An interesting Guardian UK story starts:
A scientist at the University of East Anglia has been questioned by detectives Âinvestigating how controversial emails were leaked from the campus’s climate research unit.
Norfolk police have interviewed and taken a formal statement from Paul Dennis, 54, another climate researcher who heads an adjacent laboratory.
Dennis denies being the leaker. The article goes on to explain he was questions, apparently becuase he has exchanged a few emails with Steve McIntyre, Anthony Watts, and Jeff Id. (McIntyre is described as an American blogger. 🙂 )
One email sent to SteveM read
“Hi Steve, Yesterday we received the following email, sent to all staff in environmental sciences and the climatic research unit. I have no idea what stuff was collected or where it was posted, but interesting nonetheless!”
His exchange with Jeff Id (a.k.a. Condon) appears to be sending a paper,
He told Montford’s blog, called Bishop Hill: “They thought I might have some information on the basis that I had sent [Condon] a copy of a paper I had published on isotopes and climate at the southern end of the Antarctic Peninsula … and I had exchanged emails with Steve McIntyre over the leak/hack.
The article doesn’t mention others at CRU who may have been questioned. I assume others have been questioned and that the press learned of Dennis’s interview because Dennis told Montford (a.k.a. the blogger known as Bishop Hill).
Interviewing people at CRU may not have born fruit because police seem to be expanding their queries to include those on the other side of the pond:
The police have now moved on to a series of “very detailed” approaches to the overseas bloggers and members of their chat forums, asking if they had access to university passwords, and if they have any theories of their own.
Anyway, it’s interesting to see what the police are asking people. My theory remains “disgruntled graduate student, post-doc or IT type person.” It’s not a very strong theory, but then, who knows?
The mail from Dennis was the clue I needed.
When Steve told me about the mail I knew:
1. files were real.
2. They could be found at someother place than WUWT
3. Anthony was not being set up.
Within a short period of time, we found the link at Jeff Ids.
So, the mails were real, it wasnt a trap, and I didnt need approval to point people at the mails, so the embargo that had been placed on me was overtaken by events.
If it wasn’t Dennis (who could have claimed whistleblower status I assume), then it was likely as Lucia postulates. The structure of the archive is just too much like what we would do where I work (WA State Gov’t) to have been a hack by an outsider who then compiled the files.
Still, Dennis may have other reasons for not copping to the leak. The furor among the Illuminati will a while yet to settle regardless of which way the issue moves.
I just hope the police get it right. Whoever the leaker is, they may be a hero to the skeptic side, but they’ll be a criminal to many others.
If they are moving away from those with straightforward legitimate access to CRU servers, then your hypothesis about an IT savvy grad student or climate savvy IT person is looking pretty good.
Faculty meetings at CRU will be pretty tense until this one is put to bed.
Lucia it wasn’t him
FRom Bishop Hill blog
“I have no idea how, who or why the files were released. The police were perfectly civil and indeed very interested in some of my science.
February 5, 2010 | Unregistered CommenterPaul Dennis
Phil Jones sent me an e-mail on what smoothing algorithm is used on the global average temperature chart on the homepage of CRU; and attached a copy of his 1995 paper. Maybe they should go check out Phil Jones as a potential leaker. 🙂
It is pretty sad when a scientist becomes a suspect because he sends a copy of a paper to someone, and because he tells someone about a widely disseminated staff memo.
I thought I’d just post a copy of the note I sent to the Bishop Hill Blog to save me retyping everything.
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 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, speleothems, mass spectrometers and the hockey stick. I told Leigh about the email I had sent Steve McIntyre and the papaer 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 th 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.
To clarify, Andrew in point 7) is Andrew Montford aka BishopHill
Thanks Paul,
It’s good to finally put a name with the message. Steve was pretty circumspect when he told me about the communication he got, but it was clear after hearing that something was up inside CRU that the files were real.
If the cops come calling, just tell them that you won’t tell tham anything about The Toyman, and hang up.
Re: Charlie A (Feb 4 23:39),
Being questioned doesn’t necessarily mean you are a suspect. It may simply mean police think you may have information that will assist them. They may not even think you know what information would be useful. Police routinely question witnesses, potential witnesses and people who might just be familiar with goings on surrounding a crime.
I bet they’ve had chats with many people at UEA. Dennis’s interview hit the papers because Dennis mentioned the interview in blog comments at Bishop Hill! Based on the story in the Guardian, I suspect the police would prefer Dennis had not mentioned the fact of the interview, but I also suspect it’s not illegal to mention such things in England. So, now there is a story.
The fact is, lots of people have been mentioning whether or not they were contacted by Norfolk police or others in blogs or comments. No one has contacted me. This may be because Dennis didn’t email me and I didn’t ever request his paper on spleotherms!
steven mosher (Comment#32240) February 5th, 2010 at 2:52 am
Did you read and understand the part where he said you were all a bunch of wacky conspiracy theorists? 🙂
Lucia,
I assume you got this story off the Guardian website at some time when it was still 4th Feb for you. The print edition in the UK was only published today, Feb 5th.
A minor point, but perhaps it would be an idea to indicate the source (web or print) so as to prevent confusion and nitpicking!
Dave, Sorry, I forgot the link. Yes, I posted on the 4th. The web edition must beat the print edition because the wordpress software dates the post when I hit “publish”.
Paul Dennis says. “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.”
I think that many of us Brits would have considerable problems with the police having copies of Paul Dennis’s emails. Who authorised the hacking by the police into private emails. They have power to do so under anti-terrorism laws passed by the Labour Government against the wishes of both opposition parties but it should be used only against suspected terrorists or major criminals not against academics who might be under suspicion of leaking non-state secrets.