Zed A. Shaw, Painter

Mann was suing Dr. Tim Ball for libel because Balls said Mann should go to jail for fraud. Ball had alternative science that showed Mann's famous "hockey stick" graph couldn't possibly be. Mann has a history of suing people when they question his graph (so scientific BTW).

Now, Mann has used a common defense against showing his data--which would easily have him win his case--that his data is "proprietary", but.....his data was funded by US tax payers using grants. Basically, if you believe in open access then that's bullshit.

He somehow gets away with this in the US (maybe he's going to East Texas after all), but Mann can't use that defense in Canada because Canadian law is pretty rational and they're like "Uhh, you fabricating your data is the whole case so cough it up." He refused, so lost.

Another defense I've heard people say (maybe not him) is that the data is probably lost. However, this isn't like a ephemeral sociology study using surveys. This is a graph based on available historic data from trees and temperature sensors. He could just remake the data.

But, think about that for a minute: He's not even willing to attempt to *recreate* the data analysis in front of the judge. To put this in programmer terms: Imagine you claim I didn't write a web server. So I sue you in court and the judge says, "Show me the code Zed."

Now, I try to claim I can't show you the code because it's proprietary, BUT, the libel claim is that I'm not a fraud and I did actually write that web server. Stands to reason that if I did it once before, I can do it again, so I could just recreate it live right there.

Mann isn't even willing to do that. He refuses to show the data. Refuses to replicate the process. Refuses to recreate the data. And uses "proprietary" to avoid doing that. Alright, so what's at stake though? If he is suing people for libel and refuses to prove they lie, then:

The result of the case is that the person making the allegedly libelous claim is now found to be the winner and *what they said is now considered true*. This is how it works in Canada, maybe in some US courts there's some weird way the libel isn't considered true, but...