By charles the moderator
While the identity(ies) of the source(s) of the Climategate files has never been identified, long time readers of WUWT and Climate Audit are quite familiar with the Climategate timeline as it unfolded here, there, and throughout the blogosphere.
We have open sourced the history and it was written up by the players.
We have the original notice of the emails, which went live on 11/19/2009
We have The Mosher Timeline. We have The CTM story. Both of which began on 11/17/2009
Now, basking in the celebrity spotlight from the various leaks of diplomatic communications, Julian Assange and wikileaks has attempted to take credit for things that they had little to do with. In this Video, Mr. Assange takes full credit for the release of “over ten years’ worth of emails.
Wikileaks role in the release of the Climategate files is, to say the least, exaggerated.
Over on Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre recounts:
Assange falsely claimed that the Climategate emails were broken by WikiLeaks. This is obviously untrue as CA readers know. I can date WikiLeaks’ entry by contemporary comments. The first notice of the emails at WikiLeaks was 2009/11/21 at 2.50 AM Eastern (12:50 AM blog time). The emails had been downloaded by many people (including me) from a Russian server on Nov 19 and had been downloaded by WUWT moderators on Nov 17. A contemporary comment in a CA thread says that WikiLeaks was down and refers people to megauploads. WikiLeaks has not even been a major reference for Climategate – that belongs to eastangliaemails.com (originally anelegantchaos.org) which was up on Nov 20 and provided a searchable database.
After an extensive Google search, I can find the first mention of wikileaks involvement on the web about 19 minutes earlier than Steve McIntyre found.
Paul Z. says:November 20, 2009 at 11:39 pm
The emails are on wikileaks.org now:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009
I think it is safe to assume that since we were all glued to our screens for those couple days that it is unlikely the files were available from wikileaks for over an hour before the comment above was placed.
Mr. Assange’s indiscretion is not going unnoticed though. He has been called on this story by some of the UK press.
Mr Assange has lied about aspects of his work. At a public meeting in London, he falsely claimed that the ‘Climategate’ emails from the University of East Anglia were first published by WikiLeaks. In fact, the emails were published by specialist climate websites in America and Canada – yet Mr Assange spent several minutes lamenting how he had found publishing them morally difficult because they boosted the arguments of global-warming sceptics.
I think Ross McKitrick’s comment on Climate Audit from the earlier link sums up Assange’s performance best:
What a pair of blowhards. They were obviously unnerved by the question. They evidently like leaks that embarrass their political opponents, but in this case they found themselves tagged with a leak that had damaged the side they like; and since it seems to be more about political warfare against governments they dislike than some impartial ideal of transparency and freedom of information, they were stuck scrambling to make up a story about how it really served some nobler purpose. Of course they should simply have said that they weren’t the source of the leak, that it was in full circulation long before anyone looked to them for a copy and they didn’t know much about the details of what followed. But that would have been too humble, especially in front of a room full of simpering hero-worshippers. So they pretended to be insiders and proceeded to deliver a few minutes of sheer drivel.
While I was in the UK last fall, there was brief interest by the UK tabloids in the Russian angle, and an article appeared in the Daily Mail speculating that Russian intelligence officials had hacked the UEA and stolen the emails. But nobody took that line seriously and the story died within 48 hours. If Assange has a shred of evidence to support his lunatic theory he should release it. What’s with these secret communications between him and UK intelligence: out with it, Mr Wikileaks! Bloody poser.
On this issue at least they are nothing but fakes and cretins. Saying that UEA released all the background emails and whatnot to provide the full context is beyond idiocy; and Assange’s discussion of the “trick” is just painful to watch.
Now trying to backtrack wikileaks involvement, we find that:
Way back at 4:09 Pacific Time on the 19th the first mention of wikileaks occurred here on WUWT:
Jagman619 says:November 19, 2009 at 4:08 pm (Edit)
Someone who has the file, please post it to http://wikileaks.org/
Which did not go unnoticed. It is around that time that I submitted the files to wikileaks. Was I the first? I have no way to know. It was a frantic day.
But if Mr. Assange wants to clear the air my IP address is 20880.64.xxx
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I bet our Australian friends are glad Mr. Assange has chosen to leave Australia for Europe. If he winds of in jail in the land of the Nobel Prize, he will have raised the IQ of both countries.
Climate Gates emails were a serious matter while Weak-ee leaks are gossips, no comparison between the two,
WT says:
December 20, 2010 at 11:11 pm
Does it really matter who released the letters first? Do we really want to find out who was the first one releasing the truth and bash the others? The more people say the truth the better, isn’t it?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But obviously, as we see here, Assange doesn’t know truth. He intentionally distorts his releases for political purposes and self aggrandizement without regards to the lives he endangers. Twice before, when releasing videos of violent conflicts, he edited the video to make one side appear unarmed and non-threatening. When full video is released, it shows that Assange intentionally misled, just as the video above shows.
