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The “all.7z” password is [deracted] DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD.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
Climate Audit 
146 Comments
WUWT has found that Mann is not popular in these new batch of emails, either.
[deracted]
I have a new favorite word.
Steve: it sure sounds like a word that should exist. Perhaps we can agree on a meaning.
Over at the EPA, I believe they use the word ████████████████████.
I’ve heard of “capacitive deractance”. Is that close enough?
Is that man speaking Rockwellian?
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 …”.
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).
I don’t think that you can be that specific. Thais often leave out definite articles and thus presumably others.
Thais wouldn’t sonsider themselves part of the Western World. Non english speaking countries of the Western World can be reduced to continental europe.
Yes, but I was assuming that the person was European because of the dot in 200.000.
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.
(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.
And one or two quite reasonable more-than-part-time hackers like Linus Torvalds 🙂
“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.
This rules out Linus Torwalds, since his native language is Swedish.
So it’s Mia Tiljander then?
‘Climate protection’ is a literal translation of the common German term ‘Klimaschutz’
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.
“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.
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.
Does ‘arriving in Copenhagen’ mean that he is in the area?
I think the whole letter is deliberately written to appear foreign.
Being a front-seat witness to history as it unfolds is very satisfying.
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.
Witty comment from Cumbrian Lad at Bishop Hill:
:-):-):-)!!
Pythonesque! Nobody expects the Pope!
Ask Esper and Cook –
Everyone expects the Mannian Inquisition!
Steve Garcia
But I think this is really Mr FOIA’s witty comment, not Cumbrian Lad’s!
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.
Ah, so now we know why the Pope resigned.
“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.
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.
From the Wiki:
If FOIA is military, like Athelstan. said, he’s long of tooth.
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”.
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.
Good and valid points. But at the same time, maybe he is a war movie buff.
Steve Garcia
“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.
“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.
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.
Well, one Vicky Pope is head of predictions at the Hadley Centre.
Wow! Was the password a guessable phrase by any chance?
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.
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.
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.
And I was thinking this was going to be a dull week.
Dull?! What about Hydra13, a.k.a. Marcott et al?
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.)
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
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”
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
Nobody is common in Oz. Did I omit some inverted commas?
You mean you’re all individuals, Geoff? 🙂
Personally, I always say “no one” but write “nobody”, as I dislike the space in “no one”, and “noone” looks weird.
On worldview, FOIA appears to have followed the observation:
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.
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?
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.
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 (/).
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.
Slash /
Backslash \
I believe you have reversed the terminology. This, \, is a backslash, while the virgule, /, is simply termed a slash.
cheers,
gary
Sorry, yes meant backslash.
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.
Alexej – Rather than writing deg we can also write °C by uilizing ALT+ 248.
NOT a theory. Publishing on the internet and then remaining untraceable by the worlds’ best IT police is a real accomplishment of itself
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.
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.
How about being a participant, perhaps a lowly one, in the IPCC process?
Yea, another alternative, but would he have access to the CRU computer system?
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:
(My bold)
pottereaton has quoted the key passage for those of us who have always seen FOIA as an insider.
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
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
Perfect guess. UEA student campus, close to CRU PhD students.
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.
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?
Sheit! You beat me to it!
Steve Garcia
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.
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.
I have often mused that maybe the very first email in the very first bunch released was a clue.
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.
So this whole thing has nothing to do with global warming, but is an elaborate ad for bitcoin?
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
Not sufficiently acerbic!
Can’t be, there was no annoying music or fractals.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
+1
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
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).
Yeah, but the question is, “Where is his Filing Systems for Dummies book?”
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.
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.
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…
I think he is Hungarian, and of royal blood!
“They seek him here, they seek him there …”
Richard, he’s obviously not a dedicated follower of climate fashion. 🙂
“Those gumshoes seek him everywhere . . . “
@Nick Stokes. You are assuming that FOIA is a woman because that is Zoltan Kaparthy’s line describing Eliza Doolittle at the ball.
Not possible, Nick. The entire royal family have all been executed five times over now
Please, please, please! Stop speculating. He(?) doesn’t want to be outed. Stop helping the enemy.
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.
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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
@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
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.
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.
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 🙂
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
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/
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.
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.
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
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:
See: http://btb.termiumplus.gc.ca/tcdnstyl-chap?lang=eng&lettr=chapsect5&info0=5
Also, the Saint writes:
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;-)
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.
Life itself is dangerous. It’s what FOIA has done with his that is special.
“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!
@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
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
At his site Luboš Motl posted on CG3 saying,
I have not seen anyone who is one of the original 12 email recipients name all the recipients.
Was RC a recipient?
John
I would expect the question “Does FOIA trust RC?” to unlock this mystery.
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.”
Well, I know *I’m* not on a first-acronym basis with him…
Whoever he may be, I hope that one day he will receive the Nobel Prize for services to humanity.
Chris
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.
Concur – without viewing myself either as old or a gold miner. This is beautifully put Geoff.
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”.
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.
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.
I’m sure there will be more than one juicy titbit that will be fed to the MSM in the next few days.
When there is a prolonged pause in this blog, should readers expect the next post to be big?
Yes
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 (https://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.
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.
Well done David.
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
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
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.
Lawyer indeed!
Another amusing titbit #1210344567
Hopefully further on there may be more interesting revelations.
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:
So, will the “plod” be on the case again? I hear Tallbloke is feeling new heat.
4 Trackbacks
[…] https://climateaudit.org/2013/03/13/more-news-from-rcfoia/ […]
[…] […]
[…] 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 […]
[…] UEA/CRU seem to have magically found some emails that David Holland had requested five years […]