More News from RC/FOIA

Tom Nelson and Bishop Hill have released the following letter from Mr FOIA. I was one of several people who received the following letter:

It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.

Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural ;-)

If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).

The “all.7z” password is [deracted] DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.

Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.

I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.

Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.

To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.

Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.

I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.

I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.

That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-american sphere.

If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…

The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.

Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.

It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.

Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.

We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.

If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.

It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.

Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.

Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.

If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.

I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).

Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.

Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).

Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.

I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: [redacted for now].

More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts, which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.

Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.

Over and out.

Mr. FOIA

146 Comments

  1. Leslie Johnson
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    WUWT has found that Mann is not popular in these new batch of emails, either.

  2. oklahoma slim
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:15 AM | Permalink

    [deracted]

    I have a new favorite word.

    Steve: it sure sounds like a word that should exist. Perhaps we can agree on a meaning.

    • rcook
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

      Over at the EPA, I believe they use the word ████████████████████.

    • OldWeirdHarold
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 1:14 PM | Permalink

      I’ve heard of “capacitive deractance”. Is that close enough?

      • SamG
        Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 6:21 AM | Permalink

        Is that man speaking Rockwellian?

  3. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:16 AM | Permalink

    FOIA perhaps indicates a non-English native language. someone at Anthony’s observed the style of “220.000”. Also note the backslash of “privacy\career”. Many people, including me, would use a forward slash in such circumstances. Also some sentences omit an article at the start e.g. “Wealth of …”, as some non-native speakers often do, where natural style would be “The wealth of …”.

    • Espen
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:51 AM | Permalink

      As I commented on WUWT, the lack of definite articles in some places indicates a native speaker of one of the slavic languages (except Bulgarian), the baltic languages or the Finno-Permic languages (Finnish, Saami, Estonian).

      • Steve McIntyre
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:54 AM | Permalink

        I don’t think that you can be that specific. Thais often leave out definite articles and thus presumably others.

        • Klaus
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:03 PM | Permalink

          Thais wouldn’t sonsider themselves part of the Western World. Non english speaking countries of the Western World can be reduced to continental europe.

        • Espen
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

          Yes, but I was assuming that the person was European because of the dot in 200.000.

        • tty
          Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 2:40 AM | Permalink

          North Germanic languages (Swedish, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic) do not have definite articles either, and neither has Romanian. All these languages tack an ending onto words in definite form instead.
          Trouble with using the definite article is not a very robust linguistic proxy.

      • Enjoying the speculation
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM | Permalink

        (Disclosure: I’m a Finn)

        “Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.”

        This section at the end sounds a bit less polished. Perhaps a last minute addition. The missing verb in the last sentence and a general “feel” suggest to me it is a Finn or perhaps an Estonian. The use of “on” instead of up makes some sense in Finnish. While I’m speculating the second sentence also sounds a bit as if mangled by a Finn.

        So my wild guess is FOIA is a well educated native Finnish speaker. No contact with native English speakers at a early age. Probably studied IT or engineering at a University. Has a Masters degree or PhD. Age: min 32, max 40. This would put him in the Commodore 64 generation which has produced some really good part time hackers/hobbyists.

        • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

          And one or two quite reasonable more-than-part-time hackers like Linus Torvalds :)

        • Enjoying the speculation
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

          “Climate protection” also translates nicely to Finnish (ilmastonsuojelu, ilmasto = climate, suojelu = protection)

          I believe there are no equally fitting ways of saying this in swedish, norwegian, danish or german. So that narrows it down a bit. Finnish and Hungarian have some similarities in grammar but I still feel this must be a Finn.

          A fairly short list of candidates could be compiled by cross referencing the undergraduate students etc at the CRU for say 2008-2010 with Finnish and Swedish surnames.

        • John Silver
          Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 9:11 AM | Permalink

          This rules out Linus Torwalds, since his native language is Swedish.

        • MikeN
          Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 11:03 AM | Permalink

          So it’s Mia Tiljander then?

        • Coldish
          Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

          ‘Climate protection’ is a literal translation of the common German term ‘Klimaschutz’

      • Chad Wozniak
        Posted Mar 19, 2013 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

        The omission of articles in Mr. FOIA’s article may reflect the fact that in the Scandinavian languages, Romanian and Bulgarian, the definite article is suffixed to the noun – that would seem to make it easier for it to be lost in translation, as other European languages do not do this.

    • Tom Anderson
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:12 PM | Permalink

      “It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.”
      He seems to consider himself part of the western world. That should narrow it down a bit.

    • pottereaton
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:44 PM | Permalink

      He also used a period (220.000) in the numbers in his 2011 message. So he’s being consistent.

      I think that could be a contrivance to create mis-direction. Or just an idiosyncratic mannerism.

    • MikeN
      Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

      Does ‘arriving in Copenhagen’ mean that he is in the area?

      I think the whole letter is deliberately written to appear foreign.

  4. Edward
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    Being a front-seat witness to history as it unfolds is very satisfying.

    • oklahoma slim
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

      Actually being a front-seat witness isn’t that great. I’m old enough to realize in a few short months everything we witness now will be “deracted” to an official version of history that bears very little resemblance to what we are actually witnessing.

  5. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:26 AM | Permalink

    Witty comment from Cumbrian Lad at Bishop Hill:

    “Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural ;-)

    So! It was Josef Ratzinger; well – noone expected that :)

    • Athelstan.
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

      :-):-):-)!!

    • bernie1815
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:20 PM | Permalink

      Pythonesque! Nobody expects the Pope!

      • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:21 PM | Permalink

        Ask Esper and Cook –

        Everyone expects the Mannian Inquisition!

