With the revelation that these files were sent to the BBC a month ago, but the Beeb sat on them, it is impossible not to wonder who else got them and sat on them.

If I wanted to get this travesty exposed, I would send it to multiple potential outlets, and let each know that they must act quickly or be scooped.

If that was done here, then there must either have been some collusion to suppress the information, or each outlet would assume that all the others would sit tight. Bad situation either way, isn't it?

There must be absolutely horrifying things that the media hides from us while they report on the fascinating exploits and insights of Sarah Palin's almost-son-in-law.

More Bozos on this bus?

More like:

Dogs flew spaceships! The South won the Civil War! Our forefathers took drugs! That's right-

Everything You Know is Wrong!

Thanks for the funny essay, Mr Van der Luen.

The description of how the software developed brings this image to mind.

Been there, done that.

Until about 1980 code and data storage at any institution was probably an utter mess.

The staff usually could not have reproduced what they did five years before if threatened with castration.

By 1990 nearly all professionals had a good grasp of the principles of data and program retention. But not too many places really ran a clean house. You were rewarded for new, useful stuff. The bonuses weren't paid for having massive and neat data vaults and good records. And budgeting big money for maintaining them didn't produce smiley faces.

By 2000 I was further from the scene. Still, I know matters had improved a lot simply because staff better understood the need for procedures. Also, storage media was costing less each year.

But grad students and scientists are not trained or rewarded for information retention. They are task oriented rather than institution oriented.

Once their task is done and accepted they proceed to other matters. Precisely what they did and how is no longer of top importance.

Thus we have the present mess. I am rather sure that the rascals at CRU are utterly confused and don't, themselves, know how to recreate their work for the last two or three decades.

How's this for scary bozos?

WUWT has been reporting that Google searches for Climategate fail to bring it up in the suggestion box as you type the word.

After Anthony initially reported this - despite the gazillions of entries made for Climategate - it suddenly started to appear - then hours later disappeared.

Last I checked - it's still gone - nowhere in the suggestion list - and the word that comes up is Climateguard.

Bing has Climategate as its first suggestion.

Interesting times.

CRU should change its name to the Global Information-Gathering Organization, or GIGO.

That search suggestion box observation is interesting. Let's let it run for a day or so and see what happens.

Climategate=Fudd's First Law of Opposition
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.

Sherlock -- "With the revelation that these files were sent to the BBC a month ago, but the Beeb sat on them, it is impossible not to wonder who else got them and sat on them."

I think you're missing the point here: these were specific CRU emails, pertaining to Hudson's heretical, by BBC standards, blog post on "Whatever Happened To Global Warming" on Oct. 9.

Suffice it to say these CRU missives were not the type anyone would want to see published, as evidenced by the US very own Michael Mann's comments:

"extremely disappointing to see something like this appear on BBC. its particularly odd, since climate is usually Richard Black's beat at BBC (and he does a great job). from what I can tell, this guy was formerly a weather person at the Met Office. We may do something about this on RealClimate, but meanwhile it might be appropriate for the Met Office to have a say about this, I might ask Richard Black what's up here?"

Translation: Watch out for your job, Mr. Hudson. (Predictably, the BBC has now silenced Hudson.)

Was this a warning shot across the bow? Perhaps, as regards the BBC, the most prominent standard bearer for AGW hysteria.  For other sources? I doubt it.

It does, however, bring up the question of who exactly released these files, since CRU email comments regarding Hudson's heresy end on Oct. 14, but the most current email of the "FOIA.ZIP" is dated Nov. 12, 2009.

There once was an old Dilbert strip about this very topic: Dilbert and Wally are eating lunch with a co-worker who tells them that he wrote the company's payroll program, 100,000 lines of undocumented spaghetti code. Dilbert exclaims that it is the holy grail of technology, and the coworker smiles and says that they might find some extra in their next paychecks.

CRU should change its name to the Climate Research Unit for Disinformation. CRUD.

The benefit of having project management software is that:It efficiently manages your projects,Tracks and logs your time, Generates custom reports and much more, Improves collaboration amongst the team.

[I'm sorry try to type faster. It's all grist to me.]