Feed on

Canada Free Press, a bastion of anti-science crankery, has posted an apology to Dr. Andrew Weaver for comments made by the denialist Tim Ball:

On January 10, 2011, Canada Free Press began publishing on this website an article by Dr. Tim Ball entitled “Corruption of Climate Change Has Created 30 Lost Years” which contained untrue and disparaging statements about Dr. Andrew Weaver, who is a professor in the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences at the University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Contrary to what was stated in Dr. Ball’s article, Dr. Weaver: (1) never announced he will not participate in the next IPCC; (2) never said that the IPCC chairman should resign; (3) never called for the IPCC’s approach to science to be overhauled; and (4) did not begin withdrawing from the IPCC in January 2010.

As a result of a nomination process that began in January, 2010, Dr. Weaver became a Lead Author for Chapter 12: “Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility” of the Working Group I contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC.”  That work began in May, 2010.  Dr. Ball’s article failed to mention these facts although they are publicly-available.

Dr. Tim Ball also wrongly suggested that Dr. Weaver tried to interfere with his presentation at the University of Victoria by having his students deter people from attending and heckling him during the talk.  CFP accepts without reservation there is no basis for such allegations.

CFP also wishes to dissociate itself from any suggestion that Dr. Weaver “knows very little about climate science.”  We entirely accept that he has a well-deserved international reputation as a climate scientist and that Dr. Ball’s attack on his credentials is unjustified.

CFP sincerely apologizes to Dr. Weaver and expresses regret for the embarrassment and distress caused by the unfounded allegations in the article by Dr. Ball.

That’s a welcome piece of news, although I don’t know how or to what extent this apology was prompted by Dr. Weaver’s libel case against the National Post. No news on that as yet.

8 Responses to “Andrew Weaver wins one against Canada Free Press, no news on National Post libel case”

  1. FYI There was no need for CFP’s capitulation. Dr Weaver has gotten lucky here. Ball (and CFP) merely repeated statements already the subject of the April 2010 lawsuit.
    As Dr Weaver had already filed suit on the same set of facts he cannot bring another suit again. In this instant matter Canadian libel law protects Ball and CFP under the doctrine of res judicata which forbids claimants suing more than once on the same issues and evidence.
    It is clear to me CFP acted hastily and without proper legal counsel.
    Some of you armchair lawyers should check your facts before sounding off.

  2. […] Comments « Andrew Weaver wins one against Canada Free Press, no news on National Post libel case […]

  3. Bryson Brown says:

    John, I notice you don’t have anything to say about the merits of the case. I think that’s wise.

  4. […] anche da Andrew Weaver, il prof. che aveva già costretto il Canada Free Press a cancellare gli articoli contro di lui firmati da Ball ed altri.  Preda facile, dopo tocca a un altro […]

  5. Kelly Manning says:

    Andrew Weaver is represented by McConchie Law Corporation.

    Roger D. McConchie (and David A. Potts) literally wrote the book on “Canadian Libel and Slander Actions”


    McConchie law corporation also prepared the statement of defense for Dr, Dan Johnson when 8 year Geography professor Tim Ball sued Dr. Johnson and 4 Calgary Herald editors for $325,000, alleging defamation.

    The responses from McConchie, and from the Calgary Herald’s advocates, were so effective, and so devastating, that former Geography Professor Ball gave up.




  6. Bernhard says:

    I know this is a really old post, but I just encountered it.

    I just couldn’t resist at pointing out how hypocritically laughable John O’Sullivan’s sneer at “armchair lawyers” is. That he then goes on to demand people “check [their] facts before sounding off” really strains one to believe that he is actually serious. Indeed, based on his webpage and book, I think there’s a good case for thinking that O’Sullivan is actually a brilliant satirist and we have all been subject to Poe’s Law.

    There’s also the possibility that some troll is just posing as O’Sullivan and saying preposterous things suspiciously close in nature to the preposterous things that he usually says. If that is the case, well done.

    In the chance that O’Sullivan actually believes the things he says, it might be worth (though probably worth very little) pointing out that O’Sullivan doesn’t understand what res judicata entails. Res judicata is applicable when the defendant is the same. Thus, it simply doesn’t apply here.

    Imagine if O’Sullivan’s reading of the law was correct. Once someone was found guilty of libel, insofar as it was stated in the exact same terms, anybody could go around repeating the same libel with impunity!

  7. Greetings from Carolina! I’m bored at work so I decided to check
    out your blog on my iphone during lunch break. I really
    like the information you present here and can’t wait to take
    a look when I get home. I’m shocked at how quick your blog loaded on my mobile ..
    I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow, amazing blog!

    Have a look at my web blog battle camp cheats

  8. laura maya says:

    Hello, yah t?is paragraph is in fact pleasant ?nd ? hav?
    learned lot ?f thi?gs from ?t aout blogging. th?nks.

    Also visit my blog post; laura maya