UPDATE: 12/21/11 4PM -BBC covers Tallbloke, finally, Richard Black still silent- Norfolk constabulary to share hand-off Climategate investigation, and Greg Laden caves – see below
Dec 14th -The first blogger to break the Climategate2 story has had a visit from the police and has had his computers seized. Tallbloke’s Talkshop first reported on CG2 due to the timing of the release being overnight in the USA. Today he was raided by six UK police (Norfolk Constabulary and Metropolitan police) and several of his computers were seized as evidence. He writes:
After surveying my ancient stack of Sun Sparcstations and PII 400 pc’s, they ended up settling for two laptops and an adsl broadband router. I’m blogging this post via my mobile.
That means his cellphone. In his blog report are all the details. including actions in the US involving WordPress and the US Department of Justice. Jeff Id at The Air Vent also has a report here.
Strange and troubling that they’d seize his computers for comments dropped onto a US service (wordpress.com) from the cloud. There wouldn’t be any record on his PC’s of the event from FOIA’s placing comments, that would be in the wordpress.com server logs.
Either there’s more than meets the eye or they have no idea how the blog system works.
UPDATE: I’ve been in contact with Roger (Tallbloke) and he tells me that he is not a suspect, and that they’ll clone his hard drives and return the computers to him. – Anthony
UPDATE2: 12/15/9AM It seems that the story has gone viral on blogs. Four skeptic blogs are in the top ten of all WordPress blogs today. While I’ve seen 2 at a time on CG1 and CG2, four has never happened before. This is from my wordpress.com dashboard:
From top to bottom, WUWT, The Air Vent, Tallbloke’s Talkshop, Climate Audit.
UPDATE3: Delingpole in the Telegraph thinks its going to escalate
UPDATE4: Horner in The Washington Examiner weighs in
UPDATE5: The Guardian picks up on the story here
UPDATE6: Jo Nova suggests it is a form of intimidation
UPDATE7: Josh weighs in with two cartoons
UPDATE8: Greg Laden on Scienceblogs accuses Tallbloke of being a “criminal” – a claim really over the line and over the top. Clearly this is outside of the Code of Conduct for Scienceblogs.com (contact page here) Of course, after reading the rant of hate this man has for anyone not like him, especially Americans in some states, I suppose it’s just another day for him. Update: I sent off a complaint to the editors of Sb about this, and it appears that Laden has been asked to remove the libelous language, though the post remains as does his hateful attitude in comments.
UPDATE9: Lord Monckton to pursue fraud charges against Climategate scientists: Will present to police the case for ‘numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud’
Monckton: ‘I have begun drafting a memorandum for prosecuting authorities…to establish…the existence of numerous specific instances of scientific or economic fraud in relation to the official ‘global warming’ storyline…they will act, for that is what the law requires them to do’
Story at ClimateDepot here
UPDATE10: More than a couple of people have asked me about computer security in the last couple of days, especially after the Tallbloke raid incident.
I’m offering a simple security solution for those that want to protect their files: a USB flash drive with built in hardware security. See it here
UPDATE11: A copy of the search warrant can be seen at Climate Audit
UPDATE 12: The BBC’s Richard Black is silent, probably because he can’t “… find an angle that will allow the BBC to maintain the usual warmists good, sceptics bad holding pattern”.
UPDATE13: Tallbloke apparently is going to take legal action against ScienceBlogs and blogger Greg Laden over his libelous article (now modified to not be libelous) accusing Tallbloke of being involved in criminal activity, and is soliciting barristers. Laden says on his blog in comments:
“I think he’s a criminal for being a climate denialist. Sue me. “
Looks like Greg Laden will get his wish.
UPDATE14: Rep Markey has an “off with their heads” moment, Jeff Id explains how the connections being made are preposterous.
UPDATE15: Tallbloke has decided to take the libel issue with Laden to tort. A letter from his attorney is posted.
UPDATE16: Planetsave makes another libel with the headline: “Criminal Who Manufactured Climategate Caught?” The clueless writer, Zachary Shahan, is about as far away from understanding journalism as anyone I’ve seen. He’s in for a nasty surprise as Tallbloke has added him to the tort list.
UPDATE18: UK cartoonist “Fenbeagle” has done up a Star Wars parody in the vein of The Empire Strikes Back. Mike Mann, Phil Jones, Jawas, and a Wookie are featured.
UPDATE19: Tom Nelson points out that Laden seems to have caved to impending legal action: Warmist Greg Laden: Did I say that tallbloke is a criminal? I meant he’s not a criminal. Details here
UPDATE20: Tallbloke reflects on the solstice and says that questions are starting to be asked in the UK.
UPDATE21: Tallbloke reports that:
In a sudden new development, your correspondent has learned that Norfolk Constabulary have decided that climategate is too big for them to handle. According to an un-named source, they intend to hand over the inquiry to another force.
This follows on the heels of a ‘request for a contact’ at Norfolk Constabulary by Lord Christopher Monckton in connection with his intention to have the police investigate revelations in the ‘climategate’ emails placed in the public domain.
UPDATE22: Donna LeFramboise writes in the Financial Post:
This is all rather chilling. It appears that being the proprietor of a blog in which strangers leave links pointing to material on third-party websites now exposes one to being raided by the police.
UPDATE23: The BBC finally gets around to covering the seizure episode almost a week later, unsurprisingly, the very biased Richard Black isn’t the reporter.
Thankfully, it’s unlikely the police department will post Tallbloke’s emails on the net.
Here’s what’s really happening:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/10/map-the-climate-change-scare-machine-the-perpetual-self-feeding-cycle-of-alarm/
The black booted, AGWer Orwellian thought police [SNIP: Sorry, Scott, but this really is Over The Top. Step back, take a deep breath, and think it through again. -REP]
Kick the bastards out!
That is a false analogy which serves to miislead and deceive the readers. The Climategate e-mail are messages which appear to have been lawfully subject to disclosure in response to lawful Freeedom of Information requests according to the UK Government communication which said they were unlawfully withheld by CRU et al. Tallbloke’s e-mail was not paid for by public funding, was not subject to Freedom of Information requests, and there is no present reason to expect their release to be lawful. So, your troll like concern is inappropriate and deceitful to any extent to which you would try to persuade the readers that some hypocrisy is involved by not releasing Tallbloke’s e-mail.
Tallbloke’s e-mail was not subject to disclosure to the general public in response to a Freedom of Information request, while the Climategate e-mail appears to have been unlawfully withheld despite being lawfully subject to disclosure in response to the Freedom of Information requests. What is your next deceitful and false analogy?
What happened to update 17?
Still obfuscating Barry?
Still conflating two diametrically opposed concepts:
PUBLIC :: emails and data written by taxpayer-funded employees, on taxpayer-funded company equipment, on taxpayer-funded company time
PRIVATE :: emails and data written by private citizens, on privately owned equipment, on private time
Why would you knowingly do that?
barry:
At December 18, 2011 at 8:04 pm you say:
“Thankfully, it’s unlikely the police department will post Tallbloke’s emails on the net.”
Of course not, Tallbloke’s emails are personal communications made on his personal computers for his personal purposes and at his own expense. So, nobody except the police has any right to read them and they are not subject to FOI law. The “police derpatrment” could be sued if it posted Tallbloke’s emails on the internet without his permission.
But the Climategate 1 & 2 emails are proffessional communications made on employers’ computers for proffessional purposes and funded partly or in whole by taxpayers. Thus, they are public property and everybody has a right to read them because they are subject to FOI law. Many have published those emails on the internet and nobody can sue the publishers for publishing this public property.
Please try to engage your brain before making a post.
Richard
Super bombshell if true can this be double checked?
http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/12/science-by-lubchencos-noaa-fake-global-warming-by-changing-historical-temperature-data.html
This would be definitely taken up by mainstraem media far too juicy not too
[MODERATOR’S NOTE: Things like this belong in Tips and Notes where they are more likely to be noticed by the management and won’t distract from the thread topic. Thanks. -REP]
Richard S Courtney says:
December 18, 2011 at 2:19 pm
You can repeat it as often as you like about it not being a Conspiracy, but when after reading the emails the consensus says it is a conspiracy the science is settled.
JPeden says:
December 18, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Rob says:
December 18, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Criminal Who Manufactured Climategate Caught?
http://planetsave.com/2011/12/…
—
It’s gone, I couldn’t find it there.
Fitzcarraldo says:
December 19, 2011 at 4:45 am (Edit)
==============================
The three series showing change of data are interesting. The histograms are really quite definitive regarding reason driven adjustment. I am just not sure where the adjustments are. Here on this C3 site ore further back up the data river.
How reliable is this site? I ask because their use of many terms in a pejorative way is indicative of a political position and in politics it seems there are no constraints regarding lying.
My bullshit detectors are quivering I have to say.
MJW says: “Under English law, it matters not whether Tallbloke is a “journalist,” only whether he was engaging in journalism.”
I don’t disagree with anything that you say, but (a) I was outlining a fact – that I don’t regard him as a journalist – to explain why I hadn’t understood the point that was in RB’s mind, but not actually mentioned in his comment; and (b) it’s quite possible that, at some stage, some or all of the material on Tallbloke’s drives might be found by a Court to be special procedure material, but it remains a fact that the District Judge did issue the warrant, and ipso facto the actions of the officers undertaking the search and seizure were (in the legal sense, and at the present time) lawful.
If the police, in considering whether or not to do some act, had to take into account whether or not at some point in the future that act might possibly be held to be unlawful, and refrain from doing it if such a possibility – however remote – existed, then nothing would ever be done. One of the reasons why the disorder in English cities in August was not dealt with more rigorously by the police was directly because of the Tomlinson case – every PSU officer involved was well aware of the position of PC Simon Harwood, who wasn’t available for duty because he has been charged with manslaughter and the case will not be heard until next year.
Almost every briefing included the advice “Remember Tomlinson” – and, because the only legal provision for dealing in practice with the disorder in the way that 20:20 hindsight demanded is S.3 Criminal Law Act 1967 and the (unwritten) Common Law, you saw what resulted. Society, especially when it is being perverse and duplicious, gets the policing for which its legislature provides, with due regard for any resulting ambiguity!
D. Patterson says:
December 18, 2011 at 6:10 pm
1. So, disclosure of the “truth” and accurate data sets improves their current ability to garner political support just how?
2. What is this “definition of the problem”, and on what basis can you claim “we already understand” it?
========
1. The Science is the basis for the Policy but should not propose policy. The Science with proper governance and transparency can become a Trusted foundation for Policy decisions. Without Trust, there isn’t any basis for political support. Defining the limits of current understanding doesn’t undermine the theory nor the need for ongoing research. It also fosters an open dialogue related to appropriate policy solutions.
2. Its only a problem is the true cause is unknown. GHGs are the byproduct of natural and man-made processes. Even if they don’t have a significant bearing on warming, many are still pollutants. Addressing decisions to minimize pollutants by improving processes which in turn conserve resources will improve the human condition and can potentially save the taxpayer money if properly crafted. Example: a nano material used as a frictionless bearing. The climate debate is about defining a potential problem that has very little to do with appropriate solutions and is basically unnecessary in the face of a common sense approach to minimizing pollution.
A. C. Osborn:
At December 19, 2011 at 6:24 am you say to me:
” You can repeat it as often as you like about it not being a Conspiracy, but when after reading the emails the consensus says it is a conspiracy the science is settled.”
I can, do and have been pointing out for decades that the evidence denies the AGW-scare is a “conspiracy” but it is a bandwagon; for an example of my saying this in the 1990s see
http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm
Demonstably untrue claims that the AGW-scare is a conspiracy hinder serious attempts to oppose the scare because the claims encourage ridicule of that opposition.
But American conspircacy nuts see what they think to be a conspiracy wherever they look.
The fact that the Team fulfils their employment by working together to usurp the scientific process does not show a conspiracy. If you think it does then you must also think people employed by Burger King are in a conspiracy to make burgers.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
December 19, 2011 at 8:24 am
“But American conspircacy nuts see what they think to be a conspiracy wherever they look.”
Richard, I think you are correct. In fact, it seems you are correct in most of your sayings here at WUWT.
BUT; there is a funny thing about this conspiracy thing.
If I mention to someone that the UN tried to get a treaty signed in Copenhagen, where the UN gets control over energy consumption in all UN countries, and a policing ability on top of it……and that all this is based on a report from the IPCC…..and that all is based on shoddy science…..where those behind the report do all they can to hide their methods and data…..and it is based on 30% non peer reviewed reports from climbing magazines and the like……and so on, and so on……what will the response be?
Aha, I am a conspiracy theorist!!!! And therefore to be laughed at.
But I didnt mention the word conspiracy at all. I just mentioned the treaty, and the methods behind it.
It was the listener who concluded that I was talking about a conspiracy…..
So who is a conspiracy theorist ?
Richard, perhaps you’d like to do a post on “Is AGW a conspiracy?” because I don’t think it’s quite as open-and-closed easily-dismissed as you imply. I think there are important subtleties.
For instance, whilst I don’t think there has been a conspiracy to deceive, in any way beyond what’s normal in politics, I do think that people in Climate Science have got bitten by “Noble Cause” corrupting influences, and have allowed ends to justify means, including the ruthless silencing and active/complicit tarring of dissenters. Heck, Mann speaks of “the cause”. Jones tried to handpick sympathisers for his workshops, journals, reviewers, IPCC panel, etc. He does NOT pick according to scientific ability. And, Richard, I’ve just love to hear you bring out the important issue you taught me – how Thatcher skewed research. Personally I think her move was a real “sorcerer’s apprentice” moment in the sorry history of Climate Science.
I guess you laudably want to avoid creating a “them baddies – us goodies” divide. Great.
>JPeden says:
>Unsurprisingly, your post is irrelevant to the issue except insofar as confirming your own Religious >belief in a bunch of Climate Jabberwocky which hasn’t made a successful prediction about reality >yet but still continues right on with its usual “methods”. Congratulations on another “success”!
You mean predictions like plant hardiness zones moving Northward across the United States during the last 30 years? Or the lengthening/earlier arrivals of first/last frosts? Or the increase in number of extreme rainfall evens, as expected from the basic Clausius-Clapeyron relation?
Oh right, all those predictions DID come true. But I’m sure you knew that, since you obviously are familiar with all the literature, correct ?
Lucy – I think the divide is “accountable vs not accountable” and I’m afraid it is real and obvious.
kwik:
You make a very good point in your post at December 19, 2011 at 9:18 am.
You describe your being accused of being a conspiracy theorist because you described the putative Copenhagen treaty, and the methods behind it. Then you ask me;
“It was the listener who concluded that I was talking about a conspiracy…..
So who is a conspiracy theorist ?”
I, too, have been accused of being a conspiracy theorist for the same and similar reasons. Indeed, on one occassion the BBC cut short an interview of me, then immediately broadcast that what I had been saying was a conspiracy theory and refused to allow me to broadcast a rebuttal of that assertion. But (as again in this thread) I have consistently denied that such a conspiracy exists.
The smear of the truth of the AGW-scare being a conspiracy theory is a smokescreen used by propogandists to obscure the truths which you stated in your post. Indeed, the fact that AGW-propogandists use that smokescreen is the reason it is important to explain the reality of the bandwagon, and to avoid ‘dressing-it-up’ as being some kind of conspiracy because the existence of sucha conspiracy can simply be shown to be untrue.
Anyway, that is my view of it.
Richard
First ‘win’ for Roger. Email message just in from Zachary Shahan, Director of Planetsave who seems a nice guy but was taken in by the initial defamatory reporting.
“Hello Guys,
Given the actual request of the DOJ order and the changes in some of the Guardian text I quoted, it’s more worth my time (and everyone else’s probably) to just remove the story — there wasn’t much of interest in the story anyway (except that the police are trying to find out who the hacker was — but that’s nothing new), but I’m curious to hear what you find as to why they seized your equipment. That’s still completely unclear, right?
On the misinformation bit: there’s no intention on my part to make you (Roger) look like you have nefarious motives. I think you are genuine in your thought that the science is not settled (while, obviously, I am confident that it is — certain key parts of it, of course). As I think I mentioned before, I have one or two good friends in your boat. I don’t consider them nefarious and don’t think they or you intend to misinform people. I think there are nefarious people in the fossil fuel industry or working for them that originate much of this misinformation, but I have never assumed you are such a person (and I don’t assume most people who ascribe to your beliefs are). And I think it’s a shame people get carried away in that type of thinking!”
Perhaps some good can come of all this ?
Lucy Skywalker:
Thankyou for your post at December 19, 2011 at 11:06 am.
I have made a post in reply to kwik (Moderators: it seems to have vanished) and I think it covers why I think this matter of ‘conspiracy’ or ‘bandwagon’ is important.
As you say, there are several “subtleties” and they do deserve a serious assessment. But in the context of this thread they are not significant for the reason explained in my post which has not appeared (but I hope the Moderators will recover).
I think the Thatcher issue was adequately covered in the discussion of it on WUWT some time ago, but if Anthony were to ask for a summary then I would provide it early in the New Year (this week is very busy for me).
As for the Good vs Bad thing, I am one of several whom AGW-propogandists proclaim to be the spawn of Satan. But I think it would be a mistake for us to adopt their methods. Nobody is a perfect Saint or a Devil, and now the AGW-scare is ending we need to behave in a way that will assist its rapid demise and not stall that demise with personal arguments.
The seeking of justice as a methd to inhibit future corruption ofv science can wait until the important matter of rapidly finishing-off the AGW scare is assured.
As I said to kwik, anyway, that is my view.
Richard
John from CA says:
December 18, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Phil. says:
December 18, 2011 at 2:35 pm
======
Phil, has the code and data been demoed and released to a group of critics for review that are not hand picked proponents of the AR4 conclusions? A group of qualified skeptics who would logically then help to put the debate in perspective and on a more supported path.
Did they publish their findings?
Why didn’t a ‘group of qualified skeptics’ use the data and code and publish their findings?
If they need their hands held in the manner you describe they wouldn’t meet my definition of ‘qualified’.
Phil.,
I recommend you click on Climate Audit on the right sidebar.
Phil:
At December 19, 2011 at 12:57 pm you say;
“Why didn’t a ‘group of qualified skeptics’ use the data and code and publish their findings?
If they need their hands held in the manner you describe they wouldn’t meet my definition of ‘qualified’.”
Don’t be silly.
If skeptics such as Steve McIntyre had held the hands of Michael Mann when he was generating his hockey sticks then Mann would not now be up to his neck and sinking fast in ordure.
The fact is that ‘climate scientists’ dabble in statistics, material science, ecology and vatious lother disciplineswhile authorities in those disciplines gasp in awe at the incompetence of the dabblers.
Richard
Jerky says:
“You mean predictions like plant hardiness zones moving Northward across the United States during the last 30 years? Or the lengthening/earlier arrivals of first/last frosts? Or the increase in number of extreme rainfall evens, as expected from the basic Clausius-Clapeyron relation? Oh right, all those predictions DID come true.”
Those ‘predictions’ are based on the long term warming trend from the LIA. And keep in mind that the planet still has not warmed up to the higher temperatures of the MWP, as evidenced by the fact that medieval farms in Greenland are still in frozen permafrost. When those medieval farms are warmed up and producing again, wake me.