" 2009 (UTC)
Since we're NOT SUPPOSED TO SPECULATE on Wikipedia, calling it a hack is against the rules you so properly city.  We have NO evidence of a hack, other than Phil Jones' self-serving accusation (just as we have NO evidence of global warming, other than Phil Jones' cooked books and his computer code full of ""fudge factors"" that are all positive for recent years, and negative for times decades ago.  When the CRU presents evidence of a hack, it can be called a hack.  Until such time, Occam's Razor leans towards it being either the act of a whistle-blower, or (since there is significant evidence in both the computer code itself, and in previous errant leaks of accidentally putting files on a web server that they did not intend to release) that this is typical data mismanagement because Jones and CRU apparently wouldn't hire anybody with any IT professionals (for fear that anyone outside the cabal would have blown the whistle a decade ago?)  In any event, there is NO EVIDENCE of outside intrusion into CRU, so claiming that it was a hack is fraudulent.  Just like Jones.   09:32, 3 December"