I had posted a link on Bishop Hill to my previous post in the ever-lengthening journey on which I seem to have embarked! A poster whose nym is not one I am familiar with suggested that I should look at the “evidence” submitted to Muir Russell! Clearly, he’s not familiar with my postings here! Included in his response was the following:
There was a lot of confusion at the time
To which I replied, and which I now include here, for the record …
Quite so. But, when people tell different stories to different people at different times, then you know they are not telling the truth – and that perhaps they are choosing to create, add to and use the confusion for less than honest purposes.
So, with the benefit of hindsight and looking at the trails of who said what to whom and when – not to mention that which has never been shown that would have instantly set the matter to rest – then their choices need to be brought to light.
You see, if someone broke into my home, the first thing I’d do is call the police – and show them the evidence! RealClimate didn’t do this, and CRU didn’t do this. And if I’d found that someone had “hacked” into my computer and “uploaded” a file – and if I had the comfortable relationship with high profile media people (such as the folks at CRU and RealClimate seem to have) – the first thing that I’d want to do is call one of these contacts (such as Revkin) and say “Andy, let me show you the logs for the last 24 hours on our system. We’ve been “hacked” and these idiots dropped this file onto our system”.
That would have ended matters, would it not?! The very last thing I would be doing would be calling in the likes of Neil Wallis with his “heavy-hitting tabloid expertise”!
Strangely (or perhaps not!) none of the press reports I’ve seen give any indication that any evidence consistent with a “hack” has ever been presented to anyone. And I’ll give you fair warning, Clivere, that should such “evidence” suddenly materialize following this comment – I would find it highly suspect (if not totally devoid of credibility!) to say the least. But I digress …
My guess as to the most likely scenario from Nov. 17 – 19/09 (given the longstanding and highly conspicuous absence of any evidence to the contrary) is that there was no “hack” at RealClimate (or if there was it was for the purpose of a single download – possibly even of a file named “FOIA.zip”!)
And that someone (possibly RC) did nothing more “criminal” – or even harmful – than placing a version of the message that he dropped later in the day at WUWT, TAV and Warren Meyer’s as a comment – which, of course would never have made it past moderation! And that’s the only “evidence” they’ve ever had of this so-called “hack” at RealClimate.
Certainly such a comment turning up on the hallowed haven of RealClimate would have caused some concern, if not alarm – just as we now know any criticisms of their work by evil skeptics cause some concern. And (notwithstanding his various subsequent claims of having “immediately” notified UEA), it really wasn’t until “later that day” (i.e. the 17th – which might have been quite early on the 18th in the UK) after Gavin followed the link to the Russian server, downloaded the file and realized that at least some of the files must have come from CRU that someone from RealClimate notified the sys admin at UEA/CRU of (as he claimed on Nov. 20) a “possible security breach”.
On the 17th, they would have had no way of knowing who else might have received the FOIA message, would they? Ironically, the only honest “first response” once Mosher began posting from the E-mail archive at Lucia’s, probably came from poor Phil Jones in his “exclusive interview” with TGIF:
Became aware of this “three or four days ago”? Check.
Didn’t call the police? They really didn’t know what was in the files at that point. No doubt they were hoping that the msg received at RealClimate was the only one out there. Besides, they had more important things to worry about, like “saving the planet” (and their “reputations”)! Check.
Once Good Ol’ Gavin realized that RealClimate was not the only recipient of the FOIA message, he sent an E-mail (or perhaps made a phone call!) along the lines of: “Oh, sh*t, Phil … they’ve got the link. Look, let’s call it a “hack” and we’ll point the finger at the evil skeptics. I’ll fwd the msg with the link in a few minutes … but I’ll try and head things off at the pass by trying to get Lucia to take down the messages mosher has posted” Or something along those lines.
Not to mention that if there really was a “hack” why would Gavin have to keep changing his story?!
So, here’s the dead giveaway:
“I only found out it had been released five minutes ago”. Check.
And one way or another (beginning with Schmidt’s Nov. 20 post – with his gratuitous unsubstantiated finger-pointing at Anthony Watts) that’s the myth they’ve been attempting to sustain ever since. And they haven’t been able to make it stick – anywhere! But certainly not for want of trying (including during the various and sundry enquiries when the common theme of poor beleaguered “climate scientists” being harassed by evil skeptics and their “intrusive” FOI requests was quite predominant)
The two Guardian articles of Feb. 4 were merely another variation on a theme. A little more subtle, perhaps; but certainly laying the groundwork for subsequent “interviews”. Otherwise, how else to explain that they didn’t even contact ctm until Feb. 25!
At this point, the only difference I can see between Climategate and Watergate is that there’s never been any evidence of a “crime” having been committed during Climategate. The glaring similarity, of course, is it’s the dishonesty underlying the many rather elaborate exercises in damage control and “reputation” management that will (eventually) be their undoing. The only thing that’s saving their bacon, at this point, is the continued co-option and co-operation of key MSM reporters (with perhaps a little help from Norfolk’s finest!)
What the world really needs now are some honest, investigative journalists – on both sides of the pond – to step up to the plate and do their job.