http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=204&filename=.txt

A normal sapiens sapiens will be disgust (probably the base od the discussion in copenhaguen)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=54&filename=889554019.txt
Those informations was for sure not helping the CRU for his aura of serious honest scientifics

* If it was legally downloaded from a public server, why has no one taken responsibility. I do not believe your theory. And I am certainly not convinced by the new ‘expert’. His analysis reeks of bias.

* The letter says “we”. That does not sound like an individual.

* The IP-adresses used on tAV, CA, & RC were from different parts of the world. That is pretty professional. IMO: not consistent with a leak.

I think it is a hack.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2462786/the_huffington_post_and_climategate.html?cat=58

dallas

I think we should carry on with natural climate variation investigations (& other constructive pursuits), not worrying about what other folks can’t stop doing for entertainment.

Cheers.

Thanks, I appear to have read too much into it.

Frankly, I don’t trust any of those who have historically been allies in pushing AGW against all reason, and that includes the BBC.

That’s not correct at all, what Hudson (BBC) said was that the emails which had been addressed to him, which he had received in October, were exactly the same as the versions of them in the stolen file. So to that extent the ‘hacked’ emails were accurate. That’s all.

I find the tone of Paul Hudson’s blog at the Beeb interesting:

“How will this all be resolved? Momentum does seem to be growing, from people on both sides of the argument, behind calls for a full independent enquiry that can once and for all get to the bottom of the many issues that have been raised. A recent survey showed that climate scepticism in this country is growing, and this episode may increase it further. Some would say that an enquiry is the only way to bring clarity to the science of global warming and climate change that has enormous implications for all of us.”

This is beginning to sound a smidge too convenient for my liking, as too is the recent posturing of Monbiot, Bob Watson, etc. The title Climate change debate: ‘calm, civilised, informative’ on Andrew Neal’s blog, while snappy and appropriate to the discussion that took place, is also a little too sickly sweet.

Bring on an enquiry, forget the troublesome historic temp record (which is complete tosh anyway just based on margins of error) and manage the legitimization of AGW onto a ‘superior’ authoritative basis. Never waste a good crisis.

OTOH, given the Machiavellian influences pushing hard from every angle here, maybe we’ve just witnessed a night of the long knives moment . Why would manufacturing a crisis orders of magnitude smaller than AGW itself be a problem? The careers of a few brownshirt scientists don’t matter in the scheme of things.

Time will tell whether an enquiry materialises but far more interesting will be how quickly and how open. After all, timing is everything in management. Watch carefully for both sides of a managed discourse supporting the same invisible goal that has nothing whatever to do with the physical climate.

How do we know the file was “hacked,” or otherwise obtained, from the CRU?

The BBC was given apparently the same file a month earlier.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/2009/11/climategate-cru-hacked-into-an.shtml
That means everything was already organized in one place (giving credence to the “alternate explanation, as well as to a fourth suggested by others). It was good-to-go, and no selection was necessary.

Of course, there are problems with that, as Neo (15:20:35) points out. The BBC could be, ahem, “mistaken,” or something else.

Frankly, I don’t trust any of those who have historically been allies in pushing AGW against all reason, and that includes the BBC.

I would say that in response to the FOI request the Uni lawyer sent out an email requesting compliance. The “team” at the CRU then discussed the implications of this. The “team” consisted of “dirty” individuals and “clean” individuals. The “dirty” individuals didn’t really know what to do and stonewalled while the “clean” individuals set about complying with the request. The “clean” individuals probably didn’t even realise there was something to be concerned about. The “dirty” individuals couldn’t immediately prevent the “clean” individuals from gathering the data without giving the game away. The “clean” individuals probably discovered eventually that the emails indicated “dirty tricks”. At the same time the “dirty” individuals had succeeded in blocking the original FOI request. Then an unholy row broke out and the question was asked “well now what the hell do we do?” and the decision was made within the CRU to stifle the information. Someone in the “clean” group was disgusted by this attitude and posted the gathered information anyway, then covered his tracks by claiming a hacker must have broken into the network. If the responsible individual is discovered, he or she will probably announce that he or she was only releasing data relevant to a legal FOI request – so my guess is that the individual responsible will not be turned over since that won’t be in the CRU’s interest anyway.

Something similar happened in the UK recently where a civil servant released details of MPs expenses to the newspapers because they had been subject to an FOI inquiry but he didn’t believe that the MPs would comply. He was quite open about what he had done and why – no hacking involved. A whistleblower seems more likely to me.

Busted not Robust!

Shiny
Edward

Not if it *was* placed on an open server, which is one possibility. That makes it fair game.

Paul K2 (09:29:12) :
The most likely scenario is M’s group also knew about the file, and few days after losing the appeal, orchestrated the release in violation of the FOI appeal decision.

That would first require M’s group to *know* of the file’s existence, when they had no reason to believe that hodge-podge of information had already been gathered into one, convenient file.