Are the Russians in the Room Right Now?


The conspiracy theory that keeps on giving.

There’s a new piece of rubbish article on Medium making the rounds, with a “new” analysis of Climategate pointing to those wascally Wussians, by Iggy Ostanin

The identity of the hackers has remained a mystery despite the efforts of law enforcement and journalists. It can be revealed for the first time that evidence points to the Russian city of Ekaterinburg.

For those familiar with the original Climategate story, skip this next part.

WUWT Stories in chronological order, newest first:

When Results Go Bad …


Telegraph’s Booker on the “climategate” scandal

“Climategate” surpasses “Global Warming” on Google

Mann to be investigated by Penn State University review

Understanding Climategate: Who’s Who – a video

The Curry letter: a word about “deniers”…

How “The Trick” was pulled off

The Australian ETS vote: a political litmus test for cap and trade

An open letter from Dr. Judith Curry on climate science

Zorita calls for barring Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf from further IPCC participation

Climategate protester pwn3d CBC on live TV

UEA Climate Scientist: “possible that…I.P.C.C. has run its course”

IPCC reviewer: “don’t cover up the divergence”

McIntyre: The deleted data from the “Hide the Decline” trick

Climategate: Stuart Varney “lives with Ed”

Climategate: Pielke Senior on the NCDC CCSP report – “strong arm tactics”

Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections put bias in Australian Temperatures

Climategate: CATO’s Pat Michaels and Center for American Progress Dan Weiss on Fox News

Quote of the week #23 – calls for resignation in Climategate

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand tells a different story than the “official” one.

Climategate: “Men behaving badly” – a short summary for laymen

Statement on CRU hacking from the American Meteorological Society

Climategate: hide the decline – codified

Must see video – Climategate spoof from Minnesotans for Global Warming

The people -vs- the CRU: Freedom of information, my okole…

Government petition started in UK regarding CRU Climategate

CEI Files Notice of Intent to Sue NASA GISS

The appearance of hypocrisy at the NYT – Note to Andy

Nov 24 Statement from UEA on the CRU files

Nov 23 Statement from UEA on the CRU files

Monbiot issues an unprecedented apology – calls for Jones resignation

The CRUtape Letters™, an Alternative Explanation.

CRU Emails “may” be open to interpretation, but commented code by the programmer tells the real story

Video: Dr. Tim Ball on the CRU emails

Pielke Senior: Comment On The Post “Enemies Caught In Action!” On The Blackboard

Bishop Hill’s compendium of CRU email issues

Spencer on elitism in the IPCC climate machine

CRU Emails – search engine now online

Release of CRU files forges a new hockey stick reconstruction

Mike’s Nature Trick

and the post that started it all…

Breaking News Story: CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released

This arrogant writer hack putz journo seems to be a great example of someone who thinks he’s a lot smarter than he actually is.  For example:

What the hackers failed to realize is that along with the sender, recipient and subject line, every emails they published contained the time and date they were sent, true to the in the UK time zone.

Yeah, the hackers, the anti-terrorist task force of the UK, hundreds of articles from both supporters and detractors of UEA, commentators, forensic analyses by numerous IT professionals, the Norfolk Constabulary, ALL FAILED TO REALIZE….

(He soooooo smmmmaaarrrrtttt).  He continues:

Crucially, when Unix Time file names are decoded there is a mismatch — the system clock of the computer used to handle the hacked files was five hours ahead of the UK. This places the computer in a time zone that spans countries including Pakistan and Uzbekistan, and a strip of Russia that includes the city of Ekaterinburg.

Stephen McIntyre of has gone on Twitter to shred this offal masquerading as investigative journalism. You may want to read the Medium article before reading the defenestration below.

(FYI CG1 stands for the first release of Climategate emails.)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
July 3, 2019 6:28 am

Ostanin is apparently trying to imply that the Climategate leaks were fabrications, while the participants in the leaked emails admit they were real. Getting the date stamps wrong, as McIntire points out, just makes the allegation even sillier.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 3, 2019 7:59 am

Doesn’t matter what’s true – it only matters what you can make people believe.

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 3, 2019 8:09 am

exactly…throw it out there

..and not one person will know it wasn’t true

Reply to  Joel Snider
July 3, 2019 9:29 am

OK … now tell WHY? “the Russians” would want to PREVENT the West from voluntarily crippling its fossil fuel industry? Why would muh Russia interfere with the West’s dependence on Russian oil and gas?

Sometimes, all one needs is the ‘smell test’ to dismiss idiotic notions.

Reply to  Kenji
July 3, 2019 1:12 pm

Beyond that, the Clinton’s have had a close relationship with the Russians going back years. Even permitting the Russians to buy key American technology and companies.
If the Russians wanted to help anyone, it would have been Hillary.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
July 3, 2019 7:00 pm

And Hillary was susecptible to blackmail from the Russians since they were involved in the corrupt Russian One sale and have all the details about who in the Clinton organization was bribed and how much and when and where it happened.

Yeah, the Russians definitely wanted Hillary as president. They could control her with threats of exposing her criminal activities. The Chinese are the same way, they wanted Hillary because they would have lots of blackmail opportunities when it comes to both Bill and Hillary Clinton. The Chinese, like the Russians, know where all the bodies are buried when it comes to dealing with the Clintons.

Instead, they got Trump! A guy they have no power over! A guy who won’t have to consider Chinese or Russian blackmail before he makes a decision.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 3, 2019 7:20 pm

Abbott, you don’t know what you are talking about. There was no “Russian One sale.”

I suggest you investigate matters, and learn what happened. The deal was for “Uranium One,” and if it was corrupt, can you point me to the arrests made in the investigation of the “corruption?”

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 3, 2019 7:27 pm

Putin and the Russians know exactly how many rubles/dollars of dirty money they laundered through Trump with real estate deals.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 5:19 am

“and if it was corrupt, can you point me to the arrests made in the investigation of the “corruption?””

Well, Keith, I’m hopeful that the resluts of the ongoing investigations by the DOJ into all of that will be made public soon.

What I find interesting about Hillary selling U.S. uranium to Russia is that Robert Mueller was FBI Director at the time, and signed off on the deal, although he knew all about the corruption and bribery going on because he had a spy planted high up in this little fraud who documented the whole thing and all the players, and for some strange reason the FBI started harrassing this guy, and now he has a dynamite lawyer who I think is going to get to the bottom of this scandal for all of us to see.

You are free to console yourself with the thought that Hillary hasn’t been indicted *yet*.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 5:57 am

Again Abbott, you don’t know what you are talking about. Hillary did not sell U.S. uranium to Russia. No uranium was sold to Russia. There’s not much point in discussing this incident with you because you don’t even know the basic facts in the case. In order for anyone in the USA to sell uranium to Russia, they need an export license from the NRC. None was ever issued.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
July 4, 2019 6:31 am

Actually, it was laundered through Canada and Europe. You seem to only know Clinton spin.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 6:00 am

“Putin and the Russians know exactly how many rubles/dollars of dirty money they laundered through Trump with real estate deals.”

Talk about unsubstantiated claims. Haven’t you noticed: Trump is pure as the driven snow, despite the Democrats best efforts. The crazy Democrats (Obama) deliberately tried to set Trump up for a fall, and the rest of the Democrats have searched every nook and cranny for some kind of corruption or illegality of Trump’s and have found absolutely nothing. Trump may prove to be one of the most honest presidents the United States ever had.

Obama’s plan might have worked, except he ran into an honest man in Trump and the plan got upset. A lesser man might have fallen into Obama’s trap.

I’m just delighted Trump is president. Nothing could be better for this nation and this world. Let’s hope our upcoming leaders learn a little something from Trump. Success does breed success, so maybe our future will be hopeful even after Trump is no longer president.

We’ll have to create a new position for Trump after his second term is over: Chief Advisor to the President.

In the meantime, Trump continues to destroy Socialism and show Free Markets and Personal Freedom are the way to go, and it is driving the Democrats insane. I mean *really* insane. The Left has turned into an echo chamber of insanity and delusion.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 7:17 am

Thank you Halla, for confirming the fact that no uranium was sold to Russia. And speaking of “laundering” it would be good of you to explain to Mr. Abbott how many Russians own apartments in the Trump Tower in Manhattan.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 7:31 am

Halla, what evidence are you basing your accusation that Uraninum One yellowcake was sold to/shipped to Russia?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
July 4, 2019 7:56 am

Try reading “Clinton Cash”

Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 4:30 pm

Keith, the answer to that question would be zero.
Those deals only exist in your fevered imagination.

Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 4:31 pm

Tom, Keith firmly believes whatever his handlers tell him to belive.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 5:20 pm

MarkW says zero.
Eric says something different:

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 6:13 pm

Halla, you crack me up. “Clinton Cash” was written by Schweizer, employed by Bannon, at Breitbart, the CEO of Trump’s campaign.
Can you spell B – I – A – S ?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
July 4, 2019 6:21 pm

Keith, when the New York Times did a follow up on Clinton Cash, they confirmed the vast majority of the work on the one incident they covered. All you are going on is the Clinton campaign spin on the accounts, not the minor little fact that attempts to disprove any part of the reporting have failed.

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 6:18 pm

Halla, you reference the book “Clinton Cash.”
Is that the book that HarperCollins had to make seven or eight corrections after it was released?

Keith Sketchley
Reply to  MarkW
July 4, 2019 7:19 pm

“on the one incident they covered.”

Which incident?

How many “incidents” were there in the entire book?

Tom Halla
Reply to  Keith Sketchley
July 4, 2019 7:38 pm

There were four or five major incidents of corrupt deals by the Clintons, and the NYT reported on the Uranium One example. The book had evidence sufficient for a Grand Jury case on each incident, if not quite sufficient for a criminal conviction in a trial. One can’t tell the veracity of a witness without some sort of trial.

Global Cooling
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 3, 2019 11:07 am

Greenpeace principle 🙂

It is amazing how you can fool people to believe that 0,5 C temperature change would be a catastrophe. I would call it nice weather.

To me climate hockey stick was a bad presentation from the first time I saw it. Y-axis is too narrow. It should show the normal temperature scale from -50 to +50. It is what I have in my thermometer.

Combining two sources without overlay is a big no no – even when we talk about just changing the thermometer. Then lack of error bars not to talk about sparse and unreliable measurements. Errors are larger than the signal.

I do not point to conspiracy when pure incompetency is enough.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Global Cooling
July 3, 2019 1:07 pm

Incompetency is enough – but there’s a lot of deliberate conspiracy out there these days.

Reply to  Global Cooling
July 3, 2019 1:13 pm

A 0.5C increase, +/- 5C.

Reply to  Tom Halla
July 3, 2019 8:14 am

Another hoax, from the exact same lot of sludge. Boy who cried wolf.

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Tom Halla
July 3, 2019 8:47 am

Most climate change purists are technologically and scientifically illiterate, so an argument in concrete terms won’t mean anything to them.

Joel Snider
Reply to  mark from the midwest
July 3, 2019 10:38 am

Well, except for those with engineering degrees who use all those BIG words that we don’t understand.

mark from the midwest
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 3, 2019 11:04 am

All those big words that you don’t understand, most of us understand them perfectly

Joel Snider
Reply to  mark from the midwest
July 3, 2019 12:26 pm

That was actually my point.

July 3, 2019 6:29 am

I like the way he seems to think he’s the first person to discover that the file names were Unix times.

This point, and the 5 hour time difference, was discussed in comments on a WUWT post in December 2009

See in particular, comments from crosspatch. I found this out by the sophisticated hacking technique of googling ‘climategate timestamps’.

