Post updated – see below. 
Climategate – whodunnit?
Well, according to this story in Help Net Security, the Information Technology people might be good candidates to see what has been going on behind the scenes at UEA’s Climate Research Unit, since it seems that they have broad access and according to a recent survey, many in IT positions can’t resist peeking:
“IT security staff will be some of the most informed people at the office Christmas party this year. A full 26 per cent of them admit to using their privileged log in rights to look at confidential information they should not have had access to in the first place. It has proved just too tempting, and maybe just human nature, for them to rifle through redundancy lists, payroll information and other sensitive data including, for example, other people’s Christmas bonus details.”
Here’s some eye opening survey stats about what IT people do with that access:
- 42 percent of those surveyed said that in their organisations’ IT staff are sharing passwords or access to systems or applications
- 26 percent said that they were aware of an IT staff member abusing a privileged login to illicitly access sensitive information
- 48 percent of respondents work at companies that are still not changing their privileged passwords within 90 days – a violation of most major regulatory compliance mandates and one of the major reasons why hackers are still able to compromise the security of large organisations.
Remember the HARRY READ ME file from Climategate 1? That programmer was bemoaning the sad state of the database an methodologies because he had a broad view afforded by working with the data within the organizational group. He knew more than any single person he was doing work for.
In the case of the UEA Climategate 1 and 2 emails, it seems clear now that to gather up as much information as has been shown to be available, it wasn’t likely a quick in and out job. As this WUWT guest post by David M. Hoffer shows that this wasn’t just a simple hack. He wrote:
So…who had administration rights on the email system itself? There’s reason to believe that it was not any of the researchers, because it is clear from many of the emails themselves that they had no idea that things like archives and backup tapes existed.
Whoever did it likely got it from the email archive system, knew what they were doing, and they had to have broad access to get all these emails gathered together.
Then, when we see that 256 bit AES encrytion was the choice to secure the remaining nearly 1/4 of a million emails, we know that “FOIA” whoever he/she is, knows enough to choose the kind of security that would not likely be cracked in any reasonable amount of time. This probably rules out script kiddies and students at UEA who might have had accidental network access and just grabbed a few files when they thought nobody was looking.
And what about the original first “hack” of the RealClimate.org server that Gavin Schmidt squelched? When we see survey results like 42 percent of those surveyed said that in their organisations’ IT staff are sharing passwords or access to systems or applications and we know how close and interconnected UEA/CRU and GISS staff are, the likelihood that whomever left that first drop of emails on the RealClimate server probably had some shared password or other sort of access.
The sharing of system access in emails was broadly demonstrated in Climategate 2.0. For example, Dr. Phil Jones and others at CRU sent some emails out years ago that linked to papers under review at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Some WUWT readers found these early on, and sure enough, such links from years ago in the CG2 emails still worked.
A few days ago I made the issue known to Dr. Phil Jones and to the JGR journal staff so they could close this security hole. As far as I know, all have been closed. I’ve tested again tonight and the live link fails now. Now that they have been closed, I can talk about it safely without putting JGR’s manuscript system at risk.
From: Anthony
Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2011 5:10 PM
To: p.jones@uea.xxxx.xxx
Cc: grlonline@xxxx.xxx ; jgr-atmospheres@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: password enabled JGR links in Climategate 2 files
Dear Dr. Jones,
I know that you know me, and probably do not like me for my views and publications. Regardless of what you may think of me and my work, it has been brought to my attention by a reader of my blog that there are open access links to your manuscripts at JGR included in the email that are now in the public view.
Therefore, it is my duty to inform you that in the recent release of Climategate 2 files there are links to JGR journal review pages for your publications and also for the publications for Dr. Keith Briffa.
For example, this link:
http://jgr-atmospheres-submit.agu.org/cgi-bin/main.plex?el=
I have verified that in fact that link opens your JGR account and provides full access to your JGR account.
In fact there are 35 different emails in this release that contain live links to JGR/AGU author pages. Similar other links exist, such as for Dr. Keith Briffa and others at CRU.
This of course is an unintended and unacceptable consequence of the email release.
I am cc:ing Joost de Gouw Editor, JGR Atmospheres in hopes that he can take action to close this open access to these accounts. It is a holiday here in the USA (Thanksgiving) and there may not be office hours on Friday but hopefully he is monitoring emails.
JGR should immediately change all passwords access for these CRU members and I would advise against allowing transmission of live links such as the one above in the future. JGR might also consider a more secure method of manuscript sharing for review.
The open nature of these links is not publicly “on the radar” even though they are in fact public as a part of the email cache, and I do not plan on divulging them for any reason. Any mention of these links will be deleted from any public comments on my blog should any appear.
Dr. de Gouw (or anyone at JGR) and Dr. Jones, please acknowledge receipt of this email.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best regards,
Anthony Watts
So clearly, CRU and others in the emails didn’t think twice about sending around open access live links. As David M. Hoffer points out in his article, the researchers don’t seem to have a clue about security. They also leave “sensitive” files they don’t want to share under FOIA requests lying about on open FTP servers. Based on what I’ve seen so far, I don’t think any of the research staff at CRU had either broad access nor the specific tech knowledge to pull this “hack” off.
Somebody who had the ability to peek at these emails as part of their job might just as easily have had access to the RealClimate Server too. Remember there’s almost a quarter million emails we haven’t seen. Chances are, one of those contained the key to the RC server, which allowed them to become an RC administrator and post the original FOIA story which Gavin Schmidt caught and squelched.
I and others I correspond with have our theories about who the leaker might be. From my perspective now, someone with broad system access looks to be a more likely candidate than a malicious outsider.
UPDATE: Many people in comments think I’m doing something wrong by writing to Phil Jones and AGU/JGR. In Phil Jones reply to me, he wrote: A couple of other people sent me emails about this issue.
So clearly I wasn’t the first to notify him of the open links to AGU. But more importantly, my email was also sent to AGU editors and the editor of JGR Atmospheres. Despite what troubles Jones and his group have caused over the year with skeptics, AGU/JGR has been a reasonable journal that has published skeptical papers, including my own. Protecting that relationship with skeptics who publish is valuable and the last thing we need is a scandal where papers submitted to AGU/JGR are showing up on other skeptic websites before they are reviewed because Jones sent active links around in emails. Having the knowledge of the security holes was a damned if I do damned if I don’t proposition, but I opted on the side of doing what I felt was the right course of action. If that upsets a few people, so be it. – Anthony
davidmhoffer says:
December 7, 2011 at 5:17 pm
“I can sell you a tool set just as usefull for $500. Half price dude! How many you want?”
JEDI SALESMAN!
davidmhoffer says:
December 6, 2011 at 6:48 pm
“What the heck is a “single point of truth database” ?!?”
davidmhoffer says:
December 6, 2011 at 6:48 pm
What the heck is a “single point of truth database” ?!?
Also called “single source of truth” and “single version of the truth”.
It’s a common term in data warehousing which you should have been aware of. I’m not an expert in IT so I had to look it up which took all of 5 seconds thanks to Google. You may call me JEDI GOOGLER.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Source_of_Truth
davidmhoffer says:
December 7, 2011 at 5:29 pm
“It matters not one wit how many times he clicked on the link and succeeded. It means he tested the link and it operated properly. that says nothing about what he read or didn’t read.”
There wasn’t much to read without more clicking. Just the date and titles of manuscripts that had been submitted along with submission number plus a notification of whose JGR account it was. I’m the one who sent the working links to Anthony the day before he notified Phil and JGR that the links were public knowledge. I also verified the links were working before taking any action as would be a waste of time to notify the owner(s) that they had a security problem.
This was not a crime as there was no malicious intent or damages which must accompany any unauthorized access according to US federal statute. This is typically referred to in general by the non-legal phrase “no harm, no foul”. In fact it may be a crime to NOT tell the owner in some jurisdictions where “Good Samaritan” laws are on the books as inaction could have resulted in damages.
Dave Springer;
What the heck is a “single point of truth database” ?!?
Also called “single source of truth” and “single version of the truth”.
It’s a common term in data warehousing which you should have been aware of.>>>
Yes, it is a term in data warehousing. In large complex IT systems sometimes data from one system is processed for use on another system, which may process it further and hand it to yet another system. In data warehousing, the practice of ensuring that all data collected from disparate systems is collected from the original data rather than data copied and/or processed data for use in central reporting systems. I didn’t have to look it up, I already knew that.
From the documentation on the UEA web site regarding their various major projects and security systems, it seems like the system they called “SPOT” is actually a central directory for authentication purposes. All the end user documentation regarding password reset, getting access to secure systems and so on mentions the Athens portal and SPOT. These are clearly end user systems, not data warehouse systems.
The common useage of the term as per google does not match the usage that UEA clearly has for SPOT.
Dave Springer;
This is patently wrong. There was no gathering. All the emails were kept on a single backup (redundant) mail server located within IT. This is according to a government report, “The Muir Russell Report”. >>>>
What that report says, and I quote, is:
“The word ‗hacked‘ as contained in the Review‘s terms of reference has been challenged in submissions to the Review, on the basis that the means by which the unauthorized disclosure of the e-mails was made has not been established.”
Furthermore, backup email servers typically share storage with the primary email server rather than having a copy of their own. Further still, the report is nearly 100% focused on the handling of data for science analysis rather than the manner in which email data was stored. Any references to “an archive” or “backup server” are purely speculative, and the use of those terms inthe report is not well defined. Both the terms “archive” and “backup server” mean very different things within an IT shop depending on the context.
Further still, this report was a whitewash through and through, I believe no more in their conclusions regarding data security breaches than I do in the following conclusions in their report, and it baffles me as to why you would see anything else in it as credible:
“we find that their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.”
“we did not find any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments.”
“We do not find that the way that data derived from tree rings is described and presented in IPCC AR4 and shown in its Figure 6.10 is misleading.”
“On the allegation that the phenomenon of “divergence” may not have been
properly taken into account when expressing the uncertainty associated
with reconstructions, we are satisfied that it is not hidden and that the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU
papers.”
“On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial
process we find no evidence to substantiate this”
JonasM;
Interestingly, they do not have ‘.txt’ extension, but are bare unix timestamps.>>>
Actually, that is VERY interesting. Of course, there’s a LOT of different ways that could have happened, too many to be definitive about anything, but very interesting! Gotta cipher on that one for a bit…or cogitate…or something.
Dave Springer;
In fact it may be a crime to NOT tell the owner in some jurisdictions where “Good Samaritan” laws are on the books as inaction could have resulted in damages.>>>
So did you do that? Sounds like you told Anthony instead?
This is too far down in the comments for you to see, Anthony, but if you do, just count me as one more vote in favour of your action. Taking the moral high ground is never the wrong course of action.
‘ This is according to a government report, “The Muir Russell Report”. ‘
The Russell “inquiry” was not a government inquiry and its report was not a govenment report.
The Russell “inquiry” was commissioned by the UEA and- surprise – its key member had close connections with UEA (which he denied at the time of the inquiry).
Martin A says:
December 9, 2011 at 4:52 am
Sir Muir Russell is chairman of a governmental body, the Judicial Appointments Board of Scotland, and has been a civil servant almost all his working life. The objection that it’s not a government report seems a bit pedantic as it remains true that Russell headed the inquiry and he’s a government employee.
One must still ask what motivation would there be to lie about where and how CRU emails are archived. Especially when the where and how are pretty much standard practice in a million IT facilities all over the world. So common, in fact, that I assumed without actually knowing that emails were being archived in that manner. Then in the only actual statement by any authoritative source my assumption was confirmed. Deal with it.
davidmhoffer says:
December 8, 2011 at 4:44 pm
“Dave Springer;
In fact it may be a crime to NOT tell the owner in some jurisdictions where “Good Samaritan” laws are on the books as inaction could have resulted in damages.>>>
So did you do that? Sounds like you told Anthony instead?”
That’s correct. I informed Anthony and no one else for a number of reasons but mostly because I didn’t want to give aid and comfort to some of the most heinous abusers of science alive today. If Phil Jones and a coyote were about to be run over by a bus and I only had time to save one of them I’d save the coyote. The second most important reason is that me informing JGR and Jones would benefit no one except JGR and Jones but coming from Anthony Watts it be of value in showing who owns the high moral ground in the debate. Watts is well known by everyone involved and I’m not so giving him an opportunity to wear the white hat is preferable to me donning it.
davidmhoffer says:
December 8, 2011 at 4:27 pm
“Furthermore, backup email servers typically share storage with the primary email server rather than having a copy of their own.”
Does it really make sense to you that a backup server and a main server share hardware resources? The whole point of the backup server is redundancy so if one fails for some reason the backup can seamlessly take over the job while the primary is repaired.
You need to think more and write less because some of the stuff you write, like the above, is pure unadulterated uninformed rubbish. Stick to sales and leave system design to people who know WTF they’re doing.
Dave Springer;
Does it really make sense to you that a backup server and a main server share hardware resources? The whole point of the backup server is redundancy so if one fails for some reason the backup can seamlessly take over the job while the primary is repaired.>>>
Yes it does Dave. Storage arrays that are independent of the servers themselves are standard fare in large IT shops and have been since the 90’s. The storage arrays themselves are designed to have no single point of failure. Data is striped across multiple disk drives using standard techniques such as RAID5 so that the failure of any given drive results in no loss of data as the use of the parity bit in RAID5 allows the data on the failed drives to be rebuilt from parity. Access to the drives themselves is through dual controllers in the array, each one of which provides for an independant path to the data on the hard drives (which themselves are also dual ported). If one controller in the array fails, the other controller can continue to serve data to any servers connected to it.
Servers themselves are in general deployed with dual storage connectivity, one connection to each of the controllers through either ethernet or FC switching. One storage array can serve storage up to many servers. It is common for mission critical applications to be run on one server while a second server is kept in standvy mode to take over the load should the primary server fail. It does so by resuming the application functions and directly attaching to the exact same data that the primary server was attached to in the exact same storage array.
If the above is “rubbish” as you claim, then IBM, HP, EMC, Oracle, Equallogic, Compellent, Hitachi Data Systems, Fujitsu, Network Appliance, BlueArc, Isilon, DDN, and many others appear to have been selling hundreds of billions of dollars worth of rubbish per year.
This open access “link” could have been set up by Scotland Yard, the FBI, Interpol, or any number of agencies to catch the perpetrators. Known as a port trap, it tricks the interloper into thinking they are hacking but are really being welcomed with open arms by any agencies watching that hole, keeping track of their IP addresses. Not surprised they closed it down immediately once it was made public as it’s of no use in catching the “hacker.” Inside job? Doubtful. There are some very talented hackers out there who need nothing more than an unsecure comment form and some sql code. Do a google search and you’ll be surprised what these script kiddies are able to do (and brag about it).
No offence, but Springer and Hoffer are going at it like two drag queens who’ve shown up at the same event wearing the same dress 🙂
Sean Peake;
Springer has made accusations regarding my statements and I have defended them with factual explanations. Springer has some sort of obsession with me, and I for one am sick of it. I’ve zero interest in debating him, but when he accuses me of making false, misleading, or innacurate statements, I think it only fair that I respond.
Anthony – if you must throw us both in the “troll bin” to put an end to this nonsense, by all means please do so because I’ve had enough. Springer seems far more interested in discrediting me and insulting me than he does in bringing any particular value to the discussion, and this thread is a fine example of his going out of his way to find fault with what I’ve said despite admitting that it is an area in which he himself has no expertise. He’s found some startlingly obscure references on some remarkably obscure web sites that he seems certain he is justified in using to mock me, suggesting that he is spending an inordinate amount of time on what is starting to sound more like stalking than civil discourse.
I’m asking you to put a stop to it even if that means you throw me in the troll bin too. I just ask that we have separate cells.
Neither, I’m protecting Anthony. His dog probably knows more about him than his wife and if the dog knows he’s going to be deposed he’ll extort him for more treats in exchange for favorable testimony. (When his subpoena comes just mutter something about a new vet appointment, works every time…)
And thus endth the cage match. FYI, davidmhoffer, I always look forward to and enjoy your posts, but you need to drop this.
Sean Peake says:
December 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm
And thus endth the cage match. FYI, davidmhoffer, I always look forward to and enjoy your posts, but you need to drop this.>>>
The man directly accused me, in a public forum, of being incompetant for having suggested that fail over servers most likely shared the the same storage, and called the notion total rubbish. The fact of the matter is that shared storage to facilitate continuous availability of applications even when the primary production server fails has been a standard approach in large data centres for nearly two decades.
Are you seriously suggesting that having been accused of incompetance in regard to a subject matter in which I make my living, and on the basis of a complete falsehood to boot, I should just quietly say nothing? I should just allow the falsehood to stand unchallenged and leave those who read the thread to gain a better understanding of the technology with a false impression?
I’ve long since dropped my objections to Springer accusing me of mutilating dead animals, threatening to shoot me, and I’ve lost track of the number of times he’s been snipped for making rude remarks about me. I don’t care. But when my professionalism and technical opinions are attacked using false information in what amounts to nothing more than a smear campaign, then I’m obligate dto set the record straight.
As I said before, I’m not interested in debating the man. that doesn’t mean I’m going to just “drop it” and allow him to continue attacking me personally without defending myself.
davidmhoffer says:
“December 7, 2011 at 5:29 pm
1DandyTroll;
“I’ve tested again tonight and the live link fails now.”
Does not imply that Mr Watts did not succeed before?>>>
It matters not one wit how many times he clicked on the link and succeeded. It means he tested the link and it operated properly. that says nothing about what he read or didn’t read.”
Of course it matter,
1. He figured he didn’t have the right to, hence his kindness to his opposition of letting them know they still had an open access.
2. It doesn’t matter what you read, see, or listen, to, if you at first don’t have the explicit right to access it in the first place.
There’s is no interpretation of the law, that is the law.
“1DandyTroll;
Don’t make a fool of yourself. EU law clearly dictates what is legal to access and what is not>>>
I’ll take your word for it. The thing that maybe you might have missed is that Anthony lives in the United States of America, and is not subject to EU law. Nor are crimes of this sort an extradictable offense. Even if he were to take a trip to the EU and be arrested there, his lawyer would argue that the EU does not have jurisdiction over actions taken in another country where those actions are legal, and he’d win on that point, hands down.”
1. There are bi- and tri lateral agreements between UK and US, and EU and US.
2. Every time you go to another country you are subject to your country’s laws and the laws of the country you’re visiting.
3. You can get turned over to another countries laws per, see 1, but especially for computer crimes these days. That people don’t get shipped around the world has more to do with money and that a lot of computer crimes only get prosecuted if someone makes a formal complaint. Most organizations don’t want to get embarrassed, hence the lack of complaints, however, the lack of a complaint doesn’t mean a crime wasn’t committed.
“Any other things I made a fool of myself on that I can straighten out for you?”
Yes, please, if you don’t know the current state of law concerning computer crimes in your own country I can understand since it’s usually chaos, but why do you still go above and beyond over the whole state of system design that UEA is using when you clearly don’t know?
I get why you have something against me behavior, but still, If you want to know their design you could just visit them you know, and ask, all still in the digital world. It’s not like it’s a secret installation after all, and even without the current set of all access openness laws in UK, they’ve as far as I can recall been very forthcoming with information if all you do is ask in a nice and proper way suitable for their standing in life. Pun all intended. :p
1DandyTroll;
but why do you still go above and beyond over the whole state of system design that UEA is using when you clearly don’t know?>>>
My comments have been in regard to technology infratsructure design in general, and are intended to provide some understanding of what is possible, what is likely, and what is unlikely in a large IT shop such as UEA’s. If you were paying attention, you would have noted that many of my comments carried caveats in regard to the specifics if implementation at UEA being unknown, and thus any hard and fast conclusions regarding their specific environment and the specific events that transpired are not possible.
1DandyTroll;
they’ve as far as I can recall been very forthcoming with information if all you do is ask in a nice and proper way suitable for their standing in life>>>>
LOL. Yeah, right.
1DandyTroll;
I get why you have something against me behavior, but still, If you want to know their design you could just visit them you know, and ask,>>>
There was a time when large IT shops would be glad to give you a tour of their data centre and answer pretty much any question you asked about their design. That practice has been dead as a doormat for 30 years or more because it was one of the primary tactics that hackers used to gain information about their targets that could be used to breach their security. Answering questions about a specific implementation of any mission critical system to anyone who asks is a violation of even the most basic security practices, and would be dismissed out of hand in any FOIA request, and for good reason.
That practice has been dead as a doormat for 30 years or more >>>
To be clear, one can often get a tour of the data centre. what one cannot get is any usefull information regarding the specific implementation details of their major application infrastructure, network design, and data protection (backup etc) systems. staring at the all the hardware and cabling in a site of that size will tell you little of practical value.
davidmhoffer: I m not one to say what you should or shouldn’t do or to whom you should respond. My point is that you have more supporters than agin’ yas but there will always be a few who refuse to listen or are just a thorn in your side. Some arguments, however, you can’t win. “Forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown.”
For the record, there are three posters/bloggers I look forward to reading everyday and you are one of them—the others are Daily Bayonet and Iowahawk. You all love to tweak the nose of the arrogant and reduce the pompous to imbeciles.
FOIA File structure seen as DOS file structure.
SUB Directory REDACTED.
CD/ redacted
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=REDACTED
DIR
—
Thu, 9 Oct 2008 6:56:17 am
0058.txt- Ralf
0058.txt-
0058.txt:[[[redacted: reference]]]
0058.txt-
0058.txt- Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
—
OPEN 0058.txt-
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0058.txt&search=REDACTED
“
date: Thu Oct 9 17:56:17 2008
from: Keith Briffa
subject: Re: Tom Giverin – IN STRICT CONFIDENCE
to: “Toumi, Ralf”
Ralf
[[[redacted: reference]]]
Finally, might I ask that you note and then erase this email. I have found that recent
enquiries under the Freedom of Information Act, or Data Protection Act, can become
considerable time sinks , or the basis of some inconvenient subsequent distractions.
with best wishes
Keith
At 12:38 09/10/2008, you wrote:
Dear Keith,
Tom has applied to do a PhD with me (probably mesoscale modelling). Could you please
give me a reference for him. In particular I would be interested to know if you would
take him in your group (and why you think he is still available; which is good for
me…, but I always worry at this time of year).
Best wishes,
Ralf
Professor Ralf Toumi
Department of Physics
Imperial College
London SW7 2AZ
UK
Rm. H713 (Huxley Building)
Telephone: + 44 (0) ???
Fax: + 44 (0) ???
email: [1]???@imperial.ac.uk
Web: [2]http://www.sp.ph.ic.ac.uk/~rtoumi/
—
Professor Keith Briffa,
Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia
Norwich, NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Phone: +4 ???-1603-593909
Fax: +4 ???-1603-507784
[3]http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/briffa/
Open — it is also a filename, + = space key seen on FOIA Grepper.
DIR
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+–
“### CANNOT PARSE DATE ###
0876437553.txt-Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
0876437553.txt-
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553.txt-“
0876437553.txt:I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
0876437553 = UNIX time stamp
Open 0876437553.txt
“From: Joseph Alcamo
To: ???@uea.ac.uk, ???@rivm.nl
Subject: Timing, Distribution of the Statement
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 1997 18:52:33 0100
Reply-to: ???@usf.uni-kassel.de
Mike, Rob,
Sounds like you guys have been busy doing good things for the cause.
I would like to weigh in on two important questions —
Distribution for Endorsements —
I am very strongly in favor of as wide and rapid a distribution as
possible for endorsements. I think the only thing that counts is
numbers. The media is going to say “1000 scientists signed” or “1500
signed”. No one is going to check if it is 600 with PhDs versus 2000
without. They will mention the prominent ones, but that is a
different story.
Conclusion — Forget the screening, forget asking
them about their last publication (most will ignore you.) Get those
names!
Timing — I feel strongly that the week of 24 November is too late.
1. We wanted to announce the Statement in the period when there was
a sag in related news, but in the week before Kyoto we should expect
that we will have to crowd out many other articles about climate.
2. If the Statement comes out just a few days before Kyoto I am
afraid that the delegates who we want to influence will not have any
time to pay attention to it. We should give them a few weeks to hear
about it.
3. If Greenpeace is having an event the week before, we should have
it a week before them so that they and other NGOs can further spread
the word about the Statement. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be so
bad to release the Statement in the same week, but on a
diffeent day. The media might enjoy hearing the message from two
very different directions.
Conclusion — I suggest the week of 10 November, or the week of 17
November at the latest.
Mike — I have no organized email list that could begin to compete
with the list you can get from the Dutch. But I am still
willing to send you what I have, if you wish.
Best wishes,
Joe Alcamo
—————————————————-
Prof. Dr. Joseph Alcamo, Director
Center for Environmental Systems Research
University of Kassel
Kurt Wolters Strasse 3
D-34109 Kassel
Germany”
There is still filename —————————————————-
DIR
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?search=+—————————————————-
Thu, 11 Jul 1996 1:07:13 pm
0837094033.txt-> NR4 7TJ
0837094033.txt-> UK
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
0837094033.txt->
0837094033.txt->
—
Open
0837094033.txt:> —————————————————————————-
“From: Alan Robock
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: your mail
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 10:07:13 -0400 (EDT)
Dear Phil,
It looks like you have found Baitoushan. Vol. 2 lists Kuwae as VEI 6 in
1452 +/- 10 AD. How accurate are your dates? By the way, Chris Newhall
thinks 1600 is the Parker volcano on Mindanao in the Philippines. He
hasn’t published that so far, as I know.
Could you please define “utter prat” for me? Sometimes I think we speak
the same language, and sometimes I’m not so sure.
I’m doing fine. We have a new building with nice new offices. I’m going
to Australia next week with Sherri and Danny, and after the meeting, will
visit Cairns, Adelaide, and New Zealand. I’m looking forward to skiing
on a volcano, if it stops erupting.
Alan
Prof. Alan Robock Phone: (301)???
Department of Meteorology Fax: (301)???
University of Maryland Email: ???@atmos.umd.edu
College Park, MD 20742 http://www.meto.umd.edu/~alan
On Thu, 11 Jul 1996, Phil Jones wrote:
> Alan,
> Thanks for the quick response. We’ll expect something from Melissa
> in the next few weeks. I also hope our copy of the 2cnd edition arrives
> soon. In our maximum latewood density reconstruction from the polar Urals
> to AD 914, the most anomalous summer is AD 1032. A lot of other volcano
> years are there with summers of -3 to -4 sigma such as 1816,1601,1783 and
> 1453 (I think this later one is Kuwae that is being found in the Ice Cores
> in the Antarctic. However 1032 is 6 sigma and it may be the Baitoushan
> event which you say is 1010 +/- 50 years or the Billy Mitchell event.
>
> I hope all’s well with you.
>
> Cheers
> Phil
>
> PS Britain seems to have found it’s Pat Michaels/Fred Singer/Bob Balling/
> Dick Lindzen. Our population is only 25 % of yours so we only get 1 for
> every 4 you have. His name in case you should come across him is
> Piers Corbyn. He is nowhere near as good as a couple of yours and he’s
> an utter prat but he’s getting a lot of air time at the moment. For his
> day job he teaches physics and astronomy at a University and he predicts
> the weather from solar phenomena. He bets on his predictions months
> ahead for what will happen in Britain. He now believes he knows all
> there is to know about the global warming issue. He’s not all bad as
> he doesn’t have much confidence in nuclear-power safety. Always says
> that at the begining of his interviews to show he’s not all bad !
>
> Cheers Again
>
> Phil
> Dr Phil Jones
> Climatic Research Unit Telephone +44 ???
> School of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 ???
> Norwich Email ???@uea.ac.uk
> NR4 7TJ
> UK
> —————————————————————————-
>
>”
This is an example file path, and seems to be endless.
I think that the master file is still in CRU computer systems,
so we have to sort files like I did.
Ilkka.