as one of those links stated, the libel law is weak here:
" with the strangest get-out-of-jail-free card ever delivered in a Canadian libel trial, the judge concluded that Ball’s writing was too apparently idiotic to be taken seriously.
Again, from Justice Skolrood’s Reasons for Judgment: “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 "
and, while the Courts find libel did not exist because Ball was "idiotic", this same person, found to "not be credible" " was invited to Washington to participate in a briefing with the Trump transition team."
So it appears all sorts of people are begging to be deceived by idiots
And the Courts say that's OK because no-one who is "reasonable" or "average" or "thoughtful" or "informed" would believe them.
The law can certainly be an ass. And some people will believe anything.
But climate denial certainly took a total trashing here.