Dodgy Geezer
July 3, 2019 6:59 am

Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice doing computer forensics without any training, experience or specialist advice…

michael hart
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
July 3, 2019 7:50 am

…should have been a climate scientist

Reply to  michael hart
July 3, 2019 9:10 am

Mosher did that literally.

Reply to  michael hart
July 3, 2019 10:26 am

“I have found even grander themes to write about, such as our suicidal national energy policy, based on the “decarbonising” of our economy, which can only end in our lights going out and much else; and the even greater self-deception which lies behind it: the West’s obsession with catastrophic global warming, at a time when the rest of the world, led by China and India, is taking not the slightest notice, as it continues to build thousands more coal-fired power stations.”

July 3, 2019 7:08 am

D’oh!….. From super sleuth to super facepalm.

July 3, 2019 7:11 am

It doesn’t matter who leaked the emails; the damning content remains the same.

Joel Snider
Reply to  KT66
July 3, 2019 8:17 am

Kinda like the DNC e-mails.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 3, 2019 12:10 pm

“Seth Rich was unavailable for comment.”

Citizen Smith
Reply to  Joel Snider
July 3, 2019 12:38 pm


That is what I was thinking. Maybe this was an attempt to add credibility the nebulous, ill-defined, and imprecise claim “Russians hacked the election”. As far as I can tell this claim is based on only 2 extremely weak assertions. The first is the Russian based Internet Research Agency spent an insignificant amount of money on social media ads and other stuff. Maybe lapel buttons. No interview was ever made with an agent and no motive was ever reported although Dems seem to cling to worthless Mueller indictments.

The second assertion is the DNC server was hacked “by Russians”. This is based on Crowdstrike’s (a private computer security company) investigation of the servers. The FBI, Dept of Homeland Security and reportedly 17 federal security agencies are going exclusively on the word of Crowdstrike. NO LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY was allowed to examine the DNC server. Odd. Very odd. The cozy relationship between Crowdstrike ownership and the DNC principals adds another layer of suspicion.

Russian election hacking theory is as week as AGW theory. It needs all the help it can get. Personally, I like Trumps theory best: It was just some fat kid on a couch.

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
Reply to  Citizen Smith
July 4, 2019 6:56 am

Wikileaks is adamant Hattie files were given to them by an insider.

Citizen Smith
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Beijing
July 5, 2019 10:38 am

Download speeds indicate a local device like a thumb drive. Too fast for internet speeds. Probably a disgruntled Crazy Bernie fan.

July 3, 2019 7:20 am

It is also worth noting that the timestamps shown here are those created by the email client. They are (usually, because they are easily forged) the time and Time Zone on the computer on which the email client is running.

I can take my laptop from Oregon (-8:00) with me to England and not bother to reset the time on it. Timestamps on email generated on that laptop will still show Pacific time, not UK time.

For this reason it is usual to look at all of the email headers, not just the one generated by the client because those will contain timestamps of intermediate systems through which the email passes, usually at least two of them. Fiddling the time and date on those systems is a lot harder, and discrepancies stand out like a sore thumb.

Any analysis based only on the email client created headers is very weak evidence.

Reply to  Philip
July 3, 2019 9:34 am

One can easily change their timezone for a similar effect. No driving or flying required.

July 3, 2019 7:43 am

Not quite on topic — just to let you know Christopher Booker died this morning.

Reply to  Newminster
July 3, 2019 8:41 am

Sorry to hear that. A great loss to the reality-based folk in Britain.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Graemethecat
July 3, 2019 12:20 pm

Regardless of his views on the sad state of climate science, IMO, his support of intelligent design and dismissal of asbestos links to mesothelioma put him in the quackery column.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2019 1:53 pm

Belief in God is not quackery and if you followed his articles on asbestos with an open mind you would understand the difference between blue/brown asbestos, which no-one disputes is most certainly linked to mesothelioma, and white asbestos which is indistinguishable chemically from talc.

I can vouch personally for the existence of a long-running scam in the late 80s which made a good living for the “asbestos removal industry” with needless and expensive precautions whenever white asbestos was found in buildings. A series of articles only one of which saw the light of day before both my editor and I were threatened is the reason I still feel the need to post under a pseudonym!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2019 2:59 pm

Joel – Christopher Booker did accept the asbestos/mesothelioma link. His beef was that the control legislation treated the (comparatively harmless) white asbestos used widely for roofing materials exactly the same as the (utterly deadly) blue and brown asbestos, which are mineralogically quite different and have little in common except their names. This spawned a vast industry which took many innocent parties for a ride, and he took exception to that. His position has quite wide support.

I don’t agree with his ideas on Intelligent Design, but there are plenty of very smart and influential people who do. Non-scientists can be excused this stance, I think.

Yes, he did get some things wrong, or incomplete (I have some personal knowledge of one issue- he was never able to know the secrets behind the story) but considering that he was working largely alone (the excellent Richard North excepted) and failed to get the wider support of the investigative media that he deserved, I think he did pretty damn well. Such people are an ornament to society.

I’ll miss him, as will many

Brett Keane
Reply to  mothcatcher
July 3, 2019 4:47 pm

Vale, Brave Christopher, til we meet again. You sure were right about white asbestos too. Brett Keane, Soil Science Major.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Newminster
July 3, 2019 12:33 pm

Very sorry to hear that.

Hot under the collar
July 3, 2019 7:46 am

What about all the Russian money used to promote Western environmental and anti-fracking groups to protect Putin’s real ‘big oil’ billions?

Also, the rumours that the Salisbury nerve agent attack was because victim Sergei Skripal was investigating Russian support for Western anti-fracking groups and interference in elections to support climate change candidates such as Hilary Clinton?

Or perhaps the members of Russia’s GRU military intelligence agency really were just on a day trip from Russia to visit Salisbury Cathedral but ran out of time to actually visit it?

alan in kansas
Reply to  Hot under the collar
July 3, 2019 10:07 am

Seems likely. But what is your evidence?? Have you got some links to stories and articles on Russian backing for American environmental anti-fracking groups??

Hot under the collar
Reply to  Hot under the collar
July 3, 2019 1:21 pm

The FT article from 2014 may be paywalled, here’s the report from the Telegraph:

I note that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are quoted suggesting; “Perhaps the Russians are worried about our huge wind and solar potential, and have infiltrated the UK Government.”

July 3, 2019 7:59 am

Look at the squirrel!!!!!

Amount Russians “interfere” in US elections: 1 unit (ongoing for 70 yrs)
Amount indigenous US marxists/regressives “interfere” in US elections: 1 billion units

Reply to  beng135
July 3, 2019 8:44 am

Yes, very accurate accounting.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  beng135
July 5, 2019 5:17 am

“Amount Russians “interfere” in US elections”

The Russians don’t have to put much effort into interfering in U.S. elections because they can count on the Useful Idiot Democrats to do that for them.

July 3, 2019 8:53 am

Russkies nicked the true non-doctored global temperature data and surprise surprise produced the only climate change model that works !

July 3, 2019 8:57 am

In Climate “science” even the timestamps are “adjusted.”

Walter Sobchak
July 3, 2019 9:06 am

OK. It was the Russians. So What? No one has ever denied the authenticity of the e-mail texts.

Actually, I doubt that it was the Russians as they have been funding and supporting warmunism of years

July 3, 2019 10:22 am

Whenever we see some old movies on the TV, it invariably means that a new version is just about to be released.

Does the dredging up of this old story herald another release of Climategate?

July 3, 2019 10:38 am

For decades Democrats and the left downplayed and mocked the threat of Soviet Russia as red baiting and ridiculous conspiracy theory. Then, they lost one election…
Suddenly, they now think “the rooskies are trying to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids”.

Reply to  MLCross
July 3, 2019 12:10 pm

Do think straight. Russians do stuff like fund communists and greens, they do try to break the EU, they did buy the uranium. Don’t downplay them. They’re poor but spend on the DNC.

Linda Goodman
July 3, 2019 10:43 am

Whoever it was I thank them every day; them and Donald Trump. 💚💚💚

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Linda Goodman
July 3, 2019 11:33 am

Those Russians were so slick, they even convinced Hillary’s campaign she didn’t need to go campaign in Wisconsin or Michigan.

Beta Blocker
July 3, 2019 11:28 am

Having followed that WUWT article ten years ago as a lurker, this comment made by ‘VG’ on December 7, 2009 jumps out at me a decade later:

VG said: “The cat is out of the bag, whatever they try, AGW is dead.. so skeptics don’t fret about current news stories etc. The cru story is self replicating and won’t go away. Even MSM is slowly becoming embedded in it. In the end people will notice that the weather/climate ain’t changing…. In one year, this won’t be an issue it will have changed to environmental stuff but not global warming which is OK.”

In the ten years that have passed since 2009, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) a.k.a. ‘climate change’ has not gone away as a topic the mainstream press and the environmental activists like to spend a lot of time talking about.

Until the thirty-year running average trend of global mean temperature turns decidedly down — and then stays in a downward trend for another thirty years or more — the mainstream climate science community, the press, and the environmental activists will continue harping on AGW as being an existential threat to the survival of the human species.

When will that permanent downward trend begin?

If we accept Javier’s cyclic temperature analysis as described in his January 2018 article on Judith Curry’s blog as being the correct GMT prediction model, the permanent inflection point happens roughly in the year 2200.

Dr Deanster
Reply to  Beta Blocker
July 3, 2019 12:08 pm

That inflection point will never see the light of day. … the guardians of temperature will fudge the reported numbers up to give the appearance of a “pause” until they can incorporate an El Niño or something to show a continued March upwards.

It just is what it is …. and all the sheep will say ….
“Four legs good, two legs better”

Rich Davis
Reply to  Beta Blocker
July 3, 2019 1:31 pm

Did you really mean 181 years from now, or was that supposed to be 2020?

Reply to  Rich Davis
July 3, 2019 2:12 pm


Beta Blocker
Reply to  Rich Davis
July 3, 2019 6:45 pm

Rich Davis: “Did you really mean 181 years from now, or was that supposed to be 2020?”

I did mean 181 years from now, roughly in the year 2200.

One of the graphs that was included in Javier’s January 2018 Climate Etc. article illustrates where the permanent downturn inflection point occurs, and Javier himself confirmed in response to one of my questions that the year 2200 is roughly when it happens.

Certainly, within the next two-hundred years there will be some number of flat plateaus and some number of periods where the five-year running average and possibly even the ten-year running average turns downward.

But according to Javier’s graph, the thirty-year running average will not reach a permanent downward inflection point until about 2200.

As long as the thirty-year running average remains even slightly up, the mainstream climate science community and the environmental activists will still be pushing AGW as the world’s most important long-term environmental issue.

Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2019 11:28 am

Me: “Alexa, Are there Russians in my room right now?”

Alexa: (laughing) “Nyet”

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 3, 2019 3:01 pm

Ha ! I’m SO stealing that ! 😉

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
July 4, 2019 6:12 am

I asked Google the question, and it offered me some maps of St. Petersburg and other Russian cities.

Google is so drab. Has anyone tried Siri yet?

M Courtney
July 3, 2019 3:29 pm

Why raise Climategate now?
It seems that the idea that consensus science has corrupted peer review is not redundant.
This Reds-Under-The-Bed allegation is only pulled out again because Climategate is still the real issue.

Pseudoscience with media backing.

Michael Jankowski
Reply to  M Courtney
July 3, 2019 5:43 pm

The tags are:

Climate Change
Donald Trump

The final tag should spell it out for you.

Craig from Oz and/or Moscow
July 3, 2019 5:28 pm

Is there nothing those Russians can’t do?

They will be claiming that Russian interference in German mid 20th century foreign policy lead directly to the destruction of Friedrich Paulus’s military career.

Those Russians get everywhere. They will be telling people they sank the Japanese battleship Hatsuse next.

Michael Jankowski
July 3, 2019 5:32 pm

Iggy’s latest: “Personal attacks from Stephen McIntyre and his fellow pro-Russian conspiracy theorist Charles Wood. Not sure if either of them ever came across a Kremlin narrative they didn’t endorse.”

Does this guy have any brain cells?

Tom Abbott
July 3, 2019 7:12 pm

Hackers use proxies and other things to disguise themselves when hacking.

Btw, I thought this hacking was supposed to be an inside job.

Roger Knights
July 3, 2019 7:37 pm

I posted the first comment on the first WUWT Climategate article, an allusion to Shroedinger’s cat:

Roger Knights November 19, 2009 at 1:37 pm
“It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag….”
… and into the box.

I followed that 36 minutes later with a cautionary reading of the seemingly damning “Mike’s Nature trick … to hide the decline”:

Roger Knights November 19, 2009 at 2:13 pm
“Trick” might not be as damning as it seems. He might have used the word as an informal synonym for “technique,” in the same way that programmers will speak of “a neat hack,” meaning technique, not reprehensible kludge–although that’s what it sounds like to an outsider.
If the word “trick” can be found used as a synonym for technique in other e-mails, this defense could be made to look credible.
Still, on the surface, it does look like something in the vein of, “We’ve got to get rid of the MWP.”

Many comments were skeptical about the authenticity of the emails, in whole or in part.

In the first 150 comments I see only one commenter who is still active here, Pamela (although her visits are rare). Among the missing is my favorite, Bill Illis. I never dreamed then I’d become an old-timer.

July 3, 2019 10:12 pm

Russians, maybe. I see dead Soviets.

Gary Pearse
July 3, 2019 11:58 pm

CG was an inside job. The East Anglea police let the investigation go cold and closed the case. It wouldn’t look good to find it was an insider who was disgusted with the dirty tricks. The “hacking” was really to improve the optics of the event.

The left has this weird sense of propriety that illegal release of personally felonious information somehow blots out their crime. The same with the DNC info “hack” (release) of the egregious inside manipulation by Hìllary supporters to block Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination. The dirty trick crime was somehow washed clean by the fact it was “hacked.

Geoff Sherrington
July 4, 2019 12:36 am

My first reaction to the Iggy Ostanin article was “You are going the wrong way. Head West from London Greenwich, not East into Russia. You have the sign of the longitude the wrong way.

Then, I read what Steve McIntyre wrore. It was so comforting to read it the masterful way that Steve has, for demolition of false arguments.

Memories came back of that intense activity on Climate Audit blog, about Watergate and its analysis and references to Mann and the Hockeystick. I am convinced that this work of Steve’s will one day be used as an example of how this newly-emerging means of communication, the blog, had the power to change the course of history. Geoff S

Geoff Sherrington
July 4, 2019 12:44 am

FWIW, the selection of emails to release for Climategate One, compared to Climategate 2, showed quite strongly that a person, or the person, who was a mastermind had a detailed knowledge of climate science. It points strongly to a UEA inside job.
But who cares who did the public release job? Apart from a desire to shake a hand and recommend a Knight (or Dame) hood, the important message is that the grubby conduct of this key group was shown to the world. The linen was far dirtier than the formal investigations were inclined to show. In emails to authorities at the time, I had the strong feeling that there could be evidence to support criminal charges, some related to Freedom of Information abuse, but the British sense of fair play and not knocking the Establishment prevailed, though reluctantly for some of the law enforcement officials involved. Geoff S

Mark - Helsinki
July 4, 2019 3:57 am

Climategate emails were leaked. This whole laughable episode is.. well laughable

The tranche of leaked emails were assembled by the CRU after all and then when they were not released, someone decided they should be.

I’d love to know who that was 🙂

Mark - Helsinki
July 4, 2019 3:58 am

Can you not put webarchive links to Medium on here? Why reward that utterly garbage rag with ad money?

Verified by MonsterInsights