Hour 3 - Tim Ball (Author, Climatologist, Environmentalist) on climate change issues; lawsuit judgement
2018-03-13 Hour 3 Dr Tim Ball from Ernest Hancock on Vimeo.
Timothy Ball PhD
Climatologist - Environmentalist
Prof. Ball is a retired professor at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. He earned a Doctorate of Science at Queen Mary College, University of London, was Chairman of the Canadian Committee on Climatic Fluctuation, Chairman of Winnipeg's Advisory Committee on Hazardous Waste, has authored 53 scientific papers, and is the author of The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science. Professor Ball says that human-caused global warming is the biggest deception in history.
Lives in Victoria BC Canada
My latest book, 'Human Caused Global Warming. The Biggest Deception in History' is an abbreviated, illustrated, version for those overwhelmed by the science. Its production was triggered by the exploitation of the fact that 80 percent of the population are arts oriented.
Tim's previous interviews on the Declare Your Independence with Ernest Hancock Radio Show:
I received three defamation lawsuits from the same lawyer all on behalf of members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I just received a judgment in one of these cases brought against me by the IPCC member who also is leader of the Green Party in the Province of British Columbia. He was a central player on a committee that brought in a carbon tax, the first in North America. The judge totally dismissed his claim. These lawsuits fall into the category of SLAPP lawsuits, that is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. In other words they are lawsuits designed to silence people, so my victory is a huge win for free speech in Canada. Americans know, but don't, in my opinion, fully appreciate the value of your first amendment. We do not have such protection in Canada, yet many Americans see Canada as a kind, caring, open society. Such is not the case. We have a Prime Minister that nobody gets to vote for and only has the job because he was elected leader of his political party. That party received only 38% of the popular vote so he is in the job because of a small group of power elites. No wonder you guys had a Revolution.
Bjorn Lomborg points out that if every country met all its CO2 reduction goals as required by the Paris Climate Accord by 2030 the total temperature reduction will be 0.048 degrees Celsius by 2100. Of course, the economic cost would be in the trillions.
First Climate Lawsuit Judgment
by DR. TIM BALL on MARCH 9, 2018
I am extremely grateful for the judgment of a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against me by Andrew Weaver. It is a victory for free speech and a blow against the use of the law to silence people. As with all events, there is so much more that rarely receives attention yet is essential to understanding and improving conditions in the future.
While I savor the victory, people need to know that it was the second of three lawsuits all from the same lawyer, Roger McConchie, in Vancouver on behalf of members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In each case, he also filed lawsuits against the agency that published what I wrote or said. This is why Anthony Watts wisely asked me and I was willing to put the phrase "Guest Opinion" at the top of any column I wrote. Of course, the double-barreled lawsuits created complications in mounting any defense.
The first lawsuit was brought by Gordon McBean. In 1985, when he was Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada he chaired the founding meeting of the IPCC in Villach Austria. My wife and I decided we could not afford to defend the case and so I withdrew the publication. This, in my opinion, achieved the objective of the lawsuit that many call SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation). All the lawsuits were filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. BC had anti-SLAPP but for some unknown reason, it was withdrawn through legislation. The anti-SLAPP legislation is spreading as politicians and lawyers realize the dangers in using the law designed to protect people by silencing them. Eight of the other ten Canadian Provinces have anti-SLAPP legislation.
The second lawsuit was filed on behalf of Andrew Weaver. At the time he was a professor of computer modelling at the University of Victoria and author on four of the IPCC Science Reports (1995, 2001, 2007, 2013). After filing the lawsuit, he was elected to the BC Legislative Assembly as a member of the Green Party. He later was re-elected as the leader of the BC Green Party.
Nine days after receiving the Weaver lawsuit I gave a public presentation in Winnipeg, including an explanation of the "hockey stick." Afterward, I was interviewed by the Frontier Centre, and they published my flippant comment about the juxtaposition of Mann's location. Within 24 hours I received the third lawsuit. That case was scheduled for trial on February 20, 2017, but after six years Mann sought an adjournment. We are now trying to get the case back into court. It was incorrectly reported that Mann was in contempt of court for failing to produce documents. He did not produce the documents, but he is only in contempt of the court when they so rule. That is part of what we will pursue now the Weaver trial is finished. How quickly that will proceed is hard to know because I understand Weaver is going to file an appeal.
The Weaver defamation case involved an article I wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. I referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. I made comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit. Meanwhile, Weaver's lawyer arranged with the publisher of Canada Free Press (CFP) to print an apology he had written. I never knew about that until after it was printed. As a result, I withdrew all my articles on file with CFP and did not send them anything else.
I contacted a lawyer, Michael Scherr of Pearlman Lindholm to defend myself against the case. He wrote a letter withdrawing and apologizing for the unsubstantiated comment but not the main thrust of the article. Apparently, that was insufficient for Weaver because he continued the lawsuit. He did not call a single witness to the trial. It lasted three weeks, and the judge allowed witness statements into the record without objection from Weaver. On Tuesday, February 13 the judgement was released with the ruling that all claims against me were dismissed. The judgment is available on line, so I will not influence anyone's view by commenting here.
I am meeting with my lawyer next week to reactivate the Michael Mann trial as soon as possible. We will discuss costs but cannot do anything until the Appeals procedure is over. I can tell you I am overwhelmed by the financial and support from around the world. The sort of comment that is particularly encouraging is a variation of Voltaire's comment that I don't necessarily agree with you, but you must have the right to say it. Of course, Voltaire understood the station because he also said what I discovered
"It is dangerous to be right in matters where men in authority are wrong."
No related articles.