[pending revision] | [pending revision] |
stop the whitewashing please. CRU calls this "data stolen" |
What CRU is calling it is not relevant. Ther'e part in this case and its POV to state things thats not confirmed |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Pp-protected|small=yes}} |
{{Pp-protected|small=yes}} |
||
{{Current|date=November 2009}} |
{{Current|date=November 2009}} |
||
The '''Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident''' (also known as '''Climategate''' <ref name=reuter20091123 /><ref name=cw20091125jtj/><ref name=dagsavisen20091125 /><ref name=nyt20091123ds /><ref name=wtp20091121ja /><ref name=nb20091124sn /><ref name=ajc20091124kw /><ref name=telegraph20091124jd />) took place in November 2009 involving the [[hacker (computer security)|hacking]] of a server used by the [[Climatic Research Unit]] of the [[University of East Anglia]]. The unknown hacker or hackers |
The '''Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident''' (also known as '''Climategate''' <ref name=reuter20091123 /><ref name=cw20091125jtj/><ref name=dagsavisen20091125 /><ref name=nyt20091123ds /><ref name=wtp20091121ja /><ref name=nb20091124sn /><ref name=ajc20091124kw /><ref name=telegraph20091124jd />) took place in November 2009 involving the [[hacker (computer security)|hacking]] of a server used by the [[Climatic Research Unit]] of the [[University of East Anglia]]. The unknown hacker or hackers anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents.<ref name=cw20091125jtj/><ref name="BBC-1120" /><ref name="times-1121"/><ref name="WSJ1"/> |
||
[[Global warming controversy|Climate change sceptics]] have asserted that the private correspondence shows an effort by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.<ref name="Revkin"/> [[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 [[United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009|Copenhagen global climate summit]] in December.<ref name="AP-2009-11-22"/> |
[[Global warming controversy|Climate change sceptics]] have asserted that the private correspondence shows an effort by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.<ref name="Revkin"/> [[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 [[United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009|Copenhagen global climate summit]] in December.<ref name="AP-2009-11-22"/> |
||
The university confirmed that the security breach |
The university confirmed that the security breach took place, but responded that the authenticity of the published texts could not be confirmed quickly,<ref name="Eilperin"/> and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised."<ref name="wired 20 Nov" /> Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating.<ref name="BBC-1120"/> |
||
==Hacking and |
==Hacking and leaked documents== |
||
Unidentified persons [[hack (technology)|hacked]] a server used by the Climatic Research Unit, posting online copies of e-mails and documents that they |
Unidentified persons [[hack (technology)|hacked]] a server used by the Climatic Research Unit, posting online copies of e-mails and documents that they found.<ref name="BBC-1120"/><ref name="McMillan" /> The incident is being investigated by police<ref name="Stringer-AP" /> and involved the theft of more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents,<ref name="Eilperin" /> consisting of 160 [[Megabyte|MB]] of data in total.<ref name="hickman"/> |
||
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.<ref name="Revkin" /> According to [[Gavin Schmidt]] of RealClimate, "At around 6.20am ([[Eastern Standard Time|EST]]) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an [[IP address]] associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file ''FOIA.zip'' to our server."<ref name="RealClimate 23 Nov" /> A link to the file on the RealClimate server was posted from a Russian IP address to the [[Climate Audit]] blog at 7.24 am (EST) with the comment "A miracle just happened".<ref name="ClimateAudit 23 Nov" /> The hack was discovered by RealClimate and the University of East Anglia was notified, but on 19 November the files were uploaded to a Russian server before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.<ref name="hickman"/> An anonymous statement accompanying the e-mails stated: "We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."<ref name="times-1121"/> The stolen material was first publicised on 19 November on ''The Air Vent'', a climate-sceptic [[blog]].<ref name="Revkin" /> |
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.<ref name="Revkin" /> According to [[Gavin Schmidt]] of RealClimate, "At around 6.20am ([[Eastern Standard Time|EST]]) Nov 17th, somebody hacked into the RC server from an [[IP address]] associated with a computer somewhere in Turkey, disabled access from the legitimate users, and uploaded a file ''FOIA.zip'' to our server."<ref name="RealClimate 23 Nov" /> A link to the file on the RealClimate server was posted from a Russian IP address to the [[Climate Audit]] blog at 7.24 am (EST) with the comment "A miracle just happened".<ref name="ClimateAudit 23 Nov" /> The hack was discovered by RealClimate and the University of East Anglia was notified, but on 19 November the files were uploaded to a Russian server before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.<ref name="hickman"/> An anonymous statement accompanying the e-mails stated: "We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."<ref name="times-1121"/> The stolen material was first publicised on 19 November on ''The Air Vent'', a climate-sceptic [[blog]].<ref name="Revkin" /> |
