Seen elsewhere
The calendar

Click to buy!

Support

 

Twitter
Buy

Click images for more details

Recent posts
Recent comments
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« Emitting nonsense | Main | Orlowski - why 28gate matters »
Monday
Nov192012

Without limitations

Martin Rosenbaum notes in a tweet that the statute of limitations relating to Climategate has now passed.

Come out RC, wherever you are!

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (57)

You might argue that if the perp is an external skeptic hacker, then they should be happy to reveal themselves and bask in the admiration of the multitude.

But if they are an insider still working at CRU we won't hear a thing - they still have a lot to lose.

Let us see....

Nov 19, 2012 at 10:49 AM | Unregistered CommenterDodgy Geezer

It might well depend on pension plan arrangements.

Nov 19, 2012 at 10:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Shade

What if RC revealed that password today? Would the time limit be reset?

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:04 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos

The Lone Ranger kept his identity hidden.We may never know.

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:07 AM | Unregistered CommenterBeth Cooper

Speaking of tweets, looks like that mega-alarmist George Monbiot is in big trouble for tweeting [about] Lord McAlpine [snip]. Looks like Monbiot is going to get sued and the Guardian has publicly stated they will not help him out with legal fees.

If people like Monbiot can be sued for tweeting false information, then what about people like Al Gore and Michael Mann who keep tweeting misinformation related to climate change? Can they be sued for spreading false scientific information that is not backed by scientific evidence? If there's a class action suit, count me in!

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:09 AM | Unregistered CommenterJerry K

Disagree - stay out of the spotlight and avoid the potential for personal consequences.

The emails spoke/speak for themselves.

As did the establishment response.

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:10 AM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

btw - does anyone have a current link to a searchable CRU email database. The elegant chaos one seems to have gone?:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/21/cru-emails-search-engine-now-online/

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered Commenternot banned yet

Rosenbaum just noted on Twitter there could be other possible prosecution avenues, that I suppose are still not-limited

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:24 AM | Registered Commenteromnologos

Time to release the whole lot.

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM | Unregistered CommenterAC1

Most likely RC is someone within the small clique of IPCC-linked climate alarmists, so the truth will never be made public, at least not in our lifetime. Too many powerful people who will go after him and make life hell for him. My money is on Kevin Briffa because from the public Climategate emails, we know he wasn't happy with Mann bad-mouthing and back-stabbing him. In addition, Briffa recently released a new paper that brings back the Medieval Warm Period and effectively disappears mann's hockey stick.

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterGilgamesh

(...)Can they be sued for spreading false scientific information that is not backed by scientific evidence? If there's a class action suit, count me in!
Nov 19, 2012 at 11:09 AM Jerry K


I doubt it. Monbiot pretty clearly libelled someone. Slander and libel laws don't cover the dissemination of scientific bollocks.

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:45 AM | Registered CommenterMartin A

Word on the street is that RC was Kevin Briffa working via a proxy. But don't quote on me on this.

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterMann2Mann

@Martin A

Mann has on several occasions made slanderous/libellous statements against Steve McIntyre. McIntyre should sue him to teach him a lesson.

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM | Unregistered CommenterJerry K

If they do come out and it turns out to be some on the inside Norfolk's police claims will end up looking very silly indeed , or sillier than they already do . If I had to guess , its not Briffa he may not like Mann, where has Mann seems not to like anyone by what he sees in mirror, but his show he is ready and willing to role over for the 'good of the Team ' often enough and his professional life has with the rest of 'the Team' is total tied into 'the cause '

Nov 19, 2012 at 11:57 AM | Unregistered CommenterKnR

@ M2M

That is certainly an interest theory, especially given Briffa co-authoring a recent paper that has gone significantly off the Hockey Team reservation with regard to treatment of proxies.

An optomist might belief Briffa is rediscovering science.

Nov 19, 2012 at 12:12 PM | Unregistered CommenterGeckko

@Gilgamesh @Mann2Mann I think you both mean Keith (not Kevin) Briffa. Note that Briffa did a lot of work in Siberia and the Norfolk police did say that the hacker used a Russian server. So Briffa is a possible suspect but I guess we'll never know.

Nov 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM | Unregistered Commenterssn

I'd love to know the whole story but will RC ever write the book?

Nov 19, 2012 at 12:25 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Briffa was Mann-handled at the 1999 Tanzania meeting of the IPCC to change his data analysis to get rid of the MWP. The MWP had to be got rid of because the 1997 publication of the paper that proved Antarctic Ice CO2 followed T meant modern warming had to be used to calibrate the models. So, Briffa created the decline which had to be hidden and the rest is history. I suspect he is putting the record straight before he retires thereby to clear his conscience.

Nov 19, 2012 at 12:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterAlecM

@AlecM

Deathbed confessions? Now there is an interesting thought

Nov 19, 2012 at 12:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterEternalOptimist

I'm with not banned yet on this one. IMHO, The Saint has served us very well. In light of the appalling way in which Tony Newbery was treated by the quasi-judicial Tribunal, I would not put much faith in the rather ambiguous provisions of the act under which s/he could possibly be charged.

