'TWAS A FAMOUS VICTORY, 2.0

BEFORE SWALLOWING WATT'S LATEST LEGAL CODSWALLOP, OBSERVE HOW HE'S PLAYING THE MANN, AND NOT THE BALL:
Breaking: Dr. Tim Ball wins @MichaelEMann lawsuit – Mann has to pay

Anthony Watts / 2 days ago 

Readers surely recall that the easily offended Dr. Michael Mann launched a court case for defamation against climate skeptic Dr. Tim Ball of Canada.

In Feburary 2018 there was a complete dismissal in the lawsuit brought against Dr. Ball by Andrew Weaver of Canada, also for “defamation”.

The Weaver defamation case involved an article Ball wrote saying that the IPCC had diverted almost all climate research funding and scientific investigation to anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This meant that there was virtually no advance in the wider understanding of climate and climate change. Ball referenced an interview with Weaver and attempts by a student to arrange a debate. Ball made some comments that were not fully substantiated, so they became the base of the defamation lawsuit. 

That case was completely dismissed, you can read more here

REALLY? MANN SAYS IT  WAS DISMISSED ON A TECHNICALITY AND UNDER APPEAL.
WATTS  IS STILL IN DENIAL ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THE EARLIER BALL DEFAMATION SUIT WAS DISMISSED :

Judge finds written attack on climate scientist too ludicrous to be libel

Canadian court dismisses suit by climate scientist turned elected official.

SCOTT K. JOHNSON -  2/19/2018, 2:28 PM 

...IN  his defense, Ball argued that the article was obviously opinion and was mostly about climate scientists as a whole rather than Weaver, specifically. Curiously, he also challenged the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s jurisdiction on the basis that there was no evidence anyone in British Columbia read the article (other than Andrew Weaver).

Last week, the court decided in favor of Ball, the author of the article. The reasoning is somewhat surprising. Partly, the judge found that many of the article’s accusations could be read as complaints about the system of science and education—of which Weaver was just a part—rather than specifically alleging flaws in Weaver’s professional character.

But the judge also decided that the derogatory statements aimed more clearly at Weaver failed to meet the legal standard for defamation. His reason? No one could take them seriously. Citing a list of careless inaccuracies in Ball’s article, the judge said it lacked “a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory.”

The decision references a previous case in which “the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons.”