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.
This is worth looking at
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html
Even if this notice turns out to be a spoof, an authentic one will likely be issued within a month or two.
Anthony: FWIW
I have had a similar problem with spell checkers. Must admit, though, that the problem was my fault — I had, at one time, inadvertently told the spell checker that the incorrect spelling was correct. Most spell checkers have changeable “user list” of words. Correcting the “user list” fixed my problem.
For many of these recipients, at issue is how to hide their “go along to get along” back slapping responses to the incoming emails and data under investigation. The next thing that will get posted is the manual on “How not to go down with the ship”.
These links worked 2-3 hours ago. Now they don’t.
WOW the internet! I’ll bet Al Gore is sorry he invented it now!
Let’s elaborate more in the news that INGSOC (09:26:12) brings us:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE5BE1UR20091215
This undoubtely reveals the Roman Catholic Church AFTER all this scam or , at least, in the “believers” side…but why?
Which is the cover up?. This remind us of the milennial discussions about gnosticism and agnosticism, the latest held by the RC church: We are not allowed direct knowledge of the truth but through the filter of the “official” priesthood. Gnostics, as nowadays sceptics, thought that it was possible to man to achieve knowledge.
In the 20th.century we were taught and told many tales about cosmology, in particular, tales about cosmogony, big bang like, and so on. It seems that the times are due to reclaim real science and the actual possibility of humanity to gnosis.
**RC has a new post up about the CRU data.
The document retention notice is standard boiler plate. I have seen enough of these over the years to write one myself. This goes out once a civil lawsuit starts. The first thing the plaintiffs attorney will request of the court is document retention. The judge always agrees to this and the retention notice immediately goes out. This will not have much effect on many people. They simply need to not delete anything.
Next during discovery the plaintiffs lawyers will start asking for various somewhat focused documents. They do not want to be overwhelmed with twenty truckloads of paper. The lawyers for the government may be required to provide some type of organization or search-able database for all the documents.
After the lawyers have found particularly interesting documents they will know who to ask, and what questions to ask a very few individuals. Then come the depositions. They lawyers become quite good at relentlessly asking a long series of prepared questions. They will leave the more interesting questions toward the end when the witness has been worn down to a frazzle. The lawyers have a lot of practice at this and the witness usually has no experience. The lawyers win. If you are ever deposed, bring aspirin. I guarantee a splitting headache.
From the plaintiffs side, almost the best thing that can happen is to find out that the defendant has successfully destroyed an innocent document. The courts are bound to rule that the destroyed document was harmful to the defendant. The defendant loses. No matter how bad the destroyed document was, the plaintiffs lawyers will suggest it was something far worse. (The defendant may want to swear that the destroyed document did not have jokes about children starving because we are burning food for fuel due to climate fraud but they will not have the document to prove it was just a lunch invitation to discuss the errors in “An Inconvenient Truth”.)
Obviously, the DOE is out looking for the data that comprises the basis of the EPA finding, the “Jones and Wigley” record, which the DOE funded. Without the “Jones and Wigley”, the EPA has to start all over again. No wonder the Met office started their 3 year long effort to recreate the “raw data” over the complaints of PM Gordon Brown.
Holy cow.
I was happily reading the comments here, when I read this:,blockquote>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.My reaction? Holy cr@p. That was MY/OUR money!! Gone for FRAUD!
And then I read about Phil Jones and his TWENTY-FIVE YEARS of grants from the US Govt – more of MY/OUR money!
Good thing that my blood pressure is normal, because it just spiked quite a bit.
Those of you looking up “Hegelian Dialectic” here need to remember that Hegel himself has been read differently by people on the so-called left and right. While it is true that Marx made much use of Hegelian dialectic, he twisted it to his own purposes in support of “dialectical materialism” which is the true source of his communistic “communitarianism”. Be careful here that you are accurately reflecting the philosophical basis of this communal approach. Hegel has also been used to establish the rights of the free thinking expressivist self. See Charles Taylor’s “Sources of the Self” and his “Secular Age”. Some of the sites you are being pointed to are not that reliable. Go here for the Hegel-Marx connection. Who am I to direct you? I have researched and taught Hegel for years, though most of my publications cite him indirectly.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/
Roger Knights (09:57:16) wrote:
“”Anton (09:03:09) :
“It’s the Climactic Research Unit, not the Climate Research Unit.”
Make that “Climatic.”
(People doing climactic research are in it for the fun, not the funding.)
Yes, I mistyped it, as I did in my letter to the DOE attorney, which meant I had to go back and correct the error, noting that a “climactic research unit” would be a penis. Boy am I embarrassed! They’re probably laughing their, um, heads off at the moment.
Another reason I should never post any comment, including this one.
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”
An interesting question as regards discovery. Without looking at it too closely, I’d say that an organisation such as a UK university, involved in huge lawsuits based in the US, would be very ill-advised to cock a snook on the grounds that they were subject to UK Law.
I see nothing to stop parties in the US taking actions in British Courts anyway.
There’s more to this than discovery. There’s also the question of misusing grant monies issued from the US which could lead to extradition requests for certain individuals. Judging from a couple of cases, these need not touch the British courts and those lucky souls could find themselves winners of a free plane ticket to the US with the delightful possibility of a long holiday with full board, at the US taxpayers’ expense; however, there’d be no guarantee that they’d see very much of that huge and fascinating country.
I gather the DOE order was issued to DOE and other US federal employees, not CRU employees, so jurisdiction is not an issue. Apparently the DOE is trying to research evidence on this side of the Atlantic.
take a look at email 1256765544.txt
Internet is silent on DOE CRU except for links to WUWT. Don’t get too excited yet.
I have to say, this makes me incredibly nervous. For the first time in a decade, things are finally going the proper way in terms of the media finally allowing the climate skeptics have a say. But it was like pulling teeth and I don’t think MSM is really comfortable doing it. They really, really, really want to get back to their comfort zone of backing up the warmists, and a “scandal” on the skeptic side would suit their needs perfectly. The authentication procedure of IP address and such does well to confirm that your souce is on the level. But it doesn’t do much to confirm his/her source is authentic. Might I suggest a simple phone call to the facility and Mr. Wamsted’s office? If you get a canned reply like “we cannot discuss such matters” then you are on to something big. But if the email is bogus, I am fairly certain that Mr. Wamsted will jump hurdles to stop any bogus information from spreading further. Every mention of this event refers back to this site. You are really hanging out in the wind on this one, so you may need to go the extra mile and confirm it on your own. The media won’t help you.
“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.”
I suspect it’s embedded in your AutoCorrect table. In Word 2007, I go to Word Options, Proofing, AutoCorrect Options, then fix the appropriate entry.
Jack Green (09:56:03) :
“It would be really interesting to see a copy of Mann’s tax return. Anybody know where we might see it?”
You are on the right track. Let loose the Hounds of the IRS.
Remember Al Capone!
Things getting interesting at Yahoo. Usually the blogs are full of useless tripe. Today this one is scorching: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Poll-Action-on-climate-will-apf-3942250150.html?x=0&.v=2
I’d guess 95% of posts would like to rip AP a new ______ for printing it. Very fun. One poster is laying these on, one after another:
We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
Half the world caught with the pants down!
Interesting times indeed!
I would say the timing of this release from DOE (a little slow) says something about how Climategate has unexpectedly but rightly so gained traction and that DOE issuing this release now is intended to give the Obama Admin. an increase in negotiating leverage in Copenhagen in the days ahead…mind you, I still think Copenhagen is going to FAIL.
As for questions of jurisdiction, I would point folks to the Hague Conventions on Service of Legal Process, of Discovery, etc.
The way this works is if an attorney in the US wants to issue a discovery order on a party in the UK or other Hague signatory, he gets a court order in the US, sends it to an international legal process service firm, which gets an Apostille from the US State Department (a high falutin’ sort of affadavit of authenticity signed by a sovereign power) and, if necessary, a full and accurate legal translation of the documents being served. These documents are then all sent to whatever agency in the foreign government deals with foreign affairs, which then processes things on their end.
This sort of thing happens all the time, I used to manage a dot com that did this regularly for the top law firm in the country, even going so far as having Berezovsky served in prison in Russia (the second time Putin’s govt refused the service, abrogating Russias status vis a vis that treaty).
Climategate: the lawyers move in – those scientists are toast!
This is certainly what Keenan believed and submitted a report on the affair to Wang’s university. How did the university respond? It carried out an internal review, without interviewing – or even referring to – Keenan, and without giving any reasons, announced that the charges were baseless. For the full dirt on this cover up read this report at Watts Up With That. . . .