2
Feb

Acclaimed Climategate Analyst points to whistleblower rather than hacker

Climategate.com can now reveal the details of our exclusive interview with Australian physicist, Dr. John Costella, the acclaimed scientist who authored the accepted expert analysis of the Climategate emails. Costella wants to dispel doubts raised by those who clearly have not bothered to pay close scrutiny to what those infamous emails prove. Having directed my attention to the evidence cited below, I am convinced our readers will agree with Costella, that Professor Jones, the scientist at the center of the scandal, was having his correspondence closely monitored by the Freedom of Information Officer (FOI) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) before they were certainly leaked.

Costella’s statements will be seen as an embarrassing slight to former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King. On Monday, James Delingpole at the Telegraph exposed King for blowing off a lot of hot air about some hunch that nasty Russian or American spies hacked into the UEA’s Internet server. The bottom line is that the Information Commissioner’s Office has had to come clean and admit publicly that criminal conduct has taken place within the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, although no one in authority appears to want to do anything about it.

Dr. Costella, in his analysis, “Climategate Analysis,” has now published what is widely regarded as the best review of all 1,000+ emails and other documents contained in a 62MB upload to a Russian Internet server on November 19, 2009.

I asked John to comment on whether he believed it was the work of a hacker or an inside whistleblower that broke this most sensational scandal. He replied, “My only speculation on this comes from the following email,” and then directed me to read email 1228922050 of December 9, 2008 in which U.S. climatologist Ben Santer catches onto UEA climatologist, Phil Jones’s strategy of arguing that a greater number of requests implies lower credibility and validity, rather than the opposite:

Santer:

“I had a quick question for you: What is the total number of F[reedom] O[f] I[nformation (FOI)] A[ct] requests that you’ve received from Steven McIntyre?”

Jones:

“[I h]aven’t got a reply from the FOI person here at [the] U[niversity of] E[ast] A[nglia]. So I’m not entirely confident the numbers are correct. … I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails—unless this was “normal” deleting to keep emails manageable!”

Costella comments:

“Unless Jones volunteered this information to their FOI officer, this intriguing email may indicate that the FOI officer—who will generally have system-level rights to read all emails, as part of their job—may have been monitoring Jones‘s emails, including the one above where he admitted deleting emails. This may lead to the identity of the Climategate whistle-blower, for those who continue to doubt their existence.”

Relatedly, Dr. Costella also confirmed that contrary to widespread misunderstanding, none of the emails were redacted: “The ZIP file I downloaded on December 6, 2009 has the emails intact. The files on my webpage are not redacted either.”

The continued to speculate on the confusion of this issue:

“I think that when some people decided to post them all online, they wrote a program to redact all email addresses to avoid them being picked up by spammers. But by the time I saw them, there were so many unredacted copies on the Internet that I knew it was useless to do that.”

Pointedly, Costella informed me that he found the full email addresses are “extremely useful” in deciphering the affiliations of the alleged climate conspirators. “They are also important in that they show that these people were (almost always) using their OFFICIAL work email, not personal email,” he said.

John left me with a few sobering words that shows that here is a man who thinks with the cool, objective head of a scientist:

“Opinions on likely hackers are mere speculation, no matter how well-respected or honorable the speculator may be… it has been over two months now. Regardless of how the emails were leaked, they have been acknowledged as genuine, and provide evidence of astounding fraud. Investigation and potential prosecution or protection of the leaker or hacker is a separate issue, of no direct relevance to the issue of fraud.”

In this article we have dealt with facts, not the spin that warmists like Sir David King are spouting. Conclusions may only properly be drawn from evidence plainly presented. We have seen very little or any of that from the apologists of climate crime.

Dr. Costella has made a compelling factually-based case that Phil Jones’ unlawful deletion of emails was, he admits, well known to his FOI Officer. Jones was instructed to desist in breaking the law by that Officer. He continued to refuse to comply with the officer’s request. Thereafter, a vast amount of data (62MB) contained within a directory entitled ‘FOIA’ was uploaded onto the Internet. Absent any evidence to prove a hack we may thus infer a conscientious whistleblower, probably the FOI Officer, leaked the emails.”

Possibly related posts:

  1. Police pension fund conflict of interest raises question of Climategate cover up
  2. Breaking! Penn State says they are exempt from Freedom of Information Act
  3. Now get John Costella’s climategate email commentary in a PDF “book”
  4. Prosecutor humiliated in Climategate U-turn:
    charges “tainted”
  5. BREAKING! Penn State finds Michael Mann innocent of suppressing or falsifying data

3 Responses to “Acclaimed Climategate Analyst points to whistleblower rather than hacker”

  1. Dave McK says:

    The only element missing explanation is Paul Hudson’s statement that he received copies of one ‘string’ of emails on August 12.
    Is David Palmer connected with Hudson in any way?

  2. Molon Labe says:

    There is no doubt that the original FOIA.zip file contains unredacted email addresses. I downloaded a copy of it from the Russian ftp server immediately after it was made available.

  3. [...] NDET, a secret police group, that were only investigating “computer hacking” ( i.e. hunt down the whistleblower!) not the fraud perpetrated by climate scientists. NDET admits that: “this is not strictly a [...]

This website is for sale for $10,000. Contact us if interested.