?

Log in

Oh wait, climategate.com _is_ right-wing extremist

February 2nd, 2010 (04:47 pm)

The goal of Climategate.com is to provide a daily dose of information regarding the world’s greatest scam, climategate, [...] and in addition, to battle the one-world socialist agenda, which is the movement’s leaders’ real goal. [cached]
That sort of explains why they're roping in a "former CIA agent" to help in their, um, battle.

Comments

Posted by: ((Anonymous))
Posted at: February 5th, 2010 06:10 pm (UTC)

The Guardian has been doing a lot of climategate reporting lately, including on the forensics of the data file itself.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/feb/05/cru-climate-change-hacker

Don't know if any of that's new (a lot isn't), but for me the most interesting segment that I hadn't heard was that Jeff Condon, of Air Vent, suspects it was NOT a whistleblower or similar insider, or even someone familiar with the subject ("If it's an international conspiracy I would have guessed someone on the team would know the science better than that."). Listening to how Watts et al frame the discussion, this makes Air Vent (the first blog, as I recall, to have the link posted on it) unique among inactivist sites.

~Brian D

Posted by: Decoding SwiftHack (ijish)
Posted at: February 5th, 2010 06:58 pm (UTC)
What's new (to me) in the Guardian article

Don't know if any of that's new (a lot isn't)
For me at least, some of the things that are new are that (1) only four climatologists' inboxes were targeted -- Jones, Briffa, Osborn, Hulme; (2) the cracker was looking for keywords such as "data", "climate", "research", "temperature", and "model".

Incidentally, I'd been thinking of doing a concordance analysis on the e-mail contents for some time, but gave up on the idea because I felt it won't really get us any closer to the cracker's identity.
the most interesting segment that I hadn't heard was that Jeff Condon, of Air Vent, suspects it was NOT a whistleblower or similar insider, or even someone familiar with the subject
Indeed, it's interesting.

Posted by: ((Anonymous))
Posted at: February 6th, 2010 08:50 am (UTC)
Re: What's new (to me) in the Guardian article

Hm. If you ignore "paper" (it's a word that any academic correspondence would use all willy-nilly, in my experience and I'm certain in others), the other words in the concordance analysis are all common inactivist talking points levied at that specific institution (or, more generally, any institution previously targeted for "the models are faulty" claims). Furthermore, none of them are buzzwords unique to the field - they're all terms used by a lay audience that thinks they know what scientists are talking about.

At the same time, though, it does not contain words from the fringe, such as "conspiracy", "fraud", or even "adjustment" (common with UHI/surfacestations denialists). That isn't to say they weren't included in the initial filtering, just that they aren't especially common in the results (so we don't know how represented they were in the entire hacked archive).

~Brian D

Posted by: Decoding SwiftHack (ijish)
Posted at: February 6th, 2010 01:36 pm (UTC)
Re: What's new (to me) in the Guardian article

Furthermore, none of them are buzzwords unique to the field - they're all terms used by a lay audience that thinks they know what scientists are talking about.
That should probably put to rest the claim that 'the leaker knew what he was looking for' (or so I hope). It's easy for an attacker give outsiders the impression that he has inside knowledge, simply by doing a search for the right keywords.

Posted by: ((Anonymous))
Posted at: February 7th, 2010 06:29 am (UTC)
Re: What's new (to me) in the Guardian article

Of course, there is another question - if they didn't know the science well enough to search for, say, "bristlecone" (and even that's pretty lay-English and common on ClimateAudit), how did they know to target those four specific inboxes? (If what the Guardian says is true about the frequency of mails to/from those four, given that we know more info than the leak was hacked, I find it very, very difficult to believe they weren't included in the filter.)

Posted by: Decoding SwiftHack (ijish)
Posted at: February 7th, 2010 06:55 am (UTC)
Re: What's new (to me) in the Guardian article

That's a good question. A possible explanation is that the cracker took a look at CRU's staff list and decided that Jones, Briffa, and Osborn were near the top of the pyramid, so to speak. Hulme might've been targeted because he was the director of another climate research centre. All this is just my guess though.

Posted by: ((Anonymous))
Posted at: February 13th, 2010 09:54 pm (UTC)
Re: What's new (to me) in the Guardian article

What I am really interested in is the fact that they know what dates the hacks took place on. I'd like to find out what messages got hacked when (it sounds like the "charlie read me" code was done on nov 16). The Guardian article hints that they know this, but don't say much otherwise.

Anyone can help find out this info, please email bigcitylib@hotmail.com

Posted by: Decoding SwiftHack (ijish)
Posted at: February 14th, 2010 08:02 am (UTC)
Re: What's new (to me) in the Guardian article

My reading of the Guardian article is that they looked at the file access times recorded in the FOI2009.zip file -- which I have looked at in an earlier blog entry.

Strictly speaking these are the times at which the files were unpacked from a .tar file after being packed from an earlier cracking stage, rather than the times at which the files were initially accessed. (To know the initial access times, one'd need to know more than what's in the .zip file, and get access to the server's hard drives.)

8 Read Comments