Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dave souza (talk | contribs) at 12:48, 7 February 2010 (sub-article per WP:SUMMARY). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Climatic Research Unit documents including thousands of e-mails and other documents were distributed without authorisation in November 2009 in the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident. The documents were obtained through the hacking of a server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, England. The University of East Anglia described the incident as an illegal taking of data. The police are conducting a criminal investigation of the server breach and subsequent personal threats made against some of the scientists mentioned in the e-mails.

Extracts from the e-mails have been publicised, and allegations have been made that they indicate misconduct by leading climate scientists. Individuals who oppose action on global warming called the incident "Climategate", which became a commonly used term for the incident. The University of East Anglia and climate scientists have described these interpretations as incorrect and misleading, with the extracts being taken out of context.

The documents were distributed in advance of the December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit. Though the vast majority of climate data have always been freely available, the incident has prompted general discussion about increasing the openness of scientific data. Scientists, scientific organisations, and government officials have stated that the incident does not affect the overall scientific case for climate change. The University of East Anglia has announced that an independent review of the allegations will be carried out by Sir Muir Russell and that the CRU's director, Professor Phil Jones, would stand aside from his post during the review.

Content of the documents

The material comprised more than 1,000 e-mails, 2,000 documents, as well as commented source code, pertaining to climate change research covering a period from 1996 until 2009. Some of the e-mails which have been widely publicised included discussions of how to combat the arguments of climate change sceptics, unflattering comments about sceptics, queries from journalists, and drafts of scientific papers. There have been assertions that these discussions indicated efforts to shut out dissenters and their points of view, and included discussions about destroying files in order to prevent them from being revealed under the UK Freedom of Information Act 2000. A review by the Associated Press of all the e-mails found that they did not support claims of faking of science, but did show disdain for sceptical critics. Scientists had discussed avoiding sharing information with critics, but the documents showed no evidence that any data was destroyed. Researchers also discussed in e-mails how information they had released on request was used by critics to make personal attacks on researchers. In an interview with The Guardian, Phil Jones said "Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU." He confirmed that the e-mails that had sparked the most controversy appeared to be genuine.

E-mails

Most of the e-mails concerned technical and mundane aspects of climate research, such as data analysis and details of scientific conferences. The controversy has focused on a small number of e-mails, particularly those sent to or from climatologists 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".

Officials from the Information Commissioner's Office have stated that the e-mails show that requests under the Freedom of Information Act were "not dealt with as they should have been," and that the CRU breached rules by withholding data.

The Associated Press conducted a review of the e-mails and concluded that they showed scientists fending off sceptics, but did not support claims that global warming science had been faked. They stated that "One of the most disturbing elements suggests an effort to avoid sharing scientific data with critics skeptical of global warming", and mentioned ethical problems with this action due to the fact that "free access to data is important so others can repeat experiments as part of the scientific method". They cited a science policy expert as stating that it was "normal science politics, but on the extreme end, though still within bounds". The AP sent the emails to three climate scientists they selected as moderates, who did not change their view that man-made global warming is a real threat. The three scientists are on the record elsewhere supporting an outside, independent review of the allegations of misconduct at both the CRU and Pennsylvania State University.

Summarising its own analysis, FactCheck stated that claims by climate sceptics that the emails demonstrated scientific misconduct amounting to fabrication of global warming were unfounded, and emails were being misrepresented to support these claims. While the emails showed a few scientists being rude or dismissive, this did not negate evidence that human activities were largely responsible for global warming, or the conclusions of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report which used the CRU as just one of many sources of data.

An editorial in the scientific journal Nature stated that the e-mails had not shown anything that undermined the scientific case on human caused global warming, or raised any substantive reasons for concern about the researchers' own papers. Scientific openness requires public availability of data used to reach conclusions, but researchers had been hampered in this by contractual restrictions on some data, and in certain countries national meteorological services were too slow to provide data sets on request. The e-mail theft highlighted "the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden." While scientists are human and "unrelenting opposition to their work can goad them to the limits of tolerance", they "should strive to act and communicate professionally, and make their data and methods available to others, lest they provide their worst critics with ammunition."

Professor Roger Pielke Sr., an atmospheric scientist at CIRES at the University of Colorado at Boulder, in an interview said, "Both those who denounce global warming as a hoax and claim that this is a 'tempest in a teapot' are incorrect. With respect to the role of humans in the climate system, there is incontrovertible evidence that we exert both warming and cooling effects." With respect to the emails in question, he said, "there are serious issues exposed by the emails — including the goal of these scientists to prevent proper scientific disclosure of their data, as well as to control what papers appear in the peer reviewed literature and climate assessments. The IPCC assessment, with which major policy decisions are being made, involves the individuals in the emails who have senior leadership positions."

The IPCC's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, described the CRU's scientists "as highly reputed professionals, whose contributions over the years to scientific knowledge are unquestionable" and described their datasets as "totally consistent with those from other institutions, on the basis of which far-reaching and meaningful conclusions were reached in the ." On November 24 the University of East Anglia issued a statement on the contents of the e-mails: "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."

Jones e-mail of 16 Nov 1999

An excerpt from one November 1999 e-mail authored by Phil Jones, which the UEA has stated refers to a graph he was preparing as a diagram for the cover of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) statement on the status of global climate in 1999:

"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."

The graph showed three series of paleoclimate reconstructions, based on records of tree rings, corals, ice cores, lake sediments, etc., along with historical and instrumental records. "Mike's Nature trick" referred to a paper published by Michael Mann in Nature in 1998, which combined various proxy records with actual temperature records. Mann described the "trick" as simply a concise way of showing the two kinds of data together while still clearly indicating which was which. He said that there was nothing "hidden or inappropriate" about it, and that his method of combining proxy data had been corroborated by numerous statistical tests and matched thermometer readings taken over the past 150 years. A press release by the University of East Anglia said that the "trick" was using instrumental data to meet a requirement of showing temperatures more recent than those covered by the proxy based temperature reconstructions, and that the use of the word "trick" was not intended to imply any deception. An editorial in Nature said that 'trick' was slang for a clever (and legitimate) technique.

The phrase "hide the decline" referred specifically to the divergence problem in which post 1960 tree ring proxy data indicate a decline while measured temperatures rise. The reconstruction by Keith Briffa et al. was based solely on tree ring data, which shows a strong correlation with temperature from the 19th century to the mid 20th century. They had published a statement on the divergence problem in 1998, and had recommended that the post 1960 part of their reconstruction should not be used. Jones stated that the email was "written in haste" and that, far from seeking to hide the decline, CRU had published a number of articles on the problem. The implications of the decline are discussed in Chapter 6 of the 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which describes discussion of various possible reasons for the divergence which does not affect all the trees, and says that there is no consensus about the cause. It notes that Briffa et al. specifically excluded the post 1960 data, which is therefore not shown in the graph of their reconstruction in the report. In his review comments on the report, Stephen McIntyre objected to this graph being truncated, and said that the whole reconstruction should be shown with comments to deal with the "divergence problem". The IPCC response was that this would be inappropriate.

Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has in the past said that graphs were prepared dishonestly and expressed doubts about whether there should be serious concern about global warming, has gone on the record accusing Mann of data rigging and outright falsification. Other climatologists disputed Lindzen's comments. Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center said he had seen nothing in the emails that called the fundamental science into question, and Andrew Solow of Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution agreed that there was no trickery, saying he would use the word trick to describe some methodological step, but expressed the view that the basis of reconstructions had been unclear. Several scientific sources state that the decline being referred to is a decline in tree ring climate proxy metrics, not temperature. Andrew Watson, Royal Society Research Professor at the UEA, said that the scientists had drawn the line to follow the tree-ring reconstruction up to 1960 and the measured temperature after that."

McIntyre said that the "trick to hide the decline" consisted of removing tree-ring data from the later half of the 20th century. He said that since the cause of the divergence problem is unknown, and it may have existed in earlier periods, tree ring records cannot be used to estimate temperatures in the past.

Before the incident, continuing research had already presented reconstructions based on more proxies, and found similar results with or without the tree ring records.

Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003

In one e-mail, as a response to an e-mail indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, 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."

Mann told 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."

Mann was not alone in expressing concern about the peer review process of the journal. Half of the journal's editorial board, including editor-in-chief Hans von Storch, resigned in the wake of controversy surrounding the article's publication. The publisher later admitted that the paper's major findings could not "be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication."

Jones e-mail of 8 Jul 2004

An 8 July 2004 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said in part:

"The other paper by MM is just garbage. I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

The IPCC has stated that its procedures mean there is "no possibility of exclusion of any contrarian views, if they have been published in established journals or other publications which are peer reviewed." Its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, stated that the papers that had been criticised "were actually discussed in detail in chapter six of the Working Group I report of the . Furthermore, articles from the journal Climate Research, which was also decried in the emails, have been cited 47 times in the Working Group I report."

A Nature editorial stated that the UEA scientists had been sharply critical of the quality of the two papers, but "neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers." Peter Kelemen, a professor of geochemistry at Columbia University's Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, said that "If scientists attempted to exclude critics' peer-reviewed papers from IPCC reports, this was unethical in my view." Rajendra Pachauri responded that the IPCC has "a very transparent, a very comprehensive process which ensures that even if someone wants to leave out a piece of peer reviewed literature there is virtually no possibility of that happening."

The independent review commissioned by the University of East Anglia will, inter alia, evaluate whether CRU's peer-review practices comply with best scientific practice.

Jones e-mail of 2 Feb 2005

A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—our does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.

Pro-Vice Chancellor of Research at University of East Anglia, Trevor Davies, said that no data was deleted or "otherwise dealt with in any fashion with the intent of preventing the disclosure". In response to allegations that CRU avoided obligations under the UK Freedom of Information Act, independent investigator Muir Russell plans to review CRU's "policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act".

Jones e-mail of May 2008

In one e-mail, Phil Jones writes to Michael Mann, with the subject line "IPCC & FOI"

"Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address."

Critics say that the e-mails showed that scientists were conspiring to delete e-mails and documents to prevent them from being released. George Monbiot, a supporter of the scientific consensus, wrote that Jones' resignation is warranted on the basis of his statement in this email alone.

The UK Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) oversees the FOI process there, and issued the following statement:

"Destroying requested information outside of an organisation's normal policies is unlawful and may be a criminal offence if done to prevent disclosure."

Trevor Davies responded by saying that despite Jones' suggestion to delete records, no records were actually deleted.

With reference to a FOI request made by David Holland, a retired engineer in Northampton, the Depute Information Commissioner Graham Smith issued a statement on 27 January 2010 that "The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation. Section 77 of the Freedom of Information Act makes it an offence for public authorities to act so as to prevent intentionally the disclosure of requested information." He also said that as sanctions have to be imposed within six months of the offence it was too late to impose sanctions, but the ICO would be making a case for the law to be changed for future offences. He was advising the university of East Anglia on its legal obligations, and the ICO would be considering whether to take regulatory action once reports of the independent and police investigations were available.

Santer e-mail of 12 Nov 2009

In one e-mail, climate scientist Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory commented on a request for data and correspondence from science blogger Stephen McIntyre under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI):

"My personal opinion is that both FOI requests are intrusive and unreasonable. Steven McIntyre provides absolutely no scientific justification or explanation for such requests. ... McIntyre has no interest in improving our scientific understanding of the nature and causes of climate change. He has no interest in rational scientific discourse....We should be able to conduct our scientific research without constant fear of an "audit" by Steven McIntyre; without having to weigh every word we write in every email we send to our scientific colleagues."

In an Associated Press interview, McIntyre disagreed with his portrayal in emails, and said "Everything that I've done in this, I've done in good faith."

FactCheck noted that the great majority of CRU's data is already freely available, and the scientists were reluctant to supply their own correspondence, code and data to people whose motives seemed questionable to them. It is not clear that any actual obstruction happened, and emails show the scientists discussing with university officials and lawyers their obligations under the new legislation, informing critics that data is already freely available, or that the information has been sent to them. This question is to form part of the East Anglia investigation.

Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009

An email written by Kevin Trenberth discussed 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 told the Associated Press that the email referred to an article he authored calling for improvement in measuring global warming to describe unusual data, such as rising sea surface temperatures. 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.

In a statement on his NCAR webpage Trenberth states that,

"It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability."

Code and documentation

The CRU files also included temperature reconstruction programs written in Fortran and IDL, programmer comments and a readme file. In a BBC Newsnight report, software engineer John Graham-Cumming found the code to be "below the standard you'd expect in any commercial software" because it lacked clear documentation or an audit history. Graham-Cumming also reported finding a bug in the code's error handling that could result in data loss. Other investigations posted in various editorials and blogs have stated that the comments and readme files indicate that the temperature reconstructions hide and manipulate data to show a temperature increase and question the accuracy of the instrumental temperature record.

Myles Allen, head of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford, said that the code investigated by Newsnight had nothing at all to do with the HadCRUT temperature record used for climate reconstructions, which is maintained at the Met Office and not at CRU. When he challenged Newsnight on this, they responded that "Our expert's opinion is that this is climate change code" and declined to retract the story. He commented that on the same basis the quality of code he put together for students could be used to discredit other research code.

References

1. 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)
2. ^ Revkin, Andrew C. (20 November 2009). "Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute". The New York Times.
3. 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.
4. Moore, Matthew (2009-11-24). "Climate change scientists face calls for public inquiry over data manipulation claims". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2010-01-08. Retrieved 2010-01-08. said Lord Lawson, Margaret Thatcher's former chancellor who has reinvented himself as a critic of climate change science. "They were talking about destroying various files in order to prevent data being revealed under the Freedom of Information Act and they were trying to prevent other dissenting scientists from having their articles published in learned journals. "It may be that there's an innocent explanation for all this... but there needs to be a fundamental independent inquiry to get at the truth."
5. ^ "Climategate: Science Not Faked, But Not Pretty". Associated Press. 2009-12-03. Retrieved 2009-12-29.
6. Hickman, Leo, "and agencies", "Climate scientist at centre of leaked email row dismisses conspiracy claims", November 24, 2009, The Guardian. Retrieved November 25, 2009.
7. ^ Flam, Faye (2009-12-08). "Penn State scientist at center of a storm". The Philadelphia Inquirer. Archived from the original on 2009-12-30.
8. BBC News. "Climate e-mails row university 'breached data laws'" 28 January 2010.
9. "Biased reporting on Climategate". Washington Times.
10. ^ ""Climategate"". FactCheck.org. 2009-12-10, corrected 2009-12-22. Retrieved 2010-01-04. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
11. ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/462545a, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/462545a instead.
12. Pielke, Sr., Roger (December 2, 2009). "Pielke Sr.: Climategate Emails Just a Small Sample of a Broad Issue". Pajamas Media. Retrieved 22 December 2009.
13. ^ Pachauri, Rajendra (2010-01-04). "Climate change has no time for delay or denial". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-01-06.
14. "CRU Update 1 December". University of East Anglia – Communications Office. 1 December 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
15. "Climatic Research Unit update - 17.45 November 23". University of East Anglia – Communications Office. 23 November 2009. Archived from the original on 2009-12-05. Retrieved 2009-12-05.
16. "Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists". The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-11-24. Cite error: The named reference "Guardian 20 Nov" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
17. "University of East Anglia emails: the most contentious quotes". The Daily Telegraph. 23 November 2009. Retrieved 25 November 2009.
18. Published: 8:00AM GMT 21 Nov 2009. "Climate scientists accused of 'manipulating global warming data'". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-11-24.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
19. "WMO statement on the status of global climate in 1999" (PDF). World Meteorological Organization. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
20. ^ "CRU update 2". University of East Anglia. 2009-11-24. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
21. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1038/35596, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1038/35596 instead.
22. "Chapter 6, Palaeoclimate" (PDF). IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4),. IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. pp. 472–473. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
23. Transcript of "Climategate" documentary, YLE TV1 Finland, first broadcast Dec. 7th, 2009. "He objected to hiding the decline in one of his comments."
24. Philadelphia Inquirer, December 3, 2009: Penn State professor: Research is sound, last accessed 20091207
25. Walsh, Bryan (2009-12-07). "The Stolen E-Mails: Has 'Climategate' Been Overblown?". Time Magazine. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
26. "Climate change e-mails have been quoted totally out of context". The Times. 2009-12-08. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
27. Brown, Campbell (2009-12-07). "CAMPBELL BROWN Global Warming: Trick or Truth?". CNN. Archived from the original on 2010-01-06. Retrieved 2010-01-06. STEPHEN MCINTYRE, EDITOR, CLIMATE AUDIT: Sure they are. In discussion of the trick, let's be quite frank about it -- it was a trick. The tree ring records went down in the late part of the 20th century. Instead of disclosing that in the 2001 IPCC report, they did -- they didn't show the decline. In another document, the 1999 World Meteorological Report -- that is the subject of the e-mail in question -- they simply substituted temperature information for the tree ring information to show the record going up when it went down. There's nothing mathematically sophisticated about that.
28. Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1073/pnas.0805721105, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1073/pnas.0805721105 instead.
29. ^ Johnson, Keith (2009-11-24). "Lawmakers Probe Climate Emails". Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2009-01-09. Retrieved 2009-01-09. Dr. 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." Dr. Mann said Monday that he didn't think there was anything wrong in telling his colleagues that "we shouldn't be publishing in a journal that's activist." Hans von Storch East Anglia researchers "violated a fundamental principle of science," he said, by refusing to share data with other researchers. "They built a group to do gatekeeping, which is also totally unacceptable," he added. "They play science as a power game." {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
30. Climate Research: an article unleashed worldwide storms
31. ^ Gibson, Eloise (2009-11-28). "A climate scandal, or is it just hot air?". The New Zealand Herald. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
32. Kelemen, Peter (2009-12-01). "What East Anglia's E-mails Really Tell Us About Climate Change". Popular Mechanics. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
33. "The Real Copenhagen Option". Wall Street Journal. 2009-12-03. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 2009-12-08.
34. "Chair for climate e-mail review". BBC News. 2009-12-03. p. 1. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 2009-12-10.
35. "Climate Science and Candor". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company. 2009-11-24. p. 1. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 10 December 2009. 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.
36. "University in climate flap details inquiry reach – Outside reviewer named, will eye e-mails for data 'manipulation'". MSNBC. 2009-12-03. Archived from the original on 2009-12-15. Retrieved 2009-12-10.
37. In Climate Hack Story, Could Talk of Cover-Up Be as Serious as Crime? by Antoniao Regalado, Science Insider, November 23, 2009
38. George Monbiot Pretending the climate email leak isn't a crisis won't make it go away guardian.co.uk 25 November 2009. "If you take the wording literally, in one case he appears to be suggesting that emails subject to a request be deleted, which means that he seems to be advocating potentially criminal activity. Even if no other message had been hacked, this would be sufficient to ensure his resignation as head of the unit."
39. Climate Hack Scandal Update by Antoniao Regalado, Science Insider, 11/26/2009
40. James Randerson (27 January 2010). "University in hacked climate change emails row broke FOI rules | Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-01-28.
41. Trenberth KE (2009) An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 1(1):19-27. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001
42. Staff (22 November 2009). "Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling". The Associated Press.
43. "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)
44. http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/statement.html
45. "Climate email mess hits Australia". Sydney Morning Herald.
46. "Open Science and climategate: The IPCC/CRU needs to take a leaf out of CERN's Book". Free Software Magazine.
47. "CRU's programming 'below commercial standards'". BBC Newsnight.
48. "The global-cooling cover-up". Washington Times.
49. "Data-leak lessons learned from the 'Climategate' hack". Network World.
50. Myles Allen (11 December 2009). "Science forgotten in climate emails fuss | Comment is free". The Guardian. Retrieved 2010-01-05.

• Climate change assessment and attribution
• Environmental controversies
• Global warming
• Environmental skepticism
• Ethics of science and technology
• Hacking (computer security)
• 2009 in science
• 2009 in England