the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Uh Oh – Climategate just took the next step

Posted by Jeff Id on December 15, 2009

No time to blog right now, check this out at WUWT. It looks like the DOE didn’t get the exhaustive review from the AP. All documents must be preserved.

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

10 Responses to “Uh Oh – Climategate just took the next step”

  1. AMac said

    McIntyre’s Update 2 at Climate Audit’s post on this topic reads:

    Dec 15 9 am: As pointed out by another reader, the litigation hold notice appears related to a letter sent by Inhofe to the DOE asking them to secure their files. In my opinion, this substantially reduces the drama of this notice. Absent the context of Inhofe’s letter, one might interpret the letter as evidencing an intent by the administration; however, if it’s in response to Inhofe’s letter, it’s likely that there is no such intent, only a minimum response. I’m less interested in this now.

  2. Jason said

    McIntyre believes that this request is a pro forma response to Senator Inhofe’s inquiries, and therefore of little interest.

  3. Jeff Id said

    I had another thought about this. What if all these documents are centralized by the government. I wonder how difficult it will be to get copies of them. It seems likely that they might be held now, pending some investigation for years. If not, are they then the subject of FOIA where the whole lot can be had for a request.

  4. Gary said

    Just for starters, this spreadsheet from the East Anglia “documents” directory shows multiple grants from DOE.

    Once someone has complained about potential fraud or other illegality by anyone associated with these or any other grants made to East Anglia CRU, the DOE Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has carte blanche to go fishing within DOE, just as it should.

    In the U.S. government there are OIGs for every federal agency (and many more!) and they have virtually unlimited authority to investigate fraud, waste, and abuse within the Agency they’re connected with.

    For example if CRU had been whimsically denying FOIA requests and destroying data that had been funded by DOE, the it is well within the purview of the DOE OIG to investigate the terms of all associated DOE grants or funding, or any activities derived from that funding, to determine whether fraud, waste, or abuse had occurred.

  5. The following (my bolds) is the bare outline of the email quoted here. Keenan’s story is important, and well worth reading via these URL’s

    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: [Fwd: CCNet Xtra: Climate Science Fraud at Albany University?]
    Date: Mon, 04 May 2009 01:37:07 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer


    Do you know where this stands? The key things from the Peiser items are …

    “Wang had been claiming the existence of such exonerating documents for nearly a year, but he has not been able to produce them. Additionally, there was a report published in 1991 (with a second version in 1997) explicitly stating that no such documents exist. Moreover, the report was published as part of the Department of Energy Carbon Dioxide Research Program, and Wang was the Chief Scientist of that program.”


    “Wang had a co-worker in Britain. In Britain, the Freedom of Information Act requires that data from publicly-funded research be made available. I was able to get the data by requiring Wang’s co-worker to release it, under British law. It was only then that I was able to confirm that Wang had committed fraud.”

    You are the co-worker… … …

    It also seems to me that the University at Albany has screwed up. To accept a complaint from Keenan and not refer directly to the complaint and the complainant in its report really is asking for trouble… … …

    [forwarded email from]:
    [to]: wigley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

    CCNet Xtra – 3 May 2009 — Audiatur et altera pars

    Scientific Misconduct Blog, 2 May 2009

    Informath, April 2009 Douglas J. Keenan

    Following are some remarks about my expose “The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang”.

    Wei-Chyung Wang is a professor at the University at Albany, State University of New York. He has been doing research on climate for over 30 years, and he has authored or co-authored more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific articles. He has also received an Appreciation Plaque from the Office of Science in the U.S.A., commending him, “For your insightful counsel and excellent science. …”. The plaque resulted in particular from his research on global warming.

    I have formally alleged that Wang committed fraud in important parts of his global-warming research. Below is a relevant timeline… … … …

    Freeborn John, 15 March 2009 Peter Risdon … … …

  6. Hoi Polloi said

    So what about the rest of the grants, like from the EU/CEC? Wouldn’t they be interested to know how their money was spent?

  7. Peter said

    “So what about the rest of the grants, like from the EU/CEC? Wouldn’t they be interested to know how their money was spent?”

    Don’t think so, the whole idea behind EU seems to to waste tax payers money at the fastest rate possible. 😦

  8. RC Saumarez said

    This is worth looking at:

  9. Jeff;

    I read the bolded part of this to say that they have not yet been ‘compelled’ to produce, but only obligated to retain.

    “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.”

    So, this is definitely good, but IMHO not the end of the story…

  10. In #1, AMac notes that a CA reader speculated that DOE may have been responding to Sen. Inhofe’s recent letter. In #5, Lucy Skywalker provided an interesting Climategate email from Tom Wigley to Phil Jones regarding the Keenan-Wang case and also provided link to:

    Informath, April 2009 Douglas J. Keenan

    in which Keenan reports that he received a letter form DOE stating:

    2009-08-24 The Office of the Inspector General at the DOE concludes that my allegation is not substantiated. No explanation is given.

    Perhaps the DOE IG believes that Keenan’s allegation may have merit after all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: