DOE sends a "litigation hold notice" regarding CRU to employees – asking to "preserve documents"

Baffling to me.. what does DOE have to do with climate change or CRU?

Sure has been quiet over at RC. I wonder why?

The hammer drops!

Justice prevails!

Shhhazaaam! Guess I’ll make a Polar Bear Pie… 🙂

Barbarians at the gates! Not too much longer now.

Oh, goodness. This should be interesting.
Unless the CRU has a good records management solution in place ( I seriously doubt they do; they’re a university probably not used to this type of litigation and legal discovery), this is going to be an incredibly expensive (and/or expansive) legal discovery for them.

All i can say is “YES”. It is starting.

Someone will be ordering some large disk arrays to store and search all of this stuff. Discovery is a fun process.

If you go to the U.S. Department of Energy Website, you can find the following information listed under Science & Technology:
The Department of Energy is the single largest Federal government supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, providing more than 40 percent of total Federal funding for this vital area of national importance. It oversees, and is the principal Federal funding agency of, the Nation’s research programs in high-energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences. Such a diverse research portfolio supports tens of thousands of principal investigators, post-doctoral students, and graduate students who are tackling some of the most challenging scientific questions of our era. ……
Research and Development
DOE manages fundamental research programs in basic energy sciences, biological and environmental sciences, and computational science and is the Federal Government’s largest single provider of funds for materials and chemical sciences.

What a find! The stuff has hit the fan, after all. At least we know that there are some that took these emails and data seriously. This may all just disappear once Team Obama finds out, though. He is sporting spandex to the meeting, after all.

Looks like major criminal problems for the people that have been deleting.
someone has been Mannipulating data.

@EdB Maybe this link will help:
http://www.energy.gov/environment/climatechange.htm

We can’t let up!
Write your leaders!
Talk to friends!
Finally an opening!

boballab (20:27:43) :
So, what’s DOE telling them” “Quick, give us ALL the material on CRU, . . . we’re better at hiding it than you are.” ?

Halfwise writes:
“How long until a major news outlet runs a daily extended “Maybe things are not as clear-cut as we were led to believe” series, and thereby doubles its readership / audience?”
Actually, the news outlet will find something…EVIL…that caused them to believe the wrong thing. I wonder what it will be. Lisa Jackson is a witch and she witched us? Al Gore was this wonderful human being and public servant but…then…unpredictably…he went over to the dark side? We don’t have anyone working for us who understands didly about science or communism? Well, isn’t the planet getting warmer? Didn’t George W. Bush fail to act on global warming and he caused this? Aren’t the global warmists a lot cooler than the global warming deniers? If not global warming, then how do we repent for our sins? Must we give up abortion? Must we give up no-fault divorce? What does God demand of us?

Of even greater import perhaps?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climategate_tko_in_copenhagen.html

Shhhhh. Listen closely…. The sound you can hear is the shredders and HDD drive cleaners at GISS and NOAA working overtime

Wonder how many other similar notices have been sent out from other cabinet level agencies to other lesser activities. NASA? NOAA? It’s amazing what happens when there’s a hint of litigation in the air. Does get the attention (eventually) of various offices of GENERAL COUNSEL and INSPECTOR GENERAL.
Though I do wonder at the horrid spelling in that notice shown above. Council??? If that spelling originated from the Office of General Counsel then they’ve got some serious problems.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6955237.ece

Nothing like a little bit of litigation to get the lies exposed.
OT. Our local newspaper has actually been giving time to the skeptics. This is not something that happenned before Climategate.

great news. hope there’s lots of litigation in the pipeline.
the following is not wholly satisfactory, but it’s not bad for the Financial Times:
Financial Times: Trust the public on climate change
Expert dissenters, of whom there are many on this issue, have an honoured place in science. Sometimes, they turn out to be right. Strong consensus supports key findings of the climate orthodoxy, but the details matter and the science is far from settled. Aiming to smear the doubters and shut them up is just bad science, and from a public-relations point of view is wholly counter-productive…
As one Climategate e-mailer noted, we do not understand why global warming has paused lately: the models cannot account for it. But this is not for public consumption. It is best never mentioned, think governments and their scientific advisers. Just keep saying “flat-earthers” or, as the White House spokesman said the other day, “the notion that there is some kind of debate … is kind of silly.”
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cc90fb80-e817-11de-8a02-00144feab49a.html

And work grinds to a halt in every cubicle getting this email …

As a poor non-English native, it’s hard for me to grasp the meaning of “litigation hold”, and why DOE had to do this action. Could anyone teach me please?

It basically means that there is a reasonable expectation that litigation (lawsuits) on this issue might occur or they might need to satisfy freedom of information requests. They are putting a “hold” on normal document destruction cycles, and gathering all the possibly applicable data into a safe archive that will prevent its accidental or intentional destruction or alteration.
It is a basic step in legal due diligence they want to make sure they are protecting important information that at some time in the future a legal case suite or FOI request might require them to produce.
They are also telling their employees to harvest any and all data that might fit their description including things like personal phone logs, personal diary notes, and other non-computer based files that might include useful information.
Larry

crosspatch (20:38:16) : Global warming in discovery? But why DOE? Why not EPA or the Department of Commerce (parent department of NOAA)?
I suspect the penny is dropping on those agencies, too. It will not look good for EPA and NOAA to shred or delete anything now. The windows are opening. I don’t wish to make any comparison between the USA and GB, but we are death on state secrets over here.
INGSOC (20:38:45) : Of even greater import perhaps? (in reference to the emerging Copenhagen deadlock)
I don’t think so. Copenhagen was always destined to be a dog-and-pony show performed by UN Euro-clowns. The real buck stops in the USA because we’re the big dog.
Our problem here is the EPA. Congress and the Pres can and will make noises, but they haven’t got the cojones to pass cap-and-trade. The electorate would eat them alive, and they know it. The EPA, on the other hand, is a rogue agency that thinks it is above American-style justice.
They are in for a rude awakening. Legal eagles are descending for the kill and the carrion. You think Hoaxenhagen is deadlocked? Wait until you see the EPA turned into a comatose zombie agency by FOIA lawyers.

hotrod (21:02:34) or Larry:
Thanks so much.
Could you please go to my 2nd question: the meaning or nuance of the word “travesty”. I shall be much obliged to you if you could paraphrase the “and it is a travesy that we can’t.” part in the famous passage:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
Thank you again.

” As a poor non-English native, it’s hard for me to grasp the meaning of “litigation hold”, and why DOE had to do this action. Could anyone teach me please?”
A litigation hold is a notice telling people not to destroy paperwork. After the notice, the destruction or loss of data would be a felony. If the litigation is a civil matter only, the judge would impose sanctions.

Let’s not be too over-confident. Given how well entrenched the global warming belief is – along with how much money has been spent on supporting this issue and how many reputations have been built on the topic – any “victory” is still a long way off.
My personal view is that twenty years of colder than average weather around the globe would be necessary to kill the belief. The first ten would be spent on obfuscation, and the next ten on people getting their heads around the idea that the whole warming issue was actually manufactured.
Nevertheless, I really never thought I’d see (supposed) scientists discussing how to “hide the decline”. But there it is.

I call BS.
If for no other reason than Counsel was not spelled correctly. You would think copy/paste from an actual email would have that correct at least.

Just wondering if a Litigation Hold Notice supersedes a FOIA request?
Could this be a peremptory response to thwart nosy FOIA requests?

Pretty much there are two possible outcomes from this.
Obama wants to tar and feather further the reputation of George Bush by getting this obvious failed attempt at pushing the world to turn over their sovereignty to the United Nations and wants as much distance as possible between him and the damage.
Obama still thinks things can be salvaged if they can collect all the information and sanitize it enough with black outs of ‘Top Secret’ information.
I vote for the first one, but do not put it past Obama to actually try the second, because he is just that blinded by ideology. Any way it goes, there will be a total whitewash of everything that could implicate Obama and his advisers as well as the whitewashing of as many other progressives as can be accomplished.
It would be nice to have some leaks of information that actually got the heads of conspiracy. Everyone may try to claim no conspiracy, but the truth is that this much damage to the scientific community could not have been without orchestration, even if the vast number of actors had no clue they were part of the fraud. Some people in the highest levels of the United States government must be part of the head of the beast. These traitors should be smoked out into the open to be removed from power and prosecuted to the most vengeful limits of the law.

DOE funded Jones for 25 years.

I was a contract Pilot for the DOE, DOD, and other related agencies in The Tri-Cities
in Washington-the Hanford area.I was privy to a lot of inside on the WPSS (Washington
Power Supply System or appropriately-“Whoops. “) debacle. Graft,greed corruption
and blackmail-all there.This is starting to look like that mess.If it is one half as bad,
there will blood on the sand…
Once the FOIA people get the the goods then the Feds _will_ step in…

BTW it is Washington Public Power Supply System..

