End Climategate sham police investigation

How long should it take a police team to determine through investigation if information placed into the public domain was:

a) stolen from an organisation by way of a ‘hack’ by unauthorised person or persons external to that organisation? or

b) released from the organisation by a person inside that organisation?

So far it has taken over one year and we learn from Bishop Hill, who has been asking Norfolk Constabulary (aka The Swedey) for an update, there is no indication of any outcome to the police enquiries. Complex murder and fraud investigations are completed more quickly than this.

What this tells us is that the complaint to police by the University of East Anglia (UEA) alleging the servers containing emails and data relating to the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was nothing more than a duck and cover exercise designed to dissuade the media from publishing the contents.

To an extent the strategy worked with organs such as the New York Times refusing to publish extracts of the information. But ultimately the attempt at censorship was futile.  It also suggests the police are not taking the matter particularly seriously and feel no pressure to arrive at a determination one way or the other.

All in all this has simply been a massive posturing exercise initiated by UEA to distract from its embarrassment (and the decline) that someone within the college was willing to expose the behaviour of CRU scientists. It should now stop claiming the information was stolen when there is no evidence of any such thing and the police should not waste another pound of taxpayers’ money on this farcical sham ‘investigation’.

7 Responses to “End Climategate sham police investigation”

  1. 1 Barry 09/12/2010 at 10:56 am

    Perhaps CRU should be charged with wasting Police time. They have previous for being crap at managing their network.

  2. 2 AJC 09/12/2010 at 11:00 am

    Agree that the forensic exercise has clearly been a sham (as have been the Independent Reviews) although why the Police have been willing parties to the sham instigated by UEA isn’t clear.

    My concern is that once the filesystem is returned to UEA they
    will destroy the evidence thereon.

    One hopes that there are FOI requests in place to prevent this happening.

  3. 3 Span Ows 09/12/2010 at 4:17 pm

    My son is at UEA…but I’m sure it wasn’t him (thinks…)

    Anyway, you might like this:


  4. 5 Tufty 09/12/2010 at 5:41 pm

    You might also like Doug Keenan’s letter to the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Commons. Doug Keenan doesn’t mince words.


  5. 6 Rossa 11/12/2010 at 3:12 pm

    It is rather ironic that the NYT wouldn’t publish the Climategate emails but they’re happy to publish the “stolen” aka leaked cables from Wikileaks.

  6. 7 anon 12/12/2010 at 5:51 am

    There is the possibility that the guy pwn’t them so bad they have no idea what’s going on.

Comments are currently closed.

Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

Error: Please make sure the Twitter account is public.

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive