http://www.theage.com.au/technology/security/wikis-raw-files-leaked-on-web-20110901-1joao.html

“THE entire unedited collection of diplomatic cables held by WikiLeaks has been leaked on the internet, in what is a disaster for the United States and a damaging blow to the whistleblowing website.
……
It is believed the leak happened partly because a senior journalist at The Guardian, David Leigh, included the password in his book, WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy.

The password was useless without the correct file. Over the past two days, that file was identified and made public.”

From the very first, within hours of the leak on 17th Nov 2009, senior people in UEA took this to be an enemy act to sabotage Copenhagen. This may have been sincere belief, though I tend to follow Steve that it’s unlikely that this was the primary motivation of the person(s) responsible.

Richard, if this was a case of “sincere belief”, on the part of the upper echelons at UEA, then they can’t possibly have been paying attention to the media reports – from many quarters – in the weeks prior. The message was loud, and it was very clear: Copenhagen was doomed before it started. Actually, this is even more clear to me now than when I mentioned it the other day! Pls. see:

Of Climategate, constabularies and Copenhagen: coincidences worth considering (Part 1)

The other thing that makes no sense to me is the continued silence (stonewalling?!) on the part of the Norfolk Constabulary. One of the things they note on their site is that they use “social networking” sites as a source of info in their investigations.

Surely a few person-days spent lurking here, at TAV, at BH and WUWT checking the posts and comments during the two week period Nov. 15-30 would be sufficient to indicate that those who were promoting the “sabotage Copenhagen” motive were (not to put too fine a point in it) barking up the wrong tree!

But I totally agree with your comments about Paul Dennis. As I seem to recall saying shortly after he introduced himself – and his blog – to us (circa Jan. 2010?) he’s a breath of fresh air

I’ve had the benefit of one long chat and extended email interaction with Paul Dennis in the last seven days, partly triggered by the various facts and attempts at explanation presented on this thread. We’re both very grateful to our host here for plugging away at these areas. Here are the takeaway points for me:

1. From the very first, within hours of the leak on 17th Nov 2009, senior people in UEA took this to be an enemy act to sabotage Copenhagen. This may have been sincere belief, though I tend to follow Steve that it’s unlikely that this was the primary motivation of the person(s) responsible.

2. The story by David Leigh made the front page of the Guardian on 5th Feb 2010 – I’d certainly forgotten it was that prominent – and was an attempt to cast Paul as Climategate antihero. Happily this failed.

3. This was only two days away from the other big PR push, with the Sunday Times interview with Phil Jones on 7th opening up the monomyth of the wounded hero. This had a profound influence on events the rest of the year.

4. The policemen who had first-hand contact with Paul at ground level were basically benign; in fact they seemed to him to be going through the motions without much idea why. Whoever was directing them certainly has some big questions to answer – as does anyone whose brainchilds the Guardian and Sunday Times articles were – but I am delighted to put the record straight on this detail.

5. Paul Dennis is a significant feather in UEA’s cap – showing the benefits of academic freedom in pursuing the important area of clumped isotopes, including for temperature reconstructions – and he seems increasingly recognised as such.

Though I’ve enjoyed and been influenced by talking to Paul he cannot be held responsible for my interpretations.

That goes too far. You can’t say he “thought nothing” of it.

Looking at the output of the majority of tabloid (and some broadsheet) hacks, it would be fair to say that various illegal measures were employed on an ad-hoc basis in pursuit of pointless tittle-tattle – no agonising over the ethics or legality of the matter in that situation, just BAU.

Nowhere near as clear cut as that in Leigh’s case – it’s entirely plausible that he gave serious consideration to what he was doing and decided it was justified.