Heh, gc, I'm reminded of one of my old efforts. 'Attribution' in this case applies to the cause of temperature rise.

Attribution, she's a bitch;
Don't know how, just scratch that itch.
Puff, the Magic Climate
Lived by the CO2;
Nature turned and bit him, someplace rich.

Given his reach for fraudulent statistics, the Piltdown Mann probably didn't know, as he claimed, that man was the cause of the recent temperature rise. And on that chicanery rests most of his reputation, and much of the world's misinformation about climate.

Pretty sad episode in the history of science. Pretty typical episode in the history of politics.
=================================

Phil, there is much info still pending, and much disinformation from the Piltdown Man, but it appears that he is going to have to pay some of Dr. Ball's costs. And the court costs, whew, they may be large by now.

He doesn't have to worry much though; part of his egregious attitude

is from the knowledge that others pay for his mistakes to appear not to be mistakes.

A spoiled child, and what spoliation he has done. He will be famous in the history of science, that is for sure.
================================

kim, US Government Climate Science Funding could be delayed if Mann withholds evidence, as it should have been 20 years ago. This would be an excellent opportunity for Green Investors to lose money instead and restore Mann's credibility

Huff Post

Claims, originally from John Sullivan and now repeated by Anthony Watts, that Mann did not produce data required by the Court were and remain, pure lies.

I've followed Phil's links, and have slept on it, trying to assimilate what I've read about Mann's case against Ball being thrown out. Trying to be objective, I THINK it amounts to the following:

1. Whatever the issues in the case are, the Court has made no finding on them;

2. Mann does not seem to be in breach of any Court order relating to disclosure/discovery - I would be astonished if his lawyers made that claim (as they did) and it then turned out to be untrue;

3. The case was started 8 years ago, and progress has been painfully slow. It is normally the plaintiff/claimant who wishes to bring a case to trial in order to receive early satisfaction/vindication, and it is normally the plaintiff/claimant who is best placed to drive the case on. In this case, it seems the plaintiff/claimant has shown no interest in moving the case on.

4. The defendant, old, in ill-health, and tired of the delays, made an application to have the case struck out because of the plaintiff's delays, and has succeeded. It seems that the application was (as I would have expected) made on notice, with a lengthy affidavit submitted by the defendant in support of the application (it runs to well over 80 numbered paras, as Mann and his lawyers have selectively published 3 paras numbered in the 80s, from Ball's affidavit).

5. Mann and his lawyers almost certainly had notice of the application and will have had the opportunity to oppose it, presumably did so, and were unsuccessful. We do not know what the contents of their affidavit were, as they have not released it, so far as I am aware. After 8 years and the case apparently nowhere near ready for trial, it is difficult to see what strong arguments they could have presented against the application.

6. Mann has described the Judge's ruling against him as an exercise of discretion. Strictly I suppose that is true, but it probably also reflects a finding regarding his failure to advance the case, based on the arguments that both sides will have advanced in their affidavits. In ruling as he did, the Judge was finding against Mann on the issue of Mann's delay.

7. Mann has been ordered to pay costs. That is not unusual - the normal ruling in such cases is that "costs follow the event", in other words that the loser pays the winner's costs, and in this case - as Mann's case has been thrown out because of his delay - Mann is the loser, and Ball is the winner.

8. Cases are rarely thrown out for delay. That this one has been thrown out on that ground suggests the delay has been substantial and not justified.

9. Mann has suggested that he might not be paying Ball's costs and might appeal. If he does, as may well be his right under Canadian law, then it will start to look to me as though Steyn's suggestion in another case brought by Mann that seems to be going nowhere, that "the process is the punishment" is a valid claim in regard to Mann's use of the Courts.

How do you know point 7?

Phil, I took on trust what was posted by muppets are us at 4.04pm yesterday:

"Order 22Aug2019
Affidavit 20Aug2019

File Number VLC-S-S-111913

Date Filed: 22Aug2019
Filing Parties
Terms of Order
Order

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

The file number (or case number or claim number as we might call it in this country, is correct, as it appears at a number of websites, including some which are not hostile to Mann, e.g. Desmogblog. Also, if you go on the British Columbia Court Services online web page, the case number is confirmed as correct. Unfortunately you have to pay $6 to access it, and as I never spend money online, being old-fashioned like that, I haven't been able to confirm the Order content.

However, Mann and his lawyer in their tweets, although they work hard to spin the message, do not say anywhere that I have been able to find, that Mann has not been ordered to pay costs. It is normal for costs to be paid by the winner to the loser, and in this case, unless he appeals successfully, Mann is definitely the loser, because his case has been thrown out because of his delay in pursuing it.

Sorry, that should have read "it is normal for costs to be paid by the loser to the winner...".

Mann's statement on the outcome of the case includes this:

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

Some additional clarity would be nice. This seems to suggest that an order has been made for Mann to pay costs. His response might mean:

1. He will object to the level of legal fees Ball will claim from him; or

2 He anticipates a successful appeal, so that he will not have to pay costs; or

3. He simply refuses to abide by the Order for costs; or

4. The Order does not oblige him to pay Ball's legal fees.

Some clarity would have been nice. Instead what we have is a very carefully worded and elliptical statement trying to make the best of a bad job, IMO.

There's costs and then there's costs. The case papers say 'costs will follow the event'. I have no idea what that means. In his short mail to Anthony Watts, Ball qualified the claim …

they awarded me [court] costs. 

Again, I have only a hazy idea of what 'court costs' means in Canadian law, though I guess as It was the Supreme Court, costs could be substantial, though probably dwarfed by legal fees. Mann has stated he will not be paying Ball's lawyers fees. If the decision to dismiss was based on Ball's inability to proceed due to ill health, then it seems contrary to natural justice for his opponent to pay. In any event, as the dismissal was due to 'delay', awarding of costs is not an indicator of the legal merits or otherwise of the case. You can hardly declare victory for your team if the match was cancelled.

Anyhow, I am doing what I said I wouldn't, speculating without facts. It is now 5 days since Watts spun the story up, promising 'more details', so far all the new information has come from Mann or his legal team. Let's see.

For what it's worth, I think the suit was a dumb move by Dr Mann. A time and money consuming sideshow, a needless risk. If, as most sensible people do, he had just ignored Ball the issue would have been long forgotten by now. Legal trials are unpredictable; If the case goes to court and he wins, he can be portrayed as persecuting an elderly infirm opponent, if he loses it will doubtless be trumpeted as 'climate change found to be fraudulent in court' by the usual suspects. An absurd claim, not even one made by Ball himself.

Popcorn!

The provision in the Court's Order relating to costs does NOT mean that I will pay Ball's legal fees

Elliptical? Unclear? Really?

Hey Phil - try preceding that with IANAL and maybe contributing $6 to have the actual court doc to hand.

Fred - the contents of the 'court doc' have been posted in full on this very thread.

Got any more money-saving tips? ;-)

Some additional clarity would be nice. This seems to suggest that an order has been made for Mann to pay costs. His response might mean:

1. He will object to the level of legal fees Ball will claim from him; or

2 He anticipates a successful appeal, so that he will not have to pay costs; or

3. He simply refuses to abide by the Order for costs; or

4. The Order does not oblige him to pay Ball's legal fees.

On past performance, I am going to go for 4. Care for a side-bet? ;-)

Anyone quoting Mann or the Hockey Stick cannot be relied on, or trusted, in Court, Law or Science.

That stuffs the IPCC, Stern Report, Climate Change Act etc. Great news for St Greta and US Democrats.

Phil

I explained what "costs follow the event" means. These are normal words in a Court Order, and every litigation lawyer knows what they mean. The "event" is the outcome of the case, namely that Ball won and Mann lost (whatever the reasons for that). Costs follow that outcome.

There seems to be much confusion over what is really quite simple. "Costs" are the legal costs of the parties (Court costs are usually covered by Court fees - increasingly, even prohibitively - high in the UK these days, so the Court costs should have been paid as the parties go along). The costs referred to in the Order are the costs of the parties. The wording of the Order means that Mann has been ordered to pay Ball's costs.

That is why I said that Mann's tweets on the subjects aren't clear, as they seem to contradict the wording of the Order. He isn't saying that the Order doesn't order him to pay, but says that he won't pay. Hence my list of possible interpretations.

Unlike many here, I have respect for your views and sources of info, Phil, but on this particular one I suggest you accept you're out of your depth, and (to mix my metaphor) stop digging that hole you're in.

I do, however, agree with your long, last para at 10.32 am!

Mark, so Dr Mann will be covering all of the costs incurred by Dr Ball in defending the case, filing fees, court fees disbursements and lawyers fees?

Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Sounds like quite a chunk of change.

Phil, assuming the Canadian system is like the English one (given that it arose from the same common law base, I suspect it is, though there will be inevitable differences, of which I confess to being ignorant), then Mann will not have to pay ALL of Ball's costs. It is normal for the party that is paying the other side's costs to seek to analyse those costs, and to question the reasonableness of their having been incurred or the level of the lawyers' fees charged etc.

When that process starts, the Court often agrees that some of the costs may have been occurred unreasonably, or to be disproportionately high, so will order the loser only to pay those of the winner's costs that the Court is happy have been necessarily, proportionately and reasonably incurred. That inevitably usually means a slug of costs are disallowed for the purpose of reclaiming them from the losing side.

Generally, I would in an English case expect the loser to end up paying maybe 65-75% of the winner's costs. The exception would be if indemnity costs have been awarded (usually as a reflection of the Court's disapproval of the way the losing party has behaved) but I have seen nothing to suggest that this is the case here.

Mann may be correct that HE won't pay any costs, some gullible idiots will be found. In the meantime, Josh offers this contribution:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/28/hump-day-hilarity-playing-the-mann-not-the-ball/

Tim Ball interview

https://omny.fm/shows/danielle-smith/dr-tim-ball-wins-lawsuit-case-against-michael-mann

Um thanks for that Clipe. Good to see Dr Ball is feeeling better.

I managed about half of it. Presumably Danielle Smith brought in a scientist later to counteract all the lies? You know, for balance?

Or maybe not...

Occupation Lobbyist and advocate
Profession Journalist, broadcaster

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danielle_Smith

Aug 29, 2019 at 7:50 AM | Phil Clarke

But you are a liar, lobbyist and advocate, simply copy pasting legally and scientifically unsustainable misinformation.

You keep proving that 97% of Climate Scientists do not deserve Taxpayer Funding, and that Trump is correct.