Who Leaked the Climategate Emails?
December 4, 2009 10:12 am Climate ScienceThe standard story so far has been that Russian hackers obtained the CRU documents, and it was then loaded up to an anonymous Russian FTP site which did not require any user-id to logon. Is there any proof whatsoever for this assertion? Isn’t it a monumental logical leap to assume that just because the data and emails were uploaded to a Russian FTP site, that the hackers must be Russian? The assertions that this data might have been obtained by illegally hacking into the CRU computer has provided NYT with an excuse not to cover it. On Nov 20th NYT stated the following.
The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.
CBC and Senator Boxer framed it as a hacker crime as well with focus on the illegality of the act.
As your correspondent noted on Nov 23rd, this is highly unlikely, i.e. it is more likely that the documents were leaked. This view was further corroborated on Nov 26th when Daily Mail reported the following.
The controversy surrounding the global warming e-mail scandal has deepened after a BBC correspondent admitted he was sent the leaked messages more than a month before they were made public.
Paul Hudson, weather presenter and climate change expert, claims the documents allegedly sent between some of the world’s leading scientists are of a direct result of an article he wrote.
In his BBC blog three days ago, Hudson said: ‘I was forwarded the chain of emails on the 12th October, which are comments from some of the world’s leading climate scientists written as a direct result of my article “Whatever Happened To Global Warming”.’
Now there is speculation that James Hansen leaked the documents. Will this prompt a change in the coverage? Don’t bet on it.
![[del.icio.us]](http://images.del.icio.us/static/img/delicious.small.gif){kind=small}
Arran Gold
duggan's dew :
Date: December 5, 2009 @ 7:59 AM
The emails and documents appear to have been chosen by an insider. They are not simply a random selection gathered in haste. However, the whistle-blower may have had only a short time to look through a subset of all the material. In that case, there could potentially be so much combustible material remaining as to constitute a serious hazard to careers and institutions. And investigators will see it all.