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)
Having read extensively during a dull night shift, my opinions are that Norfolk Police think that there may be a record on Tallbloke's laptops that will give a clue as to how the file was placed where it could be found and an implication of who was responsible. I understand Tallbloke is an innocent party in that he was told about the file by a comment on his blog but was not involved in its release into the public domain.
I presume the police also asked the local authorities to retain his publisher's records - hence the DoJ instruction to Wordpress.
So something of a storm in teacup - one hopes.
What is noticeable is that some hostile commentators have made statements on their blogs that may be actionable and might fund Tallbloke's comfortable retirement if pursued through the courts.
Here here, Bish. Despite increasingly hysterical claims on here yesterday about how this is the end of the universe as we know it and a travesty of human justice, if Roger is ok about it, then we should be too.
Imagining they are all out to get us is exactrly the paranoid behaviour which typifies the worst of our side of the fence. The facts are that despite the usefulness of FOIA's revelations to us, they are an illegal breach of information laws in this country and we can't be surprised or shocked if the police use their perfectly ordinary powers to investigate a crime.
Imagining that the plods will plant kiddiepron or whatever to discredit TB is over the top - we're just not that important to them. We're right, but we're also pretty powerless, and no threat to the establishment at all.
This is not a war on sceptics, but...
It is all about "tools to bear".
RC is clearly not stupid. Norfolk plod over the last two years where unlikely to find his traces. And they did not seem over anxious to to do so.
This is possibly a different level. Who knows what tools are being used. Use of these tools need to be prioritised - they cost money.
After 28 years in IT, I still think though RC is ahead of the game.
CG2 gave a fresh trail, and someone has decided it needs following.
"Speaking to the Guardian, Tattersall said: "I am happy to assist the police with their inquiries because I haven't been hiding anything important like some people have.....
A spokesman for the University of East Anglia said today: "We are pleased to hear that the police are continuing to actively pursue the case following the release last month of a second tranche of hacked emails from the Climatic Research Unit. We hope this will result in the arrest of those responsible for the theft of the emails and for distorting the debate on the globally important issue of climate change."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/15/hacked-climate-emails-police-west-yorkshire?INTCMP=SRCH
"We hope this will result in the arrest of those responsible .. for distorting the debate on the globally important issue of climate change."
Does that mean they are going to hand themselves in?
I find it amusing that they think that the release of what they ACTUALLY SAID distorts the debate.
Re: TBYJ
It is nice of them to acknowledge that there is a debate because I thought it was all settled science and the debate was over.
They only acknowledge the debate now because they are losing.
"Reactions by those who think this is the start of a war on sceptics seem overwrought to me."
Me too because the war on sceptics started years ago. In this case it's simply the plod going about their jobs and doesn't seem anything more sinister than that. But the systematic removal of people who don't hold warmist views from their posts, the drying up of funding to those who don't hold warmist views, the blocking of papers that don't support the warmist position, the banning of sceptical views from the BBC screen, the characterisation of people who hold sceptical views as holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, troofers, creationalists, tin foil wearing eccentrics, have all been battles won in the long war waged on sceptics. And although I have no doubts there is nothing sinister in the recent police action, be aware that the warmists would welcome any action, including persecution and jailing of those who speak out against their alarmism.
Interesting to read again 'The debate is settled'. It was until 1997 when it progressed deeply into systemic fraud territory as the IPCC modellers were forced to calibrate CO2 climate sensitivity against post-industrial temperature rise, hence the hockey-stick frauds.
From 2004 onwards it has been open fraud; basically invent fake 'surface reflection' physics to claim that the dark clouds you see up there have small droplets so reflect more sunlight - mirrors in the sky.
I'm now becoming very certain that the real science has been suppressed because one paper from a guy in the US who has guessed it has been refused publication.
So the raids are an attempt to buy time hoping that the various carbon taxation schemes like Australia's can take root. Otherwise the EU is on its own and the EU State won't get the carbon tax funding it needs to survive, in particular the UK windmills.
This is now a fight against the fascist, unelected, corrupt EU bureaucracy wanting to fund itself independently of state budgets.
RC? Real Climate??
"They [the Police] were preposterously heavy-handed of course"
They knocked on the door and Roger welcomed them in. Outrageous stuff.
@ Geronimo - ... the characterisation of people who hold sceptical views as holocaust deniers, flat-earthers, troofers, creationalists, tin foil wearing eccentrics...
Good summary, but you forgot to mention that we are also to be viewed as child abusers.
Has Monbiot ever apologised (or been asked to apologise) for this outrageous slur?
The Tallbloke raid was part frustration, part desperation and part intimidation.
It is clear that US authorities and politicians since CG2 are frustrated by the lack of progress by Norfolk's finest. It is also clear that US pressure has been brought to bear on the UK authorities to do something and be seen to do something.
That pressure has resulted in the police taking action against a blogger in what can only be described as a desperate move on their part. Tallbloke is not a suspect and the UK authorities would already have assessed that his blogging activities is very unlikely to lead them to FOIA.
You can argue that the police have responded in a heavy handed way. I reckon this was a deliberate show of force not only for the US authorities but also with an intent to intimidate.
This was not a storm in the tea-cup. You just need to see who was ultimately lined up in this raid. From the Norfolk Police, to the UK intelligence services, the US Dept of Justice, a US congressman and has been hinted at even the White House.
People in high places have been embarrassed and are getting nervous about Climategate. That can only point to that fact that CG3 might, just might contain a bombshell.
Perhaps the Bish and others are right, and that paranoia is settling in. But look at the overall effect of the recent actions of the police - in the past I have talked to people who are unwilling to sign e-petitions because they do not wish to give their real names and addresses to the government. How less likely will they be to sign such petitions today?
I seem to remember a particularly nasty warmist saying something like "we are the many, and you are the few - and we know where you live".
"The DOJ attorney sending the preservation letters, as it happens in this small world, a graduate of the University of Virginia (UVA). And UVA is also the subject of litigation a group I am associated with, the American Tradition Institute (ATI), that has filed suit on behalf of Virginia taxpayers seeking Climategate-related emails the school holds.....
....To review: The UK police and the US DOJ, Criminal Division, are pursuing a leaker of public records subject to one or more FOIA, records that were unlawfully withheld under those laws, which leaks indicate apparent civil violations (tortious interference by seeking dismissal of certain “skeptics”), and raising reasonable questions of fraud against taxpayers.
And they are pursuing the leaker.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/2011/12/obamas-justice-department-joins-britains-climategate-leaker-manhunt/2006206#ixzz1ggoMRoUg
We all need to remember that it was UEA who broke the criminal law here, and it was only on a technicality that they were not prosecuted.
If FOIA is a whistleblower then he is protected under the law. The authorities cannot touch him.
Let's imagine it does contain a bombshell. Why goad FOIA into releasing the key by acts of intimidation? If they want FOIA, they'd do it covertly. Tallbloke would be 'disappeared', or they would just stage a 'break in' to get his computers, rather than going through some backwater police channel.
The raid on TB was so pointless and stupid that even they must realise it. It's for show. To show who what? The US that 'something is being done'. To fulfil their meagre obligations to make some progress on the 'case'? To bolster the idea that it was a hack not a leak? It was a showcase raid, nothing more.
If it was meant to intimidate, then they got no closer to FOIA and only risked him/her releasing the very key they are 'afraid' to see released. Sounds pretty preposterous to me.
It is high time that this is officially classified as a cold case.
Apart from Tallbloke having to put up with a clutch of wallopers shuffling in and snaffling a few bits and pieces, the whole two year "investigation" has been freakin' hilarious.
No, not an attack on sceptics, just high farce.
I agree, Tallbloke has impressed by being sanguine about it too. It times like this is a time when one can be laid back and just use the situation to help bring focus to where we are now.
I mean it is now pretty obvious the police have absolutely nothing to go on even now after 2 years. And while some commentary from sceptics has been a bit overheated, I think it helps show how silly some of the opposite believer commentary is, especially those who actually seem to think this is the great crack down on sceptics they've been dreaming of, it seems they must have had a lot of pent up frustrations!
Tallbloke mentions someone called Greg Laden who seems very amusing ;)
As I said just look at who was ultimately lined up behind this search warrant. It goes all the way back to the US Congress and may stretch back even to the White House.
I refuse to believe that the US Congress passed a resolution to examine Tallbloke's ADSL router. That's pure fantasy of the worst kind.
Mac said:
Are we sure it isn't the other way around? That Norfolk PD (as the Washington Examiner delightfully describes them) asked the DoJ to secure the info from Wordpress as part of their ongoing investigation into the first and subsequent leak.
We can all agree the authorities have acted in a farcical way, but don't let the incompetence of others allow to us to underestimate the importance or the future impact of what has been done.
Gareth
That operational detail may be the result of US pressure. Only last month we were told by Norfolk police that no officers or resources in place on permanent basis to deal with Climategate. What changed was CG2 and political pressure fron the US.
For the police to request the info that they did from Wordpress seems like sensible policing to me. Assuming that the police believe that there was a hack, it would have been strange if they hadn't followed this line of enquiry. I'm just surprised it took them so long. Perhaps the trans-atlantic cooperation takes some time to organise. What I'm still unclear on is why they wanted Tallbloke's computers. If he's not a suspect, then what further info could they get from his laptops and router?
A short simple explanation aimed at a technical dunce would be appreciated. Preferably without mentioning any grand conspiracies.
"Are we sure it isn't the other way around? That Norfolk PD (as the Washington Examiner delightfully describes them)"
Gareth do you find it as irritating as I do that the US press miss the LO out, wouldn't bemore aesthetic if they wrote about the NYPLOD, or the LAPLOD?
Do not underestimate because of their own incompetence the people who were ultimately behind this search warrant.
From Tallbloke
This is not a storm in a tea cup.
Bish
the interesting thing here is Monckton's initiative. Underestimate this man at your peril. The fact that he has apparently gone public with this means that he believes that it has legs. it may even have wings. Whilst Monckton does not mention this, fraud is also a tort (a civil wrong) and the perpetrators can be sued in the civil courts where a lower level of proof is required. The criminal route would be preferred for various reasons but the civil courts are there as a back-up. I would wager that this is where the story gets really interesting.
Despite a long history of displaying an inability to apprehend a rhinovirus, Norfolk plod appears to have been doing as little as they can get away with until now. There seems to be a good chance that the leaker is an insider at UEA and I don't suppose the powers there relish the dirty laundry associated with his/her discovery, especially with the 220,000 hand grenades with their pins half-out left with the latest release.
The best interpretation as others have said is that someone influential in the US has got a bug up his arse and leaned on the DoJ who in turn have leaned on someone over here (Home Office?) who has, in turn, spoiled the Chief Constable of Norfolk's evening in front of the telly who has then unleashed the full and majestic force of the law on Tall Bloke. How long before they conclude it was definitely a Russian and stop looking?
To me this looks like intimidation. It is harassing someone whose blog is not of the same size and reach as e.g. WUWT.
They did a similar thing - without taking the PC away - to Jeff Id at the AirVent, after CG1.
They did talk to Steve McIntyre at that time as well, but not to Anthony.
From the DOJ document (see the AirVent), WordPress was again asked to keep everything relating to CA as well.
So why this raid, unless it is an instrument of intimidation? With the aim of making people fearful of publishing material from the CG2 files?
It is interesting, isn't it, that Mr Plod is going for the 'small' guys, who seem not to have an international audience such as CA and WUWT. That, of course, just shows how little they know about how the blogosphere works.
I only hope that tallbloke will not get into difficulties from his employer, on top of this.
Considering his various trails and tribulations, Tallbloke seems the sort of phlegmatic sort who won't be fazed by this at all.
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.
Additionally, it is not clear to me that this is really theft. UEA/CRU have not been deprived of the contents of their server. As far as I know nothing has been removed from the server. All that has happened is that there has been a copy made of some part (or possible all) of the contents of the server. Does not the use to what this copy has been put determine what if any crime has been committed? I do not doubt that there is probably a crime involved but question whether this alleged crime is properly to be classified as theft.
If I was Tallbloke I would engage solicitors to scrutinise the search and seizure warrnat and the grounds justifying its use and whether the police have seized items beyond the terms and scope of the warant. I would want the police to give a full account of what evidence they possess that the underlying crime that they allege has been committed has been committed. In other words, I would wish to see what evidence the police have that any theft (if that be the charge) has been committed.
Given the landscape of the thing, I don't think there is much hope of Plod retrieving anything useful in the search for the identity/location of foia from either Roger's laptops or his ADSL router. This might have been a different story if Roger's site had been hosted on his home PC, but it's not.
What N-F-Norfolk-PD is probably hoping to find is communication between foia and Roger in the form, perhaps, of a h/t by email. Given his job role Roger will likely be at least reasonably proficient in tracking internet communication sources down himself, and Plod might even hope that he's done some of their legwork for them and that the fruits of this legwork will be present on his laptop/s - foia has information Roger wants in the form of a pass-phrase, and because of this 220K file archive it's possible that he's sought more himself. Thus Roger potentially has information The Bill wants. Greg will have information on foia, anyway, that only he, JeffID, CA and of course WordPress have - an originating IP for the post (though I've absolutely no doubt it's a proxy relay anyway).
In the event that it's more difficult (or feasibly because it's more expensive) to extract info from Automattic Inc. in the US, and if they can get what they need instead by lawfully (and it does appear to be lawful, right or wrong) raiding Roger's house, then this would be a natural "line of enquiry" for The Rozzers. Moreover, if they didn't do what they're doing/have done, it would be a reasonable question to ask why not.
We're all quite correctly critical of the whitewash enquiries for not interviewing the sceptics and for not examining the science. We couldn't, reasonably, simultaneously criticise The Filth for failing to pursue all avenues available to them. Even if/though they have not established that a crime has been committed, the accusation of "Computer Misuse" has been made by the UEA, and they are therefore duty-bound to investigate.
If he didn't try at the time, I would imagine that Roger is kicking himself that he didn't take the opportunity to quiz The Scuffers on what they know of David Adam's and Roger Harrabin's claim of "special knowledge" regarding the purported "hack" source. Perhaps, if he now has a contact within the investigation, he might think to give Nicknick this fresh lead. I've no doubt they've asked him nicely to provide any fresh information to them, which comes his way.
When the cops come visiting it is never a storm in a teacup.
Curiously enough, this has exposed the appetitie for retribution, and the fantasies of retribution, of bloggers at Skepticalscience,com (dana and Rob Honeycutt) and the authorities at the University of East Anglia
Greg Laden apparently libelled Tallbloke and now Tallbloke is looking for legal representation on a "no win, no fee" basis to deal with it.
Since Mann apparently retweeted Greg's libellous article he may be brought into the mix as well.
Interesting times.
See here for more details.
Apparently the number of occurrences of the word "apparently" increases when someone apparently denigrates somebody else in an apparently libellous manner
Re James Evans
As I understand things:
FOIA posted a new message at several blogs, including Tallblokes.
In doing so, FOIA would have left some trace on Wordpress' server logs, so an IP address, screen name, email address, timestamps, browser ID and probably some cookie data. This would be on Wordpress' servers, not Tallblokes, although he may have visibility of some of that data.
Police use normal inter-agency process to request copies of those logfiles via the US DoJ given the servers are in the US and under US legal jurisdiction.
UK police now have that log information showing how FOIA connected and posted that message. Plus additional information from anyone else that posted messages at those blogs during the time interval shown on the DoJ's notice.
That information includes any private messages that may have been sent to site operators via Wordpress.
The police may have found something in those logs that gave them an indication that there was more contact between Tallbloke and FOIA than just his blog having been used as a drop for the latest round of leaks. The police then request the search warrant to look for that evidence. Otherwise the extent of the request should just have been between the police and Wordpress. The police have however been under pressure to do something, so they've done something. That will probably just eliminate Tallbloke from their inquiries and show that FOIA used an open proxy that appears high in Google's search order and a throwaway email address as they did the last time. The police won't be able to trace that connection unless they can then get the data from the proxy operator and trace that back to an originating IP address, which would probably be an open connection somewhere.
If however Lord Monckton's complaint gets attention, the Norfolk police may then be able to refocus their attention to investigating real crimes.
Bish
the interesting thing here is Monckton's initiative. Underestimate this man at your peril. The fact that he has apparently gone public with this means that he believes that it has legs. it may even have wings. Whilst Monckton does not mention this, fraud is also a tort (a civil wrong) and the perpetrators can be sued in the civil courts where a lower level of proof is required. The criminal route would be preferred for various reasons but the civil courts are there as a back-up. I would wager that this is where the story gets really interesting.
Dec 16, 2011 at 10:22 AM | Dolphinhead
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Fraud can form the basis of a tort, which is a civil wrong. However, when alleging fraud, the criminal standard of proof is required, ie., the claimant needs to make out their case beyond all reasonable doubt, not just on the balance of probability.
Because the bar is set high with respect to the burden of proof, allegations of fraud are diifciult to make out. That said, (whilst I would wish to thoroughly review the contents of CG1 and CG2) my recollection of what I have read suggests that there would be a runnable case to a limited extent that some acts of fraud were committed by some of the players involved. .Such a case is obviously difficult but far from hopeless.
If such a case were to be pursued and if it were not dismissed by way of preliminary issue then it may oblige those defending suit to make disclosure and this disclosure may further support the claim being made agqainst the defendant(s).
Re: Atomic
This is the only part I disagree with.
Tallbloke was probably targeted since he was the only one based in the UK. The US and Canadian authorities would need more reason to enforce an international search warrant than a Norfolk Magistrate would need to issue a UK based one.
With the US DOJ involved, it's really all about politics. This is the DOJ that ignored voting intimidation, sues it's own States for enforcing laws DOJ should be enforcing, sells guns to criminals that use them to murder people in an attempt to ban all guns, etc. Oh, and not to mention OK'ing the selected assassination of US citizens via edict. It's the way they play politics. Putting a chill on skeptics, however small, seeks to tamp damp the outrage of the billions squandered on windmills, solar while eliminating hydrocarbons. Socialism does that.
The Hickman article has been updated at least twice since first posted yesterday, but not in the way Tallbloke requested. No explanation is given for the “updating”. The UEA is still quoted as hoping for the arrest of “those responsible for the theft of the emails and for distorting the debate on the globally important issue of climate change”.
In a normal world, this would be laughable, because there would be dozens of journalists ready and willing to take up the issue of a university spokesman asking for the arrest of those responsible for distorting the debate. There are not dozens of journalists. Maybe three or four. A little conspiracy theorising is in order.
I have just read Lord Monckton's comment. I is interesting, particularly the statutory definition of fraud which is wide.
In the United Kingdom, the Fraud Act 2006 has given fraud a very detailed, statutory definition, which may be summarized as the obtaining of a temporary or permanent gain (whether by keeping what one has or by getting what one does not have) or the infliction upon another of a temporary or permanent loss (whether by not getting what one might get or by parting with what one has), the gain or loss being in money or other real or personal property (including things in action or other intangible property), with the intent either of obtaining a gain for the offender or for another or of causing loss to another or of EXPOSING ANOTHER TO THE RISK OF LOSS, WHETHER BY DISHONESTLY MAKING AN UNTRUE OR MISLEADING EXPRESS OR IMPLIED REPRESENTATION THAT THE OFFENDER KNOWS IS OR MAY BE UNTRUE OR MISLEADING; or by dishonestly failing to disclose to another person information which the offender is under a legal duty to disclose; or by dishonestly (by act or omission) abusing a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interest of another person. (my emphasis)
Now think of the hide the decline communications and those pertaining to the disquiet with the evidential proxy value of tree rings. Would this not fall within the umbrella 'knows may be misleading'? The idea of cap and trade, carbon credits and permits is obvioulsy going to lead to financial loss to someone or at any rate expose them to the risk of loss and if data which is 'may be misleading' is knowingly used in support of such programs (after all what is the purpose of the IPCCC reports if not to be used to push for policy changes which will involve expense and hence therefore loss to someone)one can see a first blush case that the statutory definition of fraud is perhaps made out.
I for one will be interested to see Lord Monckton's memorandum when he has compiled this.
The Plod can't really have any hope that this will give them any new clues to FOIA. The one thing they might hope to find out is the IP adress that FOIA used to insert the materials on the web (and this would be much easier to do at wordpress).
However FOIA clearly has a fair amount of computer savvy and would certainly have used one of the several simple and foolproof ways of doing this in an untraceable manner. I can think of at least four, and I'm no computer nerd.
I can think of only three explanations, either the plod are incompetent, or they are doing this "for show" to impress the higher ups, or (perhaps most likely) both.
Re TerryS
I was trying to be generous. Otherwise it would seem that Tallbloke was targeted simply for being convenient rather than based on some evidence that would justify seizing his computers, cloning the disks and invading his privacy.
Martin A - "RC" is the poster name used for the miracle post that looked much like a spam message, was extremely short on content but is probably one of the most talked about posts ever made at CA.
@ Richard Verney
Hi RIchard,
To be fair, the obtaining of the climategate emails probably did involve the commission of offences, not least under the Computer Misuse Act.
TallBloke seems pretty relaxed so far - good for him.
Out of interest, though, and not a call to arms or anything, the warrant is possibly open to challenge under section 8(1)(d) of PACE and pursuant to R, Bates (On the application of) -v- Chief Constable fo Avon & Somerset Police [2009] QB (paras 23-28).
[pedant]
Just for the record, there is no theft of emails here, as theft would involve permanently depriving the owner of them (see definition under 1968 Theft Act, below). As the originals are still there and only copies were made, nothing was stolen as such.
[/pedant]
According to Wiki:
In England and Wales, theft is a statutory offence, created by section 1(1) of the Theft Act 1968, which provides:
A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly.
This is the litmus test of Skeptics and Warmists.
A Warmist would recast your paragraph to present the polar opposite view to that you have expressed.
Thus, you can accurately confirm that most of the MSM is in thrall to the AGW narrative.
Not for scientific reasons -- the idea that this was about science fell by the wayside long ago. This is about ideology, with the 'science' of AGW as a convenient stalking horse.
Everything that offends the Left/Green faith -- global inequality, poverty, natural disasters, war, migration, and even the problems with capitalism -- is now conveniently linked to AGW, to try to ram the idea through.