The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (dubbed "Climategate" in the media) began in November 2009 with the Internet leak of thousands of emails and other documents from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU). According to the university, the emails and documents were obtained through a server hacking. Allegations by climate change sceptics that the emails revealed misconduct within the climate science community were quickly publicised by the media.[2][3][4] The UEA and CRU issued rebuttals of the allegations,[5] and the Norfolk Constabulary is conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach.[6] Subsequent inquiries rejected allegations that climate scientists had colluded to withhold scientific information, interfered with the peer-review process to prevent dissenting scientific papers from being published, deleted raw data, or manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is, but the UEA was criticised for a "culture of withholding information."[7]
Three independent reviews into the affair were initiated in the UK, two of which were concluded by the end of March 2010, with the remaining review releasing its findings on 7 July.[8] The CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, stood aside temporarily from his post during the reviews, then was reinstated in a newly reorganised position as Director of Research after the reviews cleared him of the most serious charges.[8][9] Reports by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Select Committee and an independent Science Assessment Panel commissioned by the UEA concluded that there was no evidence of malpractice on the part of the CRU and Phil Jones,[10] though they did find that there was room for improvement in some of the CRU's working practices.[10][11]
The scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity" was found unchallenged by the emails[12] and there was "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit."[10] Although the CRU's use of statistics was generally commended, some of their methods may not have been the best for the purpose.[10] The reports concluded that Phil Jones had no case to answer[7] and that better statistical methods might not have produced significantly different results.[10] The CRU's detractors were also criticised, with one of the reports deploring the tone of their criticism and finding that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable".[10] The question of alleged failure to comply fully with the Freedom of Information Act was left to the third review, published on 7 July, which found that there was "unhelpfulness in responding to requests" and that "e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them".[13][14] A separate review by Penn State University into accusations against Michael E. Mann cleared him of any wrongdoing, stating that "there is no substance" to the allegations against him.[15]
see also: Is Global Warming real?, what is global warming?
©
Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy