Bishop Hill Pump up the volume
Dec 16, 2011 Climate: CRU Climate: other My view of yesterday's raid on Tallbloke Towers is that it is a storm in a teacup. Aware of the new disclosures, it was necessary for the police in the UK to see if they could get any new leads from RC's electronic trail. They were preposterously heavy-handed of course, but it seems clear that Tallbloke is not a suspect. Reactions by those who think this is the start of a war on sceptics seem overwrought to me, although perhaps not quite as daft as those who seem to think that Tallbloke is RC.
However, the involvement of the police does seem to have ramped things up a notch or two. Some people have been prompted to think much harder about legal avenues, in particular Christopher Monckton, who seems to think that a charge of fraud can be made to stick against the denizens of CRU. I can't see it myself, but I will watch with interest.
Meanwhile, SM notes that the police who raided Tallbloke may be on dodgy legal ground.
Reader Comments (105)
All,
Thanks for the comments. I'm much clearer now.
That's why I like this place so much. Being the thicky in the room means that I can learn from absolutely everyone. :)
I can't help but recall Alan Plater's 'The Beiderbecke Tapes', transmitted by Yorkshire Television some years ago. But this is reality, and perhaps a little more serious ...
RB, none of my business and of course you don't have to confirm or deny, but are you the Richard Brearley who offered some rather good legal advice at CA some time ago?
There is another interpretation.
Let's assume that the rest of the emails have really explosive material. If the police knows, so does Whitehall. Somebody there may have decide that it is time to distance themselves from silly climate related politics that may ruin a country at a time of crisis. It wouldn't be very appropriate for the police to release the records directly, but a simpler avenue would be to put a bit of pressure on FOIA on the hope that he/she unlocks the explosives.
Just speculating, after reading some more Le Carre ...
Storm in a tea cup?
Where is the Andrew Montford that wrote the Hockey Stick Illusion?
If "foia" had put the first link in a comment here, it would have been Andrew Montford that had the knock on the door in the middle of the night and smeared forever with criminal activity.
No smoke without fire, that's the purpose with this raid.
Patagon:
Very ingenious. I like that. But are our masters really that subtle?
"With the US DOJ involved, it's really all about politics."
I have to re-emphasize what cedarhill is saying. The US DOJ is not some impartial enforcement agency. The US Govt is corrupted and the US DOJ is just an extension of that corruption. This is something that everyone needs to understand.
Andrew
I suspect the plan is to examine all of the communication logs at WordPress involving the 3 skeptic sites where the releases were initially sent, correlate them for common addresses, and then pursue the individuals involved who appear at the three sites, particularly their behaviors on the Internet. Likely there will be several hundred addresses making the final list, Expect more "Knock Knock" events in the near future within the UK and also the USA.
I don't think so. You all forget that the Bish himself resides in the UK, and has a far higher profile sceptic site than Roger. FOIA also posted here. This raid was a showcase raid. They probably realised they had some budget to spend before the end of the year.
Good lead post from Andrew which is a nice counter balance to some of the wild posts that various people are making.
My view is that RC/FOIA have a primary motivation not to get caught and this out weighs their secondary motivation which is to release the material but to not look bad by releasing material that should not be released.
The police will be trying to obtain evidence that they can use should they ever establish who did the "unauthorised release" with any certainty. They will only likely succeed if RC confesses, an associate of RC blabs, they find RC in possession of unencrypted material that is not already released or they follow a trail from one of the releases to them.
The latest police activity looks primarily concerned with evidence gathering in case they can fully construct a trail. If there are other motivations then perhaps they will become more apparent over time.
It may be a storm in a teacup, but should the pass-phrase to Climategate 3.0 be revealed here, (which it certainly could be) then the Bish will be raided! If this were my blog, I would definitely be making preparations for a visit from half a dozen cops with nothing better to do than steal my laptop and router.
Of course there was an over-reaction. But the main significance is that the climategate-2 story is getting more media attention. There is now an article in the Telegraph, though it does not add anything new.
[TBYJ, I don't think it's true that FOIA posted here]
@ Richard Verney
Richard I will bow to your greater knowledge on the level of proof required to pursue a civil claim involving fraud.
