Misplaced Pages

Climatic Research Unit email controversy: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:46, 6 February 2010 editArbor to SJ (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers82,077 editsm also indefinitely move-protected← Previous edit Revision as of 08:04, 6 February 2010 edit undoMacai (talk | contribs)632 edits Changing name in compliance with WP:NPOV.Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
#REDIRECT ]
{{pp-semi|small=yes|expiry=April 12, 2010}}
{{pp-move-indef}}
]
The '''Climatic Research Unit hacking incident''' came to light in November 2009 when it was discovered that thousands of e-mails and other documents had been obtained through the ] of a server used by the ] (CRU) of the ] (UEA) in ], England. The subsequent dissemination of the material caused a controversy, dubbed "''Climategate''", regarding whether or not the e-mails indicated misconduct by climate scientists. The UEA described the incident as an illegal taking of data. The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach and subsequent personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails.

The ] stated that the UEA had breached the Freedom of Information Act by not dealing properly with requests for information related to ] research made by David Holland, a retired engineer, but as sanctions had to be imposed within six months of the offence it was too late to impose them.<!--in accordance with ], this summarises fully cited statements in the body of the article and is supported by these citations. Please discuss any proposed changes first.-->

The University of East Anglia has announced that an independent review of the allegations will be carried out by Sir ] and that the CRU's director, Professor ], would stand aside from his post during the review.

==Timeline==
The incident began when a person or persons unknown accessed a server used by the Climatic Research Unit and copied 160 ] of data<ref name="Guardian 20 Nov" /> containing more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents.<ref name="WaPo 21 Nov" /> The University of East Anglia stated that the server from which the data were taken was not one that could easily have been accessed and the data could not have been released inadvertently.<ref name="NEN 1 Dec" /> It is not known when the breach occurred.

The breach was first discovered on 17 November 2009 after the server of the ] website was hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded.<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov" /> According to ] of RealClimate, "At around 6.20am (EST) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an IP address associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file ''FOIA.zip'' to our server."<ref name="RealClimate 23 Nov" /> A link to the file on the RealClimate server was posted from a ]n ] to the ] blog at 7.24 am (] ''i.e.'' at ]) with the comment "A miracle just happened".<ref name="ClimateAudit 23 Nov" /> Schmidt discovered the hack minutes after it occurred. He temporarily shut down the website and deleted the uploaded file.<ref name="Guardian 27 Nov" /> RealClimate reported that they had notified the University of East Anglia of the incident.<ref name="RealClimate 20 Nov" />

On 19 November an archive file containing the data was uploaded to a server in ],<ref name="Mail 6 Dec" /> Russia before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.<ref name="Guardian 20 Nov" /> An anonymous post from a ]n IP address<ref name="timesonline20091206" /> to the ] blog ''The Air Vent'',<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov" /> described the material as "a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents" and defended the hacking on the grounds that climate science is "too important to be kept under wraps".<ref name="2009-11-21_BenWebster_TheTimes" />

The Norfolk police subsequently confirmed that they were "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" with the assistance of the ]'s Central e-Crime unit,<ref name="Mail 6 Dec" /> the ] (ICO) and the ] (NDET).<ref name="NEN 11 Jan" /> Commenting on the involvement of the NDET, a spokesman said: "At present we have two police officers assisting Norfolk with their investigation, and we have also provided computer forensic expertise. While this is not strictly a domestic extremism matter, as a national police unit we had the expertise and resource to assist with this investigation, as well as good background knowledge of climate change issues in relation to criminal investigations." However, the police cautioned that "major investigations of this nature are of necessity very detailed and as a consequence can take time to reach a conclusion."<ref name="BBC 11 Jan" />

On 27 January 2010, the ] released a statement referring to requests made by an individual under the ]: "The e-mails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland’s requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information." They said no legal action could be taken against the university because the six-month limit for prosecution set by the Act had expired.<ref name = "BreachOfFOIA_ToL"/><ref name="news.bbc.co.uk"/><ref name="Randerson_2010-01-27_Guardian"/><ref name="Collins_2010-01-28_telegraph"/>

==Content of the documents==
The material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented ], pertaining to ] research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.<ref name="Reuters 23 Nov" /> Some of the e-mails which have been widely publicised included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, and drafts of scientific papers.<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov" /> There have been assertions that these discussions indicated efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view,<ref name="WSJ 23 Nov" /> and included discussions about destroying files in order to prevent them from being revealed under the UK ].<ref name="Moore 24 Nov" /> A review by the ] of all the e-mails found that they did not support claims of faking of science, but did show disdain for sceptical critics. Scientists had discussed avoiding sharing information with critics, but the documents showed no evidence that any data was destroyed. Researchers also discussed in e-mails how information they had released on request was used by critics to make personal attacks on researchers.<ref name="ap_2009-12-12" /> In an interview with '']'', ] said "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU." He confirmed that the e-mails that had sparked the most controversy appeared to be genuine.<ref name="Guardian 24 Nov" />

The quality of some of the ] included in the documents has been criticised,<ref name="newsnight-code" /> and an associated ] file has been interpreted as suggesting that some data was simply made up.<ref name="computerworld" /> ] of the Climate Dynamics group at ] has said that the code under discussion is not that used in actual climate reconstructions, which is maintained elsewhere.<ref name="Myles Allen, guardian" />

===E-mails===
Nearly all of the e-mails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences. The controversy has focused on a small number of e-mails, particularly those sent to or from climatologists Phil Jones, the head of the CRU, and ] of ] (PSU), one of the originators of the graph of temperature trends dubbed the "]."<ref name="PI Dec 8" /> Skeptics of anthropogenic climage change made charges that that the e-mails showed climate scientists ]<ref name="Guardian 20 Nov" /> to withhold scientific information,<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov" /> interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published,<ref name="Moore 24 Nov" /> deleted e-mails and raw data to prevent data being revealed under the ],<ref name="BBC 3 Dec" /> and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.<ref name="BBC 3 Dec" /> Officials from the ] have stated that the e-mails show that requests under the Freedom of Information Act were "not dealt with as they should have been," and that the CRU breached rules by withholding data.<ref>''BBC News''. "" 28 January 2010.</ref>

====Temperature reconstructions====
A November 1999 e-mail authored by Phil Jones, states
:"I've just completed Mike's ''Nature'' trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."<ref name="Guardian 20 Nov" /><ref name="Telegraph 23 Nov">{{cite news|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6636563/University-of-East-Anglia-emails-the-most-contentious-quotes.html|title=University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes|date=23 November 2009|publisher=]|accessdate=25 November 2009}}</ref><ref name="Telegraph">{{cite web|author=Published: 8:00AM GMT 21 Nov 2009 |url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6619796/Climate-scientists-accused-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html |title=Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data' |publisher=] |date= |accessdate=2009-11-24}}</ref>

"Mike's Nature trick" referred to a paper published by ] in '']'' in 1998, which combined various proxy records with actual temperature records. Sceptics of anthropogenic global warming have stated that the "trick" was dishonest.<ref name="2009-12-07_Campbell_Brown_CNN_Transcript">{{cite web
| url = http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0912/07/ec.01.html
| title = CAMPBELL BROWN Global Warming: Trick or Truth?
| last = Brown
| first = Campbell
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-12-07
| accessdate = 2010-01-06
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5maYuzS8S
| archivedate = 2010-01-06
| quote = STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR, CLIMATE AUDIT: Sure they are. In discussion of the trick, let's be quite frank about it -- it was a trick. The tree ring records went down in the late part of the 20th century. Instead of disclosing that in the 2001 IPCC report, they did -- they didn't show the decline. In another document, the 1999 World Meteorological Report -- that is the subject of the e-mail in question -- they simply substituted temperature information for the tree ring information to show the record going up when it went down. There's nothing mathematically sophisticated about that.
}}</ref> Mann described the "trick" as simply a concise way of showing the two kinds of data together while still clearly indicating which was which. He said that there was nothing "hidden or inappropriate" about it, and that his method of combining proxy data had been corroborated by numerous statistical tests and matched thermometer readings taken over the past 150 years.<ref name="PI Dec 8" /> The "decline" referred to is the ] - the failure of tree rings in the northern hemisphere after 1960 to accurately proxy temperature trends.

An email written by ] discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:

:"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov" />

James Inhofe and other sceptics say that Trenberth's "travesty" comment proves that scientists are trying to keep cooling secret because it undermines their arguments about global warming.<ref name= "NZ Herald 28 Nov" /><ref name="HowTheClimategateScandalIsBogus">{{cite web
|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/01/climate-emails-sceptics
|title=How the 'climategate' scandal is bogus and based on climate sceptics' lies
|author=Fred Pearce
|date=1 February 2010
|publisher=]
|accessdate=2010-02-04
}}</ref>

Trenberth told the ] that the email referred to an article<ref>Trenberth KE (2009) An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. ''Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability'' '''1'''(1):19-27. {{doi|10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001}}</ref> he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data, such as rising sea surface temperatures.<ref name="AP 22 Nov">{{cite news | last=Staff | title=Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling|url=http://www.physorg.com/news178199129.html|agency=]|date=22 November 2009}}</ref> The word "travesty" refers to what Trenberth sees as an inadequate observing system that, were it more adequate, would be able to track the warming he believes is there.<ref name="wired 20 Nov">{{cite web |url=http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/11/climate-hack/ |title=Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate | Threat Level | Wired.com |publisher=] |accessdate=2009-11-25 }}</ref>

In a statement on his NCAR webpage Trenberth states that,

:"It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability."<ref name="Trenberth-NCAR">http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html</ref>

====Peer-review and Data Access====
An 8 July 2004 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said in part:
:"The other paper by MM is just garbage. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"<ref name= "NZ Herald 28 Nov">{{cite web
| url = http://www.nzherald.co.nz/climate-change/news/article.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10612165&pnum=0
| title = A climate scandal, or is it just hot air?
| last = Gibson
| first = Eloise
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-11-28
| accessdate = 2009-12-08
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m33TOj7p
| archivedate = 2009-12-15
| quote =
}}</ref>

Critics charge that scientists were suppressing scientific research by trying to keep dissenting views on global warming out of an IPCC report.<ref name= "NZ Herald 28 Nov" />

The IPCC has stated that its procedures mean there is "no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed."<ref name="fc_2009-12-10">{{cite web
| url = http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
| title = “Climategate”
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-12-10, corrected 2009-12-22
| accessdate =2010-01-04
}}</ref> In relation to the ] (AR4), the IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri stated that the papers that had been criticised "were actually discussed in detail in chapter six of the Working Group I report of the AR4. Furthermore, articles from the journal ''Climate Research'', which was also decried in the emails, have been cited 47 times in the Working Group I report."<ref name="Guardian 4 Jan">{{cite news|title=Climate change has no time for delay or denial|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/cif-green/2010/jan/04/climate-change-delay-denial|last=Pachauri|first=Rajendra|publisher=The Guardian|date=2010-01-04|accessdate=2010-01-06}}</ref>

A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:
:"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.<ref name="wsj_2009-11-24">{{Cite news
| title = Climate Science and Candor
| newspaper = The Wall Street Journal
| pages = 1
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-11-24
| url = http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574553652849094482.html
| accessdate = 10 December 2009
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m3AzrwzS
| archivedate = 2009-12-15
| quote = Editor's note: The following are emails we've selected from more than 3,000 emails and documents that were hacked last week from computers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit in the United Kingdom.
}}</ref>

In another e-mail, Phil Jones writes to Michael Mann, with the subject line "IPCC & FOI":<ref name="RegaloHack"> by Antoniao Regalado, ''Science Insider,'' November 23, 2009</ref>

:"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address."<ref name="NZ Herald 28 Nov" />

Critics say that the e-mails showed that scientists were conspiring to delete e-mails and documents to prevent them from being released.<ref name="NZ Herald 28 Nov" /> ], a supporter of the scientific consensus, wrote that Jones' resignation is warranted on the basis of his statement in this email alone.<ref name="Monbiot-Guardian">George Monbiot guardian.co.uk 25 November 2009. "If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit."</ref>

] of Research at University of East Anglia, Trevor Davies, said that no data was deleted or "otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure."<ref name= "NZ Herald 28 Nov" /> In response to allegations that CRU avoided obligations under the ], independent investigator Muir Russell plans to review CRU's "policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act."<ref name="msnbc_2009-12-03">{{cite web
| url = http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34257159/ns/us_news-environment/
| title = University in climate flap details inquiry reach – Outside reviewer named, will eye e-mails for data 'manipulation'
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-12-03
| accessdate = 2009-12-10
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m3AamBR3
| archivedate = 2009-12-15
| quote =
}}</ref>

==Responses==
In the United Kingdom and United States, there were calls for official inquiries into issues raised by the documents. ], a prominent British ] politician and founder of the ] said, "The integrity of the scientific evidence... has been called into question. And the reputation of British science has been seriously tarnished. A high-level independent inquiry must be set up without delay."<ref name="Guardian 23 Nov" /> ] ] also planned to demand an inquiry.<ref name="Inhofe 23 Nov" />

===University of East Anglia===
The University of East Anglia was notified of the possible security breach on 17 November, but when the story was published in the press on 20 November they had no statement ready.<ref name="Monbiot 11-25" /> On 24 November, Trevor Davies, the University of East Anglia pro-vice-chancellor with responsibility for research, rejected calls for Jones' resignation or firing: "We see no reason for Professor Jones to resign and, indeed, we would not accept his resignation. He is a valued and important scientist." The university announced it would conduct an independent review to "address the issue of data security, an assessment of how we responded to a deluge of Freedom of Information requests, and any other relevant issues which the independent reviewer advises should be addressed."<ref name="Guardian 24 Nov" />

The university announced on 1 December that Phil Jones was to stand aside as director of the Unit until the completion of an independent review.<ref name="UEA 01 Dec" /><ref name="Telegraph 01 Dec" /> Two days later, the university announced that Sir ] would chair the review, and would "examine e-mail exchanges to determine whether there is evidence of suppression or manipulation of data" as well as review CRU's policies and practices for "acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review, and disseminating data and research findings" and "their compliance or otherwise with best scientific practice". In addition, the investigation would review CRU's compliance with Freedom of Information Act requests and also 'make recommendations about the management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds."<ref name="BBC 3 Dec" />

===UK Met Office===
On November 23, a spokesman for the ], a ] agency which works with the CRU in providing global-temperature information, said there was no need for an inquiry. "The bottom line is that temperatures continue to rise and humans are responsible for it. We have every confidence in the science and the various datasets we use. The peer-review process is as robust as it could possibly be."<ref name="Guardian 23 Nov" />

On December 5, however, concerned that public confidence in the science had been damaged by leaked e-mails, the Met Office indicated their intention to re-examine 160 years of temperature data,<ref name="times online 05 Dec 09" /> as well as to release temperature records for over 1000 worldwide weather stations online.<ref name="Guardian 05 Dec 09" /><ref name="MetOffice" /> The Met Office remained confident that its analysis will be shown to be correct<ref name="times online 05 Dec 09" /> and that the data would show a temperature rise over the past 150 years.<ref name="Guardian 05 Dec 09" /><ref name="CNN 6 Dec" />

===UK Government ===
On January 22, 2010, the Science and Technology Committee of the ] announced it would conduct an inquiry into the incident, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research, reviewing the scope of the independent Muir review announced by the UEA, and reviewing the independence of international climate data sets. The Committee plans to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_technology/s_t_pn14_100122.cfm |title=Science and Technology Committee Announcement: The Disclosure of Climate Data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia |accessdate=2010-01-22 |date=2010-01-22 }}</ref>

With reference to FOI requests made by David Holland, a retired engineer in ], the Deputy Information Commissioner with responsibility for the Freedom of Information Act Graham Smith issued a statement on 27 January 2010 that "The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information." He also said that as sanctions have to be imposed within six months of the offence it was too late to impose sanctions, but the ICO would be making a case for the law to be changed for future offences. He was advising the university of East Anglia on its legal obligations, and the ICO would be considering whether to take regulatory action once reports of the independent and police investigations were available.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi |title=University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules &#124; Environment |author=James Randerson |date=27 January 2010 |publisher=] |accessdate=2010-01-28}}</ref>

===Other responses===
], chairman of the ], told the BBC that he considered the affair to be "a serious issue and we will look into it in detail."<ref name="2009-12-04_BBC" /> He later clarified that the IPCC would review the incident to identify lessons to be learned, and he rejected suggestions that the IPCC itself should carry out an investigation. The only investigations being carried out were those of the University of East Anglia and the British police.<ref name="Age Dec 10" />

] announced it would review the work of ], in particular looking at anything that had not already been addressed in an earlier ] ] which had found some faults with his methodology but agreed with the results.<ref name="NYT 02 Dec" /><ref name="PSU Mann review" /><ref name="AP 03 Dec" /> In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.<ref name="AP 03 Dec" /> As a result of the inquiry, the investigatory committee determined there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed email, information and/or data related to AR4, or misused privileged or confidential information. However, the committee was unsure if Mann operated within the accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities, and a such, referred that charge to an investigatory committee of faculty members.<ref name="PSU Findings" />

==See also==
{{Portal|Environment}}
* ]
* ]

==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em|refs=

<ref name="PSU_Findings"></ref>

<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov">{{cite news|last=Revkin|first=Andrew C.|title=Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html?_r=3|work=]|date=20 November 2009}}</ref>

<ref name="RealClimate 20 Nov">{{cite web|url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/ |title=The CRU hack |publisher=] |date=2009-11-20 |accessdate=2009-11-24}}</ref>

<ref name="WaPo 21 Nov">{{cite news|last=Eilperin|first=Juliet|title=Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/20/AR2009112004093.html|work=]|date=21 November 2009}}</ref>

<ref name="2009-11-21_BenWebster_TheTimes">{{cite web
| url = http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6926325.ece
| title = Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University'
| last = Webster
| first = Ben
| authorlink = Ben Webster
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-11-21
| accessdate = 2010-01-06
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5mabKdXuI
| archivedate = 2010-01-06
| quote = An anonymous statement accompanying the e-mails said: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”
}}</ref>

<ref name="Reuters 23 Nov">{{cite news|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSTRE5AM4AH20091123|title=Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer|last=Gardner|first=Timothy|date=Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:07&nbsp;pm EST|work=Green Business|publisher=]|accessdate=24 November 2009}}</ref>

<ref name="WSJ 23 Nov">{{cite news|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html|title=Climate Emails Stoke Debate:Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming|last=Johnson |first=Keith |date=November 23, 2009 |work=U.S. NEWS |publisher=]|accessdate=24 November 2009}}</ref>

<ref name="ClimateAudit 23 Nov">{{cite web|last=McIntyre|first=Steve|title=“A miracle just happened”|url=http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/23/a-miracle-just-happened/|publisher=]|date=23 November 2009}}</ref>

<ref name="RealClimate 23 Nov">{{cite web|last=Schmidt|first=Gavin|title=The CRU hack: Context|url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/11/the-cru-hack-context/comment-page-4/#comment-143886|publisher=RealClimate|date=23 November 2009}}</ref>

<ref name="Guardian 24 Nov">Hickman, Leo, "and agencies", , November 24, 2009, '']''. Retrieved November 25, 2009.</ref>

<ref name="Moore 24 Nov">{{cite web
| url = http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6637006/Climate-change-scientists-face-calls-for-public-inquiry-over-data-manipulation-claims.html
| title = Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims
| last = Moore
| first = Matthew
| authorlink = Matthew Moore
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-11-24
| accessdate = 2010-01-08
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5mdXqWeCz
| archivedate = 2010-01-08
| quote = said Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor who has reinvented himself as a critic of climate change science. "They were talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act and they were trying to prevent other dissenting scientists from having their articles published in learned journals. "It may be that there's an innocent explanation for all this... but there needs to be a fundamental independent inquiry to get at the truth."
}}</ref>

<ref name="2009-12-04_BBC">{{cite web
| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394483.stm
| title = UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-12-04
| accessdate = 2010-01-06
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5maZrjyf5
| archivedate = 2010-01-06
| quote = Dr Pachauri told BBC Radio 4's The Report programme that the claims were serious and he wants them investigated. "We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said. "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail. Saudi Arabia's lead climate negotiator has said the e-mail row will have a "huge impact" on next week's UN climate summit in Copenhagen. Mohammad Al-Sabban told BBC News that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions. "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News."
}}</ref>

<!--Unsorted below on date, writer (last,first), publication -->

<ref name="Guardian 20 Nov">{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails |title=Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists |publisher=] |date= |accessdate=2009-11-24}}</ref>