Wow,
Funny how they start out so tentatively
“Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, blahblah…”
and then say;
“In other words, please preserve any and all documents ”
and only in the second paragraph do they get around to;
“this Litigation Hold preservation obligation”
As the prior post noted, failure to preserve documents under Litigation Hold can be deemed to be a felony offense…
Yikes!
TL

Remember that Ben Santer, who wrote an email to the CRU people saying he wanted to punch somebody, works at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab, which, like Savannah River, is a DOE lab. My guess is that the DOE sent emails like this to every employee at all the national labs.

Here is a pretty good definition of a Litigation Hold.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/l/litigation-hold/
The first part reads
“A litigation hold, also known as a “preservation order” or “hold order” is a temporary suspension of the company’s document retention [and] destruction policies for the documents that may be relevant to a law suit or that are reasonably anticipated to be relevant. It is a stipulation requiring the company to preserve all data that may relate to a legal action involving the company. A litigation hold ensures that the documents relating to the litigation are not destroyed and are available for the discovery process prior to litigation.”

I believe that the ClimateGate hero has delivered the thing that the political class needed. For whatever the reason, the climate is getting cooler. This is becoming so obvious that it can no longer be ignored. For those politicians that supported the global warming proposition, they now have an out: we were lied to by Scientists. Whether they know it or not, the Team will now be destroyed for the reputations of those that have no idea about weather or climate.

I notice some people are wondering why the DOE would be concerned with all this climategate mess. The short answer is that the E stands for energy. Any and all topics related to energy fall under their domain (though they tend to be known mostly for their nuclear research efforts). For example, their latest Phase I SBIR* notice contains these sub-topics:

24. Climate Control Technology for Fossil Energy Application
a. Characterization of CO2 Geologic Repositories
b. Monitoring of CO2 Geologic Storage
c. Performance of CO2 Storage
d. Alternative Use and Reuse of CO2
e. Advanced Membranes for CO2 Capture from Existing Coal-fired Power Plants
f. Advanced Sorbents for CO2 Capture from Existing Coal-Fired Power Plants

30. Carbon Cycle Measurements of the Atmosphere and the Biosphere
a. Sensors and Techniques for Measuring Terrestrial Carbon Sinks and Sources
b. Novel Measurements of Carbon, CO2, and Trace Greenhouse Gas Constituents of Terrestrial and Atmospheric Media

There are others, as well, that touch on climate related issues. The solicitation (closed 11/20/2009) can be found at http://www.science.doe.gov/sbir/Funding.html (the 2010 Phase I funding notice).
Mark
*SBIR = small business innovation research

I wonder if Copenhagen has heard the good news?

Thanks to a couple of excellent mentors I now feel having grasped both “litigation hold” and “travesty”. Thank you so much.

YES! THIS IS A MERRY CHRISTMAS!!! It may turn out to be a very happy New Year.

We even have a Digg!
http://digg.com/environment/DOE_sends_a_litigation_hold_notice_regarding_Climategate

CLIMATE AUDIT DOT GOV
Reply: Polite hand clap. ~ ctm

Dare we even hope truth will prevail? I’m going to!

don’t get your hopes up, justice is a long road.

You can relax now Anthony, it’s almost over. Thank You, Thank You, Thank you!
REPLY: No, it’s just starting. -A

2 emails hit on DoE Grant:
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=545&filename=1120676865.txt
From: Phil Jones
To: “Neville Nicholls”
Subject: RE: Misc
Date: Wed Jul 6 15:07:45 2005
Neville,
Mike’s response could do with a little work, but as you say he’s got the tone
almost dead on. I hope I don’t get a call from congress ! I’m hoping that no-one
there realizes I have a US DoE grant and have had this (with Tom W.) for the last 25
years.
I’ll send on one other email received for interest.
Cheers
Phil
and
Request for cost data
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=876&filename=1210178552.txt

Enron Andersen’s Christmas Party

Get real. This has to be a hoax. Like some corny B-movie where the “honest” government officials show up in the last scene to save the day? I wish it were true.

From tokyoboy:
> I shall be much obliged to you if you could paraphrase the “and it is a travesy[sic] that we can’t.” part in the famous passage:
>“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
One interpretation would be “ridiculous”, as in “… and it is ridiculous that we can’t.”
Does that help?

It will start as an attempt to scrub and whitewash. And it will backfire as scientists who want to earn their stripes realize their future is in exposing the hoax.

Robert E. Phelan (22:11:18) :
Go back and look at the post I made regarding just this year’s Phase I SBIR. Phase I studies are generally only $100k, but there could easily be dozens awarded every submission. These are just the Phase I contracts, Phase II contracts are potentially $750k. This doesn’t even get into the big contractors (SBIRs are limited to small companies, under 500 employees). The DOE is easily into the GW thing to the tune of billions each year, though I am not suggesting they have some tilt one way or another. IMO, they simply want to know what is going on since it is their business to know.
Mark

“yonason (22:23:19) :
Michael (22:01:01) :
“The word is out.”
But it all comes back to WUWT. Where’s the independent confirmation? I would have held on to this article until I had that. This could get embarrassing if it’s a fake. (Counsil?)”
Perception is 9/10 of the LAW!

There is an awful lot of money to be made and the legal profession are experts in having the ability to recognize the gravy train when it arrives in town, the uncovering of the AAM fraud will keep thousands of lawyers in lucrative employment for years to come.
Millions of documents to trawl trough and millions of man hours spent mean big money, the snake oil spivs, parasite hangers on and charlatans have made a mint and now its the turn of the lawyers, when they get started there will be no stopping them.
The legal fraternity smell cash like a vulture smells carrion and there is lots and lots to be made from the fat rotting carcass that is the AAM freak show.
You can just picture the scene in a legal firm staff meeting, things are a bit slow now with the depression so ideas for drumming up business are being thrown around, the young thrusting lawyer suggests shaking down all the newly enriched spivs/sharks/political parasites/charlatans but that is going to be loose change compared to the really big fish involved, when the lawyers start shaking down the big fish, it will make a lot of lawyers very very rich indeed.
The legal fraternity have been looking for a big payoff cash cow for a while now and its only a matter of time before anyone with a legal degree decides to join in for the killing.

I suggest anyone with any sources “inside” encourage them that now is the time to join the other (apparent) whistleblower who leaked the Climategate docs. Maybe those will soon be known as just the “first set of Climategate evidence.

Good catch on the “counsel”…this is not an original, perhaps (if authentic) typed in by J.C.
We’ve seen fakery before used as a tactic of the scare-warmers to discredit targeted sites.
REPLY: I checked out a couple of things before I posted this. The IP address of J.C. comes from the correct location in South Carolina, Aiken, and the name Michael L. Wamsted does work for DOE at the SRS in SC in legal. See http://phonebook.doe.gov/
The Council -vs- Counsel could be something as simple as a spell checker substituting the wrong word. Heck, I misspell “meteorologist” sometimes in correspondence. It happens. If the IP had not come from Aiken, SC where Savannah River Site and lab is, I would be highly suspect of it.
See the doc for directions here: http://www.srs.gov/general/about/directions_aiken.pdf
The language used checks out, it has been reviewed by an attorney who frequents WUWT and he raised no red flags. Steve McIntyre points out that Dr. Jones got funding from DOE (of which SRS is part of). The different pieces connect pretty well and I don’t have a reason to doubt this memo sent via email today. – Anthony

I could educate you guys if you would allow me. Bookmark these videos for viewing.
Politics – The Power of Nightmares, (Part 1/3), “Baby it’s Cold Outside“
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4933960062431353720&ei=rzAnS6WuHIT0qAK_0Pi9DA&q=the+power+of+nightmares+part+1&view=3#docid=2798679275960015727
The Power of Nightmares Part 2: The Phantom Victory – by Adam Curtis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727&ei=1y4nS_qBNIm-qQLBsdC-DA&q=the+power+of+nightmares#docid=4602171665328041876
The Power of Nightmares Part 3: The Shadows in the Cave – by Adam Curtis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254&ei=IzAnS7bBMoW0qwLC2OzYDA&q=the+power+of+nightmares+part+3&view=3#

Michael (22:31:35) :
“Perception is 9/10 of the LAW!”
Actually, no, it’s not. “Perception” isn’t going to send anyone to jail.
And besides, what would the Westinghouse Savannah River Company (You know, like the “Savannah River Site” the author of this piece claimed he/she worked at) have to do with CRU, anyway?
I say it’s bogus.

would this not be as a result of the letters that Senator Inhofe sent out to the relevant government agencies a week or three ago?
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=27fe9184-802a-23ad-45e5-8feb948b7bb3&Region_id=&Issue_id=

The whole world can easily be deceived if you OWN all the news agencies as the Rothschild’s and friends do.

Michael (23:05:58) :
The whole world can easily be deceived if . . .
Tin Hats anyone?

yonason (20:36:37) :
boballab (20:27:43) :
So, what’s DOE telling them” “Quick, give us ALL the material on CRU, . . . we’re better at hiding it than you are.” ?
———————————————————-
Yep. Stashed in a subterranean department, headed by a little mole faced man, who’s entire English vocabulary consists of one sentence. ” I am unable to comment on the investigation at hand.”…..
Pessimism aside, interesting times ahead by the looks.

As Steve McIntyre says ‘DOE funded Jones for 25 years’. The most likely explanation is to investigate possible budget misallocation. Remember that email about reallocating DOE grant money to some Russian? Was that outside the terms of the grant?

tokyoboy (21:14:35) : …if you could paraphrase the “and it is a travesy that we can’t.”
Try this: “Travesty” = farce: a comedy. Therefore the guy is saying it is ridiculous that they (the climate experts) find themselves unable to explain a factual result. Ridiculous that they cannot; stupid that they cannot; farcial that they cannot. It makes them look like clowns (comedy).
“Farce” = a comedy characterized by broad satire and improbable situations; in their case, an “unexpected” situation…

jef (22:41:32) :
I didn’t see your post, but now that I do, I see that Anthony’s REPLY to your comment does appear to indicate that Wamsted works for DOE.
But he’s not listed here.
http://phonebook.doe.gov/alpha.pdf
Also, Anthony’s find has him working for SRS, (his email is ” mike.wamsted(at)srs.gov“). It’s not DOE directly, though that may just be a technicality.
And as soon as my next to last post before this one comes out of spam filter, you can see what I found on this site.
http://www.energy.gov/environment/climatechange.htm
_______________________________________________________________
Robert E. Phelan (23:01:09) :
Is that from Anthony’s reply to jef, or do you have another source?

Phil. said:
“My interpretation was that he was referring to the lack of adequate measurements/coverage, such as Triana being hidden away by the previous administration.”
Your interpretation seems like quite a stretch to me. Feeling a little desperate Phil. ? Hint: You could try asking the good doctor 😉

Could you please go to my 2nd question: the meaning or nuance of the word “travesty”. I shall be much obliged to you if you could paraphrase the “and it is a travesy that we can’t.” part in the famous passage:
“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
The nuance you are looking for in this case;
Travesty – Ridiculous, extremely wrong. So wrong it makes us look stupid. The world will laugh at us but we are supposed to be the experts.

last night here in the UK we had to put up with this blatant propaganda from the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pgnsn/The_One_Show_14_12_2009/
If that has made you feel ill, here’s the medicine
http://www.tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees

“Robert E. Phelan (22:11:18) :
OK, here are two possible reasons why the DOE might have an interest in climategate-related materials:
http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/CH–FG02-98ER62601
http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/CH–FG02-86ER60397
I didn’t add up the amounts, but a quick count show almost 3 million in grants in just the last two years.”
Perhaps there have been comments on this that I missed. If so I am sorry.
These grants are for substantiating AGW!! what a rip off!!!
No wonder the work turns out as it did. Otherwise he wouldn’t have been paid.

P.S., that’s why the DOE is involved:
SRS is to DOE, as CRU is to the Met office.

Council/Counsel.
There is no mis-spelling. A Council is the governing body and Counsel is US-English for a lawyer.
So, from the DOE website (as an example of the usage and no reflection on Mr Parnes) we have the following sentence;
“During 1993 and 1994, Mr. Parnes was Chairman of the Council of Counsels to Inspectors General (CCIG). “

An intervention re funding at Penn State?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23612181/Sen-Piccola-Letter-on-PSU-Prof-Michael-Mann

If you go to the search site for the DoE at http://search.doe.gov and search for “office of general council” (include quotes) you will find it occurs frequently as a complete phrase so looks like its usage is not an issue.

Michael knew what he was in1999. Maybe he has a secretary who doesn’t.
The letter is grammatically flawless, except for the typo and the quotation marks going astray around “global warming” .
I dare say that, somewhere, there’s a counsel for the council of counsels, but that might be irrelevant.
Lucy B. Smith Case No. VWD-0006
July 8, 1999 Letter from Herbert W. Louthian, Esq., Counsel for Lucy B. Smith, to Michael L. Wamsted, Esq., Counsel, WSRC. In a letter dated July 14,1999, …
http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/whistle/vwd0006.htm – United States

This is interseting, oh how wonderful Amercia is at times. This sort of thing can so easily be swept under the carpet in the UK unitl it’s all over & done.
OT & apologies. But, relating to a previous comment on another post, I watched the second episode of “Man on earth”, UK Channel 4 & Channel 4+1, hosted by the delightfully enthusiastic Tony Robinson. It was as before fascinating in it’s historical climate content, & the constant repetition of the terms Climate Change & Global Warming were admirable in the historical context. The explanation of the Sahara (with a lake the size of California) as once lush savannah 8,000 years ago turning to desert within 35-40 years because of rainfull patterns turning south, how the Black Sea came into being due to Candian (I knew it was your fault) ice dam breaking causing billions of tons of water to escape making sea-levels rise, etc. All of these things were attributed to perfectly natural events & happenings, no mention of why, how, without mentioning CO2 once, just that it was a result og Climate Change & Global Warming. However, as I expected & mentioned in the previous comment elsewhere, Mr Robinson, whilst not yet nailing his colours to the masthead, certainly unfurled them ready for battle, with his use of the phrases, (words to that effect), “Man’s ability to adapt to climate change & advance” etc., etc., “would give some small hope to scientists today”, or there abouts. So I fully expect the presumably final episode next Monday (21st) to end in a damning indictment of humanity at present. Unfortunately I will not be around to witness this last show (a wedding – don’t ask! Teachers, huh!!) Having said all this, the programme, at least to me, left more questions than answers begging for resolution!

Front page, Daily express newspaper:
“100 reasons why global warming is natural”.

I wondered when this would kick off. When one is awarded a research grant in the UK one has to sign a declaration promising to share data and samples etc with the wider scientific community. Judging by some of the leaked/hacked emails several of the correspondents may have some tricky questions to answer in this regard.

An intervention re funding at Penn State?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23612181/Sen-Piccola-Letter-on-PSU-Prof-Michael-Mann
Wow. If this is what it seems to be, it is really putting pressure on PSU to put the screws to Mann. I would seriously hate to be in his shoes about now. I assume as chairman of education on the Penn senate, this legislator can really get PSU’s attention.

Remember a few weeksago when Prof Jones was taken down to the local ‘Nick’ for questioning as a ‘witness’. I said then that it was to get him on record on tape, and probably under caution. Over here, our legal wheels move exceedingly slowly, but be patient, they’ll get there in the end. In the meantime Charles is going to Copenhagen to sort out the world. So we can all sleep safely in our beds, while he saves the world and its polar bears!

Cue news later today of a successful underground nuclear test in the US
Cue news later today that due to an administrative error, the test detonation occured inside the DoE’s secure underground archives.
Wonder when NASA will get the mail?

Hi
Just to clear things up a bit. I’ve been posting here for a while – over a year maybe two, as ‘Michael’ and lately I’ve noticed another ‘Michael’ or maybe even more than one with the same screen name but I don’t troll. Maybe I’ll change to ‘Michael in Sydney’ from now on.
Cheers
Michael – in Sydney & not a troll.

Never mind all this: whatsupwiththe sun? Sunspot number now 28 (14 yesterday, 13 the day before, zero a week ago).

I’m unable to make any sensible comment, all I can do is giggle like a little schoolgirl.

So convenient that it’s taboo to get funding from fossil fuel companies, but just fine for Jones et. al. to get generous funding from the DOE, which pushes nuclear power.

Tony Robinson is a firm believer in AGW in spite of doing many archeological digs, prehistoric programmes etc.
He simply doesn’t hear what his script is telling him.

OT but just a few hours ago I noticed solar flux was up to 76. It’s now up to 79! The highest we’ve seen in a while, no? A few days ago (last I noticed) it was down to 70.
Nice sunspot group crossing the sun too.
Old Sol might go back into its funk again in a day or two. Or not. We’ll see.

OT would people who know more than I do – pop over to this comment and ask him some pertinent questions.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/iandouglas/100004391/fudgefactor-another-climategate-red-herring/

Got my :popcorn: ready…..

Somewhat O/T (and forgive me if this has been posted before – there is so much to keep with!) – but it’s priceless from Tony Bliar:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6803921/Copenhagen-climate-summit-Tony-Blair-calls-on-world-leaders-to-get-moving.html

move over bernie you may have a few friends coming to join you on your 150 year holiday

lawyer up…..Soros has lots of money.

Presuming the notice to preserve is authentic you should focus on the last paragraph. The government lawyers will tell the person(s) that respond to put a clamp on discussing or disseminate in any form information without first clearing with them (the lawyers). While they’re at it they’ll prepare a list of “associates” who have or may have access and/or information regarding the action/pending action. A simple fact of life in the legal business. This, effectively, drops a legal curtain over the (pending) action. Don’t be surprised if they annex all physical and electronic information as well in order to preserve it.
Again, if authentic, it is virtually assured you may see leaks but I would bet on very, very few. The power of the government, should they decide to act, is incredible especially if there are issues of misappropriation/fraud involving Federal monies. Think felonies. Since someone is at investigating, the whistle blower laws won’t apply. Plus, if it’s someone in the an Inspector General’s office and possible criminal issues are on the table, any Congressional inquiries would be deferred pending completion. Expect several months to go by while the process grinds away. If the DOE finds something, the DOJ must get involved which means more delays.
One can do a lot of speculation at this point. Let’s do a simple one for fun. If you’ve checked out the sources of funding for global warming studies you’ll think the entire US Government agency has a few dollars in the mix. This includes everything from DOJ to the DoD to Education, et al. If you’re a politician with an agenda and just want to tamp down the evolving scandal, this would be about as good as it gets at this point. You can say it’s under investigation, you can say you can’t comment due to “litigation”, you can say an IG audit is underway and you can say any wrong doing will be given to AG Holder (so he can put it next to the Black Panther and ACORN cases). A bonus is you then continue putting forth the canard of needing to act since “even if”. At a minimum it becomes old news while allowing the AGW proponents to continue their campaign. The more universities and government offices that report they are “investigating” simply means less, not more, information. At least for several months and maybe longer. And expect “preliminary findings” which will be either neutral or support “the science”.

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
Leo Tolstoy

Could the spelling mistakes be intentional? Errors that give lawyers room to move in court? A delaying tactic; so they can claim to have sent something but ‘due to a minor technicality the document received on Monday was not valid until the corrected version arrived Wednesday.” Shred on Phil.
Also if we can check who the general council of the DOE is and who else works there so could a hoaxer. Watch out.
I’m optimistic that this is real and that most climate related labs have received a version.
As I’ve said on another site.
When we pray that God sends confusion upon our enemy’s; It may be wise to notice and thank him when it happens. It seems someone was praying hard. Confusion run riot.

“Baffling to me.. what does DOE have to do with climate change or CRU?”
The DOE is involved in dispensing quite a few grants. I assume they are worried about fraud. I know that CRU does enjoy some grant money from the US federal government. What must be worriesome to those people who have collaberated with CRU, or are involved in the same kind of work (temperature reconstructions), there is a chance of this snow-balling. Both NASA and NOAA could see quie a bit of fall-out.
But, as I have said all along; the real danger to the Team and Alarmists will come from civil suits. Unlike official internal investigations, civil suits have much lower standards concerning evidence. And judges give the plantiffs much wider discreation.

Hopefully, this “Litigation Hold Notice” isn’t an Administration/DOE dodge to stall any FOI requests which may be in the pipeline.
To be upbeat, the US FOI Act doesn’t really specify that documents under a FOI
request can be withheld due to potential or actual litigation.
The citizens’ trump card is our Representatives and Senators have a specific
subsection in the law that mandates anything they might request, except classified documents, MUST be given to them.
I’m not sure the British FOI has the same provision for MPs.

I’m new to this site but very glad that you’re here. Yours is heroic work. A word of caution: I spent a very long time in the US government and it’s very hard to accept that internal correspondence concerning a legal matter would include the council/counsel error. I would check that very closely. In over 30 years’ service I don’t recall seeing that error even once. Reason is that the people who send these notices use those words all the time; one episode of public embarrassment is enough to make the lesson stick.

I don’t find a “Michael Wamsted” listed on the DoE General Counsel site. Might be that I’m not a very good searcher or it might be something else.