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

https://i2.wp.com/www.er.doe.gov/News_Information/Logo_Gallery/Logos/New_DOE_Seal_Color.jpg?resize=190%2C190

UPDATE: I’ve confirmed this document, see below the “read more” line.

It appears bigger things are brewing related to CRU’s Climategate.

WUWT commenter J.C. writes in comments:

I work at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. I’ve been following the Climategate scandal since its inception. The first time many of my coworkers had heard of the situation was when I asked them about it.

Well, well, well.

Look what was waiting in every single email Inbox on Monday morning:

______________________________________________

“December 14, 2009

DOE Litigation Hold Notice

DOE-SR has received a “Litigation Hold Notice” from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council and the DOE Office of Inspector General regarding the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. Accordingly, they are requesting that SRNS, SRR and other Site contractors locate and preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming, including, but not limited to, the contract files, any related correspondence files, and any records, including emails or other correspondence, notes, documents, or other material related to this contract, regardless of its location or medium on which it is stored. In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

As a reminder, this Litigation Hold preservation obligation supersedes any existing statutory or regulatory document retention period or destructive schedule. The determination of what information may be potentially relevant is based upon content and substance and generally does not depend on the type of medium on which the information exists. The information requested may exist in various forms, including paper records, hand-written notes, telephone log entries, email, and other electronic communication (including voicemail), word processing documents (including drafts, spreadsheets, databases, and calendars), telephone logs, electronic address books, PDAs (like Palm Pilots and Blackberries), internet usage files, systems manuals, and network access information in their original format. All ESI should be preserved in its originally-created, or “native” format, along with related metadata. Relevant backup tapes and all indexes for those tapes should also be preserved. Further, information that is reasonably accessible must nonetheless be preserved, because such sources will, at the very least, need to be identified and, under compelling circumstances, may need to be produced.

If you have any doubts as to whether specific information is responsive, err on the side of preserving that information.

Any employee who has information covered by this Litigation Hold is requested to contact Madeline Screven, Paralegal, SRNS Office of General Council, 5-4634, for additional instructions.

Michael L. Wamsted

Associate General Council”

_______________________________________________

Everyone on-site who has an email account received this letter. That’s somewhere in the neighborhood of 8000 people. How about that? And this is the first official mention of the entire subject that I have seen.

DOE-SR = Department of Energy Savannah River

SRNS = Savannah River Nuclear Solutions

SRR = Savannah River Remediation


NOTE: Some commenters raised some doubts about the authenticity of this email.

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/

Also the existence of the paralegal “Madeline Screven” listed in the email (whom I believe composed it) is listed in the DOE phonebook search of  “Screven” and is listed in the same building as Wamsted.

The “Council -vs- Counsel” spelling error could be something as simple as a spell checker substituting the wrong word, or just a dumb mistake when composing email where the spell checker would not flag “council” as it is spelled correctly.  Heck, I misspell “meteorologist” sometimes in correspondence, dropping an “o”. I have had a situation sometimes where “metrologist” (also valid) gets substituted on spell check. Spelling mistakes, compounded with spell checker substitution errors – they happen. I have one computer (the one I’m typing on) that always switches the word “because” to “becuase” in spell checks for some odd reason, and I can’t figure out how to correct it. So I live with it and try to manually fix it when I notice it.  There is another spelling error “Climate Research Unit at he University”. Which is a mistake I make from time to time, missing the “t” on the. Spell checkers don’t catch that one, since “he” is a correctly spelled word.

If the IP had not come from Aiken, SC where Savannah River Site and lab is, I would be highly suspect of it. But the IP address in Aiken and the names check out. Aiken is right next to SRS.

See the doc and map for directions here: http://www.srs.gov/general/about/directions_aiken.pdf

The language used also 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

======================

UPDATE: 12/15/12:36 PST

I called SRS Legal office just now and spoke with Madeline Screven, who is listed as a paralegal in the letter I posted. I found her telephone number via the DOE phonebook.

http://phonebook.doe.gov/

When I called, she fully identified herself in her greeting to me, I explained who I was, giving my full name. She asked if I was “on or off site” referring to SRS. I explained I’m off-site.

My question: “Do you have a litigation hold notice related to the Climate Research Unit.”

Her answer: “Yes we do”

Confirmed.

Share

0 0 votes
Article Rating
423 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
EdB
December 14, 2009 7:52 pm

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

Doug in Seattle
December 14, 2009 7:53 pm

Wow. This means that either litigation has begun or is believed to be imminent. I hope something similar is also going out to other departments, particularly those involved in the CCSP and other documents used by the EPA.
I suspect though that this may have something to do with DOE direct funding of CRU and may not include NOAA, NCAR, NASA and others “Climate Agencies”.

Richard K
December 14, 2009 7:54 pm

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

pwl
December 14, 2009 7:54 pm

Kapow!

pwl
December 14, 2009 7:54 pm

The hammer drops!

Jerry
December 14, 2009 7:54 pm

Ok, good. It’s about time!
Now how about NASA GISS?
How about Penn State?

December 14, 2009 7:55 pm

Lets hope this information doesn’t mysteriously disappear like NASA GISS raw, un-homogenized data.

boballab
December 14, 2009 7:55 pm

I wonder if Seth is regretting that AP article right about now

Pete M.
December 14, 2009 7:56 pm

Justice prevails!

December 14, 2009 7:56 pm

Perhaps it’s time for a quote or two from Bob Dylan.
You don’t need a weather man. To know which way the wind blows…
And the times, they are a-changin’
Things just get more interesting by the day, don’t they? 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?

Polar bears and BBQ sauce
December 14, 2009 7:56 pm

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

Steve Oregon
December 14, 2009 7:59 pm

I hope this covers “tempests in teapots” too?

APF
December 14, 2009 8:02 pm

Barbarians at the gates! Not too much longer now.

hotrod
December 14, 2009 8:03 pm

The folks that thought this would just blow over!
That light you see at the other end of the tunnel is an on coming train!
Good to see at least someone takes their responsibility for due diligence and custodianship of public records seriously.
Larry

TerryMN
December 14, 2009 8:04 pm

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.

December 14, 2009 8:05 pm

I’m wondering if it’s already too late. My 40 years of observing human behaviour says to me that a lot of stuff has already been “lost” (deleted) between the climategate revelations and this legal notice being received to preserve everything pending investigation.
Mind you – I’m such a cynic 😉

Walt
December 14, 2009 8:09 pm

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

cba
December 14, 2009 8:10 pm

WOW,
that raised my blood pressure just reading it. It almost sounds like some are starting to take this scandal seriously. Hopefully, it has arrived before the paper shredders went into overtime operation.

3x2
December 14, 2009 8:12 pm

Part of a wholesale mail-out from the DOE? Just the DOE?

CodeTech
December 14, 2009 8:12 pm

I sincerely, absolutely, seriously hope it works.
And I think they should have contacted all the mobile shredding companies and kept them away from Seinfeld’s Restaurant…

Austin
December 14, 2009 8:14 pm

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

David Q.
December 14, 2009 8:16 pm

It is like a pot with too many popcorn kernels. Eventually you get to sit down and eat popcorn and enjoy the show as the lid is blown of the whole enchilada.
This is too much fun. Thanks Anthony for providing holiday entertainment for the whole family.
P.S. O. T. Regarding CO2, now when it is almost knocked off its pedestal it can still provide additional fun. Here is one my ten year old son made up.
“What did they say, a hundred years ago, when they burned cow hides?”
“Carbon dioxide!” get it… “carbon theoxhide”….
So much fun from such an innocent little gas, that even kid can crack a joke.

December 14, 2009 8:18 pm

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.

Mikey
December 14, 2009 8:18 pm

I’m surprised this took several weeks. Why wasn’t it issued the minute the climategate story broke? Hope there haven’t been any shredding parties.

Glenn
December 14, 2009 8:21 pm

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.

yonason
December 14, 2009 8:23 pm

With Steven (paint everything white to save the planet) Chu heading up DOE, this is bound to be an honest investigation, right?

Henry chance
December 14, 2009 8:24 pm

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

eo
December 14, 2009 8:27 pm

Will DOE correct its message before the communications and records are deleted. There is no Climate Reserch Unit at UAE, it is Climatic Rsesearch Unit.

boballab
December 14, 2009 8:27 pm

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

Bonnie
December 14, 2009 8:30 pm

Knowing who’s in charge, though, why assume this is anything other than another nefarious move?

Monroe
December 14, 2009 8:32 pm

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

December 14, 2009 8:32 pm

Halfwise above is quite correct. The floodgates are about to open on this scam, and the hacks at AP who wrote the greenwash will be feeling very green indeed.

yonason
December 14, 2009 8:36 pm

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.” ?

Joel
December 14, 2009 8:37 pm

If certain folks have not yet “lawyered up” (MM, GS, PJ, GF, TW, KB, JH), I suggest they get right to it. Or, if it is just a “tempest in a tea pot”, I’m sure no one will bother them.

Theo Goodwin
December 14, 2009 8:37 pm

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?

crosspatch
December 14, 2009 8:38 pm

Global warming in discovery? But why DOE? Why not EPA or the Department of Commerce (parent department of NOAA)?

INGSOC
December 14, 2009 8:38 pm
tokyoboy
December 14, 2009 8:39 pm

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?
In addition, slightly off this very topic, I still find it difficult to understand what the now-famous “travesty” denotes, because the explanations in my dictionaries do not appear to nicely fit its nuance with which you are talking about this word out there.
The latter is also what I am eager to know now.
Thanks in advance for your reply.

December 14, 2009 8:40 pm

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

oliver
December 14, 2009 8:41 pm

I would imagine the DOE memo resulted from Inhofe’s call back in November to retain documents relevant to the CRU:
” WASHINGTON (Nov 25) – Sen. Jim Inhofe, considered the leading skeptic in Congress that human activity is causing global warming, wants an investigation into whether some of the leading scientists on the topic manipulated data to inflate the problem.
The Oklahoma Republican sent letters to numerous
scientists at U.S. universities and to government agencies asking that they retain documents related to files stolen last week from a computer server at the Climatic Research Unit in England.”

Leon Brozyna
December 14, 2009 8:41 pm

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.

Ed
December 14, 2009 8:44 pm

I note that this is a “litigation” hold, not an investigative hold. Who has filed a law suit? And against whom?

John in NZ
December 14, 2009 8:52 pm

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.

rabidfox
December 14, 2009 8:52 pm

This sounds like it was initiated by either a Congresssinal action or a civil suit, in either case, I don’t think that either Holden or the head of the DOE can stop it. While I’m sure that some of the required information is being shredded, I’m also sure (as an ex-civil servant) that not all of those 8,000 will be shredding the same thing. There are probably 8, 101 CYA files. The info is there and it sounds like someone is motivated enough to find it.

pat
December 14, 2009 8:53 pm

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

wayne
December 14, 2009 8:54 pm

Pete M. (19:56:03) :
Maybe.

D. Ch.
December 14, 2009 8:57 pm

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

Indiana Bones
December 14, 2009 8:57 pm

EdB (19:52:29) :
Baffling to me.. what does DOE have to do with climate change or CRU?

As of the time of the leaks, Professor Phil Jones of UEA was in receipt of a 2008 $300k DOE contract to do certain “climate research.” There may well be other U.S. government contracts with UEA and the Climatic Research Unit.
This is a prudent move to protect evidence used to prosecute malfeasance on the part of any “climate science” researcher funded by government grants.

Editor
December 14, 2009 8:59 pm

That is rather stunning. Keep in mind that the DOE oversees thousands of programs, and I would guess that Savannah River is not the only site to be informed. Oversight for the DOE in the Senate is conducted by the Committee for Energy and Natural Resources and includes Senator McCaion as a member. The Web site is here:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=About.Members
Now, what about NASA and NOAA?
And just WHAT litigation are they talking about? Has some one here not been sharing with the rest of us?

December 14, 2009 9:00 pm

I don’t expect the DOE investigation to lead anywhere. Just ass covering.

hotrod
December 14, 2009 9:02 pm

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

blondieBC
December 14, 2009 9:03 pm

Some thoughts:
1) Everyone lawyering up gets real expensive, real fast. Most people can not afford to hire a lawyer for an extended period of time. I have had to lawyer up before, and any month below $5,000 in legal fees was a good month. It is easy to burn $5K per month even with not motion filed or the like.
2) As a part of #1, people will throw themselves on the government mercy in exchange for immunity unless the organization pays the fees. A University handling of this will be critical. Now imaging that you have you 10 managers to meet to discuss the issue, each with a lawyer paid for by the university. Also university lawyers will be present and the internal council. Now, these meeting will cost $5 to $10K per hour. Adds up real fast.
3) Since we now all have lawyers, we can only safely talk with our lawyers present. So effectively communication, and all work are shut down.
4) These types of orders are a pain. I worked with a guy who had the FBI raid his office. The matter was resolved with not fines or penalties, but it was a horrible experience for him.
5) These orders will also apply to stuff you have at home related to work.
6) Things people don’t think about become important. Remember that 5 year old PC sitting in the closet, broken. You have to keep it til the entire matter blows over.
etc, etc.
Overall, a real pain.

December 14, 2009 9:05 pm

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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 9:11 pm

Watch who comes out of the closet on both the Right and the Left to defend the AGW crowd. Then you will know who is in on the Scam.

Neo
December 14, 2009 9:12 pm

It might have something to do with …

Failure to reopen the record to include CRU’s new revelations would result in a fundamentally
misleading administrative record. That record would falsely suggest that the climate-change data
relied upon by EPA has evidentiary support when in fact it fails EPA’s own data quality
standards. Moreover, since the underlying data no longer exist, the record would falsely suggest
that CRU’s claims are reliable.

… and …

Washington, DC, Dec. 7, 2009 –The Environmental Protection Agency today finalized its finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare and therefore must be regulated under the Clean Air Act. CEI announced that it will file suit in federal court to overturn the endangerment finding on the grounds that EPA has ignored major scientific issues, including those raised recently in the Climategate fraud scandal.

Douglas Field
December 14, 2009 9:13 pm

tokyoboy (20:39:17)
I still find it difficult to understand what the now-famous “travesty” denotes, because the explanations in my dictionaries do not appear to nicely fit its nuance with which you are talking about this word out there.
I’m with you tokyoboy. The sense would have been better if he had used the word tragedy rather than travesty. It was ‘tragic’ (for them) that there was no warming. However, is farcical that it did not warm despite their predictions and that may have been the sense intended in the original comment

tokyoboy
December 14, 2009 9:14 pm

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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 9:16 pm

This aught to send everyone involved scurrying for cover.

blondieBC
December 14, 2009 9:17 pm

” 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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 9:21 pm

We can Crowdsource all the material in a few weeks for them and get to the bottom of all this Tom Foolery real quick.
Just like this;
“In addition to blogs, skeptics of global warming have used “crowdsourcing” to improve on the science supposedly done by professionals. Anthony Watts is a meteorologist who was surprised by how local conditions affect the reliability of the 1,200 U.S. weather stations. Along with more than 600 volunteers, he found that almost all the stations violate the government’s standards by being too close to heating vents or surrounded by asphalt.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704342404574578012533089846.html

Dieter
December 14, 2009 9:23 pm

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.

photon without a Higgs
December 14, 2009 9:25 pm

The hammer has fallen.

Andy
December 14, 2009 9:26 pm

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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 9:27 pm

Here’s your scoop New York Times, or are you going to let the Washington Post Scoop you again?

longshadow
December 14, 2009 9:28 pm

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

Mr Lynn
December 14, 2009 9:29 pm

Sounds like they’re anticipating subpoenas from Congressional committees, if not from other places where formal inquiries have been initiated (e.g. at UPenn and in the UK).
Our brilliant government lawyers don’t know how to spell, though:
“Michael L. Wamsted, Associate General Council”
I expect he means ‘Counsel’.
/Mr Lynn

astonerii
December 14, 2009 9:32 pm

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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 9:33 pm

STOP THE PRESSES!

Steve McIntyre
December 14, 2009 9:35 pm

DOE funded Jones for 25 years.

Garacka
December 14, 2009 9:36 pm

A last ditch effort to save face for the politicians who have been supporting this scam is to find a scapegoat meaning the current (U.S.) administration may not try too hard to avoid/delay, but with the Green money behind them I would expect they will at least try a delay tactic, but only a delay.

Douglas DC
December 14, 2009 9:38 pm

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…

photon without a Higgs
December 14, 2009 9:38 pm

Jerry (19:54:55) :
Ok, good. It’s about time!
Now how about NASA GISS?

James Hansen should be worried, very worried.

Douglas DC
December 14, 2009 9:39 pm

BTW it is Washington Public Power Supply System..

Evan Jones
Editor
December 14, 2009 9:39 pm

This is going to cost them. Not only an incredibly difficult (and painful) search, but also what’s going to happen to them when the alums finally catch on and the spigot goes dry.
If I were UAE, I’d save a lot of money by simply setting fire to the building and blaming AGW.

December 14, 2009 9:41 pm

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

Michael
December 14, 2009 9:41 pm

Alex Jones is going to have a field day with this.

fm
December 14, 2009 9:42 pm

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.

hotrod
December 14, 2009 9:45 pm

tokyoboy (21:14:35) :
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.

The official definition of travesty is:
That it is a poor imitation — for example the phrase “The trial was a travesty of justice”, means that the trial was a joke, or ridiculous imitation of what a trial should be and was not what you would expect from the process.
As used in that email, it means that it is ridiculous, and extremely embarrassing, that the best “climatologists” in the world, do not know why the cooling is occurring.
It is an expression of extreme frustration, and even some anger. The fact they cannot explain it, greatly weakens their assertion that they ” completely understand climate” if the public knew they did not understand the cause. It also implies that their models are not very competent.
Larry

December 14, 2009 9:46 pm

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.”

Cromagnum
December 14, 2009 9:48 pm

OT … the wonderful “hide the climategate” Google now has its version of truth, a lil “suggestion” below the search box
takes you to this site: http://www.google.com/landing/cop15/
Any guesses how much Skeptic Data is there, and how much AlGlory informercials are there?
And you might run out of hands counting how many links are there for climategate. (if you are an double-amputee)

robr
December 14, 2009 9:49 pm

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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 9:51 pm

With all the out of work lawyers in the Real Estate industry now, there should be plenty of them to go around.

Steve Oregon
December 14, 2009 9:52 pm

Hopefully the EPA and NOAA will get their notices

David Harington
December 14, 2009 9:54 pm

“Nothing to see here, move along , move along …”
Oh how we laughed.
Wow! As a UK resident it is good to see a country wit a democratic system that actually has some teeth. It all changed when they tried to tell you what light bulbs you could have in your house.
Go USA…

Mark T
December 14, 2009 9:56 pm

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

photon without a Higgs
December 14, 2009 9:56 pm

tokyoboy (20:39:17) :
As a poor non-English native, it’s hard for me to grasp the meaning of “litigation hold”
All the things listed could be used in a court of law.
—————————————————
just did a quick search on the term “litigation hold”
http://www.expertbusinesssource.com/blog/720000272/post/1900010190.html

Michael
December 14, 2009 9:56 pm

I wonder if Copenhagen has heard the good news?

photon without a Higgs
December 14, 2009 9:58 pm

Steve McIntyre (21:35:33) :
DOE funded Jones for 25 years.
The plot thickens.

