Content deleted Content added
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk | contribs) AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climategate scandal |
ChrisO~enwiki (talk | contribs) redirecting per WP:BLP |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident]] |
|||
<!-- Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled --> |
|||
{{AfDM|page=Climategate scandal|logdate=2009 December 28|substed=yes}} |
|||
<!-- For administrator use only: {{oldafdfull|page=Climategate scandal|date=28 December 2009|result='''keep'''}} --> |
|||
<!-- End of AfD message, feel free to edit beyond this point --> |
|||
"'''Climategate'''" is an informal term for a controversy that arose in November, 2009 following the unauthorized publication of electronic files on the subject of [[climate change]] research that had been obtained from a server used by the [[Climatic Research Unit]] (CRU) of the [[University of East Anglia]] (UEA) in [[Norwich]], England. |
|||
==Hacking incident== |
|||
{{main|Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident}} |
|||
Unknown persons anonymously published, through multiple websites, thousands of e-mails and other documents archived over the course of 13 years,<ref name="UEA 23 Nov" /> which the university and police authorities have since said were illegally obtained.<ref name="UEA 23 Nov" /><ref name="wired 20 Nov" /><ref name="ABC Collins Dec 9" /> |
|||
[[Raymond Pierrehumbert]] of the [[University of Chicago]], expressed concern at the precedent established by hacking scientific documents: "[T]his is a criminal act of vandalism and of harassment of a group of scientists that are only going about their business doing science. It represents a whole new escalation in the war on climate scientists who are only trying to get at the truth... What next? Deliberate monkeying with data on servers? Insertion of bugs into climate models?"<ref name="Revkin Nov 22" /> |
|||
==Content of the documents== |
|||
The stolen material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented [[source code]], covering a period from 1996 until 2009.<ref name="Reuters 23 Nov" /> Some e-mails included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change skeptics, unflattering comments about skeptics, queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers,<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov" /> and discussions that some pundits and commentators said advocate keeping scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature.<ref name="WSJ 23 Nov" /> Most of the e-mails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research. |
|||
The controversy that arose involved a small number of e-mails, particularly those sent to or from climatologists [[Phil Jones (climatologist)|Phil Jones]], the head of the CRU, and [[Michael E. Mann]] of [[Pennsylvania State University]] (PSU), one of the originators of the graph of temperature trends dubbed the "[[hockey stick graph]]".<ref name="PI Dec 8" /> There is also discussion proposing to destroy various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.<ref name="Moore 24 Nov" /> |
|||
The files also included temperature research software and documentation<ref name="CBS-McCullagh">{{cite web|title=Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml|publisher=[[CBS News]]}}</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=[[BBC Newsnight]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-email-mess-hits-australia-20091204-kb39.html|title=Climate email mess hits Australia|publisher=[[Sydney Morning Herald]]}}</ref> that some said were poorly designed<ref name="newsnight-code"/> and buggy,<ref name="CBS-McCullagh"/><ref>[http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/24/taking_liberties/entry5761180.shtml Congress May Probe Leaked Global Warming E-Mails] by [[Declan McCullagh]], November 24, 2009</ref> with "readme" comments described in various editorials and blogs to indicate that the software hid and manipulated data.<ref name="CBS-McCullagh"/><ref name="WashTimes1127">{{cite web|title=The global-cooling cover-up|url=http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/27/the-global-cooling-cover-up/?feat=home_editorials|publisher=[[Washington Times]]}}</ref><ref>{{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=[[Network World]]}}</ref> |
|||
==Terminology== |
|||
:{{main|List of scandals with "-gate" suffix}} |
|||
The term "Climategate" is a reference to the [[Watergate scandal]], used to suggest that there the incident is the subject of a scandal. [[London Daily Telegraph]] commentator [[Christopher Booker]] credits the appearance of the term to a news blog post<ref>{{cite news|publisher=Daily Telegraph|url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/|author=James Delingpole|date=2009-11-20|Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?}}</ref> written by his colleague, [[James Delingpole]].<ref>{{cite news|publisher=Daily Telegraph|title=Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation|author=Christopher Booker|date=2009-10-29|url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html}}</ref> |
|||
==Controversy== |
|||
A controversy arose after allegations were made that climate scientists [[collusion|colluded]]<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 it from being revealed under the United States [[Freedom of information legislation|Freedom of Information Act]],<ref name="BBC 3 Dec" /> and manipulated data, all to make the case for the human influence on [[global warming]] appear stronger than it would otherwise appear.<ref name="BBC 3 Dec" /> |
|||
===Specific emails=== |
|||
*An email authored by Phil Jones on 16 November 1999 described a "''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" /><ref name="Telegraph" /> Some critics cited this sentence as evidence of manipulation of temperature statistics,<ref name="Guardian 20 Nov" /><ref name="Telegraph 23 Nov" /><ref name="Telegraph" /> although serveral scientific sources said that "decline" refers to replacing [[tree ring]] "proxy" metrics with actual temperature measurements, to deal with a "[[divergence problem]]" by which tree ring-derived temperature estimates had begun to diverge from actual temperatures.<ref name="inquirer_20091203"/><ref name="UEA 24 Nov" /><ref name="Time 7 Dec" /><ref name="Time 7 Dec" />}} Others said that the term "trick" refers to a valid technique, not an act of deception. |
|||
*An email from MMichael ann on 11 March 2003 questioned the viability of ''Climate Research'' as a citable peer-reviewed scientific journal, because he considered it activist.<ref name="wsjms" /> <ref name="Climate Research Editorial" /> |
|||
* An email from Jones to Mann called one of Mann's papers "just garbage" and pledged to "keep them out" of an upcoming IPCC report, "even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"<ref name="NZ Herald 28 Nov"/> |
|||
*An email from Jones to Mann on 2 February, 2005 contains a statement that Jones would "delete the file rather than send to anyone" should there be a UK equivalent of an American Freedom of Information Act request.<ref name="wsj_2009-11-24" /> There was no actual information request made and no claim that data was actually deleted. |
|||
*An email written by climatologist Kevin Trenberth, 12 October, 2009, discussed an inability to "account for the lack of warming at the moment".<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov" /> Trenberth told the [[Associated Press]] that the phrase was used in reference to an article he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data.<ref name="AP 22 Nov" /> 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" /> |
|||
===Initial response=== |
|||
In an interview with ''[[The Guardian]]'', Jones confirmed that the e-mails that had sparked the most controversy appeared to be genuine.<ref name="Guardian 24 Nov" /> |
|||
Climate scientists issued rebuttals and described the incident as a smear campaign,<ref name="Reuters 25 Nov" /> accusing the climate change "skeptics" of selectively quoting words and phrases out of context from the electronic files in an attempt to sabotage the [[2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference|Copenhagen global climate summit]].<ref name="AP 22 Nov" /> |
|||
On November 24 the University of East Anglia issued a statement on the contents of the e-mails.<ref name="UEA 01 Dec" /> The statement noted: "There is nothing in the stolen material which indicates that peer-reviewed publications by CRU, and others, on the nature of global warming and related climate change are not of the highest quality of scientific investigation and interpretation. CRU’s peer-reviewed publications are consistent with, and have contributed to, the overwhelming scientific consensus that the climate is being strongly influenced by human activity." |
|||
===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.<ref name="Guardian 23 Nov" /><ref name="Inhofe 23 Nov" /> |
|||
===University of East Anglia response=== |
|||
CRU researchers said in a statement that the e-mails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas.<ref name="WaPo 21 Nov" /> Phil Jones called statements that the e-mails involve "untoward" activity "ludicrous."<ref name="UEA 23 Nov" /> |
|||
Shortly after the release of the e-mails, 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" /> |
|||
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".<ref name="AP 21 Nov" /> |
|||
After initially rejecting demands for Jones to reign, the university announced on 1 December that he would stand aside temporarily as director of the Unit during the university's investigation.<ref name="UEA 01 Dec" /><ref name="Telegraph 01 Dec" /> Two days later, the university announced that [[Sir Muir Russell]] would chair a 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" /> |