Interesting that most of the comment is on the storm-in-a-teacup aspect whereas I really see Lord Monckton's initiative as the one worthy of comment. I hope I am not wrong and Monckton's claim does proceed. The only way I see the white light of truth being shone into the murky depths of climatolgy is via the courts. MP's are in it up to their necks. MSM seems unwilling to pick up the ball and run with it. Jim'll Fix It is dead and it seems that the Super heroes that I admired as a child are all fictional.
Dolphinhead
Re: TBYJ,
FOIA didn't post here which means the police had no excuse for obtaining either the logs or a search warrant.
Oooo, I thought he/she did. Wonder why not? That's suspicious. The Bish deserves a raid just for that!! :)
The Norfolk constabulary, all six visitants, are mere tools of climate kooks' Green Gang of reactionary Statists, sociopathic Luddites without a grain of common decency, acting in bad faith under false pretenses as they have for years.
As Lord Moncton understands, such episodes are but symptoms of Warmists' degenerative social disease. We truly hope that RC aka Tallbloke will pursue legal remedies, including full discovery, to name whoever is behind this stupid farce.
From Jonova's blog today:
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/skeptic-blogger-raided-by-the-police-because-he-was-sent-a-link-to-the-climategate-2-release/
For background see:
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2011/11/24/some-thoughts-and-some-questions-about-the-climategate-2-0-release/
With respect to Christopher Monckton's proposed accusation of fraud, hasn't the only court case in this area so far been the challenge to showing "An Inconvenient Truth" in our schools?
We won that one.
Quercus
You've just reminded me. I've got the DVD set and I haven't watched it yet.I feel an evening's nostalgia coming on ...
I do wonder if the US and Canadian legal systems, when approached for a warrant to seize hardware from Steve M and Jeff I, told the plods in no uncertain terms to F-Off.
Whereas in the UK, of course, we bow to any request from the US.
I was very surprised about the Tallbloke raid. My view is, and always has been, that UEA know the identity of the culprit. Whether Norfolk plod know this is another matter. I've always assumed that, taken together with the orchestration of the 'inquiries', the actions of Norfolk police was to 'make the problem go away', by applying a discrete boot into the long grass.
Either Norfolk plod are idiots or someone in power is very happy for them to appear so if it takes the heat off revealing an uncomfortable answer to the 'hacking' question.
The raid, however, calls that theory into question, simply because no one attempting to keep the 'hack' issue on the QT could have been so impossibly stupid as to hand skeptics a chance to involve civil law in response to clumsy and over-bearing policing. The last thing the authorities need is all the powers of disclosure that would come from such any civil investigation of how the raid decision was made.
It is safe for them to annoy loud mouths and loonies, but It is truly stupid for the authorities (when they have something to hide) to piss off pedantic, careful, patient people .
I'm still finding it a bit difficult to come to terms with the fact that I live in a society where the police can stroll in to my home and help themselves to any material they mind find interesting.
I understand that this may be necessary when searching for evidence of serious crime or stolen goods, and it is true that a magistrate can issue a warrant for premises where the occupier has no connection with the alleged offence - but I had a look at the rules on the Liberty website and they include the following:-
Magistrates should only issue warrants under this section if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the police will not be able to obtain access to the evidence without a warrant, for example, if consent will not be forthcoming.
Now, Tallbloke had been interviewed by the police previously and been fully co-operative - so why would there be any grounds for believing he wouldn't comply with a simple request to co-operate this time?
It looks to me as if there has been an abuse of process here.
I have never understood why the media makes such a play over whether the emails were leaked or whether it was theft. How they got in the public domain is not the issue. The only issue is the contents of the emails and whether that content is of note or concern. As far as the media is concerned the debate should be centred around the content...............
Dec 16, 2011 at 10:52 AM | richard verney
--------------------
The warmists make much play of the e-mails being stolen because that distracts attention from the contents and discredits those interested in them as criminals or ready to profit from a criminal activity. It's a smear tactic. Hackers, script kiddies, nerdy irresponsible types with no regard for legality or the greater good, the kind of people who write viruses. It isn't rational, it works at the level of a superficial examination and emotion.
I seem to recall that when Jon Snow interviewed Ross Mckitrick after Climategate 1 he asked him if he'd been involved in hacking.
