In writing my previous post on the “Climategate” break-in to the University of East Anglia computer system , I remained unclear about who was actually responsible for the break-in theft of the emails, which were then selectively quoted to promote a bogus allegation of scientific fraud. It seems unlikely at this point that the hacker/leaker wll be identified, so as far as criminal liability is concerned, we will probably never know.
Looking over the evidence that is now available, however, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person (apart of course from the actual hacker/leaker) who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime.
Here’s the timeline of key events
By July 2009, CRU had advised McIntyre that climate data used in their work was available from the original sources, but that they couldn’t release it because some sources had supplied it under confidentiality agreements.
24 July 2009: McIntyre organizes a spam FOI campaign against CRU, asking his supporters to send requests nominating five countries whose data they wanted of the form:
I hereby make a EIR/FOI request in respect to any confidentiality agreements)restricting transmission of CRUTEM data to non-academics involing(sic) the following countries: [insert 5 or so countries that are different from ones already requested]
(unsurprisingly, his supporters ignored the request to stick to new countries, and sent multiples of the same request). In the end, CRU got over 100 FOI requests, all essentially identical, but different enough to pose a huge burden.
25 July 2009: The next day McIntyre announced that he had got a mass of CRU data, essentially all that sought in the harassment campaign, in a post headed “a mole”. McIntyre stated in comments that he had received the data from a person in the UK. In any case, it is clear that his harassment campaign was going hand in hand with attempts to gain unauthorised access to CRU computers, and did not stop when its supposed goal was realised.
Over the weekend beginning Friday 13 November, someone located and copied files (apparently associated with the CRU response to this effort, although this is unclear) from a back-up server at the university’s Climatic Research Unit, and attempted to load it on to the RealClimate site under the name FOIA.zip (the files were in a directory called FOI2009). That attempt failed and the files were then widely circulated to anti-science sites. It’s unclear whether the extraction of the file required sophisticated hacking, simple illegal entry to a poorly protected site, or McIntyre’s “mole”. What is clear, as this report notes is that the name FOi2009 indicates that someone associated with the campaign was responsible. As the report says
An abbreviation often used for the US Freedom of Information Act, it suggests again that the leaker was familiar with the attempts by US bloggers and others to get release of tree ring and similar data.
.
These files included large numbers of emails, selective quotation of which was the primary focus of the subsequent bogus scandal. Whatever claims might be made about access to data, there is no justification for stealing and publishing other peoples’ mail. Everyone who passed on or made use of the stolen emails was guilty of an offence against normal standards of behavior.
Having been advised of the stolen emails, McIntyre linked to them and played a prominent role in disseminating dishonest and misleading claims about their contents, focusing on the phrases “trick” and “hide the decline” which were used to suggest a conspiracy to commit scientific fraud. In fact, as the U Penn investigation found, these claims were baseless. “Trick” referred to a clever way of combining data, and the “decline” was not a decline in global temperatures but a well-known problematic feature of tree ring data.
So, to sum up, McIntyre, having earlier obtained information from the CRU file system by means he declined to reveal, linked to the stolen emails shortly after the theft and made dishonest and defamatory use of the stolen information. The excuse that he was not personally involved in the hack/leak, but merely benefited from the proceeds is essentially irrelevant in moral terms.
What can we learn from this? The first point is that what has been presented as an exercise in a quest for transparency is in fact a standard piece of rightwing harassment and intimidation of scientists, along the lines of the Data Quality Act.
The second is that those who accepted McIntyre’s self-presentation as an honest seeker after truth and the CRU scientists as secretive obstructionists have been suckered. That includes the Institute of Physics, at least some people in the British FOI office and, unfortunately, George Monbiot. Monbiot at least is clearly acting in good faith, and the FOI people presumably didn’t realise they were being played. The story with the Institute of Physics is much murkier, an irony not lost on Tim Lambert.
Note: I’ve updated this to correct some errors. In particular, I mistakenly thought the name FOIA.zip had been assigned to the files by UEA, rather than by the hacker/leaker. Also, it’s been pointed out in comments that the multiple emails referred to confidentiality agreements about data rather than data per se. And I’ve emphasized the point that we don’t know and will probably never know who actually stole or leaked the emails. That’s a question for the police. McIntyre’s responsibility, as I said, is moral.
