Climategate: Operation Cabin files released by police

 
Cyber crime

Last night BBC Radio 4 broadcast a documentary about the Climategate affair, in which thousands of documents mysteriously obtained from a computer server at the University of East Anglia were released onto the internet in 2009.

The material belonged to some of the world's leading climate scientists and caused them difficulty just before the major United Nations Copenhagen summit on climate change.

Called Climategate Revisited, the programme examined the impact of the ensuing controversy about the conduct of climate science on public opinion, media reporting and the scientific community. It was produced by me.

Making a radio documentary is always an exercise in trying to squeeze a quart into a pint pot. Your researches invariably collect more information and recordings than it is possible to fit into the allocated slot.

Since in this case some unbroadcast material comes from a freedom of information request, I thought I should write about it here. So this contains some additional information about the police inquiry beyond what was in the programme.

More released

Norfolk police investigated the possible criminal hacking of the university's computer system, until they announced in July they were abandoning the operation. Proceedings under the relevant part of the Computer Misuse Act have to be brought within three years. Since they had not yet identified a suspect, they said there was no prospect of a prosecution within the time limit.

I submitted an FOI request for some of the files compiled during their inquiry, called Operation Cabin. The first point I should make about their response is that they released much more information than in any previous case in my experience where the police have been asked about such a recent investigation. I did not get all the material I requested, but they did send a number of interesting documents.

During the operation some people queried whether the Norfolk force had sufficient expertise to run a specialist technical cybercrime inquiry. This concern is reinforced by the files released.

'Impressive'

The operation was reviewed by a senior counter-terrorism officer who concluded that "there are national units both in policing and with partner agencies that have specialist knowledge and skills that would have added value to the inquiry."

He did praise the Norfolk investigators for their "impressive" commitment, adding that most UK police forces have little specialist capability in this arena.

The Norfolk investigation was led by Detective Superintendent Julian Gregory, who has since retired. He told us: "We sought assistance from a number of quarters and we probably didn't get everything we wanted."

"If you look at national assets, they've all got their own workloads," he said. "We got the technical support we needed from counter-terrorist command, but other units had their own priorities."

Another document shows that the police decided not to make a media appeal for information to assist the investigation during the Copenhagen climate summit (known as COP15), because "with COP15 still underway in Copenhagen raising awareness still further may have an negative impact on the conference".

'Speculation'

Some may be surprised that the police would allow these apparently political considerations to affect their conduct of an investigation.

Former Det Supt Gregory explained that "we didn't want to create even more speculation around that conference". But he also stated that more significant was a practical consideration, a feeling that the police infrastructure might not be able to cope with the deluge of calls which could result.

Other files released show that the University of East Anglia was represented on the Gold Group which oversaw the strategy of the investigation. Meetings were attended by Brian Summers, the UEA Registrar.

I was initially surprised to discover this, since one hypothesis the police had to investigate was whether it could have been an "inside job" in which a UEA employee had leaked the material, acting as a kind of whistleblower. But I gather from other police sources I have talked to since that this is not necessarily unusual.

"We'd often engage the people we think need to be involved in a Gold Group," former Det Supt Gregory told us. "Presence at the meeting doesn't give any undue influence or anything untoward like that. It was appropriate that they were engaged and we understood their perspective as we undertook our work."

Constraints

But he added there were constraints on what he said at the Gold meetings. "Where appropriate I would not enlarge on certain lines of enquiry. I would deal with those in a more private context. I never felt compromised as the senior investigator."

The disclosures also reveal how the police worked their way through certain websites on which Climategate had been discussed, printing off and filing away, for example, a list of staff at the Taxpayers' Alliance.

And they also contain a list of operational tasks actioned, plans for forensic examination of UEA computing equipment, and questionnaires for police interviews, which included asking people for their stance on climate change.

However, there was other information which the Norfolk police refused to release, such as the identity of those countries from which they sought help with the investigation. They argued that this could damage future international cooperation.

These are some of the documents released by the police:

PDF download Operation Cabin review[88KB]

PDF download Operation Cabin media strategy[25KB]

PDF download Gold Group minutes[61KB]

PDF download Record of actions[118KB]

PDF download Taxpayers' Alliance staff list[94KB]

PDF download Forensic computer examination[112KB]

PDF download Questionnaire for CRU staff interviews[61KB]

 
Martin Rosenbaum Article written by Martin Rosenbaum Martin Rosenbaum Freedom of information specialist

How do restaurant chains compare for food hygiene?

A BBC analysis shows wide variation in the hygiene ratings of different restaurant chains. About one third of Dixy Chicken and Chicken Cottage outlets are unsatisfactory.

Read full article

More on This Story

Related Stories

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 85.

    Overpopulation!!!

    Developed countries highest proportion of CO2 from fossil fuels.
    Impoverished countries emissions are highest from human emissions until the country starts developing then fossil fuel goes into the ascendancy.

    I think we are kidding ourselves if we can reverse what is happening, especially in the timescale that has been suggested.

  • rate this
    +1

    Comment number 84.

    If the BP funded research into the cause of the increase in global temperature says it was probably caused by man, shouldn't this issue be over with already?
    Established climate scientists, geologists, biologists, oceanographers and now the oil lobby are all saying it's man made.
    Fine, we have our answer. Now can we please get on with fixing it?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 83.

    @71 - show me your proof please. Have a read of this please, I have no interest in your conspiracies: http://judithcurry.com/2011/02/14/blame-on-heartland-cato-marshall-etc/

    Also perhaps some of you might want to look at the work of Doug Keenan - he has no interest in Climate Change but is concerned with scientific fraud.

    http://www.informath.org/

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 82.

    #81 That cuts both ways, I suspect a lot of people who are skeptical about how much influence humans hare are more so because of sloppy journalism declaring that something is beyond question, only to see a while later further research actually delving into the questions that are there. Even more so when it's a field that is developing

  • rate this
    +2

    Comment number 81.

    77.Drunken Hobo


    Agreed, sensationalist jounralism doesn't help one little bit - almost without fail when folk say "scientists reckon this or that" what they're read is not what the scientists in question said, but what a sloppy journalist said.

    Hence why so much of the deniers "evidence" is so wrong.....

 

Comments 5 of 85

 

Features & Analysis

Elsewhere on the BBC

  • GeoguessrWhere in the world...?

    Think you are a geography expert? Test your knowledge with BBC Travel’s interactive game

Programmes

  • StudentsClick Watch

    Could a new social network help tailor lessons to students’ needs and spot when they fall behind?

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.