Whodunnit? - Macleans.ca
 

Whodunnit?

Speculation turns to who disseminated the Climategate emails


 

The so-called “Climategate” emails somehow liberated from the digital vaults of the University of East Anglia not long ago have predictably—by design, you say?—turned ideological football, one that threatens to to hinder international climate change talks now going on in Copenhagen. We know all that. What we don’t know is who unleashed the emails in the first place—and how. “Speculation over just how the 3,500-odd documents came to be publicly released is growing anew,” writes Keith Johnson on the Wall Street Journal’s Environmental Capital blog. “A top IPCC official recently blamed ‘malicious hackers’ and pointed toward Russia. The idea of Russian ‘hackers for hire’ is gaining traction in some parts of the British press.” But Johnson goes on to note that, while the documents were placed on a Russian server sometime mid last month, they also appeared on a Turkish server. Nobody’s business but the Turks, maybe, but no smoking gun there. Or anywhere. In fact, the simplest explanation, Johnson suggests, quoting the blogger Watts Up With That, is a leak from inside the university—”not because of some hacker but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.”

Wall Street Journal


 
Filed under:

Whodunnit?

  1. In fact, the simplest explanation, Johnson suggests, quoting the blogger Watts Up With That, is a leak from inside the university—”not because of some hacker but because of a leak from UEA by a person with scruples.”

    This simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Whistleblowers release documents because they know there's something incriminating in them. They don't release reams of documents, with most of them being irrelevant–as was done in this case–in the hope that somebody will find something incriminating in them.

  2. By releasing all of the documents, they eliminate the probability of being accused of cherry picking.

    • That would be a meta-scandal — cherry-picking only data that is already cherry-picked data.

  3. Except that they didn't. 3500 documents over a 10 year span cannot be all the documents.

  4. I really don't care who released the data other than to thank him/her/whislteblower/hacker/whoever. Whoever it is should get the noble prize, not that huckster Gore. For years we have had to put up with lies and slander aimed at anyone who disagreed with these "objective scientists". Just before this broke when the public was beginning to turn on the Crazy Lizzies anyway, a preposterous conspiracy theory was troted out that shadowy agents of "big oil" were infiltrating every church social and old folks home to influence public opinion. Every single thing the alamists accused the sceptics of, they were doing in spades. The lazy media went along for the ride and tried to bury the story as it would point out their incompitance and complicity. Fortunately we now have the internet and the truth will alway get out, eventually. This is the best news to come out in years.

  5. Every one of theinterpetations by "climategate skeptics" of the out-of-context emails have already been shown to be wrong. The "hiding the decline" in tempratures actually refered to declines inferred indirectly from tree ring growth when we already had direct temperature measurements that showed an increase. The "trick" was simply a new statistical method of correcting for imprecise tree ring correlates of temperature using more accurate direct temperature measurements. The analysis was all published years ago. Why do you think that these cherry-picked – and purposefully deceptive- quotes from emails were released now, who do you think would benefit from it, and who do you think has the financial ability to do this?