Hacker incident at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Center

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Hubert Lamb Building at the University of East Anglia, where the Climatic Research Unit is located.

When hackers incident on climate research center of the University of East Anglia , from "climate skeptics" and some media representatives as Climategate referred, in November 2009, documents were by researchers at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in the UK by hackers stole selectively quotes to give the impression of fraud and posted on the Internet. The data theft occurred through a sophisticated, carefully coordinated attack on the Internet. The incident and the resulting allegations of scientific dishonesty against the climate researchers concerned attracted attention in blogs in the run-up to the UN climate conference in Copenhagen and were mentioned in international media. Climate deniers used the affair as "proof" that there was no climate change or that it was a fraud.

As a result of the allegations being published, various institutions were investigated and found no evidence of scientific misconduct. In science, the so-called "Climategate controversy" is viewed as an "artificially created" scandal and counted among a series of "blows" against climate research carried out by a "well-funded, highly complex and relatively coordinated ' denial machine '" .

procedure

Hacking

The University of East Anglia reported the incident to police on November 20, 2009 after discussions had already taken place on the Internet. The emails dating back to 1996 were first uploaded to a Russian server and provided with the following anonymous comment: 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. (Translation: "We believe that climate research is too important to be kept under lock and key. We are hereby publishing a random selection of correspondence, codes and documents. Hopefully it will give insight into this science and the people behind it." ) WikiLeaks made the files permanently available.

The documents, over 1,073 emails and 3,485 other files, were from 1996 to 2009 and are real according to Philip D. Jones , director of the CRU. Nothing more is known about the perpetrators of the data theft. However, traces left suggest that actors from the Russian city of Yekaterinburg may have been involved.

The background to the hacking was the search of climate deniers for ways to deny the existence of global warming. The target of the hacking was the climate researcher Philip D. Jones, whose research center had previously provided key data for this view.

In 2011, in the run-up to the climate conference in Durban , e-mails from the CRU were published again. These also date from before 2009.

Cherry picking and spreading

After the theft, the e-mails were searched for material, selectively processed and then passed on to the press. The tactic of quote-mining, a subtype of cherry- picking, was used : By selectively quoting individual sentences while omitting the context, climate researchers were put into the mouths of misleading statements in order to create the impression that they had acted fraudulently, although out of context the emails revealed that technical details were actually being discussed. The selective quotations served as the basis for the claim that global warming was actually a conspiracy . The processed emails were then distributed, whereupon worldwide media coverage followed. A key role in the creation and dissemination of the so-called "Climategate controversy" was played by various climate denier blogs as well as Myron Ebell and Christopher Horner , two climate deniers who belong to the leadership of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the closely associated Cooler Heads Coalition and are central Actors of the climate denial scene count.

In particular, the following two cherry-picked quotes have always been cited as evidence of fraudulent practices by climate researchers: A quote from an email exchange between Philip D. Jones and Michael E. Mann and an email from Kevin Trenberth . In the first email, Jones wrote:

"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."

"I just used Mike's nature trick by taking into account the actual temperatures for every series over the past 20 years (from 1981 onwards) and Keith's data from 1961 to hide the decline."

The passages "Mike's nature trick" and "hide the decline" were often quoted to suggest that climate researchers were using a trick to deliberately hide a drop in global temperatures. For example, B. US Republican Sarah Palin , the emails revealed that "leading climate 'experts' deliberately destroyed temperature records and manipulated data to make the global temperature decline disappear". In fact, the full context of the mail shows that climate researchers did not conspire to make data disappear, but rather discussed technical details. The email was not about current temperature data at all, but about a procedure for dealing with paleoclimatic data. Mike's Trick describes a technique he described in a Nature paper in 1998, with which temperature measurement data can be displayed together with reconstructed palaeoclimatological data and thus the current warming can be classified in the longer paleoclimatological context. Likewise, the decline cited in the mail does not relate to temperature data , but to declining tree ring growth in certain regions, which has been observed since around 1960; a topic that has been discussed in specialist literature since the mid-1990s (“divergence problem”).

In the second email from Kevin Trenberth he wrote:

"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."

