NYT reporter engages in zany conspiracy theory – suggests bloggers “knew” FOIA emails were coming

This is almost as clueless as the raid on Tallbloke by the police looking for scraps. But it does underscore one thing – investigators are clueless and so is the major press.

For the record, I don’t know who “FOIA” is either and given the stunning lack of success (and poor judgement demonstrated recently) in investigation two years on, I doubt they’ll ever discover who it was. – Anthony

Guest post by Jeff Id

Their Side – Bloggers “knew” FOIA emails were coming

I just had a phone conversation with Leslie Kaufman of the NYT on the ‘hacker’. She was careful to call the FOIA people by that PC name. Rule 1 – Don’t offend the witness unless you want them upset. I didn’t really want to do the interview because these things don’t usually go well for me and it took me several days to make time. Unfortunately my Achilles heel is that I tend to say what I think. — I know you are all surprised.

She asked several questions about the hacker and said that her job was to investigate that aspect and not the climategate emails – which she believed had been covered. Of course I took a little time to explain the science of the issue and even brought up the conversations between the Dept of Energy and Phil Jones. In general, she seemed to repeat the opinions of the climategate committees despite the blindingly obvious problems in meshing any of their conclusions with reality. She said it was well covered that the researchers hadn’t been ‘open enough’. If that is the limit of the curiosity of your audience, it didn’t seem worth getting into.

One thing I did make clear and have made clear before, I don’t want to know who the FOIA gourp/person is because I’m not going to be willing (or technically able) to protect them – so if FOIA.org reads this, don’t tell me. My life is fine the way it is and the last thing I need is a leftist Justice department with an overstock of rubber gloves visiting my home. Leslie was very interested in whether I knew who the ‘hacker’ is. I had to tell her several ways and times that I really don’t know. I even told her that I used to think it was a student, to which she later questioned why I don’t think it is a student any longer. (Implying that I knew something). Hopefully, you can understand the direction of the interview from this. She said it was her mandate to follow this portion of the story.

For the readers here, it isn’t that I don’t believe it was a student, it is that I don’t know either way. Some friends with more knowledge than I on computers have pointed out some fairly technically sophisticated behavior in the releases which make me reconsider. I brought up the RC hack to Leslie, pointing out that no adult with sensitive information would release it that way. It’s a prank-like behavior. Of course, there is a certain narcissism which comes with a hacker mentality that sometimes delays the adult thought process. When I was in college, a stunt like that would sound like fun. Now — NO effing way.

I once met a 25 year old guy who had been caught hacking, and later hired by a security company. Despite having been “caught”, he was so cock-sure that he was flat nauseating. Either too dumb to know he wasn’t as smart as he thought or too young to have the social skill to refrain from flaunting his smarts. It is a culture of some computer programmers (sorry guys), which the ‘adult’ of my story believed he had risen to the top of. — Look what I can do! I often wonder if the hacker culture recognizes the vastly superior work built into the technology of the things which they program on.

This is not to say that FOIA.org released the emails out of narcissism or proof of superiority. Readers here understand that. Instead, it was done of understanding with a slight hint of that hacker mentality. They/he/she hold a recognition that the math and science are being perverted, data was absolutely covered up where necessary and the known results were without a doubt exaggerated to promote the cause. In my conversation with Leslie, I took the time to explain that I was not a denier and that any scientifically minded person knows full well that the basic effect of CO2 warming is incontrovertibly true. She suggested to describe me as a Lukewarmer, to which my reply was that I don’t even like that name because I don’t know how much warming there will be but due to current political mechanisms, there is a systematic exaggeration of the science.

Anyway, the most interesting point of the conversation came out when she said in very rough paraphrase ‘Their side is that the email releases were known to you ahead of time.’

The ‘their side’ was fairly interesting as we know the “Climate Scientists™” are in good contact with the NYT as are the government agencies. It could have been nothing but often when you hear inflection of how something is said, you can get the meaning. I took it as though she had been talked too by someone of the opinion that the three blogs mentioned in the DOJ letter were intimately involved.

The fact that I have done nothing wrong does not relieve me one tiny bit regarding the police. This is especially true when a billion dollar industry is involved. Those who haven’t dealt with law won’t get that. What gives me comfort is that this blog and its global friends have a wide readership means that ANY direct police action will have a wide public audience – not that it will stop the crazy stuff anyway. That is the limit of my protection.

As I have written before, I think Leslie has it right. Some powerful idiot(perhaps a congressman), who doesn’t understand blogs, internets (love the plural) or techie things in general with more than one button, thinks that the bloggers were in direct communication with FOIA. This is the single reason that I can make sense of for the confiscation of Tallbloke’s computers. Any other potential communications can be taken in pristine form right from the blog logs at WordPress.

Anyway, the conversation came across as some verification of my theory on why Tallboke had his computers confiscated. As always, I reserve the right to revise and extend my remarks.

UPDATE: Hilary Ostrov has an interesting piece on Climategate events in timeline format. She muses that a story in the Guardian may have had something to do with all this. – Anthony

 
About these ads

160 thoughts on “NYT reporter engages in zany conspiracy theory – suggests bloggers “knew” FOIA emails were coming

  1. Well, then the “other side” is truly paranoid. But that comes with true belief, right? If you are a true believer you cannot believe that one of your “fellows” does not share the full list and total passion of your beliefs. When one of your “fellows” shows signs of straying from the true path, you feel totally justified in whacking him up side the head until he is on the straight and narrow. Do we know anyone who fits that description?

  2. I hadn’t prepared any popcorn but now that Inspector Clouseau and some powerful idiot are involved, things are getting interesting.

  3. I don’t understand why they keep insisting this was a “hacker”. In my work with computers and enterprise IT, most cases of unauthorized access are from people within the organization and not people who gain access from outside across the Internet.

  4. Jeff – it’s always a good idea during a media interview to record it yourself – audio if it’s over the phone, video if it’s for TV. You can then post either the transcript or the actual recording on the web. This will either keep them honest or expose their ignorance and mendacity if they’re not.

  5. Are you aware of how gobsmackingly stupid you make Leslie Kaufman of the NYT sound?

    “Hello, I am Leslie Kaufman of the New York Times. I am a journalist that works for a highly respected newspaper. I would like to ask you a few questions about how often you beat your wife… What? Your wife was attacked by a team of people determined to extort billions from innocent bystanders including myself? And you have proof? I’m sorry, I am here to investigate your crimes and report them to our interested readers, now, back to the subject at had, tell us, what was your first indication that you would grow up to commit such horrible acts?”

  6. “I brought up the RC hack to Leslie, pointing out that no adult with sensitive information would release it that way.”

    If login details for the RC wordpress website were available in the emails it wouldn’t exactly need whizz-kid skills to dump it there. 5 minutes with google would do it for most people and there’d be no better advertisement to the brainwashed nor proof of authenticity.

    Anywho: Nothing you do on the internet is anonymous or untraceable.
    All of your internet activity is being recorded for perpetuity. Finding you from that information is not always easy but it’s the profession of many. Using proxy systems such as TOR (designed by US Naval intelligence) certainly will not help you.

    Happy Christmas FOIA – considering the shackles that were to be placed on so many people by the CAGW scam you are the greatest hero in history by far.

  7. Judging by the very poor data security displayed by “The Team”, and AW’s recent expose of open links, it would be not surprising if the ClimateGate files were sitting out in the open on a public volume begging for a passer-by to pick them up. What a package to pick up!

  8. I would guess his computers were seized as his IP address showed up in the WordPress logs as having accessed the site during the time in question. The investigation wouldn’t be thorough if his machines weren’t checked. That is all.

  9. So. The bloggers–skeptics all–were prescient enough to “know” that the emails were coming yet they–the bloggers–do not know diddly-squat about AGW. Riiiight!

  10. In clarification: the police investigator would want to address the possibility that Tallbloke accessed a proxy service and posted the message as FOIA, hiding behind the proxy’s IP. Certainly FOIA was smart enough to use a proxy.

  11. O M G roflmao.

    How is anyone supposed to take a journalist like that seriously when they can lend such “Tin Foil Hat” behaviour credence lol.
    Who are these “Nut jobs” on ” Their Side” lol.

    Talk about a Christmas Comedy Special :)

    Sorry cant type anymore laughing too much!

  12. Isn’t this just how the Spanish Inquisition went about its work? If anyone would point crookedly at the Inquisitor, that person would end up on the rack or on the fire, labeled a sorcerer or witch. There is nothing new under the solar panel sun.

  13. Well, if any of us “knew” that there might be more emails coming, had Kaufman had done any research before contacting you, she would know that over a year ago, Nature‘s Andrew Adam, reported that:

    Phil Jones and others connected to the CRU fear the hackers may be sitting on more stolen e-mails [emphasis added -hro]

    Maybe she should be talking to Andrew Adam, because surely he would not have made such a claim without verfying that it had some basis, would he?! Ooops, I almost forgot … in that same article, Adam also claimed:

    Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed.

    Even Andy Revkin didn’t buy that one, so perhaps Adam is not such a reliable source, after all!

    Then again, since they don’t seem to be making “investigative reporters” like they used to, perhaps Kaufman simply got the wrong end of the stick and is talking about the potential for a third release – should The Saint decide to change her/his plan not to release the passphrase!

  14. crosspatch says:
    December 22, 2011 at 3:54 pm

    Of course it was an “inside” job. Why insist it was a “hacker?” Because they can’t believe it was one of their own who did the deed. Can you imagine what it would do to their belief system if they discover that one of their own spilled the beans?

    The wife dies under suspicious circumstances. Who’s the prime “person of interest?” The husband, of course.

    The kids are missing … kidnapped?? Who’re the prime “persons of interest?” The parents, of course.

    So, just who is FOIA? A student, perhaps. Even better, a trusted colleague who feels he has been slighted in some way. He may be thinking that there are more serious concerns that need addressing than how many tenths of a degree the climate has warmed. Or perhaps some IT person who’s had his fill of working with the pompous scientists.

    Meanwhile, UEA’s got investigators looking like Keystone Kops.

  15. I thought the lead into CG2 self identified the person/people involved as being part of the blessed “they” but just not totally enamored with “the cause” and wanting to protect the little people in the world or something like that.

  16. Sorry, Anthony/mods … let me try that again (hopefully without messing up the blockquotes this time)

    Well, if any of us “knew” that there might be more emails coming, had Kaufman had done any research before contacting you, she would know that over a year ago, Nature‘s Andrew Adam, reported that:

    Phil Jones and others connected to the CRU fear the hackers may be sitting on more stolen e-mails [emphasis added -hro]

    Maybe she should be talking to Andrew Adam, because surely he would not have made such a claim without verfying that it had some basis, would he?! Ooops, I almost forgot … in that same article, Adam also claimed:

    Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed.

    Even Andy Revkin didn’t buy that one, so perhaps Adam is not such a reliable source, after all!

    Then again, since they don’t seem to be making “investigative reporters” like they used to, perhaps Kaufman simply got the wrong end of the stick and is talking about the potential for a third release – should The Saint decide to change her/his plan not to release the passphrase!

  17. What’s sad is that the authorities care more that the information got out, and not the crimes that the information exposes… typical bureaucratic tyranny, thinking classifications exist to hide embarassments, not secure vital information.

  18. Ahead of time could be several hours. That would give plenty of time to discuss the emails “prior to release”. Perhaps somebody needs to inform Les Clouseaux that the Earth is round and has time zones.

  19. I take her comment to mean simply that she spoke to ‘the other side’ before she spoke to you. They primed the pump. It makes me wonder whether this reporter is a ‘general assignment’ with scant knowledge/expertise of the the entire issue, catching an education with each progressing phone call. If she had asked me that question, I would have in turn asked her who she’d been speaking to previously. Then, you’d at least have a name or names for who or whom would be sharing quotes with you in the article.

  20. Stage 3 has definitely started:

    First they ignore you,
    then they laugh at you,
    then they fight you,
    then you win.

    The fight will be long, hard and dirty, but they will be defeated unequivocally :)

  21. The link to Hilary Ostrov’s interesting piece doesn’t seem to work.
    Happy Christmas to one and all, Dave.

  22. UPDATE: Hilary Ostrov has an interesting piece on Climategate events in timeline format. She muses that a story in the Guardian may have had something to do with all this. – Anthony

    Thanks Anthony! But the link in your update links back to this post rather than to Of Climategate, constabularies, Hickman and l’affaire Tallbloke: a timeline to consider

    And just so there’s no confusion … when I wrote the piece, I didn’t know about Kaufman’s adventures in whatever-land-she-might-be-in. (Although when I wrote my earlier comment above, the thought did occur to me that perhaps she had derived her “knowledge” from the Guardian’s coverage!)

    Hilary

  23. Hey Jeff, did you consider messing with her head by saying you knew who the emails came from and it was indeed a whistleblower who works there. Then when she asks how you know you say you’re a journalist and can’t reveal your sources. Life’s too short not to have some fun with this. Know what I mean, Vern?

  24. Why the insistence on a hacker? Because they HAVE to have the meme of a nefarious villian (funded by BIG OIL, wink wink) or the whole ideological house of cards they’ve built collapses. We CAN’T be honest and objective because we are, first and foremost, wrong. You can witness this in various areas of religious-pseudoscientific thought: always “They” (the powers that be) are out to destroy truth and reason. Power of vitamins/natural foods/organic/etc hidden by Big Pharma/Big Food/Big Govt.
    The lamestream media: many of them are actually “down with the struggle” and know the far larger ideological games/BS being played with the whole stupid GW charade.
    Thank God for the internet and these blogs. Truth is so much harder to hide these days. :)

  25. You missed out on trick here, what you should have done is drop some hints that FOIA was a ‘member or the Team’ after all “who else could have got access to these e-mails and know which ones to leak and who else would bother to strip out the personal stuff”. But of course you can’t tell them who told you this becasue their worried about ” losing their academic position” . And if you want to have more effect , firstly swear Kaufman to secrecy and e-mail them latter asking them to forget what you said . If their a typical journalists , untrustworthy and lazy , this will get to the ‘Team’ pretty quick as well as seeing public release .

    Sow those short of seeds and watch the ‘Team’ eat itself up in a conspiracy frenzy , the idea of those guys fighting like rats in a sack is, I have to say, an entertaining one.

  26. Looks like that “timeline” URL is probably a relative URL instead of an absolute URL, so it points to a nonexistent place here on WUWT instead of whatever site it is supposed to point at.

  27. crosspatch:

    I don’t understand why they keep insisting this was a “hacker”

    Because Inspector Clouseau has insisted it wasn’t an inside job. Seriously that’s the logic. A bunch of cops with no IT training say it couldn’t have been an inside job, so OK it wasn’t an inside job. >.<

  28. The truly sad, miserable and pathetic aspects of all this:

    1. The media is supposed to be critical of all things government or government funded, lest they become nothing better than propagandists.

    2. There should be complete transparency on the science, the methodology and even the “conversations” held via email on this publicly funded endeavor (does CO2 cause catastrophic warming). The fact that there isn’t takes me right back to my 1st point.

    I don’t live this particular nightmare nearly everyday Anthony and kudos to you and others like you that do – and don’t go stark raving mad at the contradictions of the “consensus” view and those who advocate so blatantly for them.

  29. Recently the NYT had to fire a freelance reporter who not only reported on OWS but participated in it and in planning meetings. After it was public knowledge, so no proactivity from their side.

    Why would anyone talk to the NYT, you could just as well talk to the BBC.

  30. Dave Springer says:
    December 22, 2011 at 5:10 pm
    “Hey Jeff, did you consider messing with her head by saying you knew who the emails came from and it was indeed a whistleblower who works there. Then when she asks how you know you say you’re a journalist and can’t reveal your sources. ”

    Good way to get sued, and without actually being a journalist, a judge will not grant you the right to not reveal your sources or anything. Some fine advice that is. Do you hate Jeff like you hate Willis?

  31. Reminds me of a Monckton interview on radio in Oz. He ripped the interviewer a new one, to the point where the interview hung up on him. Monckton called back to ask what had happened and the interview continued.

    The interviewer then asked if the interview could continue off air, as they didn’t have any more time, and Monckton declined.

    Why? Well because Monckton knows the rules. Live there is no way they can edit the interview. Off air, they can edit the interview to put words in your mouth. Same goes for newspapers.

    Get the questions in writing in advance, and reply the same way. Require in advance that the paper agree in writing to print your reply in full as a condition of use.

  32. “One thing I did make clear and have made clear before, I don’t want to know who the FOIA gourp/person is because I’m not going to be willing (or technically able) to protect them – so if FOIA.org reads this, don’t tell me.”

    I don’t think you’d actually believe it if the person who did it told you so himself. After all, statistically speaking, most people rarely suspect the quiet, nice, family, bloke who springs the leak, that’s why no one every catch him. :p

  33. So far there has been no public legal mention of WUWT from WordPress. This may be due to the additional protections offered by Anthony’s legal journalist status but any way you cut it, WUWT is the single most utilized climate resource on the Internet. Not just the skeptic version but the single, number one place for science-based climate information.

    Very odd to leave this place off the list —- don’t you think??

  34. Leon Brozyna says:
    December 22, 2011 at 4:31 pm

    “Or perhaps some IT person who’s had his fill of working with the pompous scientists.”

    Almost certainly an IT person. Probably started one of two ways. The usual eavesdropping that bored IT guys do to see if any of the scientists have been passing around dirty pictures of their girlfriends, interesting office gossip, and things of that nature. Then he stumbles onto something like “Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline” and goes to himself “Holy f**king sh*t these guys are lying and the whole world is buying it” and decides to expose them. The other way would probably have started from an inquiry from an in-house attorney to someone in IT asking what records are kept that might be relevant to answering FOIA requests. And then the attorney gets handed a huge file of emails and when he starts looking through it he notices something like Mike’s Nature trick to hide the decline and goes to himself “Holy f**king sh*t these guys are lying and the whole world is buying it” and decides to expose them.

    A second party like the attorney is less likely in my opinion because the first party would surely name him as someone who could have done it. My bet is one guy, in IT, who isn’t there anymore, stumbled across it and did the right thing. My bet is also that a number of people at UEA and the investigators know damn well who did it but have no proof to go public with what they know.

  35. UPDATE: Hilary Ostrov has an interesting piece on Climategate events in timeline format. She muses that a story in the Guardian may have had something to do with all this. – Anthony
    ====================================================

    Broken link???

  36. @crosspatch Dec 22, 2011 at 3:54 pm:

    I don’t understand why they keep insisting this was a “hacker”. In my work with computers and enterprise IT, most cases of unauthorized access are from people within the organization and not people who gain access from outside across the Internet.

    Amen. It is like murders – it is (at least according to general wisdom) most often a member of the family.

  37. I have it on good authority that there are no good authorities on this matter. …and you can take that to the bank. Well OK — maybe one… and you can take that to the bank too!

    Now I’m gonna get arrested or searched for admitting that I have known that all along.

  38. Or, the investigators have an idea who did it, but know that person will claim whistleblower status, and that the investigation to see if that person really is a whistleblower will expose the shams that have been passed off as investigations. So they take the computers of bloggers, implicitly smearing them, as the best course to keep the good ship Warmista afloat and pointed in the direction they wish.

  39. One would think that any reporter would understand that bloggers on technical subjects are also people who know enough about “the internets,” email and such that they would not DO something so stupid as to leave a trail on their PCs, browser history or emails. What, do they think, “He knows something about computers, so he must have been involved”? Are they THAT lame?

  40. The simple fact that they haven’t been able to track down “FOIA” indicates to me it was an inside job. And whoever it was isn’t talking and isn’t feeling much pressure is my take.

    But let’s be clear about all this–we “realists” DID have prior notification or at least an inkling. I mean, why wouldn’t FOIA release more juicy tidbits and reprehensible dirt on “climate scientists” since these fraudsters are sticking to their old ways without any contrition or remorse (and certainly no apology) whatsoever. So listen up, NYT, UEA, UN, etc, etc. and I’ll make a prediction: We’re expecing:
    Climategate 3,
    Climategate 4,




    Climategate 39
    Climategate 40 (or more).

    The above is based on 220,000 emails in the master file with 5,000 emails available per Climategate. With one delivered every year this will stretch out until 2050 and if released sometime at the end of each year, will be the best annual Christmas present on the climate ever! (Who says Santa isn’t a climate realist?)

  41. Scott Ramsdell says:
    December 22, 2011 at 4:20 pm

    “In clarification: the police investigator would want to address the possibility that Tallbloke accessed a proxy service and posted the message as FOIA, hiding behind the proxy’s IP. Certainly FOIA was smart enough to use a proxy.”

    I’m not sure “certainly” is the right word but he’d have to be stupid to not use a proxy. Even someone who doesn’t know about anonymous proxies would find out easy enough by googling anonymous internet posting. A HOW-TO guide for anonymous proxies is on the first page of results. I used to use them to get around IP bans on blogs I’d been banned from. My favorite trick, much more convenient, for getting around IP bans is to use an old dial-up analog modem. Windows will seamlessly switch between an analog modem on a phone line and your usual broadband connection with a single click. Every time you dial up you get a unique new IP address. Every broadband provider I know of provides a free “courtesy” phone bank access numbers for broadband customers to use when they’re travelling. The person who has the IP ban on you then has to ban an entire block of IP addresses assigned to the phone bank. It takes them a while to figure it out. I had to do that once when I was running a blog. This certain cantankerous emeritus biology professor who shall remain unnamed who lives in tiny Burlington, Vermont, who was my student when it came to computer things and whom I’d taught about proxies and phone banks, turned on me and used the knowledge I’d given him against me. There’s an entire phone bank in Burlington that’s probably still banned at Uncommon Descent.

    People usually get sick of anonymous proxies for heavy duty trolling because they’re inconvenient and unreliable but if you want anonymity that’s how you get it. There are ways of dealing with those too but it’s not as easy as banning a block of addresses assigned to a phone bank. The one thing you can’t do is determine who’s on the other side of the proxy server. Mabye the ZIA can but I don’t know of a way.

  42. One more comment:

    I was over at Judith’s site today, commenting on DocMartyn’s post there. I had an experience a bit like yours with the reporter, Anthony.

    After several exchanges with warmists, I am so unbelievably stupefied by the level of discourse and even more dumbfounded by the level of understanding of fundamental scientific statements. The ones I dialogued with do not seem to have the intelligence God gave a kumquat. One could not get out ONE sentence that did not name-call or insult anyone who was not himself/herself a warmist. They refused to even READ the post, based on the fact that Doc Martyn is a user ID and not his real name. And they didn’t just not read it; they had to go on and on and on about why no one who posts should ever use an a.k.a. Even when Judith told people DocMartyn has 50 peer-reviewed articles, the people still would not read it. In the end, some skeptics came to the conclusion that the warmists were trying to “out” DocMartyn; some skeptics considered it possible that DocMartyn might be risking his career standing by being a skeptic. I don’t know, but it seems possible.

    Mojo – All this seems like it is coming from mojo. The warmists seem to believe that they have weathered both Climategate releases, and are feeling that they have their mojo back, so they are returning to their really objectionable attitude. Perhaps it is just because I dealt with them too much today. I have rarely dealt with such dim bulbs relating to anything scientific. For me, WUWT and CA from moment one seemed like, “Oh, here are some intelligent people! Let me listen in a while!” I had never been able to have an intelligent conversation with someone who believed that AGW was real.

    Leslie, the reporter, sounded like a vacuous grad from journalism school – one who may not even have a science background. It sounded like she had a set of questions that were at least in part dictated to her by someone on “the other side.” And it sounded like she had no clue what the underlying disagreement is – to her it was like reporting on a burglary, but with a scientific bent to the story she was assigned.

    I am surprised you, Anthony, even went through with the interview. Like you, I don’t think it will turn out well. It will be interesting to see how distorted your answers will come out. Talking to uninformed people – effing yukkkkk.

  43. @ FergalR: if I stacked myself behind six or seven proxies at an internet cafe with no cameras and paid cash you would have no hope in hell of tracking me. Everything you want to do on the iinternet can be totally anonymous and untracable. Do not kid yourself that it is otherwise.

  44. Scott Ramsdell says:
    December 22, 2011 at 4:18 pm

    I would guess his computers were seized as his IP address showed up in the WordPress logs as having accessed the site during the time in question. The investigation wouldn’t be thorough if his machines weren’t checked. That is all.

    And his is the only IP address that showed up in the WordPress logs during the time in question? That is NOT all.

  45. It’s interesting that with all the discussion in the climategate emails about hijacking peer review of manuscripts that there doesn’t seem to be anything about attempts to rig review of grant applications. It’s hard to imagine that The Team wasn’t engaged in making sure the money went to their friends. This might be the straw that FOIA is holding back.

  46. bubbagyro says:
    December 22, 2011 at 4:29 pm
    Isn’t this just how the Spanish Inquisition went about its work? If anyone would point crookedly at the Inquisitor, that person would end up on the rack or on the fire, labeled a sorcerer or witch. There is nothing new under the solar panel sun.
    __________________________________________________

    No, I don’t agree. Please read the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

    Perhaps you’re thinking of Salem Witch Trials conducted by Civil Authority and Puritan Clerics?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

    Excerpt:
    “The best-known trials were conducted by the Court of Oyer and Terminer in 1692 in Salem Town. Over 150 people were arrested and imprisoned, with even more accused but not formally pursued by the authorities. All twenty-six who went to trial before this court were convicted. The four sessions of the Superior Court of Judicature in 1693, held in Salem Village, but also in Ipswich, Boston and Charlestown, produced only three convictions in the thirty-one witchcraft trials it conducted. The two courts convicted twenty-nine people of the capital felony of witchcraft. Nineteen of the accused, fourteen women and five men, were executed by hanging. One man, Giles Corey, refused to enter a plea and was crushed to death under heavy stones in an attempt to force him to do so. At least five more of the accused died in prison.”

    The similarity is that not believing in CAGW is now akin to being perceived as a witch. Fortunately the Courts are too busy these days.

  47. @Dave Springer December 22, 2011 at 6:18 pm

    Dave –

    Since the incoming email came from Russia, would it not suffice to email it to a cohort in Russia who was internet savvy and then have that person email it to the bloggers, less headers, etc.?

  48. DirkH says:
    December 22, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    “Good way to get sued, and without actually being a journalist, a judge will not grant you the right to not reveal your sources or anything. Some fine advice that is. Do you hate Jeff like you hate Willis?”

    There’s no federal shield law for journalists in the United States. It was just an excuse to give to the other journalist. State laws vary. Whether bloggers are journalists depends on the circumstance. A blog is certainly a journal. Jeff is a well known widely quoted author for his journal. If he makes even a modest living out of it he should qualify. It’s not illegal to lie except under oath or to an officer of the court except where the lie constitutes a libel or slander. Saying an unnamed insider at UEA is the perp is not a libel or slander without a name attached to the perp who many then have a grievance if innocent. If a reporter publishes an unverified story given to them it’s the reporter’s ass on the line for not verifying.

    And no, I don’t hate Jeff. Why would I? Jeff never threatened to censor what I write because he disagrees with it like Willis did. I don’t hate Willis. He threatened me, I threatened him in return. He followed through and I’m following through. If he cares to apologize I’ll back off but it’s always been my opinion and I made no secret of it that his writing is all fluff and pretty pictures and otherwise usually shallow and riddled with errors. But I wouldn’t be rubbing his nose in it if he hadn’t threatened to clip comments of mine where he was convinced the science was wrong. He’s the king of wrong and couldn’t correct me on his best day and my worst.

  49. Steve Garcia says:
    December 22, 2011 at 6:55 pm

    “Since the incoming email came from Russia, would it not suffice to email it to a cohort in Russia who was internet savvy and then have that person email it to the bloggers, less headers, etc.?”

    There are more anonymous proxy servers in Russia than Carter has Little Liver Pills. The last thing to suspect is that FOIA is Russian. The first thing to suspect is FOIA was using an anonymous proxy. Those IP addresses are published, there are a thousand or more of them at any one instant in time, and the list changes constantly and quickly such that about half of them are not working at any given moment. They mostly seem to be located in eastern Europe for some reason I never wondered enough about to investigate. Back when I was running a big controversial blog I could always tell when I was getting tagged by a proxy user as the domain would resolve so somewhere in eastern Europe and we had effectively zero actual members who lived there or would be interested in intelligent design which is pretty much a controversial subject only in the United States.

  50. A visiting scientist. Understands the scam. Couldn’t play the game. Had access. Oh, just a minute there’s a knock at the door.

  51. @Alex Avery says: December 22, 2011 at 5:14 pm
    You have it absolutely spot on.

    It is as essential that it was a “hacker” as it is that the “hacker” was in the pay of BigOil. In other words, it is an article of faith.

    I mean no disrespect to Catholics to point out that it would be as much a waste of time to engage a Cardinal in a debate about virgin birth or papal infalibility.

    But at least a reasonably sensible Cardinal would point out, if sufficiently goaded, that it was indeed an article of faith and he wasn’t about to reconsider the point. Alarmist journos don’t even have that amount of honesty.

  52. [SNIP: Larry, that sort of allegation really needs a link to back it up. Supply the link and we'll allow the comment. OK? -REP]

  53. I think this tops the NYT’s reporter’s zany theory.
    Could it be an honest journalist, if they even still exist?
    After reading hro001 and a thousand other comments, finally got off physics and around to think on this matter.

    This seems to make more sense, it seems to fit better:

    Long ago trusted national ‘journalist x’
    Has long time ties to the environmental “Cause”
    Brought in by the “Team” as their instant mouthpiece
    But he/she needed complete inclusion to the many facts
    The science is deep, needs complete notes
    Handed the keys to the e-mail system for simplicity
    The many years click by
    But, ‘reporter x’ secretly does have some core ethics
    After all, he/she is a reporter, a teller of truth
    Knows the it must be written at some time
    But shocked by their moral-less tactics of the “Team”
    Rumors of “One World Government” cues dishonesty
    Can’t publish through the employer/editor
    They would never let it see the light of day
    Too risky
    Had to find some other method to broadcast the story
    No, not a story, the key emails would do
    Releases what seems enough…
    Climategate I
    But the train keeps choo-chooing along
    All culprits whitewashed swiftly and squeaky clean
    ‘Reporter x’ also knows the whitewashers far too well
    Hears of $37 TRILLION of global taxes with a capital T
    Waits for next COP but too late for 16
    Ten times more this time for COP17….
    Climategate II
    Topped with “Team” list of heart-tugging justifications
    But the last one, the $37 trillion, is the one that tells it all
    Corruption at the highest peaks
    For it is that very last point that doesn’t seem to fit those above

    Well, maybe something close, maybe not.

  54. “I often wonder if the hacker culture recognizes the vastly superior work built into the technology of the things which they program on.”

    I did a lot of that vastly superior work and quite frankly it isn’t vastly superior. It was clever stuff no doubt but not notably more clever than what hackers do. The difference is I parlayed a love for hacking computer hardware and software as a young man in the 1970’s into a senior R&D engineering position at a Fortune 100 computer company in the 1990’s and was very handsomely rewarded for my cleverness there. It’s wonderful to love what you do but it’s wonderful cubed if someone will pay you to do what you’d do in any case.

    I love commenting here but I’m still waiting for a Fortune 100 oil company to start paying me for it. ;-)

  55. Can you imagine what it would do to their belief system if they discover that one of their own spilled the beans?

    It doesn’t have to be “one of their own”, it might have been anyone at the University depending on how their network is configured. It isn’t unusual for college students to “browse” a network to see what resources are shared out. What generally happens in my experience is lets say for a unix variant, a machine has a filesystem that it shares out for NFS mounting but the access rules aren’t very strict. Maybe it gets shared out to the entire campus network. Someone has a Linux box in their dorm or office or laptop that is accessing the network via wireless. They “mount” the shared filesystem and have access to the files which they copy locally and are done.

    Works pretty much the same way with Windows. In fact using something like Samba providing a Windows interface to Unix filesystems can even cause more security issues.

    The point is that in most cases I have seen of unauthorized access to things, it has been due to the server involved having shared the resources to a broader audience than was intended or required and basically someone was unwittingly given access. Heck, it could have been anyone depending on how their network is built. Could possibly have been some curious Computer Science student taking a night class browsing the campus network for all we know.

    Blaming such incidents on “hackers” is generally the first refuge of the incompetent.

  56. Steve Garcia: I am surprised you, Anthony, even went through with the interview

    Steve, I thought Jeff Id did the interview.

  57. ” noaaprogrammer says:December 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm
    It was done by the Chinese, in a government sponsored lab, with a keyboard. ”

    LMAO. Good one. Seriously has anyone looked at the number of part time students, perhaps foreign exchange, who worked in the IT department at CRU? Hell hath no furry like a motivated and PO’d geek. If CRU is like most universities the IT is a revolving door every semester for compsci students working part time. Over a 5+ year period it would have to be hundreds.

    Short of a confession they are not going to get FOIA.

  58. Painful though it is for those involved, this whole story is a distraction from the contents of the Climategate 2 e-mails. That it the sole reason for the investigation into the identity of the whistle blower (and whistle blower they are, whether insider of otherwise). It is designed to put us off the scent. I look forward to more discussion on C1 and C2 (or even the opening up of C3?)

    Oh, and papal infalibility(sic) went by the way side for Catholics some time back. Apparently.

  59. “Some powerful idiot(perhaps a congressman), who doesn’t understand blogs, internets (love the plural) or techie things in general with more than one button,”

    That’s a fine thing to say about users of iPhones! ;)

  60. So if these “climate scientists” are telling people that some bloggers knew in advance…then who are they telling?

    Perhaps the police that raided Tallbloke were goaded into it by these “climate scientists?”

    I guess that’s better than Mann finding an investigative journalist – get an actual police investigator to do your bidding instead.

  61. Given that this is now the time of year (ho – ho!) that traditionally, many of us exchange carefully-considered, hand-picked, gift-wrapped parcels of all sizes as tokens of goodwill between us (Damn! I wonder what’s in THAT box??? Mmmm… that’s funny – there’s no to/from on it but it sure feels a TON!!), might I offer likewise something in kindred spirit to our intrepid reporter. It’s just a little something which might prove edifying at work, hopefully help in understandig this assignment a little quicker… ;-)

    Best wishes.

  62. Record your conversations with these people. It’s perfectly legal if you tell them you will be recording the conversation. Record while you tell them this. As soon as you tell them this they will hang up. Post that recording to your blog so we can laugh at the fact that they do not want someone they are interviewing to be able to have proof of what you said.

  63. remember kaufman’s 15 Dec NYT article on Tallbloke:

    15 Dec: NYT Green Blog: Fresh Climategate Patter by Leslie Kaufman

    http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/15/more-climategate-buzz/?ref=lesliekaufman

    which linked to the following HuffPo artlicle by DeSmogBlog’s Brendan DeMelle, which Kaufman described as the Norfolk Police “taking some ribbing” online. here’s some of the ribbing!

    “There is a vital public interest in confirming that the UEA emails were criminally hacked and in turn, identifying those responsible and their connections.
    Among many reasons for continued police diligence, climate scientist Phil Jones said he contemplated suicide after the initial email theft in 2009. So it is important for investigators to get to the bottom of this crime in order to mete out at least some justice for this baseless attempt at character assassination of climate scientists.
    The ongoing harassment of climate scientists – including death threats in several cases – cannot be ignored by law enforcement agencies. If police were able to confirm the identity of the UEA hackers and bring them to justice swiftly, it would hopefully have a chilling effect on the vicious smear campaign against climate scientists.”…
    “British officials should also seriously consider the suggestion from Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Edward Markey that the U.S. intelligence community should assist in the investigation.
    Markey explained the significance of this investigation in a statement:
    ‘This is clearly an attempt to sabotage the international climate talks for a second time, and there has not been enough attention paid to who is responsible for these illegal acts. If this happened surrounding nuclear arms talks, we would have the full force of the western world’s intelligence community pursuing the perpetrators. And yet, with the stability of our climate hanging in the balance with these international climate treaty negotiations, these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice.’
    Whatever the reason for the low UK police expenditures, it is clearly time for a more coordinated international investigation into this crime.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brendan-demelle/uk-climategate-investigation_b_1113849.html

    the MSM pretty much ignored Cimategate 2.0, with Revkin, Black and others more interested in demanding action from the Norfolk Police. you could call it the MSM’s meme for Climategate II.
    indeed, Kaufman with Justin Gillis were on Page A8 in the Print edition of NYT on 23 Nov, with:

    New Trove of Stolen E-Mails From Climate Scientists Is Released
    For instance, a cryptic e-mail apparently sent by Dr. Jones, a researcher at East Anglia, said, “Basic problem is that all models are wrong — not got enough middle and low level clouds.”
    Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.
    Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. (Gavin) Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.”
    Dr. Mann said he hoped the fresh release, apparently first posted to a computer server in Russia, would provide new clues for the British police as they seek to catch the hacker or hackers.
    “Who are the criminals?” he asked. “Who is funding this effort, not just to steal these materials but to promote them?”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/23/science/earth/new-trove-of-stolen-e-mails-from-climate-scientists-is-released.html?ref=lesliekaufman

    once you realise the MSM are nothing more than advocates for “the cause”, it makes little sense to agree to be interviewed.

  64. When skeptics talk about motives for releasing the CG1 and CG2 emails they usually mention just two, a desire to save humanity from the scam or a desire for revenge after being mistreated. But the range of possible motives is much larger. The motive might be bribery. That would mean that CG3 is loaded with scandal. If it is bribery then everyone on The Team might know who FOIA is but they dare not name him/her because that would hasten the dreaded CG3. Oddly enough, bribery might explain why The Team insists that FOIA is a criminal. Of course The Team would not admit to the public or the police that they are being bribed.

    I have nothing to prove here. I am just suggesting that we should consider a wider range of scenarios when we ponder why the emails were released and by whom.

  65. Why is so much UK police time and effort being spent trying to track down the source of the disclosure of what has been described as normal banter or gossip between scientists?
    If I was a UK taxpayer, that is the question that I’d be asking.

  66. “…Anyway, the most interesting point of the conversation came out when she said in very rough paraphrase ‘Their side is that the email releases were known to you ahead of time.’…”

    In that case, we’re all in trouble. Because we all know that FOIA is holding the “secret word”, the one that releases the REST of the e-mails.

    We may not know the CONTENT of the remaining emails (other to say that surely, it shows climate scientists behaving badly), but we do know the upcoming sh*t-storm will be very messy.

    The files have already been released (under Climate Gate 2), they’re just locked. Ask the next reporter what THEY would do if they got the password that unlocks the rest of the emails, instead of some “denier” site? As impartial reporters, would they look?

  67. 2 years forward and they still have no idea? We have seen how bad the CRU/UEA have been with their I.T. I would hazard a guess that if you now type “Let Me In” you would have access to all they have using the original engineers backdoor password!

    Me? I am like Anthony and have no idea but FOIA, you are a bloody hero in my book and you, Anthony, Tallbloke etc including all contributors, all have a great Xmas for the excellent work you have done this year.

  68. “Record your conversations with these people.”

    You should NEVER talk to the press without recording the conversation. They can leave out portions, cut out little sound bites, and make it sound like you said something completely different from what you said.

  69. I remain of the opinion that there are so many ways that the emails could have been obtained that speculation based on what little evidence we have is fruitless. That said, I’ve come up with a little pet theory of my own based on a remark in one of Phil Jones’ emails about needing help to draw a graph in Excel:

    Phil; Hey you! Yes you… get over here for a second. What’s your name again?
    Harry; Harry.
    Phil, You’re one of them computer whiz kids right?
    Harry; Uhm…I’m a grad student, but-
    Phil; Good! That’s exactly what I need, a computer whiz kid.
    Harry; But I’m not a-
    Phil; Stop talking while I’m interrupting. Do you know how to do a graph in Excel?
    Harry; Of course-
    Phil; Good. I need you to graph this data for me.
    Harry; Well itz pretty simple actually-
    Phil; Oh for a computer whiz kid itz simple, that would be like me explaining how simple the climate is to someone like you.
    Harry; Well the thing is, I’m a grad student in atmospheric physics.
    Phil; See? If I tried to explain how simple the climate is to you, you’d be over your head in seconds. Now, do this graph for me.
    Harry; Uh huh. Well then…. Excel is pretty uhm… simple. You have to extract the…uhm…the compressed differential data source from the regression analysis in the…. uhm… cryptographic security ensemble.
    Phil; Wow! I’ve no idea what you just said. I guess that’s why you’re in… what was it again? Atmospheric computers? Is that like cloud computing or something? Anyway, get this graph done for me.
    Harry; OK. But you may as well go for lunch, this will take a couple of hours. Oh, and I need all your passwords.
    Phil; My passwords?
    Harry; Well yes. How else would I access the cryptographic security ensemble?
    Phil; Oh well that makes sense. OK, the password for my desktop is “naturetrick” and the datafiles are “hidethedecline”
    Harry; I need your email password too…
    Phil; Oh I’ve got a realy good one for email. Itz “readme”.

  70. If I were inspector Closeau, and and my boss was the man with the pointed hair, I would NOT ask myself the following question;

    Did they hire an exceptionally well educated chinese student lately at the UEA?

    The greatest danger to democracy is:
    We are filling up powerful positions with clueless people who do not even manage to think a logical thaught. All they can do is drink champagne and eat canapees.

    And the reason for that is that the progressives has destroyed the school-system.

    So much so, that we are now dependant on the chinese to think for us.

  71. They’d have to “suspect” pre-knowledge, wouldn’t they? Collusion and intent to steal is their only (Red Herring) defense. So, accusations all ’round.

  72. henryIII;
    Yes, and after they did or didn’t look, what would be their first impulse and action? Full disclosure to the public, or quick hookup with the federales et al. to facilitate apprehension and prosecution of the nefarious Foia?

  73. i don’t know whether to laugh or cry…

    22 Dec: PlanetSave: Zachary Shahan: Was Climategate Cyber-Terrorism?
    It was obvious to me the second I heard about “climategate” that it was a crime (on the part of the hacker). But it hadn’t crossed my mind that it could be “cyber-terrorism” — now, it seems painfully obvious that it very well could be. Don Shelby of the Minnesota Post delved into this idea this week. It’s really a great piece and I recommend checking the whole thing out. If you’re not yet ready to click over, though, here’s the intro (well, intro and a little more):…

    http://planetsave.com/2011/12/22/was-climategate-cyber-terrorism/

    20 Dec: Minnesota Post: Don Shelby: Probe into climate scientists’ stolen emails gets serious
    Agents in Great Britain have executed search warrants and seized equipment from anti-science bloggers who helped spread the stolen emails. The U.S. Department of Justice has sent letters to internet service providers and websites in the United States also involved in spreading the stolen emails. They are all being asked to maintain all evidence of any emails received from a shadowy source known as “FOIA.” “FOIA” was the chief distributor of the stolen emails. Norwich has called in the big dogs…
    In the original reporting, Mann was often quoted, misquoted and taken out of context. Though the investigations have found he did nothing wrong, climategate has nevertheless hurt him.
    Mann told me that the people who can’t abide the idea of global warming being true “have no legitimate scientific leg to stand on. So, they have turned to criminal acts in an attempt to distract the public and policymakers.” Dr. Mann is convinced that the criminal act shows the work of “industry-funded front groups and the individuals who do their bidding.”…
    Cyber-terrorism?
    The question is whether this can be characterized as a simple cybercrime — or are there elements of cyber-terrorism involved?…
    So I turned to one of the most respected cyber-terrorism experts in the country, Bruce Schneier. Schneier has been called to testify before Congress. He is the author of eight books on the subjects of cryptography, warfare, crime and terrorism committed by cyber-criminals.
    Schneier told me: “What I’ve been thinking about is whether the hack was intended to intimidate, threaten or bully. Then the crime becomes an effort to stop people from doing legitimate research. So, it is not just a data theft, but has a goal of creating a chilling effect, a threat, an intimidation.”
    Schneier understands the cyber world, but also the law of unintended consequences. “We are moving into a world in which everything we do is persistent,” said Schneier. By persistent, Schneier means it just doesn’t go away. “A phone conversation is actually archaic,” he said. “Today the conversation is by email or social media and those conversations are persistent.”…
    Dr. Mann has long believed that intimidation was one goal of the cyber criminals. “They want to intimidate, stymie, harass scientists who are out in front on the risks of climate change, and they want to serve notice to other scientists of what will be in store for them if they speak out.”…
    Not only are our communications on the internet persistent, but so is memory. Dr. John Abraham, thermal scientist at the University of St. Thomas, told me: “Those crimes were used to fabricate lies about world-class scientists — lies that are still being repeated today.”
    Mark Twain said, “A lie can travel half-way around the world while the truth is still getting its shoes on.”
    I’m hoping the shoes Scotland Yard and the FBI are lacing up are track shoes.

    http://www.minnpost.com/donshelby/2011/12/20/33938/probe_into_climate_scientists_stolen_emails_gets_serious

  74. could this be the Minnesota Post, who managed to get an interview with Mann and Abrahams?? it certainly is where Don Shelby is:

    Minnesota Post: About us
    MinnPost is a nonprofit, nonpartisan enterprise whose mission is to provide high-quality journalism for news-intense people who care about Minnesota…
    Board of Directors…
    Advisory Council…ETC

    http://www.minnpost.com/about/

    Wikipedia: Don Shelby
    Donald Gilbert “Don” Shelby (born May 27, 1947 in Muncie, Indiana)[1] is a former American news anchor on WCCO-TV in Minneapolis, Minnesota. He is regarded as an experienced investigative journalist, as his work has earned two Peabody awards and an Emmy Award…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Shelby

  75. the mention of “terrorism” suddenly reminded me of a letter to NYT/IHT in 2010 that i came across this week:

    8 Aug 2010: NYT: Letter to International Herald Tribune from Allin C. Seward III, Paris
    How to Fight Climate Change
    Paul Krugman (“Who cooked the planet,” Views, July 27) argued that the U.S. Senate’s failure to pass climate change legislation was due to “greed and cowardice,” notwithstanding the scientific and economic arguments. I disagree.
    Climate change legislation failed to pass because the American voters did not fully support it. And the U.S. public did not fully support climate change legislation because no one except experts understands the issues…
    The only way to effectively address climate change is for our leaders to make it an issue of national security: Emphasize the link between consumption of fossil fuels, especially foreign oil, and the rise of international terrorism. Once that link is clearly established, people will be willing to make an effort: The home-front will contribute to fighting against terrorism, which threatens every one of us. People will understand that there is no way to put a value on the lives of any of the nearly 3,000 people who perished in the Sept. 11 attacks, and that any effort is worth making to prevent recurrence of such a tragedy.
    The oil lobby has no response to this argument….

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09iht-edlet.html

    PoliticalGraveyard: Seward, Allin C. — of Paris, France. Democrat. Delegate to Democratic National Convention from Democrats Abroad, 1996, 2008. Still living as of 2008.

    http://politicalgraveyard.com/bio/seward.html

  76. If it is alleged by ‘their side’ that there was an e-mail dialogue between tallbloke and FOIA before/after the release should questions not be asked of the recipient of the first batch of climategate e-mails ?

    The first reliable report of the offering up of the Climategate zip file was to BBC journalist Paul Hudson of the on 12th October 2009 who then chose to sit on the file for 5 weeks.
    This led to skeptic sites being involved as the BBC, having been tested for ‘honesty’, had been found wanting.

  77. Chris B says:
    December 22, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    bubbagyro says:
    December 22, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    How about Witchfinder General, Matthew Hopkins, in his modern form of “The Team”? UEA is even in the same county.

  78. Christopher Hanley says:
    December 22, 2011 at 9:39 pm
    Why is so much UK police time and effort being spent trying to track down the source of the disclosure of what has been described as normal banter or gossip between scientists?
    If I was a UK taxpayer, that is the question that I’d be asking.

    AND
    pat says:
    December 22, 2011 at 9:25 pm
    Quote HuffPo
    “Among many reasons for continued police diligence, climate scientist Phil Jones said he contemplated suicide after the initial email theft in 2009. So it is important for investigators to get to the bottom of this crime in order to mete out at least some justice for this baseless attempt at character assassination of climate scientists.”………
    “Markey explained the significance of this investigation in a statement:
    ‘This is clearly an attempt to sabotage the international climate talks for a second time, and there has not been enough attention paid to who is responsible for these illegal acts. If this happened surrounding nuclear arms talks, we would have the full force of the western world’s intelligence community pursuing the perpetrators. And yet, with the stability of our climate hanging in the balance with these international climate treaty negotiations, these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice.’”…..
    “Gavin A. Schmidt, a climate modeler at NASA, said he found such exchanges unremarkable. He noted that difficulties in modeling were widely acknowledged and disclosed in the literature. Indeed, such problems are often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.
    Of the new release of e-mails, Dr. (Gavin) Schmidt said, “It smacks of desperation.””….

    Does anyone else note the logical disconnect?

    On one hand there is the fulmination on ‘criminals’ hacking into research computers and releasing information that will sabotage international climate talks yet ‘the team’ are also saying that the information is unremarkable and ‘often discussed at scientific meetings in front of hundreds of people.’.

    It would appear that two lines of defence are being employed simultaneously. Will unremarkable publicly discussed information _really_ sabotage international climate talks and even lead to Phil Jones’ demise? These would appear to be mutually contradictory memes used for differing audiences. Are they both really swallowed concurrently without comment by the ‘credulous’ MSM, police and security services?

    We appear to be watching a stylized game based on prepared positions. The concern on the encrypted files may be that events are now under FOIA11’s control and (s)he/they might not follow the script.

  79. How can the mere release of emails amount to an attempt at character assassination ?

    Surely any consequent character assassination would be due to the email content and not the release?

    If character assassination is an issue (which AGW proponents do seem to accept) then the writers of the emails voluntarily assassinated their own characters did they not?

    Why would the email contents have any effect on international climate talks unless the content is indeed fundamental to the value and purpose of those talks?

    Surely the release of the emails was a service to the representatives attending those talks because the new information revealed helps them in making better and more proportionate decisions ?

    Clearly they had no idea of the various doubts and qualifications set out in the emails which cast doubt on the probability estimates from the IPCC.

    And I see lots of resort to allegations of criminality on the part of climate realists when there was none just as in the recent Tallbloke matter.

  80. Propaganda is used, not only to attack your enemies, but also to hold your own side together.
    The lie that the emails were uninteresting / well covered in the press, is not told for us skeptics,
    but to reassure the believers that they need not think for themselves.

  81. “Their side” is probably the fairies at the bottom of the garden. For obvious reasons, newspaper journalists don’t like bloggers; and environmental reporters probably dislike, even more, bloggers who question ‘settled’ science.

    The NYT is one of the five newspapers which initially broke the Wikileaks/Cablegate story. There’s probably a moral here about double standards.

    Mr. Whipple Left It Out: Soft Is Rough on Forests by Leslie Kaufman

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/science/earth/26charmin.html?em

    Solution:

    http://www.ihatethemedia.com/new-york-times-says-use-crappy-toilet-paper

  82. Had I been subject to that interview I would have kept repeatingth e same question back to this “investigative” journalist.

    “Why do you keep referring to this unknown person or persons (!) as a hacker? When and by whom has it been established that the data acquired by an unauthorised external person(s)?”

  83. It’s time for you British coppers to stop pestering Tallbloke. I confess: I’m FOIA. But you won’t find any evidence on my iMac. I’m far too clever to leave such obvious clues. Here’s how I did it.

    First I waited for an auspicious sign. In this case, it was a black cat crossing my patio at sunset. Then I performed a Black Mass. Then I sacrificed a goat. And last but not least, I burned some incense for the Computer Gods, while high on Earl Grey tea and haggis.

    Actually, I was kidding about the haggis. It’s contraband here in the U.S.

  84. davidmhoffer says:
    December 22, 2011 at 10:39 pm …

    davidmhoffer, I want to acknowledge that post of yours. Clever. Funny. Well written. Thanks for the morning smile!

  85. The spin and speculation on this is endless. Two things though are pretty certain from the POV of those affected.

    Using the “hacker” term allows them to also assign the following associations:

    Criminality
    Outsider
    able to call the act a “Fishing expedition”
    able to say “Nothing to see here”

    The term “insider” on the other hand can be associated with:

    internal knowledge of malfeasance
    internal knowledge of where proof of the malfeasance resides

    If you were the “victim”, and you knew that what you wrote on the emails was potentially damaging, which term would be the better one for you to publicize?

    From my POV, inside access, especially with FTP Admin rights using a “casually” obtained ID and password that was divorced from your own ID, and access to an inside the LAN computer with a flash drive in hand would be the easiest way to get the information – if you knew where to look….

    Best,

    J.

  86. Using the word “journalist” and “New York Times” in the same sentence seems very odd.

  87. GeneDoc says:
    December 22, 2011 at 6:51 pm

    It’s interesting that with all the discussion in the climategate emails about hijacking peer review of manuscripts that there doesn’t seem to be anything about attempts to rig review of grant applications. It’s hard to imagine that The Team wasn’t engaged in making sure the money went to their friends. This might be the straw that FOIA is holding back.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    I do not think they even worried about the research grants. Some VIPs were behind the scam from the get go and would make sure the “Team” were on the top of the lists when grants were handed out. (Think of how much Al Gore has made on this scam)

    80% of DOE Green Energy Loans Went to Obama Backers

    …In the 1705 government-backed-loan program [alone], for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008. Their political largesse is probably the best investment they ever made in alternative energy. It brought them returns many times over.

    http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/14/report-80-of-doe-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-backers/

    Here is the propaganda that is being feed to the jobless in inner cities: “Green Collar Jobs for America” http://sarasotagov.com/SGC/YGC/pdfs/green-collar-jobs-americas-cities.pdf

    University-Industry Relations: http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/mm1197.db.html

    Commitee for Economic Development
    A bit of history of how important the CED is in directing US domestic policy: http://www.opednews.com/articles/History-HACCP-and-the-Foo-by-Nicole-Johnson-090906-229.html

    The CEDs stand on “Sustainability (UN Agenda 21) http://www.ced.org/news-events/general/347-corporate-sustainability-the-environment-and-economic-recovery-investing-for-the-future

    It is interesting that their focus now is on education starting with Pre-school…
    Reminds me of th the Jesuit motto:

    “Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”

    Given “Progressive Education” it seems to be part of:

    “We cannot expect the Americans to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but, we can assist their leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly wake up to find they have Communism.” ~ Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev

    The press is our chief ideological weapon. ~ Nikita Khrushchev

    The Question of course is WHO are the leaders Khrushchev was referring to? The CED???

  88. It seems insane the amount of money they’re expending on these witch hunts when there is nothing of importance in them. Why would Jones contemplate suicide if that was the case? Maybe cause he knows the real smoking gun is still out there?

    The amazing lack of interest over what is in the Climategate emails from the mainstream media sickens me. Here is a true story of corruption and collusion and they accept the explanations of the participants without actually investigating?. They accept the results of whitewash investigations and don’t investigate them? There is enough information that was published on ClimateAudit about the lack of rigor in the investigations that any decent journalist should have scented blood and gone looking for the truth.

    Leftists applaud leaked material such as the Pentagon Papers or the WikiLeaks documents, but somehow we must bring the Climategate leakers to justice? Talk about hypocrisy!

  89. Remember Wikileaks?

    WikiLeaks, an online whistleblower site founded by Australian computer hacker Julian Assange, has been successful this year coordinating in advance with major news organizations rather than simply posting hundreds of thousands of documents online and out of context. It’s a media strategy aimed at achieving maximum impact for their secret material, with the New York Times, Guardian (U.K.), and Der Spiegel (Germany) all having taken advance looks at the previous Iraq and Afghanistan war logs. For this leak, Le Monde (France) and El Pais (Spain) also pored through the documents in advance.

    The Times, in an editor’s note published with the first several articles, said that the 250,000 cables “were made available to The Times by a source who insisted on anonymity” while also noting that the documents were “originally obtained by WikiLeaks.” So it’s unknown who the Times source is, and unclear exactly how that source would have the material but not be a part of WikiLeaks. For the last leak, regarding Iraq, the Times clearly sourced the documents as being made available by WikiLeaks.
    Dean Baquet, the Times Washington bureau chief, told The Cutline in an email that “it is true we did not get the documents directly from WikiLeaks.” [See Update]

    UPDATE: Leigh told The Cutline later that The Guardian received the cables from WikiLeaks and provided a copy to the New York Times.

    …….I’d have a few questions for the NYT and Guardian. Then again didn’t Rupert Murdoch’s organization have something to do with hacking as well?

  90. As for the cries of “cyber-terrorism”, the epithet “terrorist” is no different from the old charge of “witch”. Just like witch burning, the modern prosecution of “terrorists” will only stop when the powers that be — the politicians, the police, the judges, and all their families — find that THEY are being accused of terrorism.

  91. Well OF COURSE ‘they’ knew that more e-mails would be released!! ‘They’ know how many shenanigans they have engaged in so ‘they’ know how much more dirt there is to be released.

    ‘They’ are already breathlessly (gasping?) anticipating ‘Volume III” of this tome and preparing their rebuttal. Well, maybe not, it should not take very long to concoct the BS they offer as rebuttal.

  92. p gosselin says:
    December 23, 2011 at 2:06 am

    Why “hacker”? Seems to me the person was a “leaker”. Inside job.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Very simple. A hacker is a criminal and subject to police investigation and criminal penalties.

    A Whistleblower is PROTECTED by law. You can not bring charges against him. He is a “HERO”

    Therefore FOIA.org MUST be a hacker and not a Whistleblower.

  93. SandyInDerby says:
    December 23, 2011 at 1:05 am
    Chris B says:
    December 22, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    bubbagyro says:
    December 22, 2011 at 4:29 pm

    How about Witchfinder General, Matthew Hopkins, in his modern form of “The Team”? UEA is even in the same county.

    ___________________________________________

    The cops are doing THE TEAM’s work, by proxy.

    From Wikipedia:
    “Matthew Hopkins (c. 1620 – 12 August 1647) was an English witchhunter whose career flourished during the time of the English Civil War. He claimed to hold the office of Witchfinder General, although that title was never bestowed by Parliament. His witchhunts mainly took place in the eastern counties of Suffolk, Essex, Norfolk, and occasionally in Cambridgeshire, Northamptonshire, Bedfordshire, and Huntingdonshire.[1]”

    Thank God we’re so much more sophisticated in the 21st century than to believe in imaginary forces and evil spirits. Not.

