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.
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.
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.
The spreadsheet showing grant income for Phil Jones
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en
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 ?
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”
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.
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.
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)
Woah ! Today Google autosuggested Climategate !!
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.
“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?
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.
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
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.
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
Steve in SC,
Typo? ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory)
Oh, yes the document hold is real. 😉
Hide the lag !!
Trevor (05:25:09) :
Sadly, trevor I think you are right !! That’s the end of the evidence.
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.
“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
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
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.
“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.
Probably best for DoE employees not to share this in public, it may taint the case.
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”?
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?