|||
[[George Monbiot]] strongly criticized the [[University of East Anglia|UEA]]'s response, calling it "a total trainwreck: a textbook example of how not to respond."<ref name="Monbiot 11-25" /> 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."<ref name="Monbiot 11-25" /> |
|||
===Met Office response=== |
|||
On December 5, after initially saying there was no need for an inquiry,<ref name="Guardian 23 Nov" /> the [[Met Office]], a [[United Kingdom|UK]] agency which works with the CRU in providing global-temperature information, indicated their intention to re-examine 160 years of temperature data, to confirm its understanding of global warming.<ref name="times online 05 Dec 09">[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6945445.ece "Met Office to re-examine 160 years of climate data"], ''[[The Times]]'', 5 December 2009, accessed t December 2009.</ref> as well as to release temperature records for over 1000 worldwide weather stations online.<ref name="Guardian 05 Dec 09">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 newspaper|The Guardian]]'', 5 December 2009, accessed 6 December 2009.</ref><ref>[http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091205.html "Release of global-average temperature data]", [[Met Office]] press release, accessed December 6, 2009.</ref><ref name="Guardian 05 Dec 09" /><ref name="CNN 6 Dec">[http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/05/climate.data.met.office/ "UK Met Office to publish climate record"], [[CNN]], 6 December 2009, accessed 6 December 2009.</ref> |
|||
===Other responses=== |
|||
Dr. [[Rajendra K. Pachauri|Rajendra Pachauri]], chairman of the [[Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]], told the BBC that he considered the affair to be "a serious issue and we will look into it in detail."<ref name="BBC 4 Dec" /> 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" /> He characterized the scientists involved as "victims of [a] terrible and illegal act" done to influence political talks on climate change.<ref name="Age Dec 10" /> |
|||
Michael E. Mann, director of [[Pennsylvania State University]]'s Earth System Science Center said that sceptics were "taking these words totally out of context to make something trivial appear nefarious"<ref name="WaPo 21 Nov" /> and called the incident a "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem".<ref name="NYTimes 24 Nov" /> [[Pennsylvania State University]] announced it would review the work of Mann, in particular material not already been addressed in an earlier [[National Academy of Sciences]] [[Hockey stick controversy#National Research Council Report|review]] that 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"/><ref name="AP 03 Dec"/> |
|||
Trenberth stated that climate change sceptics had selectively quoted words and phrases out of context in an attempt to sabotage the [[2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference|Copenhagen global climate summit]] in December.<ref name="AP 22 Nov" /> |
|||
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Working Group I 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. The statement noted 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".<ref name="IPCC WGI" /><ref name="IPCC RKP" /> |
|||
==Reactions to the controversy== |
|||
===Public reaction=== |
|||
In the wake of the controversy, a number of scientists became the target of harassment, including death threats. [[Tom Wigley]], a former director of the CRU and now head of the US [[National Center for Atmospheric Research]], condemned threats that he and other colleagues had received as "truly stomach-turning", and commented: "None of it affects the science one iota."<ref name="Guardian 8 Dec" /> In relation to the harassment that he and his colleagues were experiencing, he noted: "This sort of thing has been going on at a much lower level for almost 20 years and there have been other outbursts of this sort of behaviour - criticism and abusive emails and things like that in the past. So this is a worse manifestation but it's happened before so it's not that surprising."<ref name="ABC Collins Dec 9" /> |
|||
Some of the scientists involved said that not only the release of the email, but the subsequent controversy about climate change and intimidation of scientists involved, seemed to have been deliberately orchestrated. [[David Karoly]] of the [[University of Melbourne]], reported receiving numerous hate e-mails in the wake of the incident and said that he believed there was "an organised campaign to discredit individual climate scientists". [[Andrew Pitman]] of the [[University of New South Wales]] commented: "The major problem is that scientists have to be able to communicate their science without fear or favour and there seems to be a well-orchestrated campaign designed to intimidate some scientists."<ref name="ABC O'Neill Dec 9" /> |
