On Sept. 1, Dr. Timothy F. Ball, a former Geography Professor at the University of Winnipeg and the current Chair of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, launched a libel suit against Dr. Dan Johnson, a current Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Lethbridge and a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Sustainable Grassland Ecosystems.
Attached are Dr. Ball’s original Statement of Claim and Dr. Johnson’s Statement of Defence, filed on October 13, 2006.
In a September 26, 2006 letter to the Royal Society, Dr. Tim Ball, the leading signatory, identifies himself as “Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.”
Not quite. From 1988 until his retirement in 1996, Dr. Ball was a Professor of Geography at that university. He has not, since, had any official position at U of W or at any university. So, he is not now a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg and, arguably, never was.
Re: “A climatologist, not just a skeptic,” Sept. 21.
Tim Ball takes issue with an earlier description of him as a climate change “skeptic,” claiming instead that he is a “climatologist” fully conversant with “the absolute latest in modern science.”
Yet the record shows that since his retirement as a University of Winnipeg geography professor in 1996, Ball has aligned himself with oil-industry front groups (Friends of Science, Envirotruth) and traded on a very light resume to sustain his busy calendar as a speaker and lobbyist against the Kyoto accord.
There seems to be a chilly pattern developing, with climate change deniers suing, or threatening to sue, when someone questions their credentials (as in the case ofDr. Tim Ball) or their motivations (as in the case of Dr. S. Fred Singer). For the record - and in specific response to the most recent demand for “redress” from Dr. Singer's lawyer (attached) - the DeSmogBlog is willing to stand accountable for anything that we have published. That includes apologizing quickly and sincerely when it can be demonstrated that we have made a mistake. Or not, when it cannot.
After his recent media pummeling, it seems that climate change skeptic Tim Ball isn't sticking his neck out too far into the public realm. The only upcoming presentations by Ball that we can find is one to the Victoria Chapter of the Conservative Party of Canada and one at the upcoming BC Oil and Gas Conference being held the first week of October in Dawson Creek.
I am sure Ball's slap-stick humour and fringe science will go over well with the two remaining demographics that, for the most part, refuse to pull their heads out of the sand.
Per this Globe and Mail story,Tim Ball has filed suit against the Calgary Herald and University of Lethbridge Professor Dan Johnson. As a sign of respect for the court process and the individuals involved, the DeSmogBlog plans no comment on this story until a Statement of Defence is filed.
While climate change skeptics continue to bury their collective heads in the sand (oil sand that is), researchers at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Centre are reporting what they describe as “… the strongest evidence of global warming in the Arctic so far.”
The reduction of glaciers in the summer months has been well established in the scientific literature, but this new study finds that a similar reduction is also occuring in the winter.
“One of the things that angers me are these groups like Friends of Science.Now think of the arrogance of the title of that. Basically, what they are saying is that if you're not in our group, you're not a friend of science, or Friend of the Earth I should say. Sorry, the Friends of the Earth.” - Dr. Tim Ball, Senior Scientific Advisor for the Friends of Science
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.