I’m curious why someone responsible for the hack is presumed to possess the required hacking skills. If Professor Bumble were to desire a hack and knew he lacked the skills, he might easily enlist the aid of his computer nerd son-in-law, a trusted student, or whomever to help him. I recognize that the scenario is not the most likely, but it surely is a possibility that can’t be discounted.
I was always under the impression that the CRU folks wanted the world to believe that the evil fossil fuel backed denial machine had purchased the services of nefarious hackers to pull of the deed. Obviously, the hacking skills need not be required of the one responsible for the decision to hack. People can arrange for a murder without pulling the trigger.
Yes sir, it is. I read some of this from the pro’s when it first happened but the situation gets clearer when it is examined more closely. I find it interestingly supportive of the Norfolk outside break-in theory.
At this point I don’t think it would be possible to prove it was someone. Even the police statement that the IP addresses used may have been proxies implied that they hadn’t been thoroughly checked.
My best guess: it wasn’t any of the skeptic bloggers nor some casual reader of the blogs at the time of release. It was someone who was aware of and reading the blogs used in both CG1+2 releases and posting to some of them. I have no data but I would think that a Venn diagram of the common set of readers/posters across those blogs for both releases would not be that large, maybe a few hundred people. It’s one of them.
steveta_uk yes I’m aware of that, I think at the time of CG1 they still thought the science must have some value and were still reading RealClimate, by CG2 they had accepted that it was mostly junk and didn’t bother using a “consensus” site.
All I’m trying to say is that it was someone who had read and probably posted to RealClimate, ClimateAudit, the AirVent and WUWT (I can’t quickly remember other blogs for CG1) in the months leading up to CG1 (and then the same for blogs used for CG2). I’m assuming that this group isn’t all that large.
I’m torn on this issue.
If a real crime has been committed, they should be punished.
While what he/she did is considered to have been “good”, I have a hard time letting the ends justify the means. (I really only agree with that in the case of saving lives or opposing tyranny)
Whistleblowing isn’t a crime, however. And if Mosher’s ideas are right, then it was a whistleblow, more or less. It’s important to have forces that keep public entities in check, especially when they deny the normal processes put in place to do so (FOI requests).
Criminality and morality are quite different. Anyone hiding Jews from the Nazis was guilty of a crime. People can go to jail for moving some dirt on their farm, but I have some difficulty considering it immoral. And of course, America’s founding fathers were guilty of treason. I’m with Jeff on this.
@ Jeff Condon said, July 26, 2012 at 11:14 am
__If FOIA reads this, I hope that they never tell me who they are. Well, at least not for the next two decades.
@ Jeff Condon on November 19, 2009, “ Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold” (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/19/leaked-foia-files-62-mb-of-gold/ Extracts)
__This is the biggest news ever broken here. The first thing I have to say is that I have no connection to the source of these files.
__They were potentially scraped from multiple computers in my opinion by a hacker or an insider involved in some of the endless FOIA requests.
__I’ll say this delicately – this person risked one f..k of a lot to show us this data.
The Norfolk police report seems to be more funny than serious:
__“While we will not be confirming the names of the countries specifically, we can confirm there were a number across the majority of the continents.”
__” It is obvious that some commercial organisations would have an interest in maintaining their commercial position; similarly there will be economies and governments which have an interest in protecting their position. To be clear, we did not get any indication as to who was responsible.”
Let me explain why I think it was one or more persons close to the scene, and not distant outsider, particularly not “commercial organisations”. The opening sentence of FOIA said: “We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, too important to be kept under wraps.“, indicating, imo, a deep knowledge about the debate and concern about the ability, competence and reliability of climate science.
CLIMATEGATE started here at “The Air Vent”, in a post titled” “Open Letter On Climate Legislation“ on 13 November 2009 , http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/. FOIA loaded the hacked data on the 17th November 2009, at 21:57 under Comment 10: http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917 .
FOR SURE the loading could have come from many countries world wide. But it seems stupid to assume that any one, which had nothing to do with the University of East Anglia, did understood the relevance of the material, and undertook so much efforts to get it done, and to choose “The Air Vent” as sufficient place.
There had been primarily a letter of 18 scientific organisations in the USA to the US Senate on climate legislation (here: http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202/_Insitution_Letter_Oct21_to%20Senate.pdf ), and secondly an Open Letter in reply dated 12th November 2009 (cited above), which reads in the first paragraph:
___” Subject: Letter to Senators concerning climate change legislation – 21.Oct.2009
Dear President or Executive Director,
How could it happen that more than a dozen of the most prestigious scientific associations signed and submitted this letter on ‘climate change’ without having ensured that the used terminology is sufficiently defined. Good science can and is required to work with reasonable terms and explanations. The science about the behaviour of the atmosphere should be no exception. But WMO1, IPCC and other institutions simply are using the layman’s term of weather and climate not even recognizing that this is very unscientifically. Actually nowadays climate is still defined as average weather, which may be fine for the general public, but nonsense as scientific term. This can be well demonstrated with the most relevant international legal instrument, namely the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, (full text also here : http://www.whatisclimate.com/b202-open-letter.html )
In a further Air Vent comment a big thank-you was addressed from me to FOIA (No.21; http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/open-letter/#comment-11917 i..a. as follows:
___”Allow me to assume you did it intentionally with regard to the subject OPEN LETTER. That would at least make me very happy, as it would be a clear indication that there are other person out (at minimum one), which would agree with me that a science is nuisance if it is not able and willing to define in a reasonable scientific manner what it is talking about. That the talking about a definition on CLIMATE should not be taken lightly, is indicated in my previous comment. If a nonsense term is used by science it is not only misleading the simple people, but also shows that they do not understand what they are talking about. That is the real tragic of all the talking about the CO2 greenhouse gases since the James Hansen’s AGW claim before the US Senate in 1988. They stare in the air, without knowing where they are going to. OK. Currently, presumably only you, (few other ?) and I know. That should change, and your kind appearance here may have been a help, hopefully, for which you deserves my highest appreciation, and sincere thanks. ……”
Best regards Jeff, wishing a fine summer season, Arnd