Media Ignores Climate Alarmist痴 Court Loss It Doesn稚 Fit The Warmist Agenda Issues & Insights
Another claim from the Climate change community that was wrong...
Once they can produce repeatable data that proves correct , I will give them an honest listen.
The sensationalist title of the article suggests that some factual information about climate change was proven wrong and the mainstream media ignored it, but that wasn't what the case was about. It was an eight year old libel case which the judge terminated (for delay) based on a request from the 80 year old defendant. As someone commented at the bottom of the webpage, "It's hardly news when a libel case fails."
It won't be news to Snobdds, but the defendant in the case was Dr. Tim Ball, founding member and former chairman of Principia Scientific International. Look back at post #28 for what "deezler" had to say about that organization.
Chris
Dr. Ball was also sued for defamation by another climate scientist over an article that he wrote. The BC Supreme Court ruled in Dr. Ball's favor last year. I've posted a couple of links to "climate change denier" websites down below. Here's a quote from one of them that sums up the message that they would like their readers to get as a result of the judgement:
"Climate skeptics are hailing the verdict as a key victory over extremists promoting human-caused global warming. Not a peep from the mainstream media!"
But here's part of why the court ruled that the plaintiff, Dr. Weaver, was not defamed (excerpted from the links below). The red highlighting is by me.
"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."
So the climate change denier websites claim the dismissal of the defamation lawsuit as a victory upholding their view of climate change science. But the reality is that the court essentially says that the article written by Dr. Ball can't be defamatory because people wouldn't take it seriously.
It's so important to critically evaluate the credibility of where we get our information.
Chris
Supporters of Dr. Ball:
Breaking: Climatologist Dr Tim Ball Wins Epic Libel Court Battle | PSI Intl
Tim Ball's Victory in the First Climate Lawsuit Judgment The Backstory | Watts Up With That?
The facts from the BC Supreme Court (summary and full judgement):
Weaver v Ball 218 BCSC 25 - Ad IDEM / CMLA
http://www.adidem.org/images/4/4c/Weaver_v._Ball_2018_BCSC_205.pdf
