CLIMATEGATE: The U.K. police have closed an investigation into the email hacking at the University of East Anglia that triggered death threats for climate scientists such as Phil Jones.
Image: University of East Anglia
LONDON -- Police in eastern England have closed a two-and-a-half-year investigation into the 2009 "Climategate" email thefts without identifying any suspects but exonerating the staff at the targeted University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU).
The online theft and subsequent double release of thousands of carefully selected documents, emails and files relating to the unit's work put fire into the belly of the climate skeptic lobby and triggered death threats to CRU leader Phil Jones and his staff.
"Looking at the overall status of the investigation, and in view of the imminent three-year deadline under the Computer Misuse Act, we concluded there was no realistic prospect of mounting a prosecution in that time scale, so we decided to conclude," said Detective Chief Superintendent Julian Gregory, the senior investigating officer.
"We did investigate the staff at the UEA in the Climatic Research Unit. We didn't find anything which supported that anybody was involved. With what I know about the way the attack was conducted, the level of sophistication involved, my personal view is that it is very unlikely that it was anyone from the UEA," he said by telephone from Norfolk police headquarters in Wymondham about 110 miles northeast of London.
Gregory said the attacker or attackers used a series of proxy servers as cutoffs in a network that crisscrossed the globe to remotely hack into a backup server in the CRU between September and November 2009 when the first batch was released on the Internet just ahead of the U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark. The second batch was published two years later just before the U.N. climate conference in Durban, South Africa.
The emails purported to show that the CRU scientists had tried to manipulate, twist or bury data that did not support the theory of human-induced climate change.
"The data, the emails in particular, were selectively taken and portrayed in a way which appears to have been intended to undermine the scientists and therefore the validity of their science, and it was published on the Internet in the run-up to two major climate change conferences," Gregory said.
"The conclusion you are led to is that it was done with the intention of influencing the outcome of those conferences," he added.
Not only did the theft fuel the flagging skeptic lobby, but it raised serious questions about climate science among the general public in view of the high-level finger-pointing that followed the virtual collapse of the Copenhagen meeting.
But a total of eight inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean have since cleared the climate scientists of wrongdoing and endorsed their findings that climate change is happening and exacerbated by human activities -- although at least one criticized a lack of transparency in their workings.
Activists say skeptics will be 'defeated' by science
Gregory said the UEA had, as a result of the hacking, changed its computer security protocols, and he expected that other institutions would probably have done likewise, but he said there inevitably would be a downside.
"The universities are academic institutions that exist for research. Part of that ethos is about being open and accessible and facilitating that kind of activity. Having to make access more difficult for security reasons presents something of a conundrum," he said.
During the 30-month investigation, which cost nearly £85,000 ($134,000) in overtime and expenses, Gregory was bombarded with 25 requests for information under the United Kingdom's Freedom of Information Act. These requests, all of which must be answered, included how many climate skeptic books had been bought, details of train trips taken, a breakdown of monthly costs and how many death threats had been received by CRU staff.
See what we're tweeting about
19 Comments
Add CommentThe people responsible for this hacking can't be found because they are corporations and corporations are people too. Just ask a conservative majority Supreme Court. The fact that it happened in the UK and not America is irrelevant. These are multinational corporations which operate as if they were above the law no matter where they do business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe real problem the world has to face now is that there is no effective way to punish a corporation anymore. We can't sentence a Corporation to a jail term and unless a fine is big enough to bankrupt them they just grow another head like the mythical Hydra when you cut one off.
I know a lot of people who read these articles will disagree and come back with straw man arguments or ad hominem attacks to refute this comment in an effort to show they weren't hoodwinked by these criminals, but it won't change the fact that history will in the end prove that the science was correct. By then the corporations will have seized upon another way to fleece us all with patents and lawyers that will rip us off for the solar power and the windmills and every other alternative energy that we can find to power our own homes and cool the overheating planet we must now all accept as the new reality.
Just one more note on this entire affair.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is ironic that these multinationals can put in requests for freedom of information on any government entity, but there is no way even the government can do the same to corporations without a congressional hearing and even that can be avoided for matters outside of our own borders.
Sounds like a job for the internet public. Release what they've found, there are savvy enough people out there to trace them down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Hungry Doggy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are seriously misinformed. Here is the data with references to the methodology:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Those files have been out for ever and the fake skeptics have done NOTHING with them. Which tells me that all the noise was not about good science but propaganda.
No Hungry Doggy what are YOU going to do with those files?
Did anyone notice this statement?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"We did investigate the staff at the UEA in the Climatic Research Unit. We didn't find anything which supported that anybody was involved. With what I know about the way the attack was conducted, the level of sophistication involved, my personal view is that it is very unlikely that it was anyone from the UEA,"
So much for the transparent falsehood that the fake skeptics have been peddling that it was a insider leak.
Correction. This sentence, "No Hungry Doggy what are YOU going to do with those files?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShould read as, "Now Hungry Doggy what are YOU going to do with those files?"
three questions:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. what happened to the original, and unedited, data?
2. why is it that the climate modelers do not publish their data and methods so that they can be tested
3.http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
Evosburgh Said: 1. what happened to the original, and unedited, data?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrent Said: Do you guys need to be handheld through the entire thing? From that very same link I gave and you gave I find a data filed titled "Absolute". Try reading the links some time. And just to go that extra mile from that same page I find:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem4/landstations.htm
Which then says:
"The file gives the locations and names of the stations used at some time (i.e. in the gridding that is used to produce CRUTEM4) during the period from 1850 to 2010. All these stations have sufficient data to calculate 30-year averages for 1961-90..."
Now why is it you guys have done absolutely nothing with the data? Nada. Zilch. Zero.
But hold it. Allow me to go that extra, extra mile and point you to:
http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds570.0/
From the page I find:
"This world monthly surface station climatology has data for over 4700 different stations (2600 in more recent years). Data for some stations goes as far back as the mid-1700's. See decadal coverage for more detail. Most of the data was obtained directly from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), Asheville, North Carolina. However, much of the data prior to 1951 came from John Wolbach of Harvard College Observatory, who contracted to have this data key entered at NCDC. The first six months of 1961 were key entered at NCAR. Sharon Nicholson, Florida State University, provided African precipitation data to extend the records of over 250 stations. Dennis Shea, NCAR/CGD, has been a valuable source for data obtained directly from various countries."
Why is it I can find this stuff in spades and yet you so called skeptics can not find it, much less do anything with it? So when you going to get busy? It has been YEARS and still you clowns have done NOTHING.
Evosburgh Said: 2. why is it that the climate modelers do not publish their data and methods so that they can be tested
Trent Said: Why do you make blatantly false accusations?
A simple Google Scholar search reveals paper upon paper talking about methodology, data sets, etc.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=global+climate+models+data&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=zEwKUJnfGe7q2wXwsYHqDw&ved=0CFcQgQMwAA
Shall I go that extra mile again? Here is a just one model code for you: ftp://ftp.giss.nasa.gov/pub/modelE/
Everything I have listed has been available for YEARS. Why is it that the "skeptics" have done nothing with it?
The "skeptic" case is one of self imposed ignorance.
Evosburgh, you know multiple amateurs have downloaded this data and without any adjustments or homogenization pretty much reproduced the professional record? Hell, one guy recently went looking for rural stations with longest record and still reproduced the surface record with out any adjustments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/wheres-the-skepticism/#comment-64248
Now here is the kicker. He did all that work in just three days. Why is it the skeptics have taken years?
Here are the results:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0pXYsr8qYS6YU53a2w0dFJxQmc/edit?pli=1
So what is your excuse?
I would be much more interested in examining the data
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthey twisted ignored or manipulated.
Science does not throw out or discourage the use of
data that does not agree with your pre conceived notion.
Climatologists do.
The earth has undergone climate change since the beginning so any data collected over a few hundred yrs
may be interesting but is irrelevent. You can speculate
as to its cause but there is no proof.One way or the other.
The industrialized nations will continue to loose jobs and gnp and a massive wealth transfer is ocuring to third world countries .....and they have much less regard for the environment than we do....By making the cost of doing business in the developed world prohibitive the environmental movement is unleashing millions of automobiles and other polluting devices onto
the world that wouldn't otherwise exist. Thats the problem with acedemics and hollywood wackos is that they
don't look beyond the nice touchy feely things to the real world.
@Trent1492, "So what is your excuse?", their excuse is simple; they know the facts don't support their claims so they do what right wing fanatics do - they lie. They have no interest in knowing the truth. That's why they don't do any science. Their only interest is in maintaining the status quo. So they don't need to prove anything, all they need to do is create enough doubt that the general public will not support the changes required to fix the situation. Their behaviour is proof positive of this. How many times have you posted the same rebuttal to the same argument from the same troll? How easy is it to find the answers to the "questions" they post here? They aren't here to find out the truth and they aren't here with legitimate criticisms, they are here to sow the seeds of fear and doubt. That is the number 1 strategy of right wing fanatics. As I've said, the deniers are sociopaths that would gladly sacrifice the world in order to pad their pockets today. I've also said that you can't cure paranoia with facts, well you can't cure evil with them either.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@Rodestar,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are making a presumption that there was data that was manipulated. Considering that fake skeptics such as your self refuse to tell us exactly what papers and data have been corrupted and provide no corroborating evidence I find your accusations to be baseless and the product of corporate propaganda. Disagree? Then pony up on the details.
Now considering that in posts #10 and #11 direct links to the station data is given and has been available for years I wonder why you are ignorant of it?
Rodestar Says: The earth has undergone climate change since the beginning so any data collected over a few hundred yrs may be interesting but is irrelevent.
Trent Says: If you had the complete and in detail record of the Earth's climate for the past 4.5 billion years how would it PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR or against humans inducing climate change happening NOW?
Rodestar Says: You can speculate as to its cause but there is no proof.
Trent Says: Science does not operate on proofs but best evidence. The evidence for climate change is large and damming. That you kept your self ignorant of that evidence is not the fault of the scientific community.
Here let us try some evidence: Back in 1967 it was predicted that the stratosphere would cool while the troposphere warmed because CO2 would capture more out going IR waves. That has been observed.
Recent Stratospheric Climate Trends as Evidenced in Radiosonde Data: Global Structure and Tropospheric Linkages
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3585.1
Now that is just one piece of evidence. There is plenty more that I am sure you are ignorant of. Don't you think it is time you started reading the science instead of being a credulous propagator of fossil fuel interests lies?
Trent the Crusader, I applaud your efforts. The problem is that it's much easier to post than it is to look for data, much less re-analyze it. Besides, if they were actually capable of doing something with the data, they'd already know where to find it and they wouldn't be skeptics.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Activists say skeptics will be 'defeated' by science"
Ultimately, perhaps, but it will be too late, and being able to say "I told you so" is no solace when one has to watch severe consequences that were once avoidable but have become inevitable.
"I would be much more interested in examining the data they twisted ignored or manipulated," well it is clear that you haven't taken the time to look at ANY data, including this article. All you have done is stolen some B.S. from denier blogs. It amazes me the low moral character of individuals such as yourself who take such a firm stand on a subject they haven't taken a second to understand. Did you really think that quoting other ignorant people would make you look smart? Did you think that being a contrarian would make you look like a trail blazer? Sorry, didn't work. Making claims about something you know nothing about makes you look like an idiot and a shill. Congratulations, you have reach the apex of your personal evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow, trent, sinking fly, and schmitty fussing amongst yourselves. Y'all must be bored silly with your regular nemesis' not coming on board to straighten y'all out. Have fun!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRodestar99,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this>>By making the cost of doing business in the developed world prohibitive the environmental movement is unleashing millions of automobiles and other polluting devices onto the world that wouldn't otherwise exist.<<
One would suppose this means that keeping the Third World in the Medieval Ages would be the solution to avoid global warming. Somehow I think it would not work.
While the economic model is quantitative, focused on raw growth (instead of, for instance, qualitative, focused on efficiency, or at least a double bottom line) there will always be more cars, wherever there is growth.
1) Considering fossil fuels are limited, we would be smart to grasp the moment of relative peace and stability to develop right now all the technology we need for a post-oil economy and logistics (even in the absence of any climatic effects).
2) And considering natural resources in general are limited we should be working on a world effort, such as through a Framework Convention, to control overpopulation and reduce the world population to manageable levels.
If we address these two things right now, we have a good chance of preserving civilization. Everyone wins. If we don’t, we may be painting ourselves into a corner.
Postman, I don’t think skeptics into simple denial are going to be making much of a bang, now things are becoming quite incontestable, with the Northwest Passage open, wild storms and heat waves all over, etc.
Now that Arctic Methane outgassing has effectively doubled the GHG output, things are going to start happening faster. Development planners will need to know the real worst case scenario for Climate Proofing, such as how high can sea levels get if things run entirely amuck and so forth.
@Postman,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think you need to polish up on your reading comprehension skills. Try reading through the thread, again.
Trent1492 wrote, "Now why is it you guys have done absolutely nothing with the data? Nada. Zilch. Zero."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWorse than than that; they make up their own bogus data and provide no source information, no methodology, nada, zilch, zero. See the following:
http://www.kaltesonne.de/?p=4006
Jan-Erik Solheim, a Norwegian professor, published on June 15, 2012, his "observed" temperature data in a rebuke of James Hansen's 1988 study.
It appears to be bogus. The only description he gave of his data was "Die schwarze Kurve gibt die letztendlich real gemessen Temperatur an (gleitendes 5-Jahresmittel)."
Translated using google: "The black curve is the ultimate real-measured temperature (rolling 5-year average)."
I guess he finds it not important to disclose his source and methodology. How can anyone take his research serious? The data curve that he provided doesn't even look like a rolling 5-yr avg. It looks more like a 1-yr rolling average. Peaks and troughs are too extreme for a 5yr average.
rodestar99 wrote, "The industrialized nations will continue to loose jobs and gnp and a massive wealth transfer is ocuring to third world countries."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho do think is benefitting from that "wealth transfer?" It large corporations and wealthy (or I forgot to be PC and call them "job creators"). Mitt Romney has greatly benefitted from outsourcing -- that the main methodology of Bain Capital in reducing costs of the firms they "invest" in.
Also, it's called GDP not GNP (GNP hasn't been used since the 1990s).