|||
===Climatologists=== |
|||
Some prominent climate scientists, such as [[Richard Somerville]], called the incident a smear campaign.<ref name="Reuters 25 Nov" /> |
|||
[[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."<ref name="NYTimes 20 Nov" /> He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at the December 2009 [[2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference|Copenhagen global climate summit]].<ref name="AP 22 Nov" /> |
|||
The author and climatologist [[David Reay]] of the [[University of Edinburgh]] noted that the CRU "is just one of many climate-research institutes that provide the underlying scientific basis for climate policy at national and international levels. The conspiracy theorists may be having a field day, but if they really knew academia they would also know that every published paper and data set is continually put through the wringer by other independent research groups. The information that makes it into the IPCC reports is some of the most rigorously tested and debated in any area of science."<ref name="Guardian 8 Dec" /> |
|||
====Concern over actions of scientists==== |
|||
Climatologist [[Hans von Storch]]<ref name="Storch" /> 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.<ref name="wsjms" /> Judith Curry, a climatologist at the [[Georgia Institute of Technology]] in Atlanta wrote that the e-mails reflect a lack of openness about scientific data and an attack on dissenting opinions: "[I]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 [...]"<ref name="climatereview" /> |
|||
===Perception of climate change research=== |
|||
====Political perception==== |
|||
[[United Nations Secretary-General]] [[Ban Ki-moon]] rejected the view that the leaked e-mails had damaged the credibility of climate science. Speaking at the Copenhagen conference on climate change, he said: "Nothing that has come out in the public as a result of the recent email hackings has cast doubt on the basic scientific message on climate change and that message is quite clear – that climate change is happening much, much faster than we realized and we human beings are the primary cause."<ref name="Reuters Dec 8" /> |
|||
British [[Prime Minister of the United Kingdom|Prime Minister]] [[Gordon Brown]] said that there is no doubt about the scientific evidence that underpins the Copenhagen conference: "Its landmark importance cannot be wished away by the theft of a few emails from one university research centre." Brown commented that the purpose of the climate change skeptics' campaign was clear, and its timing was no coincidence. "It is designed to destabilise and undermine the efforts of the countries gathering in Copenhagen."<ref name="Gordon Brown 2009-12-06"/> |
|||
During a press briefing on December 7, [[White House Press Secretary]] [[Robert Gibbs]] said, "I think scientists are clear on the science. I think many on [[United States Capitol|Capitol Hill]] are clear on the science. I think that this notion that there is some debate ... on the science is kind of silly."<ref name="asiaone_20091208">AsiaOne News, December 8, 2009 [http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne%2BNews/World/Story/A1Story20091208-184594.html Climate-gate global warming doubts 'silly': White House], last accessed 20091208</ref> |
|||
[[Saudi Arabia|Saudi Arabia's]] lead climate negotiator Mohammad Al-Sabban said he thought the incident will have a "huge impact" on the Copenhagen conference. "It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told [[BBC News]] the week before the summit.<ref name="BBC 4 Dec" /> |
|||
During the annual [[Queen's Speech]] debate in the [[House of Commons of the United Kingdom|House of Commons]] on 24 November 2009, the former [[Conservative Party (UK)|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."<ref name="BBC 24 Nov" /> |
|||
Oklahoma Senator [[Jim Inhofe]], an outspoken sceptic of climate change,<ref name="Inhofe Press Room" /> said "Ninety-five percent of the nails were in the coffin prior to this week. Now they are all in."<ref name="WSJ2 Cap and trade is dead" /> Inhofe stated on [[Fox News]] that an official investigation action has commenced, and that it will have an effect on the "[[Cap_and_trade|Cap and Trade]]" legistlation.<ref>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6_HsY3_QWA James Inhofe on Fox News</ref> |
|||
====Scientific community perception==== |
|||
In response to the incident, 1,700 British scientists signed a joint statement circulated by the UK [[Met Office]] declaring their "utmost confidence in the observational evidence for global warming and the scientific basis for concluding that it is due primarily to human activities."<ref name="Times statement Dec 9" /> Met Office chief executive [[John Hirst (executive)|John Hirst]] and its chief scientist [[Julia Slingo]] asked their colleagues to sign the statement "to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change."<ref name="Times Webster Dec 9" /> |
|||
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."<ref name="AMS clarification" /> |
|||
The [[American Geophysical Union]] issued a statement expressing concern that the emails were "being exploited to distort the scientific debate about the urgent issue of climate change" and reaffirming their 2007 position statement<ref>[http://www.agu.org/sci_pol/positions/climate_change2008.shtml Agu.org]</ref> with regard to human influences on climate. They stated that "Science and the scientific method is seldom a linear march to the 'correct' and indisputable answer. Disagreement among scientists is part of the energy that moves inquiry forward."<ref>[http://www.agu.org/news/archives/2009-12-08_hacked-emails-climate-researchshtml.shtml Agu.org]</ref> |
|||
Climatologist [[James Hansen]] said that the controversy has "no effect on the science" and that while some of the e-mails reflect poor judgment, the evidence for human-made climate change is overwhelming.<ref name="Newsweek blog James Hanse 25 Nov" /> |
|||
==See also== |
|||
* [[Global warming controversy]] |
|||
* [[Climate change in the United Kingdom]] |
|||
* [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident]] |
|||
==References== |
|||
{{Reflist|2|refs= |
|||
<ref name="BBC 4 Dec">{{cite web|title=UN body wants probe of climate e-mail row|work=[[BBC]]|date=2009-12-04|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394483.stm|accessdate=2009-12-09|quote=Dr Pachauri told BBC Radio 4's The Report programme that the claims were serious and he wants them investigated.}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Moore 24 Nov">Moore, Matthew. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6637006/Climate-change-scientists-face-calls-for-public-inquiry-over-data-manipulation-claims.html Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims]. ''[[The Daily Telegraph]]'', 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=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|accessdate=24 November 2009}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Guardian 24 Nov">Hickman, Leo, "and agencies", [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/24/climate-professor-leaked-emails-uea "Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims"], November 24, 2009, ''[[The Guardian]]''. Retrieved November 25, 2009.</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Reuters 25 Nov">{{cite web |url=http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125 |title=Hacked climate emails called a smear campaign |publisher= [[Reuters]] |accessdate=2009-11-26 }}</ref> |
|||
<!-- |
|||
<ref name="McMillan">{{cite news|last=McMillan|first=Robert|title= |
|||
Global warming research exposed after hack|url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9141258/Global_warming_research_exposed_after_hack?taxonomyId=82|work=[[Computerworld]]|date=20 November 2009 |
|||
| accessdate = 2009-11-26 |
|||
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5lYvpuNz1 |
|||
| archivedate = 2009-11-26 |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
--> |
|||
<ref name="AP 21 Nov">{{cite news|last=Stringer|first=David|title=Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ikaqlFpp9jCRHWN0zNuamKXfyeMgD9C441LG0|agency=[[The Associated Press]]|date=21 November 2009}}</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=[[The Washington Post]]|date=21 November 2009}}</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 pm EST|work=Green Business|publisher=[[Reuters]]|accessdate=24 November 2009}}</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=[[The New York Times]]|date=20 November 2009}}</ref> |
|||
<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=[[Wired.com]] |accessdate=2009-11-25 }}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="wsjms">"[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125902685372961609.html Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails]", ''[[Wall Street Journal]]'', 24 November 2009.</ref> |
|||
<ref name="wired 20 Nov" /> |
|||
<ref name="climatereview">Curry, Judith, quoted from her e-mail in [http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7826#more-7826 "Curry: On the credibility of climate research"], blog post, November 22, 2009, ''Climate Review'' blog. Retrieved November 24, 2009.</ref> |
|||
<ref name="NYTimes 24 Nov">{{cite news |url=http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/11/24/24climatewire-stolen-e-mails-sharpen-a-brawl-between-clima-19517.html |title=Stolen E-Mails Sharpen a Brawl Between Climate Scientists and Skeptics - NYTimes.com |publisher=www.nytimes.com |accessdate=2009-11-25 }}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="AP 22 Nov">{{cite news | last=Staff | title=Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling|url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9MrjlmXzORMlHNvYfE9yAlgtiBwD9C4NMP80|agency=[[The Associated Press]]|date=22 November 2009}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Gordon Brown 2009-12-06">{{cite web |url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/06/gordon-brown-climate-change-copenhagen |title=Copenhagen must be a turning point. Our children won't forgive us if we fail|author=Gordon Brown |publisher=[[The Guardian]] |date=6 dec 2009|accessdate=2009-12-07}}</ref> |
|||
<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=[[The Guardian]] |date= |accessdate=2009-11-24}}</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=[[The Daily Telegraph]] |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 = [[The Guardian]] | 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=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|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="Newsweek blog James Hanse 25 Nov">{{cite web |url=http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thehumancondition/archive/2009/11/25/james-hansen-climate-change-evidence-overwhelming-hacked-emails-indicate-poor-judgement.aspx |title=James Hansen: Climate Change Evidence 'Overwhelming,' Hacked E-mails 'Indicate Poor Judgement' - The Human Condition Blog - Newsweek.com |publisher=[[Newsweek]] |accessdate=2009-11-26 }}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="BBC 24 Nov">{{cite news|title=Queen's speech debate: climate change|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/house_of_commons/newsid_8370000/8370940.stm|date=24 November 2009|publisher=[[BBC News]]}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="BBC 3 Dec">"[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8393449.stm Chair for climate e-mail review]", ''[[BBC News]]'', 3 December 2009, accessed 5 December.</ref> |
|||
<ref name="UEA 23 Nov">{{cite web|url=https://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRU-update|title=Climatic Research Unit update - 17.45 November 23|publisher=[[University of East Anglia]] – Communications Office|date=23 November 2009|accessdate=2009-12-05|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lnKwmBZL|archivedate= 2009-12-05}}</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=[[University of East Anglia]] – Communications Office |date=1 December 2009 |accessdate=2009-12-05 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lnKYt5cA |archivedate= 2009-12-05}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="WSJ2 Cap and trade is dead">{{cite news|url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558070997168360.html|title='Cap and Trade Is Dead' |last=Strassel|first=Kimberley A. |date=November 26, 2009<!--, 6:52 P.M. ET-->|work=Opinion|publisher=[[The Wall Street Journal]]|accessdate=27 November 2009}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="AMS clarification">{{cite web|title=Impact of CRU Hacking on the AMS Statement on Climate Change|url=http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeclarify.html|publisher=American Meteorological Society|date=25 November 2009|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lnFDGhdZ|archivedate=2009-12-05}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Monbiot 11-25"> [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away], by George Monbiot, [[The Guardian]], 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|accesstime=November 29, 2009|archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lnFdZDUX|archivedate=2009-12-05}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Guardian 23 Nov">Hickman, Leo, [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/23/climate-sceptics-bob-ward-nigel-lawson "Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails"], November 23, 2009, ''[[The Guardian]]''. Retrieved November 25, 2009.</ref> |
|||
<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=[[The Daily Telegraph]]|accessdate=25 November 2009}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Storch" >{{cite web|url=http://coast.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/ |title=Hans von Storch |publisher=Coast.gkss.de |date= |accessdate=2009-11-28 |archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5lnG6nbG4 |archivedate=2009-12-05}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Climate Research Editorial">[http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms]</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Inhofe Press Room">{{cite web|url=http://inhofe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=fc75f88e-802a-23ad-4965-7b6785e45988&Region_id=&Issue_id= |title=United States Senator James Inhofe : Press Room |publisher=Inhofe.senate.gov |date= |accessdate=2009-11-28}}</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=[[New York Times]] |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, [[Associated Press]] | date=December 3, 2009 | accessdate=2009-12-06 | archiveurl=http://www.webcitation.org/5loJCAUIi | archivedate=2009-12-06 }}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="inquirer_20091203">[[Philadelphia Inquirer]], December 3, 2009: [http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world_us/78395917.html Penn State professor: Research is sound], last accessed 20091207</ref> |
|||
<ref name="IPCC RKP">{{cite web|title=IPCC Chairman statement on news reports regarding hacking of the East Anglia University email communications|work=[[IPCC]]|date=2009-12-04|url=http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/rkp-statement-4dec09.pdf|accessdate=2009-12-08}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="IPCC WGI">{{cite web|title=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 |work=[[IPCC]]|date=2009-12-04|url=http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/presentations/WGIstatement04122009.pdf|accessdate=2009-12-08}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Guardian 8 Dec">{{cite news|last=Ravillious|first=Kate|date=2009-12-08|title=Hacked email climate scientists receive death threats|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/hacked-climate-emails-death-threats|work=[[The Guardian]]}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="PI Dec 8">{{cite news|title=Penn State scientist at center of a storm|url=http://www.sanluisobispo.com/528/story/948544.html|last=Flam|first=Faye|work=[[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]|date=2009-12-08}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Reuters Dec 8">{{cite news|title=Human role in climate change not in doubt: U.N.'s Ban|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B735X20091208|last=Staff|agency=[[Reuters]]|date=2009-12-08}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="ABC O'Neill Dec 9">{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766874.htm?site=thedrum|title=The ugly side of climate politics|last=O'Neill|first=Margot|work=The Drum|publisher=ABC|date=2009-12-08}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="ABC Collins Dec 9">{{cite news|url=http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2766508.htm|title=Climate scientist receives death threats|last=Collins|first=Antonette|publisher=[[Australian Broadcasting Corporation]]|date=2009-12-08}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Time 7 Dec">{{cite news|url=http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1946082,00.html |title=The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?|work=[[Time Magazine]] |date=2009-12-07 |accessdate=2009-12-08}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="UEA 24 Nov">{{cite web|url=http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/CRUupdate |title=CRU update 2 |publisher=University of East Anglia |date=2009-11-24 |accessdate=2009-12-08}}</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=[[The Age]]|date=2009-12-10 |accessdate=2009-12-09}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Times Webster Dec 9">{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6951029.ece|title=Top scientists rally to the defence of the Met Office|last=Webster|first=Ben|work=[[The Times]]|date=2009-12-09 |accessdate=2009-12-09}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Times statement Dec 9">{{cite news|url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6950783.ece|title=Statement from the UK science community|work=[[The Times]]|date=2009-12-09 |accessdate=2009-12-09}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="Revkin Nov 22">{{cite news|title=Your Dot: On Science and ‘Cyber-Terrorism’|url=http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/your-dot-on-science-and-cyber-terrorism/|last=Revkin|first=Andrew|work=[[The New York Times]]|date=2009-11-22}}</ref> |
|||
<ref name="wsj_2009-11-24">{{Cite news |
|||
| title = Climate Science and Candor |
|||
| newspaper = The Wall Street Journal |
|||
| pages = 1 |
|||
| publisher = [[Dow Jones & Company]] |
|||
| 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> |
|||
<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 = [[The New Zealand Herald]] |
|||
| date = 2009-11-28 |
|||
| accessdate = 2009-12-08 |
|||
| archiveurl = http://www.webcitation.org/5m33TOj7p |
|||
| archivedate = 2009-12-15 |
|||
| quote = |
|||
}}</ref> |
|||
}} |
|||
{{Global warming}} |
|||
{{DEFAULTSORT:Climategate scandal}} |
|||
[[Category:Climate change assessment and attribution]] |
|||
[[Category:Environmental controversies]] |
|||
[[Category:Global warming]] |
|||
[[Category:Environmental skepticism]] |
|||
[[Category:Ethics of science and technology]] |
|||
[[Category:Hacking (computer security)]] |
|||
[[Category:2009 in science]] |
|||
[[Category:2009 in England]] |
|||
[[Category:-gate]] |
Revision as of 02:20, 28 December 2009
Redirect to: