DeSmogBlog has Dan Johnson's statement of Defence against Tim Ball's lawsuit.
Johnson has uncovered more examples of Ball embellishing his academic record. For example, Ball claimed he was an Emeritus Professor when he wasn't. Part of his defence is that Ball had no reputation to be damaged:
Prior to the publication of the words complained of: a) The plaintiff had become notorious, to those that knew of him, as a climate change denier who held unorthodox and scientifically unsupportable statements about climate and the weather.
Ouch.
Before per can make his numerous comments about how flawed Johnson's logic is, I would like to say that I can agree that there are some errors in it.
Take for example the following part of paragraph 19 the defendant denies that the plantiff has a reputation as alleged or at all.
I don't think the facts support that at all. I would contend that Dr. Ball does indeed have a reputation and it only continues to grow. The fact that the reputation is not the one he appears to want is immaterial to the issue.
By the way per, my offer to bet is still open. After you read how weak Dr. Johnson's case I have no doubt you will be willing to take me up on it.
Talking of per, he(?) turned up at Wikipedia not long ago, and managed to really annoy one of the editors on Steven Milloy, challenging everything in sight. The result was to stimulate more research (in which I helped a bit) turning up even more discreditable information on Milloy, including some Ball-style resume-padding. Of course, the research might have turned up favourable information, if there were any, but that's the risk you take.
So Ball thinks he can take on Canwest Global and expect to be given a voice in Canada? Methinks he's running out of feet to shoot.
Looking at Ball's statement of claim and then Johnson's defense is instructive.
Tim Ball is a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a charlatan, a bully. And like most bullies, he is a coward.
I look forward to more postings on the matter.
Come, let's be fair to Dr. Ball. All he wants is the right to say whatever serves his purposes about himnself and others without quibbling about the facts, and to prevent others from pointing out his lack of knowledge or his misrepresentations about himself or others. Is that so much to ask?
So, as linked by Eli, (http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/11/dan-johnson-wins.html) Dr. Ball is no longer the first Canadian climatology Ph.D. (always an ambiguous term), no longer professor for 24-32 years, no longer author of 30 or 40 or hundred of publications, but he still has turned his thesis, 5 derived papers (including a chapter that gets missed by some search engines) and a book review into wide-ranging expertise in all aspects of climatology. Well, he knows what he knows, and what he doesn't know he clearly states is worthless (such as all historical climatology not involving Hudson Bay). I'd love to see him go through the process to get qualified as an expert in court, including the review of qualifications and areas of expertise. Unfortunately, as he seems to be restating his qualifications, it appears that this may all be settled before court (good for Dr. Johnson, but I'll miss the lack of public shaming).
I just came to this site under the mistaken impression that it was a blog featuring scientific discourse. All I see are libelous personal attacks on Tim Ball, the undisputed dean of Canadian climatologists.
Now I have to do a bit of surfing to find out who "Dr. Johnson" is and what the lawsuit is all about.
No, that's not regular commenter Lee being sarcastic. Whether this new Lee is being serious or not, I can't tell.
Thanks, Tim. No, the Lee up there seemingly extolling the virtues of Tim Ball, is NOT me.
Come on and give him/her the benefit of the doubt you hard markers, it reads pretty nicely to me. Of course I've been notoriously wrong before ...