The UK police force tasked with investigating the hacking of emails and documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (the debunked "Climategate") seems to have quietly de-prioritized its investigation earlier this year, according to documents released under the UK Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The Norfolk Constabulary police force’s responses to FOIA requests indicate that the amount spent on attempts to identify the hacker in the last year was just £5,649.09 - with all but £80.05 spent on invoices for work carried out previously by private companies, suggesting police work on the investigation has ground to a halt.
Earlier this week, the hackers (ironically calling themselves “FOIA”) illegally released a second set of hacked material consisting of 5,349 emails and 23 documents from UEA. The university and independent reviews suggest these are leftovers from the initial November 2009 theft – in the words of one climate scientist, “two-year old turkey.”
While nine independent inquiries have cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing in the wake of the baseless ‘Climategate’ episode, the person (or persons) responsible for the hacking has gotten off scot-free to date. The FOIA documents seem to indicate that the police investigation was derailed and perhaps dropped earlier this year.
The grand total spent by Norfolk police on the UEA hacker investigation since the November 2009 theft is just £80,905.11.
To illustrate the vast gap between this figure and the expenditures reported publicly about other UK police investigations, see the infographic below.
Norfolk Constabulary invoked an exemption under the FOIA rules to refuse to confirm or deny whether other UK security services such as MI5 or MI6 have worked on the investigation. A statement from Norfolk police did confirm it is receiving "ongoing assistance" from the UK’s domestic terrorism agency, the National Domestic Extremism Coordination Unit, and that it was helped early in the investigation by London's Metropolitan Police. But the current status of their involvement – and how high a priority this investigation is for these agencies – is unclear.
While the Guardian reports that police say the latest leak could produce more leads and claim their investigation is ongoing, the FOIA documents show that the last time any money was actually spent on this case was in February 2011, when the £80.05 in "officer expenses" were filed.
In response to the publication of the tiny £5,649.09 annual expenditure, a Norfolk police spokeswoman told the Guardian it is "relevant to note that the figures relate only to additional expenditure and do not include officer and staff time on the investigation, which is not routinely recorded."
It is entirely plausible that British security agencies have spent millions and are poised to make an arrest. But the budget certainly indicates that it hasn’t been a high priority for the Norfolk police force.
If there is a serious investigation underway, surely the officers would incur more expenses than the cost of a few boxes of paper and doughnuts?
One FOIA response from the Norfolk Constabulary in September 2011 was particularly troubling, and it doesn’t exactly square with the police force’s statement to the Guardian this week:
"There are currently no police officers or police staff, within Norfolk Constabulary, working full time on the investigation into the acquisition of data from the computers at the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. The Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) and the Deputy/SIO retain responsibility and resources are allocated if and when necessary."
There is a vital public interest in confirming that the UEA emails were criminally hacked and in turn, identifying those responsible and their connections.
Among many reasons for continued police diligence, climate scientist Phil Jones said he contemplated suicide after the initial email theft in 2009. So it is important for investigators to get to the bottom of this crime in order to mete out at least some justice for this baseless attempt at character assassination of climate scientists.
The ongoing harassment of climate scientists – including death threats in several cases – cannot be ignored by law enforcement agencies. If police were able to confirm the identity of the UEA hackers and bring them to justice swiftly, it would hopefully have a chilling effect on the vicious smear campaign against climate scientists.
If in fact there is a robust police investigation ongoing, then the public needs to have confirmation about that. Investigators can provide some indications of their progress without compromising the investigation, and they owe at least that courtesy to the public.
As it stands now, these FOIA results showing very little expenditure on the investigation indicate that the Norfolk police effort is completely inadequate.
If the investigation was sidelined for much of 2011, as the FOIA documents indicate, then a formal review must commence immediately to determine the reasons for that lapse in judgment.
British officials should also seriously consider the suggestion from Massachusetts Democratic Congressman Edward Markey that the U.S. intelligence community should assist in the investigation.
Markey explained the significance of this investigation in a statement:
"This is clearly an attempt to sabotage the international climate talks for a second time, and there has not been enough attention paid to who is responsible for these illegal acts. If this happened surrounding nuclear arms talks, we would have the full force of the western world's intelligence community pursuing the perpetrators. And yet, with the stability of our climate hanging in the balance with these international climate treaty negotiations, these hackers and their supporters are still on the loose. It is time to bring them to justice."
Whatever the reason for the low UK police expenditures, it is clearly time for a more coordinated international investigation into this crime.
View the FOIA documents: [1][2][3][4][5][6]
Follow Brendan DeMelle on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bdemelle
Anuradha Vittachi: Climategate Hacker Scores Own Goal
There is truth to the climate change debate, and there is some alarmist, most notably Al Gore, who stand to make a lot of money on hot air. We have plenty of time to correct any fouling human has caused, and as Renewable energy becomes more efficient, and financially atractive we will move from the finite sources of fossil fuels, and into renewable and solar energies.
What has to happen is a logical debate, not one based on "it's doomsday!" line. or conversly the cavalier " Petty humans have no effect on the environment" group. The truth always lies somewhere inbetween the extremists on most issues, and this is one of them.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
AGW is very real. We can see it all around us these days. The scientists are all in agreement.
The deniers, of course, pretend not to see any of it. They prefer to discuss hoaxes and conspracies.
How do you know this unspecified truth if it is hidden? Who is complicit in what lie?
Those nine independent all have ties to the IPCC and East Anglia Univ. - hardly independent.
This whole thing smells of walking into a room unannounced and catching a cookie thief with the cookie jar lid in their hand and having them scream " How dare you walk in unannounced " and demanding the intruder be punished for not knocking.
My father is a retired physicist and meteorologist who studied and worked at East Anglia in the '70's. Back then , everyone was concerned about global cooling . The theory of the day was that the rotation of the Earth was slowly pushing itself away from the Sun. But shortly after he retired, the collective opinion changed - no matter what he read he could not understand why the change in opinion occurred.
His polite and diplomatic response is the information over the past 10 years put forward is "odd". In my world and in my vernacular it means it's b*llsh*t.
But don't take my word or anyone else's word for it - time will tell who's telling the truth .
For the religious ,no matter what or how many times times they say it , Jesus ain't coming back .
We'll wait and see if green Jesus is coming back for the Church of Green.
Here is a 1958 video promoting AGW. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
If your father worked at the center in the 1970's he would not have told you what you claim.
For someone who's "familue" with the issue you seem to have a lot of misconceptions.
"New information reveals that the now-famous break-in of the computers at the University of East Anglia... in fact, may not have been the act of an intruder. A detailed analysis of the East Anglia’s files by Canadian network engineer discloses that the emails and documents were likely leaked by an internal source, spotlighting a perennial but often neglected threat — old-fashioned espionage or whistle-blowing."
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=578&Itemid=1
This has all the signposts of a deliberate hack by a well funded organization.
Why are climate activists fighting FOIA requests for Michael Mann's correspondence but cheering FOIA requests for the Norfolk Constabulary?
Why did Phil Jones contemplate suicide after the release of the first Climategate material? Did he do something wrong?
Did these supposed hackers make death threats?
Why should the Norfolk Constabulary in the U.K. pay any attention to Edward Markey, the representative of a small corner of Massachusetts?
Based on his public statements, Dr. Jones contemplated suicide because his believed that his career was ruined and his life's work wasted. Your suggestion that he did something wrong is typical of the scurrilous and immoral defamation that characterizes the denialists.
The hackers are unknown. But yes, climate scientists have received death threats.
The Foia request for Mann's emails cover only his research correspondence, paid for in part with public funds. It seems there is a legitimate public concern here as well.
Why would Mr. Jones feel his career was ruined if his science was sound? Is he so sensitive to criticism that the suggestion that he may have made some mistakes could drive him to thoughts of suicide? Perhaps he is in the wrong profession. (BTW I did not suggest he did something wrong, I merely asked the question.)
Let me see. . . who else receives death threats. Hmm. Football coaches, politicians, dentists, AGW skeptics, white supremicists, union organizers, blah blah blah. . . Unbalanced people make death threats. That is not evidence for the legitamacy of the views of the people threatened.
I noticed the lack of response to the question about D-MA Rep. Markey. Not surprising though.
It is amazing that lack of ethics and climate denial are so related.
They reveal in it. Both the stolen communications of good men doing good science, and the stolen profits of industries which don't manage their pollution. One theft pays for the other. It is the only conspiracy.
Not.
pkafin
207 Fans
Become a fan
31 minutes ago (8:23 PM)
BTW, people do spend money investigating climate change. They are called scientists.....
best post ever....lol
Those who are willing and able to read are capable of judging the veracity of the scientific studies that underpin global warming theories. Those, like yourself, who either can't or won't read or, if they do read, don't understand what they are reading, will never be able to catch up.