  94. Hello?
    Go to a town, in a car.
    Scan a neighbourhod for an uncrypted wifi internet connection, or go to mcdonalds etc.
    Post your revelations and nobody can trace you.
    Thets how easy freedom is.
    That is why we really shouldnt encrypt our wifi, share instead.

  95. I think the constabularies are looking for the password that unlocks the Zip file. If they find any odd word in any file inside someone’s computer and it unlocks the Zip file, ergo, they must be party to the original distribution, and subject to some official charges.

    In the long run, we’ll all find out what the password to the famous FOIA.zip file is, and it will most likely be a bunch of random letters. BUT it would be cool if it was an easily memorized string of words like SallySellsSeaShellsDownByTheSeashorE. Or better, a more politically charged string of words…

  96. Ron says:
    December 23, 2011 at 4:29 am

    davidmhoffer says:
    December 22, 2011 at 10:39 pm …

    davidmhoffer, I want to acknowledge that post of yours. Clever. Funny. Well written. Thanks for the morning smile!
    ………………………………..
    I wait with anticipation for the next witticism from David. They rate getting read aloud to the significant other.

    Too bad we do not see many journalists with his sense of the absurd. Delingpole is one of the few who comes to mind.

  97. björn eriksson, sweden says:
    December 23, 2011 at 7:04 am
    Hello?
    Go to a town, in a car.
    Scan a neighbourhod for an uncrypted wifi internet connection, or go to mcdonalds etc.
    Post your revelations and nobody can trace you.
    Thets how easy freedom is.
    That is why we really shouldnt encrypt our wifi, share instead.

    Yes, because I want to get caught in a federal investigation after somebody uses my WiFi to commit piracy or distribute child pornography.

    Great idea, Bjorn.

  98. There are two basic kinds of logic you can’t argue with. The first type is unassailable logic. The second type is just plain nutso bat [crap] logic. You can try arguing with it, but it would be like trying to dig a tunnel to China by bashing your head against rocks.

    It’s always a waste of time to try to debate the village idiot. At the end of the day, they will still be an idiot and you’ll just have a headache.

  99. ****
    JeffID says:
    “I brought up the RC hack to Leslie, pointing out that no adult with sensitive information would release it that way.”
    ****

    I dunno, Jeff. If I were an IT employee @ CRU & was aware of the FOIA obstruction (& collusion w/RC), I might, even at my age, take a deliberate stab at RC, knowing it would only be a cheap thrill. But that’s just me…

  100. Don Shelby? Not at all surprising. He was always a bit of a dim bulb when I watched his news broadcasting.

  101. I personally think she’s absolutely right, certain bloggers did know the second batch of FOIA emails were coming. I could feel it in my bones and toes and finger tips, couldn’t you? I felt a cold, icy chill down my spine. I felt that FOIA was going to let go with another blast sometime in the very near, frigid future, didn’t you? I can’t say this too loudly, or ‘you-know-who’ will think I had more than a feeling and raid me, but I did, I had a feeling that we hadn’t heard the last of FOIA. After the first release, I just knew there would be a second. I just knew it! The way Jones and Mann were screaming after the first release, I knew they were scared to death that the other shoe was going to drop and they were moving as fast as they could to smoke-screen and minimize the effect when it did happen. Here’s the actual, step-by-step account of the second release — first Mann told Jones he was scared to death, then Jones told Mann he was scared too, then the NSA and CIA agents that overheard their conversation told the President and the President told his Uncle from wherever, the Uncle told the Social Security, Welfare, Medicade, and State Welfare clerks, and they told their mothers-in-law, the mothers-in-law told the bagger at the grocery store, who told their best friends from High School, who told their Rabiis, Priests, Mulahs, Preachers, Gurus, and Sushi Chefs, these told their Poor Neighborhood Soup Kitchen patrons, they told the local Cop who was writing them up for vagrency in various alleyways, the Cops told the Mexican Bartender at Paco’s Taco’s Bar and All Night Eatery, as near as we can tell, the Bartender told a Border Patrol Agent who told a Mexican Drug Lord when he was selling American automatic weapons, the Drug Lord told his gang and they told the FBI, Jim at the FBI told me and I told my sister, after that you know what happend.

    PS: SarcOff

  102. But what the fool from NYT doesn’t understand that we know (blogger or not) that there are at least 220,000 more that can be released rather quickly.

    Further anyone who has a clue would validly assume after the first release there would be more.

    No magic skills needed.

  103. North of 43 and south of 44 says:

    But what the fool from NYT doesn’t understand that we know (blogger or not) that there are at least 220,000 more that can be released rather quickly.

    Further anyone who has a clue would validly assume after the first release there would be more.

    And my guess is that there is something really, really bad behind those encryption keys and if they do track the leaker down he’s going to release them or have them released. Mutually Assured Destruction.

  104. Christopher Hanley says:
    December 22, 2011 at 9:39 pm
    Why is so much UK police time and effort being spent trying to track down the source of the disclosure of what has been described as normal banter or gossip between scientists?
    If I was a UK taxpayer, that is the question that I’d be asking.
    =============
    Quote of the week ??

  105. At the risk of seeming simple, never forget the simplest way to get around “trails” in the ether, don’t put any trails in the ether.

    Snail Mail
    Beer Coasters
    Bar Napkins

    Then there is the disposal of such trail — the magical flame followed by a little processing of the ashes to make sure not even the Mission Impossible team can resurrect them.

  106. Fred from Canuckistan says:
    December 23, 2011 at 5:44 am
    “Using the word “journalist” and “New York Times” in the same sentence seems very odd.”

    Duly noted.

    Furthermore, if they had an investigtive journalist on staff, the first assignment would be to investigate why their circulation has been steadily tanking. Since it seems the NYT hasn’t cottoned on to the fact that fewer and fewer are buying their kool-aid, it’s proof that they don’t have an investigative reporter on staff, eh?

  107. Does anyone here actually believe our own FBI or NSA has not already cracked the encryption to the other 200,000 emails? Really? This is what these guys do for a living. Our own federal government knows damn well what the rest of the emails reveal. I suspect that’s why they’re so keen to find FOIA. They want to prevent the rest of us from knowing what these emails reveal. There is a multi-billion dollar industry at stake a statist politician’s wet dream to protect.

    The whole thing is utterly bizarre. It’s like the FBI’s RICO unit going after a snitch rather than the organized crime figures who were ratted out. The media’s response, as others have pointed out, is also astoundingly hypocritical. They applauded the illegally leaked Pentagon papers and they praise Julian Assange/Wikileaks as heroes, yet whoever exposed the climate fraudsters MUST be brought to justice.

    My gut tells me this was an inside job and “the Team” and probably many more, much more “important” figures are really puckered up over what contained in those other 200,000+ emails.

  108. Navy Bob [December 22, 2011 at 4:04 pm] says:

    “it’s always a good idea during a media interview to record it yourself – audio if it’s over the phone, video if it’s for TV. You can then post either the transcript or the actual recording on the web. This will either keep them honest or expose their ignorance and mendacity if they’re not.”

    Yep. And I think Jeff ID said he had several days to prepare, as did Tallbolke (for the BBC interview).

    This shouldn’t need to be said, but I’ll say it anyway: there is no reason that the high profile climate realists like Anthony, Willis, Bishop, Tallbloke, McIntyre, Dellingpole, Morano, Lucy, Jeff ID, (and apologies to the many more!) should ever get caught with their pants down. Odds are that they all have racks of high-tech equipment from cameras to phones to computers, but few if any have a simple little $50 portable audio recorder (even voice-activated) for protection when a stalker confronts them, a reporter calls on the phone, or yes, if the cops show up. If you have days to prepare there is no excuse not to bring along a witness with a recorder.

    Fitzcarraldo [December 23, 2011 at 2:25 am] says:

    “Told ya so … http://planetsave.com/2011/12/22/was-climategate-cyber-terrorism/ … Tallbloke shouid not have backed down, but here we go again it seesm skeptics are incredibly weak when it comes to dealing with these guys. you lose everytime it seesm, BEST, etc….now lets join the IPCC its laughable”

    Agreed. This is so very true. It is a consequence of honesty and integrity. But that is not how you win a war. ‘Not lowering yourself to their level‘ and ‘Godwin’s law‘ are examples of logical fallacies perpetrated on us by concern trolls and the irredeemably ignorant. In a battle of Good vs. Evil, guess what, Evil will always win when Good checks their weapons at the door. This was recognized by Lenin and Stalin and Alinsky, they spoke openly about it, yet here we are still acting like we have an Etch-A-Sketch memory.

    There is no excuse to be naive any longer, not after two full years of examining the damning emails of the climate megalomaniacs, watching the official government sanctioned whitewashes, reading the sycophantic media propaganda and the ceaseless attacks by the left-wing climate blogs and trolls. We’re in a war, quite possibly the most important one since 1861. No, that’s not crazy talk. The Civil War began the re-alignment of the relationship of the citizens and states versus the almighty FedGov. This war, green socialism, is about nailing the lid shut on the coffin, forever. What happens to us is irrelevant, we’ll all be gone soon but the damage will survive. Remember that our kids and grandkids will first need to recover the ground we willingly lost *before* they can even start to gain any new ground.

    Dave Springer [December 22, 2011 at 5:10 pm] says:

    “Hey Jeff, did you consider messing with her head by saying you knew who the emails came from and it was indeed a whistleblower who works there. Then when she asks how you know you say you’re a journalist and can’t reveal your sources. Life’s too short not to have some fun with this. Know what I mean, Vern?”

    :-) hehe. That’s thinking outside the box. I would have probably said: ‘No, I do not know who FOIA is, but if I did I wouldn’t tell you anyway in order to protect the identity of a whistleblower. Waterboarding couldn’t get me to reveal a journalistic source’. The truth is, WUWT, Willis, Jeff ID and all of the blogs are the only place *any* journalism is going on these days. Calling the NY Slimes and Washington Compost the ‘free press’ is ridiculous. As if the founders and pamphleteers of the 18th century majored in Journalism instead of math, literature and farming. There is no such thing as a credentialed journalist, that is garbage that flows out of the sewer system in the District of Criminals. Journalism has no more to do with Pulitzers and Globes than Science has to do with Nobels. Day by day it is becoming clearer that old media is over with, the real action is out here in the WWW (wild, wild, web).

  109. Someday, I hope Montford will write this whole episode up as a book. Real facts, details … the lot. It’ll be a hoot, probably a best-seller. And, just maybe, it’ll hurt enough guilty ‘scientists’, greedy institutions and ambitious politicians that, next time, they’ll opt for honesty. Life really is SO much easier if you tell the truth.

  110. BarryW says:
    December 23, 2011 at 5:51 am

    The amazing lack of interest over what is in the Climategate emails from the mainstream media sickens me. Here is a true story of corruption and collusion and they accept the explanations of the participants without actually investigating?. They accept the results of whitewash investigations and don’t investigate them? There is enough information that was published on ClimateAudit about the lack of rigor in the investigations that any decent journalist should have scented blood and gone looking for the truth.

    ————-

    The problem for most mainstream journalists, on top of their incredible lack of curiousity, is that it would take the vast majority solid weeks of background reading to catch up on the context. For the neophyte there are a lot of names and story-lines (plots) to follow. This is not to excuse them: they should not be writing about this topic at all, or especially passing judgment, if they lack this background in the first place.

  111. The release of the climategate emails is actually a very typical response that happens in a dysfunctional unit of people who are manipulated by a narcissist. It could be a family, a company, a department of government, or any small group of people. At some point the people being manipulated and rebel and a very common manifestation of that rebellion is the letting out of the skeletons in the closet.

    For example:

    Take, for example, the narcissist’s family. Narcissists often instruct, order, or threaten their children into hiding the truth of abuse, malfunction, maladaptation, fear, pervasive sadness, violence, mutual hatred and mutual repulsion which are the hallmarks of the narcissistic family.

    “Not to wash the family’s dirty linen in public” is a common exhortation. The whole family conforms to the fantastic, grandiose, perfect and superior narrative invented by the narcissist. The family becomes an extension of the False Self. This is an important function of these Sources of Secondary Narcissistic Supply.

    [so if someone internally discovers a problem with the conclusions they have reached or the way they have presented something, it must be kept within the group and not revealed]

    Criticising, disagreeing, or exposing these fiction and lies, penetrating the family’s facade, are considered to be mortal sins. The sinner is immediately subjected to severe and constant emotional harassment, guilt and blame, and to abuse, including physical abuse. This state of things is especially typical of families with sexual abuse.

    [anyone openly criticizing the narcissist is ostracized or harassed until they come back into line]

    Behaviour modification techniques are liberally used by the narcissist to ensure that the skeletons do stay in the family cupboards. An unexpected by-product of this atmosphere of concealment and falsity is mutiny. The narcissist’s spouse or his adolescent children are likely to exploit the narcissist’s vulnerabilities – his proneness to secrecy, self-delusion, and aversion to the truth – to rebel against him. The first thing to crumble in the narcissist’s family is this shared psychosis – the mass denial and the secretiveness so diligently cultivated by him.

    [e.g. the release of the climategate emails]

    Note – Narcissistic Rage
    Narcissists can be imperturbable, resilient to stress, and sangfroid.

    Narcissistic rage is not a reaction to stress – it is a reaction to a perceived slight, insult, criticism, or disagreement.

    Narcissistic rage is a reaction to narcissistic injury.

    Rage has two forms, though:

    I. Explosive – The narcissist erupts, attacks everyone in his immediate vicinity, causes damage to objects or people, and is verbally and psychologically abusive.

    II. Pernicious or Passive-Aggressive (P/A) – the narcissist sulks, gives the silent treatment, and is plotting how to punish the transgressor and put her in her proper place. These narcissists are vindictive and often become stalkers. They harass and haunt the objects of their frustration. They sabotage and damage the work and possessions of people whom they regard to be the sources of their mounting frustration.

    [we see the second type of behavior a lot from Jones and Mann. How did they react to the publication of a "threatening" article in a New Zealand journal or toward the careers of anyone who does something they perceive as a threat?]

    Note: comments in square brackets are mine. The text is from Dr. Sam Vaknin, The author of Malignant Self Love – Narcissism Revisited (who is himself a diagnosed narcissist).

    This is a comment I also posted in this thread:

    http://joannenova.com.au/2011/12/climate-alarmists-might-just-be-captive-to-basic-emotions/

    Everything we see in this whole AGW “debate” is seems to exhibit characteristics of a group of narcissists responding to criticism which they regard as “attacks”. Certain occupations (including journalism) tend to be over-represented by narcissists relative to the general population. Narcissists also engage in a behavior of “narcissistic mirroring” and they stick up for each other.

    One example might be a journalist who sees himself as “brilliant”. Say this journalist writes fawning articles about a very important politician. Supporters of that politician love that journalist and heap praise upon him. He becomes the darling of their movement. In return, the journalist is also feed narcissistic supply by being given special access to the politician. So they feed on each others’ narcissistic energy. Andy Revkin might be an example, same with the BBC journalist who is given direct access to Jones and helps shape BBC’s policy on AGW. When a critic of that politician’s policies arises, the journalist writes scathing articles that devalue the critic.

    See, narcissists think everyone else thinks like they do. Narcissists have a grandiose sense of their own abilities and intelligence. They assume everyone else does, too. The worst criticism a narcissist can undergo is devaluation so that is the avenue they choose to hurt others. For example, a narcissist can not stand not to have their views heard. So a narcissist’s first reaction may be to treat the critic as if they are insignificant and not worthy of a reply. We saw evidence of that sort of response at Durban when Lord Monckton approached someone there with some inconvenient questions. They could not be bothered to answer because they were so important. The implication being is a thinly veiled message that Monckton is NOT important. It was a devaluation. It was “I am important (and you are not) and I don’t have time to waste with someone as insignificant as you”.

    Occupations such as journalism, politicians, movement leaders, scientists, and powerful business people are over-represented by narcissists. This issue provides a unique crucible where all of these narcissists can come together and become the darlings of a fawning public. They will stamp out any criticism. Their response will be over the top. The current response of elevating the climategate email investigation in the UK is an example of their response to climategate2. There are a lot of narcissists in a lot of high positions who rely on “narcissistic mirroring” with a bunch of other narcissists and these criticisms of AGW represent a real threat to their sources of narcissistic supply and could possibly lead to their public disgrace so it must be stamped out rather ruthlessly.

  112. The bottom line is, if you look at how skeptics are treated, it is very consistent with the response to criticism by the narcissist.

  113. crosspatch says:
    December 23, 2011 at 2:15 pm
    The bottom line is, if you look at how skeptics are treated, it is very consistent with the response to criticism by the narcissist.
    ======
    Seems true, and doesn’t even include the steady paycheck.

  114. Crosspatch, interesting thoughts re narcissism (aka selfishness) and its prevalence in all the fields associated with the AGW scam.

    Mann certainly qualifies strongly enough to come through with narcissistic leadership qualities that insidiously demand acceptance and brook no opposition. Al Gore very strongly. Hansen likewise. Patchy. H’mmm. On and on.

  115. ‘Their side is that the email releases were known to you ahead of time.’

    Therefore, she was talking to the ones who did the releasing?

  116. And look at what they have at stake. Politicians who have potentially wasted billions of the taxpayer’s dollars have their political career at stake. Journalists who have taken the AGW story as their “crusade” to “educate” us on have their future credibility and therefore their careers at stake. The scientists have their credibility at stake, particularly when it comes to fabricating how the data are presented. These people, as narcissists, will have absolutely no compassion for the people they have wronged by diverting money from productive use. They feel no empathy. That comes through in the README as something very troubling to FOIA. All these people are going to care about is their own notoriety, their own credibility, and the extent to which they will be viewed as geniuses.

    They are going to launch a scathing attack on anything they see as potentially undermining their position. They will experience it as a personal attack on them and respond accordingly even when it is not meant as a personal attack on them. They can’t distinguish criticism on their position and a personal attack directly on them because any failing of their position will mean a diminution of their status which will absolutely destroy them emotionally.

    The journalists, politicians, scientists and high level bureaucrats will see any criticism of AGW as a direct attack on their status and will lash out and be supportive of others who lash out.

    This was very typical of how sciences used to be done not so long ago and is one of the reasons why we have the “scientific method”. I have regrets calling it either way once there is enough evidence. At this point in time, there is no evidence that I have seen to show either that A: the climate is responding or has responded in accordance with the model projections in AR4 or B: even of those projections come to pass, there will be any “environmental catastrophe” or other consequence that virtually all species alive today haven’t weathered in the past.

    You might find this interesting:

  117. One of the tactics narcissists employ is “gaslighting”. Gaslighting is the process of providing you with information that conflicts with your own perceptions in order to make you doubt your perceptions. If you lose confidence in your own perceptions, it makes it easier to control you. One way is a manipulation of data you might use to make a decision. Imagine you feel cold but everyone around you says it is hot. You might begin to lose confidence in your ability to determine your ambient environment. It invalidates your ability to draw conclusions from your own input data and makes you more receptive to conflicting from others. It’s sort of like “who are you going to trust, me or your lying eyes”.

    One example of “gaslighting” might be seen in the constant monthly adjustment of the NCDC database where each month temperatures prior to 1950 are made colder and temperatures after 1950 are made warmer. It isn’t just that the amount of current adjustment is changed each month, but in addition, previously recorded data in the database are also adjusted.

    As reported on the Bishop Hill blog recently, we see considerable adjustment of the records. This link shows the change in adjustments since July of 2011:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01675ef0785c970b-pi

    This link shows the adjustments made since December 2008:

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01675ef095ca970b-pi

    Another example might be to attempt to tell people that sources of data (such as UAH) that do not show the expected warming trend are unreliable and should not be trusted. One example is the recent rebuttal by Spencer and Christy to an article that seemed to imply that their data were incorrect. This is, I believe, an attempt on the part of Ben Santer and John Abraham to “gaslight” the public. The message is meant to invalidate UAH and sow seeds of doubt as to its accuracy in people’s minds. This makes it easier to accept alternative sources of data.

    I don’t mean to get all tin-foil hat here, but this seems to me be a little too blatant not to pay some attention to.

  118. I don’t think these people are “psychopaths”, I believe they are simply more narcissistic than most other people in general. Narcissists tend to exhibit certain behavioral patterns and the patterns we have seen toward “skeptics” is consistent with the patterns of a narcissist under “attack” (which is how they experience criticism). To a narcissist, a criticism means that someone is saying they aren’t correct and that is a major threat. If they are found to be incorrect on one issue, that means they could be incorrect on many issues. This would impact their credibility in their minds as being so much more intelligent than anyone else. The response of the narcissist to criticism is disproportionate response. They will try to absolutely destroy you because even a small criticism is, to their mind, a potential destruction of their career (their emotional career, with which they must live forever). So if you publish a paper that casts their work in doubt, they will attempt to have your doctorate revoked, for example.

    I don’t mean to say that these people have all of the traits of narcissism to the extent that they would be diagnosed with a personality disorder, but we clearly have many of the traits of narcissism on display in the climategate emails and in their behaviors in reaction to criticism. So these behaviors are actually somewhat typical of people with this sort of personality. Criticizing a narcissist, particularly one with some serious influence, is a dangerous move. The retaliation can be over the top and ruthless.

    But it might also explain why the climategate emails were released. Often in a situation controlled by a narcissist, the others eventually tire of it and expose the facade. Tell me why the police are involved only to find the person or group who released those emails and nobody is doing a proper investigation of the manipulation that went on inside CRU? The reason is because the politicians in charge of such agencies are themselves more narcissistic than average and have probably already placed themselves on the side of AGW. Now their own credibility is at stake. What it is going to take to break this cycle is for some very powerful narcissist who doesn’t have any skeletons in their closet (is there such a thing?) to come forward and say they were tricked. Then the entire scam comes crashing down. Someone has to stand up and say that the Emperor has no clothes and that person must be very powerful.

    In the meantime, we are going to continue to experience attacks for criticizing their positions because they experience those criticisms as personal attacks on them and so they respond with a personal attack on the critic.

    But at this point Jones and the CRU and Mann and the IPCC have been so completely discredited that I’m not sure the world is really buying it anymore as can be seen in the reluctance to reach any binding agreement at Durban other than to try again at a later date.

    The powerful narcissists aren’t outright criticizing them, but they are starting to put a little distance between themselves and the issue. They are slowing things down, backing down a notch on the rhetoric, expressing uncertainty in some quarters.

    We all have varying degrees of narcissism, it is what gives us self-esteem. Some are higher on that scale than others. The more extreme narcissists trust their own judgement completely and generally see everyone else as inferior but they are also extremely sensitive to how they appear to other people. They expend a lot of energy in creating a facade that is a reflection of the fantasy image they have of themselves. The slightest nick on that image and they will respond ferociously in order to protect it.

    I’m not a clinical psychologist but I did live for many years with someone having a rather severe personality disorder and I worked under a narcissist who was an absolute bastard to work for. A good portion of my coming to grips with this was in learning more about the various behavioral patterns and how to deal with them. These behaviors are a lot less daunting when you understand where it is coming from and what is likely to happen in certain situations and why that is happening. What is amazing to me is why I didn’t see the pattern before until today when it all snapped into place when reading that article at Joanne Nova’s site. Then it suddenly made sense. All of Mann and Jones’ behaviors, their over the top responses to authors and journals, their gatekeeping, etc. It all suddenly made sense. You have some narcissistic scientists on a panel headed by a narcissist (Patchy) whose output is received by an entire congress of narcissists (UNFCCC) and in turn whose policy recommendations are implemented by narcissists. They are going to lash out at anyone who dares criticize them. There must be no way (to their mind) they can be shown to be wrong, it would simply devastate them so they will attempt to destroy anyone who criticizes them.

  119. Whoops, no “allegation” intended…Mosh wrote about a little birdie informing him of an impending “event”… I cant find the comment – its on one of The Blackboard, Climate Etc., Climate Audit, or WUWT…but, to prove I am not smoking anything, here are two recent comments that steve made – first at The Blackboard:

    steven mosher (Comment #85952)
    November 22nd, 2011 at 11:00 am
    Kinda figured this was coming.
    frank at swifthack knew
    Foia contacted him
    as best as I can tell.

    then here is an exchange at CLimate Audit:
    Mosher: Recall what I said the other day
    o ChE
    Posted Nov 22, 2011 at 4:51 PM | Permalink | Reply
    Yes, I remember. A little birdie showed up at your window?
     steven mosher
    Posted Nov 22, 2011 at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Reply
    premonition

    So, I am pretty sure that he said it.

  120. crosspatch says:
    December 23, 2011 at 9:06 pm

    “The reason is because the politicians in charge of such agencies are themselves more narcissistic than average and have probably already placed themselves on the side of AGW. Now their own credibility is at stake. What it is going to take to break this cycle is for some very powerful narcissist who doesn’t have any skeletons in their closet (is there such a thing?) to come forward and say they were tricked. Then the entire scam comes crashing down. Someone has to stand up and say that the Emperor has no clothes and that person must be very powerful.”

    Well said crosspatch.
    Here is Waxman placing the entire reason for his support of AGW on the backs of scientists, which he will REPUDIATE when the inevitable collapse becomes apparent.
    Listen closely to his words.

  121. @Crosspatch

    Very interesting and accurate comments. I’m also not a psychologist but (I mention the following merely to indicate I’m not guessing on my own about this) I have a dear friend who is a long-time clinical psychologist specializing in personality disorders and narcissism. It happens that we have talked about these kinds of issues a great deal in relation to other public figures (i.e., politicians but not specific to climate science). One thing she emphasizes is that everyone who is not at one of the personality extremes has some “normal” degree of narcissism, i.e., healthy self-esteem. As she puts it, hardly anyone would want to get out of bed in the morning if they did not have some kind of (healthy) narcissism, believing they had something of value to do in the world.

    But then there are those we tend to label overtly as “narcissists” implying the extreme cases, a kind of excess (and of course there are other people who have pathological deficiencies of self-esteem). Many of these more extreme narcissists can oscillate wildly between too much and too little self-esteem, since as you note any criticism is perceived as threat and attack and, yes, catastrophic.

    I do think a lot of the fervent CAGW advocates display classic narcissistic grandiosity and personal fragility combined with rage at being challenged or contradicted. Al Gore, anyone?

    But I’m not any expert, and unlike Al Gore I don’t pretend to be one in the movies.

  122. This also became much easier to see once I understood that this debate isn’t really about the science. You can prove today that CO2 is not causing any measurable climate change and it wouldn’t change a thing if the IPCC reached a consensus that CO2 emissions CAN cause climate change. That is when the “Precautionary Principle” kicks in and the UNFCCC is clear to produce policy recommendations anyway. This is about billions of dollars and prestige. Do you really believe that CRU, Tyndall, UEA, IPCC, UNFCCC, EPA, DEFRA, and dozens of NGOs and corporations built on this whole premise are going to go down without a fight even if it is actually completely false?

    To believe that would be to believe that these people have a degree of empathy for the people whose money they are taking. They don’t. And I am not saying that to be insulting, it is just a personality trait of narcissists; they lack empathy. It is simply a fundamental trait of narcissists. It would also assume that these people are capable of admitting they were mistaken. They can’t do that either. That is also a basic fundamental personality trait of narcissists. They are smarter than everyone else. Their conclusions are not to be debated. It is just not possible for them to be mistaken. The only way to provide them with a way out is if they make some new “discovery” that completely changes everything through new data that wasn’t available before. This allows them to maintain their brilliance through their new discovery and it must be THEIR discovery, it can’t be something someone else shows them. Then they can plausibly change their position without having been wrong. They had the best position possible at the time with the information they had to work with and now new information is available (thanks to their brilliance) that changes everything.

    So … either they stick to their position and go down in complete disgrace when it doesn’t come to pass or they make some new brilliant discovery that allows them to prove that CO2 isn’t such a danger after all or that climate DID vary more in the past, or something.

  123. Geckko says:
    December 23, 2011 at 3:11 am

    Had I been subject to that interview I would have kept repeating the same question back to this “investigative” journalist.

    “Why do you keep referring to this unknown person or persons (!) as a hacker? When and by whom has it been established that the data acquired by an unauthorized external person(s)?”

    ——————————————————————————-

    THIS! A thousand times over. Ask them if they are stating that as a fact, and if so, then what is their supporting evidence. When they back off because they have no supporting evidence to site ask them why they stated as a fact.

    Of course their intent by claiming it was a hacker is to paint the person in a negative light. Hacking is illegal!!! As if they have an aversion with information that was illegally obtained. Only when it doesn’t suit their agenda, they do. If it turns out the person was an insider, of course, they will then change gears and paint the leaker in a negative light instead of as a ‘whistle blower’ whose motives were pure. Standard leftist playbook is to immediately start to smear by raising questions of purity of motivation. Of course purity of motivation is never a concern when the leak suits their agenda.

  124. D. King says:
    December 23, 2011 at 10:22 pm

    I thought it interesting that Waxman says he doesn’t know what was in the bill and that they just basically relied on the IPCC. This should be disturbing to most Americans as it says the IPCC is basically writing our legislation. We have a bunch of people that nobody voted for responsible for the contents of legislation and Rep. Waxman (Nostrils-California) has no idea what is in the legislation.

  125. crosspatch says:
    December 24, 2011 at 12:18 am

    It’s amazing how much insight can be gained from a 39 second video.
    I imagine our legislation is being written in Brussels to bring us in line with the E.U.
    Ex: The new patent laws (Change from: First to invent To: First to publish / steal).

  126. “…As I have written before, I think Leslie has it right. Some powerful idiot(perhaps a congressman), who doesn’t understand blogs, internets (love the plural) or techie things in general with more than one button, thinks that the bloggers were in direct communication with FOIA. This is the single reason that I can make sense of for the confiscation of Tallbloke’s computers. Any other potential communications can be taken in pristine form right from the blog logs at WordPress….”

    Everyone is reading FAR too much into this. I don’t mind, as it makes for fun reading, but it really is overegged.

    The most likely scenario is quite straightforward. The police had got nowhere with the original investigation, and were hoping it would die down, when ClimateGate2 came along.

    There was an embarrassing meeting between a senior policeman and the officer in charge of the case, when he was told he’d better not drop it. He’d better review it and come up with some new leads. So it went to a review team, who went down the list of things known. At some point a member of the team said “Hey – this initial data release – we have got all the evidence, right?”, and someone else said “Well, we have a copy of what came out on the internet…”. And the review team boss said “Go out and get a copy of the initial data release straight from this blogger’s machine – that will show (insert senior policeman’s name here) that we are continuing the investigation.”

    No need to consider what extra info they hoped to get, or whether they really think Tallboy did it. It’s just a thing to do to show that you are still busy. It doesn’t have to have a valid reason. Anyone who works in a corporate organisation knows just what I mean….

  127. Dave Springer and crosspatch – you are, I think, about as close to identifying the source of the emails as you’ll get. It wasn’t a hacker, IMHO.

  128. I have figured from the beginning that this is the work of either somebody in the IT department at UEA or somebody in the legal department at UEA, in conjuction with an outside party who put them on the Russian server and then put out the word (which might be a third person).

    What is clear to me is, that anybody smart enough to drop this stuff into a Russian server, is also smart enough to avoid the obvious ways that law enforcement will try to track them down.

  129. Well, after working for a guy several years ago who was a rather extreme narcissist, I can understand the “mutiny” bit. For example, he would often flat out lie to customers to the point where if we had some minor outage, he would craft some elaborate reason why it was not our fault. For example we were moving our operations from one data center to another. He demanded that we do it during the day with no downtime. We took a bit of an outage during the process. He concocted some story about our ISP having issues but that was only once case of many. It sometimes got so we spent more time on meetings about how to carefully craft lies to the customer than we spent on actually getting any work done. Sometimes they weren’t outright lies but were carefully crafted omissions of truth; sort of like clipping the Briffa series.

    More than once I remarked that it would be much easier to simply tell the customer what happened because in many cases they were the sort of problems that all networks have from time to time but he insisted that we keep up this artificial facade of perfection. I was tempted a few times to simply call the customer and tell them what was really going on because if you can explain what is really happening, in my experience you can often get a customer to work with you and if a maintenance operation takes a little longer than planned, no big deal. If you are lying to them, anything that goes wrong in a planned maintenance operation is a HUGE deal and puts unnecessary pressure on everyone involved. The entire department was constantly walking on eggshells being told on one hand to perform risky operations but also being told on the other hand to lie to customers.

    In this case the citizens of the world are “the customers” .

    Narcissists spend an inordinate amount of time making things appear to be different than the reality and the maintenance of those appearances can be extremely stressful on everyone in the group and at some point can result in people simply having enough of it.

  130. Pascvaks says:
    December 23, 2011 at 8:13 am

    ================

    I think you’re on to something there! ROFLMAO

  131. The facts are:
    1) no one here knows what the investigative authorities know and why they are investigating Roger
    2) it is the job of journalists to ask these kinds of questions.

    Were the situation reversed, all of you would be cheering such efforts on, and you know it.

  132. Erinome;
    If only said journalists were asking the people who know something, like the plod and their masters. But that would be too Inconveniently Nosy, I s’pose.

  133. Erinome;
    So, in your ideal society, it is okay then? To invade someoes house, without anyone knowing why? Sort of, like Gestapo? All okay, as long as it isnt your house? Is that it?

  134. noaaprogrammer says:
    December 22, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    It was done by the Chinese,
    in a government sponsored lab,
    with a keyboard.

    That’s the likeliest explanation. The Chinese were about to torpedo Copenhagen and wanted some justification. The Chinese are skilled at hacking and have no qualms about massive attacks on Western sites for political purposes. (If China were discovered to be behind it, the police would say nothing, for fear of causing an international incident.)

    The second-likeliest is that an insider’s home computer was accidentally infected with malware that gave the hacker access for a day or so when the insider accessed the CRU from home.

    One question these investigative journalists have failed to ask, afaik, is this: Was the CRU aware of a hack in advance, or suspicious of it, and when–and why? Certainly, if one of their own had accidentally infected CRU, that would be an inconvenient truth, because it would let the climate contrarians off the hook (of being suspects). So again, the police would say nothing.

  135. Sleepalot says:
    December 23, 2011 at 2:34 am

    Propaganda is used, not only to attack your enemies, but also to hold your own side together. The lie that the emails were uninteresting / well covered in the press, is not told for us skeptics, but to reassure the believers that they need not think for themselves.

    That’s why so much of it seems so stupid to us.

  136. I’m surprised that I haven’t seen any comment on this website about the resulting 1 January 2012 NYT article which is indeed the hatchet job on the leaker we were expecting with negligible analysis of the actual merits of the email leaking in terms of the contribution to scientific enquiry and exposure of scientific malfeasance. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/science/earth/new-speculation-on-who-leaked-climate-change-e-mails.html?_r=1&ref=science
    Well I’m skimming a bit here so sorry if I’ve overlooked any reviewing of the actual article, holding fire perhaps? Anyway I nominate FOIA2009/FOIA2011 for Time Magazine Person of the Year, although I suppose hell will freeze over before he/she wins the award.

  137. I love the irony of this, because warmists call sceptics conspiracy theorists XD But that aside, I am happy that sceptics are anything BUT conspiracy theorists. CTs are paranoid and stupid, not believing anything but their religion. They strain the economy and distort the truth.

Comments are closed.