But speaking of Martin Rosenbaum ... in light of the revelations of the past few weeks (as summarized by Orlowski), it would be interesting to know what hoops and/or hurdles "Climategate Revisited" might have had to pass prior to getting the go-ahead for broadcast.

Knowing now what a few might have known or - suspected - then, it's almost a "miracle" that this reasonably balanced program actually made it to air!

Perhaps it was the inclusion of (Ret) Det. Insp. Julian Gregory's dutiful recitation of the officially approved myths that helped smooth the way, e.g. from the transcript:

Julian Gregory: It was a case that caused me to take a deep breath. When I was first briefed - one night at home - it was very apparent to me that there would be significant global interest in it. If you then make the link through to the publication of the data in a way which would appear to have been intended to influence the climate conference - and world-wide debate on climate change - you then get right to the highest level that this has got the potential to influence every person on this planet.

[and]

Chris Vallance: Although, of course, an insider could decide to hack in from the outside perhaps in order to disguise their identity. But Gregory does see a possible link to the series of Freedom of Information requests sent to the CRU:

Julian Gregory: I'm hypothesising here: you know I can't say for sure that the apparently orchestrated campaign of FOI requests is directly linked to the hack. But there is a potential link.

Chris Vallance: There's, if you like, an association between the FOI's and the hack that is suggested?

Julian Gregory: Yes that would be right. It's suggested but we can't prove it.

I cannot imagine who might have made such a "suggestion". I've been taking a look at the various statements and documents from Norfolk's finest, and while I haven't completed this yet, I haven't come across any action they've taken - or document produced - which wasn't preceded (and could just as easily have been precipitated) by a media report. Beginning with the fact that (according to Gregory) the alleged "crime" was not reported to the police until Nov. 20 - three days after CRU had supposedly been made aware of the "breach", and one day after Nov. 19 when the release of the emails actually became public knowledge.

All of which, of course, could be yet another series of mere coincidences :-)

Nov 19, 2012 at 12:41 PM | Registered CommenterHilary Ostrov

EternalOptimist,

I'm not sure what way you intended that but it did make me think of Briffa being very unwell in 2009.

Nov 19, 2012 at 12:43 PM | Unregistered CommenterGareth

....McIntyre should sue him to teach him a lesson.
Nov 19, 2012 at 11:55 AM Jerry K

Steve McIntyre has made it clear he does not think suing people is a good way to address such things. I can imagine what he thinks of Mann, but teaching Mann a lesson is not on his agenda, as I understand what he has said. I'd suggest respecting his views on this matter.

Nov 19, 2012 at 12:45 PM | Registered CommenterMartin A

@AlecM just speculating but could RC be someone close to Briffa who was appalled at the way he was treated by Mann and fellow IPCC goons (Trenbeth, Jones, etc.). Who has worked closest with Briffa all these years and is good with computers? I understand that at one time Briffa was quite ill when Steve McIntyre contacted him, I think this was just before the climategate emails came out.

Nov 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterCharles

> but teaching Mann a lesson is not on his agenda,

Every time Steve McIntyre talks about one of Mann's papers he teaches him a lesson about how not to use statistics.

But, as the saying goes, you can lead a Mann to water but you can't make him drink it.

Nov 19, 2012 at 1:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterTerryS

manbigot ... release the hounds

Nov 19, 2012 at 1:15 PM | Unregistered Commenterconfused

Has RC just spoken at the Air Vent? There's a comment from one RC that says:

"What a relief. But there is still the SoL on second release, and then the third release…"

(Jeff thinks it is unwise to come forward yet.)

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/climategate-season/#comments

Nov 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM | Unregistered CommenterBebben

you can lead a Mann to Statistics but you can't make him think.

Nov 19, 2012 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterAC1

I don't buy the 'it was Briffa' argument at all. Firstly he was in poor health at the time. Secondly he himself comes across very badly in the emails.
In 1054748574.txt and 4951.txt he abuses his position as journal editor by telling reviewers that they are expected to recommend rejection.
In 5027.txt and 2023.txt, discussing the EOS attack paper on Soon and Baliunas, he says to Wigley and Bradley, who were having doubts about the validity of some of the data in the paper, that it's perfectly OK to sign up as an author of the paper even if you know that some of the data in it is bad.

n b y, for searchable database try
http://di2.nu/foia/foia.pl
or
http://foia2011.org/

Nov 19, 2012 at 2:34 PM | Registered CommenterPaul Matthews

Well done guys! You guessed.

It was me!

RC

Nov 19, 2012 at 2:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterRC

RC: You mean "It was I".

Nov 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhillip Bratby

In this litigious climate can i just stress that it was not me!

Nov 19, 2012 at 3:37 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpartacus

Spartacus - google "Excusatio non petita" please

Nov 19, 2012 at 3:44 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

@omnologos- wiki says "who smelt it dealt it" ?

Nov 19, 2012 at 3:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterSpartacus

Jerry K on Nov 19, 2012 at 11:09 AM

"Speaking of tweets, looks like that mega-alarmist George Monbiot is in big trouble for tweeting that Lord McAlpine is ....."[adjustedand snipped. Thanks. BH]

I don't think that you have have made it plain enough in your post that there is no foundation to this allegation, at all !!!

Nov 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterRobert Christopher

I think it was Phil Jones.

In February, Jones went on to this BBC piece in which he clearly breaks ranks with the consensus

Jones says there is nothing special about today's global temperatures and that current temperatures rising at 0.12C per decade is not enough to trigger any political action.

The BBC's environment analyst Roger Harrabin put questions to Professor Jones, including several gathered from climate sceptics. The questions were put to Professor Jones with the co-operation of UEA's press office.

Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

C - Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?
An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I've assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8511670.stm

Nov 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommentereSmiff

The CG1 info releaser(s), the self-named 'we',
might have reasonable doubts about receiving an un-biased legal process in the UK if identified publicly . . . SOL or no SOL.


I would have doubts.


John

Nov 19, 2012 at 4:24 PM | Unregistered CommenterJohn Whitman

mmm...well I wouldn't rely on any journo's legal knowledge...for obvious reasons

Nov 19, 2012 at 4:42 PM | Unregistered Commenterdiogenes

You can lead a Mann to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

Nov 19, 2012 at 5:59 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon B

RC, rather than "It was me," might I suggest "C'est moi." That will throw them off the track.

Nov 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM | Unregistered CommenterDon B

My bet is on the person who used during 2009 intensively Briffa's work computer.

Nov 19, 2012 at 7:29 PM | Unregistered CommenterMindert Eiting

Harry?

Nov 19, 2012 at 7:33 PM | Unregistered CommenterMessenger

Is there any reason to assume that the Glorious Liberator is male?

There seems to be such an implicit assumption, but I've not seen any evidence why it should be so..

Nov 19, 2012 at 7:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterLatimer Alder

In light of DI Julian Gregory's 'hypotheses', if it does turn out to be an inside job without any apparently solid evidence that it was; does that leave Gregory and his colleagues open to investigation for misconduct in Public Office for failing to fully investigating alternatives?

Nov 19, 2012 at 8:20 PM | Registered CommenterSalopian

This idea of suing Mann is silly. What you should instead do is set up your own blog and declare that Mann is a fraud, and have Mann sue you.

Nov 19, 2012 at 8:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterMikeN

@Nov 19, 2012 at 3:16 PM Phillip Bratby

'My reaction when hearing, on very rare occasions, "It was I", is to picture Vincent Price wearing a cape, with a little drop of blood running down his chin. I'm sure that Count Dracula would say "It is I", but of course he was not a native English speaker.'

Nov 19, 2012 at 9:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterBram Stoker

Who's Roman Catholic at CRU? Briffa?

Nov 19, 2012 at 9:29 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

Bram - for me it would be "It is I, Goodtooth, your soothsayer" (From Oscar's Orchestra)

Nov 19, 2012 at 9:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterCumbrian Lad

I go with Occam's razor. I think plod was placed in the unenviable predicament of having found out who dunnit very early on but it was too tickly for UEA and 'authority'.

Nov 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM | Unregistered CommenterPharos

I don't begin to know the legal aspects, but perhaps RC/FOIA should find a nice safe enclave from which to publish a best-selling memoir ala Peter Wright of MI5 fame. I would not assume that the "3 years" rule will only be dated from the initial release of info (or access of server etc.), so anyone involved should continue to be very careful for their own sake (until they can be quite certain of no further legal risk).

Still, a Climategate III release is sorely needed, and/or a memoir (might be done under a pseudonym with the right publisher and legal team, perhaps).

If Peter Wright could manage to publish "Spycatcher" about MI5 then surely there are ways for RC/FOIA to cash in while exposing more misdeeds. I know, I know, some will say the nobility of "whistleblower" activity is undermined by a move to profit from the matter, but I disagree: whoever did this has had to live undercover for a long time now, and can certainly justify selling an honest memoir explaining how he came to do all this while reviewing the issues from an insider perspective (I'm strongly of the "insider" persuasion, obviously, although I have no particular knowledge beyond what's been discussed here and on CA, WUWT, etc.).

The very different Peter Wright/MI5 case for comparisons and contrasts, how to publish a bestseller far away from the UK:

Peter Wright vs the UK's Official Secrets Act


"...The British government did all it could to suppress publication, under the pretext that such a publication would be in violation of the Official Secrets Act. They brought an injunction against Wright in Sydney. The Australian court, however, ruled against the British government, thus turning a book that might have had moderate success into an international best seller. Furthermore, the verdict not only vindicated Wright but also represented a victory for press freedom...."

Nov 19, 2012 at 10:41 PM | Registered CommenterSkiphil

Surely it was those pesky Rosicrucians?

Nov 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM | Unregistered Commenterorkneylad

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>