Comments on: Computers Seized in Cyber-Thief Investigation (updated again)

By: Mark Whitney

Mark Whitney — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 17:32:27 +0000

I can’t wait for Tallbloke’s libel suit against this elctro-rag. I think I’ll donate to his legal fund.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:11:35 +0000

I am not accepting further comments on this post.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 00:04:23 +0000

Chris, Nicole Cooper and some others seem very certain that they know who first stole the emails. If they have not reported this to the authorities, that would make them in the US likely guilty of obstruction of justice. That would make them criminals. Is Nicole Cooper a criminal? If Nicole Cooper knows who took those emails and has not reported it to the proper authorities, then it would seem so.

I imagine that investigators into this series of criminal acts could suss a lot of it out by just looking at the chatter on blogs and similar venues.

By: Chris Winter

Chris Winter — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 23:24:53 +0000

Amazing! Four separate individuals post that the CRU e-mails were released by an inside whistleblower. No, make that five. Six, counting #100.

Nicole Cooper wrote (#26): “It’s well known that the Climategate emails were leaked by an insider who was disgusted with his colleagues’ dishonesty.”

Why hasn’t he come forward, if he’s so disgusted?

By: Hengist McStone

Hengist McStone — Sat, 17 Dec 2011 21:09:29 +0000

Skepticism is about keeping an open mind, so how come all the so-called skeptics here have already made their minds up that (a)Laden has libelled Tattersall and (b) Tattersall is innnocent ?

The burden of proof is clearly with Tattersall under UK libel law.

By: The Sailor

The Sailor — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:53:46 +0000

To whatever sockpuppet above mentioned Rachel Ehrenfeld, (and misspelled her name), here is what the US thinks of the UK and other free speech denying countries:
Dr. Ehrenfeld pre-emptively countersued Mahfouz in New York to obtain a declaration that the judgment would not be enforced in the United States and that her book was not defamatory under United States defamation law. When the New York courts ruled that they lacked personal jurisdiction over Mahfouz, the New York State legislature took immediate action and unanimously passed the Libel Terrorism Protection Act (also known as “Rachel’s Law”). Rachel’s Law was signed into law on April-29-2008. The law “offers New Yorkers greater protection against libel judgments in countries whose laws are inconsistent with the freedom of speech granted by the United States Constitution.”.[3]

So basically, GFY.

And Marcus, enjoy your jail time for a death threat.

By: dhogaza

dhogaza — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:21:31 +0000

Greg:

I assume that Nature knows who hacked the emails but for some reason can’t say.

There are a lot of things that are known but can’t be said.

I wouldn’t expect the information to have come from the police. What I’d expect is that the university sysadmin types found evidence in log files of large amounts of data being transferred by (say) ftp from the e-mail machine to an external machine, perhaps even the russian machine used to host the files.

While they didn’t find any evidence in the logs of someone doing so from inside the network. Or if it was from an IP inside the network, they were able to show that it was hacked into from the outside, that kind of thing.

The odds of finding out information to this level of detail is quite high. The odds of this pointing to the perp is extremely low unless the person is extremely stupid.

Not so different than investigating a physical theft. A broken lock is evidence that someone broke the lock, but without fingerprints or dna evidence for someone whose data is on file, not of very much use in finding out *who* smashed the lock.

By: John's Wayne

John's Wayne — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:41:03 +0000

So, looks like every thing is open records now on the internet.

Notwithstanding all of the above, is there any chance our human history is not long enough yet to know the facts on the earths climate. Thing is we have very poor assets to assess the goings on on the planet prior to our enlightment.

It is possible that some of the long lasting cultures have old ones with understanding of long term climate due to the close relationship they had to have had due to the need to have the food to live.

Take for example the old ones of Chaco Canyon New Mexico in the U.S.. They were advanced in the understanding and timing of the moon, sun and earth tilting cycles. The knew something about long term climate in relation to wet/dry/cold/warm and did manage to live and addapt in a rather hard place to live.

They and the other older cultures of 100,000’s of thousand of years ago lived with huge numbers of other warm blooded aminals. In fact could be there was more grass, trees, fires, eruptions, resulting in much higher CO2 emmissions way back then.

We must work to understand how very, very long terms cycles effect our current climate.

Thanks for posting this.

By: Hoover

Hoover — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 21:10:19 +0000

You’ve all been very naughty.

Now GET TO BED!

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 20:43:44 +0000

Dilbert, great philosophy, but I hope you accompany that approach with a cash donation to the legal defense fund because there really are people really harassing scientists and actually dragging the through court. It will be hard for the truth to will-out, as it were, if scientists stop engaging in climate related careers because they don’t have the protection of society of the whackos of the type you see commenting here.

See my left side bar for the badge for the legal defense fund.