In general, the press likes this because it's easier than analysing the material and is a good yarn where they can speculate about Chinese and Russian hackers endlessly.
I see the continuing Norfolk police involvement as a move to keep the stolen emails red-herring going as long as possible. If this hadn't had political reverberations to very high levels, the police might have looked at it, would rapidly come to the conclusion that it was hopeless to find the culprit, and closed the file, there being better things to spend their time on such as serious fraud.
In a free society, I think it is very troubling that the police would conduct a night-time raid on the home of an on-line journalist to seize the computers that they think he used for his journalistic work. Regardless of the intent, it does have the effect of intimidating bloggers.
mpaul
Which may be the idea since lying, bullying, ad hom attacks, mockery, accusations of being shills, and other unpleasant juvenile (and in some cases possibly even illegal) behaviour hasn't worked.It looks more and more as if we have blundered into something resembling a major Mafia scam from 20s Chicago. Like Prohibition only more so.
One of us is going to wake up sharing his bed with a piece of horse if they have their way.
I think someone very concerned with upholding the reputation of UEA, lets call him 'A', blew a fuse over Climategate 2. 'A' made his feelings known in no uncertain terms to 'B', for example someone in high scientific political office. Let us surmise that 'B' had a word or two with someone extremely high, maybe even 'C'. And lo and behold, action, Take 2.
I think I've solved it.
Mann had a hissy fit following CG2.0. Screamed down the phone to Phil "you got to do something this time". Phil & co. have a confab. "What are we to do? We all know what an embarrassment this Mann has been for years. Now the skeptics are onto him, and if he continues misbehaving we're all going to fall like ninepins after him. What shall we do? Ah, Fenton (Futerra) (etc). Let's ask them to do something that will shut him up."
"Futerra speaking. We've worked it out. We'll arrange to send in the plod to one of our UK bloggers what got the FOIA message. Send in a whole cohort. Make it look alarming. Nothing serious is going to happen of course. But those bloggers, they'll have the news of this round the world before Mickey can raise an eyebrow. That'll calm him down. OK? Oh, by the way, no emails about this of course ho ho."
One wonders if any complaints about the actions of the Vice-Chancellor (Edward Acton) and the Chancellor (Brandon Gough) of UEA have been addressed to the University Visitor who has oversight and, if there have been complaints, why there has been no action.
Perhaps the answer could be that the Visitor is The Lord President of the Council. The current Lord President is Nick Clegg MP.
Monckton suggests a "charge of fraud"? That's too funny,but utterly true to form. What a funny old rogue he is!
@ richard verney Dec 16, 2011 at 10:52 AM Your postings often show a familiarity with U.K. law. Perhaps you are a solicitor or barrister or have worked closely with some.
On the West side of the pond, law firms often require a certain amount of pro bono work on the part of associates and partners. If this is the case on the Eastern side of the pond. perhaps you or some of your colleagues may know of a firm or three that might be willing to enter into the fray on TB's behalf as a part of their pro bono program.
The more appropriate charges in the United Kingdom are:
Conspiracy to Defraud - n.b. this is NOT fraud per se.
Misconduct in Public Office
There's not a jury in the land that'd let the perps walk on these two....
Lord Monkton - are you reading this?
If you want to check out the validity of my assertion look no further than Google - the guidance for prosecutors is all there.
It's a slam dunk.
Patagpon: "There is another interpretation.
Let's assume that the rest of the emails have really explosive material. If the police knows, so does Whitehall. Somebody there may have decide that it is time to distance themselves from silly climate related politics that may ruin a country at a time of crisis. It wouldn't be very appropriate for the police to release the records directly, but a simpler avenue would be to put a bit of pressure on FOIA on the hope that he/she unlocks the explosives.
Just speculating, after reading some more Le Carre ..."
I find this a brilliant insight. To carry it a bit further, does anyone really suppose that the pertinent plaintexts from the encrypted emails are not in the hands of those on high who are in a position where they can insist on getting them? Assuming that they Know what is there and might be able to surmise what the effect of its publication might be. Why not assume that the encrypted emails contain sufficient embarrassment for the powers-that-be (preferably past not present) that publication could create such a storm as to support the repeal of some of the expensive, onerous legislation passed in recent years.
Accordingly, as Patagon so insightfully suggests, powerful people with knowledge of email content will continue to prod in the hope of provoking release of the encryption key.
OMG, leave the second "p" out of Patagon.
People seem to overlook the fact that (some probable deletions aside) all the ClimateGate I, II and III e-mails reside on servers still in Police custody and on the thumb-drives the UEA obtained for non-analysis by their chosen inexpert (Sommer) and they are all in unencrypted form save for a few which might be encoded. Even the UEA is competent to read them.
The person(s) self-named "we" who released the CG1 and CG2 info sees Tallbloke, WP and Jeff Id being suddenly the focus of more aggressive activities of the Norfolk PD.
The police, if they are attentive, probably consider there may soon be more release action by a conscientious "we" if it looks to "we" that innocent skeptic bloggers are being stressed because they involuntarily received the CG2 release.
Therefore, as a scenario, I anticipate some new communication from "we" soon.
John
Clearly US pressure has been brought to bear on UK authorities to do something to shut up bloggers and to be seen to be doing something to stop freedom of speech. This was a deliberate show of force for the benefit of US authorities and to intimidate all other bloggers.
With a cast including the Norfolk Police, the UK intelligence services, the US Dept of Justice, a US congressman and probably the White House this is large scale Fascist manoeuvre worthy of '1984'..
Let us hope that Climategate III contains a bombshell worthy of their efforts.
Meanwhile Mother Nature lowers the temperature on them.
Hi Grant,
Yes, that would be me. Damn Im gonna have to use a new ID for my off the cuff hat now, to stay separate from my boring law hat comments :)
clivere - thank you for explaining what RC means.
Dec 16, 2011 at 8:41 PM | RayG
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
My background is in maritime law, which is a narrow and specialised field. When I was doing my postgraduate studies I wrote a number of articles for a magazine specialising in computers and the law, including an article on Anton Pillar Orders/search and seizure orders. However that was a long long time ago and I have never practiced in that field.
In the UK a lot of lawyers do pro bono work (I have myself) but it is dangerous to do so outside ones usual field of practce. Tallbloke needs someone who specialises in computer law, or someone specialising in copyright/patent infringement where search and seizure orders are common. Unfortunately, my connections do not run in that direction, or otherwise I would gladly see whether I could in some way assist, or introduce someone who may be able to do so.
richard verney Dec 16, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Excellent advice, according to a US lawyer friend who, as I reported in another thread, does not see a case for either theft (as you point out) or copyright infringement. However, there is the question of "hacking". He does not know UK law on that point, but it is possible that that is the charge. He does know a thing or two about that in the US context and says that there should be some collaborating evidence in the form of log entries on the server hacked in order for a case to proceed.
His question is does the Norfork Police have such evidence. That should be disclosed as well.
He also is of the strong opinion that is it really is nothing more than the authorities flexing their muscle illegally to intimate whomever. In that case, the computers will be quietly returned without so much as a thank you.
@ Richard Verney, Yes, maritime law is a rather narrow specialty. As a friend who practiced IP law once said of another area, a mile deep and an inch wide. Perhaps our colloquy will encourage someone else in the UK bar with appropriate credentials to step forward on a pro bono basis in TB's behalf. I think that he is unwise to go without proper representation on both the search and seizure warrant and employment law. As others have mentioned, it is also possible that TB has a basis for libel actions on both sides of the Pond. Any volunteers out there?
FWIW I think Tallbloke should take legal advice on his position wrt the police visit from the point of view of having someone onside to keep everything by the book. IMO his priority should be to protect himself, family and employment from any fall out. Then let the other nonsense pass by.
@ Lucy Skywalker Dec 16, 2011 at 8:09 PM
Lucy, I'm inclined to agree with your hypothesis that there is an element of Manninfestation™ that might have precipitated this [transatlantic?!] "storm in a teacup".
But there is another element one might want to consider [not that it any way reduces the likelihood of your scenario!] ... The Graun's reportage (Nov. 2009 - Feb. 2010) succeeded in naming a number of skeptic names, most [if not all] were "interviewed" by the Norfolk plods [hereinafter N-PLOD] at some point in time.
The one that sticks out for me is the Graun's circa Feb. 4, 2010 piece in which WUWT's Charles the moderator (aka ctm) was mentioned (along with many others of the non-warmist persuasion)
At that point, no one from WUWT had been approached by N-PLOD. Yet 3 weeks later N-PLOD decided to contact ctm!
According to Leo <free speech for me and no comment from thee> Hickman's narrative of Dec. 15/11:
Assuming that this "interview" (which I have been unable to locate on the GraunSite) is not a figment of Hickman's imagination, and which happens to loosely coincide [sorry, haven't been able to pin down exact dates] with the timing of various "leaks" of AR5 ZoD chapters - along with the (probably more important from the MSM Green Machine's perspective) "we don't want to talk about the Durban débacle 'cuz it's really hard to spin our way" ...
Is it possible/plausible that N-PLOD's (overkill) actions had been requested in order to create a press diversion? With the unintended consequence that this is gving far more MSM airtime to CG2 than the Nov. 22 release had previously generated!
Hilary (who has a fondness for the inherent irony in boomerangs!)
I can't help wondering if it's just the UEA bribing the Norfolk constabulary.
Punksta
I can't help wondering if it's just the UEA bribing the Norfolk constabulary.
There would appear to be undue influence. Perhaps not money, per se, but influence. Look to London.
Yes, the "storm in a teacup" take is completely inadequate. (Apologies to the host)
The US DOJ doesn't exist to invite people for tea. They do heavy lifitng. I suspect they break lots of teacups in their daily business.
Andrew
Leo <free speech for me and no comment from thee> Hickman
I like that. There is actually a word for that, but I won't use it.
'Yes, the "storm in a teacup" take is completely inadequate. (Apologies to the host)'
I am inclined to agree with this comment. It appears that the intial push came from the US DoJ or US DoE, but who exactly on this this side of the pond administered the proverbial cattle-prod to Norfolk Plod's backside (a. they aren't bright enough to have taken a trip up to Yorkshire on their own initiative and b. they were probably more interested in sorting out their xmas party)? Was it Central Government, or was it the Con and/or LibDem Party central offices?
I strongly urge re-consideration of this "storm in a teacup" dismissal. While the legal case(s) against bloggers may be tenuous to non-existent, the mere fact of the raid is 'intimidating' (potentially) to many on the web who may want to write and comment on this. Some are braver or better situated than others to handle police scrutiny but NO ONE should have to face police raids merely for having a blog.
As I understand it the FOIA link was merely 'dropped' onto the comments threads at 3 or more blogs. Not the slightest indication of involvement from any of the bloggers.... any reasonable law enforcement quest for IP address info etc. would go to hosting services such as WordPress, etc.
so the only functions of raiding individual bloggers would seem to be (1) intimidation, and (2) collecting vast masses of other (often highly personal) data that go far beyond the purpose of simply tracking the original post by "FOIA"....
In case anyone doubts the outlook and motivations of the CAGW fanatics in govt (and beyond), here is one of the most prominent Congressmen in the USA calling for a full-scale national security type pursuit by all the intel agencies of the federal govt:
Rep. Markey: "these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice.”
btw, and with all respect to our great host, it really isn't relevant to the main issues whether the proprietors Tall Bloke or Bishop Hill do or don't "feel" intimidated or put upon by this raid. Many others across the web in various countries *may* feel intimidation or constraint, especially in relation to employers etc.
For instance, I know ppl who say they simply don't dare be publicly identified as critical of CAGW etc. because they have highly 'progressive' (i.e., delusional) employers who *might* take it greatly amiss to have an employee (even in no connection whatever with employment time or activity) being publicly identified with such a dubious, politically incorrect standpoint.
Yes, it is appalling that people may feel so constrained about speaking out, never mind having a blog of their own, etc. but that is how powerful the pro-CAGW movement is in many quarters.
My point is these kinds of raids may (whether or not it's the primary intention) discourage many people from speaking up or starting a blog of their own etc. Maybe no one ever *should* feel reluctant to advocate their beliefs and positions in a free society, but the *progressive* group-think and hostility toward dissenters is very powerful.... especially when they get themselves imagining that the whole future of the planet is at stake.