This is a repost from Climate Audit
“Covert” Operations by East Anglia’s CRU
Today brings news of the arrest of the managing director of a firm hired by the University of East Anglia’s CRU (Climatic Research Unit) to carry out “covert” operations – h/t reader Chu here). Neil Wallis of Outside Organisation was arrested today in connection with the spreading News of the World scandal.
Last year, Wallis’ partner at Outside Organisation , Alan Edwards, was profiled in Music Week in a story that led with:
Don’t tell the conspiracy theorists. But one PR company was at the centre of the Michael Jackson funeral, Climategate and Naomi Campbell’s appearance at Charles Taylor’s trial in The Hague.
Edwards is described as the “man who has also helped shape the careers of Amy Winehouse, Blondie, The Rolling Stones, Jimmy Cliff, David Bowie, Spice Girls, David Beckham, P Diddy, Kevin Pietersen and Shayne Ward” and the man who masterminded PR for Naomi Campbell’s trial. Outside Organisation’s handling of Climategate for CRU was described as “more covert”.
Less apparent is its work in the corporate field, where its activities tend to be rather more covert. [my bold]
“We don’t advertise a lot of the things we do,” says Edwards, who was called in by the University of East Anglia when Climategate blew up. “That was really interesting. It’s very high level, and you’re very much in the background on that sort of thing.”
The university’s Climatic Research Unit wanted Outside to fire back some shots on the scientists’ behalf after leaked emails from the unit gave climate change skeptics ammunition and led to an avalanche of negative press about whether global warming was a real possibility.
Kev-in-Uk says:
July 15, 2011 at 8:19 am
Richard S Courtney says:
July 15, 2011 at 5:24 am
Not just any PR firm — they hired a PR firm known to engage in covert disinformation campaigns. Further, the mandate of this group was to fire “shots” at skeptics — who are private citizens. And, they presumably used public money to engage these “gentlemen”. To quote Richard Lindzen, “I’m wondering what’s going on.”
they can’t even spell check ! whatever
I would expect that this firm’s practice of hacking phone data to serve PR goals, when applied to ClimateGate, would have included attempts to access the phones of Watts, Mosher, McIntyre, etc, in order to find dirt with with criticism cold be deflected. Would anyone here be surprised to see one or more of their phone numbers on the hacking list of Outside Organization? I would not.
Spying: The oldest (profession) occupation in the world . . . in my opinion! How do you think they caught all those occupied with the second oldest profession in the world?
The tangential irony here is the instead of the skeptics being the “Tobacco” example (confusing the issue to delay the studies), UEA is showing they are the ones that hired the “Tobacco” lobby! We know they are trying to subvert science, but this is just proof that their accusations are simply their actions.
Fredb at July 14 at 11:37 pm, above:
I agree Fred. You can be one sorry person.
In the United States if your tax accountant or consultant does something
illegal with your tax filings, YOU are the one on the hook for
fines, property confiscation, and possible jail time.
The actual miscreant may end up sitting in the next cell, but since the
illegal activity took place with your tacit approval and under
your signature, you lose.
UEA/CRU was priming the PR pump after Climategate in as many ways
as possible. They got caught, and may have had some dealings with the
devil in setting up the “investigations” that they helped put in motion
around them at the time.
The next UEA/CRU investigation better have a judge in
charge who can take testimony under oath, which hasn’t happened
to date.
Did Wallis or Outside Organization or some American subsidiary
of theirs do any recent work for the University of Virginia, re: Mike Mann ?
Enquiring minds want to know…
Who are you? Weird that you cite two examples and I worked on both of those cases.
Friends:
I thank all who took the trouble to read my post at July 15, 2011 at 5:24 am and especial thanks to those who have posted comments in response.
Clearly, what I wrote has not been agreed by the respondents, and I now write in hope of clarification.
It seems that John Whitman did understand what I was trying to say and he wrote to refute it at July 15, 2011 at 6:57 am. I accept that: others can compare our views and form their own opinions of them.
However, it also seems that several did not understand my argument and responded to other points. I am writing in attempt to correct any misunderstanding of my previous post.
For clarity, I state that I am not an apologist for CRU. I have disdain for much that has gone on at CRU and I have said so in many places including on WUWT.
But I fear that ‘going off half cocked’ at the present issue could inhibit needed address of the reasonable and justifiable complaints at the execrable behaviour of CRU.
The fact is that there is a difference between an institution (in this case the UEA) and persons employed by that institution. Climategate was a PR disaster for the UEA and it was perfectly reasonable for that institution to employ expert advice to mitigate that disaster. Hence, although I agree with Kev-in-Uk when (at July 15, 2011 at 8:19 am ) he says;
“… the basic fact remains that a scientific ‘group’ required the services of a PR consultant! This is not the path of normal science, science is science is science – no amount of PR can change the underlying science (in terms of facts! – though of course ‘perception’ is another thing!) … “
I do not agree with him when he continues;
“ and I find it abhorent that a scientific/academic organisation would ever feel the need to protect itself in such a manner.
It smacks of protectionism/elitism and probably loads of other ‘isms’ I cannot think of – but basically pointing to an organisation (instead of a bunch of plain ol’ scientists) feeling that they had something they needed to protect. …”
In reality the UEA does have a reputation which its survival demands it protect. Of course, the best protection would have been to have prevented the inappropriate behaviour of CRU scientists which Climategate revealed; but that horse had bolted. The UEA found itself with a need for damage limitation, and UEA took appropriate action to limit the existing PR damage by seeking PR expertise.
And I very, very strongly agree with Kev-in-Uk when he concludes saying;
“If science needs PR in the normal context of PR – we are in serious trouble, and the level of distrust in science as a whole will only increase significantly!”
But “science” did not seek PR assisatance: the institution which is the UEA did.
And I think my rsponse to Kev-in-Uk addresses the point made by Theo Goodwin at July 15, 2011 at 8:45 am. Hansen is a scientist just as the CRU employees are scientists. It is not asserted that one of them hired a PR consultant: the UEA did.
Mpaul adds to the point made by Kev-in-Uk when, at July 15, 2011 at 9:22 am , when he says;
“Not just any PR firm — they hired a PR firm known to engage in covert disinformation campaigns. “
But the firm was not known to engage in such activities at the time the UEA hired its services: we know that now, but they did not know that then. And a suggestion that they did know is an example of the kind of statement that I think could ‘back-fire’ on those of us who think activities of the CRU have been execrable and needto be corrected.
There is much proven wrongdoing by CRU so why invent some that cannot be proved and, thus, give arguments against our case for the wrongdoing to be addressed?
But I think there is a case that can be made concerning the present issue and PhilJourdan makes it at July 15, 2011 at 10:45 am when he writes:
“The tangential irony here is the instead of the skeptics being the “Tobacco” example (confusing the issue to delay the studies), UEA is showing they are the ones that hired the “Tobacco” lobby! We know they are trying to subvert science, but this is just proof that their accusations are simply their actions.”
I think his post is an example of the care we really do need to take if we wish to comment on the present issue. He does not conflate the actions of “scientists” or the “CRU” with the damage limitation attempted by the UEA. And he does not ‘jump the gun’ of assuming the guilt of Neil Wallis. He makes a reasoned point that can be inferred from the fact that the UEA hired a PR firm to assist the UEA with its damage limitation. That inference is reasonable even though the hiring of the PR firm by UEA was reasonable.
I hope this clarifies my view.
Richard
Hey, walt man says on July 15 at 11:45 pm !
When the Climategate e-mails first became available on line I burned
a CR-ROM copy of them, including the Harry_ReadMe file! Given the
ephemeral nature of many blogs and websites it seemed prudent to have
and hold the information for future reference.
I’m sure other readers of WUWT, Climate Audit, etc. did the same thing.
I double dog dare you to file a compliant about me holding “stolen
property” !
Nobody gives a white Norwegian lab rat’s behind about your opinion
of applying British law to a website that wasn’t based in Great Britain,
or to folks like me. On this issue, as a troll, you can’t bark so you whine.
mpaul says: July 15, 2011 at 9:22 am
And sometimes their goal is to “kill a story”. According to the piece that gave the game away:
And, as we now know, Wallis (who was the OO lead on what they call “the climategate job”) certainly has some “heavyweight contacts”.
In my experience PR people are like sales people.
There are a few pros, some sleazeballs, and the muddle in the middle.
Obviously only one category are worth paying for.
fredb says:
July 14, 2011 at 11:47 pm
“Such implied guilt is a paving stone on the path to vigilantism”
My now departed mom could have straightened you out, in short order, FredB.
“Lay Down With Dogs – Get Up With Fleas!” she admonished her children, to highlight the perils of less than honorable behaviour. It applies well to UEA, CRU, their dishonest employees, their many deceits, and their cover up machinations!
George Soros, personally and through Media Matters, is waging war against Murdoch, especially Fox News Channel, Fox Radio, and Fox Business Channel here in the US. I wonder if this is another front in his war.
Does Soros own or fund the Mirror Group or any other tabloids that compete against Rupert’s papers and/or Sky News TV in the UK?
I smell the Soros rats.
Richard S Courtney says:
July 15, 2011 at 11:26 am
It appears we are on similar wavelengths but I still do not feel it right that public money should be used for public relations for public (ok, whistleblown!) (mis)information. The mere thought of some PR guru sitting down with Jones et al and advising them how to come out of it with less sh*t sticking to them – is somewhat perverse, but moreso in the science context! The fact that I (as a UK taxpayer) have paid for it makes it doubly perverse and extremely annoying IMO. It’s like getting a parking ticket when you have parked perfectly legally, and then being charged for the traffic wardens wages and all the court costs whilst he stands there and ‘makes up’ an excuse for the ticket to be valid and you then find that the judge was the guy that sent the traffic warden out in the first place, with an instruction to ‘issue tickets’! (perhaps not a good analogy – but you get the gist!)
