FOIA = Keith Briffa?

[Jostemikk]

Dette har vært tatt opp tidligere her på forumet, og første gang jeg selv gjorde det var på nå nedlagte AD. Hvorfor tar jeg det opp igjen?

Steven Mosher, som rimelig egenhendig avslørte Peter Gleick, har i lang tid kommet med kryptiske hint om hvem FOIA er. Folk har blitt irriterte, og bedt ham enten holde kjeft eller avsløre det han sitter med av kunnskap.

Nå leste jeg akkurat dette på Climate Audit - UEA Submission to Tribunal on Wahl FOI:

Steven Mosher

hehe.

loose canon

Så langt intetsigende.

Steven Mosher

as i said

loose cannon

fish through the mails

no more clues for now.

see if you can break the code

Dette får Ross McKitrick til å bli en smule irritert:

Ross McKitrick

Your identification of Gleick certainly gives your speculations cred. For now, the cryptic pickup man in an elegant lounge can remain Reasonably Cautious until the statute of limitations expires, which Steve says is this November.

Så kommer denne fra Mosher:

Steven Mosher

as RC (aka FOIA) said here "no deal was made"

however, if you fish around, you will find that somebody who hasn't published in a long long long while, just got his name on an important study

Er det Keith Briffa han snakker om? Jeg har tatt feil av kryptiske meldinger tidligere, og kan sikkert gjøre det denne gangen også. Hva tror dere?

[Amatør1]

Er det Keith Briffa han snakker om? Jeg har tatt feil av kryptiske meldinger tidligere, og kan sikkert gjøre det denne gangen også. Hva tror dere?

Briffa har jo vært mistenkt lenge, og et "loose cannon"- søk i climategate 1.0 - epostene resulterer i en mail om Yamal fra Tim Osborn til Mike [Mann] og Gavin [Schmidt], der Briffa omtales. Men det er ikke han som er "loose cannon" ifølge Osborn, det er den noe mer obskure Tom Melvin:

http://yourvoicematters.org/cru/mail/1254345174.txt

On Sep 29, 2009, at 3:46 AM, Tim Osborn wrote:

Hi Mike and Gavin,
thanks for your emails re McIntyre, Yamal and Keith.
I'll pass on your best wishes for his recovery when I next speak to Keith. He's been off
almost 4 months now and won't be back for at least another month (barring a couple of
lectures that he's keen to do in October as part of a gradual return).  Hopefully he'll
be properly back in November.
Regarding Yamal, I'm afraid I know very little about the whole thing -- other than that
I am 100% confident that "The tree ring data was hand-picked to get the desired result"
is complete crap.  Having one's integrity questioned like this must make your blood boil
(as I'm sure you know, with both of you having been the target of numerous such
attacks). Though it would be nice to shield Keith from this during his recovery, I think
Keith will already have heard about this because he had recently been asked to look at
CA in relation to the Kaufman threads (Keith was a co-author on that and Darrell had
asked Keith to help with a response to the criticisms).
Apart from Keith, I think Tom Melvin here is the only person who could shed light on the
McIntyre criticisms of Yamal.  But he can be a rather loose cannon and shouldn't be
directly contacted about this (also he wasn't involved in the Yamal chronology being
discussed, though he has been involved in a regional reconstruction that we've recently
been working towards that uses these -- and more -- data).
Perhaps Phil and I should talk with Tom and also see if Keith is already considering a
response.
Off to lecture for a couple of hours now...
Cheers
Tim
Dr Timothy J Osborn, Academic Fellow
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich  NR4 7TJ, UK



McIntyre har nylig uttalt at Briffa laget vanskeligheter for ham selv og McKitrick etter MM2003, og synes å være kritisk mot Briffa.

Kanskje er det Melvin?

[Bebben]

Ikke så godt å si gitt, Tom Melvin er nevnt i en annen e-post fra Edward Cook til Rob Wilson fra 7. mars 2006 (4241.txt) på denne måten:

Maybe Tom Melvin has it right:  "Controversy about which bull caused mess not relevent. The possibility that the results in all cases were heap of dung has been missed by commentators."

Hvor sitatet kommer fra, vites ikke, men det ser jo unektelig ut til at Melvin har antydet at hele hockeystick-fabrikken produserer møkk.

Konteksten er "subject: Re: Emailing: Rob's Hockey Sticks"

"The whole Macintyre issue got me thinking about over-fitting and the potential bias of screening against the target climate parameter."

En ting er sikkert: Melvin er ikke på kopi-listen for e-posten.

[Jostemikk]

Jeg tror Bebben og Amatør1 har rett. De nevnte begge den mest logiske kandidaten av de vi vet om. Har lett etter den publikasjonen han akkurat fikk sitt navn på, men kom til kort. Har noen funnet ut av dette?

[ConTrari]

Jeg tror Bebben og Amatør1 har rett. De nevnte begge den mest logiske kandidaten av de vi vet om. Har lett etter den publikasjonen han akkurat fikk sitt navn på, men kom til kort. Har noen funnet ut av dette?

Ifølge de kryptiske hintene har denne personen ikke publisret på meget lange, men har nettopp fått vært med på en viktig studie? Stemmer dette for Melvin?

[Amatør1]

Ifølge de kryptiske hintene har denne personen ikke publisret på meget lange, men har nettopp fått vært med på en viktig studie? Stemmer dette for Melvin?

Vet ikke, men det er også et annet navn som er aktuelt

Mosher sa på CA

however, if you fish around, you will find that somebody who hasn't published in a long long long while, just got his name on an important study.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/#Support%20Staff

Mr. Mike Salmon, IT Manager


http://www.cce-review.org/evidence/UEA-CRU_IV3_IT_Final_Formal1.pdf

The CRU had its own IT Manager (Mike Salmon) for whom CRU was 40% of his workload. The CRU had originally had no central backup arrangements for the individual researchers' PCs however Mike Salmon had introduced automated backup (using open source software) to a simple server held securely within the Central IS machine room. Jonathan Colam-French (Director Information Services) indicated that, whilst the central IT function were aware of the existence of the CRU Backup Server, they had no knowledge of the nature of the information held on the server as it was managed from the CRU.

[ConTrari]

Ahahh....Salmon introduserte automatisk backup.....høres jo ut som en aktør med tilgang til det meste, men har han publisert noe? Vel, dette er jo bare løse fisketråder, men kan han ha fått klimatiske samvittighetskvaler i sitt arbeid for Jones & co? Ikke lett å gjøre alle til laks  .

[ConTrari]

Ikke blir jeg noe klokere av dette heller, men det er ikke noe nytt;

Steven Mosher
Posted May 11, 2012 at 1:08 PM | Permalink | Reply

Kevin.

On day one I paused to ask myself the basic questions any investigator would ask.
I looked at the motive aspect differently from anyone else. This is not about climate science.
The letter left by RC feigned at being an activist piece. That is a false flag.
That led me to look for personal motive. personal animus.
That led me to two people. Let's call them people of interest.
HOWEVER, one cannot rule out Charles theory. that is, somebody else noted the bad security.
There are lot more bits and pieces here and there.
The difficultly of course is living with the possibility of being wrong about this.
Things would be different if I were asking questions of people of interest. Go check that.
Go check that interview. hehe.