Mirror Site for Climate Audit Setup

The CA server has been overwhelmed. The kinds of load it is getting is difficult for a single server unit to deal with. So “cloud servers” like we have at wordpress.com that are scalable and multihomed work much better for the current situation.

http://camirror.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/ca-mirror-header2.jpg?resize=517%2C101

I’m pleased to announce that a mirror on wordpress.com has been setup, and Steve McIntyre is posting new content there.

Steve’s post on receiving an FOI denial letter on November 18th is particularly interesting, because it lends credence to the theory that this may have been a whistle-blower, rather than a hacker.

Be sure to check out http://camirror.wordpress.com

It turns out the zip file posted by person(s) unknown was dated November 12th. The letter Steve received is dated Nov. 13, 2009.

Given the specifics of the content of the FOI2009.zip file, which is narrow in focus and not broad, it appears that the file may have been compiled with the expectation of having to fill the FOIA request from McIntyre.

This is speculation on my part, but read what Steve has to say about it here.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nerton M
November 21, 2009 9:03 pm

Yey yey!! :).. love the progression of this story! 😀

KBK
November 21, 2009 9:04 pm

I suggest that the FOI2009.zip file contains the things they *didn’t* want to release. i.e. the deleted files.

November 21, 2009 9:08 pm

well played, sir. Glad to see the data can still be accessed.

Keith Minto
November 21, 2009 9:13 pm

” I have concluded that the data is organised in such a way as to make it extremely difficult and time-consuming to segregate the data in the manner that you suggest and would indeed, in our view, amount to an unreasonable diversion of resources from the provision of services for which we, as an institution, are mandated. ”
This seems to be the crux of the issue, how true is this ?

Andy
November 21, 2009 9:22 pm

Thanks, Anthony. Hopefully some of those CA hits are stopping by the tip jar.

steven mosher
November 21, 2009 9:25 pm

Keith Minto (21:13:08) :
This strategy was laid out by jones in his mails. It’s essentially false. The code steve was asking for is in the zip. The data files accessed by the code are readily available. If fact one of CRUs previous defenses is that the data “was” already available. Put it this way, every month CRU runs its numbers.
Zip that folder and send it.

Gene Nemetz
November 21, 2009 9:26 pm

We feel…
We hereby…

‘FOIA’ is more than one person.

austin
November 21, 2009 9:32 pm

Nothing is deleted because there are backups going way back that can be spliced.
I’ve been on both sides of discovery. Unless the hard drives have been shredded and tapes burned, one can get a lot of stuff. One can even look on the DR site or on personal machines. Depending on the mail interface used, web logs can provide the needed information.

APE
November 21, 2009 9:43 pm

Probably old news for some of you but AP just picked up the story today see
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091121/ap_on_sc/eu_climate_hacked_e_mails
it looks like this is in the most viewed category under science.

Scott Gibson
November 21, 2009 9:47 pm

@Keith Minto (21:13:08)-
In view of the fact that the files are apparently released, I supect it is not true. As a matter of fact, I would not want to be the writer of that letter denying the foi.

KBK
November 21, 2009 9:56 pm

@austin: Tapes get overwritten during the backup cycle. Whether ‘deleted’ files still exist from ‘way back’ depends on what their archiving policy is, e.g. do they keep yearly tapes forever?
Web and mail logs get overwritten after a few months, often much sooner. Mail spools don’t save mail that the user has read into his imap/pop files. Disk sectors belonging to deleted files get reused eventually. If months go by, the forensics get difficult and unproductive.

Pearland Aggie
November 22, 2009 3:41 am

@ KBK (21:04:12) :
this has been bothering me for a while. maybe you are correct. i would have thought that if the file was one that was created in response to a FOIA request, this material would NOT have been in it. either that, or this is the least incriminating material they (the Team) could find. i don’t understand how they could have collected this material in a .zip file called FOI2009, with the intent of releasing it, and NOT thought that this was going to be a big deal. despite RC’s claims, the text and context in some of the emails seem pretty plain and awfully revealing. i can’t seem to make the logical ends meet in my own mind.

November 22, 2009 5:44 am

My hope is this whole event will perhaps embolden a whistelblower in another organization.
I won’t name the organization, but the initials are GISS.

Henry chance
November 22, 2009 6:48 am

If they had been cooperative enough to comply with freedom of Infromation requests, we would not have any of this fiasco. Stonewalling information backfired.

PaulH
November 22, 2009 9:55 am

Henry chance is correct. It’s not the original lie that kills you, it’s the attempt to cover it up that gets you every time.

November 22, 2009 5:20 pm

And don’t forget that all of this detective work takes time and money.
Please donate now:
http://www.surfacestations.org/donate.htm
(Just a casual reader, who knows how much energy and funding it takes to run such an organisation – especially without government funding from a million different climate change grants.)
.

N. O'Brain
November 22, 2009 8:19 pm

” It’s not the original lie that kills you, it’s the attempt to cover it up that gets you every time.”
See Nixon, Richard.

Dennis Wingo
November 22, 2009 11:03 pm

Here is an interesting bibliography of Yamal related paleoreconstructions.
Original Filename: 907975032.txt | Return to the index page | Permalink | Later Emails
From: Rashit Hantemirov
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Short report on progress in Yamal work
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:17:12 +0500
Reply-to: Rashit Hantemirov
Dear Keith,
I apologize for delay with reply. Below is short information about
state of Yamal work.
Samples from 2,172 subfossil larches (appr. 95% of all samples),
spruces (5%) and birches (solitary finding) have been collected within
a region centered on about 67030’N, 70000’E at the southern part of
Yamal Peninsula. All of them have been measured.
Success has already been achieved in developing a continuous larch
ring-width chronology extending from the present back to 4999 BC. My
version of chronology (individual series indexed by corridor method)
attached (file “yamal.gnr”). I could guarantee today that last
4600-years interval (2600 BC – 1996 AD) of chronology is reliable.
Earlier data (5000 BC – 2600 BC) are needed to be examined more
properly.
Using this chronology 1074 subfossil trees have been dated. Temporal
distribution of trees is attached (file “number”). Unfortunately, I
can’t sign with confidence the belonging to certain species (larch or
spruce) of each tree at present.
Ring width data of 539 dated subfossil trees and 17 living larches are
attached (file “yamal.rwm”). Some samples measured on 2 or more radii.
First letter means species (l- larch, p- spruce, _ – uncertain), last
cipher – radius. These series are examined for missing rings. If you
need all the dated individual series I can send the rest of data, but
the others are don’t corrected as regards to missing rings.
Residuary 1098 subfossil trees don’t dated as yet. More than 200 of
them have less than 60 rings, dating of such samples often is not
confident. Great part undated wood remnants most likely older than
7000 years.
Some results (I think, the temperature reconstruction you will done
better than me):
Millennium-scale changes of interannual tree growth variability have
been discovered. There were periods of low (5xxx xxxx xxxxBC), middle
(2xxx xxxx xxxxBC) and high interannual variability (1700 BC – to the
present).
Exact dating of hundreds of subfossil trees gave a chance to clear up
the temporal distribution of trees abundance, age structure, frequency
of trees deaths and appearances during last seven millennia.
Assessment of polar tree line changes has been carried out by mapping
of dated subfossil trees.
According to reconsructions most favorable conditions for tree growth
have been marked during 5xxx xxxx xxxxBC. At that time position of tree
line was far northward of recent one.
[Unfortunately, region of our research don’t include the whole area
where trees grew during the Holocene. We can maintain that before 1700
BC tree line was northward of our research area. We have only 3 dated
remnants of trees from Yuribey River sampled by our colleagues (70 km
to the north from recent polar tree line) that grew during 4xxx xxxx xxxx
and 3xxx xxxx xxxxBC.]
This period is pointed out by low interannual variability of tree
growth and high trees abundance discontinued, however, by several
short xxx xxxx xxxxyears) unfavorable periods, most significant of them
dated about 4xxx xxxx xxxxBC. Since about 2800 BC gradual worsening of
tree growth condition has begun. Significant shift of the polar tree
line to the south have been fixed between 1700 and 1600 BC. At the
same time interannual tree growth variability increased appreciably.
During last 3600 years most of reconstructed indices have been varying
not so very significant. Tree line has been shifting within 3-5 km
near recent one. Low abundance of trees has been fixed during
1xxx xxxx xxxxBC and xxx xxxx xxxxBC. Relatively high number of trees has been
noted during xxx xxxx xxxxAD.
There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during
last century.
Please, let me know if you need more data or detailed report.
Best regards,
Rashit Hantemirov
Lab. of Dendrochronology
Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology
8 Marta St., 202
Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia
e-mail: rashit@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Fax: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx; phone: +7 (34xxx xxxx xxxx
Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachyamal.rwm”
Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachYamal.gnr”
Attachment Converted: “c:eudoraattachNumber”

November 23, 2009 7:39 am

thank you

David S
November 23, 2009 8:46 am

“Steve’s post on receiving an FOI denial letter on November 18th is particularly interesting, because it lends credence to the theory that this may have been a whistle-blower, rather than a hacker.”
I think whistle-blowers are protected under the law in the US. Is that true in the UK as well?

December 18, 2009 1:19 am

love the progression of this story!

%d bloggers like this: