Sunday, May 1, 2011

An opportunity for you to protect science and freedom

email received from Malcolm Roberts of Brisbane, Australia:


Do you want to help expose and end the global warming scam?

If so, please see letter below from Englishman John O'Sullivan.

Professor Tim Ball is an internationally eminent Canadian climatologist and environmentalist courageously protecting science. He has written many articles protecting science and scientific integrity.

He has highlighted the need to make decisions based on real-world science as opposed to unvalidated computer models that even the UN IPCC has admitted are based on 16 factors, 13 of which have low or very low levels of understanding. That's one of many reasons why the models have repeatedly failed. Yet the models remain the basis for unfounded UN and government climate alarm.

This seems a marvelous opportunity to expose the global warming scam. I hope you'll decide to accompany me in supporting Professor Ball protecting freedom and science.


Begin forwarded message:
The Tim Ball Legal Fund: Two Crucial Global Warming Lawsuits
The following is based on the legal opinions of John O’Sullivan and Michael Scherr.
In what many regard as the definitive test of global warming science prominent climatologists on either side of the debate are set to fight each other in a Canadian courtroom.
Appearing at the British Columbia Supreme Court in Vancouver is American climatologist, Dr. Michael Mann suing defendant, Canadian climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball, for accusing him of scientific fraud. One of Canada’s most prominent libel lawyers, Roger D. McConchie, will be prosecuting not one, but two such libel cases against 72-year-old Ball, a retired professor. In a separate defamation suit Andrew Weaver, a Canadian climate modeler, is also suing Dr. Ball.

Courtroom Showdown Can Kill Climate Alarm & Carbon Tax Policies 

The implications for international policymakers from these two lawsuits may be huge. Dr. Mann has long been a key figure in the climate alarmist camp. Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ graph became the icon of the science that galvanized world political leaders to accept that modern global temperatures were unusually high and dangerously rising.
Dr. Ball is without doubt among the top tier of skeptic scientists denouncing unproven claims man-made global warming. No one has spoken more bravely or eruditely. Ball has repeatedly been critical of Mann’s infamous graph created using secret data. Ball has also criticized Weaver’s computer models.
Ball’s legal team believes it has a superb opportunity to expose critical flaws that may prove fatal to the claims. Success for Ball will reinforce skeptic arguments that human emissions of carbon dioxide are not causing an unprecedented rise in global temperatures; thus UN doomsaying claims will be very publicly discredited. If Mann and Weaver defeat Ball it will chill dissent among all principled scientists opposed to the promulgation of ill-conceived climate taxes.
In Tim’s favor are independent analysts who have identified sinister statistical anomalies in Mann’s iconic graph. Despite shrill words that Mann’s evidence supports claims that our planet faces “catastrophic” global warming Mann's excuse for not releasing any of his key calculations for public scrutiny is that he must protect his “intellectual property rights.” So much for trying to “save the planet!”

Canadian Libel Law: A Devastating Skeptic Weapon

All told, Mann has gone a decade denying other scientists, a U.S. Congressional Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations examination of his hidden data. Michael Mann and his friends at the University of Virginia recently spent in excess of $500,000 in legal fees defying similar requests from Virginia’s Attorney General.
But Mann’s folly was to engage Tim under Canadian litigation rules. Canadian rules of libel permit Ball’s legal team to for apply a court mandate ordering the release of all such withheld data because it is Mann who is the instigator of these proceedings. A good outcome in Canada for Tim will likely help open the door to expose Mann and his UN accomplices to further review in the United States.

Legal Attrition Tactics Must Not Win Case by Default

Just as in the U.S., Canadian legal costs are huge. Supporters have rallied to Tim’s cause and opened a fund for donations with a target set for $200,000. This was the estimate for a minimum sum to adequately defend both the Weaver and Mann cases. No doubt when McConchie filed his double-barreled legal claims few could have anticipated that a retired scientist like Ball, with limited means, would succeed in raising so much public interest and support.
Grass roots donors have, within weeks, taken Tim’s fund past $100,000.
But what Dr. Ball really needs now is one or two ‘big donors.’ We are not referring to ‘big oil’ money but to civil liberties supporters who have done well in life and want to give something back to protect and promote free speech in scientific debate. Our new goal is to raise $400,000 to send a signal that scientific free speech will not capitulate to attrition. This is no small sum but is increasingly achievable in light of the astonishing groundswell of international support since the launch of the campaign. Moreover, the sum gives cover for Tim in the event the court awards aggravated damages against him.
If we prevail at trial, under in the British Columbia Civil Rules we may recover approximately half of all legal fees so we can make substantial reimbursements to donors of amounts over $10,000, upon request. Tim’s attorney, Michael Scherr, is willing to confirm this arrangement by written agreement and unexpended funds will be promptly and more easily returned.
The Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), a registered charity, is also supporting Tim. Any donors who believe they may be eligible to make tax-exempt donations via this registered charity should contact their tax advisers and FCCP for further advice. 
If you are as angered as we are by wealthy environmentalists groups’ bullyboy tactics to misuse the courts to quell crucial scientific debate, then please contribute and play your part in making a difference. Tim’s blog has more information here.
 John O’Sullivan Esq.

No comments:

Post a Comment