"The fact is that we currently cannot explain the lack of warming - and it is a farce that we cannot"

Climate deniers misinterpreted this statement as evidence that climate researchers would openly admit internally that global warming had stopped . Rather, Trenberth wrote about a work he had published shortly before, which dealt with the earth's energy budget and the question of energy flow and its distribution. In the paper he discusses that although the earth as a whole is continuously warming due to more carbon dioxide, the earth's surface also repeatedly shows short phases of cooling, which are caused by internal variability, because the earth's atmosphere and oceans exchange energy. In fact, in the statement quoted in the mail, Trenberth expresses his disappointment that these energy flows in the climate system cannot be fully recorded, a statement that he had previously published in the specialist literature. Through quote mining, Trenberth's statement about the "lack of warming" was deliberately shortened and presented without context, so that the fact that he actually only reproduced the summary of his paper was concealed.

Attempts at criminalization

The Republican US Senator Jim Inhofe called for a criminal investigation against climate scientists who were involved in the e-mail controversy, and his staff had a list with the names of 17 scientists make, should be taken against the. Scientists responded with sharp criticism to Inhofe's request. Rick Piltz , a former senior staff member in the US Climate Change Science Program , described Inhofe's actions as part of a coordinated campaign aimed at intimidating researchers. Climatologist Gavin Schmidt said Inhofe's message was that scientists who spoke out in public would be intimidated, harassed and threatened. Raymond Bradley , who heads the University of Massachusetts Amherst's climate research center, made a similar statement . Several of the scientists concerned have received a spate of hate mail since the controversy began. The climate researchers Michael E. Mann and Stephen Schneider reported threats of violence and death against themselves and family members.

The Republican politician and Attorney General of Virginia, Ken Cuccinelli , tried since April 2010 to force the University of Virginia to hand over data and documents related to previous research projects by climate scientist Michael E. Mann. Cuccinelli wanted to initiate a legal investigation against Mann on the suspicion of allegedly fraudulently obtaining research funds with the help of manipulated climate data, referring to the e-mail controversy. However, he did not present any evidence of any wrongdoing by the scientist and ignored the exonerating reports of several official investigative commissions. Cuccinelli's actions met with massive criticism in scientific circles and were branded as an attack on the freedom of science . In a joint statement, 19 professors from Old Dominion University drew parallels between Cuccinelli's approach and the McCarthy era . Protests also came from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), which accused the Attorney General of making false claims. More than 900 US scientists signed a petition calling on Cuccinelli to stop the "totally unjustified" investigation. In an editorial, the leading journal Nature described Cuccinelli's actions as an “ideologically motivated inquisition” that harassed and intimidated scientists. The Washington Post commented that the Attorney General had declared war on freedom of research. Even the climate skeptic Stephen McIntyre condemned Cuccinelli's actions.

In May 2010, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which includes nearly 50,000 US scholars, and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called on the University of Virginia to take legal action against Cuccinelli's demand for data disclosure , and offered their support to the university. After the university then appealed against the Attorney General's claim, a court ruled in the first instance that Cuccinelli's claim was incomprehensibly justified. The court thus gave the university the right to refuse to hand over the data. After the Attorney General appealed, the Virginia Supreme Court ruled in March 2012 that Cuccinelli did not have legal authority to request the release of such information and records. The decision ended the two-year legal battle and was viewed by commentators as a political embarrassment for Cuccinelli, who wanted to raise his profile with the campaign against the climate researcher for his upcoming candidacy for the post of governor.

In response to the actions of Inhofe and Cuccinelli, scientists published an open letter signed by 255 members of the National Academy of Sciences , including 11 Nobel Prize winners . The signatories called for an end to the " McCarthy-like persecution of our colleagues". The letter also expressed dismay at the way "climate change deniers" would attack not only climate research in general, but individual climate researchers as well. Such attacks would not be guided by a sincere pursuit of alternative explanations but by "interest groups or dogmas". The signatories also called for an end to the harassment of scientists by politicians who sought distractions to prevent climate change.

Official investigations

background

A number of official investigations were conducted to examine the allegations against the climate researchers.

The science committee of the British House of Commons , a joint commission of inquiry of the University of East Anglia and the British Royal Society as well as another parliamentary commission of inquiry independent of the university dealt with the allegations against the researchers around Phil Jones in the CRU. A commission of inquiry from the American Pennsylvania State University and the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation dealt with the allegations against Michael E. Mann. Another official investigation was conducted by the US Environmental Protection Agency .

Phil Jones resigned from his position as director of the CRU for the duration of the investigation. During this time he was replaced by Peter Liss.

Science and Technology Committee

The science committee of the British House of Commons , the Science and Technology Committee , came to the conclusion that the scientists of the Climatic Research Unit should not be blamed. It cannot be assumed that when the scientists rejected inquiries about research results, they tried to keep the public ignorant of climate data. However, the university was reprimanded for handling inquiries under the Freedom of Information Act.

Investigative Commission of the University of East Anglia and the Royal Society

The University of East Anglia set up a Science Assessment Panel , the composition was agreed with the Royal Society . The chair was Ronald Oxburgh , the former chairman of the British House of Lords Science Committee ; Members were Kerry Emanuel from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , Huw Davies from ETH Zurich , Lisa Graumlich from the University of Arizona , David Hand from Imperial College London, and Herbert Huppert and Michael Kelly from the University of Cambridge .

The commission of inquiry also exonerated Jones and his colleagues. There is "no evidence of willful scientific misconduct", the scientists around Jones had done their work "properly and precisely" and were "objective and dispassionate" in the data analysis. The investigative commission also condemned the harsh tone of the climate change deniers .

Commissioner David Hand said that the CRU did not use the wrong, but not always the best, methods of statistical data analysis. However, this did not lead to recognizable falsifications.

Research by Pennsylvania State University and the National Science Foundation

The Pennsylvania State University , a researcher at the Michael E. Mann, convened an investigative commission to examine the allegations made against him. The committee consisted of five professors from other departments of the university. After completing the investigation, the commission came to the unanimous conclusion that Mann had not been guilty of any scientific misconduct. After an initial investigation had been completed, a three-member university committee had previously rejected allegations that Mann had withheld data or deleted sensitive e-mails.

In an investigation report by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the results of the university investigation were essentially confirmed. With regard to the allegation of data manipulation, the NSF carried out its own investigation, in which critics of Mann's studies were also heard. Finally, the NSF also stated that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct by Mann.

Investigation committee under Muir Russell

The parliamentary, university-independent investigation was led by Sir Muir Russell . The commission also included Geoffrey Boulton , Peter Clarke , David Eyton and James Norton . After six months of examination and hearing numerous witnesses, the commission published its final report on July 7, 2010. It also came to the conclusion that the allegations of data manipulation and the suppression of critics raised against Jones and his colleagues were unjustified. There is no evidence of bias or misleading analyzes on the part of the researchers, and they have not abused their position to the detriment of critics. No evidence has been found of behavior that would undermine the conclusions of the IPCC and there is no evidence of any undermining of the peer review process. The key data for the reproducibility of the research results of the CRU were available to any competent interested party. The Russell Commission criticizes, however, that Jones and his colleagues should have made the processing of the data for the graphic explicitly clear when producing a graphic in 1999, which was included in a similar form in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC . However, this omission was apparently unintentional. The CRU scientists as well as the University of East Anglia had shown a "consistent pattern" of not demonstrating the "appropriate degree of openness" to critics of their work. The sincerity and discipline of the CRU researchers are not in question.

Investigation by the EPA

After several months of checking all e-mails, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exonerated the climate researchers, who had only had “frank discussions”, and instead raised serious allegations against their critics. They misunderstood the scientific facts and made false accusations. The critics often only read the emails selectively and relied on exaggerations in their allegations.

Responses to the Investigations

The results of the investigation were taken as acquittals for the accused scientists. Phil Jones was transferred to the newly created position of Director of Research at the University of East Anglia in July 2010. The university emphasized that this is by no means a degradation.

In August 2010, the BBC apologized to the University of East Anglia for a December 2009 BBC presenter saying that researchers at the university had distorted the climate debate. That statement was false, for which he sincerely apologizes on behalf of the show, said Stephen Mitchell, BBC vice director and head of BBC news programs.

Upon request, the committee under Ronald Oxburgh confirmed that it did not want to convince itself of the quality, but only of the scientific integrity of the work of the CRU. Phil Willis, Baron Willis of Knaresborough, chairman of the British Parliament's Scientific Committee, which is also involved in the matter, spoke in the context of a "sleight of hand". Labor MP Graham Stringer criticized both the Oxburgh and Russell Commission reports.

In contrast, Sir Brian Hoskins , climate researcher and professor at Imperial College London , welcomed the "thorough and fair examination" by the Oxburgh Commission. Sir Martin Rees , then President of the Royal Society , said one should be grateful to "Lord Oxburgh and his fellow experts" for the "thorough report" which provided "an authoritative assessment of CRU research" and made clear recommendations.

Public discussion

In a comment in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, Christopher Schrader spoke of a “festival for climate skeptics ”. Although the scientific state of affairs has not changed after the publication of the e-mails, the theses of a few skeptics are being discussed much more broadly by the media.

Comments from scientists

Jones admitted to writing some “ pretty awful ” emails but denied tampering allegations. It is also not customary to disclose models and raw data. He regretted that he had not taken the requests under the Freedom of Information Act seriously enough, but also said that they had been deliberately misused to hinder the work of the CRU. Michael Mann, who was also affected, described the publication of the emails as an attempted sabotage against the UN climate conference in Copenhagen .

Richard Somerville , one of the lead authors of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC , described the incident as part of a smear campaign aimed at sabotaging the UN climate conference in Copenhagen. Raymond Pierrehumbert condemned the data theft and defended Phil Jones and Michael Mann, who would only go about their business. The incident represented a new escalation of the controversy; manipulations of data and models could possibly follow in the future. Kevin Trenberth accuses the perpetrators of only having published such material that climate deniers in the global warming controversy could misuse for their own purposes.

The editors of the journal Nature and various climate scientists, including Hans von Storch and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber , do not see any clues in the emails for the “ conspiracy theories of the deniers ”; Nature calls such an interpretation of the emails "paranoid". The correctness of the data collected by the CRU on global ground-level air temperature is not called into question by the emails. The anthropogenic climate change is a reality and will even be more visible in the future.

Judith Curry accused Mann and others of a “wagon-castle mentality” that violates the principle of open exchange in science. Von Storch sees the emails as an attempt to keep alternative views out of the scientific process, for example by not making data accessible to other researchers. In particular Phil Jones and Michael Mann should be excluded from such proceedings in the future due to their "unscientific behavior". Stefan Rahmstorf criticized this demand as irrelevant. According to James E. Hansen , the incident had no effect on climatological findings, but individual emails represented bad decisions. Hansen recommends that data should be made publicly available and that contradicting research should not be prevented from being published, even if it is of poor quality.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science , editor of the science magazine Science , feared that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions would be weakened by the incident.

Statements from politicians

In the run-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the British government sharply rejected the allegations made in connection with the incident. The then Prime Minister Gordon Brown declared that one should not be distracted by "anti-science" climate skeptics. His Environment Minister Ed Miliband described the skeptics as "climate saboteurs" who misused data and misled people. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon also said in the run-up to Copenhagen that the incident had created no doubt about the scientific consensus on the anthropogenic contribution to global warming. At a Senate hearing in early 2010, US Secretary of Energy and Nobel Prize in Physics, Steven Chu , rejected doubts about the research and referred to the extensive scientific evidence on climate change.

literature

  • David Leiserowitz: Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust , in: American Behavioral Scientist, Vol. 57, No. 6, pp. 818-837; Abstract online
  • Brigitte Nerlich: Climategate ': paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis , in: Environmental Values, Vol. 14, No. 9, pp. 419-442; Articles online

Web links

Investigation reports

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Anthony A. Leiserowitz et al .: Climategate, Public Opinion, and the Loss of Trust . In: American Behavioral Scientist . tape 57 , no. 6 , 2013, p. 818–837, here: 819 , doi : 10.1177 / 0002764212458272 .
  2. ↑ A poor sequel (editorial) . In: Nature 480, 6, (2011), doi: 10.1038 / 480006a .
  3. ↑ Raghu Garud et al., Boundaries, breaches, and bridges: The case of Climategate . In: Research Policy 43, (2014), 60–73, doi: 10.1016 / j.respol.2013.07.007 .
  4. ↑ MyAnna Lahsen, Climategate: the role of the social sciences . In: Climatic Change 19, (2013), 547–558, doi: 10.1007 / s10584-013-0711-x .
  5. ↑ klimafakten.de (2011): Several studies saying the researchers fraud allegations free
  6. ^ Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, pp. 144.
  7. ↑ Sceptics publish climate e-mails 'stolen from East Anglia University' , The Times , November 21, 2009
  8. ^ Climate Emails Stoke Debate , Wall Street Journal , Nov. 23, 2009
  9. ↑ USA and WikiLeaks. Embarrassing search for the right lawsuit , Der Spiegel , December 12, 2010
  10. ↑ Climate Gate nourishes skepticism about climate change , Deutschlandfunk , December 4, 2009.
  11. ↑ Exclusive: “Climategate” Email Hacking was Carried out from Russia, in Effort to Undermine Action on Global Warming . In: medium.com , July 1, 2019. Retrieved November 14, 2019.
  12. ↑ Climategate 10 years on: what lessons have we learned? . In: The Guardian , November 9, 2019. Retrieved November 14, 2019.
  13. ^ Spiegel Online on November 23, 2011: Again thousands of emails from climate researchers published. Retrieved November 23, 2011 .
  14. ↑ a b See G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook: Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, pp. 26 and 452.
  15. ^ Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 43f.
  16. ^ Riley Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Challenging Climate Change. The Denial Countermovement. In: Riley Dunlap, Robert J. Brulle (Eds.): Climate Change and Society. Sociological Perspectives. Report of the American Sociological Association's Task Force on Sociology and Global Climate Change. Oxford University Press, 2015, 300-332, p. 318.
  17. ^ Riley E. Dunlap, Aaron M. McCright: Organized Climate Change Denial. In: John S. Dryzek, Richard B. Norgaard, David Schlosberg (Eds.): The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 144-160, p. 151.
  18. ^ A b c Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 44f.
  19. ↑ See also: "Climategate" . Climate facts. Retrieved November 14, 2019.
  20. ↑ cit. based on: Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 44.
  21. ↑ a b See G. Thomas Farmer, John Cook: Climate Change Science. A modern synthesis. Volume 1 - The Physical Climate. Dordrecht 2013, p. 484f.
  22. ↑ Rosanne D'Arrigo, Rob Wilson, Beate Liepert, Paolo Cherubini: On the 'Divergence Problem' in Northern Forests: A review of the tree-ring evidence and possible causes . (PDF) In: Global and Planetary Change . 60, No. 3-4, February 2008, pp. 289-305. doi : 10.1016 / j.gloplacha.2007.03.004 .
  23. ↑ cit. based on: Haydn Washington, John Cook : Climate Change Denial. Heads in the sand. Earthscan 2011, p. 45.
  24. ↑ a b US Senate's top climate skeptic accused of waging 'McCarthyite witch-hunt' , The Guardian , March 1, 2010
  25. ↑ a b Where deserts are hocus-pocus , Süddeutsche Zeitung , March 30, 2010
  26. ↑ US climate scientists receive hate mail barrage in wake of UEA scandal , The Guardian , July 5, 2010
  27. ↑ The hate emails sent to climate scientists , The Guardian , July 6, 2010
  28. ↑ a b Climategate reloaded , Deutschlandfunk , May 31, 2010
  29. ↑ a b Science subpoenaed , in: Nature , Vol. 465, No. 7295, pp. 135-136
  30. ^ A statement from the ODU Faculty Senate Executive Committee regarding the investigation of Dr. Michael Mann by the Attorney General ( Memento of the original dated May 28, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , May 11, 2010  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.odu.edu
  31. ↑ Statement of the AAAS (PDF; 67 kB)
  32. ↑ a b Ken Cuccinelli Makes Basic Factual Errors About Mike Mann's Research, Stolen Emails in Response to UVA ( Memento of the original from October 2, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Union of Concerned Scientists press release , July 1, 2010  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.ucsusa.org
  33. ↑ Petition (PDF; 86 kB)
  34. ^ U-Va. should fight Cuccinelli's faulty investigation of Michael Mann , Washington Post , May 7, 2010
  35. ↑ See Cheryl Hogue and Steve Ritter (2010): Virginia Probes Climate Science , in: Chemical & Engineering News, Vol. 88, No. 19, p. 10
  36. ^ Letter from the AAUP and the ACLU to the Rector of the University of Virginia (PDF; 211 kB)
  37. ↑ Court judgment (PDF; 342 kB)
  38. ^ A b Virginia court rejects skeptic's bid for climate science emails , The Guardian , March 2, 2012
  39. ↑ Leading scientists condemn 'political assaults' on climate researchers , The Guardian , May 6, 2010
  40. ^ U-Va. urged to fight subpoena of climate scientist's documents , Washington Post , May 9, 2010
  41. ↑ a b Climate Change and the Integrity of Science ; Gleick et al. (2010): Climate Change and the Integrity of Science , in: Science , Vol. 328, No. 5979, pp. 689-690
  42. ^ Report (PDF) of the Science Committee of the British House of Commons
  43. ^ Final report (PDF) of the University of East Anglia commission
  44. ↑ a b Final report (PDF) ( Memento of the original of July 13, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. the Pennsylvania State University commission @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / live.psu.edu
  45. ↑ a b Final report (PDF; 1.5 MB) of the Russell Commission
  46. ↑ Climate researcher leaves his office during the investigation , Spiegel Online, December 2, 2009
  47. ↑ The Parliament's Committee agrees with British climate researchers , Die Welt , April 1, 2010
  48. ^ Climate-row professor Phil Jones should return to work, say MPs , The Times , March 31, 2010, Daily Mail
  49. ^ A b c Second acquittal for climate researchers , Süddeutsche Zeitung , April 15, 2010
  50. ^ Climate row: backing for scientists , The Independent , April 15, 2010
  51. ↑ a b c d No manipulation , Süddeutsche Zeitung , July 7, 2010
  52. ↑ Investigation of climate scientist at Penn State complete ( Memento of the original of July 14, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Pennsylvania State University announcement , July 1, 2010  @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.research.psu.edu
  53. ↑ Interim report (PDF) ( Memento of the original from February 28, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. the first committee of inquiry at Pennsylvania State University @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.research.psu.edu
  54. ^ Final report (PDF) by the Inspector General of the National Science Foundation
  55. ↑ a b c 'Climategate' review clears scientists of dishonesty over data , The Guardian , July 7, 2010
  56. ↑ Scientists' 'Climategate' e-mails' just discussions' , BBC News , August 6, 2010
  57. ↑ EPA Rejects Claims of Flawed Climate Science , EPA press release , July 29, 2010
  58. ↑ Investigation relieves climate researchers , Spiegel Online , April 14, 2010
  59. ↑ Michael McCarthy: 'Conspiracy theories finally laid to rest' by report on leaked climate change emails - Climate Change, Environment . In: The Independent , July 8, 2010. 
  60. ↑ BBC apologises to University of East Anglia for "incorrect" remark , University of East Anglia press release , August 7, 2010
  61. ↑ a b Andrew Orlowski: Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP, Russell report is inadequate, says Stringer , The Register, July 9, 2010
  62. ^ A b East Anglia Climate Scientists Cleared By Inquiry , Scoop, April 15, 2010
  63. ↑ Christopher Schrader : Hacker Attack: A Festival for Climate Skeptics ( Memento of the original from April 5, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Süddeutsche Zeitung, November 24, 2009 @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.sueddeutsche.de
  64. ↑ Ulrich Schnabel : Flood of Rumors , in: Die Zeit No. 52 (2009), December 16, 2009. In it: “The doubts sown by unknowns are eagerly carried on by the media and repeatedly turned back and forth. Good food for all lobbyists who raise the mood against the climate summit. "
  65. ↑ Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data , Daily Mail , March 2, 2010
  66. ↑ The leak was bad. Then came the death threats , The Times , Feb. 7, 2010
  67. ↑ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change announces investigation , derStandard.at , December 4, 2009
  68. ↑ Hacked Climate Emails Called A "Smear Campaign" , Reuters , November 26 of 2009.
  69. ↑ Smear campaign for more transparency , Rheinischer Merkur , December 3, 2009.
  70. ↑ Your Dot: On Science and 'Cyber-Terrorism' , New York Times , November 22, 2009
  71. ↑ Scientist feels 'violated' over leaked climate e-mails , The Age , November 24, 2009
  72. ↑ a b c d e Climatologists under pressure , Nature , December 3, 2009.
  73. ↑ a b c d e After a hacker attack - mud battle over climate change and accusation of the Wagenburg mentality , Süddeutsche Zeitung, December 3, 2009
  74. ^ A b c d Hans von Storch , Myles Allen : Reaffirming climate science , Nature News, December 18, 2009
  75. ↑ Scandal over hacked emails: German climate researchers demand reforms , Spiegel Online , December 5, 2009.
  76. ↑ Stefan Rahmstorf : How about factual arguments? In: Spektrumdirekt , December 11, 2009
  77. ↑ James Hansen: Climate Change Evidence 'Overwhelming,' Hacked E-mails 'Indicate Poor Judgment' ( November 27, 2009 memento in the Internet Archive ) , Newsweek , November 25, 2009
  78. ↑ a b Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change skeptics , The Guardian , December 4, 2009
  79. ↑ Human role in climate change not in doubt: UN's Ban , Reuters , December 8, 2009
  80. ↑ Mike Soraghan: Chu Defends UN Climate Science, Admin Efforts on Nuclear Waste , New York Times , January 21, 2010