify/2018/02/11/harvard-bacow-new-president
41
Hi Jo,
Slightly off-topic, but you may be pleased to note that you and, of course, your blogsite, are given honourable mention in one of our posts.
Keep up the good work; always read your posts.
[This will be kept here for Jo to see.] AZ
[Thanks Grandpa1940. 🙂 Cheers – Jo]
33
O/T why are we importing electricity into Queensland? Is there a large coal unit down at the moment.
50
you will do as we say:
14 Feb: Reuters: Nina Chestney: OECD says energy taxes in developed economies too low to fight climate change
Energy taxes in major advanced economies are not doing enough to reduce energy use, improve energy efficiency and drive a shift towards low-carbon sources, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) said on Wednesday.
Taxes on energy use, such as fuel, carbon taxes and excise duties, are used by many governments to make energy consumers pay for the costs of pollution, thereby reducing harmful greenhouse gas emissions which lead to global warming…
The OECD found that almost all taxes are too low to help combat global warming, compared to a benchmark level of 30 euros per tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) – a conservative minimum estimate of the damage from emitting one tonne of CO2…READ ON
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-oecd-energy-taxation/oecd-says-energy-taxes-in-developed-economies-too-low-to-fight-climate-change-idUKKCN1FY16T
15 Feb: CityAM: Majority of big banks failing Mark Carney’s climate change requirements
by Jasper Jolly
The world’s biggest banks are failing to take climate change seriously in their business plans, as demanded by regulators, according to research to be published today by a large investor group.
Less than half of the 59 international banks surveyed by Boston Common Asset Management have carried out a scenario analysis for if global temperatures rise by more than two degrees Celsius, as desired by Bank of England governor Mark Carney…READ ON
http://www.cityam.com/280622/majority-big-banks-failing-mark-carneys-climate-change
31
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Citation:
Weaver v. Ball,
2018 BCSC 205
Date: 20180213
Docket: S110682
Registry: Vancouver
apologies (below) and
press:
Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.
As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC. That work began in May, 2010. Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.
Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people
Weaver v. Ball Page 10
from attending and heckling him during the talk. CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.
CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little abut climate science.” We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.
CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.
[28] Canada Free Press also forwarded a copy of its retraction and apology to other websites…
Ball:
I did not intend to suggest that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with my presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling me during my talk. Further, I do not dispute Dr. Weaver’s credentials or competence as a climate scientist and university professor. While Dr. Weaver and I have different views on the cause of global warming, I acknowledge that Dr. Weaver has at all times acted honestly and with integrity.
Weaver v. Ball Page 11
I sincerely apologize to Dr. Weaver and express regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by my article.
———
the let=oof from judge:
[75] First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.
I.e. what was written was not provable, was incorrect, and therefore unbelievable.
For Ball to claim this as a victory just shows his disconnection with reality.
56
Since the Judge dismissed Dr. Weaver Defamation claim against Dr. Ball it is clear somebody won and somebody lost………
Dr. Weaver LOST because he failed to convince the Judge that he was defamed.
Can you guess who then won?
44
15 Feb: Daily Mail: Prince Charles is greeted with a kiss from son Harry before making a thinly-veiled dig at Trump saying the world is focused on climate change ‘apart from one or two outposts’ at coral reef talk
Prince Charles appears to have today made a dig at US President Donald Trump
Said ‘apart from one or two outposts’ world is trying to prevent climate change
Trump withdrew US from the Paris climate change agreement upon taking office
He previously called global warming ‘a hoax’ and is diverting federal funding for studying climate change to boost the burning of planet-warming fossil fuels
By Keiligh Baker
Speaking at an event held this morning in London, Prince Charles talked about the urgent and pressing need to unite in order to protect the world’s coral reefs against the combined threats of climate change, pollution, plastic and over fishing…
‘The stakes are high and time is extremely short. There can be no doubt that we are a critical tipping point…
Yesterday it was reported that senior Commonwealth officials are due to meet in London for secret talks to consider whether Prince Charles should take over when the Queen dies…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5390627/Prince-Charles-makes-dig-Trump-climate-change.html
8 Feb: BostonGlobe: How Al Gore feels about addressing climate change in the Trump era
Former Vice President Al Gore was in town Wednesday for a talk at Tufts University. He took time to speak to Globe environmental report David Abel about the challenges of addressing climate change in the Trump era
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/02/08/how-gore-feels-about-addressing-climate-change-trump-era/HAbMLKb6whHoowo4ouLu2N/story.html
8 Feb: Tufts Uni: Anger and Hope on Climate Change
Al Gore told a Tufts audience that a sustainability revolution is possible, but political will is necessary
By Monica Jimenez
In a talk moderated by Kelly Sims Gallagher, a professor of energy and environmental policy at the Fletcher School who attended the Paris Agreement negotiations and was an intern in his office when he was vice president—Gore delved into the physical and geopolitical dangers posed by climate change.
Seven percent of the United States is headed toward drought; winter temperatures in the western part of the country are extraordinarily high; multiyear storms such as El Niño are becoming more frequent; and 50 percent of all species on Earth are projected to be extinct this century, Gore said.
Climate change is destabilizing whole nations and states, Gore said. For example, storms destroyed 60 percent of farms in Syria and sent 1.5 million refugees fleeing the region from 2006 to 2010, helping trigger a civil war…
“I see the climate crisis as the most serious manifestation of a deeper underlying collision between human civilization as it’s currently organized, and the surprisingly frail ecological system of the Earth,” Gore said. “Were we not to grab hold of this destructive process and change course, it would be an existential threat to civilization and potentially to the species itself.”
And yet climate change denial is thriving in America more than any other country, thanks to false studies and propaganda funded by the fossil fuel industry, and a new tribalism that determines where people choose to get their information, Gore said. “Some conversations on climate change resemble a dysfunctional family, with an alcoholic father who flies into a rage when the word alcohol is mentioned,” Gore said…
But there is hope, Gore said. “I’ve come to believe the world is now in the early stages of a sustainability revolution that has the magnitude of the Industrial Revolution, but the speed of the digital revolution, driven by digital tools, machine learning, and artificial intelligence,” Gore said, pointing to an AI system that cut Google server farms’ electricity usage by 56 percent…
Although politics today can be toxic, he told the students in the audience that they should talk about climate change, even with those who don’t agree. “Give them the gift of your listening. Try to understand exactly what part of the science they have a problem and hone in on that,” he said. “If it doesn’t work, you may want to spend your time talking to people who may want to listen to you. But keep trying.”…
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/anger-and-hope-climate-change
41
This is LoLTYB on a couple of levels.
Lose a lawsuit because the defendant is too silly to be taken seriously?? So now we need to make sure that i we sue someone they are at least somewhat credible??
Never heard of that before but the law is a straaaaaange animal.
Or it could all be fake news and deep state conspiracy???
510
You obviously didn’t read WHY Dr. Weaver lost and it wasn’t because Dr. Ball wrote an article poorly. It was because Dr. Weaver FAILED to convince the Judge that he was defamed by it.
74
A defamation suit.. with no defamation.
Get over it phlop. !!
45
Interesting reading the actual judgement. Short version?
“Ball, you are an id%^t and its just too hard to punish you when you are too dim to understand why.
Weaver, you are putting it on about this hurt and saddness and trying to force me to punish and id%^t. I suspect you are on nasty pills. Toughen up princess.
Dismissing this crud and if you want costs off each other work it out. comes back to me and i’ll craft you both a nasty one on that.
🙂
68
A defamation suit.. there was no defamation.
Get over it phlop. !! And stop your mindless ranting.
44
Thank you Jo, I know I am dreaming, but would it not be just, if Weaver drowns in Court Costs ?
32
Thank you Jo, for posting this. Cheers.
51
The judge found Dr. Ball’s article about Weaver was derogatory, but too poorly written to be legally defamatory. Is being to incoherent to being taken really a “win?”
The judge who dismissed the case wrote, “… despite Dr. Ball’s history as an academic and a scientist, the Article is rife with errors and inaccuracies, which suggests a lack of attention to detail on Dr. Ball’s part, if not an indifference to the truth.” Justice Skolrood accepted that Ball was committed to damaging Weaver’s reputation. The judge wrote: “These allegations are directed at Dr. Weaver’s professional competence and are clearly derogatory of him. Indeed, it is quite apparent that this was Dr. Ball’s intent.”
Justice Skolrood’s reason for dismissing the case was: “The Article (by Dr. Tim Ball) is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”
60
The judge appears to have done an interesting balancing act on this one. Would you call it a sort of “no harm, no foul” type ruling?
51
So the judge decided Tim Ball was a clown who should not be taken seriously – some win.
The judge’s opinion is the same as my opinion.
54
Love Tim Ball and his truthful information that CO2 does not cause climate change.
Only self centered so-called scientific intellectual idiots including David Suzuki believe that the 50-80 ppm or so increase in CO2 in our atmosphere over the last 100 years is causing climate change when changes in our own sun activity has more impact in 24 hours than 10 years of energy generated by us irresponsible humans.
Watch on you tube “”Earth From Space”-discovery channel”” the 1 hr 31 min version and get a grip on reality of the power of the sun, oceans etc and the overall importance of CO2 for the survival of life on this planet.
Can someone send me a link to Tim Ball’s crowdfunding site.
Thank you
12
Interesting hypothesis, except for the fact that it is wrong.
01