My guess is that several readers will have fingers poised over the “comments” button to ask “why do you call it a hack with such certainty?” (I’ve had a few emails already asking the same thing in reference to my news article.)
I have it from a very good source that it absolutely was a hack, not a leak by a “concerned” UEA scientist, as has been claimed in some circles.
The Norfolk Police clearly see it as a criminal act too, a spokesman telling me that “the contents [of the new release] will be of interest to our investigation which is ongoing”.
Groups like (Union of Concerned Scientists) are, however, beginning to ask where that investigation has got to.
I have been passed information stemming from an FoI request to Norfolk Police showing that over the past 12 months, they have spent precisely £5,649.09 on the investigation.
All of that was disbursed back in February; and all but £80.05 went on “invoices for work in the last six months”.
Of all the figures surrounding the current story, that is perhaps the one that most merits further interrogation.
Press release – Rep. Edward Markey:
WASHINGTON (November 22, 2011) – Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) today called on the United States intelligence community to join the British and others in rooting out the hackers who have stolen emails from climate scientists and released them in advance of two major climate negotiations, including the upcoming talks in Durban, South Africa.
With the release of emails in 2009 in advance of the Copenhagen climate talks, and now a similarly-timed event before the South African session, a clear pattern has emerged that could negatively affect the interests of the United States as it tries to partner with other nations to reduce global warming emissions. In both cases, the hacked emails reportedly first surfaced on servers in Russia and posted to blogs associated with global warming skeptics, and in both cases the original source of the disclosure was unknown. Nine independent investigations have validated the climate science and climate scientists on the hacked University of East Anglia emails.
“This is clearly an attempt to sabotage the international climate talks for a second time, and there has not been enough attention paid to who is responsible for these illegal acts,” said Rep. Markey, who is the top Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee and is the co-author of the only climate bill to pass a chamber of Congress. “If this happened surrounding nuclear arms talks, we would have the full force of the Western world’s intelligence community pursuing the perpetrators. And yet, with the stability of our climate hanging in the balance with these international climate treaty negotiations, these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice.”
Purest nonsense. There’s not a speck of evidence that this is a hack.
It is a leak from a whistleblower, exposing ethical and criminal misbehavior by leaders of the Climate Movement, some of whom are defrauding the public to line their own pockets.
and you have a speck of evidence that its a leak?
something that a major journalist for a respected news service who has been following the
story, on the scene, talking to key players, has not heard?
(I know asking for evidence is considered gauche)
Please share.
You’re the one who claimed certainty that the leak was really a hack, without a speck of evidence.
The evidence that it was a leak is that 2 years of investigation have uncovered no evidence of anyone hacking into the UEA CRU computers. Of course.
No, again, you mistate reality.
I follow what people who know more than I do are saying – that’s the whole point of this blog and this series. Whether it be climate scientists, or in this case, the lead BBC journalist on the case.
again – you wish to share your source? or you just “feel it in your gut’?
You mean Roger Harrabin?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2063737/BBCs-Mr-Climate-Change-accepted-15-000-grants-university-rocked-global-warning-scandal.html
BBC’s Mr Climate Change accepted £15,000 in grants from university rocked by global warning scandal
“Purest nonsense”?
End the charade, we’ve got to move on.
Yep. Them climate scientists sure are a greedy bunch. Why they went into climate science in the first place. For the money. Unlike the CEOs of energy corporations who fund the contrarian movement. These guys are not the least bit interested in making money. They are all about advancing the general welfare. Bloody saints, they are.
I have this vision of the career counselor from Hell:
“Forget about orthodontia, medicine, law, or banking. I got two words for you –
climate science….”
sounds funny, but this is the pathetic mentation of the denialist.
Kelly, you’ve been lied to. Guys like Hansen, Pachauri & Gore are getting filthy rich riding the climate alarmism horse. Guys like Watt, McIntyre, McKittrick, Houston, Dean, Daly, etc., are self-funded (like me). They’re getting poorer by donating their time and effort to the pursuit of scientific rigor.
What complete bullshit. Hansen was repeatedly denied or refused funding because of his anti-establishment and anti-Fossil Fuel Lobby views. How is it that you can so consistently stand reality on its head?
I’d like to be “denied or refused funding” (except for $1.6 million), like Hansen. Where do I sign up, please?
winning a prize for a life of high quality scientific work is a little different than
having your projects lavishly funded. When Hansen first published on detecting climate change in ’81, his group’s funding was cut.
Not an auspicious signal for a scientist’s career – but in persevering, and being proven right – he has earned his rewards.
As for Gore, it’s often said he’s become rich due to involvement in renewables.
Actually, he’s become rich because he’s on the board of Apple and Google, two of the most valuable companies in the world.
Why? Because he was an early and consistent visionary and supporter of programs that evolved into the internet as we know it today, becoming well versed in the technology and familiar with all the players.
(and I still remember all the Rush Limbaugh attacks in the early 90s on “AlGore’s information superhighway” — come to think of it, much like the attacks on “Algore’s global warming theory”…)
It’s because he’s been so consistently right – on the internet, on Iraq, on terrorism, and on climate change – that he arouses such intense emotions among those who have devoted their lives to wearing ideological blinders. Get over it.
Make your own damn money,and stop worrying about how others are getting theirs.
Go Peter. I think this is what is known as “sticking to the man“, big time!
not sure DB qualifies as “the man”. but always happy to call out posers.
Peter, why do you just make things up when you don’t know what you’re talking about?
Most companies pay Board members very little. Apple uses its lucrative Board memberships as legal means to pass money to people of influence, but it’s still a very tiny fraction of Gore’s wealth.
All I know, as I’ve told you, is what I read in the paper.
“Gore’s newfound wealth resulted, in part, from speaking engagements and ties to Silicon Valley firms with soaring stock market values, such as Google Inc. and Apple Inc.
“Gore got a lot of support from Silicon Valley when he ran for president because they knew the Internet was one of his primary concerns,” said Tony Coelho, a former congressman and investment banker who served as chairman of Gore’s 2000 campaign.
“It’s very legit that these people would pursue him” after he left office, Coelho said, adding that Gore received Google and Apple stock options before their shares “went into the stratosphere.”
http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=f5eda7b7-fc8b-4d97-9652-b148247cbe89
I’ve read that Al Gore is worth over $100 million. Not bad for a dufus who thinks that magma is “millions of degrees” hot.
Then what does that make you, po’ boy?
And what does Richard Black get for his trouble? An almost universally-hostile tirade of personal attacks questioning his intelligence, independence and/or integrity; from a stream of mostly-anonymous of apparently pre-pubescent sceptics.
What, you don’t think Richard Black & the BBC deserve criticism? Seriously??
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/04/richard-black-tells-the-bbc-reporting-team-what-to-think/
What is the point of linking to anything on Wattsupwiththat?
Try this instead – http://www.iea.org/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=426
Hello Dave? Are you still ignoring me?
Just in case your attention span is not long enough (or you should choose not to follow my link) the final sentence of the IEA’s press release reads as follows:
“Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment in cleaner technology that is avoided in the power sector before 2020, an additional $4.30 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions“
In considering the significance of this statement, it is important to appreciate who is making it: The International Energy Authority is not normally considered to be an apologist for eco-Marxist, wooly liberal, or anti-Capitalist thinkers…
I shouldn’t have bothered, Martin. You asked about Richard Black, and I answered about Richard Black. So you changed the subject. What’s the point of trying to converse with you?
Peter is very closed-minded, and frequently just plain snarky, but occasionally has interesting things to say. Sinchiroca, too. But I really don’t think there’s any point conversing with someone like you, who isn’t interested in substantive discussion of the science.
There you go again, resorting to insults just because I am not willing to debate whose science is “junk” and whose science is “sound”. However, it is not my scientific understanding that is deficient, it is my patience… Furthermore, you have the audacity to accuse me of changing the subject because I point out to you an example of an organisation with a massive vested interest in the maintenance of the status quo that has, in point of fact, admitted that the status quo is not sustainable?
Given your well documented history of evasion and obfuscation on this very website, I call that unbelievable hypocrisy… Your position is becoming evermore patently ridiculous.
The BEST results mark a watershed. It’s time to move on. Everybody, we can stop wasting time entertaining all the pseudo-rational discourses. Ignore.
Dr. Muller may have self-importance (the name of the study says it all), and his idea that he’s made a big contribution to the SCIENTIFIC discussion of surface temperatures is mistaken – we may deplore those things, and take umbrage that actual climate scientists aren’t getting the credit that’s going to him; but his contribution to the public debate is enormous, positive, and will have a ripple effect. The game has changed in the public discussion. It’s a tipping point.
Mr. Dave Burton is probably a fine fellow, a doting father, a faithful husband, and all sorts of things that we admire in a man – but he’s wasting your resources. Stop putting so much energy into arguing, stop using your eloquence and your learning and your insights where they accomplish so little. There’s a great future for mankind that needs to be created out of this crisis.
And Dave – – end the charade, do something useful with your life.
It’s time to move on.
Dave performs the invaluable service of spouting – verbatim – just about every bonehead denialist meme on the list – and making it constantly clear that, with a tiny amount of research, they crumble to dust.
If he didn’t exist, I’d have to invent him.
I guess you haven’t been paying much attention to the BEST affair, have you, Verbonnet? Your assessment is wildly at odds that of Muller’s own co-author, who wrote:
“This is ‘hide the decline’ stuff. Our data show the pause [in warming since the 1990s], just as the other sets of data do. Muller is hiding the decline.”
“To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused. It is also misleading to say, as he has, that the issue of heat islands has been settled.”
The climate alarmism ship is sinking. Evidence is piling up that the big amplifications in warming from positive feedbacks which are predicted by alarmist models are erroneous. Contrary to the alarmists’ predictions, two-thirds century of anthropogenic CO2, adding up to a more than 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, have resulted in no measurable increase in rate of sea level rise. The leading lights of the Climate Movement have been caught red-handed manipulating data and committing crimes in their desperation to perpetuate their fraud.
The good news is that you can stop worrying: Al “million degree magma” Gore is wrong. We’re not going to drown or broil from Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming, after all.
I was inclined to borrow a phrase from Maurizio and say, “Dave, contact me when back on planet Earth” , but it is clear from much of what Dave says that he is on planet Earth – he’s just in a parallel Universe where black is white and white is black.
If the alarmist ship were sinking, professional institutions around the world would not be continuing to sound the alarm and/or board it. Your only response to this is to accuse all and sundry of being part of – or duped by – the “scam“. Thus as the “scam” grows, you position becomes evermore absurd. David Aaronovitch is right, conspiracy theories are “history for losers“.#
However, that is not to say that real climate scientists are the “winners” because, as Greg Craven has said, in this post-Industrial Revolution carbon experiment we have been running – we are all in the test-tube. Therefore, as the International Energy Agency has warned, unless we stop building (and using) new fossil fuel based infrastructure – we will have all lost (a habitable Planet). End of story.
# Men really have walked on the Moon, Dave. Please can we move on?
Actually, a 26% increase in agricultural productivity is well worth the very minor disruption of a barely measurable temperature increase. If you want a more habitable planet, you should be hoping for bigger CO2 increases.