I covered the server hack of the Climate Research Unit in my previous post. There are some issues that have been raised since then and a resource that is now available on the internet for those wanting to dig into this more.
The (slim?) prospects of a RICO investigation are discussed in preliminary form at BigGovernment.com.
For some time. several individuals have asked why we don’t just initiate suit against the obviously dishonest tactics and claims by the global warming industry under the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). This law commissions “private attorneys general” to pursue violations on their own, in essence as proxies for the state.
I have explained with intermittent impatience that just serially lying or exaggerating to deceive are not on their face RICO “predicate” offenses. There must be three instances of a certain type of enumerated behavior over ten years to constitute a pattern in violation of RICO.
I have received an email from someone who has much appropriate training and experience and which causes me to revisit the issue. […] (source)
Along with that, Michelle Malkin makes the important point:
First things first: The alleged hackers need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
That said: The crimes revealed in the e-mails promise to be the global warming scandal of the century — and have massive bearing on the climate change legislation being considered by our lawmakers here at home. (source)
But it may be that the outrageous actions of some of the more extreme in the environmental movement may have the unintended consequences of protecting the hacker(s). A comment at Michelle Malkin’s blog makes that connection.
I say turnabout is fair play. James Hansen flew to England to help get six Greenpeace climate change activists cleared of causing £30,000 of criminal damage at a coal-fired power station. “It was the first case in which preventing property damage caused by climate change had been used as part of a ‘lawful excuse’ defence in court. It is now expected to be used more widely by environment groups.”
If a “lawful excuse” defence can work for climate change hooligans, why not for these hackers/whisleblowers? The only damage they did was to expose the truth and reveal data paid for by public funds (assuming the files were not doctored, of course.) (full comment text here)
There is a searchable database of the over 1000 alleged emails online now.
The Bishop Hill blog has a readable summary of some of the emails.
General reaction seems to be that the CRUgate emails are genuine, but with the caveat that there could be some less reliable stuff slipped in.
In the circumstances, here are some summaries of the CRUgate files. I'll update these as and when I can. The refs are the email number. (source)
How many of the usual suspect media outlets have covered this?