Supreme Court of BC dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit vs. Canadian climate skeptic Dr Tim Ball.

[DanilKa + 443]

Dr Tim Ball got legal costs awarded to him for previously dropped defamation lawsuit by Dr Michael Mann (of the hockey stick and ClimateGate fame) of Penn State:

"Supreme Court of British Columbia dismisses Dr Michael Mann’s defamation lawsuit versus Canadian skeptic climatologist, Dr Tim Ball. Full legal costs are awarded to Dr Ball, the defendant in the case.

The Canadian court issued it’s final ruling in favor of the Dismissal motion that was filed in May 2019 by Dr Tim Ball’s libel lawyers.

The plaintiff Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, first published in 1998, was featured prominently in the U.N. 2001 climate report. The graph showed an “unprecedented” spike in global average temperature in the 20th Century after about 500 years of stability.

Skeptics have long claimed Mann’s graph was fraudulent.

On Friday morning (August 23, 2019) Dr Ball sent an email to WUWT revealing:

“Michael Mann’s Case Against Me Was Dismissed This Morning By The BC Supreme Court And They Awarded Me [Court] Costs.”

(end citation)

https://principia-scientific.org/breaking-news-dr-tim-ball-defeats-michael-manns-climate-lawsuit/

Dr. Mann response:

Wondering if Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) could be used to force public-funded Penn State University to surrender the R2 regression (guess foyer filed and Mann had to comply, data  will be "lost").

Recent years warming seems real (if you believe anything coming out of NASA) from continues lower troposphere measurements http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/ but widely circulated selection of 1880 as a starting point coincide with local minimum.

Edited August 27, 2019 by DanilKa

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

8 hours ago, DanilKa said:

Wondering if Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) could be used to force public-funded Penn State University to surrender the R2 regression (guess foyer filed and Mann had to comply, data  will be "lost").

The Courts of British Columbia have zero authority within the United States, and cannot order a deposition, or taking of testimony, or a FOIA upon some American college.  Whether some Canadian has the ability to even file a FOIA in the USA is dubious.  Mann, as a party, would be obliged to comply with any and every Court Order, or be subject to Non-suit by the Court.  that seems to have happened here. 

[DanilKa + 443]

13 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

The Courts of British Columbia have zero authority within the United States, and cannot order a deposition, or taking of testimony, or a FOIA upon some American college.  Whether some Canadian has the ability to even file a FOIA in the USA is dubious.  Mann, as a party, would be obliged to comply with any and every Court Order, or be subject to Non-suit by the Court.  that seems to have happened here.

@Jan van Eck, I mean for FOIA request to the public university from a concerned US citizen who have rights to know whether their funds were used to alter reality and mislead policymakers into multi-trillion dollar boondoggle.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

2 minutes ago, DanilKa said:

@Jan van Eck, I mean for FOIA request to the public university from a concerned US citizen who have rights to know whether their funds were used to alter reality and mislead policymakers into multi-trillion dollar boondoggle.

I have no idea.  That is a technical question of law. my guess is that "if" you were a citizen of that State and you could demonstrate tax payments, and it was common knowledge that State tax receipts funded that school, then you would likely have Standing.  Please understand that the whole concept of Standing is artificial, and as an artificial construct, it gets argued over by lawyers all day long. The School might respond that you are on a "fishing expedition" and if the school had to respond to every such request  (instead of, for example, requests from the Board of Regents) then it would end up swamped and unable to process its own internal work. Or the School might simply hand over the information.  I dunno know something like this would be handled.  Enjoy!

[CameronMcGrath + 4]

On 8/28/2019 at 4:49 AM, Jan van Eck said:

I have no idea.  That is a technical question of law. my guess is that "if" you were a citizen of that State and you could demonstrate tax payments, and it was common knowledge that State tax receipts funded that school, then you would likely have Standing.  Please understand that the whole concept of Standing is artificial, and as an artificial construct, it gets argued over by lawyers all day long. The School might respond that you are on a "fishing expedition" and if the school had to respond to every such request  (instead of, for example, requests from the Board of Regents) then it would end up swamped and unable to process its own internal work. Or the School might simply hand over the information.  I dunno know something like this would be handled.  Enjoy!

Slander on the Internet has become the most widespread not only among popular people, but also among the general population. Many teenagers are engaged in defamation of each other on social networks and do not even understand that their actions are dangerous and can be punishable ... Thus, we come to the conclusion that it is very important to inform other people about such a phenomenon as online libel and what it is punishable. In my opinion, you need to understand that one way or another this can lead to some kind of consequences. I find it best to consult https://www.minclaw.com/our-services/internet-defamation/ to know what to do in such situations. There you can find detailed instructions on this and help on how to proceed if you have already encountered this and become a victim of slander.

Edited January 16, 2021 by CameronMcGrath