Court tosses suit over alleged climate science libel
A defamation lawsuit filed by B.C. Green party Leader Andrew Weaver against a former geography professor from Winnipeg has been dismissed.
Before he was elected as an MLA in 2013, Weaver sued Timothy Ball, a retired professor from the University of Winnipeg, after Ball wrote an article on Jan. 10, 2011, entitled Corruption of Climate Science Has Created 30 Lost Years that appeared on a website known as Canada Free Press.
The thrust of the article written by Ball, a climate change skeptic, was that modern climate science had been corrupted by money and politics and that there was not enough evidence to support claims that humans are contributing to climate change and global warming.
Weaver, a University of Victoria professor and a leading voice on the need to take action on climate change, alleged that the article referred to him in ways that were libellous.
The alleged libel included that Weaver was not competent or qualified to teach climate science and that he cheated Canadian taxpayers by accepting public funding for climate science research although he had little or no knowledge about climate science. Weaver also believed that the piece suggested he bribed university students with research funds so they would participate in useless computer modelling studies which had little scientific value and that he had dishonestly claimed on his website to be a “climatologist” but removed the claim when challenged by Ball.
After the article was published, Weaver demanded a retraction and apology from Canada Free Press and Ball. The website deleted the article and published a retraction and an apology. Ball also apologized.
At trial, Weaver argued that the allegations contained in the article struck at the heart of his role as a teacher and scientist and claimed that Ball had failed to establish any defences to the alleged defamation.
Ball denied that the article was defamatory in the sense that a reasonable and right-thinking reader would not interpret the words as an attack on Weaver’s reputation. He also claimed the defences of fair comment, qualified privilege and responsible communication.
In a ruling released Wednesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ron Skolrood said that despite Ball’s history as an academic and as a scientist, the article was “rife with errors and inaccuracies” and provided little in the way of credible support for his thesis.
But the judge also agreed with Ball that many of the meanings advanced by Weaver were extreme and not borne out when the words are considered from the perspective of a reasonable, right-thinking person.
“Specifically, I do not accept that the article, read in its entirety and properly construed, alleges dishonesty on Dr. Weaver’s part or attacks his character in the sense of imputing moral fault or blameworthiness.”
The judge noted that the laws of defamation provide an important tool for protecting a person’s reputation from unjustified attack.
But the judge added that the laws were not intended to stifle debate on matters of public interest or compensate for every perceived slight or quash a contrary view, no matter how ill-conceived.
Only when the words used genuinely threaten a person’s actual reputation can defamation be proved, he said, and that was not evident in the Weaver case.
“In summary, the article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science,” said the judge.
“While the article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers. Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test.”
The judge said that given his finding, it was not necessary to address the defences raised by Ball.
Roger McConchie, Weaver’s lawyer, said that Weaver planned to appeal the ruling. He said that Ball’s statement of defence actually admitted the article was defamatory and his client accepted that admission.
Neither Ball nor his lawyer could be reached.