David L. Hagen
December 14, 2009 9:59 pm

It may be related to the CEI’s suits. e.g.,
Competitive Enterprise Institute Sues NASA in Wake of Climategate Scandal

November 24, 2009 – by Christopher Horner
the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed three Notices of Intent to File Suit against NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), for those bodies’ refusal — for nearly three years — to provide documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act. . . .

tokyoboy
December 14, 2009 10:01 pm

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

Purakanui
December 14, 2009 10:01 pm

INGSOC (20:38:45) :
Of even greater import perhaps?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climategate_tko_in_copenhagen.html
I think so. Is this the beginning of a quiet disengagement from the whole idea in the light of what might secretly been learned from Climategate? There seems to be quite a lot of backtracking right now, both among politicians and scientists.

December 14, 2009 10:02 pm

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

Jochen Vederer
December 14, 2009 10:03 pm

As an attorney who deals with electronic data cases on a regular basis, I have a few thoughts on this letter.
This letter does not necessarily mean that litigation has commenced. As an attorney, I send “preservation letters” all the time before litigation. Essentially, a preservation letter states that the recipient must retain and preserve the specified evidence, i.e., they cannot delete or otherwise destroy such evidence. After sending a preservation letter, we often use computer forensic experts to create back-up images of all drives and media that may contain electronic data relevant to the matter at hand. Likewise, after a client receives such a letter I recommend that they make their own backups.
The failure to preserve and retain the electronic data constitutes spoliation of evidence and may subject the defendant to legal claims for damages and/or evidentiary and monetary sanctions. If they fail to preserve evidence, the court will generally impose sanctions, which may include: a) the plaintiff being able to present evidence at trial regarding the defendants’ failure to preserve electronic data; b) an instruction to the jury that it may presume that the destroyed evidence would have been favorable to the plaintiff; and c) permission for counsel to argue to the jury that the evidence that was destroyed likely was negative for the defendant.
In short, the destruction of evidence leads to a presumption that the evidence was bad for the party that destroyed it. Regarding the preservation letter mentioned above, I have two thoughts as to its purpose. First, an interested party may have sent a preservation letter to the DOE. Second, the DOE has most certainly reviewed the CRU matter and may know even more about it than is in the public domain. Thus—realizing that the climate-change game may be up soon—the DOE may be taking proactive steps to salvage its reputation when the house of cards comes down. Perhaps the DOE realizes that it may at some point be shown to be complicit in the biggest scandal in modern times. In such a case, the DOE can then say: “Hey look, we were duped too, and as soon as we realized it we began a campaign to ferret out all the miscreants involved.” In any event, this letter is actually more interesting if no preservation letter has been received by the DOE as this would suggest that it may intend to go after grant recipients who were cooking the books! This situation, of course, will probably only come about once the mainstream media picks up the story and scientists and research centers/universities (grant recipients) are shown to have falsified and/or improperly manipulated data, etc. If they did it in concert with others, there may even be conspiracy and racketeering charges.
Finally, the DOE may just be doing this as a defensive tactic so that climate skeptics cannot later state that evidence was destroyed, i.e., there would be a presumption that global warming is bunk science because of the spoliation of evidence.

Michael
December 14, 2009 10:04 pm
Jeff L
December 14, 2009 10:04 pm

Lots of questions if other agencies (other DOE facilities, NOAA, NASA, EPA etc) have received similar notes. Any insiders reading care to comment either way?

December 14, 2009 10:05 pm

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

Ricardo
December 14, 2009 10:06 pm

Long time lurker. Whilst I have always doubted AGW it was not until I started reading these pages, a few weeks before climategate broke, that I found the information to be able to know my gut feeling was right and the ability to look at real information for myself.
I now find myself in the position of being drawn to my computer to see just what these idiots has been up to.
A huge vote of thanks to Anthony and all the other selfless people that make this site possible – you deserve to be awarded for your diligence.
On this particular thread, I thought an “oldy-but-a-goody” might be in order. Whilst this video refers to Arthur Andersen, it just seemed appropriate!
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=3948160
a smarter person than I could probably link this in, or indeed find the original (this copy from a facebook was all I could find)
Keep up the good fight

Rosemary Meling
December 14, 2009 10:09 pm

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

CPT. Charles
December 14, 2009 10:10 pm

yonason (20:23:31)
That depends. If Chu fires the DOE’s IG, then we’ll know which way the wind is blowing.
Based on the statement above, it’s not clear [to me] what triggered this ‘litigation’ hold.
This ain’t ‘small potatoes’ we’re talking about here . . . it took somebody with some serious horse-power to pull the trigger on this one.

chuckblandford
December 14, 2009 10:11 pm

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

Editor
December 14, 2009 10:11 pm

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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 10:12 pm

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

Editor
December 14, 2009 10:14 pm

Sorry, that one contract goes back ten years and was re-funded every year…
my speed-reading days are well in the past….

jef
December 14, 2009 10:14 pm

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

December 14, 2009 10:16 pm

tokyoboy (21:14:35) :
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.”

My interpretation was that he was referring to the lack of adequate measurements/coverage, such as Triana being hidden away by the previous administration.

Michael
December 14, 2009 10:16 pm

Enron Andersen’s Christmas Party

Applegate
December 14, 2009 10:17 pm

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.

chris y
December 14, 2009 10:18 pm

The climategate connection is clear. As mentioned earlier, DOE has funded CRU. For an example of emails-
Ben Santer- Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Ben Santer is listed in the climategate emails. Ben Santer works for Lawrence Livermore National Lab. LLNL is a DOE lab.
Any email in climategate that ends in dot gov will be subjected to FOIA. It looks like DOE is starting the ball rolling.
In the words of Steve McIntyre, this news and Andrew Revkin leaving the NYT is ‘breathtaking.’

December 14, 2009 10:21 pm

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?

yonason
December 14, 2009 10:23 pm

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?)
NOTE – a “Michael L. Warmstead” is listed having been Senior Counsel, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, and was involved in litigation with DOE.
Something(s) is(are) not right with this report, I think.
I think they is might been had.

Editor
December 14, 2009 10:24 pm

And for those who are REALLY interested, Michael Mann was kind enough to list HIS funding in his CV:
Funded Proposals
2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991
2009-2012 Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184
2008-2011 A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000
2008-2009 AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship (Anthony Sabbatelli), American Meteorological Society [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $23,000
2006-2009 Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928
2006-2009 Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000
2006-2009 Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: K. Cobb (Georgia Tech Univ.), N. Graham (Hydro. Res. Center), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.), Hoerling (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center), Alexander (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $68,065
2006-2007 Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), NSF-EAR [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: R. Alley, M. Arthur, J. Evans, D. Pollard (Penn State Univ.)] $100,000
2003-2006 Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U.Va), J. Cole (U. Arizona), V. Mehta (CRCES)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $102,000
2002-2005 Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: S. Rutherford, R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $315,000
2002-2005 Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability, NSF-Office of Polar Programs, Antarctic Oceans and Climate System [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U. Va), E. Steig (U. Wash.), D. Weinbrenner (U. Wash)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $133,000
2002-2003 Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation, NOAA-Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR) Program [Principal Investigators: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Ed Cook (Lamont/Columbia); Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $14,400
2002-2003 Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: Malcolm Hughes (Univ. of Arizona); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann; J. Park (Yale University)] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $20,775
2001-2003 Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700
2001-2002 Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport, Office of Naval Research [Principal Investigator: P. Wiberg (U.Va), Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] $20,775
1999-2002 Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison, NOAA-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (U.Va), Co-Investigators: R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $381,647
1998-2000 Validation of Decadal-to-Multi-century climate predictions, DOE [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: H.F. Diaz, M.E. Mann]
1998-2000 The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change, NSF-Hydrological Science [Principal Investigator U. Lall (U. Utah); Co-investigators: M.E. Mann, B. Rajagopalan, M. Cane] $266,235K
1996-1999 Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally
Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, NSF-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, M.K. Hughes] $270,000
1996-1998 Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last
Millennium, DOE, Alexander Hollaender Postdoctoral Fellowship [M.E. Mann] $78,000
Which is available here:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/Mann/cv/cv.html

zt
December 14, 2009 10:25 pm

Here’s discussion of shared troubles involving DOE research:
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1241415427.txt

pat
December 14, 2009 10:26 pm

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.

savethesharks
December 14, 2009 10:27 pm

Mike D.: “They [the EPA] 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.”
Yeah. And such fate couldn’t happen to a better (trans: “worse”) organization.
There is a reason the eagle is the national bird. Sick em!!
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Mark T
December 14, 2009 10:27 pm

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

photon without a Higgs
December 14, 2009 10:28 pm

“I have no recollection sir….. I have no recollection ma’am….. I have no recollection Senator”

Michael
December 14, 2009 10:31 pm

“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!

Doug in Seattle
December 14, 2009 10:32 pm

Thank you Ricardo. That was “delightful”.

Cassandra King
December 14, 2009 10:34 pm

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.

Editor
December 14, 2009 10:37 pm

From the Dept. of Miscontrued Correlations:
J.C.:
> I work at the Savannah River Site (SRS) in South Carolina. I’ve been following the Climategate scandal since its inception. The first time many of my coworkers had heard of the situation was when I asked them about it.
Meanwhile, Climatic Research Unit says:
> Due to the present high volume of visitors to this page, you will shortly be directed to the latest news about CRU on the main University of East Anglia website…
Clearly all the people at SRS and maybe all the other National Labs that do DoE work (is that all of them?) have all found their way to CRU and are trying to find some page at http://www.uea.ac.uk the tells them what the heck is going on.

Chris
December 14, 2009 10:37 pm

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.

yonason
December 14, 2009 10:38 pm

Huh, I can’t spell either. It’s Wamstead, not Warmstead. BUT, he is still “Senior Counsel” to WSRC.
“See Record of Telephone Conversation between Michael Wamsted, Counsel for WSRC, and Ann S. Augustyn, Hearing Officer (January 4, 2001); Letter from Michael Wamsted, Counsel for WSRC, to Ann S. Augustyn, Hearing Officer (January 12, 2001). The Complainant declined the opportunity to file a reply to WSRC’s response to her January 4, 2001 Letter.

WSRC has acknowledged that this perception is held by some employees at the Savannah River worksite. See Record of Telephone Conversation between Michael Wamsted, WSRC Senior Counsel, and Helen Mancke, OHA Investigator (October 23, 2000).

http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/whistle/vbh0056.htm
Note the source is the DOE.
REPLY: see the update I posted to the story -A

jef
December 14, 2009 10:41 pm

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

photon without a Higgs
December 14, 2009 10:45 pm

chuckblandford (22:11:08) :
don’t get your hopes up, justice is a long road.
But the court of public opinion will act much quicker! Global warming cannot recover from ClimateGate damage.
It will be satisfying to see warmers get even more desperate on tv. Does that sound bad?
I love the smell of “litigation hold notice” over ClimateGate” in the morning!

Michael
December 14, 2009 10:49 pm

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#

December 14, 2009 10:51 pm

I hope you were able to verify this document Anthony, because misspelling the name of the issuing authority ‘U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council’ and the letter writer’s own title ‘Associate General Council’ and ‘Office of General Council’ as well as getting the name of the CRU wrong is suspicious to say the least.

yonason
December 14, 2009 10:53 pm

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.

photon without a Higgs
December 14, 2009 10:56 pm

Jeff L (22:04:32) :
Lots of questions if other agencies (other DOE facilities, NOAA, NASA, EPA etc) have received similar notes. Any insiders reading care to comment either way?
——————————————–
Gavin Schmidt is in ClimateGate emails. If NASA is not included then what gives?

gv
December 14, 2009 10:57 pm

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=

Paul Vaughan
December 14, 2009 10:59 pm

Admins are consolidating power – not necessarily a good thing – more red tape, more rules, more hurdles, more regulations — they love having reason to CONTROL more. No wonder no credible science gets done with 4/5 of the money going to admins.
I don’t know this organization. Is it unionized? My first concern would be that the control is shifting to unionized admins who prioritize solidarity over truth. I have been involved in some very “educational” conflicts with unionized admins.
If this pattern of consolidation of power continues, it won’t be long before you have to sign solidarity papers to get research funding.

Editor
December 14, 2009 11:01 pm

Michael (22:31:35) :
There does seem to be a Wamsted with the DOE.

Tenuc
December 14, 2009 11:05 pm

OT- Front page of Daily Express in UK.
100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL
“[…Political analyst Jim McConalogue, who wrote the report, said: “This demonstrates how tenuous, improper and indeed false the scientific and political claims are for man-made global warming, from claims that climate change can be controlled by human activity to the proposition that CO2 emissions represent a severe threat to our way of life, when in fact there is little evidence to support any of these claims.”…]”
WOW!!! Cat / pigeons comes to mind 😮

Michael
December 14, 2009 11:05 pm

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

Editor
December 14, 2009 11:06 pm

Michael (22:04:16) :
We even have a Digg!
http://digg.com/environment/DOE_sends_a_litigation_hold_notice_regarding_Climategate
I HIGHLY recommend that everybody here jump on this Digg and rack up the digg votes as fast as possible, this will put the story in the popular stories list which will vastly increase the number of hits the site gets.

Doug in Seattle
December 14, 2009 11:10 pm

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

Tin Hats anyone?

Bill Sticker
December 14, 2009 11:11 pm

Ahem; just to clarify a point of English.
‘Council’ = Appointed or elected governing body
‘Counsel’ = Legal advisor / Lawyer / Barrister
Ergo, “Department of Energy (DOE) General Council” = governing body.
Usage is correct.
Warning; Governing bodies (Councils) may contain Counsels.
However: Typo in “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he(?) University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”

J.Hansford
December 14, 2009 11:15 pm

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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 11:20 pm

“Doug in Seattle (23:10:59) :
Michael (23:05:58) :
The whole world can easily be deceived if . . .
Tin Hats anyone?”
Do your research first before you spout off.

tallbloke
December 14, 2009 11:21 pm

Stable door———————————-Horse

David Q.
December 14, 2009 11:22 pm

gv
“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?”
Very good, there goes the lid. This will blow wide open. The Democrats own this one. Some of them will fight it, but a bunch will duck. They do intend to stay in majority next year right?
Whoever is left holding this mess will suffer. Could you say, the administration?

AlanG
December 14, 2009 11:22 pm

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?

JB Williamson
December 14, 2009 11:27 pm

Slowly making it to the front pages of the UK tabloids…
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146139

Roger Carr
December 14, 2009 11:28 pm

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…

Leon Brozyna
December 14, 2009 11:30 pm

Phil. (22:51:22) :

I hope you were able to verify this document Anthony, because misspelling the name of the issuing authority ‘U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) General Council’ and the letter writer’s own title ‘Associate General Council’ and ‘Office of General Council’ as well as getting the name of the CRU wrong is suspicious to say the least.

I second that. While the thought that this suggests action is being taken is very comforting, the misspelling of counsel is troubling. It may just be nothing more innocent than the poor quality work of a spelling challenged temp, but it could also be the work of a prankster, pulling the leg of WUWT commenter J.C. It would be nice to get independent confirmation, either from the Savannah River Site or DOE.
REPLY: Read the story update – hit refresh – Anthony

yonason
December 14, 2009 11:34 pm

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?

juanslayton
December 14, 2009 11:35 pm

Wouldn’t make too much of that misspelling. A recent full length movie (“End of the Spear”) had legal “council” twice in the opening credits. As I remember, it was a Canadian law firm, so I wrote and asked James Kilpatrick if there was some Commonwealth spelling that I was unaware of. He looked around and was unable to find such. Evidently just a common mistake, as it probably is here.

Jack
December 14, 2009 11:43 pm

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 😉

photon without a Higgs
December 14, 2009 11:48 pm

sent this as news tip to Drudge

Nic
December 14, 2009 11:49 pm

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.

Michael
December 14, 2009 11:50 pm

It’s a lot more complicated than you think boys.
Good Night.

PhilW
December 14, 2009 11:54 pm

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

Michael
December 14, 2009 11:58 pm

Oh, one more thought before I go;
Hegelian Dialectic.
Look it up.

Policyguy
December 15, 2009 12:08 am

“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.

yonason
December 15, 2009 12:08 am

“COUNCIL” – What do you know, it’s in the dictionary.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/council
I didn’t know that the Westinghouse Savannah River Company was owned by DOE.
http://www.srs.gov/general/srs-home.html
OK, I’m back to “cover up.”
Put a hold on the info, and it can’t be leaked.

yonason
December 15, 2009 12:11 am

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

Rabe
December 15, 2009 12:13 am

Michael:
Your comments were be much better if they would’t come along like some from a LAME troll. Just my impression.

Nic
December 15, 2009 12:19 am

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). “

yonason
December 15, 2009 12:19 am

PhilW (23:54:59) :
Can’t get it here in the States. But, as to your “medicine,” the BBC has been exposed as corrupt for over 9 years now that I am aware of. I initially had hopes that would be addressed, but nothing has come of it. I hate to burst your bubble, but the watchdogs are in bed with the crooks.

Rod
December 15, 2009 12:22 am
Mariss Freimanis
December 15, 2009 12:26 am

It’s about time a some adults stepped in and began to straighten this AGW mess out .

tallbloke
December 15, 2009 12:29 am

Wow, this is huge! I just re-read the intro, and it’s not just CRU related. The order is to:
preserve all documents, records, data, correspondence, notes, and other materials, whether official or unofficial, original or duplicative, drafts or final versions, partial or complete that may relate to the global warming
That’s going to fill a few gig of hard drive space. 🙂

yonason
December 15, 2009 12:32 am

Nic (00:19:20) :
So, MIchael L. Wamsted is a “governing body” of one?
Sorry, I couldn’t resist. Yes, as I posted above, it is a word. However, it is used incorrectly here, which doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a fake, but it is sloppy. (like I’m one to criticize, as bad as my spelling is)

Rich
December 15, 2009 12:33 am

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.

tallbloke
December 15, 2009 12:33 am

Michael (23:58:54) :
Oh, one more thought before I go;
Hegelian Dialectic.
Look it up.

Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis
Sorry I don’t have time for more. Must get ready for work at the floor buffer factory.

Oliver Ramsay
December 15, 2009 12:39 am

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

December 15, 2009 12:44 am

Bill Sticker (23:11:46) :
Ahem; just to clarify a point of English.
‘Council’ = Appointed or elected governing body
‘Counsel’ = Legal advisor / Lawyer / Barrister
Ergo, “Department of Energy (DOE) General Council” = governing body.
Usage is correct.
Warning; Governing bodies (Councils) may contain Counsels.

The English may bve correct, but these terms are not used by the relevant bodies in this way (“Just Google”).
Very droll warning though – loved that!

Alan the Brit
December 15, 2009 12:56 am

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!

Charles. U. Farley
December 15, 2009 12:59 am

AGW data all Jonesed up.

Charles. U. Farley
December 15, 2009 1:04 am

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

December 15, 2009 1:11 am

Steve Oregon (21:52:15) :
Hopefully the EPA and NOAA will get their notices
Don’t pin your hopes on it. When Carol Browner was running the EPA during the Clinton years, she received a court order to hold all documents relating to a possible illegal transfer of funds from the EPA to several “green” Not-For-Profits.
She formatted her hard drive, instead — she didn’t go to jail, although she was held in contempt of court for her actions.
Carol Browner is now “Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change” — and she’s been a radical socialist for decades.

James McClellan
December 15, 2009 1:14 am

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.

Expat in France
December 15, 2009 1:15 am

Horse bolted, stable door, perhaps?

Thomas Shapard
December 15, 2009 1:16 am

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.

Ed Zuiderwijk
December 15, 2009 1:24 am

It’s starting to look a lot like Christmas!

Cold Englishman
December 15, 2009 1:26 am

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!

J. Peden
December 15, 2009 1:32 am

INGSOC (20:38:45) :
Of even greater import perhaps?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climategate_tko_in_copenhagen.htm

Keep it down up there, I’m trying to get some sleep. NO WAY

Atomic Hairdryer
December 15, 2009 1:37 am

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?

Christoph
December 15, 2009 1:41 am

“I note that this is a “litigation” hold, not an investigative hold. Who has filed a law suit? And against whom?”

My guess, and it’s only a guess, is DOE is considering suing CRU for recovery of taxpayer funds provided to it in order to produce genuine climate science, that instead may have been used to produce fraudulent climate science and even both hide and destroy raw data.

Michael
December 15, 2009 1:43 am

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.

Charlie Barnes
December 15, 2009 1:51 am

I’ve only just surfaced this UK morning and logged in so haven’t read any of the posts – except the first two or three. When I read the article, my impression was that it could be a hoax because of the spelling errors. In particular, the C in CRU stands for ‘Climatic’, not ‘Climate’ as is wrongly written by many all over the world.
Chas

TFN Johnson
December 15, 2009 2:00 am

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

December 15, 2009 2:01 am

pat (22:26:00) : 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.
Yes – like young stags challenging the old harem-keepers. That’s at the top.
What is good at this level is to see the number of ordinary people who actually care about truth and real science. Even though the possibility of corruption is ever-present, at all levels. And as for Anthony, I just do not know how he manages. (and that goes for moderators too) Must have some angels holding up his writing hands.

Richard
December 15, 2009 2:03 am

Lucy Skywalker just posted this link to an email at CA. I think it maybe relevant (among others)
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1241415427.txt

Terrible But True
December 15, 2009 2:07 am

As I believe one (minor, if notable) aspect of the emails was how the protagonists viewed, and referred to those who disagreed with them, I have found this recent tweet exchange suggests that respect and sensitivity is still not a strong suit everywhere…
TreeHugger
Climate Change Skeptic Has Heart Attack on Live TV in Copenhagen (Video) http://bit.ly/6tEYpz #cop15
about 10 hours ago from HootSuite
TreeHugger
Thankfully he seems to be doing ok. I do wonder if the heated debate & stress from trying to disprove scientific consensus had an impact.
about 10 hours ago from HootSuite
Whilst the first is, I guess, news, perhaps in the second it may have been best to remain with the sentiment the first sentence.
I have posted to wonder what they might have printed had been a… ‘denier’.
This whole thing is getting very polarised, personal… and dirty. From all quarters. So few are really are safe now to claim the high ground.
Pity.

John Silver
December 15, 2009 2:11 am

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

Alan
December 15, 2009 2:20 am

Excuse me – but what jurisdiction do Americans have over the UK – If any action is necessary (and I believe that it is) it needs to be a British court
This is obviuosly an amusing parody
Proud to be a cultured civilised European

generic commenter
December 15, 2009 2:25 am

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.

Caleb
December 15, 2009 2:30 am

Politicians are very good at sensing a change in public attitudes. They are likely aware the public is nearing a “tipping point,” and can’t be moved by pictures of polar bears any longer. Therefore they will be on the look-out for scape-goats. They need some people to throw under the bus. If I were a “Climate Scientist” I’d be nervous right now.
It must be a terrible thing to witness faces which once beamed at you, (while handing you fat checks,) abruptly start regarding you coldly.
However I think “climate scientists” have been noticing a growing chill in the political atmosphere for several years. They likely have felt it is a travesty they can’t influence the political weather any better than they can influence the meteorological weather.

stephen richards
December 15, 2009 2:49 am

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.

RexAlan
December 15, 2009 2:58 am

I know this is OT but from a UK MSM “The Daily Express” this is amazing.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS NATURAL: 100 REASONS WHY
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146138
Unbelievable!

Syl
December 15, 2009 3:01 am

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.

mikey
December 15, 2009 3:03 am

Might the “litigation hold” notice have been sent because the DOE itself has been legally threatened or sceptic members of congress have made enquiries into how monies were spect with CRU?
So the “litigation hold” notice was instructed by DOE’s own lawyers fearing they will be sued for misappropriation of public money, and they now need to go over all data and documents in order to defend the charge.
I’m just speculating of course.

December 15, 2009 3:05 am

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/

mikey
December 15, 2009 3:05 am

Alan,
If I’m not misatken, the DOE gives funding to CRU, hence US taxpayers cash may have been mis-appropriated. So it certainly is the DOE’s business to carry out due dilligence that they have not funded a scientific fraud.

MattN
December 15, 2009 3:08 am

Got my :popcorn: ready…..

December 15, 2009 3:16 am

I still can’t get over the email Lucy Skywalker has spotted.
I remember it from the initial trawl but didn’t take it in. These people must be wishing they’d used the phone instead.
What I find most amusing is Ben S being copied in for empathy reasons – Pat Michaels must be enjoying this.
And Tom W doesn’t seem the tiniest bit concerned at what Jones/Wang may have done, just how row out of it.
Move along there – nothing to see…

Michael T
December 15, 2009 3:19 am

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

b_C
December 15, 2009 3:26 am

In the finest traditions of Nuremberg – to rid the world of the Nazi cancer, it’s time for the ThermoBerg Trials.
But where will they find a courtroom large enough to accommodate all the perpetrators?

steve
December 15, 2009 3:27 am

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

Arthur Glass
December 15, 2009 3:37 am

“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.”
The solar flux did crack 80 at the end of October.
http://www.solen.info/solar/

old construction worker
December 15, 2009 3:38 am

lawyer up…..Soros has lots of money.

Don B
December 15, 2009 3:40 am

This story could not possibly be correct, because at 6:30 am EST the New York Times website did not mention it, and they would have jumped all over it.
🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

cedarhill
December 15, 2009 3:48 am

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”.

Roger Knights
December 15, 2009 3:50 am

Well, in a few hours the warmists will get in contact with their buddies who are at the supposed recipients of this notice and confirm or disconfirm it. I’m fearing it will be disconfirmed.

montysmum
December 15, 2009 3:51 am

“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

Stephen Wilde
December 15, 2009 3:52 am

If the politicians are to save face they have to make it as clear as possible that they were misled.
I think there is a lot of defensive positioning going on and there may soon be considerable anger expressed in public by those politicans who feel that their own credibility has been called into question.
As regards Copenhagen it is beconing clear that the main reason for third world involvement is the vast amounts of compensation and other funds transfers promised in return for emissions restraint.
The first world leaders have belatedly realised that they have been drawn into a financial trap by AGW enthusiasts and, more pertinently, a trap that can neither be afforded nor will be supported by their electorates.
There are signs that platforms are being built from which to launch serious official and legal assaults on the individuals involved.
The political aspect means that there will be little in the way of charitable interpretations of their actions especially once the general public realises how much taxpayer money has been spent on inadequate science right up to the highest level.
Politicians are probably now considering damage limitation and how far to go in sacrificing the careers and livelihoods of alarmist scientists.
After all, crying out ‘fire’ in a crowded building when there is no such fire is rightly treated as a criminal act.
If we have many decades or even centuries to deal with CO2 emissions rather than there being an immediate need for action then calling out that we face an imminent climate disaster would be a similar offence on a global scale.

wesley bruce
December 15, 2009 3:52 am

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.

R Dunn
December 15, 2009 3:53 am

Speaking of spellcheckers, my favorite correction is when I spell “politician” incorrectly, as in “poliitian,” and it gets corrected to “pollution.

December 15, 2009 4:01 am

The Freedom of Information Act is the Federal Law of the Land. It is extremely
serious business. The attitude / behavior exhibited in the e-mails relative to FOIA is a very serious mistake.
I was amazed to learn that NASA/GISS had apparently ignored a FOIA request. Very likely that is the sole case in which this has occurred.
The DoE has funded ‘climate’ research at several National Laboratories, not just LLNL.
Just as the response to the leaked e-mails has involved extremely weak rationalizations based on ‘stolen’ ‘private property’ arguments, that are absolutely wrong, the rationalizations for ignoring FOIA requests will soon evaporate into thin air.
If the e-mails had been associated with persons / organizations responsible for the safety of elevators, for example, there would have been not a single rationalization. Somebody(s) would already be in jail. The same is true for FOIA requests. If FOIA requests had been simply ignored by persons / organizations responsible for the safety of building materials and proper constructions methods, there would have been not a single rationalization.
Climate ‘scientists’ have yet to realize that when they enter the arena of public policy, all the rules change. They are no different than those who verify the safety of elevators, bridges, escalators, milk, foods, building materials, and a very long list of other items.

wesley bruce
December 15, 2009 4:03 am

Careful about those people fasting. Many are totally convinced that greenhouse is real, catastrophic and immanent. They are terrified. The IPCC and their school teachers has terrorised them for 20 years. The collapse of climate change will hit some very hard. Don’t be surprised if we see suicides, and green terrorism.
Also expect millions of children to rebel in class when school resumes after Christmas. Teachers that teach a lie find teaching gets much harder then the kids catch them out.
If the DOE is rounding on the warmest, scape-goating them to save political face, then the CRU and the other labs are in deep trouble. What’s the penalty for defrauding whole planet?

JP
December 15, 2009 4:05 am

“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.

pwl
December 15, 2009 4:09 am

I wonder how the Climate Scares(tm) fit into the theorized Power of Nightmares Control System that we see taking hold in every country around the world? For the Climate Scares of yelling fire and doom in An Inconvenient Truth sure seem to have worked their scary magic. Al Gore fits into this in so many scary ways.
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/15/politicians-discsover-the-power-of-nightmares-and-make-full-use-of-them-to-control-you
Thanks to “Michael (22:49:06)”.

R.S.Brown
December 15, 2009 4:15 am

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.

December 15, 2009 4:15 am

Alan (02:20:59) :
Excuse me – but what jurisdiction do Americans have over the UK – If any action is necessary (and I believe that it is) it needs to be a British court
This is obviuosly an amusing parody
Proud to be a cultured civilised European

To Alan and all others who seem confused:
The letter above is directed at subordinate agencies of the Department of Energy, NOT entities in the UK. Regardless of any other factors, the DOE is fully within its authority to give direction to its subordinate agencies.
Perhaps y’all should actually read the darn thing before you get your undies in a knot.

two moon
December 15, 2009 4:19 am

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.

michel
December 15, 2009 4:25 am

Ask what it was doing there in the first place, never mind was it commented out in this run. Eg you are auditing a bank’s accounts, and you come in the excel sheets that generate the reports a commented out line that reduces bad loans by 50%. The comment to it says something like, now apply a fudge factor to bad loans.
Someone points this out, and you reply, OK, we just tried it out, we didn’t use it. You can see it is disabled in this version.
Reassured, are you?

Ipse Dixit
December 15, 2009 4:25 am

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.

karl.heuer
December 15, 2009 4:28 am

If you can be proved to have committed fraud while performing under a US Government contract, or with grant funding from the US Government, —
you may be disbarred from any future contracts, grants, or other funding.
A disbarred person will find it almost impossible to get employed in academia, almost every major institution in the US gets funding from the federal government for basic research.

Robert of Ottawa
December 15, 2009 4:37 am

I’d like to get my hands on e-mails from: Greenpeace; Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund; RAN etc.

December 15, 2009 4:47 am

Yet Another small step for man…………..
Inch by inch !!!

Nigel S
December 15, 2009 4:54 am

Alan (02:20:59)
Don’t you read the papers? Ever heard of extraditon? Ever heard of the ‘NatWest Three’? Ever heard of Gary McKinnon?

Deep Froat
December 15, 2009 4:54 am

related?
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=332&filename=1056478635.txt
From: “Mick Kelly”
To: Nguyen Huu Ninh (cered@xxxxxxxxx.xxx)
Subject: NOAA funding
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 14:17:15 +0000
—-boundary-LibPST-iamunique-1131694944_-_-
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=”utf-8″
Ninh
NOAA want to give us more money for the El Nino work with IGCN.
How much do we have left from the last budget? I reckon most has been spent but we need to show some left to cover the costs of the trip Roger didn’t make and also the fees/equipment/computer money we haven’t spent otherwise NOAA will be suspicious.
Politically this money may have to go through Simon’s institute but there overhead rate is high so maybe not!
Best wishes
Mick

Tim S.
December 15, 2009 4:57 am

It’s worse than we thought.

Deep Froat
December 15, 2009 5:14 am

Perhaps it’s to do with this one…
http://eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=946&filename=1230052094.txt
From: Ben Santer
To: lbutler@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: averaging
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 12:08:14 -0800
Reply-to: santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: Tom Wigley , kevin trenberth
Dear Lisa,
That’s great news! I’ve confirmed with DOE that I can use up to $10,000
of my DOE Fellowship to provide financial support for Tom’s Symposium. I
will check with Anjuli Bamzai at DOE to determine whether there are any
strings attached to this money. I’m hopeful that we’ll be able to use
the DOE money for the Symposium dinner, and to defray some of the travel
expenses of international participants who can’t come up with their own
travel money. I’ll try to resolve this question in the next few days.
Best wishes to you and your family for a very Merry Christmas, and a
happy, healthy, and peaceful 2009!

snopercod
December 15, 2009 5:17 am

I can’t wait until IG Gerald Walprin gets his job back. His first assignment should be NASA GISS.
James Hansen wanted ‘deniers’ to be put in jail. I say, “You first.”

Trevor
December 15, 2009 5:25 am

I haven’t read through ALL of the responses, but there’s a point here I’d like to make. This “notice”, in effect, is not so much an order to preserve documents, as a WARNING to DESTROY them. For the really incriminating stuff, there’s nothing to lose by destroying it, even if you get caught destroying it. Our lawyer friend mentioned certain “sanctions”, which basically revolved around the the prosecution being able to assume that the destroyed documents were “bad” for the defendant. But this is certainly couldn’t be any worse than what the documents ACTUALLY showed. And it only helps the prosecution if the destroyers are caught. And if an individual gets caught destroying stuff, he’ll just claim it was accidental – that he didn’t know that file had anything to do with global warming; or he just likes to clean out his old email messages once a month; or he missed that memo from the Legal Counsel. Of course, computer experts know that, unless you’re really, really computer savvy, no electronic document is EVER completely destroyed – there’s a backup somewhere. But I wonder how diligent DOE’s IT techs will be in ferreting out document destruction and finding the backups. I wonder how far Obama’s Secretary of Energy will go to help bring down his own side of this debate.
Believe me, the paper shredders at DOE will be working overtime tonight. And probably a few well-placed IT techs with AGW sympathies will be deleting the electronic trails. In the end, even if they get caught, DOE will claim, just like CRU, that the evidence was just “lost”. If the DOE really wanted these documents preserved, they would have sent teams of investigators to all facilities, simultaneously, and just kicked everyone out of their offices and began searching. The real content of this message was “delete or destroy everything you have that could be used to disprove global warming or prove fraud or malfeasance on the part of anyone who is a global warming alarmist. Immediately.”

Zorro
December 15, 2009 5:32 am

Interesting Post from RealClimate site this AM:
Hello Gavin,
I know that you have been interested in changing the impression of “secret science”. Unfortunately the skeptics have been provided some more ammunition with the recent redirects of the CRU data. Do you have any thoughts on why this is happening? Load per se cannot be the issue as these files are not that much larger than a webpage.
[Response: I’m guessing that ‘normal service’ has not been resumed. Do not underestimate the amount of c**p that has descended on everyone there. – gavin]:

Grumbler
December 15, 2009 5:33 am

“Alan (02:20:59) :
Excuse me – but what jurisdiction do Americans have over the UK – If any action is necessary (and I believe that it is) it needs to be a British court
This is obviuosly an amusing parody
Proud to be a cultured civilised European”
It may very well be a civil action which can be pursued anywhere relevant. The DoEn may want it’s money back – breach of contract. I’m guessing it’s a spoof but then again that was our initial thought about the emails from UEA.
cheers David

Editor
December 15, 2009 5:37 am

yonason (23:34:49) :
I checked it myself but didn’t think it appropriate to spread his name or e-mail or that of his paralegal around. They can be tracked through the DOE website.

AdderW
December 15, 2009 5:37 am

They DOE is collecting all the incriminating data so they can get rid of all the evidence.

December 15, 2009 5:48 am

If CO2 levels trend the same way as the temperature levels of 800 years ago, doesn’t this mean that CO2 levels will continue to rise for another 200 years (though less and less) to match the Medieval Warm Period and then will drop again for 600 years?
If I could get the data for CO2 levels and temperature for the past 650,000 years as claimed, I could do some analysis on how good of a predictor past temperature is on CO2 levels as well as the margin of error.

hunter
December 15, 2009 5:48 am

Now for GISS, NOAA, U Penn, and any scientists who worked for Gore on AGW who are hanging out and misleading other institutions.

Robert Wood
December 15, 2009 5:49 am

Phil Jones did get money from DOE.

Steve in SC
December 15, 2009 5:54 am

Anthony,
Just to clarify a few things. Aiken, S.C. is not on the Savannah River Site.
It is about 10 miles away. Likely, this is where your correspondent lives.
He probably retyped the message because thumb drives and other magnetic media are strictly verboten on the SRS. Anyone caught with a portable storage device without an authorizing letter is automatically terminated.
There are areas of the site that are top secret and access is strictly controlled with armed guards I might add. The entire site is controlled access such that no one who does not work there is allowed on the property without an escort.
If this letter is DOE wide I will try to confirm from my buddy who works at ONRL.

View from the Solent
December 15, 2009 6:02 am

evanmjones (21:39:57) :
This is going to cost them. Not only an incredibly difficult (and painful) search, but also what’s going to happen to them when the alums finally catch on and the spigot goes dry.
If I were UAE, I’d save a lot of money by simply setting fire to the building and blaming AGW.
I’m guessing that ‘alums’ is shorthand for alumni, and assuming that you’re over on the left-hand side of the pond. My understanding is that universities in the US receive much funding (regular, sometimes large amounts) from their alumni.
Not the case in UK. Here, most of it is from the state (= government). Contributions from individuals are rare, usually a sizeable one-off from a wealthy individual and for a specific purpose. If the reputation of a university is tainted, there is little, if anything , that the unfortunate alumni can do about it.

Laura
December 15, 2009 6:04 am

I did a search for DOE on the txt files from the original zipped file (in some cases DOE was part of an email address – that info is only visible on orig. zipped file)
0835819980
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=3&filename=835819980.txt
0908385907
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=78&filename=908385907.txt
0914013281 – (email address Raymond Prince (DOE HQ) only on original zip file)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=85&filename=914013281.txt
0932773964
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=125&filename=932773964.txt
1036182485
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=280&filename=1036182485.txt
1047388489
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=295&filename=1047388489.txt
1047390562
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=296&filename=1047390562.txt
1047474776
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=297&filename=1047474776.txt
1047478548
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=298&filename=1047478548.txt
1047484387
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=299&filename=1047484387.txt
1047485263
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=300&filename=1047485263.txt
1047503776
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=302&filename=1047503776.txt
1062618881
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=357&filename=1062618881.txt
1097785771
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=437&filename=1097785771.txt
1120676865
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=545&filename=1120676865.txt
1168356704
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=769&filename=1168356704.txt
1184779319
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=809&filename=1184779319.txt
1199984805
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=842&filename=1199984805.txt
1210178552
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=876&filename=1210178552.txt
1213201481
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=903&filename=1213201481.txt
1222901025 – (email address Anjuli Bamzai only on original zip file)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=922&filename=1222901025.txt
1224035484
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=925&filename=1224035484.txt
1226451442
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=934&filename=1226451442.txt
1226456830
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=935&filename=1226456830.txt
1226500291
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=936&filename=1226500291.txt
1228249747
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=938&filename=1228249747.txt
1228258714
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=939&filename=1228258714.txt
1229468467
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=944&filename=1229468467.txt
1230052094
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=946&filename=1230052094.txt
1231257056
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=950&filename=1231257056.txt
1232064755 – (email address Anjuli Bamzai only on original zip file)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=953&filename=1232064755.txt
1241415427
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=972&filename=1241415427.txt
1248993704
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=994&filename=1248993704.txt
1249652050
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1004&filename=1249652050.txt
1254751382 – (info only on orig zip file – refers to http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/analysis/nuclearpower.html)
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1037&filename=1254751382.txt
1255298593http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1046&filename=1255298593.txt

Curiousgeorge
December 15, 2009 6:19 am

There are a number of emails that refer to DOE funding of CRU. A search on “Dept. of Energy “, “DOE”, or other agencies and laboratories will return many results. Here’s a couple:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=3&filename=835819980.txt
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=950&filename=1231257056.txt
Many more that also mention various National Labs, etc. , in a variety of contexts.
I would expect that all of these labs, agencies, etc. will shortly be issuing similar missives. This will end up being the mother of all document searches, and will take years to sort it out.

December 15, 2009 6:23 am

Watson, the game is afoot!

Bill from Pittsburgh
December 15, 2009 6:23 am

I haven’t read through all the comments so someone else may have already pointed this out. The effect of a “litigation hold” on otherwise public documents is to temporarily take them out of the public domain on the theory that they are litigation sensitive and subject to a government privilege against disclosure. So, I don’t think this really means anything more than the documents are now, for the time being, off limits to the public.

DR
December 15, 2009 6:26 am

Dan,
As having been personally involved in a FAA/NTSB investigation resulting from a whistleblower at where I was employed as FAA repairmen and QE at a 1st tier supplier for OEM and overhaul of gas turbine engines for civilian and military applications. The seriousness of the charge involved aircraft engine safety issues. That’s pretty serious stuff.
Yes, it was pins and needles for several months, but when all was said and done, my company and the turbine engine manufacturer (very large one) had our patties slapped and that was all. No jail time, nothing.
I just don’t think much will come out of this climategate fiasco. They’ll say records were sloppy, were not stored properly and such, maybe even some reprimands and public rebuking, but when it’s all said and done IMO it will be BAU in climate science. They have political protection up to the highest level of government. Does anyone really think this will be anything more than a circus with the clowns running the show?

wws
December 15, 2009 6:37 am

The DOE isn’t “getting rid of incriminating evidence.” You don’t understand how bureacracy or the legal system works. Everyone has their own specific jobs to do and they do them diligently without regard for how they affect any other part. (this is why bureacracy and the legal system are so frustrating to all)
What this notice signals is that now the legal machinery has been started. It is a monstrous mechanism, difficult to get moving, but once these wheels begin to turn they grind on for years and cannot be stopped. There is no one person anywhere who has the power to stop them once they have been started, and yet there are thousands whose full time job is to keep these wheels well oiled and moving. (Preserving and sorting this paperwork is going to be guaranteed, well paid employment for 1,000 government lawyers for many years)
There was a point made early on in this thread which is the most important, I think, of all, since it is what will be on the mind of everyone who is involved in this in any way from now on:
“3) Since we now all have lawyers, we can only safely talk with our lawyers present. So effectively communication, and all work are shut down.”
It has to be shut down – imagine if you are at work and you know that *every* e-mail you write, every communication of any kind that you have is going to be scrutinized by some legal overseer and you have been told “Anything you say can and will be used against you!!!” Think about working in such an environment. And this is going to go on for years, because cases this big always do.
This is how just the threat of litigation neutralizes any organization.

Alan the Brit
December 15, 2009 6:40 am

tokyoboy (20:39:17) :
OED, pocket, 1925, “travesty”. An imitation or description that intentionally or otherwise misrepresents the original. eg, garbled or unintelligent account, bad rendering.
I know that nuances change over time with some words, but they really ought to choose their words much more carefully in the future me thinks!
AtB:-)

Kate U
December 15, 2009 6:40 am

tokyoboy – Your travesty question.
It is a travesty when people dressed in furs and diamonds walk past a starving human being.
It is a travesty when teachers in public schools teach American children to despise their own country’s history, promoting socialist values and ignoring everything our forefathers fought for.
It is a travesty when American politicians get angry at the email “hackers or thieves” who brought this CRU work to light.
Travesty – a strong word denoting the gravest disappointment.

December 15, 2009 6:42 am

Hi Anthony, is there anyway I can contact you? My email is ileneca@gmail.com, and I’m hoping to ask about reprinting articles at http://www.philstockworld.com. Thanks! Ilene

mhaze
December 15, 2009 6:44 am

Soon we should ask, if the average person has legal standing, and if so, how and why. Or if only agencies looking at fraud against scientists who faked data have standing.
If a coalition of radical environmentalists can create a court case in which car manufacturers are sued for CO2 emissions, then who is the group that can bring suit for legislation passed on flawed or outright wrong scientific findings, when trillions of dollars of taxation and wealth transfer are involvled?
How many lawsuits are now in progress by far left wackos, in which there may now be a defense of bad science? How many cases might be reopened, in which there is new evidence?
Perhaps, if the EPA wishes, ludicrously, and this point, to play the “CO2 is a pollutant” game, they should be the recipient of a thousand objections in the legal and regulatory system.
It’s called “overwhelming the system”, right? Good old Saul Alinsky.

Kate U
December 15, 2009 6:44 am
Fred2
December 15, 2009 6:46 am

Heh.
This is like watching a super-tanker colision now, you can see what’s going to happen, everything to mitigate the accident has taken place, the crews are all desperaterly bailing out or hunkering down , and your’re starting to hear the metal start to scream as two 300,000 tonnne objects start to rip each other to peices as their momentum inexorably rams them together.
Kinda fun from a distance, until the calls of “we all have to pitch in the clean the mess”. Who is this WE ?

chainpin
December 15, 2009 6:49 am

In email 1120676865.txt, Jones says:.
“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”

December 15, 2009 6:50 am

Upthread it was mentioned that the discovery/legal process would stifle this scandal.
That I can understand – however – there are oodles of data copies floating round the internet/local hardrives of WUWT readers/wikileaks if necessary.
How will it be possible to shut this down? And indeed – will it really matter?
Once public faith/trust has been lost, the technical process of investigation becomes pretty meaningless except for those actively involved.
In the UK, we’re only just starting to have an inquiry into the Iraq war, but the government/PM were killed by the fact no WMDs were found and we’d been taken to war on ‘intelligence’ that included a student thesis found on the internet.
As they say – reputations/credibility like virginity can only be lost once – and its the morning after for AGW.

Henry chance
December 15, 2009 6:52 am

Merry Christmas.
Here is the Holiday wish list from the greenie weenies.
It is offered as a distraction to deflect from the current mess.
1 The Oceans are acidifying Must act yesterday
2 Soot and aerosols are the next epidemic causing cancer, asthma and illness plus warming
3 Water. People are going to die by the billions if the water ordeal isn’t remedied
4 Pine beetles in the Rockie mountains
5 The glaciers will suddenly all be gone and water for villagers and the poor (especially women and children) will cause famine and disease.

December 15, 2009 6:54 am

The Emperor Strikes Back
A spokesperson for the Emperor has spoken out about the Clothesgate debacle that erupted after emails were intercepted in which the Emperor’s tailors had discussed destroying data relating to the design and production of the expensive, lightweight clothes recently worn by the Emperor during a public parade.
“Suggestions that the Emperor’s tailors were involved in any sort of wrong-doing are ludicrous,” the spokesperson informed News World Disorder. “The designs and the materials used to make the Emperor’s clothes were destroyed to add to the value of the garment. Everyone could see for themselves the fact that the Emperor was wearing arguably the finest suit of clothes ever seen in this Empire.”
The spokesperson’s position was backed up by a recent statement from the Emperor’s Courtiers, who claimed that there was court-consensus on the authenticity of the Emperor’s clothes. Nevertheless, the courtiers have agreed to conduct an in-depth, unbiased investigation into the Emperor’s clothes.
The chairman of the Emperor’s clothes selection committee has been called in to coordinate the investigation.
“The courtiers are planning to begin this investigation by finding the naughty boy who started the rumours about the Emperor’s clothes in the first place,” the spokesperson continued. “We have every reason to believe that this rumour was started by the King of Neighbouria in an attempt to destabilise our great Empire, and that this little boy was in fact a Neighbourian plant.”
News World Disorder then asked the spokesperson about the supposed trail of silken dingle-berries that had been found by garment skeptics in the road along which the Emperor’s convoy had traveled.
“The dingle-berries are, in fact, further proof that the Emperor was wearing the finest suit of clothing that anyone in this Empire has ever seen,” the spokesperson responded.
“Everybody knows that the garment skeptics are paid off by big cloth, who are desperately attempting to prevent the Emperor’s talented tailors from taking over the clothing industry in our Empire. If anything, the dingle-berries prove that the Emperor’s clothes were twice as fine as previously thought.”
(From newsworlddisorder.blogspot.com)

AdderW
December 15, 2009 6:57 am

Woah ! Today Google autosuggested Climategate !!

Antartic Anarchist
December 15, 2009 7:02 am

There was a hoax perpetrated by a Labour blogger in the UK recently.It took in a few newspapers.I would be careful too until this notice is reported received by many people/locations.

juandos
December 15, 2009 7:03 am

Baffling to me.. what does DOE have to do with climate change or CRU?“…
Hmmm, could it be due to the possibility that federal dollars from the DOE were used in what might be a gigantic hoax?

Red Green
December 15, 2009 7:05 am

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/council
coun⋅cil  
–noun 1. an assembly of persons summoned or convened for consultation, deliberation, or advice.
2. a body of persons specially designated or selected to act in an advisory, administrative, or legislative capacity: the governor’s council on housing.
3. (in certain British colonies or dependencies) an executive or legislative body assisting the governor.
4. an ecclesiastical assembly for deciding matters of doctrine or discipline.
5. New Testament. the Sanhedrin or other authoritative body.

Jerry English
December 15, 2009 7:05 am

I sent an email to Robert Clif asking about the notice. I haven’t heard back from him. Perhaps someone who has more tact than I could contact the below people and ask for verification?
http://www.srs.gov/general/news/contacts.htm
For information about Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC, contact:
Director, Public Affairs, Robert C. (Clif) Webb, 803-952-9810
Public and Employee Communications, Will Callicott, Manager, 803-952-9583
Kelly Ling, 803-952-9172
Fran Poda, 803-952-8671
DT Townsend, 803-952-7566

Informant
December 15, 2009 7:11 am

Your request for information received on 11 November 2009 for “…copies of emails that address/discuss the subject of “Diagram for WMO Statement”” has now been considered, and, upon consideration, it is, unfortunately, not possible to meet your request.
In accordance with Regulation 14 of the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 this letter acts as a Refusal Notice, and I am not obliged to supply this information and the reasons for exemption are as stated below:
Exception Reason
Reg. 12(4)(a) – Information not held The requested information was not held at the time of the request
Reg. 12(5)(b) – Disclosure would adversely affect a criminal enquiry Information is held by the police in connection with a current investigation
We believe that Regulation 12(4)(a) applies to your request because the only location that this information was held on was on a backup server as the original information had been ‘deleted’ some years ago. Only a technical measure resulted in the information being held on the server and, following Department of Justice guidance on this point, we feel that this information was not ‘held’ by this institution at the time of the request.
Further, pursuant to an investigation carried out by the Norfolk Constabulary, the server upon which the requested information resided was taken from the University grounds and now resides with the police forces conducting an investigation into a possible criminal offence. We no longer have access to either the server or any of the material on it.
Regulation 12(5)(b) also applies to the data requested because the requested data is part of a larger set of data that is the subject of an ongoing police investigation. Such information is now under an embargo by the investigating forces and any disclosure would adversely affect the ability of that public authority to conduct the criminal enquiry.
Regulation 12(1)(b) mandates that we consider the public interest in any decision to release or refuse information under Regulation 12(4) and Reg. 12(5). In the case of Regulation 12(4)(a), there really is no consideration of the public interest as we simply did not, at the time of the request, nor do not now, have the requested information. Turning to Regulation 12(5)(b), we feel that there is a strong public interest in protecting the ability of police forces to investigate criminal offences and that we should abide by established procedures by which evidence is gathered and used. Overall, we therefore believe that the public interest in non-disclosure of the information outweighs that in favour.
I should note that whilst we believe that it is extremely likely that this material is already in the public domain due to the illegal penetration and use of University computing facilities, this does not relieve us of our obligations to address any request on its merits under the Regulations.
It should also be noted, however, that the University has decided to conduct an independent review, which will address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a large influx of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed. This work will explore the issues associated with the requested information and may well be able to both access and then provide the requested information as part of the inquiry process.

J.Hansford
December 15, 2009 7:11 am

Robert of Ottawa (04:37:38) :
I’d like to get my hands on e-mails from: Greenpeace; Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund; RAN etc.
——————————————————
You don’t need their emails… Just check out their public statements. They’re enough make yer eyes bleed….. I kid you not!
http://climategate.tv/?tag=club-of-rome

Neal
December 15, 2009 7:12 am

Steve in SC,
Typo? ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
Oh, yes the document hold is real. 😉

AdderW
December 15, 2009 7:12 am
stephen richards
December 15, 2009 7:17 am

Trevor (05:25:09) :
Sadly, trevor I think you are right !! That’s the end of the evidence.

Cromagnum
December 15, 2009 7:17 am

I was thinking ….. If the DOE provides the grant money, then the DOE gets a deliverable document(s) from the grant reciepients in the end of that project. There may also be many documents they receive while the project is ongoing.
If the scientists falsified anything, then the DOE owns the Smoking Gun. No doubt they have to hold on to it, as well as any communications.

lknsrg927h3tg3w
December 15, 2009 7:31 am

“because” to “becuase”
Does your spell checker have a local dictionary of words you have told it to accept? One possibility is that somehow, accidentally, the spell checker was told that “becuase” is a valid word. If you can find it in the local dictionary and remove it, that might fix the problem.
REPLY: Oh I’ve tried that, it’s buried in Windows7 somewhere, unable to find it so far. -A

Mailman
December 15, 2009 7:31 am

Does anyone know how the American DOE can make demands of a UK based University?
Surely this would have had to come through a UK based court?
Regards
Mailman

juanslayton
December 15, 2009 7:33 am

Rich (00:33:26) :
“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.”
Also, if you go there and search for “office of general counsel” you again get a whole bunch of links. DoE apparently believes in free-form spelling.

Martin B
December 15, 2009 7:34 am

“tokyoboy (20:39:17) :
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?”
At the bottome of it’s website, The CRU listed the DOE as one its sponsors – back when you could see the CRU website.
Also, The DOE is the parent department of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, which is part of the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) consortium.

SteveSadlov
December 15, 2009 7:35 am

Probably best for DoE employees not to share this in public, it may taint the case.

JonesII
December 15, 2009 7:38 am

Do you think the bankers we all know will easily lose this BIG BUSINESS of carbon trade, a business of profiting for pouring “the empty into the void”?

Bob Meyer
December 15, 2009 7:40 am

The email is a request, not an order.
In other words, please preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.”
I once worked for a company doing business with the Defense Department. When an issue arose regarding the performance of certain tests no one used the word “please”, they cited the penalties for obstruction of justice and declared that everyone would be prosecuted for destroying any documents even if they had no bearing on the particular case.
Do we really have a “kinder, gentler” government? Or is something else involved here?

photon without a Higgs
December 15, 2009 7:40 am

Henrik Svensmark video is still on front page at Drudge
Is there an update on him?

JonesII
December 15, 2009 7:40 am

Vorlath (05:48:36) : Forget about CO2 (BTW the gas you exhale), it´s all a LIE!

ShrNfr
December 15, 2009 7:42 am

@ TFN Johnson (02:00:08) :
Never mind all this: whatsupwiththe sun? Sunspot number now 28 (14 yesterday, 13 the day before, zero a week ago).
——–
The single sunspot has re-intensified a bit. The cosmic ray counts from Oulu are still running very high. Not quite as high as yesterday, but higher than the 30 day average.

Henry chance
December 15, 2009 7:43 am

Looks like the author of this e-mail knows there can be conflict.
“See details at Anthony’s.
[Update: As mentioned by a reader below, in email 1120676865.txt, Jones says:.
“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””
This is posted on Climateaudit
Maybe the CRU can cut expenses and split rent with ACORN.

DR
December 15, 2009 7:50 am

Bob Meyer,
I also worked on DoD contracts. The email memo “request” is just that from what I can ascertain. “Please” is not a mandate. “Shall” would be the correct word if this were binding.
I suspect this is not an official notice with any legal consequence, and originates from some outside source in another government capacity, possibly political.
It doesn’t pass the smell test IMO.

boballab
December 15, 2009 7:57 am

@Mailman
The DOE is not making demands of a UK university, they are making demands to the employees at the DOE run SRS that they do not destroy, alter or lose any data, records or correspondence they had with the CRU.

KevinM
December 15, 2009 7:59 am

astoneri’
“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”
What planet have you been living on for the last two years?

CodeTech
December 15, 2009 8:04 am

wesley bruce (04:03:05) :

What’s the penalty for defrauding whole planet?

As far as I can see, the penalty is a Nobel Peace Prize, an Oscar, and a few billion dollars…

NickB.
December 15, 2009 8:12 am

photon without a Higgs (21:56:46) :
tokyoboy (20:39:17) :
As a poor non-English native, it’s hard for me to grasp the meaning of “litigation hold”
All the things listed could be used in a court of law.
________________________________________
Well, to *maybe* over-explain a bit.
Litigation hold is the first step in the discovery process for a legal proceeding. It’s notice not to delete/destroy in many cases on penalty of civil or even criminal charges. This piece casts the widest net, and as it pertains to e-mail (at least in the private sector) a general notification of this sort would be accompanied by a list of specific players (probably the ones responsible for managing the grant to CRU) that have already had their mail snapshotted and will be journaled (a copy of every piece of mail is saved off) until the end of the proceedings.
The next step will be the Discovery phase. This is where the specific criteria are established (specific date ranges, keywords, recipients, etc) and then the IT guys and the lawyers get to spend hours upon hours gathering this data, documenting chain of custody, and sending it off for review. Restores of mail as well as any compliance journaling not already in place *are in scope* for these activities, so if it’s out there anywhere and fits in the discovery criteria these guys have to get it. If they don’t, they could be in trouble. All of this stuff is very serious business.
Those are the two steps I know. What happens once it gets to the lawyers, maybe someone else could speak to that

John Good
December 15, 2009 8:16 am

Full front page in one of the U.K’smajor daily papers, The Daily Express in bold 1 1/2″ Caps “100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL” followed by a full inside page headed “There’s little we can do about Global Warming’. At least something is warming up!

JonesII
December 15, 2009 8:17 am

All recipients of the above legal request please take your whistles and start blowing!
It’s over buddies…time to run and save your own skin!

Detestable