Poser is a pretty gentle description of this dangerous megalomaniac.
Ian H says:
December 21, 2010 at 12:36 am …
Yes, Ian H, my father, no doubt along with relatives of other contributors to this blog, “fought and died in the 20th century for freedom and to stop” all sorts of things. He certainly did not fight or die for creeps like Assange.
“Assange falsely claimed that the Climategate emails were broken by WikiLeaks.” – Steve McIntyre
At no point in this video clip did I hear Assange say “broken”, or that they were the first to release the emails. He said they released the emails. As did McIntyre, Jeff ID, Watts, and anyone else who had the opportunity. I think you guys are getting on your high horse over semantics. Assange did not say that Wikileaks was the first.
By way of explanation he might have said that Wikileaks was not the only source, was one of many disseminators of the info, or some such. By this omission you hang him. He was obviously under time pressure and was trying, in under a minute, to outline the scope of Climategate to the audience as if they had never heard of it.
While I disagree with his CAGW leanings which clearly show between the lines as he dismisses the ‘trick’, etc., I really think you guys are doing a huge adhominen rant with little or no evidence.
What is the “FSB?” Ass ange is referring to?
[Reply: Successor to the KGB. ~dbs, mod.]
Julian Assange and his 15 minutes of
fameinfamyclownishness.John
Volt Aire says:
December 21, 2010 at 5:48 am
“First time in over a year of daily visits I am truly disgusted by the commentary on this site.
Assange alleged rape case is very highly political –……..”
=======================================================
And I’m truly awe struck about your interpretations of the comments. So far, 58 comments. Three included the word “rape”, excluding yours. I believe this thread, generally, is about Mr. Assange taking indecent liberties with truth (a fine lady, above reproach).
More specifically, towards his lying about his role in “releasing” the climate-gate e-mails. Others have posted towards his motivations and others prior examples of his divergences from truth. My thoughts, specifically on the issue you brought up, is that there are legal standards in G.B. If the jurists believe they are met, then he has to answer the charges according to law in Sweden.
Ian H says:
December 21, 2010 at 12:36 am
Ian – you have a great misunderstanding of what “freedom” means – in any nation. The concept of “Freedom of the Press”, “Freedom of Speech” and the other freedoms are from GOVERNMENT restrictions – not private ones. The government is not free to restrict your freedoms – either by denying you the right to say or print something – or by forcing you to.
So while bureaucrats bluster about Assange and Wikileaks, the truth is your precious symbol of the “Press” printed most of his leaks of government cables (that would be the NY Times), but refused to print any of the climategate emails “Because they were improperly obtained”. Just hypocrisy on their part – but their FREEDOM to be so.
The same with VISA and MC. They CHOSE not to do business with Wikileaks because they were getting a black eye from it. So while 10 people shout that is censorship (it is, but not government), a million shout their huzzahs at basically telling Assange they do not like what he did.
The sad part is neither Assange nor most of his supporters understand what he did. Which is supply the electrons to publish the purloined cables – be he did not leak them. Manning did. So instead of going gaga over Assange, you should be using your money to come up with a defense fund for Manning. He is your real hero, not Assange. Assange is just a fame leech. He is sucking at the teet of his 15 minutes for every drop of blood he can get – and for doing nothing other than advertising someone else work as his own.
it is no wonder he is also claiming credit for the East Anglia emails. He has done nothing yet (with the possible exception of forced unprotected sex with 2 Swedish women).
Everyone is forgetting that prior to leaking the emails to the world on November 19th 2009 the person sent them to Paul Hudson, weather and climate change expert with the BBC and former UK Met Office employee. Hudson received them on October 23rd, 2009, five weeks before. Hudson received only a portion of the documents ultimately released through the Russian IP.
One commentator says it doesn’t matter who released them. In fact, it is very important because that person clearly knew a great deal about CRU including access information and which emails were most damaging. The person also released computer codes and they are long over due for a detailed assessment. The person can tell us a great deal more about the machinations within the CRU because they clearly were from an insider.
Jones’ action by calling in the Norfolk police was important because it stopped further disclosures until they finished their investigations – this still hasn’t happened. The police brought in the National Domestic Extremism Unit. Why? It appears like all these actions were a cover up. Has anybody seen or heard from Keith Briffa lately?
1DandyTroll says:
December 21, 2010 at 6:19 am
@monroe
‘WikiLeaks latest is a cloak for many things not the least of which could be rape.’
Apparently not only Mr Assange is wearing a tin foil hat.
As to the rape, it is only per the broad Swedish legal definition of rape that it might be interpreted as rape. It pretty much boils down to if he should have disclosed of not wearing a condom when she had asked him to use one. What’s probably uping the enforcement of rape charge at this state, instead of a lesser charge, if a charge at all, seem more be with the fact that he refused to be checked for venereal deceases, especially HIV and AIDS, which probably would freak out anyone that just had a one night stand, but for a fawning fanatical wikileakser and a religious person it’s probably a bit worse what with the trust issue to a person who can be defined as an authority figure no less.
Now available from Condomania
http://americandigest.org/sidelines/dickileak-condoms.jpg
He’s visiting Jimmy Hoffa?
Ian H said at 3:14 am
Mr Assange is under no obligation to keep US secrets and since he found the information to be interesting and of public interest, chose to publish it.
Wow! Little did any of us realize Ian, that Mr. Assange is the second coming of Christ. That he, and he alone of almost 7 billion of us has the intellectual strength, above reproach moral standing, self-less nature and agenda-free insight to determine what the rest of us should know – or not know. In spite of now knowing this (and thank you) I for one decline to worship him as you do. (Ian, it’s a American “freedom” thing – to worship or not – something you know even less about than what “Americans truly care for”.)
Now, IF Mr. Assange is NOT the second coming, then what he and ALL of you who support him are for is – total anarchy. No societal rules, no government, no laws, no morality, no rights, no responsibilities, no nothing that stops any of us from saying, publishing, (Sorry CTM, your out of a job) disregarding others rights (as they have none), maybe even doing anything we want.
Oh, I know what you’re saying, “He’s taking it to an impossible extreme”. Really? Well let me then ask, who died and made Assange king of the world? Or for that matter, you Ian? The whole definition of “secrets” and what is secret is made by someone of greater authority (as defined by societal laws) than Assange, or you or I. If ANY of us can make THAT decision, then any of us can do or say anything. Ian, you lament about how “so many people died” for freedom but failed to mention surely most of them, far more than wherever you are from, (I would bet) were Americans! Because what the greater majority of us real Americans understand is there are two sides to every coin. Where on one side you have inalienable rights on the other you have responsibilities, responsibilities to honor the same rights of others. And where on one side you have freedom on the other side you have laws, laws enacted by the free that define the afore mentioned rights and responsibilities of each of us. It’s NOT JUST American freedom (and in many case, others freedoms) we Americans defend and yes, die for. It’s also the laws that define the restriction on reckless and unconstrained freedom.
And as for what your “god” released, it has had little (if any) intended effect, as it was mostly known information as clearly said in an article by George Friedman, the CEO of Stratfor, where in he said, For someone who was watching …, the leaks might have provided interesting details but they would not have provided any startling distinction between the reality that was known and what was revealed. and also There is precious little that was revealed that was unknown to the informed observer. You can read it all here: http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20101213-taking-stock-wikileaks?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101214&utm_content=GIRtitle&elq=702ffcf2caec40b3b725fec9be911305
And the importance AND impact/effect of “Climategate” to the world is far greater than anything Assange released – – well, except for Mr. Assange himself as he is now contending with the “law of unintended consequences”, a law of “responsibility” which so many do-gooders continue to ignore because so often the job of cleaning up the mess falls in the lap of others.
And yes, the IT department of the Gov. is equally to blame – – that is if someone higher up didn’t intend for this to happen in the first place.
As Lord Monckton would say :”Climate Gate” was a different kind of “leak”: A bedwetters’ leak. 🙂
Does he actually claim to be “the first to have made them available” or just to have “made them available”?
In the scheme of things, it does not really matter who takes the credit for it. In the end the public barely give a sh1t about the contents of the emails, let alone the details of the release. They just believe the “independent” inquiries, oh, and because there have been quite a few of those “independent” inquiries, I guess there is nothing wrong in applying a trick to hide a decline or in actively blocking FOI requests and conspiring to delete data you know will be subject to such a request (which is a crime in itself).
Sometimes I wonder whether people would be bothered even if some government agency started eating their children. There seems to be no limit to apathy. As long as they have the football and televised talent contests, they will put up with anything.
Pull My Finger says:
December 21, 2010 at 5:31 am
Ian H. wrote “He isn’t a hypocrite.” Of course he is a hypocrite because he takes on the easy targets, the western democracies, not the likes of Iran, Russia, China, any middle eastern state, that truly abuses civil rights and have zero transparency.
What made us particularly vulnerable to the 9-11 attacks was the “walls of separation” between our various intelligence and law enforcement agencies. We have much better inter-agency communication on foreigners who come here on student visas, etc.
The names of individual dissidents in countries with dictatorial regimes are in those emails. The fact that this makes no difference to him, in his reckless plan to harm American interests, reveals that he does not value the “regime change” he speaks of in places where people lose their lives and families for opposing the government.
WOW!
This thread knocks down my opinion of this comment “community” several notches! What ghoulish glee is demonstrated in the ad hominem parade here! What unrestrained and uncharitable speculation! What cheerful condemnation! Such spectacular conflation and imprecision of targeting! My my, if this be science, count me out.
Thanks to the few of you who have called out the ad hominems and were careful enough to make some distinctions
Zeke the Sneak:
“And while liberals and some conservatives (eg Tony Blankley) may oppose our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is possible to do that without seeking the actual destruction of the Country with which you disagree.”
Right, but is it possible to do it without embarrassing our elite and pointing out their manipulations? Neither Assange nor Wikileaks is trying to destroy the “Country” (my, must our Uber Country be capitalized now!?) Do yourself a favor and become a regular reader of antiwar.com — having the scales removed only hurts for a minute.
Assange was foolish, irresponsible and acted inimically to American and western interests. That’s the problem with freedom of speech it allows people like this egotistical attention seeking child to do what he has done.
The “leaker” of the Climategate documents was responsible and acted in the very best interests of all of us ultimately. That’s the benefit of free speech in that it allows people to get essential, if unpopular and embarrassing information out into the public’s view.
You can’t have one without the other and whilst I agree that public approbation of Wikileaks should be loud and sustained so as to give others pause before they act I can’t agree that this knob deserves punishment for doing what he has done because that would have a chilling effect on anybody else wishing to bring essential information to the public’s attention.
His rape stuff is something else altogether , that will be dealt with by the Swedish authorities in the appropriate way and anyone who tries to conflate the two just has no idea of what they are dealing with.
Ah, we yearn for openness and truth, …except when we do not like it: The messenger of truth somehow becomes the villain. WUWT?
This Wikileaks issue separates real sceptics from political sceptics, which are no sceptics at all.
I read this in a report about the transportation mess in Europe because of the snow:
“We have seen in recent years that snow in Western Europe is not such an exceptional circumstance.”
I think the powers that be are starting to regret their belief in the religion of global warming.
@ur momisugly Keith Battye says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:56 am
Well stated. This quote seems to apply…………
“None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license.” —John Milton
It is true that a few conservatives have made some rather extreme statements regarding assassinating Assange. Lives of Middle Eastern dissidents (a man who escaped Iran whose family is still there, for example) and of our troops are being endangered and I believe this is the cause of the over-emotionalism.
Ann Coulter:
“Among the criminal laws apparently broken by Assange is 18 U.S.C. 793(e), which provides:
“Whoever having unauthorized possession of, access to, or control over any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, (etc. etc.) relating to the national defense, … (which) the possessor has reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation, willfully communicates (etc. etc) the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully retains the same (etc) …
“Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”
As is evident, merely being in unauthorized possession of classified national security documents that could be used to harm this country and publishing those documents constitutes a felony. There’s no exception for …”journalists.” Journalists are people, too!”
Ms Coulter has a law degree so this might help some of you:
“The First Amendment isn’t a Star Trek “energy field” that protects journalists from phasers, photon torpedoes, lasers, rockets and criminal prosecutions.”
Many arguments here seem to imply that anything a journalist does to publish any story is automatically a First Amendment issue. However, he has broken the law and the penalty is ten years with three squares and a cot.
Freedom of the press implies the right of the press to be critical of those in power, critical of their decisions, able to suggest the benefits of one choice over another or even bring up an option the government isn’t considering. Exposing wrong doing with information that was never intended to be public is where the area gets a bit grey depending on what the information was and how it was obtained. But none of that applies to Mr Assange.
Wikileaks exposes information at random for the sole purpose of profiting from it. He’s not reporting on information being leaked, he’s not reporting on issues that can be better understood based on the information leaked, he’s just leaking info and getting money for it.
Foley Hund says:
December 21, 2010 at 8:59 am
Ah, we yearn for openness and truth, …except when we do not like it: The messenger of truth somehow becomes the villain. WUWT?
========================================================
Who is a messenger of what truth? Is there truth in the video at the top? Is a half-truth any form of truth? Mr. Assange is a villain because he is a despicable little person that has little regard for lives or livelihoods. Mr. Assange has shown his character well before any allegations or leaks of secret documents.