Breaking News: Norfolk Police to hand over Climategate inquiry

Posted: December 21, 2011 by Rog Tallbloke in Carbon cycle, climate, Energy, flames, Politics

Story clarified in the update below – it looks like I’ve misunderstood what I was told earlier.

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.

This is much bigger news than the raid at Tallbloke Towers, when police from three forces seized computers belonging to yours truly, on the basis of information supporting a  warrant which has not yet been revealed.

The request for a copy of said information made by solicitors Wilde & Co acting on my behalf has not yet elicited a response.

UPDATE 5.43pm GMT I’ve got my wires crossed on this it seems. Apparently the Norfolk Constabulary, along with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police and the National Domestic Extremism and Terrorism unit (Golly!) are to revue the evidence so far assembled in order to decide the future direction of the investigation.

UDPDATE 9.04pm GMT The Niiki Fox article on the Beeb website also has a short comment from the police at the end http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-16294420 plus quite a lot of belly-aching from me :)  – H/T Mango Chutney

More updates as they arrive…

Comments
  1. Pointman says:

    I hear from strange places, that after last week’s debacle, the choice was made for them …

    Pointman

  2. dfbaskwill says:

    They should turn it over to the X-Files, that’s where it belongs. Mulder and Scully would ferret out the truth that’s out there.

  3. tallbloke says:

    I anticipate the climate blogosphere is about to become the climate agogasphere. 8)

    We need someone in the East of England to record tonight’s BBC local news edition and youtube it.

    Any takers?

  4. PhilJourdan says:

    Perhaps a submarine attack has gone very badly, and instead of accomplishing its purpose of intimidating critics (skeptics), the actions have left the “team” open to legal actions that they would love to avoid. More information is needed, but yes, it is time to salt the popcorn and pull up a chair.

  5. Latimer Alder says:

    Is this diversionary tactic to hope that we all forget about Chris Huhne’s little local difficulty with speeding fines?

    @pointman

    Leant on by whom?

  6. SayNoToFearmongers says:

    BBC Look East is available on Sky boxes actross the UK (somewhere around 960-ish) if it’s not your own region

    [Reply] I stuck my boot through the Tallbloke Towers Television some years ago, during another ‘global warming’ report. Pretty please will someone promise to record and youtube it. I’ll be making an appearance. – Rog

  7. manonthemoor says:

    “More Power to the Bloggers”

    Here:- http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=4958

    Heres to even more progress in 2012

    motm

  8. Don keiller says:

    Watch this space!!

  9. Stacey says:

    Why has it taken them such a long time to come to the conclusion that they are not up to the job of catching the whistleblower.

    If they really want to catch they whistleblower it’s so easy, offer a very large reward to the whistleblower to step forward and receive the acclaim of the rest of us?

  10. tallbloke says:

    SayNoToFearmongers says:
    December 21, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    BBC Look East is available on Sky boxes actross the UK (somewhere around 960-ish) if it’s not your own region

    I stuck my boot through the Tallbloke Towers Television some years ago, during another ‘global warming’ report. Pretty please will someone promise to record and youtube it. I’ll be making an appearance. The reporter said she wasn’t sure if it would go out tonight or tomorrow. – Rog

  11. manonthemoor says:

    Look East can be viwed on iPlayer around the UK by selecting ‘East’ in the BBC1 region selection.

    Enjoy

    motm

    [Reply] If I still had a lappy which would handle the feed I would. Cheers Though- Rog

  12. Latimer Alder says:

    Why now? What’s changed to cause the recent kerfuffle?

    CG2 has not yet been shown to be a game changer, more another bale of of straw on the camel’s back. The CG1 investigation has been moribund for quite a while.

    And yet and yet, somebody somewhere in a position to change things has suddenly burst into action. A month ago there was no such sign, now we have TB interviewed by the fuzz, responsibility moved, something approaching an apology from Laden.The tone and timbre of the debate is palpably different.

    I am glad that I am not a conspiracy theorist, because otherwise I would suspect the Home Secretary of doing this to bring ordure down upon the head of the loathsome Huhne. But I suspect that she is under orders not to upset him lest he brings down the Coalition.

    I’m sure that others have better ideas as to the cause(s) of this change.

  13. Justme says:

    Don’t worry tallbloke. I’ll give you an early Christmas present.

    They’ve got bigger fish to fry and they don’t all swim in the same pond.

    After all what have you done wrong??

    [Reply]Bugger all. Thanks for your support. – Rog

  14. Tim Clark says:

    This is not a good development. The “other force” will undoubtably be associated with the UN/IPCC looking for scapegoats.

    [Reply] I’m awaiting developments, not getting paranoid. Rog

  15. Of course Norfolk Constabulary don’t have the resources to do the investigation justice.

    It was easy to tell from the outset that something of such magnitude, complexity and extent could not possibly be handled by them; not due to ineptitude but through sheer lack of resources to even figure out what resources would be needed; let alone chase after those resources.

    Looks like Norfolk Constabulary is becoming the meat in the sandwich.

    As for the the inability to provide supporting information for the warrant; leave it to the solicitor. We can let them know that we’re watching. That is all.

    Everything becomes transparent with sufficient lumination.

  16. MangoChutney says:

    and yet not a mention from richard black

  17. Justme says:

    Rog, I don’t support you’re views.

    Just seems to me that I know a lot more than you about what is really going on. And no I’m not the fuzz and you are just a minnow in the scale of things. As one of your posters noticed a few days ago, this doesn’t only involve leaked emails and climate change.

    Merry Christmas.

  18. View from the Solent says:

    Hmmm. A couple of days before Christmas. Always a good time to bury a story.

  19. Justme, how about quitting the mind games in the New Year? You and every other pseudonymous actor which doesn’t wish to add or even to openly oppose – just to sow confusion and doubt. Good things seem to be coming each day at the moment. If the new police investigation isn’t one of them (and my hunch with pressure from both Tallbloke and Monckton is that it will be) we can cope with that too. Time for the sockpuppets to admit defeat and move on.

  20. Stuck-Record says:

    In a bid to pursue the case more professionally it has been transferred to the Keystone Cops.

  21. markus says:

    Yea Richard, what is that with justme, and I really hope it’s justhim who does it here.

    I recon they needed to confirm the Russian IP, of the CG2 leaker, so they can progress their investigations in other jurisdictions. They may very well have identified a suspect with what they have, and need additional proof to get to prima facie.

    Somebody paid the Internet Service provider for that Russian IP, They might be following the money and need info for banking regulators to issue warrants.

  22. Taphonomic says:

    “on the basis of information supporting a warrant which has not yet been revealed”

    This puzzles me. Search of a home and seizure of property is not an everyday event. I am not familiar with British law, but it would seem that a full copy of the warrant should be available and all supporting information should be released. Is there any indication on when the information will be revealed?

    [Reply] The Det Insp informs me we have no right to it. Make of that what you will. – Rog

  23. Justme says:

    Richard
    I’m nobody’s sockpuppet. I also KNOW MORE THAN YOU.

    Don’t you test your software before before you use it for real?

    I hear the fuzz wanted to clone ROG’s discs and check his router.

    Don’t you test your software before before you use it for real?

    To MY KNOWLEDGE this whole thing has been going on since mid November and probably has for months before

    I am in fact trying to put Rog’s mind at rest so that he can have a good Christmas.

    Haven’t you heard about the press hacking emails and a few other things besides which the FBI might be interested in.

  24. Harriet Harridan says:

    Regarding iPlayer: Rog, if you are running Linux (if not, why not?) then try get-iplayer:
    linuxcentre.net/getiplayer

    usage: to download, say this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b018j2wn/Look_East_East_20_12_2011/

    open a terminal type:
    get_iplayer –pid b018j2wn

    Change the pid code as per the url of the program you want. Obviously one has to have a TV license…….

  25. [...] Tallbloke writes 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. [...]

  26. Barry Sheridan says:

    Whether we will ever find out who released the Climate Gate emails into the public domain I cannot say, for my part however I laud the hacker or whistleblower for making a major contribution to the public good, as such I recommend them for ‘Individual of the Year.’

    The advocacy of the scientists behind the doom laden messages of this calumny has blighted the future and as such deserves to be fully exposed and condemned. I salute any who contribute to that end. May you all have a happy Christmas and go into 2012 rejuvenated to continue the cause.

  27. MangoChutney says:

    @JustMe

    I’m sorry, JustMe, but Richard’s correct. Anybody can say they KNOW MORE than somebody else, doesn’t make it true, especially when the person who KNOWS MORE is hiding behind a pseudonym

    Richard is a real person, you could be President Obama or my cleaning lady, both with delusions of grandeur. Which is it?

  28. Justme says:

    I’ll say it again.

    Roger has done nothing wrong.
    [snip]

    Don’t talk riddles on the blog please. -Rog

  29. markus says:

    Anybody else notice the drying up the number of daily treads over a Greg Ladens blog.

    I wonder why?

  30. Will the investigation be handed over lock, stock and barrel to the NDET (the division of the private police force ACPO) who of course are not covered by FOI? After all they are already sharing the investigation with the Norfolk Plod.

    [Reply] The Norfolk officer named on the warrant informs me he will continue to be the point of contact for me. ACPO? I thought that was the assoc. of Chief Police Officers no? Please clarify.

  31. eyesonu says:

    It would be nice to find out that the investigating authorities were trying to verify the whistleblower’s account prior to paying a huge reward for information relating to the biggest scam known in the global economy.

    If it were you Tallbloke, we thank you and I’m sure that you will spend the money wisely. A reward of say 10% of the previous take and 10% of the likely future take would put you in the financial status of ………

    I wish you and yours a pleasant holiday.

    Whoever the whistleblower is, THANK YOU !!!

    I guess that I will see black sedans and SUVs with dark tinted windows cruising my street now!

  32. Bishop Hill says:

    Tallbloke

    ACPO is indeed the Association of Chief Police Officers. It has been set up as a private limited company (seriously – number 3344583) This is apparently to keep in independent of government but has the interesting side-effect that it is not subject to FOI.

  33. malcolm says:

    Ha! I’d just started up get_ iplayer and then saw Harriet Harridan’s advice…
    Neither Look East -East or Look East – West seem to fit, but then they’re yesterday’s programmes! I’ll wait a couple of hours till today’s are up and try again.

    NOTE: you don’t need a BBC tithe (licence) if you’re accessing non-live content…

    [Reply] Thanks, I’ll wait for i-player. Meantime, someone youtube it!

  34. Justme says:

    Harriot has probably got it right, but then people will use Windoze with all it’s backdoors.

    Watched Richard Stallman speaking on Russion TV the other day :)

  35. Man Bearpig says:

    Justme: I know MORE than you, you know nothing. If you did know anything you would not be playing your silly little games and would have contacted TallBloke privately.