        Steve Garcia

    • Paul Matthews
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:22 PM | Permalink

      But I think this is really Mr FOIA’s witty comment, not Cumbrian Lad’s!

      • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM | Permalink

        I’m with Paul on that. I’m just back from a busy afternoon. I feels like in the meantime an age has passed, the age of FOIA.

    • BarryW
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:08 PM | Permalink

      Ah, so now we know why the Pope resigned.

  6. Athelstan.
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

    “Over and out”, is an old expression used by the British armed forces, Canucks, Aussies and Kiwis and probably Vet’s and ‘longer in the tooth’ guys in the US Army, USAF.

    Sophisticated words such as “garner” and “corroborate” do not speak to me of a ‘secondary use of English’, indeed they intimate, that this guy has a solid command of the English language and I would posit – he ain’t no young un either but he is good, very good and I wanna say a big THANK YOU TO YOU FOIA! Scientists, use sort of shorthand and shortcuts in language – all of the time.

    Hope you appreciate the speculation – and I hope you are smiling! Cos I am!

    Bless you.

    • Jeff Norman
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:05 PM | Permalink

      They obviously don’t speak short wave.

      “Over” means, I have stopped talking, it is your turn to talk.

      “Out” means, I have finished talking.

      “Over and out” is meaningless but appears on TV and in the movies.

      • Carrick
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:41 PM | Permalink

        From the Wiki:

        Over
        This is the end of my transmission to you and a response is necessary. Go Ahead: transmit.
        Contrary to popular belief, “Over” and “Out” are never used at the same time, since their meanings are mutually exclusive. Therefore “Over and Out” should never be used together in radio communications.

        Historically, “Over and Out” was used to mean “Over to you, and when you’re done, I’m Out.” With spring-loaded PTT buttons on modern combined transceivers, the same meaning can be communicated with just “Out”, as in “Ops, Alpha, ETA five minutes. Out.”

        If FOIA is military, like Athelstan. said, he’s long of tooth.

        • Jeff Norman
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 1:32 PM | Permalink

          Which military? How long in tooth?

          30 years BP, baseline 2012, a Canadian Warrant Officer assigned us repetitive, labourious and meaningless tasks if we concluded our communication with “Over and Out”.

        • Dave Rutledge
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:53 PM | Permalink

          Hi Carrick,

          “over and out” may not sound right to a military or commercial radio operator.

          However, my experience on the amateur HF radio bands was different. People often said “over and out” at the end of their last transmission. “over” gives the other operator a last chance to say something if they wish, and “out” indicates to others who might be listening that the radio is going off the air, and that there will be no further communications with anyone else.

        • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:26 PM | Permalink

          Good and valid points. But at the same time, maybe he is a war movie buff.

          Steve Garcia

      • Kristo Miettinen
        Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 11:41 AM | Permalink

        “Over and Out” is improper for military-trained radio operators, but I still hear it all the time while sailing. It is typical of amateurs chatting on marine radio. Might also occur in ham radio, and among CB users.

    • pottereaton
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:26 PM | Permalink

      “Corroborate” is a scientific term and he clearly has some scientific meaning, so I don’t think that’s indicative of anything. “Garner” is Middle English and related to granary and the French “grenier.” It’s not standard usage, but still widely used among writers and intellectuals so I don’t think it tells us anything. I use the word fairly often. And I aint him, LOL.

    • kjsgfhsadkfjhnoU9
      Posted Mar 27, 2013 at 6:37 PM | Permalink

      I think the author of the letter is a native English speaker. It might be a female. The final sentences are hurried and the word “send” was hastily left out after “will” as happens sometimes.

      That leaves several possibilities:
      1) Native speaker from Ireland, Canada, Belize, Virgin Islands, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Uganda, India, etc., possibly highly educated and from Africa or Asia.
      2) The author of the letter might not be the original releaser, but cracked the password and set up a BitCoin acct to “garner” some lucre.
      3) The author of the letter is lying and is from US or UK
      4) The author of the letter is not the original releaser but a government entity with sufficient resources to crack a 32-member aes password constituted of 30 lower-case letters, one upper case and one digit, compose a reasonable cover-story and set up a BitCoin acct for purposes unknown (honey trap, to see who bites?)
      5) The letter was translated by a native English speaker with numerous back-and-forths with the author in order to get it just right, meaning they really screwed up in a few places despite both being intelligent individuals. A variation on this is that it was written by a non-native speaker and then heavily edited by an English major using a dictionary of synonyms to boost the mystery or something.

      Gut feeling: a youngish male English speaker living somewhere in Europe and spending most of his time on the computer, possibly an Aussie.

  7. Alastair
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:37 AM | Permalink

    Well, one Vicky Pope is head of predictions at the Hadley Centre.

  8. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 11:58 AM | Permalink

    Wow! Was the password a guessable phrase by any chance?

    • Arthur Dent
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

      Mosher over at Bishop Hill has just described the password:

      the password is not a “guessable” construction; that is, if you used a dictionary attack, it would fail. It’s pretty much a random string of alpha characters with one digit and all lower case with one letter in caps.

      • Steven Mosher
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

        It’s 32 characters. only two subseqments would be in a dictionary (“no, and “and”) I suppose if your dictionary also included abbreviations a few more would occur. Brute force was out of the question anyway; he was smart enough to construct it out of sequences not normally found in plain text.

      • Geoff Sherrington
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:07 PM | Permalink

        I have passwords that are in that format because the other Party prescribed it, specifically one upper case\one numeral\minimum 8 characters. One of them was Facebook at the time. No connotations meant.

  9. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    And I was thinking this was going to be a dull week.

    • Jeff Norman
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 1:35 PM | Permalink

      Dull?! What about Hydra13, a.k.a. Marcott et al?

      • Posted Mar 20, 2013 at 5:50 PM | Permalink

        Well Jeff, I suppose you are right in a way. But after you have chopped the heads off a Hydra, and they keep growing back, the phenomena of reappearing heads gets a bit :Ho-hum.” (Actually, if I let it, it exasperates the heck out of me. Instead I put on a bored face, and give it a cold shoulder. Hydras hate it, when you yawn at them and give them a cold shoulder.)

  10. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:08 PM | Permalink

    Comments at BH, WUWT and here point to examples in FOIA’s password release email which indicate FOIA may not be a native English speaker.

    My overall impression of the use of language in that email is that its author is academically articulate in the English language. The English used does not strike me as particularly American in origin. This leads me to consider that the author has spent long periods of time academically in the UK or NZ or Australia.

    Also, FOIA’s worldview is generally revealed in the email. It requires some detecting to track down localities / societal groups where that worldview predominates. [note to self => get to work]

    John

    • David L. Hagen
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 1:18 PM | Permalink

      Re “societal groups where that worldview predominates” Note his comments on “the poorest” “billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy”.
      For a similar worldview, see “The Cornwall Alliance”

    • Duke C.
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 1:37 PM | Permalink

      I found the usage of “nobody” (instead of “no one”) odd. but that’s from the perspective of an American. Seems that “-body” and “-one” are more acceptable and interchangable outside the US.

      http://linguistlist.org/issues/5/5-1196.html

      • Geoff Sherrington
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:08 PM | Permalink

        Nobody is common in Oz. Did I omit some inverted commas?

        • Pat Frank
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 9:24 PM | Permalink

          You mean you’re all individuals, Geoff? :-)

      • steveta_uk
        Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 4:33 AM | Permalink

        Personally, I always say “no one” but write “nobody”, as I dislike the space in “no one”, and “noone” looks weird.

    • David L. Hagen
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:05 PM | Permalink

      On worldview, FOIA appears to have followed the observation:

      What you have said in the dark will be heard in the daylight, and what you have whispered in the ear in the inner rooms will be proclaimed from the roofs.

  11. DGH
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    As this reads a bit like a manifesto and because Mr. FOIA reads the blogs it seems likely that he has also commented. His writing is sufficiently quirky that there will be suspicious comments featuring similar patterns located at this blog, at WUWT and the others.

  12. pottereaton
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:21 PM | Permalink

    Didn’t notice it was a forward slash as in privacy\career. That’s a harder key for me to hit than the “/?” key, because I use all ten fingers when I type. I use the backslash, but as I pointed out on Bishop Hill, where people are saying they’ve never seen the slash device at all, it’s indicative of American/Canadian usage since I see it all the time on American blogs/forums.

    Also, if you google “climate protection” you get Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection and then a bunch of cites on California cities who have committees for “Climate Protection.”

    Also, like Jeff Norman” I caught the “over and out” which would make most radio operators cringe. But that could also be British, since they see a lot of our movies. Wasn’t that a famous line delivered by Broderick Crawford in Highway Patrol, the tv series?

    His first glimpses behind the scenes of Climate Science suggest there may have been a dust-up with one of the principals in that group. Perhaps he worked within the IPCC?

    • Mpaul
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:21 PM | Permalink

      Many people who are Mucrosoft Windows admins reflexively use the forward slash. It’s part if the path name convention in Windows and an Admin using the command line would use it frequently.

      • pottereaton
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:53 PM | Permalink

        Interesting. That dovetails with the theory that he’s heavily experience in computer technology. I’m a sometimes writer trained in the touch-typing method, so it’s easy for me to just drop down my right pinky and hit what I’ve always referred to as the backslash (/).

        If you are writing a lot of code and don’t use the touch-typing method, you’d become accustomed to using that (\) slash more. A mathematician, otoh, who typed a lot of fractions, might use the backslash (/).

        • Alexej Buergin
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

          It depends on the language (or country) of your keyboard. I have to use “Shift” to get / and “Alt Gr” to get \. Clumsy.
          On the other hand I have keys for ° é ä ñ €. How nice not to have to write “deg” instead of °C.

        • Alexej Buergin
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 3:54 PM | Permalink

          Slash /
          Backslash \

        • garykk5st
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 3:59 PM | Permalink

          I believe you have reversed the terminology. This, \, is a backslash, while the virgule, /, is simply termed a slash.

          cheers,

          gary

        • Mpaul
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:01 PM | Permalink

          Sorry, yes meant backslash.

        • pottereaton
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:25 PM | Permalink

          Yes, I had it wrong also mpaul, never having had any use for a backslash (\) that I can recall.

          Slash = / = forward slash
          Backslash = \

          Of course, the smart guy around here, Steve, had it right early on at 11:16 am.

        • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

          Alexej – Rather than writing deg we can also write °C by uilizing ALT+ 248.

        • ianl8888
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 6:13 PM | Permalink

          … the theory that he’s heavily experience in computer technology

          NOT a theory. Publishing on the internet and then remaining untraceable by the worlds’ best IT police is a real accomplishment of itself

  13. Bob Koss
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    I see it is a 137 megabyte file when compressed. With a packed ratio of 92% I figure it must expand to about 1.7 gigabyte.

    I suspect the file cannot adequately be scanned automatically for personal emails. This suggests a visual scan might be necessary. Splitting it up and parceling the unencrypted file out in small chunks (1-2 meg or so) to those you trust may be the thing to do. That would be a lot individual chunks, but would decrease the likelihood of people becoming sloppy due to eyestrain. People can always request another chunk if they are up to it. It would also help avoid duplication of effort.

  14. Phillip Bratby
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:43 PM | Permalink

    I think his suggestion of “glimpses behind the scenes” suggests he was a foreign student (PhD perhaps) at CRU. There seeem to be plenty of visiting students at CRU, and he would have had access to the computer system.

    • pottereaton
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

      How about being a participant, perhaps a lowly one, in the IPCC process?

      • Phillip Bratby
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

        Yea, another alternative, but would he have access to the CRU computer system?

        • pottereaton
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

          Could be he had a short interaction with them and ended up with access, perhaps accidentally, perhaps unwittingly, to their server. Here’s what he says:

          I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact. . .

          It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.

          (My bold)

        • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:16 PM | Permalink

          pottereaton has quoted the key passage for those of us who have always seen FOIA as an insider.

        • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:36 PM | Permalink

          Yep, I agree with Richard. It was never a hacker.

          As I was read the manifesto, I had been so certain it was an insider for so long that the passage seemed natural to me – and it blew right past me!. . . . LOL

          Anybody got a list of CRU interns and clerks and IT people?

          Steve Garcia

        • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

          I always suspected Read Me Harry.

          He was so flabbergasted at how BAD the coding was, it just seemed natural.

          “You want me to code in WHAT? . . . uuuuh, okay. . . . (Geez, these guys have NO compunction at all, do they?)”

          Steve Garcia

    • Mindert Eiting
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

      Perfect guess. UEA student campus, close to CRU PhD students.

    • cosmic
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:00 PM | Permalink

      Someone at the UEA in some sense, computer savvy and has followed the CAGW story closely. Not necessarily someone in the CRU. Could be a memeber of staff, PhD student, visiting lecturer, external examiner, contractor or exchange student in the departments of computer science, statistics, maths, physics, engineering, some biological science at a pinch, possibly even law or something not obvious.

      I always nursed the theory it might be a graduate who couldn’t find a proper job and so was employed by the UEA as a cleaner or security guard. Left alone on the night shift with logged on terminals, he carried the whole lot away on a USB stick.

      I doubt the possibility that the letter will be closely analysed and textual analysis undertaken would have escaped him, so I’d expect misdirection.

      If he’s identified, he definitely qualifies as worthy of great wealth and every honour thrust upon him by a greatful citizenry.

    • FerdiEgb
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:54 PM | Permalink

      Couldn’t it be the Harry from the “Harry read me” files? Would make a lot of sense, first hand involved in the data mess at the CRU… What nationality was Harry?

    • HaroldW
      Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 11:36 AM | Permalink

      I read the comment about “first glimpses…behind the scenes” a little differently, not implying first-person experience. If Mr. FOIA came across the emails accidentally, then his first glimpses would be the emails, notably the ones he selected for CG1, which certainly show behind-the-scenes activity. And would not engender trust.

      As to how one could come across the backup server files by accident, I have no idea. But perhaps he didn’t actually visit (or work at) CRU. Remember, the police report claims the files were taken by Internet access, not locally.

  15. geo
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 1:51 PM | Permalink

    One does wonder if one or more of the usual suspects has been living in fear of one or more emails that Mr. FOIA does not have quite enough “inside baseball” experience to understand the import of its references should it be made public.

    Good luck to the spelunkers.

  16. George B
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 1:55 PM | Permalink

    I have often mused that maybe the very first email in the very first bunch released was a clue.

  17. Beta Blocker
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 2:59 PM | Permalink

    Might it have been Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous founder of Bitcoin? He/she certainly would have had the technical expertise needed to hack into the CRU server from the Internet.

    • MikeN
      Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 11:10 AM | Permalink

      So this whole thing has nothing to do with global warming, but is an elaborate ad for bitcoin?

  18. Tom C
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 3:01 PM | Permalink

    Non-native English speaker
    Time spent in academic institution in English-speaking country
    Use of . for thousands separator
    Periodic dropping of definite article
    Conservative worldview
    Schooled in economics

    It’s Lubos Motl

    • bernie1815
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 3:14 PM | Permalink

      Not sufficiently acerbic!

    • Jeff Norman
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

      Can’t be, there was no annoying music or fractals.

    • Keith W.
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:42 PM | Permalink

      Or this could be someone who used Google Translate to first translate sections of the email from English to another language, and then translate it back to English. The dual translation method introduces enough differences to make a writer appear to not speak English natively.

  19. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 3:20 PM | Permalink

    Steve McIntyre,

    If the message you got from FOIA was an email then why did you entirely edit out the email header info? By ‘email header info’ I mean info like: To; From; CC; time/date stamp; etc.

    What is your reasoning for editing it out?

    I noticed Luboš Motl, BH, Anthony Watts, Jeff Condon and Tom Nelson also did not include the email header info in their posts.

    NOTE: I am trying to get the same response from Anthony Watts. I will soon ask Tom Nelson, BH, Jeff Condon and Luboš Motl the same question.

    Thanks.

    John

  20. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:06 PM | Permalink

    This particular chalice seems to be a poisoned one. Sooner or later personal stuff is going to get out there which will confirm in some minds just what rotters skeptics are.

    • michael hart
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:19 PM | Permalink

      Should that happen, a related issue would be authenticity. Climategate I and II emails have at least been acknowledged as genuine, but fake ones may well emerge.

