Wikileaks Attitudes on Climategate

On the “tips” thread at WUWT, R. de Haan posted this:

Wikileaks behind CRU ClimateGate release?

I did find it a rather interesting discussion, though to me it sounded more like a discussion of how to handle the leak after it was public rather than how to handle it via making it…

Then again, it has a kind of “inside baseball” nature to the discussion so folks who have a better context can probably interpret it better than I can.

About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in AGW and Weather News Events and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Wikileaks Attitudes on Climategate

  1. Mike Jonas says:

    Wikileaks was started in 2007, climategate was 2009. Surely if Wikileaks was behind climategate then climategate wouldn’t have used the Russian server?

  2. E.M.Smith says:

    The reason for using the Russian servers was to disguise the chain of custody, the trail. That way any news agency that gets the stuff is immune as they are not the leaker.

    The question, though, is was wikileaks in this case both the leaker and the publisher. I’m not seeing much either way, but it’s an interesting theory.

  3. Earle Williams says:

    I’m sure most of your readers have already read Ross McKitrick’s response to this video, but for those who haven’t…

  4. E.M.Smith says:

    I’d not seen Ross’s comments. Has the ring of truth to it.

    Ross McKitrick

    What a pair of blowhards. They were obviously unnerved by the question. They evidently like leaks that embarrass their political opponents, but in this case they found themselves tagged with a leak that had damaged the side they like; and since it seems to be more about political warfare against governments they dislike than some impartial ideal of transparency and freedom of information, they were stuck scrambling to make up a story about how it really served some nobler purpose. Of course they should simply have said that they weren’t the source of the leak, that it was in full circulation long before anyone looked to them for a copy and they didn’t know much about the details of what followed. But that would have been too humble, especially in front of a room full of simpering hero-worshippers. So they pretended to be insiders and proceeded to deliver a few minutes of sheer drivel.

    While I was in the UK last fall, there was brief interest by the UK tabloids in the Russian angle, and an article appeared in the Daily Mail speculating that Russian intelligence officials had hacked the UEA and stolen the emails. But nobody took that line seriously and the story died within 48 hours. If Assange has a shred of evidence to support his lunatic theory he should release it. What’s with these secret communications between him and UK intelligence: out with it, Mr Wikileaks! Bloody poser.

    On this issue at least they are nothing but fakes and cretins. Saying that UEA released all the background emails and whatnot to provide the full context is beyond idiocy; and Assange’s discussion of the “trick” is just painful to watch.

    more discussion at the end of the link posted above.

    Per the notion it was Russian spooks that “did the dead” on the Climategate emails. No Way. This was done using Russian servers to HIDE the actual source. Besides, the Russians are modestly pedantic in their approach. If they had hacked it, they would have held it close to the vest for longer and then only let out interesting bits as it suited the agenda of the moment. This has more the feel of an insider dumping a load just as they saw the FOIA request junked. But someone who knows the ropes and knew how to hide the trail…

    I’ll not say more about where I would look or at whom, just that I know a skilled job when I see one and like what I’ve seen. “Well done, Sir or Madam!. Any time you want a beverage of your choice, just show up…”

Comments are closed.