|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 8, 2011 17:46:54 GMT 1
Dr Tim Ball, Canadian climate sceptic is being sued for libel by the obnoxious Michael Mann and another backed by the wealthy Suzuki Foundation. Photo Dr Tim Ball This retired prof with only pension income needs contributions for his legal fighting fund. Please help! You can contribute on his blog here, top right hand corner. drtimball.com/An article on the background to the case can be found on WUWT here wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/08/help-asked-for-dr-tim-ball-in-legal-battle-with-dr-mann/#more-37546Help asked for Dr. Tim Ball in legal battle with Dr. MannP.S. Please publicise this matter on any other message boards where you think a sympathetic reception to the appeal for donations can be found. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Apr 9, 2011 7:18:38 GMT 1
Thanks Marchesa, I hadn't heard about that, it's a very ominous downturn. I'll raid my piggybank. I admire Ball's work immensely, but that's not the point. It's not even the point that he's probably right; or, at least, that he conducts the argument according to the canons of science. This is the point:
|
|
|
Post by carnyx on Apr 9, 2011 8:38:24 GMT 1
Now, check out Delors and his equivalent of the 'global warming' movement; the EU project.
|
|
|
Post by eamonnshute on Apr 9, 2011 8:48:44 GMT 1
www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/28/35274.htm"Michael Mann ........ claims that Ball defamed him when he said that Mann "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State," If true then it sounds pretty libellous to me. How would you like to be described as a criminal?
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Apr 9, 2011 10:29:33 GMT 1
You'd be on a hiding to nothing to prove in court that was the intention of the remark. It certainly doesn't have that meaning. Ball will no doubt argue that the "should" referred to the criminal code - it should have been against the law; rather than that Mann had broken the law. That seems to me the more rationally likely interpretation.
As for whether this was malicious, Mann will have to demonstrate that Ball's assertion is false. But Mann is in a highly invested position of responsibility and authority, paid by the public purse to offer scientifically valid data about a matter of great importance and widespread concern. Instead, as emailgate and the hockey stick scandal abundantly demonstrate, he has used that position to suppress valid data in order to present a distorted picture, and used his publicly-funded authority to prevent criticism of himself and his distortions from being published by the scientific press.
Should all of those activities have been against the law? I would say they amount to abuse of his responsibilities, and so misuse of public funds. If that is Ball's estimation too, there's no case to answer.
|
|
|
Post by buckleymanor1 on Apr 9, 2011 11:44:54 GMT 1
www.courthousenews.com/2011/03/28/35274.htm"Michael Mann ........ claims that Ball defamed him when he said that Mann "should be in the State Pen, not Penn State," If true then it sounds pretty libellous to me. How would you like to be described as a criminal? Seems a bit drastic to go to the extent of challenge.The man must take himself too seriously or there's something more.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Apr 9, 2011 16:30:50 GMT 1
It’s worth remembering that Ball himself sued Dan Johnson of the University of Lethbridge *and* the Calgary Herald (a newspaper not noted for its acceptance of basic climate science). He had no case then, and he has none now. The Calgary Herald, following a supplied biography, had described Ball as “the first climatology PhD in Canada” and as “professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years.” Johnson pointed out in a letter to the editor that both statements were false. www.desmogblog.com/tim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-lawsuit-documents www.desmogblog.com/tiim-ball-vs-dan-johnson-update www.desmogblog.com/ball-bails-on-johnson-lawsuit And, unlike Mann, Ball sought damages in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Unfortunately, the facts were against him. But that’s the story of Ball’s career. What comes around goes around.
|
|
|
Post by nickcosmosonde on Apr 9, 2011 17:17:53 GMT 1
That action seems to me entirely justified, as far as I can understand it - as far as anyone can understand the labyrinthine workings of the legal system. I disagree he had "no case."
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 19:22:46 GMT 1
The Mann DOES take himself seriously and there IS more, buckley.
As a wordsmith you should appreciate Ball's clever quip.
These legal cases against a sceptic demonstrate just how political the IPCC clique is. Science proceeds via evidence not by winning libel cases. They just don't get it.
Ask louise how she came by her info. Same place as Helen, of course.
From a muck-raking website devoted to ad hominems against sceptics called DeSmugBlog from the same stable as the Suzuki Foundation.
And where does the Suzuki Foundation get its money - mainly from tax deductible donations (tab picked up by the NON-plutocrats, of course) from a handful of American plutocrat Environmentalists - if you can imagine the cognitive dissonance experienced by such creatures!
You'd be surprised what a dirty game warmists are willing to play. If only they could put the same energy into understanding the climate! Never mind the science feel the emotion!
Suzuki et al are trying to cripple Tim Ball financially. Nice people to associate with, Louise/Helen. I shouldn't be surprised if you two weren't behind the recent spate of complaints to proboard admin about this board. Anything to shut up "denialists".
Actually I'm happy to be called a denialist if it sets me apart from berks like you two and your pet supporter, Eamonn.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 19:59:58 GMT 1
People who can't win the science debate increasingly resort to dirty tricks like complaints of abuse against WUWT links on FaceBook, like complaints to the Press Complaints Commission against Delingpole and this legal case against Ball. Is this what the AGW Rapid Response Team effort boils down to?
They are despicable enemies of open debate. It's an own goal in the end. Reputable scientists do not behave like this but know-nothing footsoldiers like louise and helen who can swallow any propaganda without gagging, do.
I recommend anyone to go and view DeSmugBlog. I guarantee that if you have any integrity you will come away feeling sick.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Apr 9, 2011 20:01:52 GMT 1
I'm not Louise/Helen - just Louise I don't 'associate' with Suzuki et al any more than I associate with Anthony Watts - I read information freely available on the internet from a whole host of sources. I repost some here that I think people will find interesting. To add some context to the libel charge www.desmogblog.com/michael-mann-suing-tim-ball-libel So, not a poor little retired prof being dragged through the courts for an off the cuff quip - a direct implication of illegal activity posted (and supported) on a politically motivated blog.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 20:18:26 GMT 1
Mann (of "Hide the Decline" and "Mike's Nature TRICK" fame) is also being pursued by Virginia prosecutor Ken Cuccinelli for misuse of State funds. No smoke without fire, Helen.
These IPCC political activists and pseudo-scientists have had their snout in the trough for too long and deserve a little adverse publicity instead of the usual Establishment whitewashes.
Bring it on! The oxygen of publicity. Let's hope Mann et al are awarded derisory damages of one penny.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 20:22:22 GMT 1
"an opportunity to apologize for the slight"
A very slight "slight" and a funny one, Helen, when you consider the impunity with which DeSmugBlog has been trying to slur the reputations of highly regarded contrarian scientists for years.
"a politically motivated blog" You mean like Real Climate and DeSmugBlog?
But this stuff is what you really enjoy, isn't it? This is your home turf, your level of "debate", isn't it? This thread was guaranteed to bring you out of the woodwork again. Welcome back.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Apr 9, 2011 20:35:18 GMT 1
But this stuff is what you really enjoy, isn't it? This is your home turf, your level of "debate", isn't it? This thread was guaranteed to bring you out of the woodwork again. Welcome back. I really don't understand why you feel the need to attack me personally (assuming you mean me as Helen hasn't posted for quite some time). I haven't attacked you so you can't say that you're retaliating (unless you believe in pre-emptive retaliation). When there is an issue to debate, I like to seek out more facts than those presented by a single poster here. A quick google search works wonders in this way. Just because I post views that are different to yours does not mean that I am attacking you, just providing food for thought (for those with an appetite). BTW - I work away from home quite a lot and so am not always able to post regularly but I'm glad that you're happy that I'm back.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Apr 9, 2011 21:32:16 GMT 1
"A quick google search".
By the way have you heard that google is now "on-side" with the AGW message.
"Google Takes on Climate Change Skeptics with New Technology Effort. The search giant has brought together a team of 21 climate researchers to improve the way the science of global warming is communicated using new media"
Don't be so trusting, louise. Google is going the way led by wiki with its partisan full time AGW rotweilers.. However there is nothing to fear because all the really smart people are already sceptics. Your side may control the MSM, IPCC, wiki, and now Google etc but no-one believes 'em any more! Tee hee. The truth will make you free.
I attack your mindset because it grossly offends me, louise. Nothing personal at all!
|
|