  36. Justme says:

    And Murdochs to you Man Bearpig.

    Do foxes swim very well when they havn’t got a life jacket??

    You could do worse than ask David Cameron.

  37. Corey S. says:

    Bishop Hill says:

    December 21, 2011 at 5:20 pm

    Actually, it looks as though they came under FOIA in November.

    “The Association of Chief Police Officers came under the Freedom of Information Act on 1 November 2011.”
    http://www.acpo.police.uk/FreedomofInformation/ACPOpublicationsFoI.aspx

    But, hopefully the information won’t be “subject to exemptions”.

  38. Adrian says:

    Hi Roger,

    Nikki interviewed me today via BBC link from Bristol, Apparently the programme will be on the iPlayer from about 9.30pm. If you need a copy ask Nikki. Would your legal guy give me some advice on my complaint with Norfolk Police retaining my data on file? I’ve filed a comlaint with the ICO Please contact me via my website or the email address. Cheers Adrian

    [Reply] Hi Adrian and welcome to the talkshop. I’ll pass your request to my solicitor and see what he recommends. Then I’ll email you. Cheers – Rog

  39. anoneumouse says:

    National Domestic Extremism and Terrorism unit

    is a department of a private police force i.e. ACPO Ltd

  40. RichardSCourtney says:

    Tallbloke:

    You say;
    “Apparently the Norfolk Constabulary, along with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police and the National Domestic Extremism and Terrorism unit (Golly!) are to revue the evidence so far assembled in order to decide the future direction of the investigation.”

    And yoy say
    “The Det Insp informs me we have no right to it (i.e. the reasons for the warrant). Make of that what you will.”

    I “make of it” what you said; viz. the reason relates to “National Domestic Extremism and Terrorism” (in other words, national security).

    If it does relate to national security then the Security Act says the authorities do not need a Search Warrant, so it seems the police got one to avoid objections from you during the raid.

    This adds to my suspicion (which I explained on another thread) that the investigation may not pertain to FOIA, and it probably relates to behaviour of the Team (which could be considered to be subversive of government decision-making). If the investigation is a turn against the Team then its timing would be a result of government decisions made in response to the results of the Durban COP Meeting.

    In either case, you have nothing to worry about. So, have a Happy Christmas.

    Richard

  41. KevinUK says:

    Roger,

    Were West Yorkshire Police involved in the seizure of your computers? If not, why not? That’s the first thing Stephen Wilde (your legal representative) should be asking Norfolk Police. IMO they were just on a fishing expedition with a trumped up (proabaly illegal) serach warrant.

    That’s why the Det Insp. told you that you ‘had no right to it’. You have every right to know what their ‘probable cause’ is and why the search warrant was issued i..e to know what is the crime that has been committed which has led to your property being seized as evidence.

    Using the same warrant (assuming its legal) they are entitled to come back again and conduct a further search of your property. If they are not prepared to let your legal representive know under what justification the warrant was issued then please DO NOT lett hem re-search your property. If you have any kind of advanced warning that this is likely to happen and know when it will take place please me know (and others) and i will be happy to drive over the Pennines and help you resist their search as it will be an illegal search.

    Regards

    KevinUK

  42. Michael Hart says:

    “…along with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police and the National Domestic Extremism and Terrorism unit (Golly!) are to revue the evidence so far assembled in order to decide the future direction of the investigation.”

    I was almost waiting for the appearance of the T-word, but didn’t want to be speculating too wildly. My hunch is that they (who ever they may be) are really just fishing for “friends of Julian Assange”, in their own fashion. Probably not that interested in climate-gates or the scientists concerned, but people who are good at acquiring secrets and publicly distributing them.

  43. Tucci says:

    Mr. Courtney, how could a hack (though the possibility that FOIA’s action was a hack) upon the servers at a climate research facility “relate to national security” so that the Security Act could be invoked?

    Does anyone intend to allege that the digital archives at the Climatic Research Unit have ever contained information potentially valuable to a foreign belligerent or a domestic insurrectionist, the illicit acquisition of which might pose an arguable threat to the realm?

  44. Jud says:

    Tucci:
    “Mr. Courtney, how could a hack (though the possibility that FOIA’s action was a hack) upon the servers at a climate research facility “relate to national security” so that the Security Act could be invoked? ”

    That’s the problem with allowing acts such as this (seemingly reasonable based on the motivation at the time). History tells us they can and will be invoked in an ever more convenient fashion.

  45. [...] McIntyre and hosted on WordPress’ U.S.-based servers – was one of that trio. So was Tallbloke’s Talkshop, written by a U.K. resident and published at [...]

  46. Zeke says:

    What? National Domestic Extremism? the Security Act? and the seizure of a celestial mechanics science blogger’s computer?

    I hope all of England is watching this. They need to look long and hard down the road they are on.

    And it is still entirely possible that the emails from the Climate Research Unit were leaked, not hacked.

  47. SayNoToFearmongers says:

    I think it’s beyond question that that the output of the CRU has been used to manipulate government policy. Some might even suggest that government decision-making has been subverted by it – if this IS what’s being investigated, then the long-expected Upkeep has quit bouncing and is busily backspinning its way to the foot of the IPCC’s Möhne…

    It will one day, for sure.

  48. James Evans says:

    Tallbloke.

    I KNOW MUCH LESS THAN YOU DO.

    The foxes at dawn will land on the heads of the pilchards. {wink}

    Hope that helps.

    All the best.

  49. Matthew W says:

    Oh goody “Climate Squad” can investigate.
    Remember the 80′s TV show “Police Squad”???

  50. [...] Tallbloke reports that: In a sudden new development, your correspondent has learned that Norfolk Constabulary have decided [...]

  51. [...] be a highly compelling reason. Here in Canada the legal term is probable cause. And yet Tallbloke says the police have so far declined to provide any information that explains their actions – [...]

  52. Richard Courtney:

    If the investigation is a turn against the Team then its timing would be a result of government decisions made in response to the results of the Durban COP Meeting.

    Durban started on 28th November. The day before, I went down to a local pub in Forest Hill and chanced on this in the Mail On Sunday:

    Steve Hilton, the Prime Minister’s director of strategy and ‘green guru’, is the latest person to admit to doubts about climate change.

    ‘I’m not sure I believe in it,’ he announced at a meeting of the Energy Department, prompting one aide to blurt out: ‘Did I just hear that correctly?’

    That’s in the heart of Chris Huhne’s empire, people, from one the three most influential players in the current adminstration. As I sat there with my pint I felt mellow.

    The upping of the ante on the police front may as Richard says be against the Team or it could be a last-ditch effort in the defence of all they stand for. Unlike Justme there’s much I don’t know :) But I agree with Richard that “in either case” Roger and all of us should have a very Happy Christmas.

  53. Stephen Wilde says:

    The adrenaline of the past few days is skewing judgments.

    I prefer the ‘cockup’ theory of history to conspiracy theories.

    And just because you are paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you :)

    Chill out a bit folks and try to enjoy Christmas.

  54. Justme says:

    I’ve just seen on the news.

    A policewoman from Essex has been arrested for accepting money from journalists.

    I read the other day that a private investigating firm who worked for the press had all their
    computers seized. They advertise that they do “ethical hacking”.

    Stay away from all this because it’s just the tip of an iceburg. Other iceburgs appear to be on the horizon.

    Roger is not the subject of any investigations. Just think of him as a convenient guineapig.

  55. James Evans says:

    Stephen Wilde,

    “I prefer the ‘cockup’ theory of history to conspiracy theories.”

    Agreed. This is just plod, plodding along.

    “Chill out a bit folks and try to enjoy Christmas.”

    Friends, family, turkey, sausage, gravey, bread sauce, port, stilton. Who couldn’t enjoy?

  56. Justme says:

    James Evans

    “This is just plod, plodding along”

    It would be if there wasn’t a huge team of internet/computer forensics people being paid for working alongside them.

    Climate change is just one of a whole lot of iceburgs.

  57. Vuk says:

    Looks like British government had enough of ‘climate change’ money down the drain projects.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/consumertips/household-bills/8971033/Solar-tariff-cuts-are-illegal.html

    Roger all the best to you and your lady.

  58. waterside4 says:

    Roger,

    Watched Look East on my 20 quid sat box here in Scotland. You seemed quite relaxed and sensible – as we all expected.
    Noted that the preamble stated server was ‘hacked’, presumably that was the only reason Mr Harrabin allowed the clip to be shown.
    Who was the other chap being interviewed – i missed his name and would like to look at his blog.
    Keep up the good work TallBloke and i hope your good lady is not too uncomfortable on top of the Christmas tree!

    “I’m searching ’round the Christmas tree,
    There are no presents there i see,
    Santa – be compassionate,
    And bring me Climategate three”

    Happy Christmas down there in T’North Riding.

  59. Joe Public says:

    Don’t forget that all that’s happened so far, is NfN

  60. Aussie says:

    Roger, I continue to follow this story. I hope that your equipment will be returned, and that you will find out why you were raided!!

  61. colliemum says:

    Blimey.

    Some delicious thoughts crossed my mind, like:
    was the NDET not involved earlier because of certain connections between a former NOTW journalist turned PR man and employed as such by the UEA after climategate1 – and the then anti-terror AssCom at the Met, Yates?
    (Who has now resigned and works in Dubai.)

    And can we now assume that the putative climategate3 e-mails contain very dangerous stuff showing even more connections between government, CRU, and the NGOS as well as the EU? Stuff politicians, rather than Phil Jones et al, would we rather not get to see?

    Enjoy your Christmas, Roger, you and your family, and pity the poor plod who has to plod through your files over the festive days …

  62. Martin A says:

    I know your solicitor has things in hand – but here’s a web page from solicitors interested in abuse of police powers.

    http://www.bhattmurphy.co.uk/index.php

  63. dave ward says:

    There’s a shortened (10 minute) version of Look East after the main BBC national news. Should start at 10:25PM I’ll try and record it. If there is anything about this story I’ll do my best to get it online tomorrow sometime.

  64. RichardSCourtney says:

    Tucci:

    You ask me:
    “Mr. Courtney, how could a hack (though the possibility that FOIA’s action was a hack) upon the servers at a climate research facility “relate to national security” so that the Security Act could be invoked?
    Does anyone intend to allege that the digital archives at the Climatic Research Unit have ever contained information potentially valuable to a foreign belligerent or a domestic insurrectionist, the illicit acquisition of which might pose an arguable threat to the realm?”

    I shall ignore your ‘red herring’ concerning “a foreign belligerent or a domestic insurrectionist” and remind that my post you are answering said;

    “This adds to my suspicion (which I explained on another thread) that the investigation may not pertain to FOIA, and it probably relates to behaviour of the Team (which could be considered to be subversive of government decision-making). If the investigation is a turn against the Team then its timing would be a result of government decisions made in response to the results of the Durban COP Meeting.”

    Clearly, that was not sufficiently clear for you to understand it, so I will spell-it-out here.

    It is not known why the police raided the home of Tallbloke. This may be revealed if the reasons presented for the Search Warrant are made public. Until then all suggestions for the purpose of the raid can only be speculation.

    It seems to be generally assumed that the search was aimed at determining – or appearing to attempt to be determining – the identity of ‘FOIA’ who released the Climategate 2 emails. This is plausible.

    But another possible reason is as follows. The police may have been seeking evidence of nefarious activity by the Team which is in the public domain.

    The contents of the Climategate 1 & 2 releases and of the encrypted file must be known to the authorities because they would have been on the UEA back-up server that it can be asasumed the police examined as part of their investigation that showed the UEA/CRU had broken FOI law (but passage of time since that offence prevented a prosecution).

    However, having the totality of that information does not isolate the parts of that information which are in the public domain. Tallbloke’s files contain a precise record of the parts that are in the public domain and, therefore, obtaining his files provides the needed isolation of publicly available information with minimum effort and maximum precision.

    If that was the purpose of the raid then the questions arise as to why the information is wanted and why now. There are plausible answers to both questions.

    The AGW-scare met the beginning of its end two years ago in Copenhagen. The scare was always about taxation in countries and resource transfer between countries. But two years ago at the IPCC Meeting in Copenhagen most countries who are ‘major players’ withdrew from the game. At that point it was clear to all involved that the writing was on the wall;
    Mene mene tekel u-pharsin.

    The IPCC meeting in Cancun last year was a farce and no leaders of major nations attended.

    The IPCC Meting in Durban this month reduced the issue to complete farce. It discussed a document which is so insane that no politician could sign it without committing political suicide. Discussion of that document would not have happened if anybody thought there were any real possibility of ‘progress’: the discussion would have been about methods to adopt the next realistic ‘step’. So, at Durban it was decided that talks (in nice places) should continue with a view to getting something adopted by 2020 (i.e. in the far distant future after most existing politicians have left office).

    Canada has recently gained a new generation of politicians who do not have a record of being tied to the AGW-scare, so Canada has announced that it is withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol process.

    The AGW-scare is dead but – like a headless chicken – it continues to ‘run around the farmyard’.

    A scapegoat is needed if the movement of the dead issue is to be stopped. The Team make a very useful scapegoat (and would deserve all they would get as a scapegoat). Their abuses revealed in the Climategate emails show they provided biased information to government(s). The government commissioned that bias (as several Climategate whitewash enquiries prove). but so what? The bias can be said to have misled government policy. And the nefarious activities revealed in the Climategate emails (e.g. corruptions of peer review and journals etc.) could be used as evidence to ‘hang them out to dry’.

    And misleading government so corrupting the ;political process is clearly a matter of national security.

    Scapegoating the Team by use of information already in the public domain minimises risk of the scapegoating causing damage to politicians with whom the Team has been associated. And the information on Tallbloke’s computer is a good, collated summary of the pertinent information of Team activity which is already in the public domain.

    Furthermore, like some others here, I don’t like conspiracy theories but I know ‘cock-up’ and ‘damage limitation’ are common. Scapegoating the Team would be the simplest method of ‘damage limitation’ if the government wanted an excuse to back-off from its extreme AGW policies.

    Richard

  65. There is one player in all this that hasn’t been mentioned(i dont think) who must have a real downer on the CRU and thats the Information comissioner

    I mean, there’s some freelancer out there stealing all his glory

  66. Green Sand says:

    “UPDATE 5.43pm GMT”

    Thanks for the update TB, that sort of makes sense, 3 forces playing pass the parcel (or hot potato?) Would love to be a fly on the wall! Just which way do they go now?

    Following their action with regard to youself, eventually they must answer your questions, which I suppose they, once they have found out just how many potatoes there are to grasp and just how hot and difficult to handle each one is?

  67. Stephen Wilde says:

    I find Richard’s speculation plausible.

    They would need to work on the encrypted file to be sure which material would be in the public domain if it were released.

    But why couldn’t the Police just download it all from the Russian server themselves ?

    Is there a reason they might need Roger’s hard drives?

  68. Graeme No.3 says:

    I agree with Richard S Courtney that there is a discontinuity in this, and the Team may soon be under fire. The authorities has suddenly gone from complacency about the e-mails to action.

    It is possible that someone senior merely demanded action on the release and the result is this (doubtfully legal) fiasco, but I think not. There was long enough after the release of FOIA-2 for someone to think.

    I postulate that this is a positioning for a breakup of the Coalition and an abandoning of the enormous impost of “green” activities. 18 billion pounds a year is the cost of a Huhne! Removing that would go a long way to helping balance the Budget and strengthen the UK against the coming turmoil from Europe. If it had the side effect of upsetting those Euro governments currently abusing the UK, then that would have to be accepted with a stiff upper lip. Any party fighting on a platform of reduced taxes and costs against a steady stream of embarrassing details about the IPCC and its supporters wouldn’t be at a disadvantage nor unlikely to miss out on a majority.

    In the meantime “when the elephants dance, the chickens have to look after themselves”.

    Best wishes for the Christmas season to you Roger, and your wife, and may the New Year bring better news.

  69. Eli Rabett says:

    Looks more and more likely that three letter agencies are involved. There is something in the email that is already known by interception and the search was a way to get that info legally. Roger is only in on this as the recipient of a purloined letter.

  70. Justme says:

    Why would they want to download it?

    Maybe it was them who uploaded it?

  71. Brian H says:

    Stephen;
    Yes, Foia’s file dump is widely available. I see no particular reason to seize TB’s systems to obtain them. So that’s the weakish link in Richard’s theory. Unless they believe that he had other undisclosed communications with Foia.

    PhilJ;
    Yes, popcorn with lots of butter for the “revue”. Will “the National Domestic Extremism and Terrorism” unit get good reviews for its song and dance routine? Perhaps justme can give us a pre-vue.
    ;)

  72. RichardSCourtney says:

    Stephen Wilde:

    You say;
    “I find Richard’s speculation plausible.
    They would need to work on the encrypted file to be sure which material would be in the public domain if it were released.
    But why couldn’t the Police just download it all from the Russian server themselves ?
    Is there a reason they might need Roger’s hard drives?”

    Firstly,I remind and emphasise that what I wrote is speculation as are all other suggested reasons for the raid.

    The point I am making is that the only speculation which has gained currency is the assumption that the raid pertained to the identity of FOIA. But the timing of the raid was strange if that is its purpose: why was the raid not made soon after the leak of Climategate 1 or 2? My speculation provides a possible explanation of that timing

    Other speculations may also be possible. Importantly, considerations based on a mistaken assumption could be erroneous and so lead to inappropriate responses. My presenting my speculation is a caution against that.

    I now address your questions which I assujme were mostly aimed at me.

    What is on the Russian server is not now pertinent. Those files may have been amended since their first release and few – if any- will check on those files when bloggers such as Tallbloke have provided what was sent to them. Therefore, what was sent to them is the most important information.

    It can reasonably be supposed that the encrypted file contains all the most damaging – but not yet released – information that was on the UEA/CRU server which (as I explained) the police very probably copied as part of a previous investigation. Hence, preparations to deal with the worst that could be in the encrypted file are probably underway.

    According to my speculation the importance of Tallbloke’s files is that they isolate files of the plain text emails now publicly available. Hence, if the Climategate information were to be used for ‘damage limitation’ by scapegoating the Team then only those files would be used. Importantly, the row over that would defuse any subsequent damage from release of the key to the encrypted files.

    I know almost nothing about computer science so I leave speculation concerning reasons for taking “Roger’s hard drives” to others.

    I hope that clarifies what I tried to say.

    Richard

  73. Pointman says:

    TB, like all the other sites, was not “sent” any files. A link to the whereabouts of the archives for download was posted as a comment.

    The cops were simply shaking the tree to see what fell out. The whole of the sceptic blogosphere did, hence they were relieved before they could make a bigger cock up …

    Pointman

  74. Justme says:

    Has FOIA got a better excuse than the blackberry defence?

    A 52-year-old man from Milton Keynes?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12/15/new_arrest_operation_elveden/

  75. dave ward says:

    The 22:25 programme only had Adrian Kerton’s interview and was an abbreviated version of the main programme. I could only get the iPlayer to load with “Adblock Plus” turned off.

  76. Justme says:

    I hear Barack Obama is having trouble getting his Medicare bill through in the US.

    I wonder why that should be?

  77. Justme says:

    A fracking we will go.

    A fracking we will go.

    Ee, aye adio

    A fracking we will go.

    It’s funny the price of petrol is so high today.

    Iceburg spotted

  78. OldWilliam says:

    Tallbloke,

    Having posted a few times on the “other thread” as an interested observer, I have to say that I find it incredible that so many people who obviously have a keen interest in the facts behind the science of climatology (or other more correct terminology… sorry, I’m no expert) can be so reckless and/or cavalier with comments relating to the seizure of your computers.

    I referred to them elsewhere as “armchair generals” but I think that I need to amend that rather pejorative term to “armchair sergeants”… they’d never be promoted any further!

    A simple Google search (please… NOT Wikipedia…!) would have revealed that “NDET” is an acronym for “National Domestic Extremism TEAM”, the “T” doesn’t signify “Terrorism”. I was waiting for one of the informed participants to correct the ongoing mistake but eventually got too depressed and fed up to wait any longer. See http://www.acpo.police.uk/NationalPolicing/NCDENationalCoordinatorDomesticExtremism/NationalDomesticExtremismTeamNDET.aspx – if the Blog software allows the link. I don’t think that there’s even such a thing as the “NDETU” so why is that term being used so much?

    And KevinUK – “You have every right to know what their ‘probable cause’ is and why the search warrant was issued i..e to know what is the crime that has been committed which has led to your property being seized as evidence. ” I hope that the use of quotation marks is your way of acknowledging that you got the phrase from watching too many US television shows, because being from the UK (as implied by your tag) you should know better. Please, at least do some basic research before foaming at the mouth. That phrase means nothing in English Law or in Scots Law, and as you are so certain, perhaps you will post a reference to the specific legislation or other legal provision underpinning your fervent belief? Or, you could just wait until Tallbloke’s solicitors fulfill their instructions and revert to him with the response from Norfolk Constabulary?

    Sigh. But I will remain interested in the issue, despite the tedium from certain types of post, because the issue is too important.

  79. RichardSCourtney says:

    Pointman:

    You say;
    “TB, like all the other sites, was not “sent” any files. A link to the whereabouts of the archives for download was posted as a comment.”

    In the context of my clarification, that is a distinction that makes no difference.

    Please note that I have presented a speculation and nothing more. Time will reveal if it is right or wrong, but so what? It seems that I again need to say;
    :
    “I remind and emphasise that what I wrote is speculation as are all other suggested reasons for the raid.

    The point I am making is that the only speculation which has gained currency is the assumption that the raid pertained to the identity of FOIA. But the timing of the raid was strange if that is its purpose: why was the raid not made soon after the leak of Climategate 1 or 2? My speculation provides a possible explanation of that timing

    Other speculations may also be possible. Importantly, considerations based on a mistaken assumption could be erroneous and so lead to inappropriate responses. My presenting my speculation is a caution against that.”

    Richard

  80. RichardSCourtney says:

    Tallbloke:

    Is there a possibility of moderating the posts from Justme, please?

    His/her/its posts suggest Justme is a spambot programed to disrupt the thread by swamping it with irrelevance and nonsense.

    Richard

  81. Justme says:

    Richard,

    You mock

    I was just trying to explain why Roger didn’t have a problem so’s he could have a good Christmas.

    In many ways some may consider me a spambot. BUT I’m not.

    It’s just that things are so much bigger than you understand or climategate on its own.

    I’d stand well out of the way of the FBI and people involved in the operations mentioned above.

  82. Pointman says:

    Richard,

    is there any chance of you prefacing your comments with an executive summary or something? Don’t get me wrong old sport, I do appreciate the raw naked effort and everything but there are only so many hours in the day.

    Pointman

  83. markus says:

    RichardS Courtney says:
    “According to my speculation the importance of Tallbloke’s files is that they isolate files of the plain text emails now publicly available. Hence, if the Climategate information were to be used for ‘damage limitation’ by scapegoating the Team then only those files would be used. Importantly, the row over that would defuse any subsequent damage from release of the key to the encrypted files.”

    But that digital information on Tallbloke’s server is the property of Tallbloke and must be returned to him after the completion of the investigation, unless with Tallbloke’s consent. If those servers were used for illegal purposes they would likely be required to destroy them by the Court information. They cannot legally retain or use that information. They would be acting corruptly otherwise.

  84. RichardSCourtney says:

    Markus:

    You say;
    “But that digital information on Tallbloke’s server is the property of Tallbloke and must be returned to him after the completion of the investigation, unless with Tallbloke’s consent.”

    True, Tallbloke would need to prove that the information was obtained from him, and he could not because it is also available elsewhere.

    Your point is asnother distinction that makes no difference.

    Richard

  85. RichardSCourtney says:

    Pointman:

    You ask me;
    “is there any chance of you prefacing your comments with an executive summary or something?”

    I do. Take a look. However, if I am answering someone else I start by quoting what I am answering to avoid others needing to find it.

    Richard

  86. Aussie says:

    So now we see that Justme is a Watermelon who is intent upon framing none other than Sir Rupert Murdoch in the Climagate email scandal…. except that JustMe has proved that he does not know more than anyone else.

  87. tallbloke says:

    Old William: Quite so. NDET not NDETu. My defense? I’m tired.

    Richard, just ignore Justme. I’ve asked him not to post riddles, and CAPITALS don’t cut the mustard. On a skeptics site, assertion has to be backed with reasoning and information. I’m sure Justme will soon appreciate that the number of people responding drops if none is forthcoming.

    Justme: I’m sure you are right that there is a wider context for the firefighting efforts of the state in controlling various ‘pressure groups’ be they climate sceptics, fuel price lobby, the greenpeas or whatever. Also they are not up to speed with movements like wikileaks and the shadowy hackerz, so anything ‘deviant’ that is computer related they tend to use a scattergun on.

    Hopefully, carefully measured comments here amongst some less carefully measured ones will help them understand the difference between us and other groupings.

  88. Justme says:

    “I’m sure you are right that there is a wider context for the firefighting efforts of the state in controlling various ‘pressure groups’ be they climate sceptics, fuel price lobby, the greenpeas or whatever. Also they are not up to speed with movements like wikileaks and the shadowy hackerz, so anything ‘deviant’ that is computer related they tend to use a scattergun on.”

    Tallbloke, you have got my point. You personally are not in any bother.

    “They” just used you as a testbed.

    Climate change is not my thing but let’s just say I don’t agree with you.

    I’ll say goodbye now.

    Merry Christmas.

  89. markus says:

    “”True, Tallbloke would need to prove that the information was obtained from him, and he could not because it is also available elsewhere.””

    No need to get defensive RichardSCourtney. Why did they want the information on Tallbloke’s servers if it was already in the public domain. Weren’t they searching for relevant information that wasn’t in the public domain.

    I think most magistrates are dupes when issuing police search warrants, but “we want to get the information from this Tallbloke fellow, although he’s not a suspect, because it makes it easy for us”, doesn’t wash with me, it’s offensive to my sense of liberty.

    You said “However, having the totality of that information does not isolate the parts of that information which are in the public domain. Tallbloke’s files contain a precise record of the parts that are in the public domain and, therefore, obtaining his files provides the needed isolation of publicly available information with minimum effort and maximum precision.”

  90. markus says:

    If they wanted Tallbloke’s info, to audit what information was not in the public domain, and they thought he wouldn’t be a hostile witness, they would have asked for his assistance without a search warrant.

    They used a search warrant to gather information about the activities of both Tallbloke and FOIA. The issuance of a search warrant does point to Tallbloke as a suspect. No doubt about that.
    What the copper really meant to say is “Tallbloke is not a suspect at this time, but could be at a latter time after the dissemination of the information we have seized”.

    There is no conspiracy from greater powers here, it’s how they work.

    Tallbloke please don’t be so naive to believe anything the Police say at this stage of their work.

  91. adolfogiurfa says:

    “Smile though your heart is aching” and laugh aloud, as they are playing the “Three Stooges” :-)

  92. RichardSCourtney says:

    Markus:

    For clarity, I point out that I am not and have not been “defensive”. Indeed, having reviewed my posts I fail to understand why you suggest I have.

    And I have answered your question repeatedly in my posts above so the simplest way for me to provide the answer without writing it again is for me to tell you to press CTRL-f, type my name and press return until you reach my post which includes my statement that you quote as your final paragraph together with the paragraph immediately before it.

    And, as I said, the involvement of NDET implies that no Search Warrant was needed: it was probably obtained for convenience. If this is “offensive to [your] sense of liberty” then I suggest you will be very offended if you read the UK Government web pages accessible at
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2001/24/contents

    Richard

  93. Justme could have made his point plainly, from the start. I continue to say mind games – just not very good ones.

    And I’m not convinced by Richard Courtney’s thesis, in that Counter Terrorism was involved from the first contact with Steve McIntyre after Climategate in November 2009 and this was made clear to Steve and others. There is no possible reason for that, that I can see, except to try to confuse and intimidate. I don’t blame DC Irwin himself but those directing the operation.

    Six officers visiting Tallbloke of over three hours and taking computers and modem away was likewise gross overkill. None of this is acceptable in a free country. I hope the New Year brings answers and the disciplining of those responsible.

  94. adolfogiurfa says:

    Are there not any more Sherlock Holmes in England´s police? :-)

  95. This scores very low on the ConspiracyTheory-Ometer – the plod did ask him for his WP password, which he declined to give. Maybe they thought it would be found on the machines.

    What I want to know is who will play TB in the film ? Hows about Johhny Depp

  96. tallbloke says:

    Richard said:

    Tallbloke’s files contain a precise record of the parts that are in the public domain and, therefore, obtaining his files provides the needed isolation of publicly available information with minimum effort and maximum precision.

    I think there’s something in this. The Det Insp told me today that the force follows a protocol called ‘Best Evidence’. This means getting the most direct and ‘pristine’ evidence they can. So because I was the first comment under ‘foia’ on climate audit, and the first to blog CG2, they decided my hard disks contained the earliest copies of FOIA2011.zip available anywhere. Plus, I’m only 170 miles up the road, rather than on another continent.

  97. Aussie says:

    First of all, I agree with Eternal Optimist, that the plods were probably thinking that they would find the WordPress password on the computers. As a blogger myself, I save my WordPress password on my computer.

    Second, I think that perhaps I did hit upon something with regard to JustMe. It seems that he had an axe to grind with regard to Rupert Murdoch because his links related to the scandal involving NoTW which has nothing to do with the leaking of the emails from CRU at East Anglia University, suggesting to me that he was trying to make a defamatory link between the two things. On that score, it was the fracking thing that did him in because it again is irrelevant with regard to the leaking of the CRU emails as well as being irrelevant with regard to the Globull Warming nonsense.

    Third, I agree with Richard Drake, that the raid was meant to confuse and intimidate climate realist bloggers.

  98. tchannon says:

    Markus “I think most magistrates are dupes when issuing police search warrants,”

    That is not surprising given most search warrants are minor matters on boring stuff. This one is unusual.

    It was signed by a District Judge as was picked up by some retired police officers, they were surprised. It might be chance, who was on hand.

    This is good enough http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judiciary_of_England_and_Wales#District_Judges

  99. tallbloke says:

    The judge’s name is Vight.

  100. markus says:

    “”I think there’s something in this. The Det Insp told me today that the force follows a protocol called ‘Best Evidence’. This means getting the most direct and ‘pristine’ evidence they can. So because I was the first comment under ‘foia’ on climate audit, and the first to blog CG2, they decided my hard disks contained the earliest copies of FOIA2011.zip available anywhere. Plus, I’m only 170 miles up the road, rather than on another continent””.

    If that is their only reason, then they have raped you for convenience. Must make you feel dirty…..even a long shower won’t get it’s stench off you, only revenge will get rid of it.

  101. Roger Carr says:

    RichardSCourtney says:

    The contents of the Climategate 1 & 2 releases and of the encrypted file must be known to the authorities because they would have been on the UEA back-up server that it can be asasumed the police examined as part of their investigation that showed the UEA/CRU had broken FOI law (but passage of time since that offence prevented a prosecution).

    Enlightening point, Richard. I never jumped that gap, but it now colours my whole perception of this business. I hope others who missed it, as I did, take note. Nothing from Climatgate 3 is actually secret to those who have legitimate access to the right server.

  102. Konrad says:

    While it is reasonable that those behind the investigations have access to all that could be in the further 200,000 encrypted files, they still may not know the exact contents. The 200,000 encrypted files are likely only a subset of those accessible to the whistle blower at the time of liberation. I would speculate that some in the climate cabal and governments very much want to know just which damning evidence is about to be released prior to taxpayers finding out. However they are just going to have to wait like everyone else for FOIA to transmit the code around the planet.

  103. Aussie says:

    Roger, is it possible that they were looking for the passphrase or password to the encrypted file on your machine?

  104. KevinUK says:

    Aussie,

    Norfolk plod don’t need the passket to the all.7z file, they already have all the emails and have done since November 2009. They were paid by UEA to look after the CRU backup server and so have dutifully sat on it and so prevented the release of the full set of emails for at least two years now. That’s why the FOIA2011.zip was released. FOIA has gotten fed up waiting for the full set of emails to be released and so has released a further 5000 emails with the promise of eventually releasing the passkey to unlock the remaining emails if the authorities continue to sit on the rest of the emails.

    IMO they (Norfolk plod and the Met) have been leant on to do something, anything to at least attempt to find out the identity of FOIA before he/she releases the passkey. Norfolk plod are not happy and so are in the process of passng the buck (and no doubt the responsibility for sitting on the CRU backup server) over to someone else. IMO they have seized Tallbloke’s computers and router because they suspect that he has been in direct contact with FOIA. They have deliberately lied to him. He is a suspect and that’s why they won’t tell his legal representative Stephen Wilde the excuse they gave to the judge inorder to get him to issue the search warrant to raid Tallbloke’s house and seize his property. Where did the pressure to do something, anything come from? Well ask yourself the question who is going to be most embarrassed by the contents of the yet to be released emails and you’ll then know the answer?

    KevinUK

  105. Roger Carr says:

    Aussie: I still reckon they will have used the eight-character password “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”…

  106. Aussie says:

    @KevinUK

    an interesting insight, and my gut feeling is that you are correct as to their motivation.

    I just looked back at the thread where the link was dropped, and the following link. Honestly there is nothing there that hints at any kind of correspondence with FOIA. It sounds like they are shooting in the dark :)

  107. Aussie says:

    Looking back at the thread where Tallbloke broke the news of the link being dropped in the comments of his blog, I spotted something interesting.

    I believe that justme is the same person as JBowers. The responses are pretty much the same – mostly B.S. and blinkered. That is a very long thread, so if you get to at least half-way you will be able to see the stupid retorts that are being made, and also comments relating to “big oil”, blah blah.

    Of course the retorts about the “big fossil companies” are just a cover-up meant to put the non-scientists off the scent. Blame the big fossil companies and pit them against those “scientists”. The problem is, that Big Fossil has been sponsoring these “climate scientists” for many years. This includes BP, Shell and of course Boon Pickens in the USA. All of them have had fingers in the watermelon pie. However, just like the little boy who sat in the corner with a pie, and put in his thumb and pulled out a plum, these same fossil fuel investors are backing off. The latest to pull out of the solar panel industry is BP. Boon Pickens had already begun pulling out from those same investments.

  108. Aussie says:

    @Roger Carr,

    you might want to choose another fairy story – maybe Hansel and Gretal :)

  109. Richard111 says:

    Hah! From the BBC link in update above:

    The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

    But you are, Eh??

  110. anoneumouse says:

    “a protocol called ‘Best Evidence’”

    and there in lays the problem, the force is riddled with ‘common purpose’ practitioners, you can tell this by their PC leftist speak.

    Dont be surprised if the warrent was issued on information given by an individual from DECC.

  111. RichardSCourtney says:

    KevinUK:

    You say/ask:

    “Where did the pressure to do something, anything come from? Well ask yourself the question who is going to be most embarrassed by the contents of the yet to be released emails and you’ll then know the answer?”

    Politicians have greatest possibility of embarrassment because the emails released to date exclude direct communications with politicians. And the emails’ dates mostly cover time prior to the present government taking office.

    So, it is very likely that members of the Blair and Brown governments are “going to be most embarrassed by the contents of the yet to be released emails”.

    That does not tell me “the answer”.

    Richard

  112. Richard111 says:

    On reading comments above I note one “Justme” keeps boringly suggesting Roger is not in trouble and he should be quiet and stop making a fuss.

    The whole point of this discussion is Roger’s privacy has been invaded by police without any justification. It is the police who are in trouble and they will not be quiet and go away. They have taken Roger’s property. He has every right to feel offended and do what he can to recover his good name and his property.

    Take ‘em for everything you can get Roger. Especially if your present or future job prospects have in any way been compromised.

  113. Roger Carr says:

    Aussie: “Hansel and Gretel” has only two characters. Not long enough.

    Attribution for Snow White: Comedian Nick Helm has won an award for the best joke of the Edinburgh Fringe.

  114. AJB says:

    tallbloke says December 22, 2011 at 1:48 am
    The judge’s name is Vight.

    Should that be spelled Veits?
    http://www.justice.gov.uk/news/judicial-appointments/judicial-101011-147.htm

    [Reply] Thanks, very possible. The Guy I spoke to said the name slightly indistinctly when I asked for it. I spelled out what I thought he said using the standard police method; Victor-Indigo-Golf-Hotel-Tango and he said yes, but something left me unconvinced.

  115. Aussie says:

    thanks for that Roger Carr :) Yes I get it!!

  116. TerryS says:

    If the BBC have a story about a blog I would expect them to link to it in their “Related Internet Links” section.
    However, instead of linking here, to a possibly sceptical blog, they link to Real Climate.
    BBC’s balanced journalism in operation.

  117. Aussie says:

    @Richard III,
    please see my earlier comment about Justme. Yes he is very boring, but he has this thing about the Australian, Sir Rupert Murdoch, and of course NoWT. He is trying to string a few long bows in an attempt to tie in big oil, and perhaps Murdoch’s purchase of shares in the fracking industry. He sent links directly tied to people being arrested over the newspaper hacking scandal, as if it has something to do with the leaks of emails from the CRU. He also attempted to tie in the Republican House rejection of a bill that had that tied in the XL pipeline daring a certain individual to veto the legislation, but claiming that it was related to USA Medicare (which it is not). The obvious tie in was the fracking of shale oil in Canada which so offends the watermelon base for the worst POTUS ever.

    After reading comments on an earlier thread relating to the breaking of Climategate 2.0 I discovered the equally annoying JBowers who was taking over that thread, and there is a real similarity in style. I am certain that they are the same person.

    Whatever, Justme should be ignored and just placed in the naughty corner.

  118. Ripper says:

    That BBC article is amazing. It manages to report all the goings on without giving the reader any hint that another tranche of emails has been released in 2011.

  119. Tucci says:

    At 9:05 AM on 22 December, Adrian Kerton posts:

    Roger’s interview is on the BBC iPlayer

    …and posts a URL that does not permit anyone outside the U.K. to access the video.

    Says something about an audio access, but I’m durned if I can puzzle my way through the BBC Web site to get at it.

    Anybody care to help enable a link to an MP3 or something similar?

  120. Norfolk Plod. That sounds like UEA calling them in. Who in UEA would do this, how and why? Well, they’ve just been embarrassed by a second release of emails from FOIA. I imagined Mike Mann getting excited and wanting to see some “action” – and UEA fearing Mann has become a very loose cannon who might succeed in dislodging the whole fraudulent scientific enterprise, in which UEA have a huge interest – they stand to see their prized flagship fall. Plus a lot of egg on faces at BBC, Met Office, and Government – and we know there was a lot of behind-the-scenes cooperation here. Last Climategate didn’t they contact Futerra or some such to manage their face-saving PR? Wouldn’t they do the same again? And yes, maybe as Richard Courtney suggests, to see how much is out in the public domain – to determine asap what face-saving strategy is most likely to work this time? ASAP would mean leaning on the cops to move fast and decisively would it not?

    So for me the question moves to, Who has to lose by exposing Climategate? And is scapegoating being considered in order to protect more shadowy supporters?

    And meanwhile, so long as we continue to let in the sunlight in ALL senses of that word, there are opportunities to turn bad to good.

  121. hro001 says:

    Lucy, it wasn’t Futerra, it was a group called The Outside Organization (and the “lead” happened to be one Neil Wallis whose “connections” cross many boundaries – in both the Press and the Police) See:

    Of Climategate, constabularies and Copenhagen: coincidences worth considering (Part 1)

    Speaking of “sunlight” … I’m really curious to know with whom (and when) Hickman might have shared his non-published circa Dec. 5 “interview” with Roger. There’s a timeline that might be worth looking at:

    Of Climategate, constabularies, Hickman and l’affaire Tallbloke: a timeline to consider

    [Reply] Big thanks for your work H. I’ve left a snippet of extra info for you on your site. – Rog

  122. Pointman says:

    The only people with anything to gain by catching FOIA are the climate realists; for everyone else, it’s a disaster. Doing a gangbusters style on TB was simply a blunder.

    “If you catch them, the nuclear option kicks in automatically and we also get the trial of the century. If you don’t catch them, the indications are they’ll continue to float successive waves of email releases in your direction and at the most embarrassing times possible.”

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/12/04/helping-to-catch-the-climategate-whistleblower/

    Pointman

  123. jjthoms says:

    Pointman says: December 22, 2011 at 12:28 pm
    The only people with anything to gain by catching FOIA are the climate realists; for everyone else, it’s a disaster. Doing a gangbusters style on TB was simply a blunder.

    “If you catch them, the nuclear option kicks in automatically and we also get the trial of the century. If you don’t catch them, the indications are they’ll continue to float successive waves of email releases in your direction and at the most embarrassing times possible.”

    ======================
    [snip]
    [Moderation note] Don’t put words in other peoples mouths.

    Amazing stuff!

    Remember that unauthorised LOOKING at data on computer system is hacking and illegal. Removing/copying data is obviously worse. Distributing the data worse still.
    Lookup the UK computer misuse act!

    FOIA is a criminal in the eyes of the Law. Are you suggesting that the law should be broken. As far as I am aware one of the highest judges in Uk has stated that whistle blowing does not negate computer hacking law (heard on radio some months ago but cannot find a source).

    [Reply] I doubt you’ll find a source to support your assertion that “FOIA is a criminal in the eyes of the Law.” Either.

  124. Chuck Nolan says:

    My guess is that the UK will turn the investigation over to the only organization able to investigate this high level of criminality on the internet. Climategate investigations must be turned over to the United Nations. I’m sure the UNIPCC must have an investigative arm or if not they could easily pull from Greenpeace, WWF, UEA and Penn State enough manpower to ensure a proper “inquiry.”
    I believe they would agree that this is the only way to get a fair and impartial investigation and they would be completely open and honest. Then after which we would all be satisfied with their “climate justice” findings and the world could get on with the agenda.

  125. tfn says:

    Here’s my speculation for what it’s worth:

    On release of the Climategate 2 emails the Norfolk Police had to do something. They made a list of the blogs on which foia had put the link to the emails. As three were hosted by WordPress they needed help from the US to get information about the link from WordPress. So Norfolk Police asked the British Home Secretary to use the UK/US Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) to ask the US Attorney General and Department of Justice for help in obtaining the information from WordPress.

    The US Department of Justice then sent the Preservation of Records request to WordPress asking for the letter not to be disclosed. They may have sent similar requests to other blog hosts which haven’t disclosed the letter

    The DOJ then obtained the information about the ‘foia’ email link from WordPress using the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Apparently this doesn’t require a warrant, only for there to be reasonable grounds for the data requested to be relevant to the investigation. Under the MLAT the DOJ would have sent this information to the British Police.

    The Norfolk Police have a local hi-tech crime unit but have most likely passed the investigation over to the Central e-crime unit of the Metropolitan Police in London which has more expertise and investigates nationally.

    Not knowing what else to do, the British police decided to look at the computers of Tallbloke, who had simply had the link to the foia emails put on his blog by ‘foia‘ and was the first to break the story.

    Tallbloke is not a suspect and as his computers might contain ‘excluded material’ such as personal records and material used for journalism, the police therefore had to get a warrant from a judge, a magistrate not having the authority.

    The British and US Governments should reflect on why, after WW2 and all the horrors of Nazi Germany, they agreed to Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”

    Happy xmas to all especially Rog and family.

  126. The Lone Haranguer says:

    It sounds more like c*ckup than conspiracy.

    Can’t remember the exact details, but it was about 30 years ago the investigative journalist Duncan Campbell was raided because of his healthy interest in national security. This was in the days before hard drives. They took his computer – but left all his floppies which had his files.

    Some time later they raided him again. By now he had a hard drive. They took all his floppies, which contained nothing at all … and left the computer with the hard drive …

    Plus ca change?

  127. RichardSCourtney says:

    tfn:

    Your speculation at December 22, 2011 at 2:09 pm is plausible.

    But it fails to explain the involvement of the NDET in the raid.
    Can you think of an amendment which provides that needed explanation?

    Also, the NDET’s involvement strongly suggests that no Search Warrant was needed because the raid was considered to be a matter of national security. So, as I said in an above post the use of a Search Warrant was probably to reduce anticipated resistance of Tallbloke to the raid on his home.

    Richard

  128. RichardSCourtney says:

    Lucy Skywalker:

    Thankyou for your thoughts at December 22, 2011 at 10:02 am.

    You say;
    “So for me the question moves to, Who has to lose by exposing Climategate?”

    I think a much more important question is;
    Why would the authorities want to catch FOIA?

    I explain the importance of my question as follows.

    We know:
    1.
    The authorities know all that was on the UEA/CRU server including the information which is in the file released but encrypted by FOIA.
    2.
    FOIA knows the authorities know all the information in the encrypted file (and possibly more).
    3.
    The authorities know fact 2 (i.e. the authorities know FOIA knows the authorities know all the information in the encrypted file).
    4.
    FOIA knows fact 3 (i.e. FOIA knows the authorities know FOIA knows the authorities know all the information in the encrypted file).
    5.
    FOIA is computer ‘savvy’ and is not stupid.

    We and the authorities do not know
    A.
    Why FOIA has released the encrypted file.
    B.
    Whether or not FOIA intends to release the key to the encrypted file.

    However, knowing fact 5, we can reasonably assume a reason for FOIA’s release of the encrypted file.

    It is a relatively simple matter for FOIA to have established (by any of several methods) a system whereby the key to the encrypted file would be circulated on the web in the event of his death, disappearance or arrest.

    Hence, it seems likely that the encrypted file is insurance. It deters FOIA being arrested (or seeming to have driven his car into a tree, or seeming to have cut his wrists by a stream near his home).

    Release of the key would remove that insurance.

    Hence, it is unlikely that the authorities would want to take action against FOIA except to monitor his/her/their activities. Any action would be likely to release the key that would unlock the encrypted file. And if there were information in the encrypted file that the authorities wanted to be released they could release it themselves at any time in any of several ways.

    So,
    Why would the authorities want to catch FOIA?

    Richard

  129. Stoke Parva says:

    BBC Report on Youtube

    Permission obtained from the BBC reporter

  130. John Silver says:

    Were the detectives armed?

  131. Vuk says:

    It is likely that authorities know who copied the files and what the entire content is. They were not hopeful but concerned that tb knows too. They also know that P.J’s science, who can’t do a trend line in ‘Excel’ (two mouse clicks), is phoney.
    As long as ‘green tax’ brings in money P.J. can lord over EAU and
    A Merry Christmas to all.

  132. Ian W says:

    So the Norfolk police have the mail server. FOIA has released one set of emails and one presumes that someone from a group somewhat more computer savvy than Norfolk, checked that the emails _were_ legitimately from the mail server – a boring task but perhaps interesting if grep’ing turned to reading the occasional email.

    Then FOIA11 provides another release of emails. Someone –sigh– has to repeat the exercise of checking emails against the server. How long would it take to task, set up, carry out and report that task? I would thing about week or so short of the time from the file release to TB’s unwelcome visit. So it is possible that they know what other emails are to come – or – more worrying for them, perhaps they have found that there are some emails that are not on the server but _are_ part of the email trail. So perhaps FOIA did not get the information _only_ from the server the police are ‘looking after’. Now _they_ know that the information is valid but that _they_ may not know the full and damaging content of the encrypted block. They _need_ the encryption key which for some reason they believe may have already been released for security: Where would that key be sent?. Someone somewhere is exerting significant international pressure. This must mean that there is increasing concern on what may happen if the emails are released.

    So someone with clout starts the train of events of which we are seeing only the very tip breaking the surface. Who could be hiding the ‘key’ – the climate bloggers might have it hidden in that post/email to them – so search their machines – . Someone would have gone through the potential political, media and blogosphere fallout likely to identify which blogger is in a legal domain provides the simplest to execute search powers and will create the least fuss – the UK with its Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. So from the small list of bloggers that received FOIA’s post, TB’s talkshop is raided by one member of the Norfolk constabulary with representatives from several other ‘groups’ ;-) ;-). I would think that they are now checking every image on the laptop disks for Steganographic codes, all the whitespace between files etc etc. All this in the hope they can find a passcode that can be of variable length and made up of any alphanumerics, special characters and spaces. This could be a fruitless exercise. And of course – there may be more than one key – with successive layers of exposure of new files; like skinning an onion each one potentially piquing and increasing the public interest. And next November there is an important election…..

    There is already sufficient information in the public domain from the mail server the police hold to take legal action or just remove funding from UEA and Penn State. So there is no search (yet) for a warmista scapegoat.

    The take away is that someone with access to authority has suddenly become very concerned about the release of the encrypted files to the extent that they will risk the potentially bad publicity _just to find out which files they are_ – they cannot stop their release. So they need to know in advance of their release what pre-publicity action is needed to forestall their effectiveness. Perhaps public announcements, iIndividuals that may ‘take early retirement’/resign/spend more time with their family etc., rubbishing or killing the messenger…. or of course all of the above.

    An interesting Christmas for the ‘powers that be’ – a quieter one for Roger T. Roger, I hope that you have been able to invest in a new laptop – perhaps a Linux laptop with a virtual windows machine with external storage on micro SDXC or in ‘the cloud’

  133. James Evans says:

    RSC,

    “But the timing of the raid was strange if that is its purpose: why was the raid not made soon after the leak of Climategate 1 or 2?”

    Because after CG1 they had no clue what they were doing. After CG2, it would have taken plod a while to re-focus. Then they decided they wanted the info from WordPress. (Which was a very obvious step.) So then they had to persuade the US authorities to play along. I’m guessing that could take a while. Then they decided to have a look at Rog’s computers – either because they saw something in the WordPress info that made them suspect that Mr Tallbloke might have been directly contacted, or because they struck out with WordPress, so just decided to do more digging. All IMHO.

    I really don’t get all the complicated theories at all – when some very simple theories work just fine.

  134. tfn says:

    @RichardCourtney

    You may well be right.

    However MI5, the British Security Service, defines domestic extremism as the activity of individuals or groups who carry out criminal acts to further a campaign. An example would be animal rights protestors who resort to threats and violence.

    Such behaviour is considered by MI5 as a threat to public order, not national security and is left to the police to investigate. In 2011 the Association of Chief Police Officers formed the National Domestic Extremism Unit led by the Metropolitan Police.

    “NDEU was created following a merger of the National Public Order Intelligence Unit (NPOIU), the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET) and the National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit (NETCU). It supports all police forces, its main role being to provide intelligence on domestic extremism and public order in the UK.”

    The best information on the role of the National Coordinator Domestic Extremism can be found here:

    http://www.acpo.police.uk/NationalPolicing/NCDENationalCoordinatorDomesticExtremism/FAQ.aspx

    “It is a small number who believe breaking the law is justifiable and will help further their campaign aims. NCDE is there to support forces in facilitating peaceful, lawful protest and preventing that which is unlawful.

    “Acting as a crime prevention unit, NETCU also supports industry, academia and other organisations that have been or could be targeted by extremists. “

    Climate change is a very emotive issue and feelings have been running very high. Some of the comments on Greg’s blog illustrate this. A few people may be very foolish and break the law in support of their beliefs, either for or against, the theory of CAGW. The National Domestic Extremism Unit is the arm of the police which will try to ensure that the CAGW debate remains peaceful, civilised and lawful.

    But again I am only guessing.

    Of course, it goes without saying, that this has nothing whatsoever to do with Tallbloke, expressing his opinions on the theory of AGW in this science blog, as a journalist-blogger.

  135. Aussie says:

    I think that IanW has made some very valid points that are well worth considering. Who, in the political class has contact with UEA? One name I have seen is Nick Clegg.

    To follow on from the train of thought of IanW, let’s look at who else has the potential to be affected by any new releases. One possibility is the US Dept of Energy. They have provided funding to the CRU and they fund Michael Mann at Penn State.

    There is already legal action where Ken Cuccinelli is attempting to get the release of material that belong to Michael Mann via his old university. The PTB do not want what should be released via FOIA to be released. Could it be that there is some kind of tie in? I am not sure, just speculating on what is out there.

    Three NGOs could end up with very burnt fingers if and when the large file is relased. They are Greenpeace, Oxfam and WWF. The three of them are very much intertwined with the UNIPCC, to the point that they are proposing world wide regulations and worldwide taxes. These three NGOs have enriched themselves on the climate scaremongering.

    Who else? Richard Black at the BBC seems to have a lot of contact with the CRU at the UEA. He seems to be one of the major propagandists with regard to all of the scaremongering.

    Looking at big business, then what names spring to mind? The first name for me is BP because BP has been a very big backer on the whole scam. I am sure that there are plenty of other names of companies tied up with pushing wind farms and solar energy.

    Last of all, there are the members of the previous government in the UK – George Brown, Tony Blair etc and those ex-govt ministers who pushed through the watermelon legislation. How much interaction has there been between these ex-ministers and CRU at the UEA?

  136. J Bowers says:

    “Mr. Courtney, how could a hack (though the possibility that FOIA’s action was a hack) upon the servers at a climate research facility “relate to national security” so that the Security Act could be invoked?”

    CRU/UEA work closely and share data with the Met Office, which is itself a part of the Ministry of Defence since World War One. I see plenty of scope for concern from the MoD and Home Office who may wish to examine what exactly was purloined and exactly how it was done, especially if the alleged hackers were foreign nationals operating for a foreign power.

