This is BBC radio four looking back at climategate in a recent programme. What all the repercussions, and ramifications have been, it is very
interesting, and lasts a half-hour.
It is a pretty candid programme, and since the BBC in general has been very pro-climate change pretty well balanced. It is also refreshing to hear one
expert, Paul Dennis, also UoE, remarking that among those opposed to the climate change hypothesis, are not 'Whacko's' or deniers but intelligent
people who have a different conclusion from the same sets of data, he calls for both sides to temper their behavior. All well and good, but there are
still some questions that are not taken up directly by the programme, either because they didn't know, but more likely because the programme doesn't
challenge anybody in the programme, and just bringing Climatgate up to date.
The first voice you will from those directly involved will be New York based NASA scientist, Gavin Schmidt's, he is the one who discovered the
hacking as it was ongoing. You will hear him remark,"It was quite clear that the university had been hacked" (presumably the devil was in the
detail) yet this same guy sent an e-mail to one Lucia Liljegren as follows,
' Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:48:21 -0500
From: Gavin Schmidt
To: lucia liljegren
Subject: a word to the wise
Lucia, As I am certain you are aware, hacking into private emails is very illegal. If legitimate, your scoop was therefore almost certainly obtained
illegally (since how would you get 1000 emails otherwise). I don’t see any link on Jeff-id’s site, and so I’m not sure where mosher got this
from, but you and he might end up being questioned as part of any investigation that might end up happening. I don’t think that bloggers are
shielded under any press shield laws and so, if I were you, I would not post any content, nor allow anyone else to do so. Just my twopenny’s
He first remarks "If legitimate" yet he already knows that the e-mails are true, since a couple of days before, he says so in the programme where I
have quoted. The rest of his e-mail seems like some attempt to put the lid on everything, and very curiously worded, he was not being candid.
The police gave up on the criminal investigation this year, but they don't rule out a whistleblower entirely, or vested interests, but it is not
clear as to what they actually thought of the e-mails. The University of Essex made the statement that there was nothing conspiratorial in the
e-mails, that does not mean that the public interest has been served.
More reading here,