by charles the moderator
I received the following this morning,
Dear Mr Rotter
I am part of the enquiry team who are investigating the theft of data from the UEA in Norwich last year.
As part of the investigation we would like to speak to everyone who has made any requests for information relating to the CRU at the UEA.
Records indicate that you made such a request last year and as a result I would like to discuss this and any other knowledge you may have with you at a convenient time.
Please can you contact me (I would suggest initially by e mail) leaving a contact number so that we can have a chat.
Joint Major Investigation Team
Lowestoft Police Station
Old Nelson Street
This e-mail carries a disclaimer [this was a dead link. Put here for reference. ~ ctm]
Go here to view Norfolk Constabulary Disclaimer
I responded within a few hours with this:
I can be reached at xxx. I work nights so please don’t call before noon PST. I’m in San Francisco. Between noon and 1 PM is the best time to contact me.
I have previously posted my entire involvement with the CRU leaked emails and files online here:
I’m not sure what else you would like to know. I’ll see if I can cover it in advance.
1. I have never received any money for my volunteer services at wattsupwiththat.com
2. I met Steve McIntyre once for dinner two years ago when he was in town for AGU. I paid for the dinner.
3. I read Climate Audit.
4. [personal info]
5. [personal info]
6. [personal info]
7. I am 51, turning 52 next month.
I understand that you are diligently performing your investigation, and I’m not sure how well you understand the perspective from this side of the fence.
The multiple FOI’s were submitted in response to Phil Jones’s obstruction of the scientific process of verification and replication. Had he behaved as any scientist should, no FOI requests would have been required and it would have been ten minutes work to respond to the original request. The CRU began moving the goal posts, making up more and more unbelievable reasons why they should not give data to perceived critics, thus causing the subsequent FOI’s and escalation, in which I participated. It seems likely that soon after Steve McIntyre’s appeal was denied, someone at the University of East Anglia, disgusted by what he or she witnessed, subsequently leaked the files. I have no knowledge or direct evidence that this is the case, but it is the explanation that makes the most sense.
If you would like more information on the escalation of FOI requests and the obstruction by CRU, as confirmed by your own ICO, I can dig up the relevant threads.