Matt Prescott, the well-connected eco-activist behind such ventures as the BBC’s failed Planet Relief project (see Bishop Hill here and here for details on Prescott’s connections with various BBC luminaries and for links to articles he has written for the BBC), has donned his recycled tinfoil hat to offer these observations on Climategate in the comments at the Guardian website:
Without doubt, whoever orchestrated this combined computer hacking and smear campaign was extremely sophisticated and would make a world-class PR spin doctor look amateur.
It is hard to believe that the average hacker has the PR skills required to pull of something so devastating, in terms of timing and content, single-handedly.
A large pool of people and organisations, much larger than just the UEA, will almost certainly have had to be hacked in order to provide the most juicy morsels and divert attention in particular directions.
Surely, it would have taken a long time and thus substantial resources to read thousands of emails and to pick out the key conversational threads, scientists and issues?
Again this feels like a very large project which would have need to be funded by individuals or organisations with extremely deep pockets and the ability to maintain absolute secrecy.
Given the size, wealth and skills found within the intelligence community the idea that the CIA, NSA or some other shadowy organisation has been up to something naughty, which would suit their national interest, is not a bad guess, but it should probably have been labelled as a guess, if this is all it was.
After all that, he concludes without any sense of irony:
If there is one lesson from “climate gate” it is that scientists need to be crystal clear about when they are discussing a view backed up by hard, empirical evidence and when they are speculating or stretching the available facts.