

Climategate - again? - bootload
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/13/2770249.htm

======
bootload
_"... The first, and most convincing, given the forensic trail, is that a gang
of professional hackers in Russia (Tomsk?) was hired by someone. The second is
that the emails had been assembled by a person within the CRU in response to a
Freedom of Information demand that had subsequently been blocked. This person
then allowed the emails to escape 'in the public interest'. ..."_

Williams is a science reporter for the ABC Science show which I listen to ~
<http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/> The Times article referred to in the
article by _"Bryan Appleyard"_ is here ~
[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article693...](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6931598.ece)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
denialists, troops, mob, goons...

Can we please have a climate article without all the hyperbole? (rhetorical
question. The answer is obviously "no")

This is not an either/or situation. Most likely the emails were illegally
stolen but they were also the part of the data that legally needed to be
released to the public. (Hence the lack of emails with lots of personal
details. These emails had already been filtered as part of the preparation
process. Just a guess. That and 5 bucks gets you a cup of coffee)

The "crime" here, if there is one, is refusal to allow independent
verification of process (a crime against science) and refusal to allow open
inspection of work progress (an ethical lapse and also perhaps a real crime of
fraud, depending on how seriously you take your FOIA laws) It's not the end of
climate science, just an embarrassing peek at how little clothes the emperor
is actually wearing under there. Attempting to prosecute somebody for stealing
information that needed to be released to the public anyway would be amusing,
at best, to watch.

Nothing to see here, please move along.

