Keith Olbermann explains the connection between the so-called "climate-gate" non-scandal on the one hand, and the real "Murdoch-gate" scandal on the other. It's well worth reading; here's a short excerpt (bolding added for emphasis):
What, if anything, [former "News of the World" Executive Editor] Neil Wallis had to do with the original hacking of the climate emails at the University of East Anglia, is still speculative… just as whether or not he was a double-agent for Murdoch in this hacking case, just as he had been a double-agent for Murdoch during Scotland Yard's hacking investigation. But it may not be speculative for long. There is the news from The Financial Times: a possible FBI / DOJ investigation of a Murdoch subsidiary hacking the computers of a business rival. And earlier today, PC World Magazine reported that while we've all been working with a number of 3,870 hacking victims in the Murdoch Scandal, data released by Britain's Home Affairs Committee suggests the number may actually be as high as 12,800.
Only 170 of the victims have yet been notified. If any of the others among the "Hacked Twelve Thousand" turn out to be scientists at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, Rupert Murdoch may be in a lot bigger trouble than he is, even tonight.
He may be the man ultimately responsible for the illegal and inaccurate attempt to dismiss climate change as a scientific fraud.
Since the phony "climate-gate" non-scandal broke, by the way, mankind has continued spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere from consumption of fossil fuels by power plants, cars, and SUVs. As a result, the planet continues to heat up, with frightening consequences. For instance, the National Snow and Ice Data Center finds that, “[a]s of July 17, 2011, Arctic sea ice extent was 7.56 million square kilometers (2.92 million square miles), 2.24 million square kilometers (865,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. Sea ice is particularly low in the Barents, Kara, and Laptev Seas (the far northern Atlantic region), Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay.” As a consequence, a recent Time Magazine article concluded:
...the future does not look very good for polar bears. Which means—among other things—we may need to find a new poster animal for climate change, something that really grabs out attention. Perhaps human beings.