  137. Otter says:

    I’m rather of the opinion that the whistle-blower is one of the main members of The Team.
    But it is just a thought, nothing definite. Snip all if needed.

  138. Justme says:

    Oh! re BP

    They and the other petroleum giants have been pushing up the price of oil in order to make fracking financially viable.

    Their green credentials are just a con that doesn’t cost them much. Just PR

    The North Sea and the Gulf of Mexico won’t last forever you know, but there huge reserves in oil bearing shale. The mines will just take the place of platforms. Who takes their money in order to push their real interests. Maybe the FBI or Tuleta will soon find out?

    [Reply] I’m allowing this comment from ‘Justme’ because it does have some relevance to the energy production side of the climate debate.

    Justme: Please try to stay closer to topic. If you are patient, you’ll probably get the chance to have a say on future threads.

  139. Aussie says:

    @Otter, I think that there are quite a few people who think that the whistle-blower/leaker is a part of the CRU team.

    From what I have seen of those emails, there are a few people who have actually stated that some of the papers have been over the top, or exaggerated. There are a few who have criticized the hockey stick in particular. Perhaps one of them, or some of them decided to band together on a little private project.

  140. J Martin says:

    Since we’re speculating;

    I thought it strange that the UEA had to pay the police to get back a copy of the emails on the server. This would suggest that they had no backup tapes, which blows my pet theory that someone in the IT department borrowed a tape. So maybe they don’t know what emails are on that server, and have decided they need to find out. Perhaps also the “team” have been quite effective at deleting emails, and there are now more emails in the public domain than are on that server. We can only speculate.

    Or perhaps the UEA are engaging in some subtle disinformation, which would suggest they think it was internal and are trying to cover it up rather than come clean.

    The police may even be playing a game now; perhaps they have recently found out the identity of the email source, but have no need to make an immediate arrest or request for extradition, and are fishing for others as arresting a conspiratorial group would look better in the media, and better for the UEA than a one person heist.

  141. Aussie says:

    @JMartin,

    if it was an “insider” then there was no “heist”. I have come around to the view that this was not a Bradley Manning style hack job, but is the work of someone who works within the “field” of c.c. There are some possibilities but whether that person or person is involved depends upon his knowledge of computers.

    The notion that this was hack job came from UAE immediately after the first tranche of emails were released. The minions caught on and have continued with this line of reasoning without any conclusive proof that this was the case.

    These people were careless with their data (the emails) and some of it was moved around such as with Keith Briffa when he was off sick.

    If these people were in the habit of responding to emails without removing previous responses, then there would be an email trail each time the email was received by one or other of the recipients. If someone received a copy of a “trailing” message then it would be easy to accumulate this form of information, without any hacking or leaking.

    There are many possibilities that do in fact lead away from a hack job on the emails, and pointing to someone within the CRU or at least associated with them.

  142. Tenuc says:

    J Martin says:
    December 23, 2011 at 12:02 am
    “…Perhaps also the “team” have been quite effective at deleting emails, and there are now more emails in the public domain than are on that server. We can only speculate…”

    Or perhaps the UEA are engaging in some subtle disinformation, which would suggest they think it was internal and are trying to cover it up rather than come clean.

    Just to clarify some factual stuff, to aid further speculation…

    While it is easy to delete an email in outlook, it is virtually impossible to prevent someone with the necessary level of access retrieving it again.

    It is probable that the password protection of the FOIA.zip would have succumbed to a brute force attack from the authorities within a few hours, and almost certainly within a few days.

    With the amount of flapping about going on it would be logical to assume that what they discovered is very damaging to the CAGW scam and possibly compromises some of the people at the top of the chain.

    I think the race is on for the authorities to try and get to the whistle-blower before he releases the password(s). However, I think this is a vain hope as it would only take a single email and within a matter of minutes the password would go viral across the web.

    Looking forward to seeing what’s going to happen over the next few days (Christmas present to the world perhaps?), and I’ve bought in a large supply of beer and popcorn… :-)

  143. ianl8888 says:

    @Tenuc

    >It is probable that the password protection of the FOIA.zip would have succumbed to a brute force attack from the authorities within a few hours, and almost certainly within a few days.<

    WHY is it probable, please ?

  144. Latimer Alder says:

    @tenuc

    You discuss Outlook. AFAIK the guys at UEA used Eudora or Thunderbird.

    You might as well get the details right….opponents will crucify you for slip ups like this.

  145. Harriet Harridan says:

    O/T but has anybody else heard this astonishingly condescending talking head at BBC Radio 4? When dealing with deniers you have to win them over with facts and science apparently. She, doesn’t stop to consider what to do if science says something like “temp increase in the atmosphere is less than at the surface (meaning the CO2 can’t be the main driver)”. That would cause her to press her self-destruct apparently..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0184w66/A_Point_of_View_Climate_Change_Belief/

  146. Aussie says:

    @Latimer, probably that is because he is used to Outlook.

    I have used Thunderbird, very rarely, and have not used Eudora. What I do know about outlook that it is easy to archive email. It is also easy to export the email to other clients and in the past I have done that. It is probably a case of familiarity with one type of email client.

  147. Latimer Alder says:

    @aussie

    Yes, but the guy is discussing a theory of what happened at CRU. What *he* is familiar with is of no importance. It is what *they* actually used that counts.

    To persuade someone of a case, it is important to get the details right. You and he may not be familiar with Thunderbird, for example, but I use it in preference to Outlook. So, it appears, did UEA. Commentary about Outlook in this case is as irrelevant as me posting my local weather forecast for Christmas Day and expecting it to be relevant to you.

    And the bad guys will dismiss it all as

    ‘See how those stupid D******s don’t even know what e-mail client was used at UEA. How dare they presume to tell us experts about climate when they don’t even know the simple basics’

    I note that McIntyre is so feared partly because he doesn’t make such slips and backs up all his statements with evidence..

  148. TerryS says:

    Re: tenuc

    There is little to no chance that the authorities have cracked the password for all.7z.
    When 7zip encrypts a file it takes the password and feeds it through SHA-256, with an incrementing counter, 524288 times (2^19). This generates a 256 bit key which is then used by AES-256 to encrypt the data. The reason it feeds the password through SHA-256 so many times is to make brute force attacks more difficult.

    This leaves two possible vectors for attacking the all.7z file. The first is a brute force dictionary attack and the second is to bypass the SHA-256 and directly try pseudo random AES-256 keys.
    The AES-256 algorithm is designed for speed, but, because it uses 256 bits, even if every computer at their disposal uses every cycle to try different keys, the Earth would probably be consumed by the Sun before they managed to crack it.
    This only leaves a dictionary attack. I cant remember the maximum size of the password but is greater than 1000 characters. Because of the large possible size of the password and the brute force countermeasures by the programmers it would take even longer to crack the all.7z file. Unless the person who chose the password picked a weak one.

  149. RichardSCourtney says:

    Friends:

    I know we are speculating with a view to ensure that defences of Tallbloke are not affected by adherence to a limited set of assumptions. But the speculations only have value if they are constrained by known facts.

    Latimer Alder is right. If we want to talk about UEA computer systems then we need to be absolutely sure that we discuss the right systems.

    And the discussion between TerryS and Tenuc concerning de-encryption is a pointless distraction. The authorities studied contents of the UEA back-up server as part of an earlier investigation, so they are completely aware of all that could be in the encrypted file. (Anyway, GCHQ could probably solve the encryption if the authorities really wanted it done).

    Also, Aussie, you are probably right when you say;
    “if it was an “insider” then there was no “heist” “
    But so what?
    The authorities have good reason to not disturb FOIA (please read my post at December 22, 2011 at 3:38 pm) whether or not he/she/they was an “insider”.

    I am truly surprised that people want to speculate about these peripheral issues and to ignore the ‘elephant in the room’. And that elephant is the existence of the encrypted file: it seems certain that FOIA has posted that file on the web to ensure the authorities take no action against him/her/them.

    The authorities are inhibited in acting against FOIA whether or not they have identified FOIA.
    They have acted against Tallbloke: WHY?

    A Happy Christmas to you all.

    Richard

  150. Tucci says:

    At 10:11 AM on 23 December, Harriet Harridan had referred to a spate of “Liberal” fascist arrogance perpetrated by Lisa Jardine at BBC Radio 4.

    This faux literate, dropping the name of Umberto Eco (in order to exploit her sole takeaway from that writer’s early novel, Foucalt’s Pendulum) puts forward (per Harriet Harridan) an absolutely dead-from-the-neck-up warmista surmise that her fraudster faction has to deal with “deniers” by trying:

    …to win them over with facts and science apparently. She, doesn’t stop to consider what to do if science says something like “temp increase in the atmosphere is less than at the surface (meaning the CO2 can’t be the main driver)”. That would cause her to press her self-destruct apparently.

    Allah forfend that this Jardine bint should understand that what the “climate science” charlatans on her side of this controversy lack in every significant regard is precisely the “facts and science” in which she idiotically invests all her confidence.

    By all means, lets engage “in something more like a conversation.”

    Ms. Jardine, you do that and there’s not gonna be enough of you left to scrape off the studio floor afterwards.

  151. manonthemoor says:

    @RichardSCourtney says:
    December 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    I agree with your post but in answer to your question about why Tallbloke, I suggest the ‘establishment’ would like to establish some legal precedents with regard to blogging and Roger just got in the vacant slot.

    Much more thoughts here:-

    http://www.glebedigital.co.uk/blog/?p=4997#respond

    Enjoy

    motm

  152. Pointman says:

    It’s worth saying at this point that the authorities cannot be sure that the emails they found on the compromised server(s) correspond exactly to what’s in the FOIA2011 archive. There was a definite time gap between the publication of CG1 and them being called in. Given the penchant of certain parties to delete inconvienent emails …

    Pointman

  153. Ian W says:

    RichardSCourtney says:
    December 23, 2011 at 12:28 pm

    The authorities studied contents of the UEA back-up server as part of an earlier investigation, so they are completely aware of all that could be in the encrypted file.

    AND

    Pointman says:
    December 23, 2011 at 3:16 pm
    It’s worth saying at this point that the authorities cannot be sure that the emails they found on the compromised server(s) correspond exactly to what’s in the FOIA2011 archive.

    RIchard is making the assumption – made by many – that the FIOA11 CG2 files are from the same set of emails.
    Pointman points out that they cannot be sure that they are from the same set.

    It appears from the sudden burst of action that they _know_ that they are not from the same archive that they were given. Perhaps UEA gave the police a ‘sanitised’ server?

    It could be that one or more of the many in clear emails is _not_ on the confiscated server. I can see no reason why the hornets nest should be stirred if they know what could be released – damage limitation will have already have been put in place on the known files. (As an aside – why confiscate a mail server from an aggrieved ‘hacked’ party?)

    So now instead of knowing what to expect next ‘they’ have no idea what is in the encrypted files. If they are also compressed there could be a LOT of email and document files there. The genie is truly out of the bottle and someone has the magic words to release the information.

  154. Pointman says:

    @Ian W

    Yes, my thinking too …

    Pointman

  155. Aussie says:

    @Latimer, I actually agree with you on that subject relating to email clients. Perhaps I did not make sufficient conclusions on the matter. I do see that it is quite irrelevant to bring up how Outlook operates in explaining the email clients used at the CRU, since the mails themselves were on the server.

    My own thinking had been along different lines due to the fact that these people did not seem to clear off the trailing responses before sending out a reply.

    In other words, anyone who was added to the list could see older conversations in one email, then capture that information and save it to disk (via a flashdrive or similar media) so that a copy was retained. There are a lot of possibilities about how FOIA actually got hold of the emails.

    For that reason, yes, the email client itself is quite irrelevant, yet it explains to some degree that Jones and co were quite ignorant about computers.

  156. Aussie says:

    @Richard Courtney,

    picking up the word “heist” was just to point out that we do not know that it was a “hack” which is the explanation that is bandied about by the team. It is the team and their supporters who constantly claim that the email was “stolen”. Since I have come around to the view that this is an inside effort and is less likely to be the work of either Anonymous or Lulz then I was just pointing to the fact that using a term like “heist” might be considered inappropriate.

    I am not ignoring the elephant in the room. I am continuing to watch for what could happen next!!

    How long before there is a new enquiry this time with focus on what was taking place, such as the criminal act of destroying emails that related to FOIA requests?

  157. Eli Rabett says:

    Ahem, employee theft is the largest loss mechanism for most companies. Why are you guys thinking that it the files were lifted by an employee of UEA, it was not theft?

  158. Aussie says:

    @Eli, how can there be a theft if the emails exist on the server? It is a matter of definition.

    The two scenarios are described as:

    (1) that an insider is a whistleblower who has leaked the emails that were in fact subject to FOIA
    (2) that someone outside of UEA hacked into the computer, copied all of the emails and then uploaded them.

    Normally theft is defined in general terms of depriving people of their property. In the case of these emails there has not been any depriving of property. The emails continue to exist on the server.

    Also, the possibility of an insider means that there is the probability that the person in question is considered as a whistleblower, which is covered under legislation pertaining to a whistleblower.

    I have also seen some people try to make comparisons to Wikileaks and the actions of Bradley Manning but what these people also fail to see in their charges of hypocrisy is that Manning deliberately hacked into the computer to take classified documents. (of course some of those documents were embarrassing to the US diplomatic service, and to certain individuals including the Australian Mark Arbib but other released documents jeopardized the lives of some people, especially in Afghanistan). The difference is that when you have a job dealing with classified material you are under oath that you will do nothing to release that information. On the other hand with the UEA emails these were not secret documents.

    Everyone is watching and waiting to see what happens next in this whole saga. We are waiting to see if the plods can actually find the person/s who is FOIA and then what action will be taken. We are very much aware that at certain levels there is collusion that needs to be exposed. We are very much aware that billions of taxpayers’ money is being wasted on something that is more than likely not a threat to our existence.

  159. Tucci says:

    At 5:46 PM on 23 December, Ian W had responded to an earlier post (“…the authorities cannot be sure that the emails they found on the compromised server(s) correspond exactly to what’s in the FOIA2011 archive”) with the speculation that:

    It appears from the sudden burst of action that they _know_ that they [the emails appearing in FOIA2011.zip] are not from the same archive that they were given. Perhaps UEA gave the police a ‘sanitised’ server?

    In other words, the information given the Polizei by the people whose computers were supposedly “hacked” by FOIA.org in 2009 may have acted to deceive the law enforcement agencies investigating the release of allegedly confidential information copied in the course of that “hacking.”

    So let’s consider for a moment the thought that the Norfolk goon squad and all the other Myrmidons of law-’n-order, after having been given access to what the University of East Anglia (and their Climatic Research Unit) had said were the records “stolen” by FOIA.org have – with their recent access to the open portion of FOIA2011.zip – realized that they themselves had gotten suckered by the so-called victims of the crime they’d been called upon to investigate.

    It’s like an extortion case in which the cops had received a 2009 complaint that the alleged offender was demanding payment from his wealthy target to forestall exposure of the target’s past history of sexual harassment, and now the police have discovered that in addition to the earlier proofs of workplace groping and dirty jokes, the extortionist had computer records proving that the target had been complicit in MF Global’s “disappearance” of $1.2 billion in client funds, and there was reason to suspect that FOIA.org had encrypted the target’s Swiss bank account numbers in that “all.7z” file.

    Whoops!

    What Ian W had called “the known files” (from FOIA2009.zip) have certainly been subjected to “damage limitation” by the C.R.U. correspondents. We can reliably infer that the U.E.A./C.R.U. administrators had made their “hacked” email servers accessible to the fuzz two years ago. The various law enforcement agencies would have insisted on that much so that they could determine what had been “stolen” and could be used as evidence when (if) they apprehended FOIA.org.

    Okay. Ian W now considers the possibility that what’s been found in the “clear emails” open to immediate viewing in the FOIA2011.zip file were not to be found by the police when they were given access to what the University of Easy Access had said were the records which had been “hacked” in 2009.

    So now instead of knowing what to expect next ‘they’ [the government thugs serving in lieu of legitimate police] have no idea what is in the encrypted [tranche of FOIA2011.zip]. If [the all.7z file contents are also compressed there could be a LOT of email and document files there. The genie is truly out of the bottle and someone has the magic words to release the information.

    Not only that, but the police would be faced with the fact that their “witnesses for the prosecution” have been lying to them, doctoring the information provided two years ago, possibly to conceal criminal offenses perpetrated by the administrators and other personnel of the U.E.A./C.R.U., offenses which the police have only in the past month been quite uncomfortably obliged by the release of FOIA2011.zip to confront.

    They were called in to catch the kids who lifted the parson’s garden gate, and now they’re finding that the pranksters had discovered proof of the parson’s practice of burying murder victims in the rutabaga patch.

    Oh, a policeman’s lot is not a happy one….

  160. Aussie says:

    @Tucci and Ian W – who is going to write the Agatha Christie novel setting all of this out as a detective story (Hercule Poirot of course) setting out all of the details and pointing to the real culprit in the sage? :)

    There is a lot of food for thought in what you are both saying regarding why it was necessary to raid the home of a blogger.

    The big question on my mind: who will be next?

  161. Brian H says:

    Aussie commented on Breaking News: Norfolk Police to hand over Climategate inquiry.

    @Eli, how can there be a theft if the emails exist on the server?

    Theft of highly prized secrecy and concealment!
    That’s the logic, if ‘theft’ is involved.

  162. Aussie says:

    @BrianH,
    exactly… secrecy, concealment…..caught with their pants down… spin, spin, spin.

    We still have no evidence either way that there was a hack, let alone any theft. What we have is a release of emails that should be in the public domain via FOIA.

    There should be no secrecy involving this research.

    Whilst I am not technically a scientist, it seems that by having an economics degree I am somehow in that category. As such, I feel that I can comment upon the integrity that is required of those who are in the science profession.

    As an Australian I have felt quite disgusted about the way in which these people have been lying and scaremongering. I take a common sense approach to the subject, and that includes using historical evidence or data and in this case it is my own past experiences. Those experiences have included extreme heat at more than 100F( Melbourne 1959) floods ( Richmond-Windsor Hawkesbury River 1978) and a cyclone (Aivu Townsville 1989). Almost every summer there have been bushfires whether I am living in NSW or Victoria, but at least they have not been close to where I live. Most bushfires are deliberately lit, and the many are started because people flick their cigarette butts out of car windows.

    As a child I lived opposite several divisions of the CSIRO in Melbourne. These included dairy research, building research and I think the other was mechanical engineering. They did some really good work in those buildings, inclduing the development of housing that could withstand cyclones. Those scientists had ethics about how they did their research. There was none of the secrecy that we see from the “climate scientists”.

    Thanks to the activists within Greenpeace, the WWF etc, it seems like the world has gone crazy, and there is plenty of junk science these days. It is not just globull warming. There are other things such as the adoption of the BMI, and yes I think we should go back to the way we used to measure weight because it made more sense (we have different bone structure which is not taken into account with the BMI scales). Another area of concern for me is my own doubts about the movement against genetically manipulated food produce. This year a wheat crop was destroyed in the ACT (not far from where I live). The experimental crops related to stripping out gluten from wheat. The way that Greenpeace carried on you would think that we had never used new strains of wheat before now. What they ignore is that Sir William Farrer experimented with wheat seeds in order to produce a rust free strain of wheat. These experiments are no different than those experiments by Farrer. The movement against the GMO seems to be based upon dodgy results from experiments. Greenpeace have been destroying a lot of crops that would in the long term do things such as producing a strain of potato in Ireland that would be free of blight. Then of course their antics mean that Africa is also been deprived of seed that would be drought resistant.

    People like Mann and Jones have given science a bad name. I could say the same about Dr. William McBride who destroyed his career when he tried to help someone with a child that had a birth defect. In that case results were falsified and McBride was eventually found out. This was the man who had made the connection between Thalidomide and birth defects, but he got carried away in trying to prove the same about Debendox. (I had three children and took Debendox during 3 pregnancies without any sign of birth defects.).

  163. Aussie says:

    just read the post from TFN, and it sounds very logical.

    It makes sense to look at the aspect of “domestic terror”. A few clues here: foia now uses “we” suggesting that a group of people is behind the release of the emails.

    However, it is the fact that Jones and co actually slur those who are opposed to his bad science as terrorists and extremists that would lead to that particular unit of police being involved.

    We know that such claims are not true about certain people, BUT we know nothing about foia.

    If the UEA is claiming that the leak is the work of domestic extremists, and that those opposed to the theory of CAGW are extremists then this is the purpose of such action being taken.

    The problem here is that it is in fact Greenpeace who are the domestic terrorists. How come they are seen as something that is good when they commit acts of terrorism all the time?

  164. Brian H says:

    Aussie;
    I guess it’s because Greenpeace commits ‘good’ terrorism?

    >;p

  165. RichardSCourtney says:

    IanW and Tucci:

    Thankyou for your above conversation which discussed the possibility that CG2 may contain emails NOT on the UEA server provided to the police as part of an earlier investigation.

    Yes, as you say, if that possibility were the case then it does push the present investigation back towards investigation of the Team (and above at December 21, 2011 at 8:33 pm I spelled-out that a turn against the Team is one possible reason for the raid on Tallbloke).

    Happy New Year to all.

    Richard