Like I've said, the science is done to fit the narrative. If, by chance, it doesn't fit, it isn't published. You, Phil, nor anyone else knows what the anthropogenic component of warming is, but many agree whatever it has been has been net beneficial.

Hee haw, 1850 indeed. As if CO2 contributed that and then. You see, it's mostly hogwash, and down you swallow.
===============

2000 years? Less than 20% of the Holocene?

And two days ago on Friday when the Piltdown Mann was ordered to pay Dr. Ball's legal costs.
After eight years of delay and finally refusing to release the data that would show how he worked the fraud.

Something to be remembered for, for sure.

Oh, hi Phil. The brittler the icon, the faster the shatter.
=========================================

Not the case, the ever-charming Kim.You need to widen your reading.

Tim Ball has applied for the case to be dismissed, not on its merits, or due to witholding of data or evidence, but due to delay. A technicality. In support he mentions his health (80 years of age, diabetic, a heart attack) and also the fact that basically he, Tim Ball, cannot have damaged Dr Mann's reputation because, 8 years on, nobody knows who he, Tim Ball, is.

Similar to the dismissal of Andrew Weaver's case due to the Judge thinking that nobody sensible would place any stock in Ball's opinion.

Mann can appeal, but even if he chooses not to, his financial liabilty is limited to court costs, not Ball's legal fees.

Other than those nitpicking details - spot on!

https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1165689301021204480
https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/2470358663020321

For giggles, let us revisit the verdict in Andrew Weaver's case for defamation against Tim Ball. Dr Ball, (and of course propagandist Anthony Watts), claimed victory when the case was dismissed, glossing over the inconvenient truth that the Judge ruled that to commit defamation the defamer has to have some credibility, and Ball had none..

… 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. ...”

“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

That has to be the worst legal 'win' ever. Indeed, one is bemused by Ball's repeatedly reaching for a legal remedy, given his experience. Back in 2006, he launched a 6-figure libel action against the Calgary Herald, after they published a letter from an academic challenging Ball's claimed credentials. Ball then quickly withdrew the action in the face of a robust response from the Professor and the newspaper, apparently reluctant to challenge their counter-claim that...[...]
 

The Defendants (the Calgary Herald) state that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming. The particulars of the Plaintiff's reputation are as follows:...

(d) The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist.

Of course, not being any kind of authority has never been a bar to a career with Heartland and a regular contributor to WattsUpwithThat.

LOLZ.

Since we are not providing links.

[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.

…

[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.

"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"

1. "...that the Plaintiff (Ball) never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming.

2. "The Plaintiff has never published any research in any peer-reviewed scientific journal which addressed the topic of human contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and global warming

3. "The Plaintiff has published no papers on climatology in academically recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals since his retirement as a Professor in 1996;

4. "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media; and

5. "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."

Calgary Herald Statement of Defence

Aug 26, 2019 at 9:06 AM | Phil Clarke

What is Mann's credibility in Law and Science? Publishing his failed Legal and Scientific arguments did not work.

Desperate stuff.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.
Aug 27, 2019 at 10:27 AM | Phil Clarke

As you have likened Mann to Humpty Dumpty, are you at risk of being sued, by Humpty Dumpty?

Mann needs to STFU, making out he did not lose when there is a judgement against him will not enamour him to the judges who decided the judgement. He can appeal of course but that needs to be on points of law not saying white is black. Reminds me of the Wings over Bath guy Stuart Cambell who lost to Kezia Dugdale who still believes he won even though he has a ruling agianst him and has to pay Kezia's costs.

Mann needs to STFU, making out he did not lose when there is a judgement against him

And what does this judgement say, exactly?

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

Quite.

Ball made an application for dismissal on the grounds of delay, in the application he cites his age, his poor health and the claim that no damage has actually been done to Dr Mann's reputation, basically because few people have heard of Tim Ball with respect to Dr Mann, and those that do, do not find him credible.

The Judge has granted the application which means that unless Dr Mann decides to appeal, there will be no legal scrutiny of the merits of the case. According to Dr. Mann, costs are awarded automatically in this circumstance.

So there has so far been no 'judgement against' Mann, no scrutiny or testing of his case, or examination of his work or integrity. Just a dismissal on a technicality, probably because the defendent claims to be too infirm to continue..

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.

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.

https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/a-response-from-my-attorney-roger-mcconchie-wrt-the-latest-spurious-claims-by-jo/1466774033378794/

Blah Blah Blah.

I am floored by that devastating, well-argued riposte :-)

As well you might be, blahman

Phil, I posted on another discussion thread before seeing that much more had been written on this about the Mann - v- Ball litigation.

We still aren't getting the whole story from either side, it seems to me. The instinctive support of many (including, to an extent, me) here of the interpretation that suggests Mann must be in breach of something, and your instinctive support of Mann, are I suppose understandable, but nobody yet, it seems to me, has enough information to make an informed decision. Why, on the other hand, has neither Mann nor his lawyer issued a full copy of the Court judgment, so that we can see what the truth is, either way?

I also notice an apparent inconsistency between what Mann said and what his lawyer said (on Facebook/twitter, or something - why not in a press release or something more comprehensive?). Mann said "In making his application based on delay, Ball effectively told the world he did not want a verdict on the real issues in the lawsuit."

Mann's lawyer said:

"Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.

If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.

O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real."

So what ARE the issues in the case? And if Mann hasn't failed to comply with any Orders, what on earth is the reason for his delay in bringing the case to trial? 8 years is an extraordinarily long time for this case to be ongoing, with no sign of a trial date. Why the delay? It couldn't be, as Steyn asserts, that the process is the punishment, could it?

Why is Mann pursuing, so slowly, such a case against an 80 year old in poor health?

Why, on the other hand, has neither Mann nor his lawyer issued a full copy of the Court judgment, so that we can see what the truth is, either way?

There isn't one. The Judge has made an Order from the bench, reproduced above in full, simply dismissing the case. We may never know his reasoning. Mann clearly has sight of Ball's affadavit in support of his request to dismiss, as he has been tweeting extracts. I guess Dr Ball could post the whole thing if he chose.

I think the only 'winners' here are the lawyers (once again).

Phil, thanks for the prompt response. However, if, as Mann says, he is, with his lawyers, considering an appeal, I'm pretty sure he can ask for reasons for the decision. I also assume he and his lawyers must have opposed the application, unsuccessfully.

Has Mann explained his reasons for delay? Delays usually have to be pretty bad to justify a striking-out.

The facts/speculation ratio in this debate is already very low. Not to mention outright lies. I am going to wait until more facts emerge before posting again.

Phi,. probably a good idea for both of us. Still, it doesn't look great Mann, despite his vigorous tweeting.

The facts/speculation ratio in this debate is already very low. Not to mention outright lies. I am going to wait until more facts emerge before posting again.

Aug 27, 2019 at 8:48 PM | Phil Clarke

That seems a fair assessment of Mann and the Hockey Teamsters. They should have waited for genuine facts and evidence too.