Recuerdo los hitos para despistados.
En noviembre de 2009 alguien «liberó» un paquete de miles de emails de trabajo, de científicos de la camarilla del IPCC. Venían de un servidor de respaldo del Climate Research Unit de la Universidad de East Anglia. La fecha elegida coincidía justo antes de la celebración de una de esas conferencias internacionales del clima organizadas por la ONU. Les llaman COP. Buen nombre. En este caso fue la de Copenhague, y resultó un rotundo fracaso. A pesar de la presencia de Obama y Zapatero, que nos contó lo de que las nubes son del viento. 😉
El sistema de proporcionar los emails estuvo bastante bien elaborado. Los colocaron en un servidor FTP ruso a través de una cuenta anónima y provisional. Y luego lo anunció, poniendo la dirección del archivo, en varios blogs «escépticos» conocidos. Pero antes había hackeado el blog principal de los alarmistas, Real Climate, para ponerlo allí. Eso no funcionó.
El nick que se usó era FOIA. Viene de una ley inglesa y americana (Freedom of Information Act). Y con ese nombre ha quedado la persona o grupo.
Desde el primero momento la policía británica investigó con mucho interés el caso. Una brigada antiterrorista, nada menos. Aparentemente no ahorraron en medios. Pero fue un fracaso. Nunca se ha sabido si era una persona o más, o si era una filtración desde dentro (del CRU) o un ataque desde fuera.
Pero el caso es que la filtración tuvo mucho impacto. Mediático, pero sobre todo dentro del mismo mundo científico y alrededores. Los emails muestran un contexto actitud anticientífica sin parangón. Aparte de perlas que se han hecho famosas, como «el truco de (Michael) Mann en Nature para ocultar el declive», o «si hace redefiniremos el peer-review para que este trabajo no vea la luz». Muchos científicos empezaron a ver al IPCC y su camarilla desde otro ángulo. Con consecuencias.
En noviembre de 2011 hubo una segunda filtración. El mismo método. En la primera no había entregado todos (son 220.000). Sólo había hecho algunas búsquedas temáticas para encontrar cosas interesantes. Pero esta vez puso 5.000 emails en un paquete abierto, más otra pieza con los 220.000 protegidos por una contraseña inviolable. Y no dio la contraseña. Hasta hoy.
Aquello fue justo antes del COP de Durban. Pero, fuera por culpa del Climategate, fuera por la falta de calentamiento en más de una década, esas conferencias han perdido gas. Ni Obama, ni Zapatero, ni vainas.
Ahora no estamos ante ninguna conferencia, pero Foia ha liberado la contraseña. Eso sí, pidiendo a sus remitentes que no la hagan pública, y que seleccionen los mensajes para filtrar el contenido que pueda tener información personal indiscreta. Del tipo de -Mary, pasaré por la frutería antes de ir a cenar-.
Esta es la despedida de Foia, y es hora de darle las gracias.
En el texto hay muchas claves personales. Pero no hay forma de saber si son pistas inadvertidas o inevitables, o son engaños.
Habla un inglés excelente, pero hay frases construidas de forma que no parece nativo. Y lo da a entender él mismo. Dice que no es británico, y da a entender que tampoco USA. Utiliza algunas palabras correctas pero inverosímiles, como «to garner». Está de alguna manera dentro del mundillo del clima, y sabe del asunto (para hacer las búsquedas). Tiene una ideología como de derechas USA muy marcada y muy convencional. Se mueve por el mundo de la informática y las redes como pedro por su casa.
Bueno, todo eso si creemos lo que dice. A mi me cuesta. Demasiada explicación sobre sus motivaciones. ¿Hace alguna falta? Los que las entendemos no necesitamos que nos las expliquen; y a los que no, les sobran. Salvo que esté tratando de convencer a alguien de que es un tipo solo, con gran motivación ideológica y personal. Pero, ¿a quien puede querer convencer de eso? Solo se me ocurre que a los mismos «escépticos».
El adiós:
================
Subject: FOIA 2013: the password
It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.
Indeed, it’s singular “I” this time. After certain career developments I can no longer use the papal plural 😉
If this email seems slightly disjointed it’s probably my linguistic background and the problem of trying to address both the wider audience (I expect this will be partially reproduced sooner or later) and the email recipients (whom I haven’t decided yet on).
The “all.7z” password is [redacted]
DO NOT PUBLISH THE PASSWORD. Quote other parts if you like.
Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.
I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.
Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.
To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.
Filtering\redacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise.
I’m not entirely comfortable sending the password around unsolicited, but haven’t got better ideas at the moment. If you feel this makes you seemingly “complicit” in a way you don’t like, don’t take action.
I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.
That’s right; no conspiracy, no paid hackers, no Big Oil. The Republicans didn’t plot this. USA politics is alien to me, neither am I from the UK. There is life outside the Anglo-American sphere.
If someone is still wondering why anyone would take these risks, or sees only a breach of privacy here, a few words…
The first glimpses I got behind the scenes did little to garner my trust in the state of climate science — on the contrary. I found myself in front of a choice that just might have a global impact.
Briefly put, when I had to balance the interests of my own safety, privacy\career of a few scientists, and the well-being of billions of people living in the coming several decades, the first two weren’t the decisive concern.
It was me or nobody, now or never. Combination of several rather improbable prerequisites just wouldn’t occur again for anyone else in the foreseeable future. The circus was about to arrive in Copenhagen. Later on it could be too late.
Most would agree that climate science has already directed where humanity puts its capability, innovation, mental and material “might”. The scale will grow ever grander in the coming decades if things go according to script. We’re dealing with $trillions and potentially drastic influence on practically everyone.
Wealth of the surrounding society tends to draw the major brushstrokes of a newborn’s future life. It makes a huge difference whether humanity uses its assets to achieve progress, or whether it strives to stop and reverse it, essentially sacrificing the less fortunate to the climate gods.
We can’t pour trillions in this massive hole-digging-and-filling-up endeavor and pretend it’s not away from something and someone else.
If the economy of a region, a country, a city, etc. deteriorates, what happens among the poorest? Does that usually improve their prospects? No, they will take the hardest hit. No amount of magical climate thinking can turn this one upside-down.
It’s easy for many of us in the western world to accept a tiny green inconvenience and then wallow in that righteous feeling, surrounded by our “clean” technology and energy that is only slightly more expensive if adequately subsidized.
Those millions and billions already struggling with malnutrition, sickness, violence, illiteracy, etc. don’t have that luxury. The price of “climate protection” with its cumulative and collateral effects is bound to destroy and debilitate in great numbers, for decades and generations.
Conversely, a “game-changer” could have a beneficial effect encompassing a similar scope.
If I had a chance to accomplish even a fraction of that, I’d have to try. I couldn’t morally afford inaction. Even if I risked everything, would never get personal compensation, and could probably never talk about it with anyone.
I took what I deemed the most defensible course of action, and would do it again (although with slight alterations — trying to publish something truthful on RealClimate was clearly too grandiose of a plan ;-).
Even if I have it all wrong and these scientists had some good reason to mislead us (instead of making a strong case with real data) I think disseminating the truth is still the safest bet by far.
Big thanks to Steve and Anthony and many others. My contribution would never have happened without your work (whether or not you agree with the views stated).
Oh, one more thing. I was surprised to learn from a “progressive” blog, corroborated by a renowned “scientist”, that the releases were part of a coordinated campaign receiving vast amounts of secret funding from shady energy industry groups.
I wasn’t aware of the arrangement but warmly welcome their decision to support my project. For that end I opened a bitcoin address: 1HHQ36qbsgGZWLPmiUjYHxQUPJ6EQXVJFS.
More seriously speaking, I accept, with gratitude, modest donations to support The (other) Cause. The address can also serve as a digital signature to ward off those identity thefts which are part of climate scientists’ repertoire of tricks these days.
Keep on the good work. I won’t be able to use this email address for long so if you reply, I can’t guarantee reading or answering. I will several batches, to anyone I can think of.
Over and out.
Mr. FOIA
============
