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.
> Mailman (07:31:25) :
> 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?
I imagine that the DoE funding means that they are in a contractual relationship, which enables the DoE to impose all sorts of ongoing obligations on the UEA.
They would only need to go via a UK court once they decide that UEA is in violation of that contract and is unwilling, or unable, to make appropriate restitution.
Michael (13:44:41) :
Dunno about the other people in your clip, buit David Icke, the blond British chap, is prone to write books and deliver lectures on how the world is run by lizards disguised as humans, “V”-style. Particularly the Royal Family.
If anyone still thinks Al Gore is not a lair is either part of the fraud or is stupid. Proof of this is now everywhere to be heard each and every time Al Gore opens his mouth. What next? The sky will catch on fire in 5 years? The more desperate they get the more exaggerated their claims. Keep it going all you global warming alarmists. Please oh please raise all the alarms you can muster, and see how big a hole you can dig for yourselves. Bring it on!
“fFreddy (13:55:56) :
Michael (13:44:41) :
Dunno about the other people in your clip, buit David Icke, the blond British chap, is prone to write books and deliver lectures on how the world is run by lizards disguised as humans, “V”-style. Particularly the Royal Family.”
Why are you people constantly changing the subject to run away from the subject at hand?
The Subject is “Bilderberg Group Exposed on the History Channel”. Do they exist or not? Who are they? If they are the most powerful people in the world, Why does the press hide them?
Try to stay focused.
We need all of these guys tax returns. I wonder how much of their Christmas Bonuses, expense accounts, trip expenses, new iMac computers etc can be tied to our tax dollars.
Hogs eating at the trough. Now you know why these people were willing to punch skeptics in the mouth for spoiling the party.
I expect to see some class action ads on TV any day now. “Have you or a loved one been injured or suffered because of fraudulent climate information? Call 1-800-Sock ‘o Love, now! You may be entitled to Tons of Money!”
ralph (13:05:37) :For what it’s worth, the BBC has refused to release the names of the 28 or 30 best scientific experts to me under the FOI. I have submitted a new FOI request as follows (forgive the format of the request, it is how the website works!) :
Dear British Broadcasting Corporation,
Can you please provide me with the record of the methodology which
was used to select the “best scientific experts” who were invited
to participate in the January 2006 seminar which was used to inform
the BBC’s June 2007 statement of policy on its reporting of the
increasing man-made climate change controversy.
Can you also provide me with a complete record of payments made by
the BBC to consultants employed by the BBC to advise it in January,
February and March 2006.
Thank you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Post
You can follow what happens and make your own annotations at http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/request_methodology_uses_to_sele
A hold such as this, by virtue of the connections between CRU scientists and U.S. scientists particularly the “hockey team” – effectively declares as evidence all personal and business communications of any of those people. In particular this applies to all employees of NOAA, NASA, GISS, and other climate-related organizations holding government research grants or contracts.
This means that even bloggers such as Gavin Schmidt who work for government – must not delete or destroy any evidence related to any aspect of the CRU or its employees.
In essence we now have a total evidential lockdown on all climate data in the U.S. As previously noted there are many channels of duplication across global network systems. Attempts to eliminate data or evidence in one place will eventually be found out in another. Climate “scientists” – you are on notice.
It was the right thing to confirm.
“Do you have a litigation hold notice related to the Climate Research Unit.”
Her answer: “Yes we do”
Is NASA also included?
I have confirmed the email is legit. Anthony can choose to confirm if he wishes.
REPLY: I did also earlier today, see above in comments and the story -A
I’m somewhat new to this site, so not sure how much the conspiracy theme is discussed. I personally don’t feel global warming is as big a conspiracy as some might say. I tend to look at it as several groups using the same vehicle, to accomplish different goals. As an analogy, a group of unrelated people in New York that need to travel to San Diego might find themsleves on the same plane having a chat, but going to different destinations after the plane lands. I see climate scientists wanting some fame, fortune and funding. I see some politicians hoping to get some things they want outside the democratic process. I see the media wanting to put people in front of the TV watching doom and gloom. Global warming accomplishes all those tasks and these people find themselves, without prior planning, pushing for the same thing. It’s a bandwagon scenario now with everyone hoping to cash in on their own particular pet project. As the CRU email scandal proves, there is a level of collusion and it is increasing as things start to unravel. But I don’t see a great deal of evidence for a large pre-planned global poltical agenda creating the warming scare. I see the reverse…the scare creating an opening for poltical opportunism or personal gain, with the media willing to fan any flame it sees. Just my two cents as relative newcomer. ;o)
I seem to remember that Richard Black of the BBC features in one of the CRU emails. Another BBC reporter had the audacity to be slightly critical of AGW and the Team comment was along the lines that they would have a word with Richard about this unacceptable lapse by the BBC. It rings bells with recent discussions about the AP reporter.
Richard Black and Roger Harrabin seem to be cheerleaders for all things AGW. I actually think the BBC hierarchy must consult these guys on climate reporting policy. It is a disgrace that the BBC cannot do objective journalism.
The point of this comment is to suggest that someone searches the CRU emails for Roger Harrabin and Richard Black to see if they pop up in an incriminating manner. In my view that would be a great result.
Tenuc (13:50:51) :
Great news for us ‘Naturalist’ climate buffs.
Sounds like “nudists” to me … sorry had to say it
Michael (14:04:41) :
I think you missed fFreddy’s point. He wasn’t running away from anything. Your link featured David Icke, and if he’s the “expert” behind the Bilderberg expose, the expose has issues.
The interview with Icke, btw, is rather old (look at his picture on Wiki), indicating the special is rather old, too. When he said “in the next 5-10 years, we are going to live in a global version of Nazi Germany,” he apparently missed the mark. I suppose a conspiracy theorist’s reputation is based on the accuracy of his predictions. If so, David Icke is batting like a pitcher.
Mark
Thank you Anthony.
I was one of the doubters about the authenticity.
It is a MOST important situation and confirming its veracity was necessary.
As always, Thank you.
Clive
So this is about Inhofe and Co. using the CRU/Phil Jones funding connetion to the DOE for reasons of a Congressional hearing inthe USA?
Anthony, 389 responses and counting. Believe me, YOU have made a difference. I can’t say enough thanks for the effort you and your moderators are putting into this blog to get the correct information out on the street.
DOE is different than most other Government organizations in that their nuclear sites are run under a set of contracting regulations indicated by the term “GOCO” (Government Owned- Contractor Operated). Government and contractor employees work much more hand in hand under GOCO, which is different than other federal contracting regulations which require a larger degree of separation between contractor and Government.
I wonder if and how this impacts any document discovery processes. Might the contractor be protected in some way from disclosure?
It’s good to get that final bit of unequivocal confirmation.
It’s probably just the tip of the iceberg. From what I read over at CA, the theory is that this may have been prompted by Senator Inhofe’s interest. Wonder how many litigation hold notices have been sent out by other cabinet departments. It will doubtless take some time before actions are taken. In the meantime, there will be this cloud hanging over all sorts of funding activities.
Carsten Arnholm, Norway (10:18:53) :
“Robert E. Phelan (22:11:18) :
OK, here are two possible reasons why the DOE might have an interest in climategate-related materials:
Here is another link to the Wigley and Jones DOE contracts. Note they cover time frames starting in 1985 thru April 2009. Nice long contracts to be drawing upon.
Its worse than they thought 🙂
Err, the links:
http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/CH–FG02-86ER60397
http://www.osti.gov/rdprojects/details.jsp?query_id=P/CH–FG02-98ER62601
Julie L (10:33:36) :
Holy cow.
I was happily reading the comments here, when I read this:,blockquote>Robert E. Phelan (22:11:18) :
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!
SRS workforce: ~11,000 (as of 4/20/09)
• Annual budget: ~$2 billion
Dedicated to maintaining the highest safety and security standards, the Savannah River Site (SRS) is a key Department of Energy (DOE) industrial complex responsible for environmental stewardship, environmental cleanup. waste management, and the disposition of nuclear materials. More specifically, SRS processes and stores nuclear materials in support of national defense and U.S. nuclear non-proliferation efforts. The Site also develops and deploys technologies to improve the environment and treat nuclear and hazardous wastes resulting from the Cold War.
A strange dept to attack The CRU
Indiana Bones (15:45:07) :
That’s about $2.5 million. Shhhhhhhh. Their not supposed to know about that.
“This means that even bloggers such as Gavin Schmidt who work for government – must not delete or destroy any evidence related to any aspect of the CRU or its employees.”
Does that mean he can’t even delete comments to his blog? Of course, I can’t imagine who would want to take advantage of that, if it were true.