<ref name="Guardian 20 Nov">{{cite news | last = Hickman | first = Leo | last2 = Randerson | first2 = James | title = Climate sceptics claim leaked emails expose collusion by scientists | work = ] | date = 2009-11-21 | page = 19 | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails | accessdate = 2009-11-24}}</ref>

<ref name="Telegraph 01 Dec">{{cite news|work=]|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6703400/Professor-at-centre-of-climate-change-email-row-stands-down-temporarily.html|title=Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily|date=2009-12-01|accessdate=2009-12-01|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5llb6obB7|archivedate=2009-12-04|quote=Professor Phil Jones, the director of a research unit at the centre of a row over climate change data, has said he will stand down from the post while an independent review takes place.}}</ref>

<ref name="Guardian 27 Nov">{{cite news|author1=Taylor, Matthew|author2=Arthur, Charles|title=Climate email hackers had access for more than a month|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/27/climate-email-hackers-access-month|work=]|date=27 November 2009}}</ref>

<ref name="BBC 3 Dec">"", '']'', 3 December 2009, accessed 5 December.</ref>

<ref name="UEA 01 Dec">{{cite web |url=https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate |title=CRU Update 1 December |publisher=] – Communications Office |date=1 December 2009 |accessdate=2009-12-05 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lnKYt5cA |archivedate= 2009-12-05}}</ref>

<ref name="Monbiot 11-25">, by George Monbiot, ], 25 November 2009</ref>

<ref name="Inhofe 23 Nov">{{cite web|url=http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2188feb3-802a-23ad-4de4-3fbc0a92e126&Issue_id|author=Matt Dempsey|title=Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show|date=November 23, 2009|work=The Inhofe EPW Press Blog|publisher=U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works|accessdate=November 29, 2009|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lnFdZDUX|archivedate=2009-12-05}}</ref>

<ref name="Guardian 23 Nov">Hickman, Leo, , November 23, 2009, '']''. Retrieved November 25, 2009.</ref>

<ref name="NYT 02 Dec">{{cite news | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/02/science/earth/02scientist.html?_r=1&ref=earth | title=Climatologist Leaves Post in Inquiry Over E-Mail Leaks | author=John M. Broder |publisher=] |date=December 1, 2009 | accessdate=2009-12-06 }}</ref>

<ref name="PSU Mann review">{{cite web | url=http://www.ems.psu.edu/sites/default/files/u5/Mann_Public_Statement.pdf | title=University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information | publisher=College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University | accessdate=2009-12-06 | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5loIN4ORz | archivedate=2009-12-06}}</ref>

<ref name="AP 03 Dec">{{cite news | url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5izNbUAsY0l5eBzcvw_JFleAvawuwD9CC3NF00 |title=Penn St. prof. welcomes climate change scrutiny | publisher=Google | author=Genaro C. Armas, ] | date=December 3, 2009 | accessdate=2009-12-06 | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5loJCAUIi | archivedate=2009-12-06 }}</ref>

<ref name="Mail 6 Dec">{{cite news|title=Emalis that rocked climate change campaign leaked from Siberian 'closed city' university built by KGB|url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233562/Emails-rocked-climate-change-campaign-leaked-Siberian-closed-city-university-built-KGB.html|work=]|author1=Stewart, Will|author2=Delgado, Martin|date=2009-12-06}}</ref>

<ref name="timesonline20091206">{{cite news|title=Climategate controversy has echoes of Watergate, UN says|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6946281.ece|last=Webster|first=Ben|date=2009-12-06|work=]}}</ref>

<ref name="NEN 1 Dec">{{cite news|last=Lowthorpe|first=Shaun|date=2009-12-01|title=Scotland Yard call in to probe climate data leak from UEA in Norwich|url=http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED01%20Dec%202009%2013%3A17%3A48%3A733|work=]}}</ref>

<ref name="PI Dec 8">{{cite news|title=Penn State scientist at center of a storm|url=http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/78665162.html|last=Flam|first=Faye|work=]|date=2009-12-08|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5mOvPIAez|archivedate=2009-12-30}}</ref>

<ref name="Age Dec 10">{{cite news|url=http://www.theage.com.au/national/no-coverup-inquiry-climate-chief-20091209-kk2g.html|title=No cover-up inquiry, climate chief|last=Wilkinson|first=Marian|work=]|date=2009-12-10 |accessdate=2009-12-09}}</ref>