John Quiggin 
Hacking is a crime. Hackers get charged when there is evidence of their activity. Steve has not been charged let alone found guilty of any such crime. You have no actual evidence that Steve was the hacker and if you did you should take it to the police. You don’t like what happened and you don’t like Steve and given that there is no evidence that he is the hacker you’re implying some alternate form of guilt by association. I think that sums up what is happening here. I’m sure your disciples will be quickly sold on the idea that Steve is a bad, bad man but otherwise your not contributing anything new to the debate. And fro
a public interest point of view you are focusing on the least material component of the story (how data leaked rather than what was in the leaked data). Good luck with it.
Terje, the most interesting thing about the stolen emails was that many AGW deniers read them and no-one could find evidence that AGW is not happening.
Pr Q said:
There is no doubt a crime has been committed. The University of East Anglia describe this as “illegal taking of data”. The police are investigating the server breach.
It sounds like there is a fair element of the personal animus mixed in with professional dispute and political partisanship in the conflict between McIntyre and CRU. Wikipedia reports that McIntyre was regarded as Public Enemy Number One prior to the hack:
Stephen McIntyre: Role in the Climatic Research Unit controversy
If McIntyre wanted payback against CRU he certainly got it. Whether it was him or some associate of him who overstepped the line is open to question. I suppose McIntyre is, at the very least, in the position of a “receiver of stolen goods”.
re: IOP
Physics Today (Website of IOP) has weighted in with Concerns raised over Institute of Physics climate submission, a fairly good summary. It mentions some physicists who are unhappy with the IOP. I know some others in UK, in some cases at FRS level, who are not happy. This is slightly akin to the unfortunate mess at the American Physical Society’s Forum on Physics and Society (APS FPS) 1998 foolishness in printing a Monckton paper.
The IOP story isn’t over…
Terje, everyone who disseminated the stolen material, including you, has committed a crime. But such crimes are rarely prosecuted, and probably shouldn’t be.
I’m not implying but stating directly that McIntyre has acted very badly here, as, on a smaller scale, you have also done.
I’m a bad, bad man.
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
Do you think Stephen McIntyre suggestions for others to join a coordinated barrage of FOI requests was made in good faith?
John Quiggin, you have your facts confused. Please fact-check yourself.
1) Crucial to the whole CRU data mess is the need to distinguish raw vs adjusted vs meta data. To just discuss “the data” is to be confused. CRU itself has lost sight of this… and they themselves lost the raw data used to produce their analysis. Since they cannot reproduce their own analysis, it’s clear that McIntyre’s requests were entirely appropriate.
2) While the media have bandied about the word “stolen” with respect to the FOIA file, it is quite notable that the legal authorities have not made such claims. As of this date (almost four months in) we have zero evidence that any criminal activity was involved in releasing the data.
3) On the other hand, the UK government has specifically accused CRU of criminal activity with respect to withholding FOI data… a crime that they cannot prosecute due to an incredibly short statute of limitations… a problem that they now intend to correct.
You’ve made a number of other insinuations about McIntyre and his readership for which you have zero evidence, but they are all minor compared to the above three points. So I’ll stop here.
Bottom line: the evidence says essentially the opposite of what you are claiming.
CRU has admitted they don’t have their original data and cannot replicate their own work.
The only party accused of a crime in this incident is not someone external to the university, but university staff themselves.
You’re barking up the wrong tree. Climate science has been shown to have some badly infected spots that need to be cleaned up. We’ll all benefit as this process takes place.
So are you confirming the UEA docs are legitimate?
Hah, hah, hah. Double check on that ‘mole’ before it eats tunnels all through your thesis.
=============
@TerjeP (say tay-a)
You are Terje. Bad to the bone.
:As of this date (almost four months in) we have zero evidence that any criminal activity was involved in releasing the data.
This is silly. The existence of a crime is obvious, which is why there has been a police investigation. What we don’t have is evidence as to how the crime was committed or by whom. But we have plenty of evidence to show that participants in the anti-science campaign, such as you, support, excuse and endorse crime.
I haven’t made any insinuations. I’ve stated directly that McIntyre encouraged an anti-science harassment campaign, received stolen emails and lied about their contents.
Nah, the email stash was not posted to climate audit. Your article, as MrPete demonstrates, is rife with error, but none so bad as your paranoia. PS. Check on the mole. That mole is making you look very foolish. A word to the wise.
=====================
Are you trying to tell we citizens of a free country that the existence of a police investigation makes the existence of a crime obvious? Wow, why have I wasted this much time at this outpost, clearly desolate of sense, logic, and proportion?
===================
Here’s a hint. That same mole gave up the Piltdown Mann’s ‘censored file’, too, which to objective observers shows a guilty conscience by Michael Mann that he knew the Principal Component analysis in MBH ’98 was bogus.
Read up, son; you’ve got a lot to learn.
=================
“But we have plenty of evidence to show that participants in the anti-science campaign, such as you, support, excuse and endorse crime.”
Care to share?
This article is another badly written submission from the alarmist trench.
You people really take the biscuit for the most narrow minded and prejudiced bilge.
Instead of supporting open science, you continue to bow down to the dubious and criminal activities of a few twisted number fudgers.
McIntyre encouraged no-one to hack into UAE. His blog is properly controlled and he does not allow the sort of behaviour common on most alarmist blogs. If you took the trouble to look further than the end of your (very long) noses, you might find something interesting.
You thrive on rumour and innuendo, but you have to because you have nothing left to argue with now the lies and junk science have been so discredited.
Never mind, I suppose you are pals with Graham Readfearn, so that would explain it.
Disgusting. Just disgusting.
wow john, there must be some alarm that goes off when someone criticizes McIntrye and army of stooges goes to work
did anyone else notice that the mole at the ABC has urged balance in reporting, close personal friend of John Howard, i think we can do without his Fox News version of balance
While I agree that a superficial case may be made that Steve McIntyre instigated it, I don’t think it is as strong a case as you have attempted to present, Pr Q. I am very upset at the manner in which climate scientists are being targetted by all and every means available, particularly the inappropriate use of FOIAs. Stephen McIntyre is entirely to blame for inciting and providing the means for a concerted campaign against his longtime targets. Unfortunately for Steve Mc, the actual raw data he seeks is contained in the original tree cores removed by the various field scientists – generally not CRU scientists – and the original laboratory analysis of those rings. Once processed in this way, only numerical derivative data – aka intermediate data in the language of Steve and his readers, is passed onto the climate scientists who do the numerical and statistical processing of the data. With ice core data Steve McI needs to take samples either from the stored ice cores himself, or he needs to go to the glaciers etc and get his own ice cores. It isn’t impossible, afterall small teams such as Lonnie Thomson set up, and those of many other scientists, have made the trek up the mountains to take the cores. Only then could Steve McI be sure that he had the raw data. All the rest is derivative data and is “tainted” by the same scientists that Steve McI spends so much time attacking.
The Briffa argument with Steve McI is the one that to me indicates an attitude in need of adjustment (and I’m not talking about Briffa). Steve McI had received tree-ring data in 2005 and quietly sat on it. In the meanwhile, he harrangued Keith Briffa to release that data! Since Briffa did not have the right, he referred Steve McI to the researchers who had provided Briffa access – but this was after Steve McI had obtained the data. Steve McI continued to pursue Briffa publically, demanding the tree-ring data. It was last year, I think, that Steve McI revealed on his blog that he had had the data all along. It is hard to reconcile the fact that he had the data all along with the 5 years of periodically demanding the same data from Briffa. Attempts to reconcile that lead to reasonable questions about Steve McIntyre, questions that go to motive.
It could have been petulance, but I think 5 years of demanding data by correspondence and then attacking Briffa via the web implies a level of obssessiveness that transcends mere petulance; it seems to be a too weak as a motive. My suspicion is that he hoped to find small difference in the two data sets – the one from the original tree-coring team, compared with what SMcI was hoping Briffa would provide – so that he could ask his regulars to yell conspiracy! from the top of their lungs, until the relevant universities cracked and set up inquiries into “Briffadoor” (oh, alright, “Briffagate”). By watching the ongoing dramas in the CRU incident, and the fact that SMcI made a written submission to the UK Inquiry, I have no particular reason to think his behaviour would be signficantly different if Briffa had issued raw data with differences by McI’s copy of the raw data provided by the Russian researchers that Briffa has continually told McI to ask.
No TerjeP, Steve McIntyre is not likely to have clean hands in this. I see the issue quite differently to the interpretation Pr Q has given above, but I do agree with him that S McI has a bigger agenda than just verification/validation of the “original raw data” used by the scientists to reach their various conclusions. I’v met enough people who play these crazy games, TerjeP, and whether you agree or not with their politics and ideologies, they are toxic people best avoided.
Nevertheless, in my opinion Pr Q’s last paragraph is the truth of the matter.
Dear Quiggy
Just like your fellow neo-Creationist friend Tim Lambert, this diatribe is just a baseless smear against Steve McIntyre.
It’s what happens when you can’t appeal to science or evidence, you just smear your opponents.
There’s an obvious reason why Jones refused to give the confidentiality agreements – its because he lied about their existence to illegally obstruct examination of his data and methodology.
Oh and the emails weren’t hacked from outside, they were leaked from within. That much is obvious to everyone except to the real denialists – people like you.
@smiths
Yes, now Stockbrokers like Maurice Neville are ‘agnostic’ on climate. The colossal over-reach of these people beggers belief.
@Donald Oats
To clarify my comment about the strength of the case Pr. Q presents: I think that there are enough cases in which Steve McIntyre’s behaviour has questionable motives, and taken together with what Pr Q. presents provides a significantly stronger argument to support Pr Q’s final paragraph. Which I agree with, no equivocation on that.
“CRU has admitted they don’t have their original data and cannot replicate their own work.”
The only criminal activity is the fraud being put forward by CRU that they have replicable science that has been peer reviewed.
If they cannot replicate their own work, how can anyone else peer review it?
JQ you are an accomplice in the CRU’s science fraud if you keep promoting it.
I’m basically with Terje and Jack Strocchi. It seems to me that the most important thing about this now is whether the police can track down who did the initial hacking and punish those responsible. If that turns out to be one of the loony fringe that try and read emails like fundamentalists read the bible, then no doubt they’ll end up smearing themselves, although no doubt that won’t make any difference to their supporters who will pass it off as some heroic act needed to fight against the communist hordes (or whatever).
@Donald Oats
Naw, the flurry of FOI requests in the summer of ’09 were for the confidentiality agreements.
Naw, McIntyre did not know what of all that data was pertinent; Briffa stonewalled him on that.
Yah, Lonnie Thompson doesn’t document his data such that his research can be checked.
==============
kim, is english your first language?
the dissemination was sophisticated, co-ordinated and deceitful
You are so careless in assigning “moral responsibility” that I would have to say YOU are the morally irresponsible party here.
So we have the condescension
“Please fact-check yourself?”
“You’re barking up the wrong tree”
“Read up, son; you’ve got a lot to learn.?”
“A word to the wise.”
?”So I’ll stop here.”
“Here’s a hint.
“Read up, son; you’ve got a lot to learn.?”
“rife with error”
The bodily function issues (infections, bilge, fudgers, smearing)
“badly infected spots that need to be cleaned up.”
“You people really take the biscuit for the most narrow minded and prejudiced bilge.”
“you continue to bow down to the dubious and criminal activities of a few twisted number fudgers.”
“Disgusting. Just disgusting.”
“this diatribe is just a baseless smear”
The macho posturing
“That mole is making you look very foolish.”
“Are you trying to tell we citizens of a free country”
“Wow, why have I wasted this much time at this outpost, clearly desolate of sense, logic, and proportion?”
Racial issues perhaps?
“(very long) noses”
@smiths
Yeah, right, that’s why it took several days for anyone to notice.
==================
@Michael
Pinnochio, you putz.
=========
how do you know it took several days for anyone to notice kim?
are you relying on the protagonist’s own words?
cui bono?
@smiths
Read up.
====
back up your claims with some evidence kim, thats how its done,
you made the claim, i asked how you know, so back it up.
there appears to be little good faith in your presence or approach,
that seems to be in keeping with your agenda,
the funny thing is that the more people like you pop up behaving like this, the more disgusting and deceitful the campaign looks – if thats possible,
and terje, have a good look around at your associates, if it were me my skin would be crawling
@kim
Are you replying on behalf of “Miss_Magoo”?
@smiths
Regard the timeline. Also, I’m not trying to persuade anyone here. I’m trying to stimulate the fact-checking of the curious. Almost nothing your dear Professor has said here is correct. Fact check everything he’s said. The ‘mole’. Hah, an open server.
=========================
Of coursr had your heros at Hadley obeyed the law you so revere, and released the information as the FOI act required they do, instead of kying about it, none of this would have happened and you wouldn’t have to waste your time making stupidly distorted “moral” judgements.
@Don Wagner
Careful Don, that irony is dangerous to the sort of people who’ll believe a crime was committed because the police are investigating.
=============
People who say yah for yes tend to be of Afrikaaner SAfrican origin … so English may well be Kim’s second language
Separate note to PrQ … the occasional troll John Coochey managed to badmouth you over at The Drum, apropos of nothing at all. Odd how fixated some people become.
@Fran Barlow
English correction: Pinocchio for Pinnochio and ‘us citizens of a free country’ for ‘we citizens of a free country’.
OK, enough pissing on the rug of my host. Please check his facts. Thanks for the venue.
=======================
i never said you were, i think you are dishonest in your motivations and your utterances,
which leads me to feel you are dishonest with youself,
your entire use of language is frivolous, conveys derision, mockery and contempt, and therefore has nothing to do with constructive debate, truth or facts
Agree Smiths re your comment on the fact checking ability of Kim – another troll in the line of Coochey with his derisive comment as follows
“Almost nothing your dear Professor has said here is correct. Fact check everything he’s said.”
Nothing but another gullible, misguided idiot. Perhaps he is part of the vexatious and malicious Mcintyres legion of bogan spam FOI senders.
They need to get a life other than jumping in to attack when their dog barks.
If there is a ongoing police investigation, then I think the results of it would actually be most interesting. It would no dount make public the individuals and/or organisations behind the clearly illegal hack. The coverage in the media would be significant, and very easily hurt the denial movement. Of course, they’d claim they *had* to resort to illegal methods, however the damage to their reputation would be enormous.
Ultimately, I think the whole thing is going to backfire on them badly, much like the ID crowed discovered in Dover v Kitzmiller when they forced a court show down and got absolutely trounced.
The denial community will continue to try and milk climategate for some time, and they’ll tell themselves it demonstrates a conspiracy on behalf of scientists… but ultimately in the court of public opinion they are going to get burnt, and burnt badly. I don’t suggest Steve McIntyre is the hacker, however the personal reputation of him and fellow deniers will be severaly copromised.
It’s hard to put spin on committing crimes being investigated by the police.
Wow. As one of this site’s most prolific commenters, do you have an opinion Terje?
All you are doing kim is dancing around with mindless glee at your self-perceived cleverness, chortling at being able to make anonymous fun of a professor. I thought we had got rid of that kind of juvenilia from this blog, but apparently not.
@smiths
Oh, TerjeP just wants his regular pat on the head for being such a cute little Dennis the Menace.
Terje – have you had your claim to being a ‘man’ peer reviewed ?
Omigod, Prof. You’re own link tells you about the mole. I give up; you are hopeless.
=================
er, uh, ‘your’ own link. Go read it. So why did you persist with alleging the mole was a person, conspiratorially linked with Steve McIntyre. Did you not read your own link, or were you being disingenuous?
===============
since it is quite clear your time here is rapidly running out kim, i would just like to say i feel great sorrow for you,
whatever genes or misfortune have led you to be the sad, nasty person you clearly are, i hope you are able to spend the rest of your life trying to do something constructive and meaningful since our time on this earth is so brief, it does seem a shame to waste it so thoroughly
Given the context yes.
@kim
PrQ’s facts and inferences are plausible.
Beyond an evident desire to make the thread about you rather than the topic, and possibly to win some minor battle for your side of the culture war, I can’t be bothered trying to fathom your aims here, so I won’t.