Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:34, 8 December 2009

The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which some sources have dubbed Climategate began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England, in the United Kingdom. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated over a thousand e-mails and other documents made over the course of 13 years. The university confirmed that a criminal breach of their security systems took place, and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised." Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted e-mails to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act, and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is. Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research stated that the sceptics have selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the Copenhagen global climate summit in December. Other prominent climate scientists, such as Richard Somerville, have called the incident a smear campaign.

On November 24, the University of East Anglia announced it would conduct an independent review of the matter, and, one week later, announced that the CRU's Director Phil Jones would temporarily stand aside from his post during the investigation.

Hacked and leaked documents

Unidentified persons hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit, posting online copies of e-mails and documents that they found. The incident involved the theft of more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents, consisting of 160 MB of data in total.

The breach was first discovered after someone hacked the server of the RealClimate website on 17 November and uploaded a copy of the stolen files. According to Gavin Schmidt 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." A link to the file on the RealClimate server was posted from a Russian IP address to the Climate Audit blog at 7.24 am (EST) with the comment "A miracle just happened". The hack was discovered by Schmidt only a couple of minutes after it had occurred. He temporarily shut down the website and deleted the uploaded file. RealClimate notified the University of East Anglia of the incident.

On 19 November the files were uploaded to a server in the Russian city of Tomsk before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet. An anonymous statement, posted from a Saudi Arabian IP address to the climate-sceptic blog The Air Vent, defended the hacking on the grounds that climate science is "too important to be kept under wraps" and described the material as "a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents."

The theft is being investigated by the Norfolk Constabulary working alongside the Metropolitan Police's Central e-Crime Unit. The Norfolk police confirmed that it is "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia". The identity of the hackers is as yet unknown; commenting on the theft, Professor Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, vice-chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), suggested that it was work by hired Russian hackers. "It’s very common for hackers in Russia to be paid for their services...it’s a carefully made selection of e-mails and documents that’s not random at all. This is 13 years of data and it’s not a job of amateurs.”

Content of the documents

The stolen material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented Fortran source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009. Some of the e-mails purportedly included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers, keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature, and talk of destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act. In an interview with The Guardian, Phil Jones, Director of the UEA-CRU, confirmed that the contentious e-mails appeared to be genuine.

On November 24 the University of East Anglia issued an explanation of the contents of the controversial e-mails.

E-mails

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999

An excerpt from one November 1999 e-mail authored by the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, reads:

"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."

Sceptics cite this sentence as evidence that temperature statistics are being manipulated. The trick involved replacing proxy temperature data from tree rings in recent years with data from air temperatures, following the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that. This contradicted an earlier statement on RealClimate by Michael Mann in 2004 which said

"No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, 'grafted the thermometer record onto' any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum."

Several scientific sources have said that the decline being referred to is a decline in tree ring metrics, not temperature. RealClimate characterizes the e-mail excerpt as follows:

The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the 'decline', it is well known that Keith Briffa's maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the "divergence problem"–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while 'hiding' is probably a poor choice of words (since it is 'hidden' in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.

Climate Research journal e-mail of 11 Mar 2003

In one e-mail, as a response to an e-mail indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Michael Mann wrote:

"I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."

Michael Mann said to the Wall Street Journal that he didn't feel there was anything wrong in saying "we shouldn't be publishing in a journal that's activist."

Half of the journal's editorial board, including editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, resigned because they felt that publication of the paper in question represented a breakdown in the peer-review process. The publisher had refused to allow von Storch to publish an editorial on the topic, but later the president of the journal's parent company stated that the paper's major findings could not "be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."

Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009

An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, 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," Trenberth wrote. However, Trenberth told the Associated Press that the phrase was actually used in reference to an article he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data, such as rising sea surface temperatures. 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.

Calls for inquiries

In the United Kingdom and United States, there were calls for official inquiries into issues raised by the documents, and calls for Jones' firing or resignation. Climate change sceptic Lord Lawson 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", and the climate sceptic, Senator Jim Inhofe also planned to demand an inquiry. Bob Ward, director of policy and communications at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, said: "There needs to be an assurance that these email messages have not revealed inappropriate conduct in the preparation of journal articles and in dealing with requests from other researchers for access to data. This will probably require investigations both by the host institutions and by the relevant journals." A government scientific agency could also conduct an inquiry, he said.

University of East Anglia response

Shortly after the release of the e-mails, 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". George Monbiot strongly criticized the UEA's response, calling it "a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond." Monbiot continued, "The handling of this crisis suggests that nothing has been learnt by climate scientists in this country from 20 years of assaults on their discipline."

The university announced on 1 December that Phil Jones was to stand aside temporarily as director of the Unit during the investigation. Two days later, the university announced that Sir Muir Russell 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".

Met Office response

On November 23, a spokesman for the Met Office, a UK agency which works with the Climate Research Unit 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."

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, as well as to release temperature records for over 1000 worldwide weather stations online. The Met Office remained confident that its analysis will be shown to be correct and that the data would show a temperature rise over the past 150 years.

Other responses

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) promises an investigation into claims that the CRU manipulated data to favour the conclusion that human activity is driving global warming. Pachauri stated, "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet. This is a serious issue and we will look into it in detail."

Dr Rajendra Pachauri and IPCC Working Group I also issued statements explaining that the assessment process, involving hundreds of scientists worldwide, is designed to be transparent and to prevent any individual or small group to manipulate the process. And that the "internal consistency from multiple lines of evidence strongly supports the work of the scientific community, including those individuals singled out in these email exchanges".

The Pennsylvania State University announced it would review the work of Michael Mann, in particular looking at anything had not already been addressed in an earlier National Academy of Sciences review which had found some faults with his methodology but agreed with the results. In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.

Reactions to the incident

Climatologists

The CRU's researchers said in a statement that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the e-mails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous." Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University's Earth System Science Center who is among those implicated in the controversy, said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious", and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem." Kevin E. Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research said that he was appalled at the release of the e-mails but thought that it might backfire against climate sceptics, as the messages would show "the integrity of scientists." He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit.

According to the University of East Anglia, the documents and e-mails had been selected deliberately to undermine the strong consensus that human activity is affecting the world's climate in ways that are potentially dangerous. The university said in a statement: "The selective publication of some stolen e-mails and other papers taken out of context is mischievous and cannot be considered a genuine attempt to engage with this issue in a responsible way".

Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist derided in the e-mails for doubting human-influenced global warming, said some e-mails showed an effort to block the release of data for independent review. He said some messages discussed discrediting him by claiming he knew his research was wrong in his doctoral dissertation. "This shows these are people willing to bend rules and go after other people's reputations in very serious ways."

Climatologist James Hansen said that the controversy has "no effect on the science" and that while some of the e-mails reflect poor judgement, the evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming.

Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta who agrees with the mainstream view of global warming, wrote that the e-mails reflect a problem with scientists lacking openness about their data and attacking those they disagree with: "t is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at sceptical researchers by apparently trying to withhold data and other information of relevance to published research, thwart the peer review process, and keep papers out of assessment reports. Scientists are of course human, and short-term emotional responses to attacks and adversity are to be expected, but I am particularly concerned by this apparent systematic and continuing behavior from scientists that hold editorial positions, serve on important boards and committees and participate in the major assessment reports. It is these issues revealed in the HADCRU emails that concern me the most "

Climatologist Hans von Storch, who also concurs with the mainstream view on global warming, said that the University of East Anglia (UEA) had "violated a fundamental principle of science" by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They play science as a power game," he said.

Mainstream science organizations

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has "expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions". Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS and executive publisher of the journal Science, said "AAAS takes issues of scientific integrity very seriously. It is fair and appropriate to pursue answers to any allegations of impropriety. It’s important to remember, though, that the reality of climate change is based on a century of robust and well-validated science."

The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behavior in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."

The Union of Concerned Scientists was critical of climate change sceptics using the stolen e-mails to attack climate science, commenting: "Unfortunately for these conspiracy theorists, what the e-mails show are simply scientists at work, grappling with key issues, and displaying the full range of emotions and motivations characteristic of any urgent endeavor. Any suggestions that these e-mails will affect public and policymakers' understanding of climate science give far too much credence to blog chatter and boastful spin from groups opposed to addressing climate change."

Newspapers and other media

George Monbiot, a well-known environmentalist who writes for The Guardian, has asked, "Do these revelations justify the sceptics' claims that this is 'the final nail in the coffin' of global warming theory?" and concluded, "Not at all. They damage the credibility of three or four scientists." He described the incident as a "major blow" and that the "emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging". He was also concerned by what he saw as attempts to conceal and even destroy information that was subject to a freedom of information request, and efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of an IPCC report.

The Daily Telegraph reported that academics and climate change researchers have dismissed allegations from sceptics that the e-mails are evidence of a collusion or international conspiracy, saying that nothing in the e-mails proves wrongdoing.

Computerworld magazine cited the view of the RealClimate blog that what was not contained in the e-mails was the most interesting element: "There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP' , no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords."

Elected national representatives

UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said that there is no doubt about the overwhelming scientific evidence that underpins the Copenhagen conference. The recent work of over 4,000 scientists, as represented by the IPCC, has sharpened, not diminished, the huge body of evidence of human-made global warming. "Its landmark importance cannot be wished away by the theft of a few emails from one university research centre. On the contrary, the pernicious anti-scientific backlash that the emails have unleashed has exposed just what is at stake," he added, noting that the purpose of the climate change deniers' campaign is clear, and its timing is no coincidence. "It is designed to destabilise and undermine the efforts of the countries gathering in Copenhagen."

Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, an outspoken sceptic of the scientific consensus on climate change, said "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."

During the annual Queen's Speech debate in the House of Commons on 24 November 2009, the former Conservative Cabinet minister Peter Lilley challenged the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change Ed Miliband over the e-mails. Miliband declined to comment on the content of the e-mails but commented: "We should be cautious about using partial emails that have been leaked to somehow cast doubt on the scientific consensus that there is. That is very dangerous and irresponsible because the scientific consensus is clear."

Political organisations and others

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

The science historian Spencer R. Weart, interviewed in the Washington Post, commented that the theft of the e-mails and the reaction to them was "a symptom of something entirely new in the history of science: Aside from crackpots who complain that a conspiracy is suppressing their personal discoveries, we've never before seen a set of people accuse an entire community of scientists of deliberate deception and other professional malfeasance. Even the tobacco companies never tried to slander legitimate cancer researchers."

Similar incidents

The University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, has also been targeted by individuals who have attempted to break into climatologists' offices and computer systems. The University's Professor Andrew Weaver, who is one of the IPCC's lead authors, commented: "One of the sad realities of being a scientist working in this area is you get targeted. I have had no end of nasty emails and phone calls." He believed that the hackers "were trying to find any dirt they could, as they have done in the UK. If they can't find 'dirt', they manufacture it from out-of-context emails or skewed statistics."

See also

• Global warming controversy
• Hockey stick controversy

References

1. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (November 27, 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research". New York Times. Retrieved 28 November 2009. A fierce debate over the significance of the hacked material erupted as soon as the e-mail messages and other documents surfaced on Web sites just over a week ago. Some see in the e-mail correspondence — which includes heated discussions about warming trends, advice on deleting potentially controversial e-mail messages and derisive comments about climate skeptics — evidence of a conspiracy to stifle dissenting views and withhold data from public scrutiny, or, as some have put it, "Climategate."
2. Gardner, Timothy (2009-11-23). "Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26. Already dubbed "Climategate," e-mails
3. ^ ""Climatic Research Unit update - 17.45 November 23"". University of East Anglia – Communications Office. 23 November 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
4. ^ "Hackers target leading climate research unit". BBC News. 20 November 2009. The e-mail system of one of the world's leading climate research units has been breached by hackers.
5. ^ Webster, Ben (21 November 2009). "Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University'". The Times. Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming
6. ^ Johnson, Keith (November 23, 2009). "Climate Emails Stoke Debate:Scientists' Leaked Correspondence Illustrates Bitter Feud over Global Warming". U.S. NEWS. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 24 November 2009.
7. ^ "Hacked E-Mails Fuel Global Warming Debate". wired.com. Retrieved 2009-11-25. {{cite web}}: Text "Threat Level" ignored (help); Text "Wired.com" ignored (help)
8. ^ "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-11-24. Cite error: The named reference "Guardian 20 Nov" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
9. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". The New York Times.
10. ^ Moore, Matthew. Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims. The Telegraph, 24 November 2009.
11. ^ "Chair for climate e-mail review", BBC News, 3 December 2009, accessed 5 December.
12. ^ Hickman, Leo, "Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails", November 23, 2009, The Guardian. Retrieved November 25, 2009.
13. ^ Published: 8:00AM GMT 21 Nov 2009. "Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'". Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-11-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
14. ^ Stringer, David (21 November 2009). "Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate". The Associated Press.
15. ^ Staff (22 November 2009). "Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling". The Associated Press.
16. "Hacked climate emails called a smear campaign". www.reuters.com. Retrieved 2009-11-26. {{cite web}}: Text "Reuters" ignored (help)
17. ^ Hickman, Leo, "and agencies", "Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims", November 24, 2009, The Guardian. Retrieved November 25, 2009.
18. ^ "Professor at centre of climate change email row stands down temporarily". The Daily Telegraph. 2009-12-01. Archived from the original on 2009-12-04. Retrieved 2009-12-01. 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.
19. ^ "CRU Update 1 December". University of East Anglia – Communications Office. 1 December 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
20. ^ Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". The Washington Post.
21. Schmidt, Gavin (23 November 2009). "The CRU hack: Context". RealClimate.
22. McIntyre, Steve (23 November 2009). ""A miracle just happened"". Climate Audit.
23. Taylor, Matthew; Arthur, Charles (27 November 2009). "Climate email hackers had access for more than a month". The Guardian.
24. ^ Stewart, Will; Delgado, Martin (2009-12-06). "Emalis that rocked climate change campaign leaked from Siberian 'closed city' university built by KGB". Daily Mail.
25. ^ Webster, Ben (2009-12-06). "Climategate controversy has echoes of Watergate, UN says". The Times.
26. Gardner, Timothy (Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:07 pm EST). "Hacked climate e-mails awkward, not game changer". Green Business. Reuters. Retrieved 24 November 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
27. ^ "University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes". The Daily Telegraph. 23 November 2009. Retrieved 25 November 2009.
28. "The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?". Time. 2009-12-07. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
29. "Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context". The Times. 2009-12-08. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
30. "CRU update 2". University of East Anglia. 2009-11-24. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
31. "Myth vs. Fact Regarding the 'Hockey Stick' - response to comment 4". Real Climate. 2009-12-22. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
32. Philadelphia Inquirer, December 3, 2009: Penn State professor: Research is sound, last accessed 20091207
33. ^ "The CRU hack". RealClimate. 2009-11-20. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
34. ^ "Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails", Wall Street Journal, 24 November 2009.
35. Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms
36. 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
37. Matt Dempsey (November 23, 2009). "Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show". The Inhofe EPW Press Blog. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |accesstime= ignored (help)
38. ^ Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away, by George Monbiot, The Guardian, 25 November 2009
39. ^ "Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data", The Times, 5 December 2009, accessed t December 2009.
40. ^ David Batty and agencies, "[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/05/met-office-publish-climate-data Met Office to publish climate change data amid fraud claims", The Guardian, 5 December 2009, accessed 6 December 2009.
41. "Release of global-average temperature data", Met Office press release, accessed December 6, 2009.
42. "UK Met Office to publish climate record", CNN, 6 December 2009, accessed 6 December 2009.
43. "UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row". BBC. 2009-12-04. Retrieved 2009-12-04. The head of the UN's climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated
44. Naughton, Philippe (2009-12-04). "UN panel promises to investigate leaked 'climategate' e-mails". The Times. Retrieved 2009-12-04. The United Nations panel on climate change has promised to investigate claims that scientists at a British university deliberately manipulated data to support the theory of man-made global warming {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
45. "Statement by Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, United Kingdom" (PDF). IPCC. 2009-12-04. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
46. "IPCC Chairman statement on news reports regarding hacking of the East Anglia University email communications" (PDF). IPCC. 2009-12-04. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
47. John M. Broder (December 1, 2009). "Climatologist Leaves Post in Inquiry Over E-Mail Leaks". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-12-06.
48. "University Reviewing Recent Reports on Climate Information". College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, Pennsylvania State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-12-06. Retrieved 2009-12-06.
49. ^ Genaro C. Armas, Associated Press (December 3, 2009). "Penn St. prof. welcomes climate change scrutiny". Google. Archived from the original on 2009-12-06. Retrieved 2009-12-06.
50. Bailey, Ronald. The Scientific Tragedy of Climategate Reason. 1 December 2009. "Pennsylvania State University has announced that it will investigate the activities of researcher Michael Mann, who worked closely with the CRU and several times expressed in the leaked emails his desire to stifle the scientific work of researchers with whom he disagreed."
51. "Stolen E-Mails Sharpen a Brawl Between Climate Scientists and Skeptics - NYTimes.com". www.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2009-11-25.
52. , Reuters, 23 November 2009, accessed 7 December 2009.
53. "James Hansen: Climate Change Evidence 'Overwhelming,' Hacked E-mails 'Indicate Poor Judgement' - The Human Condition Blog - Newsweek.com". newsweek.com. Retrieved 2009-11-26.
54. Curry, Judith, quoted from her e-mail in "Curry: On the credibility of climate research", blog post, November 22, 2009, Climate Review blog. Retrieved November 24, 2009.
55. "Hans von Storch". Coast.gkss.de. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05. Retrieved 2009-11-28.
56. "AAAS Reaffirms Statements on Climate Change and Integrity". American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2009-12-04. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
57. "Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change". American Meteorological Society. 25 November 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05.
58. "Contrarians Using Hacked E-mails to Attack Climate Science". 23 November 2009.
59. George Monbiot.Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see
60. Moore, Matthew. "Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
61. McMillan, Robert (20 November 2009). "Global warming research exposed after hack". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26.
62. Gordon Brown (6 dec 2009). "Copenhagen must be a turning point. Our children won't forgive us if we fail". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-12-07. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
63. "United States Senator James Inhofe : Press Room". Inhofe.senate.gov. Retrieved 2009-11-28.
64. STRASSEL, KIMBERLEY A. (NOVEMBER 26, 2009). "'Cap and Trade Is Dead'". Opinion. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 27 November 2009. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
65. "Queen's speech debate: climate change". BBC News. 24 November 2009.
66. Freedman, Andrew (23 November 2009). "Science historian reacts to hacked climate e-mails". The Washington Post.
67. McCarthy, Michael; Owen, Jonathan (2009-12-06). "Climate change conspiracies: Stolen emails used to ridicule global warming". The Independent.

• Climate change assessment and attribution
• Environmental controversies
• Climate change
• Global warming
• Environmental skepticism
• Ethics of science and technology
• Computer security
• 2009 in science
• 2009 in England