<ref name="ap_2009-12-12">{{cite web
| url = http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/12/climategate-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty_print.htm
| title = Climategate: Science Not Faked, But Not Pretty
| publisher = ]
| date = 2009-12-03
| accessdate = 2009-12-29
}}</ref>


<ref name="newsnight-code">{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/8395514.stm|title=CRU's programming 'below commercial standards'|publisher=]}}</ref>

<ref name="computerworld">{{cite web|title=Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack|url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141481/Data_leak_lessons_learned_from_the_Climategate_hack?taxonomyId=|publisher=]}}</ref>

<ref name="Myles Allen, guardian">{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/11/science-climate-change-phil-jones |title=Science forgotten in climate emails fuss &#124; Comment is free |author=Myles Allen |authorlink=Myles Allen |date=11 December 2009 |publisher=The Guardian |accessdate=2010-01-05}}</ref>

<ref name="times online 05 Dec 09">, '']'', 5 December 2009, accessed t December 2009.</ref>

<ref name="Guardian 05 Dec 09">David Batty and agencies, ", '']'', 5 December 2009, accessed 6 December 2009.</ref>

<ref name="MetOffice">", ] press release, accessed December 6, 2009.</ref>

<ref name="CNN 6 Dec">, ], 6 December 2009, accessed 6 December 2009.</ref>

<ref name="NEN 11 Jan">{{cite news|last=Greaves|first=Tara|title=Extremism fears surround Norwich email theft|url=http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/content/News/story.aspx?brand=ENOnline&category=News&tBrand=enonline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED09%20Jan%202010%2010%3A40%3A22%3A830|work=Norwich Evening News|date=2010-01-11}}</ref>

<ref name="BBC 11 Jan">{{cite news|title=Police extremist unit helps climate change e-mail probe|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/8453117.stm|publisher=BBC News|date=2010-01-11}}</ref>

<ref name="EDP 2010-01-28">{{cite news|last=Greaves|first=Tara|title=UEA 'gravely concerned' over data findings request|url=http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/edp24/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=EDPOnline&tCategory=xDefault&itemid=NOED28%20Jan%202010%2020%3A26%3A28%3A433|date=2010-01-28|accessdate=2010-01-29|work=Eastern Daily Press}}</ref>

<ref name = "BreachOfFOIA_ToL">{{cite web|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece|title=Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data|publisher=]|first=Ben| last=Webster|date=2010-01-28|accessdate=2010-02-02}}</ref>

<ref name="news.bbc.co.uk">{{cite news | first= | last= | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=Climate e-mails row university 'breached data laws' | date=2010-01-28 | publisher= | url =http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8484385.stm | work =BBC News | pages = | accessdate = 2010-01-28 | language = }}</ref>

<ref name="Randerson_2010-01-27_Guardian">{{cite news | first=James | last=Randerson | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules | date=2010-01-27 | publisher= | url =http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/27/uea-hacked-climate-emails-foi | work =The Guardian | pages = | accessdate = 2010-01-28 | language = }}</ref>

<ref name="Collins_2010-01-28_telegraph">{{cite news | first=Nick | last=Collins | coauthors= |authorlink= | title=University scientists in climategate row hid data | date=2010-01-28 | publisher= | url =http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7088055/University-scientists-in-climategate-row-hid-data.html | work =The Daily Telegraph | pages = | accessdate = 2010-01-28 | language = }}</ref>

*<ref name="Guardian hockey 2 February 2010">{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hockey-stick-graph-climate-change |title=Controversy behind climate science's 'hockey stick' graph &#124; Environment |author=Fred Pearce |authorlink=Fred Pearce |date=2 February 2010 |publisher=] |quote= |accessdate=2010-02-05}}</ref>

}}<!-- end of reflist -->

==External links==
*. A video of a lecture held at the ] School of Science on December 10, 2009. The moderator was Henry D. Jacoby (MIT). Speakers were ] (MIT), Judith Layzer (MIT), Stephen Ansolabehere (MIT and ]), Ronald G. Prinn (MIT), and Richard Lindzen (MIT).

{{Global warming}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Climatic Research Unit E-Mail Hacking Incident}}
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Revision as of 08:04, 6 February 2010

Redirect to: