Like so many climate pundits, Richard Black hasn’t got a science degree or a sense of balance. When the emails and (for me at least) source code for the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia were leaked; he went mental! I mean he tweeted over and over about how terrible it was.
Today the police had officially announced the end of the investigation and he’s currently posting over and over again as to how the scientists at the CRU didn’t leak the data. Oh, really. Well, perhaps not in the way he thinks, but they did.
What’s clear is that either the UEA and/or Richard Black haven’t a clue how to run a secure server environment. He tweets;
emphasise UEA staff not involved – servers accessed via Internet. Several layers of password protection breached
So the UEA had their research servers linked to the internet did they, with just password protection. No RSA tags or key secured VPN solution. Nope, just a few passwords. I love the emphasis on “staff not involved”… Yes they were, by virtue of their incompetence.
Apparently there was “‘no evidence’ of any specific government or commercial hand behind the hack”, so that’s BP and Shell off the hook. Although given that BP AND SHELL SETUP THE CLIMATE RESEARCH UNIT in the first place, that always seemed unlikely. Sorry, didn’t you realise?
My favorite tweet though is this one.
Police say proximity of email releases to COP15 & COP17 suggests ‘intention to influence global debate’ on AGW
Which strikes me as pretty hypocritical, given that Peter Gleick committed identity theft in order to steal Heartland Institute “documents” just ahead of their climate conference and the Rio+20 conference. But Richard is fine with what Gleick did, because it’s “justified”. Whereas showing the deeply flawed shambles that is the CRU’s work… that’s an outrage. Nice balance Dick.
The fact that both organizations could do with a dose of openness is obvious. But to say one theft is terrible versus another; where is the fair and balanced reporting on that.
Reminds me of this Guardian article “Peter Gleick lied, but was it justified by the wider good?”. The majority of comments don’t agree. Furthermore, Gleick only went on to prove that the Heartland wasn’t the “backed by big oil” organisation he believed it was, the opposite was true. Of course, all you got was Richard Black’s version of reality and clearly he never read the documents.
Which leads me back to the real value of the climategate hack, the source code as widely reported here, but NEVER in the mainstream media. Because, you’re not allowed to imagine that there’s a problem with the science… just pay the tax and shut up slave!