It’s Time For The Person Who Leaked the CRU Emails To Step Forward

Guest post by Dr. Tim Ball

It is important for the person who leaked the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009 and 2010 to reveal themselves and release the remaining 200,000 emails. The public are increasingly aware of the inaccurate science and failed projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Those promoting the false science are pushing even harder as they lose ground, but a final disclosure would expose the full extent of the deceptions. This would force leaders to abandon policies already causing serious social and economic harm and develop policies based on proper science.

The IPCC failures are no surprise and inevitable because of the political rather than scientific agenda exposed in the first 6000 emails. Evidence from leaked information from AR5, the next IPCC Report, indicate they have not changed. Equally important, the people involved at the CRU and the IPCC think they’ve escaped responsibility with the release of the Norfolk Police Report. It was the engineered response they wanted and in its own way is deceptive.

On July 18, 2012 the Norfolk Police closed their investigation because of the “Realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law”. They also concluded the attack was carried out “remotely via the Internet”, which is not surprising and does not eliminate a whistleblower.

They further deflected the whistleblower claim saying there is “no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime”. It is very unlikely that a whistleblower would work from within the University and run the risk of easy exposure. Most people working at CRU would likely have external access, so they could continue work at home, or when traveling to the numerous worldwide IPCC climate conferences.

Canadian network engineer Lance Levsen after detailed analysis showed, convincingly, the source was someone within the university. He concluded, “For the hacker to have collected all of this information s/he would have required extraordinary capabilities…to crack an Administrative file server to get to the emails and crack numerous workstations, desktops, and servers to get the documents.” Access to the files is a major hurdle, but once inside there is a bigger challenge. Which files do you select? Whoever released the files knew which ones were significant. This required considerable knowledge of climate science as well as the politics and machinations of the people involved.

A comment posted on Anthony Watt’s web site encapsulates the problem. “It would take a hacker massive amounts of work to parse through decades of emails and files.” The commenter suggested a different scenario that involved hacking a single file. Such a file would exist because of “an ongoing process of internally collating this information for an FOI response is entirely consistent with what we find in the file.” The problem with this argument is that the emails appeared in November 2009, at which time both the CRU and the University of East Anglia were rejecting all FOI requests. In January 2005 Phil Jones states that he will be using IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) to shelter the data from Freedom of Information requests.” In an email on August 20th 2008, Prof. Jones says “The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI – the skeptics have been told this. Even though we (MOHC, CRU/UEA) possibly hold relevant info the IPCC is not part our remit (mission statement, aims etc) therefore we don’t have an obligation to pass it on.” It is unlikely anyone did much work preparing files to answer FOI requests. Even if they did, files for an FOI request are different from those required to expose corruption and still required selection.

Levsen reached a solid and logical conclusion “the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one”. “The simplest explanation in this case is that someone at UEA found it and released it to the wild and the release of FOIA2009.zip wasn’t because of some hacker, but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.”

How did the CRU people and others exposed in the emails essentially avoid any accountability? Part was likely due to groupthink defined by Irving Janis. “Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups.  A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision-making.” In his Report for a combined Congressional investigative committees on the “hockey stick” Professor Wegman identifies the insulation. “It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community.” Phil Jones said the banter was typical, which is a disturbing and instructive comment in itself.

Every time a serious problem occurred for IPCC official climate science or those promoting it, they hired professional spin doctors. Why do ‘official’ climate scientists need spin doctors? Answer, because they practice politics not science. Climategate, like it’s namesake Watergate, became exposed by the cover up, in this case disgraceful, atypical behavior disclosed in the emails.

After the November 2009 leak the University of East Anglia hired Neil Wallis of Outside Organization to handle the fall out. University spokesperson Trevor Davies said it was a “reputation management” problem, which he claimed they don’t handle well. Apparently they didn’t consider telling the truth. The leaked emails triggered a shock wave that required a top political spin-doctor. Wallis, a former editor at the News of The World, was later arrested in connection with the phone hacking scandals that led to the resignation of London Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, as well as Andy Coulson, Prime Minister Cameron’s press secretary.

CRU Director Phil Jones immediately called in the police, which established the event potentially as a criminal act. This raises the question of what he had to hide. If there was nothing in the files of consequence, then loss of the information had no currency. The British House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee perpetuated the criminal idea by referring to emails as “stolen” in their whitewash investigation of Jones’ behavior. They didn’t even take testimony from scientists qualified to address the problems with the science, yet still concluded the science was solid.

Terminology used is apparently important and possibly done on advice. Involving the police froze further disclosure of information and created the idea it was a crime. Calling it a theft or a hacking reinforced this with an implication for future legal action. Reportedly, hacked material or stolen information is not admissible in court, unlike information disclosed by a whistleblower.

A special police unit achieved the desired result of letting the investigation drag out past the statute of limitations and then concluded there was no evidence of an inside leak. It is critical to remember the implications went beyond the CRU because its members dominated and controlled the principle portions of the IPCC Reports. The person who released the information apparently knew this because it was timed to derail the Conference of The Parties (COP) 15 scheduled for Copenhagen in December 2009.

The first 1000 emails included some selected to expose behavior unacceptable even without knowledge of climatology. Others show how the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) science was conjured. Exposure of CRU members was necessary because they dominated and controlled the vital portions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports. The leaks achieved their objective of derailing the political program of COP 15. The COP was in a bind because their starting point and assumption is the validity of IPCC science.

COP 15 scheduled for December 2009 in Copenhagen Denmark offered the ideal opportunity for exposing the corrupted science. “The main contentious issues in Copenhagen where whether or not to abandon the Kyoto Protocol, which binds almost 40 industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. At the heart of the dispute, developing nations wanted to extend the 1997 Kyoto Protocol and work out a separate new deal. But most developed nations wanted to merge Kyoto into a single new accord obliging all nations to fight global warming.” It was a critical meeting because failure probably meant the end of Kyoto and any attempt at replacement or modification. The leak was effective because Kyoto expired on December 31, 2012, despite further attempts at resuscitation at COP 16 in Durban.

Who, on the inside, had “scruples” about what was going on. Some of the clues lie in how the person attempted to release the information without personal exposure. The ‘leaker’ was determined to have the material out before the Copenhagen Conference. He sent it out through a Russian IP that reportedly prevented a trace.

George Monbiot of the Guardian actively sold the scientific material produced by the IPCC, which makes his reaction more telling. Reportedly shocked by the emails he said “why was CRU’s response to this issue such a total car crash.” George, the answer is because they were deceiving you, the politicians and the public. Meanwhile, you attacked scientists who knew what was going on and dared to speak out. I can attest that you were told.

The spin-doctors pursued the coverup by putting in place two investigation panels that separated out the science and limited their investigation with terms of reference. I know how this is done because I have refused to participate in such political deceptions. The trick is to pretend to remove the politics by establishing arms-length from governemnt committees to investigate and report. These committees are identified by their Chairs, Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh. Conflicts and questions immediately arose about the integrity and independence of the committees, which the parties tried to address. The emails and their content were already arousing suspicions.

The University of East Anglia (UEA) and Muir Russell both said the Lord Oxburgh inquiry would examine the science. At a press conference on February 11, 2010 Muir Russell said, “Our job is to investigate scientific rigor, the honesty, the openness and the due process of CRU’s approach as well as the other things in the remit and compliance with rules. It’s not our job to audit CRU’s scientific conclusions. That would require a different set of skills and resources.” The Lord Oxburgh investigation was doomed from the start. “A member of the House of Lords appointed to investigate the veracity of climate science has close links to businesses that stand to make billions of pounds from low-carbon technology.”

The cover-up was easily detectable. Clive Crook, Senior editor of The Atlantic wrote a searing indictment of the whitewash. “I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even wilfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.”

Worse, they concluded that what went on was within normal patterns of interchanges and activities between a group of scientists. It’s inconceivable that any reasonable person reading the emails, especially the second 5000, can reach such a conclusion. Meanwhile, we still don’t know who leaked the material.

It is helpful to study the details and consider the people involved. The final police report concluded it was not a whistleblower, but that challenges the evidence. However, it was a valuable conclusion for the coverup. Phil Jones, former Director of the CRU, knew the potential damage and legal implications of the file contents. Ironically, in order to claim the files stolen and a crime committed Jones admitted the files belonged to CRU. What would have happened if he denied they were files from the CRU?

Internal Candidate

There are several internal candidates, but I think the strongest is Keith Briffa. The person was apparently disaffected by the conflicts within the CRU, but also the implications of false data as the basis for world policy. Emails illustrate Briffa’s conflicts within the group. On October 5th 2009 Wigley wrote to Jones “It is distressing to read that American Stinker item. But Keith does seem to have got himself into a mess. As I pointed out in emails, Yamal is insignificant…….I presume they went thru papers to see if Yamal was cited, a pretty foolproof method if you ask me. Perhaps these things can be explained clearly and concisely — but I am not sure Keith is able to do this as he is too close to the issue and probably quite pissed of (sic). I think Keith needs to be very, very careful in how he handles this. I’d be willing to check over anything he puts together.” It appears Wigley is aware of the danger of Briffa doing something rash, like releasing documents. Jones forwarded the email to Briffa, which would likely only irritate him more.

Briffa’s dislike of Mann had a long history. On 22 September 1999, almost ten years before the leaks, Briffa confronted Mann in a long email that included the comment, “I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.” Treasonous words for Mann’s hockey stick paper that claimed no medieval warm period existed. Mann appeared to back off. He wrote, “Walked into this hornet’s nest this morning! Keith and Phil have both raised some very good points.” In reality, he puts Briffa down again. “SO(sic) I think we’re in the position to say/resolve somewhat more than, frankly, than Keith does, about the temperature history of the past millennium. And the issues I’ve spelled out all have to be dealt with in the chapter.” One cynical comment from Mann says, “And I certainly don’t want to abuse my lead authorship by advocating my own work.” It’s an interesting comment in light of his role in the IPCC 2001 Science Report and Summary for Policy Makers. It is also a concern the Wegman Report identified in Recommendation 1; “Especially when massive amounts of public monies and human lives are at stake, academic work should have a more intense level of scrutiny and review. It is especially the case that authors of policy-related documents like the IPCC report, Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, should not be the same people as those that constructed the academic papers.”

On 17th June 2002 Briffa wrote to Dr Edward Cook about a letter involving Esper and Michael Mann, “I have just read this letter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature representative) tropical series. He is just as capable of regressing these data against any other “target” series, such as the increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage (sic) he has produced over the last few years, and … (better say no more)”Cook responds; “We both know the probable flaws in Mike’s recon (reconstruction), particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff…. It is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”

Wigley didn’t help. Here is the first part of a belittling email from Wigley to Briffa on 10 January 2006. Thanx for this. Interesting. However, I do not think your response is very good. Further, there are grammatical and text errors, and (shocking!!) you have spelled McKitrick wrong. This is a sure way to piss them off. It appears to typify Wigley’s patronizing way of talking to wayward CRU members, especially those who undermined the elimination of the Medieval Warm Period.

Conflict continued as Briffa expressed his concern. Mann made some overtures, but on April 29th 2007 Briffa responded, “I found myself questioning the whole process and being often frustrated at the formulaic way things had to be done – often wasting time and going down dead ends. I really thank you for taking the time to say these kind words. I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. I worried that you might think I gave the impression of not supporting you well enough while trying to report on the issues and uncertainties.What damning commentary about what the CRU and the IPCC were doing?

Briffa may have worked with the Information Officer at the University who was under pressure for Freedom of Information (FOI) requests. In March 2009, we learned Briffa was ill and he and his wife were cancelling meetings with people at the CRU. Did this give him time to think about what was happening? Maybe, but his treatment by Mann and the sinking ship was likely an impetus. Whatever the answer, any reading of the emails show they were anything but normal correspondence between colleagues. It became more than a scientific disagreement.

Because of Jones’ actions the Norfolk police, a regional force, involved the national government through the National Domestic Extremism Unit, which was surely another measure of the seriousness of what was involved in the files. This led to the University of East Anglia turning over all the files related to skeptics and their requests through Freedom of Information (FOI). Apparently, the police and subsequent investigations accepted the CRU claims that requests for information were politically driven and caused hardship that diverted them from their work. When police interrogated skeptics, they asked about political affiliations. Why?

The idea of politics as the only motive developed because the CRU and the IPCC made global warming a purely political issue. Besides, why has motive got anything to do with the requests for scientific data and methods, especially when funded by taxes and used to create potentially devastating policies?

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climategate, Opinion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

169 Responses to It’s Time For The Person Who Leaked the CRU Emails To Step Forward

  1. MattN says:

    I thought it was 2009 and 2011….

  2. squid2112 says:

    It is interesting that Dr. Tim Ball would write this up now, as I was just thinking this very morning about this subject. I believe now would be an opportune time to release the additional ClimateGate content. I hope whoever has the power to do so is considering this.

  3. cui bono says:

    Dr Ball, I don’t think it’s a good idea to do a speculative Sherlock Mosher on Climategate. If there is someone in CRU / UEA who leaked, let them bide their time or have some peace. Does it matter if Bacon, Oxford or Shakespeare wrote the plays – we still have them.

    However, the idea that Mann pissed off someone so much that they leaked is lovely. His many and varied contributions to climate scepticism can never be overestimated. :-)

  4. Joe Grappa says:

    “It is important for the person… to reveal themselves”

    Why does that sound bizarre to me? Has there been a devolution of language since I was in school?

  5. Skiphil says:

    I was wondering last year about whether Briffa might have become so fed up with the prevarications and false directions forced upon the climatologists, but Steve McIntyre then emphasized how much Briffa’s attitude changed (for the worse) once he was defending the field against outsiders. It doesn’t mean that Briffa could not have had later pangs of conscience in 2009, especially as the Yamal mess was unfolding, but there does not seem to be much in the past 3+ years that suggests Briffa has become concerned with elevating the standards of paleoclimate research.

    Briffa and Mann

    skiphil, you have to take care to distinguish Briffa’s attitudes before and after MM2003. Before we came along, he and Ed Cook complained to one another about Mann.

    But these differences were forgotten when we came on the scene. Briffa was one of the first off the mark to excoriate us – he didnt even need to read or assimilate our article to oppose us. So be careful in extrapolating quotes from 2002 or earlier into the later disputes.

    May 9, 2012 at 5:28 AM | Steve McIntyre

  6. Drabux says:

    I’ve long thought Briffa did it for the reasons outlined here.

  7. Stacey says:

    Excellent summary of the historical context and of course a sensible and heart felt plea for the whistleblower to release the information which belongs to us all?
    Thank you Dr Bell

  8. crosspatch says:

    Reportedly, hacked material or stolen information is not admissible in court, unlike information disclosed by a whistleblower.

    Scenario: Climate “scientists” had a notion that the jig was up in 2009 and that their warming scenarios would not prove out. They also had a notion that if it didn’t hold up, people were going to be extremely angry over being fleeced for hundreds of billions on account of their climate voodoo. There would surely be an investigation, these emails would be discovered, and, in an environment of severe public backlash, the scientists involved would be scourged and crucified for their actions.

    To avoid this outcome, the emails are “stolen” and “leaked”. Now none of them can be used as evidence in court against them.

  9. knr says:

    ‘no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime”’

    The evidenced gather seem to consist of asking people if they done it and when you said no taken their word for it , which should sound familiar. Odds on the IT system was so chaotic and the data control so poor they simply could not tell who accessed what and when to any level worth a dam , add to that the ‘sharing’ of passwords and you go a situation where unable to prove anything on the inside so went for ‘mystery’ outsiders .
    Only being police they should have at least thought of ‘motivation’ and ‘opportunity which for any outsiders is slight if any in the former and not good on the latter , whoever it was knew where to go , and realistically that says inside job and someone that a reason , perhaps personal , to do it . Frankly one good reason to keep their head down is that their an insider who is looking to keep their job knowing full well it would be hard to get another one .

  10. crosspatch says:

    But I also got the impression that if the leak came from inside, Briffa was the one I would suspect. Wasn’t it an email to Briffa where someone said something to the effect of “hey, if I feed random data series into Mann’s work, it always presents a hockey stick”.

  11. pottereaton says:

    I don’t know who did it. I don’t believe it was Briffa, he was too invested, but whoever it was he’s due to release another batch in November 2013, if, that is, he has a schedule of every two years in November.

    An early release, however, would suit me just fine. I think the warmists are reeling a bit because the data is beginning to veer off from the predictions of doom. A release now would further discredit them, if it’s as damning as the previous releases.

    How about April, FOIA? Let a thousand flowers bloom!

  12. Jimbo says:

    You know, when I started reading this post and got to the third paragraph I was reminded of Briffa being the most likely candidate in my mind. Then as I read further down I read

    “There are several internal candidates, but I think the strongest is Keith Briffa…..”

    It may not be Briffa but it’s just like asking who most likely made up the fake Heartland memo? = Peter Glieck.

  13. A.D. Everard says:

    Brilliant article, Tim.

    Whoever it is might not want to come forward for all the touble that might cause him/her – although it would certainly be best for us. Perhaps, though, the key needed to unlock the 200,000 remaining emails could be leaked, which would clearly help while still protecting his/her identity.

    I have often wondered what that person is waiting for. I do feel there is a reason for the delay, painful though it is from our standpoint.

  14. A.D. Everard says:

    Spelling (sorry) (touble = trouble). I type too quickly sometimes.

  15. geran says:

    I don’t think we actually need another release, but it would be icing-on-the-cake. We already know CRU is hoax-central.

    But we only get this kind of continuing info here at WUWT.

    Thanks, Dr. Ball!

  16. EternalOptimist says:

    FOI, whomever and wherever you are. do not listen to this, excellent fellow that Tim Ball is.
    you follow your own plan, your own brain and your own heart.

  17. Caleb says:

    It would restore my faith in climate science, to a degree, if it turned out someone like Briffa simply got disgusted at the antics of his peers. I think anyone with a conscience would have been appalled. The only way to have gone along with the level of deception, (and also bullying,) that occurred would have been to give your conscience numerous shots of novacaine, to keep it numb. You would have had to say, over and over, “The ends justify the means,” as if was a mantra, ignoring all the evidence that this isn’t (and never has been) true.

    While scientists try to steer clear of religion, there is an element of religion that attempts to link cause and effect, and to suggest that doing good will result in good. This is the antithesis of “the ends justifies the means,” for it suggests “evil means create evil ends.”

    Is this not exactly what GIGO states? “Garbage In Garbage Out” is a new phrase, and in many ways born of (or at least accented by) the bad behavior of Climate Scientists, yet it has a strange similarity to “you reap what you sow,” (and also laws of Karma.)

    At their worst, both religion and science are corrupted and produce garbage, however when they are at their best they aim towards pure Truth, which is a Light that drives away shadows.

    It would be wonderful if the Climategate leaks were due to a climate scientist seeing such a Light.

  18. Jimbo says:

    Hey, I am as sceptical as they come, but let’s be clear to avoid misunderstanding of what Mann claims / claimed. I don’t want your post to become an easy target for Warmists. Maybe the language should be more precise??? My advanced apologies if I missed something.

    “Treasonous words for Mann’s hockey stick paper that claimed no medieval warm period existed.”

    Perhaps should read:

    “Treasonous words for Mann’s hockey stick paper that claimed no global medieval warm period existed.”

    Medieval Climatic Optimum
    Michael E Mann

    Volume 1, The Earth system: physical and chemical dimensions of global environmental change,
    pp 514–516

    It is evident that Europe experienced, on the whole, relatively mild climate conditions during the earliest centuries of the second millennium (i.e., the early Medieval period). Agriculture was possible at higher latitudes (and higher elevations in the mountains) than is currently possible in many regions, and there are numerous anecdotal reports of especially bountiful harvests (e.g., documented yields of grain) throughout Europe during this interval of time. Grapes were grown in England several hundred kilometers north of their current limits of growth, and subtropical flora such as fig trees and olive trees grew in regions of Europe (northern Italy and parts of Germany) well north of their current range. Geological evidence indicates that mountain glaciers throughout Europe retreated substantially at this time, relative to the glacial advances of later centuries (Grove and Switsur, 1994).
    http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/shared/articles/medclimopt.pdf

  19. u.k.(us) says:

    “It is important for the person who leaked the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009 and 2010 to reveal themselves and release the remaining 200,000 emails.”
    ===========
    Why the reveal ?, data not sufficient ?
    —-
    —-
    “Those promoting the false science are pushing even harder as they lose ground, but a final disclosure would expose the full extent of the deceptions. This would force leaders to abandon policies already causing serious social and economic harm and develop policies based on proper science.”
    ===========
    The crux of the problem, is that there are no leaders.
    Just peer pressure, and job security.

  20. JabbaTheCat says:

    Stupid idea. If you have a secure mole in place then the last thing you need if for them to be outed. You never know when the mole’s services might be needed again…

  21. Joe Public says:

    The “Threat” is Worse than the Execution …………

  22. John W. Garrett says:

    Humanity is massively indebted to whoever was responsible for the leak. What seemed to be a nearly irreversible juggernaut of mass hysteria was knocked back on its heels by the revelations contained in the emails.

    The importance of the event cannot be underestimated. The pause allowed the world to investigate, reflect and reconsider.

  23. Konrad says:

    I believe that people should consider the possibility that the individual involved in the leak has been identified and leant on heavily. The Climategate II release contained 2 random emails relating to individuals connected to the World Bank. These emails were included because they had keywords picked up by an unrelated search. It is very possible that there are more emails relating to World Bank efforts to maintain the hoax. Climategate III could do more than just trash the pseudo scientists, activists, journalists and political parties currently recognised as involved in the hoax. Look at the lengths the EU kleptocrats are going to to in defending their trough privileges. What wouldn’t people like this do to prevent evidence of their involvement in the biggest lie in human history being exposed?

  24. William says:

    The IPCC is an ideological group, first and a scientific group third or fourth. The IPCC is a mouth piece for specific NGOs.

    The NGO’s are both ideological groups. The NGOs, the IPCC bureaucracy, EU and UN all benefit, if money is spent on the scams; regardless of the ideology.
    The ideology is a means to an end and hence does not need to actually make scientific and logic sense.

    The motivation and requirement of Climate gate is science and observations are not on the side of the IPCC, there is not extreme warming problem.

  25. Otter says:

    Considering what oh!bummer! is about to do to the US and potentially the globe, in going ahead with attempts to do something about the climate….

  26. John R Walker says:

    I disagree. Whoever leaked this archive did the world a great service. There is absolutely no guarantee, or even expectation, that he or she will be treated fairly. They should remain anonymous and they should release the password to the remaining encrypted file at a time chosen to maximise the impact.

  27. R. Harwood says:

    “Copenhagen Denmark”

    ?

    As distinct from Copenhagen Bolivia?

  28. Jimbo says:

    When police interrogated skeptics, they asked about political affiliations. Why?

    Hey, when I used to post comments on The Guardian I was often asked about my political affiliations. I was asked whether I was a lobbyist or oil funded. I answered that I was not a conservative, not right wing, not a lobbyist and not fossil fuel funded. I told them that I was just an ordinary Joe.

    The problem with these chaps is that they judge you as they judge themselves. I only want the truth, facts and evidence, that’s it. I would never give funds to the Republican Party in the US or the Conservative Party in the UK as I am not of that ilk. But I remain a scecptic of CAGW and am damn angry at this monumental scam.

  29. Jimbo says:

    By the way I agree with Dr. Tim Ball, release it now. They are getting onto weather equals climate, yet in the past they said that the weather is not the same as climate. They are desperate, the time to release is NOW.

  30. LamontT says:

    I know a lot of people seem to have their money on Briffa for it. I’m not certain if it was him or someone else though the case for Briffa is certainly not flimsy.

  31. clipe says:

    .Climategate III, I think, will name names and put true words in unwilling mouths of politicos.

  32. GingerZilla says:

    Unlocking the remaining files would help us find out if Climate Scientists are planning on releasing the Kraken but only bad things would happen to the whistleblower.

    It is not unfeasable some climate commentators would call for said person to be sent to Gimo or to be subjected to a green needle for their heresy.

    /sarc although sometimes even I wonder…

  33. Tom J says:

    ‘funded by taxes and used to create potentially devastating policies?’

    Devastating policies: that says it all. And we haven’t seen the wake of that massive shipwreck of a policy(ies). We’ve barely seen the bow.

  34. Jimbo says:

    A.D. Everard says:
    February 27, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    ………………….
    I have often wondered what that person is waiting for. I do feel there is a reason for the delay, painful though it is from our standpoint.

    They might have already found the whistleblower. Just a thought. :)

  35. Skiphil says:

    re: whistleblower FOIA/RC

    This person should not assume (at least not without the most authoritative legal advice) that there are no further legal risks, since the closing of a police investigation last summer is only one aspect of the matter. IANAL, but the supposed “3 year” clock might start anew from any subsequent release of emails, such as Climategate II in Nov. 2011 or anything still to come. Also, who does know what possible civil legal issues (libel and privacy aspects) could still arise.

    One thing the brave whistleblower can be sure of is that there are lots of people, many in positions of power, who would love to retaliate and ruin the life of the person who gave the world this window into sordid secrets of “Team” ClimateScience-TM.

    I hope that FOIA/RC will see fit to release more Climategate emails and/or other helpful info, but continue to be careful, please.

  36. Don B says:

    Yes, I agree that the release of the additional emails would advance our understanding of the closed shop at the IPCC, but I doubt the release would have any effect whatsoever on the PC politicians. They have their minds made up, and do not want to be confused by the facts.

  37. RCS says:

    I think that it is a little unfair to finger Briffa without evidence. I still think the “Harry_read_me” file is the most damning document in the release and why not Harry?

    Nevertheless, if I were the leaker, I would keep a low profile, especially if the 3rd set of e-mails are political dynamite.

  38. arw says:

    Just the fact that a mole leaker may still be in place and inside has got to put the wind up some of the puppet masters. Do not uncloak

  39. D.B. Stealey says:

    At the very least, FOIA should give the key in a sealed envelope to a trusted friend, with instructions to release Climategate III if an ‘accident’ should occur. Good insurance.

    However, my vote is to keep a low profile. FOIA has much more leverage the way things are. If they mess with him, he could pull the trigger. They know that.

    Everyone retires or takes another job at some point. That’s the time for C3.

    [BTW, Mosher told me he knows who it is. Even told me the name. But being somewhat intoxicated at the event, I can't recall who he said it was. ☹]

  40. Steve McIntyre says:

    This article contains absurd and long rejected speculations. Among other things, the suggestion that Briffa released the Climategate dossier is total drivel. Commenters should not give any credence or oxygen to this absurd theory. Anthony should never have published this article.

  41. margaret berger says:

    If there is more it would be nice to see it. Not fair to speculate on who or demand that they come forward. All I can say is thank you to that person.

  42. It is important for the person who leaked the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009 and 2010 to reveal themselves …

    I disagree. The identity of the leaker is unimportant. What is important is what was leaked – and the fact that the content has been verified by those who created it. If it was a leak – and I agree it most likely was – then let the leaker be. S/he has done the world a great service; disclosing their identity would result in them being punished, not praised. Nobody is going to win the Nobel, or any other prize, for demonstrating that CAGW is the crock that it is.

    … and release the remaining 200,000 emails.

    My guess is the passphrase for the third tranche of emails will be released in November this year (remember where you heard it first!). It might happen sooner if the leaker feels under pressure or some other event indicates an earlier release. Alternatively, perhaps it won’t ever be released, and the leaker will take the secret to their grave.

    if I was the leaker, and had decided on the latter option, I’d put the passphrase in a time capsule to be opened 100 years hence. That way at least future historians would have an insight into how the CAGW scam worked, and who the main players were. There will be Ph.D’s to be earned by those who have the patience to trawl through and derive meaning from two hundred thousand emails between people long dead.

    Just a thought.

  43. astonerii says:

    I can agree with the release of the rest of the emails argument.

    I cannot agree with the argument that a person should put themselves in additional jeopardy to a bunch of people who freely and frequently threaten the lives of others. That being the global warming proponents crowd.

  44. Can’t we first arrange for extraction to and immunity in Texas before asking them to pull the pin on this grenade?

    Only half kidding.

  45. artwest says:

    As to whether the whistle-blower should reveal themselves, I think it partly depends on their status. Whoever it is deserves medals, but if they are an apparently humble pixel-pusher then the story might become about their “crime” rather than the information. Their views on the science will be ignored.
    I have no doubt that CRU and warmists in general will be brutal in attacking the motives and sanity of anyone they can but if the person was a major figure then it may be harder for the media to ignore what they are saying and harder for them to be smeared – after all if they were that flaky why were they a star of the climate science and what does that say about the field?
    But even if they are a “major” figure (and let’s not forget that most people have never even heard of Mann or Hansen, let alone someone like Briffa) their coming forward could overshadow any information they release and their colleagues could all shake their heads and say “poor fellow, we were all worried that the stress was becoming too much”.
    Maybe it’s safer that the whistle-blower remain anonymous in either case.

  46. Steve McIntyre says …

    Thanks for weighing in, Steve. While I won’t claim to know the ins and outs of this, it’s important for truth and not expediency (and certainly not flights of fancy) to be our watchword.

  47. Richard M says:

    I’m with those who would prefer to keep it as it is now. The MSM will ignore it completely and so would the politicians. It would be labelled as old news. Yes, it would make for nice discussions among skeptics but that really does little to change the current state of affairs.

    The current “pause” is much better ammo because it allows skeptics to claim the “believers” are in denial. That gets them very upset. Powerful stuff.

  48. TrueNorthist says:

    Maybe the leaker was in fact caught and has been taken out of circulation in some way or another. Or given some sort of incentive to rejoin the team. I have no doubt it was a leak, but would not find it a stretch that whoever it was is no longer a threat.

  49. r murphy says:

    OT but gotta go to the National Post, saint Suzuki is at it again demonstrating to all the ugliness of dementia.

  50. rogerknights says:

    Konrad says:
    February 27, 2013 at 3:19 pm

    I believe that people should consider the possibility that the individual involved in the leak has been identified and leant on heavily.

    Interesting.

  51. Gunga Din says:

    I don’t care if “they’ ever reveal their name. (“They” still have our thanks.) I just want the info to see the light of day.
    (I would be amused if they released it now though. I mean, The Weather Channel is starting a new alarmist show called “Hacking the Planet”. What better time for “The Hacker” to hack the hype?)

  52. Athelstan. says:

    Pointman, has long ago posited that, the final email and third ‘tranche’ will be so explosive and involve so many political ‘big hitters’ that the person who released the first and second batch encrypted the remainder – may be kept under a ” dead man’s hand detonator”
    See it here at Jo Nova.

    I am inclined to agree, man made global warming was never animate – it was always a wooden canard – there will be no need of ‘detonation’.

  53. PaulH says:

    If I were the person who leaked the emails, I think I would be very reluctant to come forward simply because I would fear for my personal safety and the safety of my family. There are too many organizations and people who have built political and professional careers based upon CAGW. I would fear that they would turn into that “hornet’s nest” and there would be nowhere to be safe from their rage.

  54. Bernal says:

    Speaking of health problems one hopes that all is well in the McIntyre clan.

    Don’t you think that among all the aliases and cute names of people leaving comments on all the threads on all the web-sites one of them must be FOIA. I wonder who it is?

  55. I believe that people should consider the possibility that the individual involved in the leak has been identified and leant on heavily.

    Or that they’ve joined a monastery and taken a vow of silence. Or that they’ve been commtted to an institution for multiple personalities and are barking at the moon. Or ….

    We could always drop the conspiracy theories and admit a near total lack of knowledge on this subject for the moment.

  56. RossP says:

    After the second release there seemed to be implications that the remaining emails were much more related to politics / politicians ( probably money men would also be included). If this correct then the timing of the next release will be nothing to do with where the so called “science” is going.

  57. kramer says:

    I think it may be better to hang onto this last batch of emails for when it’s looking for certain that another UN climate confab is going to be successful.

  58. u.k.(us) says:

    Steve McIntyre says:

    February 27, 2013 at 4:17 pm

    This article contains absurd and long rejected speculations. Among other things, the suggestion that Briffa released the Climategate dossier is total drivel. Commenters should not give any credence or oxygen to this absurd theory. Anthony should never have published this article.
    =========
    I’ll admit I didn’t read past the first paragraph, whether it rated a post remaines to be seen.
    Whether it deserved publishing, is a whole other question.

  59. GeoLurking says:

    I think crosspatch (February 27, 2013 at 2:30 pm) is on the money.

    The whole shebang was staged to cover their collective arses. It fits the profile of subterfuge and misdirection that they seem to be quite familiar with.

  60. Ron says:

    What knowledge/skills does one need in order to release files off a Russian server, even to know about that route in the first place? Would a tree ring scientist just happen to have this skill set?

  61. Mike Haseler says:

    I’ve always thought that some minor administrator got an FOI request, they had been on the typical course that says they have to comply, they did the job they were employed to do and then went to someone on a few minor points and were stopped. I would suggest that the shit hit the fan between those who were “only doing their job as the law requires” and the ones playing petty politics and someone was over-ruled.

    This left a file ready to be sent out, which was not going to be released. Anyone of a number of people could then have sent it out.

    I would suggest that most likely they sent it first to the BBC (I recall a story) the BBC were not interested. I presume eventually they found a sceptic who was interested and then THE SCEPTIC arranged to have it delivered to the Russian server to protect the original source.

    As for the inquiries. Let me put it this way. I think the people involved owed a few favours. E.g. Muir Russell had been key to the disastrous Scottish Parliament project. By all accounts he should have been summarily dismissed without a pension. Instead he got a cushy job.

    And let us be entirely honest … if they ever do have another inquiry which finds them “guilty”, it will only be because it is in the current political interest to end the thing rather than based on the science. Britain only has public inquiries to tie up the opposition in the complex procedures of inquiries in order to give them the false hope that they will achieve anything, thus preventing them doing anything really constructive like campaigning …. that or … when they already know the answer and the inquiry is there to rubber stamp a decision that has already been made.

  62. Sam the First says:

    If Steve McIntyre thinks this article is misguided in its conclusions that is good enough for me. And I agree with other posters that FOIA should lie very low – a lot of people will be out for his/her blood, possibly literally.

    So far as the identity of the whistle-blower is concerned my money has always been on ‘Harry-read-me’. I dare say anyone who had access to the backup files in entirety, other than the core ‘scientists’ ie climate modellers, has now been moved sideways, so may no longer have access.

  63. A.D. Everard says:

    Jimbo says:
    February 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    A.D. Everard says:
    February 27, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    ………………….
    I have often wondered what that person is waiting for. I do feel there is a reason for the delay, painful though it is from our standpoint.

    They might have already found the whistleblower. Just a thought. :)

    *

    I’ve wondered that too, Jimbo. That’s scary.

  64. Skiphil says:

    I agree that it is not worth speculating about who the leaker might be, and that Briffa has been shown by a variety of people (on several blogs) to be a radically implausible candidate. Unless FOIA/RC chooses to reveal him/herself I urge people to leave that topic alone.

    It could be nice to think that any public discussions that add to unease for Mann, Jones, and people of that ilk could be a good thing, but they probably aren’t too concerned that any core “Team” members have defected in this way.

  65. Mike Haseler says:

    u.k.(us) says: “This article contains absurd and long rejected speculations. Among other things, the suggestion that Briffa released the Climategate dossier is total drivel”.

    Likewise I was going to liken it to claims that Jack the ripper was the prince of Wales. This is just idle speculation from a lack of knowledge trying to guess from a very limited pool of known suspects which one would be most likely.

    Most likely:
    a. It was done by someone minor.
    b. It may even have been done in error (they lost a USB stick … or gave it to someone by mistake)
    c. they do not now work at the UEA
    d. and they had no real interest in the climate and don’t read WUWT.
    e. they were never interviewed by the plod who were looking for Russian capitalist agents with poison brolleys and not someone who lent a USB stick to their boyfriend.

  66. Gary Hladik says:

    “It is important for the person who leaked the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009 and 2010 to reveal themselves …”

    I’m Spartacus! :-)

  67. It was Christmas in November when the original “East Anglia Event Horizon” occured, and then doubled two years later. I favor the original ‘who-dun-it’ of a team of Russian hackers, upset with the pittance of the controlled energy market that Russia was to have under the protocalls. The entire fraud was to substitute a controlled ‘finite’ commodity into the new economic base and let decreasing supply drive the current fiat system inflation cycle. This is economic tyrany described in “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality”. The Russians have had a century of suffering under the boot of these crooked bankers….but the final 200,000 emails would be most welcome. Hacker speculation is counter productive….we do not know the hero….but we SURE know the villains.

  68. MikeN says:

    I can’t believe you posted this. Random speculation that it might be Keith Briffa, because of some e-mails relating to the skeptic reaction to Yamal around the same time. Is Tim Ball looking for another lawsuit?

  69. Gary Hladik says:

    “It is important for the person who leaked the emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009 and 2010 to reveal themselves …”

    I’m Spartacus! :-)

    LOL.

    Indeed.

  70. u.k.(us) says:

    Mike Haseler says:
    February 27, 2013 at 5:45 pm

    u.k.(us) says: ………
    ============================
    Umm, Mike that wasn’t me.

    Now you owe me one.

  71. Pamela Gray says:

    Too bad we don’t have a campaign slogan like they do for veterans (Hire a vet!). Hire a whistle blower! They are often an army of one and are great candidates for championing new projects that take preparation, training, planning, initiation, willingness to complete the work, and attention to precision to get them successfully off the ground and into production.

  72. Rick Bradford says:

    The best pointer to it being an inside job is the fact that professional hackers do what they do for money, not for taking sides in a debate that 90% of the population doesn’t even think about.

  73. Sparks says:

    Obviously it was James, you know Bond 007!

  74. Sparks says:

    You know, shaken not stirred!

  75. Greg Cavanagh says:

    I’d be happy to never know who FOIA is. If ever this name is released there would be a long and concerted personnel character assassination and physiological profile which would do more to muddy the whole point of the release.

    I do however believe most strongly that the rest of the files should be released. And I’d do so in a heartbeat if it were within my power.

  76. Steve Oregon says:

    Pool some money together and offer some compensation? Or rather a reward?

  77. mojomojo says:

    Was Rupert Murdachs news organization hacking private voicemails during the period of the climategate release?

  78. Sparks says:

    mojomojo says:
    February 27, 2013 at 7:24 pm

    “Was Rupert Murdachs news organization hacking private voicemails during the period of the climategate release?”

    There was no hacking evolved, the reporters actually had access to default settings, there is a difference between being intelligent and being opportunistic.

  79. dp says:

    If Anthony is shooting for the Bloggie trophy for Climate Tabloids this is the article that should push him over the top. It being over the top, itself. Certainly Briffa doesn’t need this speculation visited upon him and it is a travesty that it has.

    [Reply: Anyone can be a critic. But note that this is an opinion piece, by an author other than Anthony. You are, of course, free to submit your own article. — mod.]

  80. dp says:

    Which of us is speaking for Anthony? I presume he retains editorial control and the buck stops in Chico and so is finally owns the responsibility publishing for all content including these comments.

  81. George McFly says:

    I suggest the person who leaked the material should be called Deep Drive…..

  82. D.B. Stealey says:

    dp,

    As suggested why don’t you write an article? I doubt that you would be told what to write, so you’re off base about editorial control.

    Then you can find out what it’s like when people like you take pot shots. Go ahead, give it a try.

    I double dog dare ya.

  83. Gary says:

    Seems to me FOIA took considerable care to release mostly just e-mails related to certain key words and to try to avoid broad personal information release. Leaking the entire rest of the file would NOT follow the same pattern.

    The Climategate E-mails have been a saving grace and infinitely useful. It showed everyone there was something there to look for. It helped in court to fight for the release of thousands of other Emails that were not exempt from FOI act requests. However, simply releasing the rest of the Climategate archive would undo the effort that FOIA went thru to release the information in as honorable a fashion as possible.

    If there is anything out there it that there should be legal access to the courts have been fighting it out for years now and already released huge amounts. I don’t think FOIA should do a wide open leak of everything trying to get to the remaining infinitesimal bits the courts haven’t decided whether we have the right to yet.

    I think that would do only a little good and undo a lot of what FOIA has accomplished.

  84. Sad-But-True-Its-You says:

    Oh Dear,

    From way way up;

    “t is puzzling to me that a guy as bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit more objectively.”

    Me thinks that IS an, i.e. one of the major issues. MEM sees himself as God and impure to any law, physical, ethical, moral, Federal, State, Local, or even International Like the UN Laws regarding Prisoners of War. Sad note that the USA does in fact NOT recognize this law nor even the Court of The Hague.

    Snicker snicker the ICE, on Napolitano order released ‘detainees’ because on ongoing complaints of torture, unlawful detention, grand theft, extortion, murder. You do NOT want to find yourself in … ICE County … no no no.

    Ergo.

    If Obama and his ‘favorites’ were serious about the sequester, he would forfeit his own salary plus healthcare plus social security plus retirement plus life time security detail plus Presidential Library plus dental plus perks plus clothing PLUS PLUS budget for Michel plus ‘The Kids’ pay and benefits and retirement and healthcare as well as ALL staff and departments of the ‘White House’.

    Were he, just he, to do this … the savings could be 100 billion dollars in 20 years hence.

    But NOOOOOOOOOOO ! And that is a gargantuan and awfully smelly BUTT.

    For this pay, seems Obama would have knowledge of toilet paper and its huge benefits.

    XD

  85. Anon says:

    We have Climategate 1 in 2009, and Climategate 2 in 2011, respectively, that on a large scale exposed violation of the Scientific Method amongst the involving Climate Scientists, especially Mike Mann, Phil Jones, et cetera, turning Climate Science, in short: Science into Pseudo-Science at BEST, and/or Junk Science at WORST, distortion of the “peer review” process, and deceit in general. (My remark: A mafia behavior.)

    But, BEFORE, any Climategate scandal, whether 1, 2, or a future 3, we ALREADY had a looming TEMPERAUREGATE that was already hidden at least indirectly in the inscription of IPCC in 1988, due to these facts in “Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?,” SPPI Original Paper, Updated: Aug. 27, 2010, by Joseph D´Aleo and Anthony Watts, via http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm :

    “Around 1990,NOAA lost more than three-quarters of the climate measuring stations around the world. It can be shown that country by country, they lost stations with a bias towards higher-latitude, higher-altitude and rural locations, all of which had a tendency to be cooler.” (Ibid, page 9.), and;

    “All these issues with the underlying data ensure that the mean global surface temperature for each month and year would show a false-positive temperature anomaly.” (Ibid, page 10.)

  86. Steve McIntyre says:

    DB Stealey

    Mosher told me he knows who it is. Even told me the name. But being somewhat intoxicated at the event, I can’t recall who he said it was.

    He doesn’t “know” who it is – Mosher and I have talked at great length about this topic and I guarantee you that he doesn’t “know”. He has speculated on the identity of RC/FOIA. His speculations are not ridiculous ones, like the one in this post, but they are nothing more than speculations. Moreover, there are plausible arguments against his candidate – who seems implausible to me.

  87. John Francis says:

    I think the whistleblower’s life would be in great danger if his or her identity were revealed. Not from climate scientists but from the many powerful and ruthless interests who benefit from the AGW swindle.

    However I do agree with Dr. Ball that now would be a great time to release the rest of the emails. King O. Is determined to plunge the US into carbon taxes and cap and trade; anything that might help slow or stop it would be of great benefit to the entire world.

  88. D.B. Stealey says:

    Steve McIntyre,

    You’re probably right. But the way it happened, we were discussing Steven’s great guess on the Gleick affair, and it occurred to me to ask him who he thought FOIA was. Steven promptly answered, “It was _____.” [As I said, I don't remember the name, which wasn't familiar to me.]

    So he may have been speculating, but he made it sound like he knew. And the Gleick thing gave him some credibility.

  89. pottereaton says:

    Tim Ball has been on the frontline of the climate wars for a long time and has sacrificed a lot for what he believes. He’s fighting the good fight against Mann in Canada. If Anthony wants to publish his opinion, I’m fine with that. We are all free to disagree with the opinions expressed here, which is not the case at RealClimate where Mann holds court.

    It might be that another release of climategate material could measurably help Tim Ball in his lawsuit. If that is the case, can you blame him for advocating the release of the remaining material? That said, Ball goes overboard in demanding FOIA reveal his identity. That would be a life-altering and possibly dangerous thing to do. I’ve always felt that the theory that Briffa was the whistleblower was far-fetched, but we simply do not know and everyone should be free to speculate.

    Having been snipped numerous times by Steve McIntyre on his blog– and justifiably so in most cases– I will turn the tables on him and say that the tone of his post here was needlessly harsh and not in character for him. What happened to the good-humored, lampooning Steve?

  90. D.B. Stealey says:

    Harry_read_me file [from Climategate]:

    Here, the expected 1990 – 2003 period is missing – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet the WMO codes and station names / locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here?
    Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have

    [source]

  91. john robertson says:

    The “man of mystery” does greater good for his or her self and all of us, by remaining unknown.
    Keeps the team in doubt, keeps the focus on this abuse of civilization and spares his/her family all the vitriol and hatred our opponents seem to bring to every discussion.
    Sure I would love to see the encrypted stuff, but the most good has already been done.
    Prior to November 2009, I was concerned about the abuses of process my government agencies were indulging in with respect to global warming and following some of the trials and tribulations of Steve McIntyre as he tried to access the data, that supposedly proved CAGW.
    The cause smelt a little wonky, but hard to pin down any specifics.
    Seemed we would be saddled with dues, imposed for our own good, at Copenhagen and the relentless fees and restrictions would sweep our freedoms away.
    By early 2010 doubt was, turned to disgust and rage.
    3 years later, the zombie is dead, its supporters are reduced to weak imitators of Monty Pythons dead parrot comedy.
    The term, “Denier” has come back to haunt its source, the major scam artists are cashing out, the useful idiots are left fighting as a rearguard cover.
    The IPCC has conceded a pause in warming, CO2 emissions continue to grow.
    History is back, yes the past periods were planetary and warmer than today.
    Such a climb down by government agents, in such a short time is unprecedented.
    Check the 7 rules of bureaucracy.Delay delay delay never had a chance.
    Climategate and the end of the warm part of this weather cycle have destroyed the cause.
    The past vitriol and arrogance of the believers will make it very hard for them to gracefully retreat, serves them right, the means justifies the waste and stupidity?
    Sorry some one has to pay.
    The internet will be attacked next as this excess of history must be erased to protect the “cause”.

  92. EcoGuy says:

    the whistleblower has no need to reveal themselves. Although I reckon it is about time the pass phrase was revealed. Waiting for an IPCC event or similar undertaking would run the risk of its disappearing in a sea of spin. Let it out when its quiet and there is no spin cloaking material to hand… serve it cold, ice cold..

  93. Jeff Alberts says:

    Caleb says:
    February 27, 2013 at 3:01 pm

    It would restore my faith in climate science, to a degree, if it turned out someone like Briffa simply got disgusted at the antics of his peers.

    Briffa’s antics are right up there with Mann’s. The Most Influential Tree In The World is testament to that. If he were to publicly own up to it being a mistake, I might, might, consider giving him a break. But when McIntyre exposed Yamal for what it was, garbage, Briffa fought back.

    These guys will never learn that having McIntyre on their side would have helped their careers, not destroyed them.

  94. dp says:

    D.B. – do you understand the difference between editorial control and writing an article? I have done both as it happens, but my writing an article is not what this is about. I agree with MacIntyre that this article needed not to have been published. It is a thinly veiled accusation against Briffa and which cannot be proved by Ball nor denied by Briffa. That is the clue that it is bad writing and worse editorial policy. It is reckless speculation bordering on being actionable.

    I had not seen Steve’s comments prior to adding my own and now I’m surprised (not!) to see a mod challenge me while not holding Steve to the same standard. Was he/she cautiously telegraphing a broader message? It looks bad from here, I can tell you.

    My previouos paragraph is intended so show how that speculation crap works.

  95. u.k.(us) says:

    dp says:

    February 27, 2013 at 8:04 pm

    Which of us is speaking for Anthony? I presume he retains editorial control and the buck stops in Chico and so is finally owns the responsibility publishing for all content including these comments
    ===========
    In finality, who isn’t speaking for someone.
    No matter the content.

  96. davidmhoffer says:

    D. B. Stealey;
    So he may have been speculating, but he made it sound like he knew.
    >>>>>>>>>>>

    Yeah, well he makes it sound like he knows physics too…

    Dr. Ball
    I share Steve McIntyre’s view, though perhaps not for the same reasons. For those of us in the IT business, the evidence that climategate was the work of a whistle blower is compelling. Compelling, but circumstantial. As for evidence that Briffa is FOIA, there is none. I myself have speculated aloud that Briffa may be trying to “come in from the cold” but the evidence you present establishes nothing more than motive. If being disgruntled with colleagues or bosses is sufficient, then everyone from the janitor to the receptionist to co-op students to Jones himself in a fit of conscience has motive. Motive and access. The only difference between countless other employees and Briffa is that we know about Briffa’s frustrations and concerns. Unless the CRU is some workplace nirvana that doesn’t exist anywhere else in reality, there were plenty of others with as much or perhaps more motive than Briffa, we just don’t know their personal stories.

  97. JDN says:

    No, it’s not time.

  98. half tide rock says:

    The source of the leaks has done the world a great service and the ramifications to that person could be significant. The demonstrated duplicity shown is outside the bounds of reasonable behavior and I judge treasonous considering the harm to our quality of life the false narrative has encouraged. Unless this community has a plan to protect the source of the e-mails then I seriously hope that the source remains unidentified. Those who have so much to be thankful for should respect the courage and attempt to create an environment where additional brave individuals taking the lesson from this incident might consider similar actions. This post should have stopped at the plea and concentrated on the gratitude and protection that would be afforded. It is now unfortunate.

  99. richard verney says:

    There is an assumption being made that the further 200,000 emails are damning. They might not be. Although it would be time consuming to read 200,000 email, lawyers frequently read vast quantities of documents in days.

    One reason why the further emails have not been released may be that they have been scan read and considered to be of little importance.

    However, the threat of disclosure places pressure on those involved since it is likely that they are not fully aware of what further material might be contained in the unreleased file. It is conceivable that the whistle blower considers that the threat of a further release is the best use of a whole load of trivial emails which if released would in practice inflict little further harm..

    I am not saying that this is the case, but it is one possibility. Until such time as one sees the further emails, it is all a matter of conjecture as to what may or may not be contained in them.

  100. richard verney says:

    Richard M says:

    February 27, 2013 at 4:35 pm

    I’m with those who would prefer to keep it as it is now. The MSM will ignore it completely and so would the politicians. It would be labelled as old news. Yes, it would make for nice discussions among skeptics but that really does little to change the current state of affairs.

    The current “pause” is much better ammo because it allows skeptics to claim the “believers” are in denial. That gets them very upset. Powerful stuff.
    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Subject to the unreleased emails containing something really explosive, I share that view.

    Mother nature and the present economic difficulties of the developed world are proving the case against cAGW.

    If there is no return to warming before the end of this decade and if the economic problems have not been resolved by then (and most economists are suggesting that it will take a generation to sort out – and due to the ever increasing expense of an aging population, the economic position, by the end of the decade, could in fact be worse not better), it is difficult to see how this scam can survive. It is presently on its deathbed and on life support. There only needs to be some power cuts (due to mad energy policies being employed by most western governments) during a cold harsh winter to cut that life support off.

  101. u.k.(us) says:

    The good news is: the birds will start coming back soon, the ladies will expose some skin, and it will be spring, thunderstorms even.
    Thunder:

  102. David Cage says:

    Don’t be daft about whistle blowing. The later emails are nearly a hundred percent certain to be more damning but given what I found out accidentally while doing my equipment tests at work once I would place every penny I own that they are also traceable and the police action so far was known not to have a chance of finding out who it was releasing this batch but was a warning not to release the rest.
    I would not mind betting it includes the data sent to them years ago that showed clearly that the so called abnormalities in the climate were nowhere near the greatest deviation from the norm even in the recorded data. I also know they have failed to reveal the objections from their colleagues in other disciplines to the failure to include any factors influencing climate from their own areas of expertise in claiming the science was beyond question.
    The universities sell off old equipment and mostly they are really inept as ensuring the disks are clean when a mix of windows and Linux systems are present and I got given a disk from one bought on Ebay from the Norwich area with the Linux partition still intact while the windows one had been cleaned thoroughly. The files had a legal no broadcasting rights that would make release illegal even if it revealed flagrant law breaking.

  103. Rhys Jaggar says:

    If the leak is internal and if the leak was only a subset of the total files leakable, then a number of potential scenarios pertain:

    1. Leaking a subset allowed them to remain in employment, they not being rich enough to retire, whereas leaking the lot would be game over in terms of a career in climate science.
    2. They may have carried out the leak as a warning and an exhortation to change, still believing that the situation was retrievable.
    3. They may like their colleagues in many ways and therefore the thought of destroying their lives and careers is not something to be undertaken lightly.
    4. They may have been waiting for the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election in the USA, since with a Republican President, furtherance of the agenda might have been less likely.
    5. They may have been waiting for 15 years of no warming to ensue, since that is a tipping point for the incorrect computer model predictions to fail. That has now been reached…….

    One thing which is interesting from this article is that Ball is sure that the leaker is a MAN. That may be a typographical laxity, but for him to write that deliberately should imply that he knows for a fact who the leaker is.

    What will happen to the leaker if they do reveal all, eh??

    Can they make their mortgage payments??

    Do you lot even care????

  104. jorgekafkazar says:

    The whistleblower jeopardized billions of dollars of investment in the AGW swindle. He/she knows that there will be “payback” as Obama calls it, should his/her identity be established. I find speculation regarding the whistleblower’s identity most unwise.

  105. Stacey says:

    Anthony
    I’m not sure if this is a stupid idea or legal?Could your site be a vehicle to obtain the release of the emails.
    1 Get readers to pledge a certain sum.
    2 Advertise the amount pledged.
    3 Once the emails are released provide the pledged monies as a donation to the Whistleblower for his good works.
    Of course I wouldn’t be surprised if certain vested interests would offer more to keep them hidden.

  106. He who single handedly stopped global government financing and worldwide carbon tax, with help from Solar Cycle 24, should win the Nobel Peace Prize.

  107. u.k.(us) says:

    Rhys Jaggar says:

    February 27, 2013 at 11:39 pm
    Do you lot even care????
    ==================
    We lot, care a lot.

  108. BezorgdeBurger says:

    I wonder why I have that distinct gut feeling, that a courages lamb, now somewhat wiser
    after lookin upon the last four years goings on in the wolfian world, would not feel obliged
    once again to participate in a dinner with a pack of wolfs now more emeciated and hungry then
    ever before.

    Now, allow me, in the simplest clarity and clairvoyance any mediocre educated person could
    and should have developed since at least 2009 (wayback Churchill and Eisenhower did) to ask
    some simple questions.

    Where are/were we crying out loud when the wolfs are eating the lambs whenever/whatever:

    - homeopathy, anti-vaccination, reflexologie and bla bla was (by reintroducing superstition
    and witchcraft) eroding normal peoples confidence in medical science;

    - technology/science was proclaimed to be inspired/work of Satan and his ilk;

    - the human population should be culled/controlled in favor of Gaia;

    - the EPA in the USA declared CO2 a pollutant/harmfull and took no offence when a Federal
    Agency perverted science and caused unimaginable suffering and death (DDT and malaria);

    - postmodern/postnormal science wiped out great parts of hard science to be replaced with a
    belief system based on arbitrary notions of political correctness based on a failed
    ideology just overthrown by the people in Russia and it’s satellite states;

    - Al Gore made science a joke, Gasland made shale gas look bad both by blatant lies;

    - that there is a clear, direct an unambigious relation that more energy means more health,
    longevity and happiness; having this knowledge why do we tolerate that mentally deranged
    worldsavers can impose energy constraints on the poorest countries of the world;

    - people in the poorest countries of the world are starving/dying because of bio-fuels;

    - dont care that woman/children merely by cooking food (if any) on wood fires in the poorest
    countries of the world get PD and die early from smoke inhalation;

    - accept perverted science and facist legislation concerning second hand smoke (other then
    respecting people if they mind you smoking); the largest study ever done, seven EU
    countries (World Health Organisation 1998) found a small but significant “positive” health
    effect in children from smoking parents, zero for others;

    - accept that hard biological science/evidence regarding human genetic research and the
    nature/nurture debate can be overuled by arbitrary and often discriminatory/racists views
    from an ideologically inspired belief system colloquial called “social sciences”;

    - accept that FOIA rights are (mostly) to serve activists who want to frustrate progress;

    - when you call the EUSSR for what it is you are a clown, racist, populist, xenophoob etc.;

    - referenda (direct choice) is part of Nazi ideology;

    - left politics by acclamation is good and right politics by association is bad;

    - muslims can call openly in our streets for jews, christians, atheists ie non-muslims
    beheadings and the end of democracy while any critisism on their religion/ideology can get
    you killed, in prison, fined or is racism, xenofobia or suppression of freedom of religion
    etc.;

    - ………….. and this list can go on and on and on ……

    And now we wake up and call upon our SAVIOR to bring us “the sanctified email’s” and expect
    that we will be delivered from evil? Dont think so! Please do your self a favor and read
    ie. Michael Crichton’s lectures, Richard Feynman’s CARGO CULT lecture and gain the insight
    that there is much more to it then you see on face value. Brainwash (Hjernevask) is a seven
    part documentary from socialists heaven Norway. When it was aired there was outrage and in
    the fallout the female “warm and loving” sociologist (part 7) had to flee the country; watch
    them all its an eye opener on “the “social sciences”.

    Ep 1 – ”The Gender Equality Paradox”
    Ep 2 – ”The Parental Effect”
    Ep 3 – ”Gay/straight”
    Ep 4 – ”Violence”
    Ep 5 – ”Sex”
    Ep 6 – ”Race”
    Ep 7 – ”Nature or Nurture”

    http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=327138

    Finally internalize and heed the following: you, youre culture and everything it stands for
    or ever achieved is universal bad and evil. Consequential all other cultures are holy, to be
    revered and should dominate. Please dont forget to remember when you, like the frog, are
    slowly warmed up in the cauldron to respectfully thank youre hosts for the privilege
    bestowed upon you partaking in the ongoing ritual.

    PS: Hmmm I needed this really bad. Hey, look, over there is a squirrel.

  109. Vladimir plays the chess game well.

  110. Whoever did it also (or with help?) hacked into the RC site and posted it there. That takes skills few climate scientists would have. And it indicates a sort of edgy, mocking personality. Maybe an IT worker who’d had some climate courses and wasn’t impressed by his teachers.

  111. peye m says:

    It was most likely someone in their foi unit.

  112. Stephen Richards says:

    It would be a very stupid strategy for FOIA to reveal his personal details now or at any other time. He/she need only release the password(s) and who knows, by now a lot of the info in the files may be very outdated.

    It would be really stupid to expose oneself to the likes of Glummer, Yeo, paterson and other trough-bourne figures. The money at stake here is enormous. Tim would benefit quite a bit, I think, but FOIA, not at all.

  113. Stephen Richards says:

    1. Leaking a subset allowed them to remain in employment, they not being rich enough to retire, whereas leaking the lot would be game over in terms of a career in climate science.
    2. They may have carried out the leak as a warning and an exhortation to change, still believing that the situation was retrievable.
    3. They may like their colleagues in many ways and therefore the thought of destroying their lives and careers is not something to be undertaken lightly.
    4. They may have been waiting for the outcome of the 2012 Presidential election in the USA, since with a Republican President, furtherance of the agenda might have been less likely.
    5. They may have been waiting for 15 years of no warming to ensue, since that is a tipping point for the incorrect computer model predictions to fail. That has now been reached…….

    Rys, I have to say that none of those make no sense at all. The amount of leaked data up to now would be sufficient to provoke all or none of your propositions.

  114. Greg Holmes. says:

    Be very careful how you do this, if you reveal yourself you will be screwed over big time. But if you can get the info out there, do not forget snail mail, no trackers on that.

  115. Mr Green Genes says:

    dp says:
    February 27, 2013 at 9:33 pm

    It is a thinly veiled accusation against Briffa and which cannot be proved by Ball nor denied by Briffa. That is the clue that it is bad writing and worse editorial policy. It is reckless speculation bordering on being actionable.

    Oh, come on! Dr Ball actually says “There are several internal candidates, but I think the strongest is Keith Briffa.” In other words, in Dr. Ball’s opinion, if the leaker was an insider, Briffa is the most likely candidate. He then goes on to write several paragraphs in which he tries to explain his reasoning. That cannot be construed as a thinly veiled accusation and I fail to see how it could possibly be actionable. It is clearly speculation, backed by an explanation for the speculation.

    I had not seen Steve’s comments prior to adding my own and now I’m surprised (not!) to see a mod challenge me while not holding Steve to the same standard. Was he/she cautiously telegraphing a broader message? It looks bad from here, I can tell you.

    I guess that all depends on where “here” is.

  116. son of mulder says:

    Speculation on the identity of a whistle blower in a public forum like this is unacceptable in my view. By all means encourage the full disclosure of any evidence of criminality or deception. Here in the UK the recent examples of health care whistleblowers, BBC Savile whistleblowers, catholic priest abuse whistleblowers etc are starting to open the eyes of normal people to the corruption and group think that has led to cover ups, but the pressure on honest individuals who want to follow their conscience must be enornous. We’ve had paediatricians attacked because the baying mob don’t understand the english language. Baying environmental nutjobs are are equally likely to do something stupid.

  117. Ian H says:

    “It is important for the person… to reveal themselves”

    Joe Grappa says:
    Why does that sound bizarre to me? Has there been a devolution of language since I was in school?

    Evolution not devolution. The plural is now commonly used to speak of a singular person of unknown gender. If you don’t know whether the person you are referring to is male or female then it is convenient to to identify them using the plural pronoun. This has become such an accepted part of the language that most people don’t notice it, unless perhaps they were unfortunate enough to have had formal grammar beaten into them at school. Case in point – I have used this construction twice in this paragraph. Did you notice? Both times?

  118. MikeO says:

    Before COP 15 considerable pressure was being applied to certain developing countries to join the lunacy that is AGW alarmism. One response was to demand 2% of the GDP of western countries also the BASIC bloc was formed. China is one of the members. China needed to noble pressure since it is the most “guilty” party if we talk about emmissions but not cure the western lunacy. China and India (also part of BASIC) sell lots of alternative energy equipment to the west. Answer espionage for which no doubt these countries have ample resources. My background is IT my experience tells me to do this you need a technician inside the CRU. I doubt the investigation would have looked for such a person and future release will be if it suits BASIC interests. For me if that is the fact then it was brilliantly successful

  119. John Whitman says:

    They (the persons responsible for the CG1 & CG2 releases) have provided very many curious individuals with a challenging mystery to solve. They cannot really reasonably expect hat no one is pursuing both their identity and the access to their encrypted file. When someone lays down a challenge like they did, it will be solved eventually.

    All speculation should be used as potential sources of leads, just like an intelligent investigator always does.

    Therefore, I disagree with Steve McIntyre’s position that Tim Ball is out of line in any way and disagree with his view that Anthony was remiss in putting Ball’s post on WUWT.

    There is one speculation out of the many interesting ones in the comments that strikes me as intriguingly subtle:

    Jimbo on February 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    A.D. Everard says:
    February 27, 2013 at 2:49 pm

    I have often wondered what that person is waiting for. I do feel there is a reason for the delay, painful though it is from our standpoint.

    They might have already found the whistleblower. Just a thought. :)

    One strange implication that I can entertain from Jimbo’s speculation is that they might have made some immunity deal with authorities or with UEA CRU. A deal that does not necessarily involve giving authorities their identities. It would make an excellent Michael Crichton triller plot. Inquiring mystery fans to the fore . . .

    As to speculation about timing of releasing CG3, shortly before the start of any Mann vs NR trial would be an entertaining time. Popcorn sales would soar.

    John

  120. Jeff Condon says:

    While it would be interesting to know who released the emails, it could be very dangerous for them. Each release may be considered a separate event in the eyes of the law. Even if it isn’t, the argument could be made and legally it would be very expensive.

    If it were Briffa, I would hold a higher opinion of him but I don’t believe it was someone directly in the field.

  121. hro001 says:

    Roger Knights says: February 28, 2013 at 1:05 am

    Whoever did it also (or with help?) hacked into the RC site and posted it there.

    Actually there has never been any evidence presented to anyone which would suggest that Gavin Schmidt’s ever-changing-story about this alleged “upload” to RC (a completely pointless and unnecessary move which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, IMHO).

    In fact, notwithstanding Schmidt’s claim to Revkin (circa Jul. 6/10) to have ‘sent the logs to the Norwich (sic) police’, there has been no independent confirmation of this.

    Indeed, Revkin has confirmed that he has only Schmidt’s word for anything that he reported on this alleged hack of RC – and that he was given no evidence and sought no independent confirmation.

    I believe it is worth bearing in mind that Schmidt never did report this alleged hack at RC to the appropriate US authorities; and that UEA did not file a complaint/report to the Norfolk Constabulary until Nov. 20 (the day after the blogosphere became aware of the availability of the CG1 files) – notwithstanding the fact that they were informed of the security breach on Nov. 17, by someone at RC. If you knew you had been “robbed”, would you wait 3 days before contacting the police?!

    My guess is that the only grain of truth in Schmidt’s story is that The Saint (as I prefer to call FOIA/RC) posted a comment – containing the link to the Russian server – similar to that which was posted here, at JeffId’s and at Warren Meyer’s as I recall. Such a comment would never have made it past moderation at RC, wouldn’t you agree?!

    As far as stepping forward and/or releasing the pass-code, I don’t believe it’s fair – or appropriate – to make such a request. Strikes me that the Saint has an excellent sense of timing and that s/he will continue to exercise it judiciously.

  122. Andy D says:

    I’m an avid reader of WUWT, but only a very occasional poster. I’m with Steve M on this. To publish speculation, without proof, about the possibly identity of FOIA, just seems plain wrong. Saying that there are several possible candidates but naming just one, then speculating in fine detail about that individual’s motives, is disingenuous to say the least.

    This plays straight into the hands of the alarmists by giving them a massive stick to beat Anthony with. Whether he wrote the article or not, as the owner of the blog he has final say on what is published. I’d be very surprised if the alarmists were not all over this like a rash in a few days.

  123. Mindert Eiting says:

    The computer where all harvest came from, was DPE1A, an older instrument with an erroneous (American) time zone setting, used by Briffa, Harris, and Osborn at least. The computer was not a back-up server for documents but contained an update email archive. Direct access to this computer may have been possible via Briffa’s work PC.

    CRU staff had remote VPN. They only had access to their mail and not to other information. During September-October 2009 Briffa had no VPN of his own and had to use Melvin’s.

    Briffa was not in his room at CRU from 16 April till 19 May 2009 for family reasons, neither from early June till early September 2009 because of serious illness. During September-November 2009 he was mostly absent (present 8/23/30 September, 1/2/12/14/27 October).

    The minimum time FOIA needed was 16 September 2009 – 13 November 2009. With minimum effort, FOIA may have harvested documents from Briffa, Osborn, and Harris shortly before or on 16 September 2009, mails shortly after 23 October 2009, and a final harvest on or after 13 November 2009 of Jones’ mails and one report.

    My conclusion is that FOIA is a PhD student (sorry for the missing references).

  124. knr says:

    richard verney your right its fear of what the remaining e-mails may content which is the big issue for Jones and Co , especially given their own poor record keeping and data control . I would take a very good bet they don’t know who said what to who and when .
    In reality their contents may be little more than all the boring stuff missing so far , such has interpersonal chatter , its the ‘unknown’ element that may give this e-mails their punch .

    The bad news , they will have long moved on to ‘other means ‘ to communicate partly to avoid FOI’s but their behaviour will not a have changed a bit. So sadly I cannot see this happening again .

  125. David Holland says:

    I agree with Steve McIntyre that FOIA is not Keith Briffa or who Steve Mosher thinks it is. I also agree with Roger Knights that the RC hack took real skill, which might not have been needed to get the CRU emails. The ‘Operation Cabin – Closure of Investigation Report’ confirmed how some of us thought the CRU hack was done.

    September 2009 – Attacks on CRUWEB08 and ultimately CRUBACK3 originating
    from several IP addresses in 3 different countries. Approximately 4GB of data
    downloaded.
    October 2009 – Further attacks on CRU[BACK]3 via CRUWEB08 from several IP
    addresses 4 further countries. Approximately 50GB of data downloaded.

    I doubt that Mike Salmon had forgotten an incident in December 2008 or that the police were not told about it from the start. What is plain from the Climategate emails is that FOIA was a CA follower and if he/she/they had not thought about hacking the CRU my blog comment might have been been an open invitation. On the other hand if FOIA could already access the CRU emails it might have been the hurry up call to get them out of CRUBACK3. I do not think FOIA was thinking about COP15 in September 2009. Few in the world were.

    Given the involvement of the National Domestic Extremism Team I would expect that the emails/phone records of any suspect would be trawled to look for social network info to establish a hacking capacity. As the Cabin report points out it is not difficult to set up an untraceable route in and out of the CRUWEB08 server. However i think it is much harder to cover up the the learning curve that FOIA must have followed. The Cabin report states:

    The developer of the software used to encrypt FOI 2011 was contacted. Having
    established that it was freeware and that no records were likely to exist in relation to who
    has downloaded this software this line of enquiry has not been pursued any further.

    I would not expect FOIA to reveal himself. He could be anywhere.

  126. Joe Grappa says:

    Ian H Says:

    “Evolution not devolution.”

    For you maybe.

    “The plural is now commonly used to speak of a singular person of unknown gender.”

    I know. It usually sounds awful.

    “If you don’t know whether the person you are referring to is male or female then it is convenient to to identify *them* ”

    To be honest, that sounds kind of foolish, though not nearly as bad as Dr. Ball’s horror. And I am aware that it has a history of use by at least a few respectable writers going back several hundred years. If a student used it I would probably let him off with a caution for the first offense.

    “using the plural pronoun. This has become such an accepted part of the language that most people don’t notice it, unless perhaps they were unfortunate enough to have had formal grammar beaten into them at school.”

    That is the first time I have heard the teaching of “formal” grammar deprecated by an eductated man or woman. You might as well bewail the misfortune of being taught formal arithmetic.

    ” Case in point – I have used this construction twice in this paragraph. Did you notice? Both times?”

    I noticed only one misuse which I bracketed with asterisks and commented on. The bit: “unless perhaps they…” sounds correct to me since it refers to the plural ‘people’. Have I missed something?

    How anybody can read Dr. Ball’s ludicrous phrase without wincing is beyond me. Even a lack of ‘formal’ grammar should not deaden one to its grotesqueness.

  127. MrV says:

    Probably the Chinese govt, they know what a crock of sh*te that Climate science is. They have the manpower to parse a huge volume of documents.

  128. Vince Causey says:

    Whoever done it, I am sure they will reveal themselves in due course. Not in a public announcement though. As time goes by, the temptation to tell somebody close that “I was the one who released the climategate emails” becomes overwhelming. He/she will no doubt tell his closest confidante “If you swear never to tell a soul, I will let you in on a big secret.” It is just human nature.

    But human nature being what it is, the confidante will also have his/her own confidante: “If you promise not to tell another soul, I’ll let you in on a big secret.” It’s just human nature.

    And so the circle of confidantes widens until, eventually, the whole world has heard.

  129. Steve Thatcher says:

    A.D. Everard says:
    February 27, 2013 at 5:15 pm

    Jimbo says:
    February 27, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    A.D. Everard says:
    February 27, 2013 at 2:49 pm
    ………………….
    I have often wondered what that person is waiting for. I do feel there is a reason for the delay, painful though it is from our standpoint.

    They might have already found the whistleblower. Just a thought. :)
    *
    I’ve wondered that too, Jimbo. That’s scary.

    ******************************************************************************************************
    Another possibility I’ve not seen mentioned is that perhaps, sadly, the leaker does not have the encryption key.
    If the files had been pre-bundled for whatever reason by someone other than the leaker, maybe the first releases weren’t secured but the last one was. It would still be copyable but the content not accessible. While the opportunity was there, the files were copied hoping to obtain the key later (or supplied by someone else – possibly cracking the encryption).

    Just a thought.

    And no, I don’t think the leaker should come forward until every last trace of this scam has been discredited, if then.

    SteveT

  130. cd says:

    Mentioning names is a bit dodgy. You may have to retract this Tim.

  131. Evan Bedford says:

    Did anyone read Fred Pearce’s book on the matter? The stuff was sitting on an ftp site. Fairly easy to get at.

  132. MikeN says:

    Perhaps Mr McIntyre is protesting because he wants to protect the mole, Mr Briffa.

    I would like to know the reasons why Mr McIntyre and Mr Holland consider Mosher’s candidate to be implausible. Why is Mosher going against the tide here?

  133. Steve Thatcher says:

    cd says:
    February 28, 2013 at 6:11 am

    Mentioning names is a bit dodgy. You may have to retract this Tim.
    *************************************************************************************

    So far, we are still entitled to have an opinion. When Tim Ball says his opinion is such and such and then outlines why he thinks that, there is no legal problem. Whether it is right is another matter.

    The important thing is that it is allowed now. If this scam runs it’s course we may all be slaves with no rights.

    Steve T

  134. G. Karst says:

    What about the decryption possibilities? The locked bundle of emails must represent the greatest cipher of the post cold war era. I would think many would respond to this, in the face, challenge. Surely there are small cliches, in computer labs working on this “instant fame” encryption problem. Is there hope? GK

  135. Jeff Alberts says:

    Roger Knights says:
    February 28, 2013 at 1:05 am

    Whoever did it also (or with help?) hacked into the RC site and posted it there. That takes skills few climate scientists would have. And it indicates a sort of edgy, mocking personality. Maybe an IT worker who’d had some climate courses and wasn’t impressed by his teachers.

    Or, it was an RC insider who already had a password and/or the ability to create accounts, or change the passwords of others.

    As HR001 pointed out, a comment was posted that never would have made it past RC censors. Therefore it was someone with account access. Could have been a hack, but I doubt it.

  136. Steve McIntyre says:

    John Whitman wrote:

    I disagree with Steve McIntyre’s position that Tim Ball is out of line in any way

    To be precise, in my comment, I objected to ill-informed and ridiculous speculation in this article about RC/FOIA’s identity and, in particular, to the ludicrous mention of Briffa in this context. Whether I would have objected to properly informed and insightful speculation is an entirely different question. However, whenever people make ridiculous speculations, it diminishes their credibility. That was my issue here.

  137. Tim Ball says:

    I am disappointed. Mr McIntyre, unlike his normal practice, simply waves a sweeping generalized hand of “ill-informed and ridiculous speculation” across my speculation. His response to John Whitman is anything but precise, as he claims.

    If he is so informed, as his simplistically dismissive comments infer, then maybe he would offer an alternative candidate. Someone who produced an extremely well thought out process that required knowledgeable access skills and extremely well-informed selection of just 1000 emails from over 200,000 sufficient to stop a global scheme of political change, based on bad science, in its tracks.

    Yes, the person did the world a favour, but isn’t it informative about today’s society that a person, who dared to expose corruption and malfeasance with global implications, is still afraid to reveal themselves. I would think that now the world knows what was done the person would be proud to appear and take the accolades. But then again, I am just speculating.

  138. mojo says:

    I still like Hurry Up Harry.

  139. TRM says:

    Release the key for the rest? Yes! Come out and admit you did it? No.

    Okay whoever did this would be risking their life and that of their family. Seriously this person would be in peril from a lot of places. First the religious zealots who call for harm to anyone who even questions AGW. Imagine what they would do in they knew who had stopped their “progress”? How about the governments who were planning huge taxes based on AGW? You think they wouldn’t make FOIA’s life a living hell until they couldn’t take it any more?

    Yes to release, no to announcing yourself. The opposition is not rational and has a lot of power.

  140. TRM says:

    As to all the speculation about FOIA’s real identity just give it up guys. Look whoever did this had access and that could be internally to the email servers at the university or via external hack and privilege escalation once in.

    Whoever it was knows what they are doing. Knows what they are up against. Knows what the consequences are. Knows how to scare the living daylights out of those who would want to expose them. They are smart, thorough and hold a sword over the throats of their opponents.

    They will announce it if/when they are ready. Period.

  141. John Whitman says:

    Steve McIntyre on February 28, 2013 at 8:18 am

    @John Whitman on February 28, 2013 at 3:48 am

    - – - – - – - – -

    Steve McIntyre,

    Appreciate your response.

    I take your words as cautious restraint and they are well spoken.

    At the same time, within the bounds of US legality that binds me, I support a continuing active speculation, analysis and investigation on the blogosphere about the mystery that they (persons releasing CG1 & CG2 info) have presented us with. They should know well and should have considered the risk of the unrelenting and highly creative nature of skeptical investigation. N’est ce pas?

    John

  142. Markon says:

    I too am disappointed with Steve McIntyre. In the past Steve has shown he won’t call the bogus science what it obviously is – a fraud – even after breaking the Hockey Stick. I am baffled by his attitude where he doesn’t want to ruffle the feathers of those who are obviously lying. Steve, grow a pair will ya. Come out and fight rather than attack Dr. Ball with your wimpering whines.

    All Dr. Ball is doing is saying that the “leaker” should step out of the shadows and that he thinks the individual is Briffa. I would like to see the rest of the emails released but I fear that the “leakers” life is in danger so maybe staying in the shadows is still best, at least until Gov’ts stop swallowing the ecool-aid.. The Green tyranny sweeping the world is as evil as any this world has witnessed in the past, likely more so. So when Steve attacks Dr. Ball for his opinion on a leaker he is siding with the evil thugs who seek to control our lives by controlling our access to energy.

    Steve, stop being a coward and call out the lying thugs rather than Dr. Ball.

  143. Looks like Tim Ball dropping a lure overboard to see what might bite.

  144. John Whitman says:

    Tim Ball on February 28, 2013 at 8:52 am

    I am disappointed. Mr McIntyre, unlike his normal practice, simply waves a sweeping generalized hand of “ill-informed and ridiculous speculation” across my speculation. His response to John Whitman is anything but precise, as he claims.

    - – - – - – - –

    Tim Ball,

    You have given reasons supporting your view of the possible CG leaker(s), have you available any reasons you also have against your view? Bending over backwards in the Feynman sense?

    I think your WUWT post rekindles at a timely moment an important discussion and also pertinent related speculation to create additional leads. Thanks. Your enthusiasm is infectious.

    Cheers. And take care.

    John

  145. TomRude says:

    What Steve is saying is that real players do not need that kind of distraction in their fight. Steve McIntyre is always about finding the pea under the mattress. This thoroughness brought his greatest successes and one can indeed understand his reluctance with Tim Ball’s wide sweeping speculative article. So that is why above comments about his “growing a pair” are vile and uncalled for: do a tenth of what Steve has done to expose bad science and we’ll talk pal.

    To me Ball’s opinion piece is a bait, a taunt, no more no less. Until time and a new slew of emails are revealed, conjectural watercooler pieces are entertaining at best but won’t make much of a dent. In the historical style, I find Montford’s work much more reliable.

  146. MikeN says:

    Tim Ball, have you developed any models that explain global temperature better than the climate scientist’s models which use CO2 as the culprit?

  147. Gary Hladik says:

    David Holland says (February 28, 2013 at 5:12 am): “I would not expect FOIA to reveal himself. He could be anywhere.”

    Who is John Galt? :-)

  148. Rob Ricket says:

    If the leaker used a conduit, from the skeptical community, should he/she also step into the light? Methinks not! What possible good can come from knowing the identity of the leaker and his/her collaborator(s)? Think about it.

  149. David Holland says:

    I never thought it likely, but for a while I thought FOIA could be Briffa. CG1 showed he had an axe to grind. The contra evidence for it being Briffa even then was strong. In 1212009215.txt Jones told Palmer that Briffa should say that he, Briffa, should say that he never received an item of information that I had formally requested. He must have done as he was told because the UEA stated that it was not held. If he was FOIA, why would he have also released 1154353922.txt, which showed that on 28 July 2006 he had received the information that I had requested and that prima facie a criminal offence had been committed?

    However the evidence in the public domain from about 14 July 2010 onwards progressively made it extremely unlikely IMHO. Until that date I thought Briffa had done as Jones told Mann he would, and deleted all the emails that I had requested. In July 2010 we learnt that Briffa had taken home the emails that I had requested and both Acton and Russell confirmed it to MPs in October 2010 and insisted that that nothing had been deleted.

    This however meant that the UEA had committed another criminal offence on 26 January 2010 by refusing to disclose the spreadsheet referred to in 1154353922.txt which I had requested on reading the email. At that time the offence was not time barred and for that reason Russell, allegedly without telling Acton, decided not to investigated the issue of illegally withholding information as he would have to interview under caution.

    If Briffa was FOIA, had he not gotten into enough hot water? Would he really go and release CG2 with all the corroborating emails? There are many other strong reasons for eliminating Briffa and Steve Mosher’s suspect.

  150. David Holland says:

    The CRU hack was not complex, IMHO. The CRU guys had access to CRUWEB08 and used BackupPC, an open source programme, to back it up. BackupPC has some good facilities, particularly in regard to the open source Eudora email software that CRU were using. Crucially, Eudora stored the email text separately from any attachments meaning that they are quite small files and could be downloaded relatively quickly.

    No doubt FOIA used BackupPC to trawl through CRUBACK3, which was securely located in the UEA’s central facilities and look at the backups of the CRU PC’s which he could not otherwise get at. In my first post here I said that I reported a vulnerability to the UEA in December 2008 which would have allowed a hacker to walk right in. There may have been others.

  151. J. Murphy says:

    I think some people need to read this important article, to put all the speculation into its proper context :

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-cook/conspiracy-theorists-respond_b_2676621.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications

  152. Duke C. says:

    David Holland says:
    February 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    ———————————
    David, my thoughts exactly. I’ve managed to replicate the steps that were likely used to acquire and and convert the emails to .txt files. It could have been done with off the shelf point-and-click utilities by someone with nothing more than average computer skills.

  153. John Whitman says:

    Here is more speculation in the form of two separate sets of very limited partial coincidences; one wrt Crichton vs CG1/CG2 and the other wrt UN COP meetings vs CG1/CG2. Just thinking about stuff because the CG case is not yet solved and there is not apparently any currently active official investigation.

    The timelines:

    2004 => Publishing of Michael Crichton’s seminal fiction work ‘State of Fear’ which was about resistance to a wide spread climate activist group’s terrorism and their aggressive AGW alarmist propaganda efforts. We saw Crichton’s conception of a clandestine organization of unofficial and non-governmental nature to counter the climate activist terrorism and propaganda. In the book the counter organization defeats behind the scenes the efforts of the terrorists and propagandists.

    November 4, 2008 => Michael Crichton dies after a long battle with cancer. For the previous decade he was one of the most energetic and prolific public speakers at all levels as a critic of the alarming / dangerous AGW by CO2 movement and its ‘science’.

    November 17, 2009 => CG1 release by the people who sent the blog ‘The Air Vent’ this message: FOIA said:

    We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.
    We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents.
    Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.

    [ . . ]

    December 7, 2009 => COP15, the Copenhagen Climate Summit started.

    November 29, 2010 => UN Climate Change Conference (COP16) begins in Cancun.

    November 22, 2011 => CG2 released with this ‘background and context’ statement by the people responsible:

    [ . . . ]

    Today’s decisions should be based on all the information we can get, not on
    hiding the decline.

    This archive contains some 5.000 emails picked from keyword searches. A few
    remarks and redactions are marked with triple brackets.

    The rest, some 220.000, are encrypted for various reasons. We are not planning
    to publicly release the passphrase.

    We could not read every one, but tried to cover the most relevant topics such
    as…

    November 28, 2011 => UN Climate Change Conference (COP17) begins in Durban.

    November 26, 2012 => UN Climate Change Conference (COP18) begins in Doha

    February 28, 2013 => Today

    John

  154. Mr Lynn says:

    Ian H says:
    February 28, 2013 at 3:00 am
    “It is important for the person… to reveal themselves”

    Joe Grappa says:
    Why does that sound bizarre to me? Has there been a devolution of language since I was in school?

    Evolution not devolution. The plural is now commonly used to speak of a singular person of unknown gender. . .

    According to how I was brought up, ‘he/him’ were the neutral pronouns. It was political correctness, overly-sensitive editors and writers, I reckon, who destroyed that convention, as demeaning to the fair sex. To my ear, ‘they/them’ still sounds crude and illiterate when referring to a single person.

    Many languages have a neutral pronoun. Actually, English has one, too: ‘it’. Let’s see: “It is important for the person. . . to reveal itself.” You know, I could get used to that.

    On topic: I find this speculation quite entertaining, as I expect does the leaker. If I were he (or it), I’d release another 2,000 or so, and continue the tantalizing drip, drop for another couple of years. I bet he is sifting out another bunch of goodies right now.

    /Mr Lynn

  155. Mike Mangan says:

    AJ Strata had a very entertaining exposition on the subject of Briffa-as-possible-whistleblower…

    http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11861

    Steve McIntyre doth protest too much. Briffa makes more sense than anyone, at least to a public not privy to the machinations of the “climate science” world. Also, in a universe long ago, a “journalist” or “reporter” (as we used to know them) would have been eager to interview Keith Briffa based on this wealth of circumstantial evidence. Odd that no one ever did.

  156. Johan says:

    With all due respect, could you please stop dissecting pronouns when the issue is a world-wide fraud that is going to ruin global economy and cost us taxpayers (US) trillions of dollars within a very short time. You can see from the style of Tim Ball’s text that he is in a very agitated state of mind, which is more than logical regarding the harrassment and threats he has had to endure because of his habit of defending the truth! The degree of his alleged crime of dropping a name should be compared to what Phil Jones did when he commented the death of a prominent climate realist as “cheering news”. I think we should all stand up for Tim Ball here, regardless of whether we approve of his speculations of identity or not.

  157. Steve McIntyre says:

    I was rather curt in my remarks because the reasons for excluding Briffa were discussed at length long ago and revival of this implausible speculation without any analysis of the arguments against it is tiresome. I don’t have either time or energy to review the arguments – but Tim Ball should have done so before trying to revive this long discredited speculation. Anyone proposing this argument needs, among other things, to examine the documents as well as the emails, and the stupidity of the Briffa speculation will be immediately clear.

    Tim Ball suggests that rejection of Briffa as a candidate somehow obligates me to “offer an alternative candidate”. Nonsense. I don’t know who RC/FOIA is. But I don’t need to know the identity of RC/FOIA to know that it wasn’t Briffa. Like David Holland, I think that it’s entirely possible/probable that RC/FOIA is someone who we either haven’t heard of or who is unexpected in this context. Trying to link RC/FOIA to names that were in the spotlight of the correspondence (like Briffa) is a bit like the drunk who dropped his keys in a dark alley looking for them under the streetlight. That’s what this sort of comment reads like to me.

    If people wish to criticize people like the Hockey Team, then it is important to avoid absurd allegations and to stick to what is accurate.

  158. Steve McIntyre says:

    The strata-sphere article http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11861 linked above is full of misinformation. Let me speak directly to a few points that directly involve me.

    AJ stated:

    If I recall correctly, Briffa was even trying to reach out to McIntyre a few times during all this …

    I take Osborn at his word, Keith was trying to provide the data to McIntyre very early on. This would have been seen as treachery from the Mann, Jones and Wigley perspective. They had spent years avoiding FOIA requests, and here is Briffa engaging the skeptics openly. .

    Total BS. Briffa was one of the most obstinate about providing data. I spent years trying to get tree ring data from Briffa. Nor should Osborn be taken at his word.

    I think that commenters should concede that I’m in a far better position to assess my interactions with Briffa than AJ Strata is.

    .

  159. Daryl M says:

    If FOIA truly does have more emails, I do wish he would release them, the sooner, the better. However, I believe Dr. Ball is out of line to pressure FOIA to disclose his identity. Whomever FOIA is, he took great risk in collecting and leaking the emails. It could well be that he still works in the same facility. If that is the case, then no doubt his career would be ruined if his identity was revealed. I for one am grateful that he leaked the information and hope that if he has more emails, he will leak them, but I would never ask or demand that he disclose his identity. I also agree that speculating on the identity of FOIA is unwarranted. Like Briffa or not, without real evidence that he is FOIA, Dr. Ball was out of line to speculate Briffa is FOIA in this forum.

  160. Martin A says:

    “It is important for the person… to reveal themselves”

    Joe Grappa says:
    Why does that sound bizarre to me?

    I think it sounds bizarre because “it is important for the person… to reveal themself” would be normal.

  161. Mike Mangan says:

    Funny how I missed the elimination of Briffa as a candidate long ago. Would any of you CA acolytes kindly provide this stupid person a link?

  162. MikeN says:

    >Dr. Ball is out of line to pressure FOIA to disclose his identity.

    That is pressure? FOIA is laughing about it, and loving the focus on Mr Briffa. He then hopes for a followup poiting the finger at Phil Jones.

  163. MikeN says:

    Can someone list for me the birthdays of key players. Hidden in plain sight is the birthday of FOIA. I suspect Mosher knows this now.

  164. MikeN says:

    I did a web search for I am the ClimateGate leaker and I am FOIA. 3 interesting hits. I completely forgot that for awhile Paul Dennis was identified as the leaker. You can buy I am FOIA mugs and phone cases. Chiefio did a search of emails for inappropriate language.

  165. john robertson says:

    Actually one could have a lot of fun, pick the weakest character from the possible candidates and brand them as the one.Here is the team spy.
    Sit back and watch the team impede further, my sense is by years end some members will be ratting the rest out in trade for immunity.
    The politicians are backing away from CO2, putting Kerry front and centre on an issue usually kills it dead.Even the IPCC has backed down, ever so slightly.
    Next the politicians race for the exits, as they sense the public tide,their bureaucratic cohorts will be pointed to, as at fault for misleading our dear leaders.
    The bureaucrats will accept no guilt, as they throw the lower minions to the mob.
    We have most all lived long enough, to have seen this movie at least once.
    2013, tough year for the compliant sciences.

  166. Arno Arrak says:

    I agree with you that carbon dioxide and our use of fossil fuels is not creating a climate crisis now or in the future. Scientific proof comes from Ferenc Miskolczi. He used NOAA database of weather balloon observations that goes back to 1948 to study the absorption of infrared radiation by the atmosphere. He determined that absorption of IR had been constant for the previous 61 years while carbon dioxide increased by 21.6 percent. The addition of this substantial amount of carbon dioxide had no effect whatsoever on the absorption of IR by the atmosphere. And no absorption means no greenhouse effect, case closed. All predictions of dangerous warming based on the greenhouse effect are thereby rendered invalid. And all emission contol laws that were passed using such predictions were passed under false premises and must be voided.

  167. 1IDVET says:

    Reblogged this on Truth, Lies and In Between and commented:
    hose promoting the false science are pushing even harder as they lose ground, but a final disclosure would expose the full extent of the deceptions.

  168. Brian H says:

    If it was Briffa, he has undoubtedly been shown the spiked knuckle-dusters, and knows that the next offense will be his last.

  169. Francisco says:

    Well this call seems to have worked. Didn’t take long. Congratulations Dr. Tim Ball.

Comments are closed.