Hereafter is the text of a post I put on WUWT. I used to think it was a lone individual in the UEA who had contacted another lone hacker who had then disseminated the material. The text of the letter sent out with Climategate III strongly suggests US republican links. The only additional note of caution I would add, is that being technically minded myself, I may have missed the more obscure technical turn of phrases which would be what is needed to find links to technical language articles.
C.W. Schoneveld says: “The spelling “endeavor” suggests a non-Brtish educational background”.
I was wondering what one could tell from the writing about the person. I assumed some IT guy, whose phraseology and word usage would trigger so many references to hacking that …
Instead, I found very strong suggestions from the phrases used that the person authoring FOIA is a republican involved in some way in healthcare who reads a lot of Christian material. They may also have interests speaking about economics, population and perversely on green issue. Several time the word “Heritage” appeared, which I think is a word with a strong Republican link.
I found very little linkage to IT or computers in the phraseology except some brought up conversations dealing with the technical aspects of hard disks – a not very convincing connection.
So, on the face of it, I would suggest that the author is not “a hacker” or involved in IT. However this text and the modus operandi suggests they have some serious IT resources behind them. That would suggest that they either paid someone else to hack (in sharp contrast to what is said in the text) … or that there was no hack and that the information fell into their laps perhaps from an insider (but that does not explain the fact there was the actual hack of (un)realclimate).
Another possibility is that as suggested in the text, the author’s native language is e.g. a latin-derived language. This would require that all their technical talk about hacking is done outwith English and that they confine their English usage solely for political purposes and have learnt it not from IT publications but from spending an awful lot of time reading republican material on-line. I may not be very familiar with foreign IT people, but this doesn’t fit what I know.
But a serious note of caution. Whilst in theory this analysis should help focus on the likely “type” of author, it’s not a technique I have used or have seen anyone else use. Indeed, if one is trying to hide one’s origin, one may meticulously remove the technical phraseology which would be the linguistic signature which would help identify the author BY ADDING WORDS AND PHRASES e.g. from a right-wing republican website. (Much in the way ransom notes used to cut and paste letters from newspapers, this author may have cut and pasted phrases from their favourite (republican) websites.
But whatever way it comes, the republican link is strong …. at which point I wondered whether I should post this. But as I’m not republican ….
Instead, I found very strong suggestions from the phrases used that the person authoring FOIA is a republican involved in some way in healthcare who reads a lot of Christian material. They may also have interests speaking about economics, population and perversely on green issue. Several time the word “Heritage” appeared, which I think is a word with a strong Republican link.
I found very little linkage to IT or computers in the phraseology except some brought up conversations dealing with the technical aspects of hard disks – a not very convincing connection.
So, on the face of it, I would suggest that the author is not “a hacker” or involved in IT. However this text and the modus operandi suggests they have some serious IT resources behind them. That would suggest that they either paid someone else to hack (in sharp contrast to what is said in the text) … or that there was no hack and that the information fell into their laps perhaps from an insider (but that does not explain the fact there was the actual hack of (un)realclimate).
Another possibility is that as suggested in the text, the author’s native language is e.g. a latin-derived language. This would require that all their technical talk about hacking is done outwith English and that they confine their English usage solely for political purposes and have learnt it not from IT publications but from spending an awful lot of time reading republican material on-line. I may not be very familiar with foreign IT people, but this doesn’t fit what I know.
But a serious note of caution. Whilst in theory this analysis should help focus on the likely “type” of author, it’s not a technique I have used or have seen anyone else use. Indeed, if one is trying to hide one’s origin, one may meticulously remove the technical phraseology which would be the linguistic signature which would help identify the author BY ADDING WORDS AND PHRASES e.g. from a right-wing republican website. (Much in the way ransom notes used to cut and paste letters from newspapers, this author may have cut and pasted phrases from their favourite (republican) websites.
But whatever way it comes, the republican link is strong …. at which point I wondered whether I should post this. But as I’m not republican ….
Addendum
I spotted this post which gives another viewpoint on the writer which is interesting for the alternative spin in puts on the text and also the possibility of obfuscating the phrases to hide the identity:
Peter says:
To me the FOIA email ‘screams’ of a highly educated person concisely laying out a case he believes in; and then that same person ‘dumbing’ down what he has written to disguise the syntax, vocabulary and diction that could be used to trace him. Take this sentence.
“Filteringredacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise”
The person with the wits, intelligence and courage to pull off what FOIA has done is not the same person who would inappropriately use a backslash. A backslash is basically only ever used in programming and the one here was deliberately placed to help muddle up the flow of the letter. And the “over and out” sign off? I’ll bet this is the first and last time in his life that FOIA has ever used that phrase.
I mean if nothing else it’s not possible that this guy has never heard of Peter Gleick!
Good on ya!
“Filteringredacting personally sensitive emails doesn’t require special expertise”
The person with the wits, intelligence and courage to pull off what FOIA has done is not the same person who would inappropriately use a backslash. A backslash is basically only ever used in programming and the one here was deliberately placed to help muddle up the flow of the letter. And the “over and out” sign off? I’ll bet this is the first and last time in his life that FOIA has ever used that phrase.
I mean if nothing else it’s not possible that this guy has never heard of Peter Gleick!
Good on ya!
The criminal Gleik was identified by an analysis of his style in the fabricated heartland document
Pingback: A linguistic Red Herring | ScottishSceptic