“the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science.”
Wow! How embarrassing is that? The court tells you to your face that you have no credibility and everyone knows it! To no surprise, Ball's supporters are calling this a victory. How bad is it when your supporters view a total slam by the court as a victory? This could only happen in the denier-sphere. Keep in mind that one of Ball's frequent co-authors is one of the few people with as little credibility as him - the fossil fuel shill Tom Harris. As they say, you can tell a lot about someone by the company they keep. In this case, you can tell a lot about both of these men.
Of course, Ball should be use to getting spanked by the courts. After all, court records have already stated that Ball,
"never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming,"
"The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media."
You would think Ball would learn to stay away from any place he is required to tell the truth."The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."