Revision as of 01:38, 26 November 2009
The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident (also known as Climategate [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) took place in November 2009 involving the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia. The unknown hacker or hackers anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents.[2][9][10][11]
Climate change sceptics have asserted that the private correspondence shows an effort by climate scientists to withhold scientific information.[12] 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.[13]
The university confirmed that the security breach took place, but responded that the authenticity of the published texts could not be confirmed quickly,[14] and expressed concern "that personal information about individuals may have been compromised."[15] Details of the incident have been reported to the police, who are investigating.[9]
Hacking 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.[9][16] The incident is being investigated by police[17] and involved the theft of more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents,[14] consisting of 160 MB of data in total.[18]
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.[12] 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."[19] 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".[20] The hack was discovered by RealClimate and the University of East Anglia was notified, but on 19 November the files were uploaded to a Russian server before being copied to numerous locations across the Internet.[18] An anonymous statement accompanying the e-mails stated: "We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it."[10] The stolen material was first publicised on 19 November on The Air Vent, a climate-sceptic blog.[12]
Content of the documents
The stolen material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, and models pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009.[21] It included discussions of scientific data and how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, drafts of scientific papers, keeping scientist who have contrary views out of peer-review literature[22], and talk of destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.[12][23]
On November 24th the UEA-CRU (whose emails were leaked) issued a detailed explanation of the contents of the controversial e-mails.[24]
In one e-mail, as a response to an email 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."[25] According to Fox News, this e-mail "clearly describes how to squeeze dissenting scientists from the peer review process."[26] Hans von Storch also objected to the paper and resigned from his position as editor of Climate Research shortly after it was published, because he felt there was a breakdown in the peer-review process. 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."[25] Von Storch also 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.[25]
An excerpt from one November 1999 email authored by the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, reads, "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] 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."[27][28][29] The RealClimate website, in their response to the CRU hack, offers this explanation of the excerpt:
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.[30]
Several websites of global-warming sceptics quoted a line written by Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussing 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.[12] However, Trenberth told the Associated Press that the phrase was actually used in an article he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data, such as rising sea surface temperatures.[13] 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.[31]
Antonio Regalado, a journalist at Science Magazine, wrote in Science Insider: "[U]niversity researchers may [...] find themselves in legal jeopardy if they deleted emails requested under the U.K.'s Freedom of Information (FOIA) legislation, a crime under U.K. law." The hacker who released the documents used the name "FOIA", Regalado pointed out, adding, "the emails, which appear to be genuine, though their authenticity could not be confirmed, indicate a concerted effort to fight the FOI requests that may itself have slipped into questionable territory." Regalado quoted one purported email said to be sent by Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, to Michael Mann. Jones declined to comment about it, but Mann responded to Regalado, "I did not delete any emails at all in response to Phil Jone's [sic] request, nor did I indicate to him that I would." Regalado wrote that the e-mails showed some scientists were concerned about wasting their time by being drawn into controversies if some of the documents were released in response to FOI requests.[32]
Reactions
Some people have asserted that the e-mails showed scientists had colluded to overstate the case for man-made global warming and manipulated the evidence.[17] Criticism of the content of the e-mails tended to focus on ethical concerns related to the alleged discrediting of sceptics and withholding of information. Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute and a climatologist who has found fault with some of the science girding the consensus on 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."[12]
Myron Ebell, the Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the libertarian think tank 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."[14] Michaels said of the correspondence, "this is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud" and blogger Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit called the revelations "quite breathtaking."[12]
George Monbiot said that while he did not see the vast conspiracy that global warming sceptics saw, he did see this as a "major blow" and that "emails extracted by a hacker from the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia could scarcely be more damaging". Moreover, Monbiot was concerned with the apparent attempts to conceal and even destroy data that was subject to a freedom of information request and the alleged collusion to prevent peer reviewed publication by climate sceptics.[33]
The Washington Post's correspondent Juliet Eilperin wrote that the e-mails revealed "an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies." She commented that the material provides "a rare glimpse into the behind-the-scenes battle to shape the public perception of global warming."[34]
Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta (who has been described as a mainstream scientist on global-warming issues[32]), wrote that the e-mails reflect a problem with scientists lacking openness about their data and attacking those they disagree with: "[I]t is difficult to understand the continued circling of the wagons by some climate researchers with guns pointed at skeptical 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 [...]"[35]
According to the University of East Anglia, the stolen 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".[17]
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.[14] Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, called the charges that the emails involve any "untoward" activity "ludicrous."[36] Michael 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",[14] and called the entire incident a careful, "high-level, orchestrated smear campaign to distract the public about the nature of the climate change problem."[37] 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."[12] He has also said that the theft may be aimed at undermining talks at next month's Copenhagen global climate summit.[13]
Computerworld magazine reported that the CEO of the consultancy Errata Security felt it was likely that an insider was responsible for the incident. It 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' [Medieval Warm Period], 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."[16] 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."[38]
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has "expressed concern that the hacked emails would weaken global resolve to curb greenhouse-gas emissions".[11]
The Daily Telegraph reported that academics and climate change researchers have dismissed allegations from sceptics that the emails are evidence of a collusion or international conspiracy, saying that nothing in the emails proves wrongdoing.[39]
Official inquiries into the contents of the documents
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.[40][41]
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. A spokesman for the Met Office, a government 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."[40]
Columnist George Monbiot, an environmental and political activist, called for the resignation of the CRU head, Phil Jones, saying that, "[These revelations] raise questions about the integrity of one or perhaps two out of several hundred lines of evidence. To bury man-made climate change, a far wider conspiracy would have to be revealed."[33] 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 to 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".[42]
See also
References
- ^ 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
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ a b Johnson, Johna Till (2009-11-23). "Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack". Computerworld. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26.
someone recently dumped a large cache of e-mail files and documents from the University of East Anglia University's prestigious Climactic Research Unit onto the 'Net. [...] Don't let users put passwords in their signatures. Yep, you got that right: One of the scientists included both on his e-mail signature — which means that anyone receiving an e-mail from this guy had access to his files. This may have been the source of the hack; in fact, some folks have theorized that a recipient of the e-mail was the source of the data dump. [...] Another theory behind the supposed "hack" is that the files were compiled in response to a FOIA request
- ^ Iversen, Ivar A. (2009-11-25). "Jakten på «Climategate» (English: The hunt for Climategate)" (in Norwegian). Dagsavisen. Retrieved 2009-11-26.
Dermed var spetakkelet løs, først på ulike klimablogger, etter hvert også i aviser som Wall Street Journal, New York Times og The Guardian. «Climategate» kaller klimaskeptikere innholdet i e-postene.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Dubner, Stephen J. (2009-11-23). "ClimateGate: The Very Ugly Side of Climate Science". Freaconomics blog. New York Times. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26.
But a recent scandal that's been dubbed ClimateGate is showing a very ugly side of climate science, and anyone who clung to that old-fashioned vision of scientists at work will be surprised by the reality.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Joel, Achenback (2009-11-21). "ClimateGate: Waiting for vegetarian overlord response". Achenblog. The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26.
ClimateGate: Waiting for vegetarian overlord response
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
nb20091124sn
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Wingfield, Kyle (2009-11-24). "On the Climategate emails". Kyle Wingfield blog. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26.
On the Climategate emails
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ Delingpole, James (2009-11-24). "Climategate reminds us of the liberal-left's visceral loathing of open debate". James Delingpole blog. The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2009-11-26. Retrieved 2009-11-26.
We have seen plenty examples of that last kind of bullying in the Climategate scandal (Warmergate, as Mark Steyn has wittily christened it: damn! Wish I'd thought of that): scientists ganging up to shut scientists who disagree with them out of the peer-review process; scientists actually gloating over their opponents' deaths.
{{cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=
(help) - ^ a b c "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.
- ^ a b 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
- ^ a b 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.
- ^ a b c d e f g h Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". The New York Times.
- ^ a b c Staff (22 November 2009). "Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling". The Associated Press.
- ^ a b c d e Eilperin, Juliet (21 November 2009). "Hackers steal electronic data from top climate research center". The Washington Post.
- ^ "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) - ^ a b McMillan, Robert (20 November 2009). "Global warming research exposed after hack". Computerworld.
- ^ a b c Stringer, David (21 November 2009). "Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate". The Associated Press.
- ^ a b Hickman, Leo; Randerson, James (2009-11-21). "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails expose collusion by scientists". The Guardian. p. 19. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
- ^ Schmidt, Gavin (23 November 2009). "The CRU hack: Context". RealClimate.
- ^ McIntyre, Steve (23 November 2009). ""A miracle just happened"". Climate Audit.
- ^ 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) - ^ "Climate Emails Stoke Debate". The Wall Street Journal. 23 November 2009.
- ^ Moore, Matthew. Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims. The Telegraph, 24 November 2009.
- ^ "Climatic Research Unit update - November 24, 3.30pm - University of East Anglia (UEA)". www.uea.ac.uk. Retrieved 2009-11-25.
- ^ a b c "Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails", Wall Street Journal, 24 November 2009.
- ^ "Climate Skeptics See 'Smoking Gun' in Researchers' Leaked E-Mails". Fox News. November 21, 2009. Retrieved 24 November 2009.
- ^ "University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes". The Daily Telegraph. 23 November 2009. Retrieved 25 November 2009.
- ^ "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
- ^ 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) - ^ "The CRU hack". RealClimate. 2009-11-20. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
- ^ "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) - ^ a b Regalado, Antonio, "In Climate Hack Story, Could Talk of Cover-Up Be as Serious as Crime?", blog post, Science Insider, a blog published by Science magazine, posted November 23, 2009, retrieved November 24, 2009
- ^ a b George Monbiot.Global warming rigged? Here's the email I'd need to see
- ^ Eilperin, Juliet (22 November 2009). "In the trenches on climate change, hostility among foes". The Washington Post. ISSN 0740-5421.
- ^ 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
- ^ "East Anglia University Statement on Hacking of Climate Research Unit Emails". University of East Anglia – Communications Office. 23 November 2009.
- ^ "Stolen E-Mails Sharpen a Brawl Between Climate Scientists and Skeptics - NYTimes.com". www.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2009-11-25.
- ^ Freedman, Andrew (23 November 2009). "Science historian reacts to hacked climate e-mails". The Washington Post.
- ^ Moore, Matthew. "Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims". The Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-11-24.
- ^ a b Hickman, Leo, "Climate change champion and sceptic both call for inquiry into leaked emails", November 23, 2009, The Guardian, retrieved November 25, 2009
- ^ Matt Dempsey, "Listen: Inhofe Says He Will Call for Investigation on "Climategate" on Washington Times Americas Morning Show" blog post, November 23, 2009, "The Inhofe EPW Press Blog" at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works website, retrieved November 29, 2009
- ^ Hickman, Leo, "and agencies", "Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims", November 24, 2009, The Guardian, retrieved November 25, 2009
<references>
tag (see the help page).