Yesterday, I relayed the Guardian.co.UK story reporting Paul Dennis of UEA had been interviewed by the Police during their investigation of the unauthorized disclosure of CRU emails called climategate. Dennis himself left a mroe detailed account in comments; I’m taking the liberty of posting it above the fold.
Dennis relates:
It’s very amusing to read the many conspiracy theories being put forward by readers on the many blogs and newspaper comment sites. So before we get too carried away let me set the facts straight:
1) I did not leak any files, data, emails or any other material. I have no idea how the files were released or who was behind it.
2) My first knowledge of anything untoward was a departmental email circular saying that emails and files were hacked from ENV (environmental sciences) and CRU (climatic research unit). My interest was piqued so I emailed Steve McIntyre to ask if he was aware of anything. Steve replied that he wasn’t and that if he did find out anything he’d let me know. It was apparently this email that I sent that confirmed to both Steves (McIntyre and Mosher) that the leaked files were authentic.
3) The following day Steve emailed me a single url. It was to Jeff Id’s site. I clicked the link but couldn’t find anything and forgot about it.
4) Next day all hell breaks loose as the files have gone wild.
5) Now stepping back a few days. Prior to the leak, about a week or so, I had sent Jeff a paper I recently published in Geophysical Research Letters on a new study of the Gomez Glacier in Antarctica that had a 150 year isotope record that could be backed out as temperature. I thought Jeff might be interested in it as I knew he was working, along with others, on a new Antarctic paper in response to the Steig et al article in Nature that was published 12 months before.
6) In December the police saw me twice. I described the interview here under the blog ‘Parsing the Police’ on January 9th. The police were perfectly civil and we talked about many things including my research. I showed them round my labs and they came to coffee with me and my research group.
The police had copies of my email correspondence with Steve McIntyre and Jeff Id and a copy of my paper which kind of amused me. They said it was because I had sent the emails that they were interviewing me. I have absolutely no problems with that.
7) Two weeks ago David Leigh of the Guardian interviewed Andrew [a.k.a. Bishop Hill] and Andrew mentioned my name and my contribution to the blog. Fred Pearce emailed me and I directed him to the university press office. Leigh followed Pearce’s email with one of his own and I ignored it. He then emailed saying he was running the story and out of courtesy he wanted to chat about it. Our conversation was about palaoeclimate science, ice cores, speleotherms, mass spectrometers and the hockey stick. I told Leigh about the email I had sent Steve McIntyre and the paper I had sent to Jeff. There’s no mysterious police leak here. I gave Leigh a copy of papers I had written on ice core, one on speleothems and a nice little article on a freshwater snail, Lymnaea peregra.
8) That really is the end of the story. I reiterate that I have absolutely no knowledge as to who did what and their modus operandi. I’m as amused by all the theories, suggestions etc. and I am grateful that many have suggested that I deserve the Nobel prize, or at the very least a knighthood but in all honesty I’ve done nothing to deserve either.
I added [a.k.a. Bishop Hill] for clarity.
Police are realy intent on finding the leaker, aren’t they.
A commission rules that the data should have been released, yet the police want to haul in the person(s) who released the data.
It’s not going to change the science.
“…I am grateful that many have suggested that I deserve the Nobel prize, or at the very least a knighthood but in all honesty I’ve done nothing to deserve either.”
Something in that begs for a response, but it escapes me.
Re: zdudey (Feb 5 13:28),
I’m sure knighthoods are only granted to the deserving.
I say he deserves a knighthood for being able to hold a civil conversation with people interested in the science and accessing the data.
Arise Sir Paul….
Lucia,
“I’m sure knighthoods are only granted to the deserving.”
Ahh, you must mean deserving people like Kofi Anan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Recipients_of_Honorary_British_Knighthoods
“2) My first knowledge of anything untoward was a departmental email circular saying that emails and files were hacked from ENV (environmental sciences) and CRU (climatic research unit). My interest was piqued so I emailed Steve McIntyre to ask if he was aware of anything. Steve replied that he wasn’t and that if he did find out anything he’d let me know. It was apparently this email that I sent that confirmed to both Steves (McIntyre and Mosher) that the leaked files were authentic.”
Steve McIntyre used words with “intent to deceive” here. True in the Clintonian sense of requiring parsing and double checking, but a moral lie in the sense of trying to create a false impression
TCO [32385]
You conveniently forget who have actually been exposed as having acted [and repeatedly so] with “intent to deceive”. And to suggest that McIntyre somehow is morally deficient when we have reams of data showing who were morally corrupt in both intention and act, beggars belief.
2) My first knowledge of anything untoward was a departmental email circular saying that emails and files were hacked from ENV (environmental sciences) and CRU (climatic research unit). My interest was piqued so I emailed Steve McIntyre to ask if he was aware of anything. Steve replied that he wasn’t and that if he did find out anything he’d let me know. It was apparently this email that I sent that confirmed to both Steves (McIntyre and Mosher) that the leaked files were authentic.
i was pretty shocked by this.
so your first reaction to the theft was to forward the information To McIntyre?
wow, just wow.
Lucia – I was amused to see you refer to “The Guardian” as “GaurdianUK”.
If you’re going to get the name wrong might I suggest you it get it wrong correctly, and refer to the newspaper as “The Grauniad”?
This name has longed been used by us Brits, and is a sarcastic reference to the fact that once upon a time “The Guardian” was notorious for its misspellings.
Paul–
Thanks for the heads up; I fixed my typo.
Their paper lists lists it’s title as “guardian.co.uk”, and I’ve never seen the dead tree version, so I do always think of it as “Guardian UK” instead of “The Guardian”. It’s interesting to read that I may have stolen my typo crown from them!
sod–
What did you expect his first reaction to be? Go out in the hall and gossip with the secretaries?
People often discuss emails of this nature with others. So what if Paul Dennis emailed SteveM. rather than, oh…. Gavin Schmidt?
I believe Paul Dennis is a good scientist and person. He participated on Climate Audit very early on in the debate. I believe he read the blog and saw folks had lots of questions and he jumped right in. What a crime! Two of those people were me and my husband BTW commenting as “welikerocks”.
I could dig up the exact topic if it’s still in the archive over there but it has been years now-how cool! Paul (if he is the same guy) gave us his credentials and spoke with us on CA about oxygen isotopes used as temperature proxy. And it’s not hard to imagine that SteveMac might have started up a conversation off blog with him at the time because he was very informed and working in the field right then collecting this kind of data. Correct me if I am wrong.
I feel sorry for you sod! You attitude must be so miserable for you to maintain 24/7.
I found the old topic on CA. 2006!
http://climateaudit.org/2006/06/24/some-ice-cores-in-nas-antarctic/
It is interesting to read and to see the attitude of the RC guy who popped in with his two cents. LOL
This is kind of interestin’…
Democrats Pushing Back Against Carbon Regulations From the EPA
Friday, February 05, 2010
By Chris Neefus
(CNSNews.com) – Three House Democrats are now pushing legislation that would stop the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon emissions—a decision the agency announced in December — without express permission from the Congress.
http://ow.ly/14h9C
Andrew
Liza, thank you for remembering my contributions. I remember you well as ‘welikerocks’ and if my memory is correct your husband is an engineering geologist. I was amused to see the Guardian article which said I had links with sceptic web sites. The newspaper journalists didn’t bother to explore and see that my comments were all concerned with science and explaining my research to others. Rather they left the insinuation hanging in the air that my contributions might have been something more sinister such as leaking emails and files, or perhaps plotting some subterfuge. These thoughts could not be further from the truth.
I’m a strong advocate of the publics right to engage with my science and that of others. I believe that as far as possible science should be ‘open notebook’ with no hidden content or protocols. To that extent I have a small Royal Society of Chemistry grant to engage schools with my science, and another award to develop teaching programmes based on open notebook science. This is even more important when critical policy decisions are being driven by science.
It’s been even more amusing to read the many comments, mostly at the Guardian’s website that purport to know my views on different matters. Most are way, way off the mark.
I want my science to reach the widest possible audience. Because I publish a paper in Geophysical Research Letters or Geochimica Cosmochimica Acta it doesn’t mean that the wider poulation who are interested should be denied access either by the journals who demand a fee to download a paper, or by the arcane and technical language that I might use. So I’ve decided to start a blog (name to be decided) in which I can write about experiences in my lab and my research and present this work to as wide an audience as possible. Of course there will be downloads of papers and all the raw data. I guess the blog might be similar to the excellent contributions of Roy Spencer and Nir Shaviv.
I doubt that it could ever be as comprehensive as ‘Climate Audit’, or ‘WUWT’ but I don’t intend it to be either. It will be my reflections as an isotope geochemist who works on many palaeoclimate problems ranging from glacial-interglacial transitions to Holocene climate variability. Maybe it will be the only blog written by a scientist actively engaged in palaeoclimate research. Hopefully, at times, where I feel I have something useful to add I’m more than happy to contribute to other blogs too.
Finally, following the trivia published by the Guardian I’ve been approached by several newspapers for interviews and comments, including one who arrived at my front door. I hope he drove all the way from London to be told ‘thanks, but no thanks’. I will not be doing any interviews, issuing any statements or comments for the press. If I have something to say concerning science then I’ll post my views on my blog.
Thanks to Lucia for letting me post this rather long statement. I could have posted it at WUWT, Climate Audit, No Concensus or Bishop Hill but was touched that Liza remembered my contributions at Climate Audit and so it’s here.
Best wishes and good luck to everyone.
Hi Paul! I am glad I remembered right! 🙂
The newspaper journalists didn’t bother to explore and see that my comments were all concerned with science and explaining my research to others.
so when you immediately forwarded the message of the theft to Steve, you were all concerned about the science?
I guess the blog might be similar to the excellent contributions of Roy Spencer
as excellent as Roy Spencer, who has figured out recently that there is a strong positive correlation between tropospheric and sea surface temperature?!?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/nasa-aqua-sea-surface-temperatures-support-a-very-warm-january-2010/
I doubt that it could ever be as comprehensive as …. ‘WUWT’
WUWT is mainly wrong. they have greeted every snowflake this winter with a post
that people can be critical of Phil Jones, but applaud WUWT at the same time, simply is beyond my level of understanding…
Is this interesting? The link to the old CA archive I posted (which is a great read!) The last post there made in Dec 2009 (3 yrs later?) starts out with this sentence:
“Came across an interesting CRU email on this topic:”
and it has a link that still works. http://www.di2.nu/foia/1153233036.txt
So were CRU emails available online ??
The CRU emails were hacked/leaked/otherwise released in late November 2009, so they would have been around in December for posting.
Oh duh.!
The Guardian seems to have been given a copy of my email to Paul and correctly described me as being “guarded” on the matter
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/04/climate-change-email-hacker-police-investigation
At the time of my email to Paul, I hadn’t seen any such website nor had there been any discussion on the blogs. I was obliged to confidentiality until Anthony returned from Europe and was not in a position to repeat information that I had been given in confidence. I chose my words carefully so that I wouldn’t say anything untruthful, while at the same time preserving the confidence. As soon as the information was public, I notified Paul.
Paul’s characterization of my email goes somewhat beyond the text of the email. Paul says:
Strictly speaking, I didn’t say that I wasn’t “aware of anything”. I said that I hadn’t “seen such a website” – which was true. I was both entitled and obligated to choose my words carefully. In most circumstances, as CA readers know, I try to ensure comprehensive documentation and traceable methods. I don’t believe for a minute that Paul thinks that my answer to him was inappropriate under the circumstances. If he does, then I apologize. As noted above, I notified Paul of the link as soon as I learned its location. Again, I do not believe that Paul thinks that my notification to him was unduly delayed under the circumstances (nor should he, since I didn’t know the link myself until later.)
Steve is absolutely right in what he says and there are no apologies needed. I thought at the time, and still do, that his response was entirely appropriate and correct. Thanks for clarifying Steve.
Dear Dr. Dennis,
Please inform us of the name/location and start of your blog right here at Lucia’s place. I for one would be very interested in follwing your views.
As our friend Prof. Tobis mentioned earlier this week, the people need to have more input from real specialists in this field.
Thank-you again for your commitment to helping us find our way through this very important issue.
Leo G
Hydronic Heating Specialist
I maintain my point that Steve had an intent to decieve in his remarks (and did create a false impression). The guarded use of words was something Bill Clinton did a lot. If Steve didn’t want to talk about it, he should have said no comment or stopped the discssion. Instead he made remarks that misled. This is not the first time he has done this.
I’ve seen the same evasions in debates on the boards with Steve. It means you have to pin him down hard. he will wriggle and equivocate. Would have been drummed out of a military school.
The world can only be a better place for the approaches and attitudes of scientists and experts such as Paul D, Steve M, Lucia and others. I am adult and can handle the truth – hot or cold. I get a tad annoyed when data is massaged and results are exaggerated.
Thank you Paul, although I guess your openness and honesty may be causing you some pain in your workplace.
I get a tad annoyed when data is massaged and results are exaggerated.
and that is why you joined the sceptic side?
the side that greatly exaggerated the size of the IPCC error on glaciers, amazon forests and now african agriculture?
sorry, but that doesn t make any sense to me.
Thank you Paul, although I guess your openness and honesty may be causing you some pain in your workplace.
well, i actually do expect that this type of “openness” is considered an unloyalty towards (at least) parts of the institution, that he is working for.
Right sod. Your disdain is so justified! Let’s demand Paul be put under house arrest until the truth is found; just like that rascal Galileo was when he was disloyal (at least) to parts of the institution that he was working for.
sheesh.
Re: sod (Feb 7 01:37),
Who has exaggerated the error on glaciers? There was an a pretty big error: the IPCC gave a 2035 date for when glaciers would be gone. This was pointed out. Pachauri denied it and waved away the possibility. The ridiculous denials resulted in people pressing the point, and tracing how the error came to be. Naturally, numerous blog postings, news articles etc. ensued.
None have claimed the IPCC’s made a worse error– like for example claiming the glaciers were already gone, or would be gone by 2015 or anything like that. As far as I can tell, no one has exaggerated the error the IPCC made. People say the IPCC made a bad, rather ridiculous error, and did not follow their rules on citing peer reviewed literature. The WGII was sloppy in checking citations, and not going to the primary literature.
This is being observed by many bloggers and newspapers which may disturb you. But the stories do not exaggerate how bad the error was.
this is an interesting article from China about the IPCC errors:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2010-01/28/content_9388032.htm
(it is written by a woman too)
Lucia, a google search for the phrase “Glaciers aren’t melting” gives 77000 hits. and an awful lot of those are recent blog posts about the IPCC error.
.
.
just one example:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/297938.php
.
on the other hand, some people have taken a careful look at what happened (via Deltoid)
http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/02/anatomy-of-ipccs-himalayan-glacier-year-2035-mess/
.
.
the difference is striking.
The comments under the article “via deltoid” provided by sod are even better then the article or at least shed more light on the whole thing from every angle complimenting the article.
Especially what “Ian said on: February 6th, 2010 at 5:14 am…”
sod perhaps thinks that anyone interested in reading a blog post about the IPCC or “glaciers melting” wouldn’t be smart enough to google/search for more information or read other opinions before deciding what to think about it; or haven’t already established bookmarked sources they trust (after all this time) on any GW now called “Climate Change” subject for that matter! (?)
And your choice is “Deltoid” sod?
So, Dr. Dennis, just to be clear, you are not the International Weather Spy of Mystery who leaked the files? Well darn! But, I note that you do seem to enjoy living dangerously as a Popularizer of Science. I’m not sure which role, frankly, is the most risky to one’s reputation as a Serious Scientist.
/humor, feeble
Thank you for your comments here and for your interest in educating school children about science and good scientific practices. Perhaps someday you might debate Dr. Tobis on this very question, which is, can high school students be trusted to understand both sides of a complex problem, such as climate change?
Best wishes with your blog!
Sod–
Some zero-traffic bloggers use hyperbole. Yea. So?
The Yalecliatemedia report supports my contention about skeptic blogs. Though there have been some mistakes, there really hasn’t been much exaggeration.
Sod,
.
Seems to me that substituting year 2035 for year 2350 for disappearance of those glaciers represents a significant error, as does applying that inaccurate date to lots of glaciers, when the original work applied in fact to one glacier. Seems also that incorporating non-peer reviewed reports about glacial loss (contrary to the IPCC’s own rules) represents a third significant error. Speculation that the loss of glaciers by 2035 (even if it were to happen!) would cause the river flows in India to substantially decline is not supported by hydrologists who have actually studied the region (though there would be some impact close to glacial out-flows), and this represents a fourth error.
.
Nobody has said that in general glaciers have not been declining in size; most people who have looked at the available reports understand it’s pretty clear total ocean mass has been increasing, due mainly to worldwide loss of glacial mass. So it’s a bit hard to understand why you get yourself all worked up when people note obvious errors by the IPCC. Do you not agree that these are in fact obvious errors?
Sod: “Lucia, a google search for the phrase “Glaciers aren’t melting†gives 77000 hits. and an awful lot of those are recent blog posts about the IPCC error.”
Yes, and an awful lot of those posts – by far the most I would guess – do not say what sod implies they do. The search picks up phrases like:
The glaciers aren’t melting at the rate they predicted
some glaciers aren’t melting anyway.
The real lesson isn’t that glaciers aren’t melting, though
Glaciers aren’t melting away, some are shrinking some are growing
some glaciers aren’t melting
I’m not trying to say the glaciers aren’t melting…I think the are
Sod
I should also add that the first “hit” when I did the search — using quotes–went to climate audit. A word search with Firefox showed the page did not contain the words “Glaciers aren’t melting” anywhere. You need to be very careful when interpreting google hits. Google looks for pages it things are relevant. Whether you like it or not, Google does not interpret quote marks to mean you “find me pages that contain this exact phrase and only those pages.” It interprets things quite differently.
Also, it’s worth nothing that, to some extent, the misinformation and exaggeration is the result of overly aggressive AGW activists who create the strawman — which then takes on a live of its own.
FWIW, the second hit was a
article claiming skeptics were telling you glaciers aren’t melting and explaining that argument is false. The don’t quote anyone in particular. While it’s true there may be some barely read people saying this somewhere, the fact that an activist write those words is pretty poor evidence that the misinformation
with skeptics.
Sometimes the high hit count is evidence that people like you have decided to exaggerate the claim in order to find something easier to rebut. (The truth is, after all, difficult to rebut.)
Of course, the danger of this is the fact that an activist chose to exaggerate a claim in order to rebut it can actually give people the impression the claim was made. Oddly enough, if they aren’t paying attention to the full context, they might end up believing it’s true! It’s a very dangerous practice, but many aggressive activists make the mistake of doing this — and this mistake is not unique to climate activism.
Sure hope Paul Dennis doesn’t take too much heat for posting at ‘bad blogs’. But it’s possible the ‘Team’ members at UEA may have too many other issues to worry about at the moment to be bothered by Paul Dennis ‘going to the dark side’.
lucia (Comment#32482) February 7th, 2010 at 8:55 am
Sod–Some zero-traffic bloggers use hyperbole. Yea. So?
Geez like this one? :
http://www.desmogblog.com/mcintyre-and-mckitrick-unmasked
“McIntyre and McKitrick Unmasked-Hockey stick bashers revealed as industry goons”
Some zero-traffic bloggers use hyperbole. Yea. So?
ouch. the blog you are talking about, is ace of spades HQ.
here is the wiki entry on the blog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ace_of_Spades_HQ
Created in 2003, Ace of Spades has had over 68 million hits as of February 2010.[2] It has maintained for years a position as a top-100 blog within the “Blogging Ecosystem” maintained at The Truth Laid Bear.[3] Ace of Spades HQ has also been quoted, mentioned, referenced or linked on the Wall Street Journal’s website,[4] Fox News, CNN,[5] National Review, The Weekly Standard, and many notable online magazines/blogs.
calling it “zero traffic” is a little bit of hyperbole, don t you think so?
Sod–
You may not like M&M and you may think the Desmog blog shows something bad about them. But what that link does not do is support your claim that people are exaggerating the IPCC’s mistakes about glaciers.
On Ace of Spades– I guess Ace of Spades is widely read. I’d never heard of it– who’d a thunk? Their title does hyperbole.The blog doesn’t to focus on climate. Still don’t think you have shown supported your claim which is rather broad, attributing the exaggeration to “the side”– a rather broad claim.
Well sod, if you’re going to use Wiki as your source, you might as well be thorough:
Yep, sure sounds like a climate blog to me.
btw, if you’ve got spare time, why don’t you google the following terms for us and do a detailed analysis on the misunderstandings the might ensue:
“the earth has a fever”
“climate deniers” and “oil money”
glacier voodoo science (without quotes)
I could go on and on, but I don’t have as much time as you, and frankly, basing an entire argument on the results of a google search is…er…sodden logic.
You may not like M&M and you may think the Desmog blog shows something bad about them.
.
liza did post that link. a strange one, as the only thing it does, is link further to deepclimate.
.
i am not completely hostile to Steve. i think that CA is a useful blog. but i don t like, what people make with the “results” they get from there, and i don t like that Steve lets them get away with it.
.
On Ace of Spades– I guess Ace of Spades is widely read. I’d never heard of it– who’d a thunk?
.
speaks for you. i knew it, because i blogged about the Iraq war.
.
Still don’t think you have shown supported your claim which is rather broad, attributing the exaggeration to “the sideâ€â€“ a rather broad claim.
.
well, on my google search page of the phrase “Glaciers aren’t meltingâ€, exactly 5 of the first 10 results make the claim.
.
i have seen stronger evidence of things, but it is enough for me.
Sod–
My mistake. I read the word “sod” in my email and associated that with you.
I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting Ace of Spades speaks for me?! Or something else. Because it didn’t look like a site that matches my views.
I clicked about 5 from the top down and none made the claim. After that, I stopped. If your experience is different, ok. But you should be aware that it doesn’t seem to replicate.
I don’t understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting Ace of Spades speaks for me?! Or something else. Because it didn’t look like a site that matches my views.
.
sorry lucia, i used a german expression, that doesn t translate into english.
.
what i wanted to say, was about this: it reflects positively on you, that you don t know such right wing blogs.
it was some sort of a compliment 🙂
here are the links, with a quote from each site:
(on my google window, these are hits no. 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9)
Oops! The Himalayan Glaciers Aren’t Melting Either!
http://craptoseintolerance.blogspot.com/2010/01/oops-himalayas-arent-melting-either.html
Glaciers Aren’t Melting. The IPCC’s Credibility Is.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/297938.php
Turns out that the Himalayan Glaciers aren’t melting.
http://www.sowal.com/bb/politics-current-events/44141-himalayan-glaciers-arent-melting-after-all.html
Maybe Those Glaciers Aren’t Melting
http://cbslocalblogs.prospero.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?nav=main&webtag=wfor_dbernard&entry=347
The world is not getting warmer, glaciers aren’t melting and polar bears are doing very nicely thank you.
http://www.thefreepressonline.co.uk/news/1/1853.htm
(yes, i notice that some of the other hits are closer to your “ZERO hit blogger” description, than ace of spades is. but this is just one indicator, of what is happening)
Re: sod (Feb 7 14:38),
That clears it up!
Weird. I get totally different search results. (That said, I get different ones each time I do it!)
By the way– read my next blog post. I did a quick google result and the returns changed when I refreshed the screen! Still… I don’t think that explains why you and are are getting different results with your search example!
So guilt by association is good enough. Well I have another name they can print as the leaker/hacker. But I won’t make it so easy for them, so I won’t name the person I have identified just yet.
Steve Mosher, when you tried to identify the leaker, did you have any suspects with first initial R, other than Mr. Wilson(does this mean we can call him Paul Dennis the Menace)?
I have in mind not an undergrad or postdoc pulling a prank(sorry Jeff), but a published scientist who instead of just using treerings as proxies, actually wrote a paper attempting to quantify the effect of temperature on a proxy and separate out other possible causes.
A humane comment enticing Paul Dennis to speak his mind (I’d love to read that niche blog too!), followed by a troll merry-go-round, also showing humanity, I guess.
This scientist has made statements in the past about how the world of climate science is not allowing proper room for other views.
Sod, You are being a bit disingenuous when you truncate the headline in the Ace of Spades link. It is a quote from the Canadian humorist Mark Steyn and in full it says…
“Steyn: Glaciers Aren’t Melting. The IPCC’s Credibility Is.”
No where in the text of the blog post does it make the claim you state.
For all those that asked for me to give the url of my new blog site it is:
harmonicoscillator.wordpress.com
As yet there is just a welcome note but hopefully content will ramp up over the enxt few days. Best wishes to all.
So if you are reading this, then you obviously know Paul Dennis’s role in this affair. Let me explain Rob Wilson’s role.
When RealClimate was hacked, with a link to the ClimateGate e-mails, a link was placed on ClimateAudit, in a thread about strip bark trees. This thread had comments by dendro Rob Wilson, whose presence generates higher traffic, so a posting here by the leaker was more likely to get attention. The thread itself was based on work by Rob Wilson’s thesis supervisor, and was pointed out by someone who rarely comments at ClimateAudit. Steve Mosher found all these details curious, maybe that the cause and effect of the leaker’s posting were backwards, and gave it enough significance that he included these details in his ClimateGate book, CRUTape letters.
So you’ve seen the details, now to find out the name of this leaker.
It is Risto Jalkanen. If you look in the CRU e-mails, his name comes immediately between those of Paul Dennis and Rob Wilson.
Mike N–
So… why do you think the leaker is Jalkanen?
I follow this thread with interest. I believe in the work that Paul Dennis does and more then that, I believe in the man that he is.
Every comment he has made was straight and forward, there was no subterfuge.
Let’s look at the decades of studies and research, his inventions and the countless others he has assisted and taught along with all that he has provided to his field of study and believe that he has acted with integrity and honor.
I applaud him.