While no criminal proceedings will be instigated, the investigation has concluded that the data breach was the result of a ‘sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet’.Eli, thus expects substantially less crap spew from the usual suspects and minions that it was a "whistleblower" not a hack. Apologies, while welcome, are not anticipated but the bunnies are welcome to try
Senior Investigating Officer, Detective Chief Superintendant Julian Gregory, said: “Despite detailed and comprehensive enquiries, supported by experts in this field, the complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law.
“The international dimension of investigating the World Wide Web especially has proved extremely challenging.
“However, as a result of our enquiries, we can say that the data breach was the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU’s data files, carried out remotely via the internet. The offenders used methods common in unlawful internet activity to obstruct enquiries.
“There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime.”
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Cui bono
DeSmog brings news that the Norfolk Constabulary has stopped its investigation into the CRU hacking. In a press release they state:
33 comments:
Dear Anonymous,
UPDATE: The spambots got clever so the verification is back. Apologies
Some of the regulars here are having trouble telling the anonymice apart. Please add some distinguishing name to your comment such as Mickey, Minnie, Mighty, or Fred.
You can stretch the comment box for more space
The management.
if i read the bunnies expectations correctly, then they have been disappointed already by some private investigator specializing in (i) the instrumental record and (ii) the personally motivated UEA-leaker. look in the moshpit at Wutt.
ReplyDeleteI think you underestimate the powers of conspiracy-think. They will just take this as evidence that the climategate cover-up extends to the Norfolk police.
ReplyDelete-MMM
Dear Mr. Eli Rabett,
ReplyDeleteI work for Bloggingbooks (bloggingbooks.net), which is the new publishing brand of SVH publishing house.
We are broadening our publishing programme and we have just started in publishing blog posts.
In this respect, we are glad to offer you the possibility of publishing your blog posts as a book.
Should you have interest in the publication of your posts or should you have any question, I would be pleased to answer your queries by e-mail.
You will find more information about our publishing house on our website: bloggingbooks.net
Looking forward to hearing from you.
contact email: m [dot] gorbulea [at] bloggingbooks [dot] de
Hmm, the dollar, dollar nighty eight might be useful under the bridge when Eli retires. OTOH, the bunny would have to share with Brian and John
ReplyDelete"Apologies, while welcome, are not anticipated but the bunnies are welcome to try"
ReplyDeleteIndeed. It's far more likely that
A) the conspiracy is simply expanded to contain the Detective Chief Superintendant into The Team or the Bilderbergs, or the IPCC or whatever. Or,
B) the cognitive dissonance will simply ignore this inconvenient fact and quickly move on to other straw men.
--cynicus
The skepticons are just making the story more complex. True to form.
ReplyDeleteDr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
ReplyDelete@Jbowers
"the skepticons" that's awesome, you are my hero for the day. Seriously Bowers, we disagree a lot but this is damn funny.
Mega Lumpus, mega phd.
I'm just surprised they haven't caught the hacker yet.
Though slightly shorter, I have to give an H/T to DBostrom for 'skepticons'.
ReplyDeleteThe absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
ReplyDeleteGianni
"They will just take this as evidence that the climategate cover-up extends to the Norfolk police. "
ReplyDeleteThe Norfolk Constabulary have been in the pocket of Big Windmill since the Dutch libtards landed to impose wetland regulation on the water meadows and put a bag limit on snipe.
When the Karoly thing was blowing up last night on SkepticalScience (please don't keep the tangent alive in that thread, btw), I checked Climate Audit to see if McIntyre had said anything about the real reason for the offending review disappearing (behind a paywall, not scrubbed from the web out of embarrassment as he alleged). I was greeted with the news that the CRU investigation was closing down, and of course McIntyre being himself, there was no apology. Instead, he made some significance of the fact the press release didn't say why they ruled out a leak or whistleblowing.
ReplyDeleteIn a very short follow-up confirming the return of the server to UEA, he insinuated that it would quickly be purged of any damning content that might implicate any climate scientists of wrong-doing.
Has he ever been anything other than accusatory?
-WheelsOC
I'm surprised. I would have imagined a group that could hide the decline would have had better system security.
ReplyDeleteMike
"I'm just surprised they haven't caught the hacker yet."
ReplyDeleteMaybe you 'n' O.J. can find the real hacker.
--Pointy Hair
@ WheelsOC
ReplyDeleteEver read Moby Dick? If the hockey stick was a white whale....
fun fact: Bono actually lives in Norfolk. here's a short clip from a light-hearted documentary that includes a tour round his house (Blickling Hall, just north of Aylsham), presented by Norwich Radio celebrity Alan Partridge: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VlXsCLWgFkw#t=100s
ReplyDelete"I'm surprised. I would have imagined a group that could hide the decline would have had better system security."
ReplyDeleteto be fair, they're so monumentally incompetent that they accidentally got the details of their elaborate conspiracy published in Nature. i bet someone didn't get a Christmas card from Al Gore that Christmas!
Eli is an optimist, although that's much better than being a fantasist along the lines of ligne.
ReplyDeleteWow, the denialism over at WUWT over this is truly astounding, even by their standards.
ReplyDeleteI have no expertise in these things but from their statement it would certainly appear that Norfolk police either have their own experts or brought in experts from outside who are experienced in investigating this kind of crime. Yet the armchair Columbos at WUWT know better. And of course Mosher is leading the way, instantly making me regret the nice things I said about him on the recent thread here.
The stupid thing (well, one amongst many) is that even if it was an insider that wouldn't make it legal. UK whistleblower legislation isn't meant for this kind of situation.
Well, Mosher is simply Mosher and he wrote a book about himself being such an awesome armchair Columbo. So he can't backtrack now can he? Apologizing is always something that others should do.
ReplyDelete--cynicus
Mosher reckons he might know who did it, guv, and it was someone on the inside. Thing is, why go to all the bother of hacking into your own workplace if you think there's so much malpractice, improper conduct, unethical behaviour, and attempts to conceal the aforementioned, in CRU, and risk the scrutiny of Norfolk Plod and the Crown Prosecution Service, when UEA has a Public Interest Disclosure Whistleblowing Policy that would cover them anyway? I did call UEA to find out if it was in place in 2009 but the person at the other end of the phone hadn't been there that long. Maybe someone from UEA's reading this and can confirm?
ReplyDeleteClimategate detective: 'I'm deeply disappointed' we didn't catch hacker
ReplyDelete"Norfolk police's Julian Gregory explains why investigation into the University of East Anglia's hacked emails was so complex"
They may not have caught the perp(s), but at least the Norfolk Police understand the difference between reliable evidence and total BS.
ReplyDeleteGuardian reporter (Hickman): Have you kept on top of all the internet speculation and commentary surrounding this case?
Norfolk police detective Julian Gregory: Firstly, you can't investigate what's said online. Secondly, you look at those blogs and most of it is speculative, uninformed and, occasionally, ridiculous.
Hickman: But did you keep an eye on it in case someone came up with a possible lead or sensible theory, or did you see it as nonsense and a distraction?
Police detective Gregory: The latter. I think it was Steven Mosher who said he knew who it was, or had a theory, at least. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. Where does that take you? And is he likely to tell the police? The difference between the police and, say, journalists, is that we won't embark on a number of lines of enquiry because, ultimately, you can see that in terms of getting to where we need to get to - which is beyond reasonable doubt - it's not going to get you there. The fact that things are "interesting" is not always enough."
-- from
Climategate detective: 'I'm deeply disappointed' we didn't catch hacker
~@:>
They may not have caught the perp(s), but at least the Norfolk Police understand the difference between reliable evidence and total BS.
ReplyDeleteGuardian reporter (Hickman): Have you kept on top of all the internet speculation and commentary surrounding this case?
Norfolk police detective Julian Gregory: Firstly, you can't investigate what's said online. Secondly, you look at those blogs and most of it is speculative, uninformed and, occasionally, ridiculous.
Hickman: But did you keep an eye on it in case someone came up with a possible lead or sensible theory, or did you see it as nonsense and a distraction?
Police detective Gregory: The latter. I think it was Steven Mosher who said he knew who it was, or had a theory, at least. Maybe he does. Maybe he doesn't. Where does that take you? And is he likely to tell the police? The difference between the police and, say, journalists, is that we won't embark on a number of lines of enquiry because, ultimately, you can see that in terms of getting to where we need to get to - which is beyond reasonable doubt - it's not going to get you there. The fact that things are "interesting" is not always enough."
-- from
Climategate detective: 'I'm deeply disappointed' we didn't catch hacker
~@:>
Snow Bunny says:
ReplyDeleteThe deniers are out in force on Revkin's web site, claiming "no evidence" means the Norfolk police didn't try hard enough to find the whistleblower. DeSmog thinks the culprit was outside but that the police didn't try hard enough.
Mosher reckons he might know who did it, guv, and it was someone on the inside.
ReplyDeleteWell I saw him mention Briffa's name in that context once. Yes, seriously. Mosher's prime motive here seems, as usual, to convince everyone of the brilliance of Steven Mosher.
Regarding UEA's whistleblowing policy, even if it had not been in place in 2009 an insider still would have been protected by UK whistleblower legislation, if they had gone through the appropriate channels. But they didn't and it was almost certainly not an insider anyway so it's largely moot.
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
ReplyDeletewell, I'm done at lawyers guns and money, I've been censured.
If that clown Erik Loomis is going to write hack posts like the 2012 heatwave is the worst in the 21st century, he should prepare for a thrashing. I trust even Eli would admit that a 12 year data set on drought is pretty much worthless.
Dr. Lumpus Spookytooth, phd.
ReplyDelete@andrew adams
yeah Mosher and I are supposed to be on the same side and he pisses me off too, he does thinks he knows it alls but he doesn't.
Dr. Spookytooth is the leader of the skepticons, Mosher is more on the level of Bumblebee. Wait no, bumblebee is a good guy. Mosher is more like Skorpanok.
"Eli is an optimist, although that's much better than being a fantasist along the lines of ligne."
ReplyDeleteligne is a snarkist, and suggests that Steve re-reads that post with appropriate filters enabled :-)
Dr Woo and the Skepticons. Has a ring to it.
ReplyDeleteAnthony Watts is not available foe comment, as he is busy bringing confusion to his enemies by installing PV panels atop his black roof.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone ever needs a recap of the nine inquiries, Michael Mann's lawyer's letter to the National Review is just the ticket.
ReplyDeleteLetter to National Review
J Bowers,
ReplyDeletewhile this bunny ain't no lawyer, this list misses a few points that are worth making.
1) It isn't the number of investigations that count but their independence and thoroughness. In this respect, I would say that number 9 is definitive.
2) Several of these investigations weren't even into Dr Mann specifically.
3) If I wanted to be nasty, I would point out for Investigation 4 that the "allegation" alluded to was actually synthesized from a large number of semi-literate rants that investigators had to work from :-)
"Investedgation"
ReplyDelete-- by Horatio Algeranon
The tin foil hats
Are out in force:
"The Norfolk cops
Are "pals", of course
In cahoots
With the hockey CRU --
Trying to hide
The data too!"