The details and subsequent issues of the specific PR guru/firm used is of no real consequence to my annoyance, but it is not unreasonable to query why such an apparently less scruplulous company was employed? Still, as I said – the guilt by association is a somewhat unfair bandwagon to jump onto.
It will be interesting to see if anyone can find out how much the PR firm received in remuneration, and as someone noted previously, their emails and correspondence with CRU/UEA could be most revealing! FOIA anybody?
Paddy:
I do not know who you are, but your comment at July 15 at 1.24 pm shows you are not aware of the deplorable things Murdoch’s people – notably those employed by the ‘News of the World’ – have been doing in the UK.
Yes, Soros employs many rats. But we now know that Murdoch’s business uses rats, too.
Richard
Kev-in-UK:
They were spending my taxes, too. I am not chuffed.
Richard
Our Spoiled Godchild:
How the World has Been Taking Climate Change Advice
from a Wayward Teenager
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/07/14/about-my-book/
It will be interesting to see how Donna’s book is received by mainstream thought.
Indeed; more likely the voice-mail ‘server’/center was hacked, they probably simply tried at the default password used when dialing into a voice mail provider from an outside-the-network PSTN (public switched telephone network) phone … a far shot would be they (News of the World) talked to (bribed) a ‘switch tech’ or telco/telecom engineer (IT ppl call them sys admins) who had access to the voice mail center.
In all likelihood, no actual “phones” were ‘hacked’. IMO. See Kevin Mitnick’s use of ‘social engineering’/human intel (via wiki for instance) for how a more likely means of how the information was gained (at say 10 or 20 dollars per information tidbit for instance); ‘phone hacking’ DOES sound so much more glamorous and will no doubt make for a very interesting/flashy technical movie on the subject.
Full disclosure: I did software/system support on the Sun Microsystems-based customer database / SCO-based PRI-ISDN interface VMC (Voice Mail Center) provided by DSC (Digital Switch Corp) used on the Japanese HandiPhone system ’round the time of the turn of the last century and before that spent a term at a major cellular provider in an engineering capacity.
.
A company like that could have hacked the climategate emails and then offered their service to fix it. Somewhat like the belief by many that the antivirus companies are the biggest manufacturers of viruses.
Applying social engineering to the spy (and Newspaper?) game; Mitnick relates a story about the unauthorized tour he and a friend made of the Hollywood, California CO (Central telephone switching Office):
“The Art of Deception: The Weakest Link is the Human Element”
I suspect the News of the World people used these techniques to gather information … it’s a good thing the AGW/CRU people are not this slick …
.
what we need is a starting date for Wallis beginning his “disinformation” campaign on behalf of the scientists, then we can compile a collection of all the similarities in the MSM (some of which are already on CA). this is how “reality” is distorted by the MSM on so many issues.
today, despite the BBC and Guardian having done literally hundreds of pieces on the Murdoch scandal, they and the rest of the MSM have totally ignored this most extraordinary story of Wallis and UEA. not a peep in the MSM so far and yet i can assure u both CA and Bishop Hill (which is covering the story) are monitored by the MSM crowd.
i say a pox on all their houses, but understand all the heat is only on Murdoch’s media while, if u link to Martin Brumby’s link in the comments, u will see:
“Adding up the total number of incidents of illegally-acquired data by journalists, we arrive at:
Trinity Mirror: 1663 incidents by 139 journalists
Mail Group: 1248 incidents by 95 journalists
News International: 182 incidents by 19 journalists”
The last MIGHT be correct were it not for the continued 220 Billion (Billion with a “B”) a month pouring into the Treasury Department from tax receipts; NO ONE is defaulting unless the prez and Timmy Geitner press the issue and decide to default (by make _NO_ payments to our bondholders); default will not be an automatic happening – we still have a sizable amount of revenue to work with.
Notice the solid black in the bar chart indicating the interest payment in this graph*:
“Projected August Cumulative Cash flows” – as referred to by Congressman Huelskamp
http://blogs.reuters.com/james-pethokoukis/files/2011/07/gs1.jpg
Pls do not confuse your finances or your companies’ finances with those of the US Federal Govt; tax revenues continue unabated into the Treasury (despite what you hear from our pathetic, financially uneducated press), but the Treasury will not be able to create ‘additional debt’ (via bond issuance, for instance) for the payment of bills for which payments are (thought to be) owed …
* Chart as appearing in this hearing:
.
Paddy says:
July 15, 2011 at 1:24 pm
“George Soros, personally and through Media Matters, is waging war against Murdoch, especially Fox News Channel, Fox Radio, and Fox Business Channel here in the US. I wonder if this is another front in his war…”
Well, now that the FBI is involved and will have to investigate this thoroughly, Media Matters may have a date with Karma, in so far as this is now linked to the UEA and their pals in the U.S.
Just when you thought the Climategate story can’t get any more scandalous!
Just a thought; are Neil Wallis of News of The World and Phil Willis, chairman of the commons science and technology committee related?
I only ask as one was working for the UEA and the other was supposed to be investigating if the UEA had a case to offer……