Climatic Research Unit email controversy information
2009 controversy
Climatic Research Unit email controversy
Date
17 November 2009
Location
Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia
Also known as
"Climategate"
Inquiries
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK)[1] Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK) International Science Assessment Panel (UK) Pennsylvania State University (US) United States Environmental Protection Agency (US) Department of Commerce (US)
Verdict
Exoneration or withdrawal of all major or serious charges
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")[2][3] began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker,[4][5] copying thousands of emails and computer files (the Climatic Research Unit documents) to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.
The story was first broken by climate change denialists,[6][7] who argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.[8][9] The CRU rejected this, saying that the emails had been taken out of context.[10][11] FactCheck.org reported that climate change deniers misrepresented the contents of the emails.[12] Columnist James Delingpole popularised the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.[13]
The mainstream media picked up the story, as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7December 2009.[14] Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.[15] In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding: "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway... it is a growing threat to society".[16]
Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[17] The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.[18]
^Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (28 September 2010). Government Response to the House of Commons Science and Technology 8th Report of Session 2009–10: The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia(PDF). The Stationery Office. ISBN 978-0-10-179342-1. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 July 2013. Retrieved 14 October 2010.
^Chameides, Bill. "Climategate Redux". Scientific American, 30 August 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2011.
^"Closing the Climategate. Nature Archived 20 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine". Nature. 18 November 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2011.
^Pooley 2010, p. 425: "Climategate broke in November, when a cache of e-mails was hacked from a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England." See: Pooley, Eric (2010). The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth. Hyperion Books. ISBN 1-4013-2326-X; Karatzogianni 2010: "Most media representations of the Climategate hack linked the events to other incidents in the past, suggesting a consistent narrative frame which blames the attacks on Russian hackers... Although the Climategate material was uploaded on various servers in Turkey and Saudi Arabia before ending up in Tomsk in Siberia..." Extensive discussion about the media coverage of hacking and climategate in Karatzogianni, Athina. (2010). "Blame it on the Russians: Tracking the Portrayal of Russians During Cyber conflict Incidents Archived 1 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine". Digital Icons: Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media. 4: 128–150. ISSN 2043-7633.
^Cite error: The named reference Norfolk Police was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Leiserowitz was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^McKie, Robin (9 November 2019). "Climategate 10 years on: what lessons have we learned?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 4 July 2021. Retrieved 21 May 2020.
^Cite error: The named reference HickmanRanderson2009-11-20 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Somaiya, Ravi (7 July 2010). "Third Inquiry Clears 'Climategate' Scientists of Serious Wrongdoing Archived 21 January 2011 at the Wayback Machine". Newsweek. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "For sceptics, the 1,000 or so e-mails and documents hacked last year from the Climactic [sic] Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA), in England, establish that global warming is a scientific conspiracy ... Climategate, now a firmly established "gate," will probably continue to be cited as evidence of a global-warming conspiracy"; Efstathiou Jr., Jim; Alex Morales (2 December 2009). "UK climate scientist steps down after email flap Archived 29 November 2011 at the Wayback Machine". Bloomberg. LiveMint. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "The emails, dating back as far as 1996, have been cited by sceptics of man’s contribution to global warming as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data to support research... They’re conspiring to keep papers out of published journals," Marc Morano, a climate sceptic who is editor of a website on the issue, said referring to the emails in a 24 November interview. "You see them as nothing more than a bunch of activists manufacturing science for a political goal."
^Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 15 May 2017. Retrieved 22 August 2017.
^Webster, Ben (21 November 2009). "Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University'". The Times. London. Archived from the original on 3 August 2020. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
^Henig, Jess (10 December 2009). "Climategate". FactCheck.org. Archived from the original on 27 July 2021. Retrieved 21 June 2020.
^Cite error: The named reference Delingpole1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Cite error: The named reference Fox1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^Winter, Brian (25 November 2009) ""Scientist: Leaked climate e-mails a distraction" Archived 5 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine. USA Today. Retrieved 12 May 2011. "A controversy over leaked e-mails exchanged among global warming scientists is part of a 'smear campaign' to derail next month's United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, one of the scientists, meteorologist Michael Mann, said Tuesday...Climate change sceptics 'don't have the science on their side any more, so they've resorted to a smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen' said Mann";
Feldman, Stacy (25 November 2009). "Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign" Archived 29 July 2021 at the Wayback Machine. Reuters. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen"; Carrington, Damian;
Suzanne Goldenberg (4 December 2009). "Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics Archived 1 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "On the eve of the Copenhagen summit, Saudi Arabia and Republican members of the US Congress have used the emails to claim the need for urgent action to cut carbon emissions has been undermined...The concern for some of those attempting to drive through a global deal is that the sceptics will delay critical decisions by casting doubt over the science at a time when momentum has been gathering towards a historic agreement...'The sceptics have clearly seized upon this as an incident that they can use to their own ends in trying to disrupt the Copenhagen agreements,' said Bob Watson, Defra chief scientist and former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change";
Fimrite, Peter (5 December 2009). "Hacked climate e-mail rebutted by scientists Archived 16 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 12 May 2011. "A group of the nation's top scientists defended research on global climate change Friday against what they called a politically motivated smear campaign designed to foster public doubt about irrefutable scientific facts...'They have engaged in this 11th-hour smear campaign where they have stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context to twist their words and I think this is rather telling,' Mann said";
Carrington, Damian (28 October 2010). "IPCC vice-chair: Attacks on climate science echo tobacco industry tactics Archived 23 September 2016 at the Wayback Machine". The Guardian. Retrieved 13 May 2011. "The attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were 'organised' to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry, according to the vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)... 'It is a very similar process to what the tobacco industry was doing 30 or 40 years ago, when they wanted to delay legislation, and that is the result of research – not my subjective evaluation – by Prof Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.' Oreskes, a science historian at the University of California San Diego, told The Guardian she agreed with Van Ypersele's that the attacks on climate science were organised: 'Many of us were expecting something to happen in the run-up [to Copenhagen]. When it happened, the only thing that surprised me was that, compared with the events we documented in our book, the attacks had crossed the line into illegality.'"
^Henig, Jess (2009). "FactCheck: Climategate Doesn't Refute Global Warming Archived 17 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine". Newsweek. 11 December.
^The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Archived 4 November 2021 at the Wayback Machine (UK); Independent Climate Change Review Archived 4 November 2021 at the Wayback Machine (UK); International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency Archived 31 October 2021 at the Wayback Machine (US); Department of Commerce Archived 27 July 2013 at the Wayback Machine (US); National Science Foundation (US).
^Biello, David (Feb 2010). "Negating 'Climategate' Archived 1 November 2013 at the Wayback Machine". Scientific American. (302):2. 16. ISSN 0036-8733. "In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame";
See also: Lubchenco, Jane (2 December 2009) House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (House Select Committee). "The Administration's View on the State of Climate Science Archived 7 November 2018 at the Wayback Machine". House Hearing, 111 Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. "...the e-mails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses of thousands of scientists around the world that tell us that the Earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activities." As quoted in the report published by Office of Inspector General.
and 24 Related for: Climatic Research Unit email controversy information
International." On November 23, 2009, as the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy emerged, Inhofe said the emails confirmed his view that scientists were...
terms emailcontroversy or email scandal might refer to any of the following: Okinawa emailcontroversy, US Military (2001) ClimaticResearchUnitemail controversy...
The ClimaticResearchUnit (CRU) is a component of the University of East Anglia and is one of the leading institutions concerned with the study of natural...
independent investigation into allegations concerning the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy. The inquiry reported on 7 July 2010, largely clearing...
instrumental temperature records, particularly during the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy which began in November 2009. The UK Freedom of Information...
graph. The last few chapters discussed the then-current ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy ("Climategate"). The book received a number of positive...
was part of a research group confirming the hockey stick graph reconstruction. At the outset of the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy (Climategate)...
Delingpole popularised the term "Climategate" referring to the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy. He also said that he does not have a science degree, but...
November 2009, Morano was one of the first to break the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy story after being contacted by Anthony Watts. The story...
green energy alternatives." After the election and the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy, Palin spoke at a 2010 California logging conference calling...
frequently promoting skepticism of climate science, citing the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy to argue that the scientific consensus on climate change...
Jan Hryniak The Trick (film), a 2021 BBC film about the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy Trick (novel), a 2015 novel by Natalia Jaster Tricks, a...
established in November 2009, a week after the start of the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy, with its headquarters in a room of the Institute of Materials...
involved in the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy ("Climategate") in 2009 claimed that researchers faked the data in their research publications and...
Committee, Stringer participated in the investigation into the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy ("Climategate") in 2010, questioning Phil Jones closely...
that critics have called into question" in light of the ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy. In August 2007, a new utility, WikiScanner, revealed that...
criticizing research of climate change in the Arctic without disclosing Milloy's financial ties to the fossil fuel industry. During the ClimaticResearchUnit email...
the Copenhagen climate conference. This "ClimaticResearchUnitemailcontroversy" involved the leak of emails from climate scientists. Many of these scientists...