      I’m sure the people in possession of the password are giving consideration to various ramifications and hazards. FOIA seems to have explicitly drawn attention to these matters.

  21. Dave L.
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:08 PM | Permalink

    Mr. FOIA’s letter extols ethical thought and behavior. By sending this letter to you, he has honored you, as he believes that you also have been cast in the same mold.

    • David L. Hagen
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 6:58 PM | Permalink

      +1

  22. Bob Koss
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:35 PM | Permalink

    Tom Nelson has a photo of Phil Jones in his office. He appears to have buried himself quite deeply into the file system which has been an integral part of his success.

    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2013/03/check-out-this-photo-of-phil-jones-in.html

    • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:00 PM | Permalink

      Phil’s Excel for Dummies book is under one of those stacks (along with some missing historical data sets, contracts with weather reporting organizations, an AGU fellowship acceptance speech, and two Russian field scientists).

      • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:47 PM | Permalink

        Yeah, but the question is, “Where is his Filing Systems for Dummies book?”

        • Skiphil
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:57 PM | Permalink

          Re: feet2thefire (Mar 13 20:47),

          Poor Phil Jones, CRU/UEA could not afford any filing cabinets because they spend so much of their grant money on (1) the latest greatest IT security, and (2) jetting scientists around the world to conferences in cushy resorts.

  23. bwanamakubwa
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:46 PM | Permalink

    The identity of FOIA does nor matter (but I’d say he/she was Dutch, Flemish or South African, educated after High School in England).
    What really does matter is the contents of the very large zip file to which the password is now known by a select few.
    I respect the reluctance of FOIA to make the password public; there is possibly ‘stuff’ in the e-mails which ought not to be in the public domain. Those who FOIA feels he/she can trust to publish only that which is relevant.
    I hope that that trust is not misplaced.

    • Bebben
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

      I was thinking about South Africa – the overall spirit of FOIA’s message seems to be very much in line with what prof. Will Alexander writes. No, I’m not suggesting it’s him…

  24. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:25 PM | Permalink

    I think he is Hungarian, and of royal blood!

    • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:53 PM | Permalink

      “They seek him here, they seek him there …”

      • Bebben
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

        Richard, he’s obviously not a dedicated follower of climate fashion. :)

      • pottereaton
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:08 PM | Permalink

        “Those gumshoes seek him everywhere . . . “

    • RayG
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:22 PM | Permalink

      @Nick Stokes. You are assuming that FOIA is a woman because that is Zoltan Kaparthy’s line describing Eliza Doolittle at the ball.

    • ianl8888
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 10:11 PM | Permalink

      Not possible, Nick. The entire royal family have all been executed five times over now

  25. Ed Moran
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:35 PM | Permalink

    Please, please, please! Stop speculating. He(?) doesn’t want to be outed. Stop helping the enemy.

    • cosmic
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:43 PM | Permalink

      Definitely male or female and speaks and writes English very well. Also conversant with these computer thingies and the new fangled Interweb.

      That should give the Norfolk plod something to be going on with.

    • NZ Willy
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 6:17 PM | Permalink

      Agreeing. A number of pertinent things about him seem quite plain — including his early & educational background, and work experience — as well the circumstances by which he became “FOIA”. But leave it alone.

  26. dfhunter
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    I found this bit interesting –
    “Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.”

    “according to script” & later his reference to “the (other cause)” meaning he is trying to expose/inform people to this, imply to me somebody well aware of the Club of Rome & Agenda 21 (maybe involved?) discussions when they were first formulated & the affect this is/will/would have on the world.

    but I may only be a consp/theorist so prof Lew can add me to his list.

    ps. this part – “The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.”
    the guy/gal is wicked.

  27. pottereaton
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 6:49 PM | Permalink

    @ Richard Drake at 2:16 pm: “pottereaton has quoted the key passage for those of us who have always seen FOIA as an insider.”

    Yes, that’s always been my thinking. He was in there with the principals for at least a while, perhaps on a very temporary basis, but the whole thing just kind of fell into his lap.

    He might have had to work it a little and apply some advanced computing skills to get access to everything, but it doesn’t seem like it was too difficult for him. And we now know how insecure the whole system at UEA was.

    The way he’s handled it and the way he’s covered his tracks suggests he’s very proficient in computer science. He must also be very self-disciplined to have avoided discovery. It makes you wonder if he has a wife and whether she knows what’s going on. (FOIA could be a woman, but I think that’s unlikely.)

    In this message I’m detecting a hint of recklessness, of que sera sera, which sometimes happens to people who do big things anonymously and get the public’s attention. He lets a lot more of himself out. He is in turn authoritative (“DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD”), sarcastic, humble, assertive, soliciting, caring, playful, and nonchalant (“. . .haven’t got any better ideas at the moment.”)

    He either believes he’s untouchable or he’s letting down his guard a little because he doesn’t care as much any more if he is discovered. He’s probably weighed the pros and cons of revealing himself (or being found out) and concluded it wouldn’t be completely horrible as long as he prepares himself properly for it. He may not be good with it, but he’s ready for it. He’s had more than three years to think about it, so I’m sure he’s got a plan. First thing he will need is a good lawyer.

    Please excuse the avalanche of speculation and two-bit psychology, but I find the subject fascinating.

    theduke.

    • michael hart
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

      Whether by luck or design, the release of information seems to have been handled adroitly.

      Exhorting the “secret-keepers” to not release the password maintains
      a) The high moral-ground, and
      b) A stick that could be used later if necessary.

    • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:52 PM | Permalink

      @pottereaton –

      How bad can the punishment be, after all? What would the charges be? None of it was treasonous, MI6 stuff. What? A fine? 3 months in jail?

      Steve Garcia

  28. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

    IMHO, this precious space should not become a guessing game for identity. Sure it’s a challenge, sure it’s fun.
    But I suggest that people should be concentrating on planning the most effective way to assimilate, summarise and distribute the results, and to whom.
    Remember that especially Climategate 2 was hardly touched by the MSM. Let’s work to try to change that.
    I thank FOIA for his courage and eventual benefit to many, many people, but let’s reward him/her with help, not by trying to make it harder by causing further identity concealment measures.

    • pottereaton
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:29 PM | Permalink

      Geoff: those thoughts occurred to me. I considered asking Richard Drake for his email address and sending the comment to him privately, but decided to just post the comment.

      If Steve agrees with you, then I request that he deletes the post.

      • Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 4:35 AM | Permalink

        As I always say, I’m rdrake98 on almost every label, including Twitter, Skype and Gmail (gmail.com to be precise), the latter being where you’d want to send email, if you do :)

  29. DGH
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:31 PM | Permalink

    The phrase “sacrifices to the climate gods” was used in 2008 by Dr. Roy Spencer. Like Mr. FOIA Spencer was referring to the less powerful people who are victimized by the environmental policies of the more power people.

    That isn’t to say that Dr. Spencer is FOIA but perhaps it’s a crumb…

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/224614/sacrifices-climate-gods/roy-spencer

    • DGH
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

      Dr. Spencer has also used the analogy of digging holes and filling them back up…

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2012/10/it%E2%80%99s-time-for-the-99-to-start-supporting-the-1/

      • pottereaton
        Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:04 PM | Permalink

        I’m sure Roy Spencer will not be thrilled to be mentioned in this context. I do believe that kind of speculation is ill-advised. I thought that about Briffa also.

        • DGH
          Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 10:09 PM | Permalink

          I wrote, “that isn’t to say that Dr. Spencer is FOIA” And I will reiterate, it is clear that Dr. Spencer is not Mr. FOIA.

          But FOIA reads the blogs. The fact that (at least) two of the phrases in the post also appear in Dr. Spencer’s blog is interesting and only that.

          As for that “kind of speculation,” Steve M has engaged the discussion of forensics. See his in-line comments in this post. Should he rule that such discussion is O/T then so be it.

    • Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

      That phrase is a very good ‘get’ out of the manifesto.

      When I first heard of what the warmists wanted to do to industry world-wide, my first thoughts were, “Dont’ those jaggoffs realize how many people they will be injuring and actually killing?”

      I have only two reasons for being here.

      One is to prevent those people from hurting billions of others in their headlong flight to take us back to the year 1800. The world cannot GO back, even if we want to. Resources reasonably available then aren’t anymore. To go back now is to kill 6 billion people. Maybe more.

      In one parallel universe, where they’ve already passed the Copenhagen Accord, half a billion are dead. And bread lines extend from New York to Philadelphia.

      The second reason is just plain scientific integrity.

      God bless FOIA, for knee-capping the mofos. Without CG1, they win.

      Steve Garcia

  30. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:41 PM | Permalink

    The quirks of grammar/sentence structure that some have noticed remind me of the those that one might encounter when talking/writing to a Quebecois and/or other francophone who has become fluently bilingual (but whose mother tongue is French, rather than English).

    This might also explain the (perhaps deliberate, perhaps not!) use of “220.000” rather than 200,000:

    in Quebec—1,500 means “one and a half,” and 1.500 means “fifteen hundred

    See: http://btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tcdnstyl-chap?lang=eng&lettr=chapsect5&info0=5

    Also, the Saint writes:

    I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan.

    Oh, well … there goes my theory [regarding the alleged "upload" to RC] Then again, perhaps not! The Saint has not been specific regarding what s/he was “trying to publish” on RC! Maybe, as I have speculated, it was simply the comment announcing the availability of the CG1 files.

    Steve, s/he has indicated that the E-mail address from which the missive you received was sent may still be active (temporarily). So, perhaps, if you have a chance, you could pose the question directly – and then we’ll know for sure the extent of truthfulness contained in Gavin’s ever-changing story;-)

    • pottereaton
      Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:54 PM | Permalink

      Good suggestion, Hillary. Steve might also ask him if he is concerned about all the speculation and analysis over who he is and whether he feels it might compromise his anonymity.

      The fact that he is even available for comment at an email address seems to me to be a bit dangerous in itself.

      • Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 4:37 AM | Permalink

        Life itself is dangerous. It’s what FOIA has done with his that is special.

  31. Green Sand
    Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 7:57 PM | Permalink

    “Over and out.”

    Wilco

    Message understood, mission, (this one?), accomplished!

    Should be a gong for your efforts, but probably not, please accept my personal thanks as a very poor substitute.

    Well done, I trust your efforts will truly be a benefit to those that are in the most need.

    Fare thee well!

  32. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 8:18 PM | Permalink

    @Rcook Mar 13, 2013 at 12:46 PM | Permalink | Reply
    Over at the EPA, I believe they use the word ████████████████████.

    I thought that was the CIA and the Pentagon.

    Steve Garcia

  33. Posted Mar 13, 2013 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

    Guys, guys, guys… It was Phil Jones. We all know that. He was so upset at Man”s bullying, he’d finally had enough.

    But then he thought about what Mann was going to DO to him, so he got the “blue flu” when CG1 came out.

    Phil Jones, the little man who, just when he got to replace Tom Wigley and be king of the roost, along came that damned American, Mike Mann, and screwed up the whole setup. He;d waited an entire decade to replace Tom Wigley, and be #1 Climate Scientist in the World, and then that freaking usurper. . . Well, Jones would show HIM!

    But, coward that he was, Jones couldn’t stomach what he had done – turning on his allies. He couldn’t face them. He couldn’t face anybody.

    He still can’t. He’s composed that manifesto from skeptical comments and articles, so as to throw everybody off the scent.

    No, no hacker. Just whistle blowin’ little Phil.

    Steve Garcia

  34. Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 4:43 AM | Permalink

    At his site Luboš Motl posted on CG3 saying,

    Yes, your humble correspondent [Luboš] was among a dozen of people in the world who received the e-mail above directly from Mr FOIA [ . . . ]

    I have not seen anyone who is one of the original 12 email recipients name all the recipients.

    Was RC a recipient?

    John

    • Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 4:51 AM | Permalink

      I would expect the question “Does FOIA trust RC?” to unlock this mystery.

      • Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 4:57 AM | Permalink

        Sorry to be in a flippant mood this morning but am I the only one to hear in the back of my mind the stern reply “It’s Mr. FOIA to you.”

        • Ken Finney
          Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 4:37 PM | Permalink

          Well, I know *I’m* not on a first-acronym basis with him…

  35. Chris Wright
    Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 6:57 AM | Permalink

    Whoever he may be, I hope that one day he will receive the Nobel Prize for services to humanity.
    Chris

  36. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 7:53 AM | Permalink

    Now it must be time to coordinate a scheme to break the large volume into subsets, to ensure that they unzip, to write a keyword search (if the former ones do not work), to distribute tranches to people who have shown an ability to extract useful information through a long association with the story, for the rules to include no release before a panel has authenticated the selection of a worker bee.

    FOIA has been very careful in his work and it would be a disaster if someone well meaning but not well versed blew it through the invention of fakes, or by selective quotations out of context. FOIA has already hinted that he has separated most of the gold from the dross, but as old gold miners know, it’s amazing what you can find when you reprocess the tailings.

    IMO, it has to be treated like confidential science or math data and given a strict and accurate treatment – especially an honourable one.

    • Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 8:04 AM | Permalink

      FOIA has already hinted that he has separated most of the gold from the dross, but as old gold miners know, it’s amazing what you can find when you reprocess the tailings.

      Concur – without viewing myself either as old or a gold miner. This is beautifully put Geoff.

  37. hswiseman
    Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

    You can be sure the FBI has its Unibomber Manifesto team tearing apart the linguistics here. The long letter was a bad idea when it comes to maintaining anonymity. Considering the continuity of crap issuing from the climate community, is the old stuff even relevant? The recent work speaks for itself in discrediting the quality of science being “performed”.

    • seanbrady
      Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 10:21 AM | Permalink

      Actually, the unabomber manifesto was 35,000 words long (compared to less than 1,000 for Mr. FOIA) and it didn’t generate even one good guess at the FBI regarding the identy of the unabomber.

      It was Ted Kaczynski’s brother David who, already suspicious of Ted, read the manifesto and started the chain of events that led to the capture of the unabomber. Even up to the date that Kaczynski’s cabin was searched, many at the FBI used the manifesto to convince themselves that Kaczynski was not the unabomber.

    • pottereaton
      Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 10:58 AM | Permalink

      I think the idea that the FBI is investing resources into this in any meaningful way is dubious. The Unibomber murdered and maimed people. They wanted to catch him before he struck again. This “crime,” if it was a crime, was committed nearly four years ago in the UK. I’m sure, given the environmental bent of this administration, that they’d like to identify and perhaps charge FOIA if that is within their jurisdiction, but it may be that it’s not. They don’t even know what country FOIA is in.

  38. Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 9:15 AM | Permalink

    I’m sure there will be more than one juicy titbit that will be fed to the MSM in the next few days.

  39. MikeN
    Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 10:46 AM | Permalink

    When there is a prolonged pause in this blog, should readers expect the next post to be big?

  40. David Holland
    Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 12:54 PM | Permalink

    There will be titbits.

    On the morning of CG3 I was preparing a guest post to report on the release on 4 March by the UEA of some of Briffa’s emails, which I first asked for nearly five years ago. The full release is here (http://tinyurl.com/cl2gk2u), and I’ve extracted the ones that I thought worth mentioning here(http://tinyurl.com/d9oy789). Personal information has been redacted by the UEA.

    I had been digging into AR4 as soon as Steve forced NOAA to release the review comments, but what got me into this mess was Steve’s post of 25 May 2008 on Wahl and Ammann 2007 and the IPCC Deadlines (http://climateaudit.org/2008/05/25/wahl-and-ammann-2007-and-ipcc-deadlines/). On 27 May I asked for the responses that Briffa received to the email the TSU sent on 3 July 2006. It changed the “in press” deadline for AR4 from before the second expert review stage when it should logically been to a month after it, which circumvented the process.

    You may recall that Jones said Briffa should say he did nor get any responses. Someone must had said it because the UEA responded that the information was not held. It was however, and Briffa, Jones and Osborn all knew it was, so a criminal offence was committed by one or more of them.

    In CG1, Mr FOIA told us that on 28 July 2006 Briffa had received at least four responses and in CG2 that, on 28 July 2006,Briffa received Steve’s response in roundabout way that Wegman and NRC should be cited. Last week the UEA released an email (in the extract file) that shows that Briffa received seven earlier responses on 16 July 2006. This email was separately copied to Osborn.

    The other circumstantial evidence that we now have makes it impossible for the UEA to claim its refusal on 20 June 2008 and again on 26 January 2010 was unintentional. I am sure there may be more in CG3 to show the wilful criminality.

    • Skiphil
      Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

      Re: David Holland (Mar 14 12:54),

      Very helpful yet again David Holland, thanks. While abjuring discussion of motives can I state that *some* UEA officials and scientists have not been … accurate … in their statements in past years?? Perhaps one useful Climategate-3 project will be to compile a list of all public utterances out of official UEA sources which have been proved inaccurate or worse.

    • Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 7:14 PM | Permalink

      Well done David.

  41. Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 1:22 PM | Permalink

    Mr. FOIA is my new hero. He has done the world an enormous service and has asked nothing in return – though he has published his bitcoin address if you want to help him out since Big Oil doesn’t seem to be doing much for him – maybe the rest of us could help him out by refraining on speculating on his identity or nationality – he’s obviously a very private person. I think we should respect that. For instance, mining the Bore Hole at RC is probably not helpful to his cause. I think is would be much more fruitful to speculate on how we be of equal service and leave the poor fellow alone [I'm almost sure he's a fellow].

    W^3

  42. jennifermarohasy
    Posted Mar 14, 2013 at 9:15 PM | Permalink

    Mr FOIA,

    You are a true hero.

    You have indeed done science a great service, by exposing the corruption within the IPCC process.

    I completely agree with your statement:

    “Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life.”

    You go on to explain why we should thus better allocate our collective “assets”.

    I wish this clear message from you were better understood.

    Sincerely, Jennifer Marohasy
    www. jennifermarohasy.com

  43. David Holland
    Posted Mar 16, 2013 at 5:34 AM | Permalink

    Here’s the first titbit. #1210173484

    It’s not dramatic but until now we only had one Palutikof email. Now we know Jones contacted her as soon as I made a formal request to the UEA.

    From: Phil Jones
    Sent: 07 May 2008 09:52
    To: Palutikof, Jean
    Subject: FW: Freedom of Information Request [FOI_08-23 ; EIR_08-01]

    Jean,
    Can you help us out a bit? See the first pdf here from Holland. In the footnote there are two IPCC documents referred to. I can’t find these on the IPCC site in Geneva. I’ve found these two attached – are they the same? The second in Holland’s footnote looks like the larger one attached. Issue is were the claimed documents there and has IPCC changed them? A quick look through seems as though the two I’ve attached are the ones?

    As an aside you’ll see that this requests relates to an awful lot of emails. Have you had more requests – beyond that for the RE letters about their duties in WG2?

    Cheers
    Phil

    Subject: RE: Freedom of Information Request [FOI_08-23 ; EIR_08-01]
    Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 10:07:43 +0100
    From: “Palutikof, Jean” XXXXXXXXXX@metoffice.gov.uk>
    To: “Phil Jones” XXXXXXXXX@uea.ac.uk>

    Hi Phil

    The dreaded David Holland!

    Yes, you have the two correct documents. The short one is the version which was modified in Mauritius.

    David Holland is presently on his third FOI to the Met Office re the AR4. The first one was to the WGII TSU and was pretty straightforward. He’s presently chasing John Mitchell for his emails – broadly the same text as went to Keith – just the names have changed.

    I have no doubt he will return to the TSU ultimately – hopefully by then we’ll have been disbanded!

    The FOI people here tell me that he can ultimately be declared vexatious, but since our best gues is that he’s a lawyer that might land us in even more hot water.

    Do you have any clues as to who he is?

    Jean

    Lawyer indeed!

  44. David Holland
    Posted Mar 16, 2013 at 5:48 AM | Permalink

    Another amusing titbit #1210344567

    cc: “tim Osborn” xxxxxxxx@uea.ac.uk>
    date: Fri May 9 10:49:27 2008
    from: Phil Jones xxxxxxx@uea.ac.uk>
    subject: David Holland document
    to: t.osborn, k.briffa

    Sorry!

    Keith, Tim,

    No point in reading this, but it could be useful in proving the vexatious point.

    As he has Nigel Lawson’s email, it might help explain why the economy didn’t do that well when he was Chancellor – if he was getting advice from people like this!

    There are numerous trivial mistakes in all this, apart from the obvious ones. The funniest is the claim by MM that the significance level for RE should be 0.59!

    The Appendix in the Wengen paper will be great to see in print!

    Cheers
    Phil

    Hopefully further on there may be more interesting revelations.

  45. pottereaton
    Posted Mar 19, 2013 at 8:33 PM | Permalink

    Jeff Condon, Roger (tallbloke) and I believe Mosher all got a letter purportedly from attorneys representing UEA today on the subject of the Climategate emails. At tallbloke’s blog, Christopher Monckton had an amusing comment on how tallbloke should handle the situation:

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/university-of-east-anglia-attempts-to-put-frighteners-on-tallbloke/comment-page-1/#comment-47339

  46. Brian H
    Posted Mar 29, 2013 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    So, will the “plod” be on the case again? I hear Tallbloke is feeling new heat.

4 Trackbacks

  1. By Sunrise's Swansong on Mar 13, 2013 at 6:10 PM

    [...] http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/more-news-from-rcfoia/ [...]

  2. By Climategate 3.0!!!! on Mar 13, 2013 at 6:11 PM

    [...] [...]

  3. [...] some brakes to the runaway train that was the global warming orthodoxy before Copenhagen. There is much speculation as to the identity of Mr. FOIA and my current speculative summary of his profile [...]

  4. [...] UEA/CRU seem to have magically found some emails that David Holland had requested five years [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,245 other followers

%d bloggers like this: