Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limi elektron pochta ziddiyati - Climatic Research Unit email controversy

Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limi elektron pochta ziddiyati

Sana	2009 yil 17-noyabr
Manzil	Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limi, Sharqiy Angliya universiteti
Shuningdek, nomi bilan tanilgan	"IqlimDarvoza "
So'rovlar	Jamiyat palatasi Fan va texnologiyalar qo'mitasi (Buyuk Britaniya)[1] Iqlim o'zgarishini mustaqil ravishda ko'rib chiqish (Buyuk Britaniya) Xalqaro ilmiy baholash paneli (Buyuk Britaniya) Pensilvaniya shtati universiteti (AQSh) AQSh atrof-muhitni muhofaza qilish agentligi (AQSh) Savdo vazirligi (AQSh)
Hukm	Barcha katta yoki jiddiy ayblovlarni oqlash yoki olib qo'yish

The Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limi elektron pochta ziddiyati (shuningdek, nomi bilan tanilgan "Iqlim")^[2][3] bilan 2009 yil noyabrda boshlangan xakerlik da server Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limi (CRU) da Sharqiy Angliya universiteti (UEA) tashqi tajovuzkor tomonidan,^[4][5] minglab elektron pochta va kompyuter fayllarini nusxalash ( Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limi hujjatlari ) dan bir necha hafta oldin turli xil Internet-manzillarga Kopengagen sammiti iqlim o'zgarishi to'g'risida.

Hikoya birinchi bo'lib buzilgan iqlim o'zgarishini rad etuvchilar,^[6][7] kolumnist bilan Jeyms Delingpol qarama-qarshiliklarni tavsiflash uchun "Iqlim strategiyasi" atamasini ommalashtirish.^[8] Ular elektron pochta xabarlari buni ko'rsatganligini ta'kidladilar global isish ilmiy fitna edi va olimlar iqlim ma'lumotlarini manipulyatsiya qilishgan va tanqidchilarni bostirishga urinishgan.^[9][10] CRU elektron pochta xabarlari kontekstdan chiqarib tashlanganligini aytib, buni rad etdi.^[11][12] Fakt-tekshiruvchilar iqlim o'zgarishini rad etganlar elektron pochta xabarlari mazmunini noto'g'ri talqin qilishganini tasdiqladilar.^[13]

Asosiy ommaviy axborot vositalari bu voqeani muzokaralar tugashi bilan davom ettirdi iqlim o'zgarishini yumshatish Kopengagendagi 2009 yil 7-dekabrda boshlangan.^[14] Belgilangan vaqt tufayli olimlar, siyosatchilar va jamoatchilik bilan aloqalar bo'yicha mutaxassislar elektron pochta xabarlarini chiqarish a qoralash kampaniyasi iqlim konferentsiyasini buzish uchun mo'ljallangan.^[15] Qarama-qarshiliklarga javoban, Amerika ilm-fanni rivojlantirish bo'yicha assotsiatsiyasi (AAAS), Amerika meteorologik jamiyati (AMS) va Xavotirga tushgan olimlar ittifoqi (UCS) ilmiy konsensusni qo'llab-quvvatlovchi bayonotlarni e'lon qildi Yer O'rtacha sirt harorati o'nlab yillar davomida ko'tarilib kelmoqda va AAAS shunday xulosaga keldi: "insoniyat tomonidan sodir bo'layotgan global iqlim o'zgarishi hozirgi kunda sodir bo'lganligi haqidagi ko'plab ilmiy dalillarga asoslanib ... bu jamiyat uchun o'sib borayotgan tahdiddir".^[16]

Sakkizta qo'mita ushbu da'volarni tekshirib chiqdi va hisobotlarni e'lon qildi, firibgarliklar yoki ilmiy qonunbuzarliklarning dalillarini topmadi.^[17] The global isish yuz berayotgani to'g'risida ilmiy kelishuv Natijada inson faoliyati tergov davomida o'zgarishsiz qoldi.^[18]

Dastlabki hodisaning xronologiyasi

Hodisa Iqlim tadqiqotlari birligi foydalanadigan server "murakkab va ehtiyotkorlik bilan uyushtirilgan hujumda" buzilganidan boshlandi,^[5] va 160MB ma'lumotlar^[9] 1000 dan ortiq elektron pochta xabarlari va 3000 dan ortiq boshqa hujjatlar kiritilgan.^[19] Sharqiy Angliya universiteti ma'lumot olingan server osongina kirish mumkin bo'lmagan server ekanligini va ma'lumotlar bexosdan chiqarilishi mumkin emasligini ta'kidladi.^[20] Keyinchalik Norfolk politsiyasi huquqbuzarlar noqonuniy Internet faoliyatida keng tarqalgan usullardan foydalanganliklarini, keyinchalik surishtiruvlarga xalaqit berish uchun foydalanganliklarini qo'shimcha qilishdi.^[5] Buzilish birinchi marta 2009 yil 17 noyabrda serveridan keyin aniqlangan RealClimate veb-sayt ham buzib tashlandi va o'g'irlangan ma'lumotlarning nusxasi u erga yuklandi.^[21] RealClimate's Gavin Shmidt u fayllar "[CRU] ning zaxira pochta serverini buzish" orqali olinganligi to'g'risida ma'lumotga ega ekanligini aytdi.^[22] Taxminan bir vaqtning o'zida Stiven Makintayrning qisqa sharhlari paydo bo'ldi Iqlim auditi veb-saytida "Mo''jiza sodir bo'ldi" deb yozilgan.^[23]

19 noyabr kuni ma'lumotlar saqlangan arxiv fayli Internetdagi ko'plab joylarga ko'chirildi.^[9] An noma'lum xabar Saudiya Arabistonidan IP-manzil^[24] uchun iqlim-skeptik blog Havo havosi^[21] materialni "yozishmalar, kodlar va hujjatlarning tasodifiy tanlovi" deb ta'riflab, iqlimshunoslik "o'ralgan holda saqlash uchun juda muhim" ekanligini ta'kidladi.^[25] O'sha kuni, Stiven Makintayr iqlim auditining ichki elektron pochtasi UEA xodimlariga yuborilgan va "iqlim o'zgarishiga skeptiklar "" Katta hajmdagi fayllar va elektron pochta xabarlarini "qo'lga kiritdi. Charlz Rotter, iqlim-skeptik blog moderatori Bu bilan Watts Up birinchi bo'lib havolani olgan va fayllarni yuklab olgan, uning nusxasini kvartiradoshi Stiv Mosherga berdi. Mosher xakerdan hech narsa bo'lmayotganidan shikoyat qilgan xabarni oldi va shunday javob berdi: "Pardalar ortida ko'p narsa sodir bo'lmoqda. Bunga e'tibor berilmaydi. Ko'p narsa yirik o'yinchilar va OAV o'rtasida muvofiqlashtirilmoqda. Katta rahmat. Siz buni sezasiz Hozirda boshqa saytlarda faoliyatning boshlanishi. Tez orada davom etamiz. " Ko'p o'tmay, elektron pochta xabarlari iqlim sharoitida keng targ'ib qilinmoqda.skeptiklar bloglar.^[23] 20 noyabrda bu voqea ommaviy axborot vositalarida paydo bo'ldi.^[9]

Norfolk politsiyasi keyinchalik Metropoliten politsiyasi yordamida "Sharqiy Angliya universitetidagi ma'lumotlar buzilishi bilan bog'liq jinoyatlarni tergov qilish" ni tasdiqladilar. Markaziy elektron jinoyatchilik bo'limi, Axborot komissari boshqarmasi (ICO) va Milliy ichki ekstremizm jamoasi (NDET).^[26] NDETga aloqadorligi to'g'risida vakili shunday dedi: "Hozir bizda Norfolkka tergov o'tkazishda yordam beradigan ikkita politsiyachi bor, shuningdek biz kompyuter-sud ekspertizasini o'tkazdik. Ammo bu ichki ichki ekstremizm masalasi emas, milliy politsiya bo'limi sifatida Bizda ushbu tergovga yordam beradigan tajriba va resurslar, shuningdek jinoiy tergov bilan bog'liq iqlim o'zgarishi muammolari to'g'risida yaxshi ma'lumot bor edi. " Biroq, politsiya "ushbu turdagi katta tekshiruvlar juda batafsil zarurat va natijada xulosa chiqarish uchun vaqt talab qilishi mumkin" deb ogohlantirdi.^[27] 2012 yil 18 iyulda Norfolk politsiyasi tergovni yakunlash to'g'risida qaror qabul qildi, chunki ularda "qonunbuzarni yoki huquqbuzarlarni aniqlash va jinoyat ishini qo'zg'atishning real istiqbollari" yo'q edi. Shuningdek, ular hujum "masofadan turib Internet orqali" amalga oshirilganligini va "Sharqiy Angliya universitetida ishlaydigan yoki u bilan aloqador bo'lganlarning jinoyatga aloqadorligini tasdiqlovchi dalillar yo'qligini" ta'kidladilar.^[5]

Hujjatlar tarkibi

Ushbu materialda 1000 dan ortiq elektron pochta xabarlari, 2000 ta hujjatlar va boshqalar mavjud izoh berdi manba kodi tegishli Iqlim o'zgarishi 1996 yildan 2009 yilgacha bo'lgan davrni o'z ichiga olgan tadqiqotlar.^[28] In tahliliga ko'ra Guardian, elektron pochta xabarlarining aksariyati to'rtta iqlimshunosdan yoki undan kelgan: Fil Jons, CRU rahbari; Keyt Brifa, ixtisoslashgan CRU klimatologi daraxt uzuklarini tahlil qilish; Tim Osborn, CRU iqlim modelchisi; va Mayk Xulme, direktori Tyndall iqlim o'zgarishini o'rganish markazi. To'rt kishi, 1073 ta elektron pochtadan 66 tasidan boshqasining oluvchisi yoki asoschisi bo'lgan, qolgan elektron pochta xabarlarining aksariyati pochta ro'yxatlaridan yuborilgan. Boshqa bir nechta elektron pochta xabarlari CRUning boshqa xodimlari tomonidan yoki ularga yuborilgan. Jons, Briffa, Osborn va Xulme iqlim o'zgarishiga bag'ishlangan yuqori darajadagi ilmiy maqolalar yozdilar. Iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha hukumatlararo hay'at.^[22]

Elektron pochtalarning aksariyati iqlim tadqiqotlarining texnik va oddiy jihatlariga tegishli, masalan, ma'lumotlarni tahlil qilish va ilmiy konferentsiyalar tafsilotlari.^[29] Guardianniki elektron pochta xabarlarini tahlil qilish shuni ko'rsatadiki, xaker ularni filtrlagan. To'rt olim nishonga olingan va kelishuv syujeti "ma'lumotlar", "iqlim", "qog'oz", "tadqiqot", "harorat" va "model" so'zlari ustun bo'lganligini ko'rsatadi.^[22] Qarama-qarshiliklar elektron pochta xabarlarining oz soniga qaratildi^[29] "iqlim skeptik" veb-saytlari bilan ba'zi bir iboralarni tanlab olish bilan, masalan Kevin Trenbert dedi: "Haqiqat shuki, biz hozirgi paytda iliqlik yo'qligini hisoblay olmaymiz va bu biz qila olmaydigan travesti".^[21] Bu aslida qisqa muddatli iqlim o'zgaruvchanligi bilan bog'liq energiya oqimlarini yaxshiroq monitoring qilish zarurligi haqidagi munozaralarning bir qismi edi,^[30] ammo tanqidchilar tomonidan qo'pol ravishda buzilgan.^[31][32]

Ko'pgina sharhlovchilar bitta elektron pochtani keltirdilar, unda Fil Jons "Maykdan foydalanganman" deb aytdi Tabiat hiyla "uchun 1999 yilgi grafada Jahon meteorologiya tashkiloti O'lchangan harorat ko'tarilganda daraxtlar halqasi tahlillaridan olingan proksi haroratdagi "pasayishni yashirish uchun". Ushbu "pasayish" yaxshi muhokama qilingan daraxt halqasiga tegishli edi kelishmovchilik muammosi, ammo bu ikkita ibora kontekstdan chiqarib tashlangan global isish bo'yicha skeptiklar shu jumladan AQSh senatori Jim Inxof va Alyaskaning sobiq gubernatori Sara Peylin go'yo ular harorat global rekord darajada yuqori bo'lganida yozilgan bo'lsa-da, o'lchangan global haroratning bir oz pasayishiga ishora qilgandek.^[32] Jon Terney, yozish The New York Times 2009 yil noyabr oyida skeptiklar tomonidan "yolg'on" yoki "firibgarlik" da'volari noto'g'ri bo'lganligi, ammo siyosat ishlab chiqaruvchilar va jurnalistlar uchun hisobot muqovasidagi grafada ushbu ekspert bo'lmaganlar proksi o'lchovlari o'lchangan haroratgacha o'zgarganligini ko'rsatmaganligi aytilgan. .^[33] Keyingi har xil so'rovlardan olingan yakuniy tahlillar shuni ko'rsatdiki, bu "hiyla" ma'lumotlar bilan ishlashning aniq usuli uchun oddiy ilmiy yoki matematik jargon bo'lgan, bu holda statistik usul ikki yoki undan ortiq turli xil ma'lumotlar to'plamlarini qonuniy ravishda birlashtirish uchun foydalaniladi.^[34][35] EPA ta'kidlashicha, dalillar shuni ko'rsatadiki, tadqiqotchilar hamjamiyati ushbu masalalarni to'liq bilgan va hech kim ularni yashirmagan va yashirmagan.^[36]

Javoblar

Sobiq respublikachi Uy fanlari qo'mitasi rais Sherwood Boehlert hujumlarni "ishlab chiqarilgan chalg'itish" deb atadi va Newsweek va The New York Times nizoni "yuqori darajada uyushtirilgan" deb ta'riflagan va ishlab chiqarilgan tortishuvlar. Jurnalistlar va siyosat bo'yicha mutaxassislar ommaviy axborot vositalarining dastlabki ayblovlarni targ'ib qilishda va keyinchalik olimlarni oqlash haqidagi xabarlarni minimallashtirishdagi roli to'g'risida xavotir bildirishdi. Tarixchi Spenser R. Vart ning Amerika fizika instituti ushbu hodisa ilm-fan tarixida misli ko'rilmagan voqea bo'lganini, "ilgari hech qachon bir qator odamlar butun olimlar jamoasini qasddan aldash va boshqa kasbni buzganlikda ayblaganini ko'rmagan".^[37] The Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Milliy Fanlar Akademiyasi xavotir bildirdi va ular "ayniqsa olimlar va iqlimshunos olimlarga siyosiy hujumlar" deb atashni qoraladi.^[38]

Buyuk Britaniya va Qo'shma Shtatlarda hujjatlar tomonidan ko'tarilgan masalalar bo'yicha rasmiy surishtiruvlar o'tkazildi. Inglizlar Konservativ siyosatchi Lord Louson dedi: "Ilmiy dalillarning yaxlitligi ... shubha ostiga qo'yildi. Va Britaniya ilm-fanining obro'siga jiddiy putur etkazildi. Kechiktirmasdan yuqori darajadagi mustaqil tekshiruv tashkil etilishi kerak." Bob Uord ning Grantem iqlim o'zgarishi va atrof-muhit bo'yicha tadqiqot instituti da London iqtisodiyot maktabi elektron pochta xabarlari mazmuni bo'yicha qattiq tergov o'tkazilishi kerakligini aytdi, xakerlik hujumi bo'yicha tegishli choralar ko'rilgandan so'ng, xabarlarni tanlab oshkor qilish va tarqatish natijasida berilgan noo'rinlik taassurotini yo'qotish uchun.^[39] Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari senatori Jim Inxof ilgari global isish "Amerika xalqida sodir bo'lgan eng katta aldov" deb aytgan,^[40] shuningdek, so'roq qilishni talab qilishni rejalashtirgan.^[41] Bahsda Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Vakillar palatasi 2009 yil 2 dekabrda respublikachilar sakkizta elektron pochta va Vakilning ko'chirmalarini o'qib chiqdilar Jim Sensenbrenner dedi: "Ushbu elektron pochta xabarlari mafkura, xushomadgo'ylik va foyda ilhomlantirgan bostirish, manipulyatsiya va maxfiylikni namoyish etadi". Bunga javoban prezidentning ilmiy maslahatchisi Jon Xoldren fan to'g'ri ekanligini va elektron pochta xabarlari tadqiqotning faqat bir qismiga tegishli ekanligini aytdi. Hukumat olimi Jeyn Lubchenko elektron pochta xabarlari, asosan, odamlarning xatti-harakatlari tufayli Yerning isishi haqidagi "juda kuchli ilmiy konsensusni buzish uchun hech narsa qilmaydi".^[42]

Iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha skeptiklar bloglarda va axborot vositalarida keng ommalashdi,^[32] buzilgan elektron pochta xabarlari iqlim olimlari ma'lumotlarini manipulyatsiya qilganligini ko'rsatadigan dalillarni ko'rsatdi.^[9] Kabi bir necha boshqa sharhlovchilar Rojer A. Pielke^[43] dalillar turli xil ilmiy maqolalar bostirilganligi haqidagi da'volarni qo'llab-quvvatlaganligini aytdi.^[44] The Wall Street Journal elektron pochta xabarlari buni ta'minlash uchun aniq harakatlarni aniqlaganligini xabar qildi IPCC o'zlarining qarashlarini o'z ichiga olgan va boshqalarni chiqarib tashlagan va olimlar ilmiy ma'lumotlarni yashirgan.^[45]

In tahririyat Tabiat "elektron pochta xabarlarini adolatli o'qish inkorchilarning fitna nazariyalarini qo'llab-quvvatlovchi hech narsa topolmaydi" deb ta'kidladi. Unda aytilishicha, elektron pochta xabarlari tadqiqotchilarning ta'qibiga uchragan Axborot erkinligi Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limiga, ammo ma'lumotlarning chiqarilishi milliy hukumat tomonidan meteorologik ma'lumotlarning tadqiqotchilar tomonidan chiqarilishidagi cheklovlar bilan to'sqinlik qildi. Tabiat elektron pochta xabarlari ilmiy ishni buzadigan hech narsa ko'rsatmagan deb hisobladi inson tomonidan kelib chiqadigan global isish yoki tadqiqotchilarning o'z ishlariga nisbatan tashvishlanish uchun har qanday jiddiy sabablarni keltirib chiqardi.^[46] Telegraf akademiklar va iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha tadqiqotchilar elektron pochta xabarlarida hech qanday qonunbuzarlik isbotlanmaganligini aytib, ayblovlarni rad etishgan.^[47] Tomonidan mustaqil sharhlar Fakt tekshiruvi va Associated Press elektron xatlar texnogen global isish haqiqiy tahdid ekanligi haqidagi dalillarga ta'sir qilmaganligini aytdi va elektron pochta xabarlari ilmiy qoidabuzarliklarning asossiz da'volarini qo'llab-quvvatlash uchun noto'g'ri ko'rsatilayotganligini aytdi. AP xabariga ko'ra, "iqlimshunos olimlardan o'g'irlangan elektron pochta xabarlari ular skeptiklarni toshbo'ron qilganliklarini va yashiringan ma'lumotlarni muhokama qilganliklarini ko'rsatmoqda".^[48][49] Shu nuqtai nazardan, John Terney ning The New York Times yozgan: "bu tadqiqotchilar, Buyuk Britaniya va Amerikadagi ob-havoning eng taniqli mutaxassislari, jamoatchilik bilan aloqalar urushida g'alaba qozonishga shunchalik katta e'tibor berishganki, ular o'zlarining sertifikatlarini oshirib yuborishadi va oxir-oqibat o'zlarining sabablarini buzishadi".^[33]

CRU va boshqa joylarda iqlimshunos olimlar dastlabki hodisalardan so'ng ko'plab tahdidli va haqoratli elektron xabarlarni oldilar.^[50][51] Norfolk politsiyasi Fil Jons bilan elektron pochta xabarlari chiqarilgandan so'ng unga qarshi o'lim tahdidi haqida intervyu berdi; Keyinchalik Jonsning aytishicha, politsiya unga "bu o'lim tahdidi mezonlarini bajarmagan" deb aytgan.^[52] Ikki olimga nisbatan o'lim tahdidi AQSh tomonidan ham tekshirilmoqda Federal tergov byurosi.^[50] Avstraliyadagi iqlimshunos olimlar tahdidli elektron pochta xabarlari, shu jumladan yashash joylari haqida ma'lumot va ba'zi odamlar o'zlarining ilmiy xulosalariga qanday munosabatda bo'lishlari haqida "ehtiyot bo'ling" degan ogohlantirishlarni olishganini xabar qilishdi.^[53] 2012 yil iyul oyida Maykl Mann ushbu epizod unga "mening professional obro'imga, halolligimga, halolligimga, hatto hayotim va erkinligimga qarshi behisob og'zaki hujumlarga dosh berishiga" sabab bo'lganligini aytdi.^[54]

Sharqiy Angliya universiteti

The Sharqiy Angliya universiteti xavfsizlik buzilganligi to'g'risida 2009 yil 17 noyabrda xabar qilingan, ammo 20 noyabrda ushbu voqea matbuotda e'lon qilinganida, ular hech qanday bayonotga tayyor emas edilar.^[55] 24-noyabr kuni tadqiqot uchun mas'ul bo'lgan Sharqiy Angliya universiteti prorektori Trevor Devis Jonsning iste'foga chiqarilishi yoki ishdan bo'shatilishi haqidagi chaqiriqlarni rad etdi: "Biz professor Jonsning iste'foga chiqishiga hech qanday sabab ko'rmayapmiz va haqiqatan ham biz uni qabul qilmaymiz iste'fo. U qadrli va muhim olimdir. " Universitet, shu jumladan masalalarni mustaqil ko'rib chiqishini e'lon qildi Axborot erkinligi Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limiga: bu "ma'lumotlar xavfsizligi, Axborot erkinligi to'g'risidagi so'rovlarga qanday javob berganligimizni baholash va mustaqil sharhlovchi maslahat beradigan boshqa tegishli masalalarni ko'rib chiqish".^[56]

Universitet 1-dekabr kuni Fil Jons ko'rib chiqish tugaguniga qadar bo'lim direktori sifatida chetda turishi kerakligini e'lon qildi.^[57][58] Ikki kundan keyin universitet Sir deb e'lon qildi Muir Rassel "Iqlim o'zgarishini mustaqil ravishda ko'rib chiqish" deb nomlanadigan so'rovga rahbarlik qiladi va "elektron pochta almashinuvini tekshirib, ma'lumotlarning bostirilishi yoki manipulyatsiyasi to'g'risida dalillar mavjudligini tekshiradi". Ko'rib chiqish, shuningdek, CRUning "ma'lumotlar, tadqiqot natijalarini olish, yig'ish, o'zaro ekspertizadan o'tkazilishi va tarqatish" va "ularning ilg'or ilmiy amaliyotga muvofiqligi yoki boshqa yo'llar bilan" siyosati va amaliyotini o'rganib chiqadi. Bundan tashqari, tergov CRU-ning "Axborot erkinligi to'g'risida" gi qonun talablariga muvofiqligini ko'rib chiqadi va "CRU uchun menejment, boshqaruv va xavfsizlik tuzilmalari hamda ular tarkibidagi ma'lumotlarning xavfsizligi, yaxlitligi va chiqarilishi to'g'risida tavsiyalar beradi".^[59] Iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha mustaqil elektron pochta xabarlarini ko'rib chiqish hisoboti 2010 yil 7-iyulda e'lon qilingan.^[60]

2010 yil 22 martda universitet ilgari ko'rib chiqilgan va jurnallarda nashr etilgan CRUning asosiy ishlarini qayta baholash uchun mustaqil Ilmiy baholash kengashi tarkibini e'lon qildi. Hay'at ilm-fanni o'zi baholashga intilmagan, aksincha "xulosalar [CRU tomonidan qilingan] ma'lumotlarning halol va ilmiy asoslangan talqinini anglatadimi". Universitet bilan maslahatlashdi Qirollik jamiyati panelni o'rnatishda. Unga raislik qildi Lord Oksburg va uning a'zosi Xuv Devisdan iborat edi ETH Tsyurix, Kerri Emanual of Massachusets texnologiya instituti, Liza Graumlich Arizona universiteti, Devid Xand ning London Imperial kolleji va Gerbert Xuppert va Maykl Kelli Kembrij universiteti. 2010 yil mart oyida o'z ishini boshladi va o'z hisobotini 2010 yil 14 aprelda e'lon qildi. So'rov davomida hay'at CRUning maslahati bilan tanlangan o'n bir vakili CRU nashrlarini ko'rib chiqdi. Qirollik jamiyati, bu 20 yildan ortiq vaqtni, shuningdek CRUning boshqa tadqiqot materiallarini qamrab oldi. Shuningdek, olimlar bilan suhbatlar o'tkazishda UEA-da o'n besh kun ishladi.^[61]

Klimatologlar

Elektron pochtalari oshkor qilingan olimlar orasida CRU tadqiqotchilari o'zlarining bayonotlarida elektron pochta xabarlari kontekstdan chiqarilgani va shunchaki samimiy fikr almashishni aks ettirganligini ta'kidladilar. Maykl Mann, direktori Pensilvaniya shtati universiteti Yer tizimining ilmiy markazining ta'kidlashicha, skeptiklar "bu so'zlarni umuman ahamiyatsiz narsalarni yomon qilish uchun kontekstdan chiqarib tashlashmoqda".^[19] va butun voqeani ehtiyotkorlik bilan, "ob-havoning o'zgarishi muammosining mohiyati to'g'risida jamoatchilikni chalg'itish uchun yuqori darajadagi uyushtirilgan qoralash kampaniyasi" deb atadi.^[62] Kevin E. Trenbert ning Milliy atmosfera tadqiqotlari markazi elektron pochta xabarlari chiqarilishidan dahshatga tushganini, ammo bu iqlim skeptiklariga teskari ta'sir qilishi mumkin deb o'ylaganini aytdi, chunki bu xabarlar "olimlarning yaxlitligini" ko'rsatib beradi.^[21] Uning so'zlariga ko'ra, iqlim o'zgarishiga skeptiklar kontekstdan tashqari so'zlar va iboralarni tanlab keltirgan va bu vaqt 2009 yilning dekabrida bo'lib o'tgan muzokaralarni buzishga urinishni taklif qilgan. Kopengagen global iqlim sammiti.^[63] Tom Uigli, CRUning sobiq direktori va hozirda AQSh rahbari Milliy atmosfera tadqiqotlari markazi, o'zi va boshqa hamkasblari tomonidan qilingan tahdidlarni "chindan ham oshqozonni aylantiruvchi" deya qoraladi va quyidagicha izoh berdi: "Ularning hech biri ilm-fanga ta'sir qilmaydi. Ma'lumotlarni buzish yoki soxtalashtirish bo'yicha ayblovlar asossiz. Men raddiya bera olaman Men ko'rib chiqqan elektron pochta xabarlarini ayblash bilan, lekin buni amalga oshirish uchun juda ko'p vaqt kerak bo'ladi. "^[50] U va uning hamkasblari boshidan kechirgan tazyiqlar bilan bog'liq holda, u shunday dedi: "Bunday narsa deyarli 20 yildan beri ancha past darajada davom etmoqda va bunday xatti-harakatlarning boshqa alangalari ham bo'lgan - tanqid va haqoratli elektron pochta xabarlari o'tmishda va shunga o'xshash narsalar. Demak, bu yomonroq ko'rinish, ammo oldin ham sodir bo'lgan, bu ajablanarli emas ".^[64]

Kabi boshqa taniqli iqlimshunos olimlar Richard Somervil, voqeani qoralash kampaniyasi deb atadi.^[65] Devid Reay ning Edinburg universiteti CRU "milliy va xalqaro miqyosda iqlim siyosatining asosiy ilmiy asoslarini yaratadigan ko'plab iqlim tadqiqot institutlaridan biridir. fitna nazariyotchilari dala kuni o'tkazayotgan bo'lishi mumkin, ammo agar ular haqiqatan ham akademiyani bilsalar, ular buni ham bilishadi har bir nashr etilgan maqolalar va ma'lumotlar to'plami doimiy ravishda boshqa mustaqil tadqiqot guruhlari tomonidan siqib qo'yiladi, uni IPCC hisobotlariga kiritadigan ma'lumotlar ilm-fanning har qanday sohasida eng qattiq sinovdan o'tgan va munozara qilingan ma'lumotlardir. "^[50] Stiven Shnayder iqlimshunoslarga qarshi siyosiy hujumlarni taqqosladi jodugar ovi ning Makkartizm.^[66]

Jeyms Xansen tortishuvlar "ilm-fanga hech qanday ta'sir ko'rsatmaydi" va ba'zi elektron pochta xabarlari noto'g'ri fikrni aks ettirsa-da, inson tomonidan yaratilgan iqlim o'zgarishiga oid dalillar juda ko'p.^[67]

IPCC-ning etakchi mualliflaridan biri, Raymond Pyerxembert ning Chikago universiteti, ushbu voqeada belgilangan pretsedentdan xavotirda ekanligini bildirdi: "[T] uning jinoyati vandalizm va faqat o'z ilmiy faoliyati bilan shug'ullanadigan bir guruh olimlarni ta'qib qilishdir. Bu urushdagi yangi eskalatsiyani anglatadi. faqat haqiqatga erishishga intilayotgan iqlimshunos olimlar ... Keyin nima bo'ladi? Serverlarda ma'lumotlar bilan ataylab maymunlash? Iqlim modellariga xatolarni kiritish? "^[68] Boshqa IPCC etakchi muallifi, Devid Karoli ning Melburn universiteti, ushbu voqea ortidan nafrat xatlari haqida xabar olgani haqida xabar bergan va u "iqlim bo'yicha ayrim olimlarni obro'sizlantirish uchun uyushgan kampaniya" borligiga ishonishini aytgan. Endryu Pitman ning Yangi Janubiy Uels universiteti izoh berdi: "Eng katta muammo shundaki, olimlar o'z ilmlarini qo'rqmasdan yoki iltifotsiz etkazishlari kerak va ba'zi olimlarni qo'rqitish uchun yaxshi uyushtirilgan kampaniya bo'lib o'tmoqda."^[53]

Ushbu hodisaga javoban 1700 ingliz olimi Buyuk Britaniya tarqatgan qo'shma bayonotga imzo chekdi Office bilan uchrashdim o'zlarining "global isish uchun kuzatuv dalillariga va bu avvalambor inson faoliyati bilan bog'liq degan xulosaga kelishning ilmiy asoslariga to'liq ishonishlarini" e'lon qilishdi.^[69]

Patrik J. Mayklz Elektron pochta xabarlarida tanqidga uchragan va uzoq vaqt davomida inson tomonidan boshqariladigan isinishni isbotlovchi dalillarni keltirib chiqargan shaxs: "Bu chekadigan qurol emas; bu qo'ziqorin buluti", dedi. Uning so'zlariga ko'ra, ba'zi elektron pochta xabarlari mustaqil ko'rib chiqish uchun ma'lumotlarning chiqarilishini blokirovka qilishga urinishlarni ko'rsatgan va ba'zi xabarlarda doktorlik dissertatsiyasida uning tadqiqotlari noto'g'ri ekanligini bilganligi sababli uni obro'sizlantirish masalasi muhokama qilingan, «Bu shuni ko'rsatadiki, bular qoidalarni egib, borishga tayyor odamlar. juda jiddiy yo'llar bilan boshqalarning obro'sidan keyin. "^[21]

Judit Karri uning fikriga ko'ra, "ushbu elektron pochta xabarlari orqali iqlimni o'rganish bo'yicha jamoatchilik ishonchiga to'sqinlik qiladigan ikkita kengroq muammo mavjud: iqlim ma'lumotlarida shaffoflikning yo'qligi va iqlim tadqiqotlari jamoatchiligining ayrim segmentlarida" qabilaviylik "tengdoshlarga to'sqinlik qilmoqda. ko'rib chiqish va baholash jarayoni ". U bu ish olimlarning ma'lumotlarini jamoatchilikka etkazish va ularning ishidagi tanqidlarga javob berish uslubini o'zgartiradi deb umid qildi. U o'zini "norozi xodim" axborot erkinligini so'rab murojaat qilganida, elektron pochta xabarlarini yozishda ehtiyot bo'lishni o'rgandi. So'nggi yillarda olimlar o'zlarining ma'lumotlari bilan ancha ochiq bo'lishganini hisobga olib, Mann bu izohlarni "biroz sodda" deb ta'rifladi. Uning so'zlariga ko'ra, skeptiklar "har doim boshqa narsadan shikoyat qilishadi, ko'proq narsani xohlashadi. Oxir oqibat, biz ko'rib turganimizdek, ular olimlar o'rtasida shaxsiy aloqalarga kirish yo'lini topishdi".^[62]

Xans fon Storch, shuningdek, global isish bo'yicha asosiy nuqtai nazarga mos keladi,^[70] Sharqiy Angliya universiteti (UEA) boshqa tadqiqotchilar bilan ma'lumot almashishdan bosh tortib, "fanning asosiy printsipini buzgan". "Ular fanni kuch o'yini sifatida o'ynashadi", dedi u.^[71] 2009 yil 24-noyabr kuni universitet xomashyo stantsiyasining 95% ma'lumotlariga kirish imkoniyati mavjudligini aytdi Global Tarixiy Klimatologiya Tarmog'i va bir necha yillardan beri bo'lgan. Ular allaqachon Met Office bilan ishlashgan, qolgan xom ma'lumotlarni chiqarish uchun ruxsat olishgan.^[72]

Ilmiy tashkilotlar

Iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha hukumatlararo guruh I ishchi guruhi butun dunyo bo'ylab yuzlab olimlarni jalb qilgan holda baholash jarayoni shaffof bo'lishi va har qanday shaxs yoki kichik guruhning bu jarayonni manipulyatsiya qilishiga yo'l qo'ymaslik uchun ishlab chiqilganligi to'g'risida bayonotlar berdi. Bayonotda aytilishicha, "ko'plab dalillar qatoridagi ichki kelishuv ilmiy jamoatchilik ishini, shu jumladan ushbu elektron pochta almashinuvida alohida ta'kidlangan shaxslarni qo'llab-quvvatlaydi".^[73][74]

The Amerika meteorologik jamiyati ushbu hodisa jamiyatning iqlim o'zgarishiga nisbatan pozitsiyasiga ta'sir qilmasligini ta'kidladi. Ular insonning iqlimga ta'siri haqida dalillarning kengligiga ishora qilib, quyidagilarni ta'kidladilar:^[75]

Iqlim o'zgarishini tadqiq qilish uchun adabiyotdagi tadqiqotlar hajmi juda katta va har qanday tadqiqot natijalariga iqlim tizimini har tomonlama tushunishga bog'liqligi juda oz. Hatto ushbu aniq vaziyatda noo'rin xatti-harakatlarning ba'zi ayblari haqiqat bo'lib chiqsa ham, bu hali aniq emas - iqlim o'zgarishi faniga ta'siri juda cheklangan bo'lar edi.

The Amerika Geofizika Ittifoqi "ushbu elektron pochta xabarlarining noqonuniy kiberhujumlar natijasida olinganligi va ular iqlim o'zgarishi bilan bog'liq dolzarb masalalar haqidagi ilmiy munozaralarni buzish uchun foydalanilayotgani tajovuzkor" deb topilganligi haqida bayonot berdi. Ular 2007 yilgi iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha pozitsiya bayonotlarini "Yerning iqlimi iliqlashayotgani va inson faoliyati sababchi omil ekanligi haqidagi ko'plab ilmiy dalillarga asoslanib tasdiqladilar. Sharqiy Angliya Universitetining xakerlik xatlarining hech biri ushbu tashkilot uchun muhim muammo emas ilmiy dalillar ".^[76]

The Amerika ilm-fanni rivojlantirish bo'yicha assotsiatsiyasi (AAAS) global isish bo'yicha o'z pozitsiyasini yana bir bor tasdiqladi va "Sharqiy Angliya universitetidan o'g'irlangan shaxsiy elektron pochta xabarlarining noqonuniy chiqarilishi siyosatchilar va jamoatchilikni global iqlim o'zgarishining ilmiy asoslari to'g'risida bosh qotirmasligi uchun jiddiy xavotir bildirdi. Ilmiy yaxlitlik ishonchli, mustaqil ekspertizadan o'tishni talab qiladi va shuning uchun AAAS, ilmiy uslubning shaffofligi va qat'iyligi, o'zaro baholash jarayoni yoki ayrim olimlarning mas'uliyati to'g'risida muhim savollar tug'ilganda, tekshiruvlar o'rinli ekanligini ta'kidladi. bunday tekshiruvlarni olib borish. " Alan I. Leshner, AAAS bosh direktori va jurnalning ijro etuvchi noshiri Ilm-fan, dedi: "AAAS ilmiy yaxlitlik masalalariga jiddiy yondashadi. Har qanday noo'rinlik haqidagi da'volarga javob izlash adolatli va maqsadga muvofiqdir. Shunga qaramay, iqlim o'zgarishi haqiqati asr va asrlarga asoslanganligini unutmaslik kerak. tasdiqlangan fan. "^[77]

UK Met Office

2009 yil 23 noyabrda Office bilan uchrashdim, haroratni global ma'lumot bilan ta'minlashda CRU bilan hamkorlik qiladigan Buyuk Britaniyaning milliy ob-havo xizmati, so'rov o'tkazishga hojat yo'qligini aytdi. "Xulosa shuki, harorat ko'tarilishda davom etmoqda va buning uchun odamlar javobgar. Ilm-fanga va biz foydalanadigan turli xil ma'lumotlar to'plamlariga ishonchimiz komil. Tekshirish jarayoni iloji boricha mustahkam."^[39]

Biroq, 2009 yil 5-dekabrda Met Office ofis elektron pochta xabarlari bo'yicha tortishuvlar natijasida jamoatchilikning fanga bo'lgan ishonchiga putur etkazdi degan xavotirda 160 yillik harorat ma'lumotlarini qayta ko'rib chiqishni niyat qildi.^[78] Met Office shuningdek, butun dunyo bo'ylab 1000 dan ortiq ob-havo stantsiyalari uchun harorat ko'rsatkichlarini onlayn ravishda e'lon qiladi.^[79][80] Uning tahlillari to'g'ri ekanligiga ishonch hosil qildi^[78] va ma'lumotlar so'nggi 150 yil ichida harorat ko'tarilishini ko'rsatishi mumkin.^[79][81]

Boshqa javoblar

Rajendra Pachauri, raisi sifatida Iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha hukumatlararo hay'at, 2009 yil dekabrida BBCga bu ishni "jiddiy masala" deb bilganini va ular "buni batafsil ko'rib chiqishlarini" aytgan.^[82] Keyinchalik u IPCC ushbu voqeani o'rganilishi kerak bo'lgan saboqlarni aniqlash uchun ko'rib chiqishiga aniqlik kiritdi va IPCC o'zi tekshiruv o'tkazishi kerakligi haqidagi takliflarni rad etdi.

A orqali yuborilgan bir qator elektron pochta xabarlarida Milliy fanlar akademiyasi (NAS) listserv Ehtimol, noma'lum shaxs tomonidan guruh tashqarisiga yuborilgan, olimlar "Climategate" tushunchasini muhokama qilishda reklama kampaniyalarini boshlash, ularning jamoatchilik ishtirokini kengaytirish, NASni iqlimshunoslikni tushuntirishda faolroq rol o'ynashga undash va ovoz sifatida xizmat qilish uchun notijorat tashkilot yaratishni o'ylashdi. ilmiy jamoatchilik uchun.^[83]

Qog'oz Reyner Grundmann ilmiy amaliyot me'yorlarini ikkitasiga nisbatan muhokama qilish uchun voqealarning cheklangan hisobidan foydalangan ilmiy axloq yondashuvlar, Merton normalari sifatida Robert K. Merton va Rojer Pielke kichik ning kontseptsiyasi halol vositachilik ilmiy siyosatning o'zaro ta'sirida. Qog'oz uchun manbalar "muhim hisoblar" ni ta'kidlab, kirish uchun tanlangan.^[84]

So'rovlar va hisobotlar

Sakkizta qo'mita ushbu da'volarni tekshirib chiqdi va hisobotlarni e'lon qildi, firibgarliklar yoki ilmiy qonunbuzarliklarning dalillarini topmadi.^[17] Natijada global isish sodir bo'layotgani haqidagi ilmiy kelishuv inson faoliyati tergov yakunlariga qadar o'zgarishsiz qoldi.^[18] Biroq, ma'ruzalar olimlarni kelajakda bunday ayblovlardan qochishga va o'zlariga qaytishga undaydi jamoatchilik ishonchi ushbu ommaviy axborot bo'ronidan so'ng, "qo'llab-quvvatlovchi barcha ma'lumotlarni taqdim etish uchun har qachongidan ham ko'proq harakatlarni - to o'nggacha kompyuter kodlari ular o'zlarining topilmalarining to'g'ri bo'lishiga imkon berish uchun foydalanadilar tasdiqlangan ". Iqlimshunos olimlar va tashkilotlar ilmiy tadqiqotlar va boshqa tadqiqotchilar bilan hamkorlikni takomillashtirish orqali yaxshilashga va'da berishdi ma'lumotlarni boshqarish va kirish imkoniyatini ochish ma'lumotlarga va har qanday kishini hurmat qilishga axborot erkinligi iqlim fani bilan bog'liq bo'lgan so'rovlar.^[85]

Jamiyat palatasi Fan va texnologiyalar qo'mitasi

2010 yil 22-yanvar kuni Jamiyat palatasi Fan va texnologiyalarni tanlash qo'mitasi ish bo'yicha surishtiruv o'tkazishini, ilmiy izlanishlarning yaxlitligi uchun ta'sirini o'rganib chiqishini, UEA tomonidan e'lon qilingan mustaqil Muir Rassel ko'rib chiqish doirasini va xalqaro mustaqillikni ko'rib chiqishini e'lon qildi. iqlim ma'lumotlari to'plamlari.^[86] Qo'mita manfaatdor shaxslardan yozma arizalarni taklif qildi va 10 fevralga qadar qabul qilingan 55 ta nashrni e'lon qildi. Ular tomonidan yuborilganlar kiritilgan Sharqiy Angliya universiteti, Global Issiqlik siyosati fondi, Fizika instituti, Qirollik kimyo jamiyati, Office bilan uchrashdim, boshqa bir qancha professional organlar, taniqli olimlar, ba'zi iqlim o'zgarishiga skeptiklar, bir nechta Yevropa parlamenti deputatlari va boshqa manfaatdor tomonlar.^[87] Og'zaki dalillar sessiyasi 2010 yil 1 martda bo'lib o'tdi.^[88]

Ilmiy va texnologiyani tanlash bo'yicha qo'mitaning so'rovi 2010 yil 31 martda "professor Jons va CRUning ilmiy obro'si saqlanib qolgan" degan xulosaga keldi. Bahsda ko'tarilgan elektron pochta xabarlari va da'volari "global isish yuz berayapti va uni inson faoliyati keltirib chiqaradi" degan ilmiy kelishuvga qarshi chiqmadi. Deputatlar Jonsning ma'lumotlarni buzganligi yoki o'zaro tanishish jarayoniga aralashgani haqidagi da'volarni tasdiqlovchi dalillarni ko'rmadilar.^[89]

Qo'mita "CRU-da ma'lumotni oshkor qilmaslik madaniyati" va iqlimshunoslikdagi shaffoflikning umuman yo'qligini tanqid qildi, chunki ilmiy ishlarda, odatda, qayta qurishda foydalanilgan barcha ma'lumotlar va kodlar mavjud emas edi. Unda aytilishicha, "hatto CRU foydalangan ma'lumotlar jamoatchilikka ma'lum bo'lmaganda ham - ular asosan bo'lgan yoki nashr etilmagan usullar - ular e'lon qilingan natijalar hali ham ishonchli bo'ladi: CRU natijalari boshqalarning ma'lumotlariga mos keladi. xalqaro ma'lumotlar to'plamlari; boshqacha aytganda tahlillar takrorlangan va xulosalar tasdiqlangan. " Hisobotda "olimlar o'zlarining tanqidchilarini qanday qilib toshbo'ron qilish haqida o'ylash o'rniga, o'zlarining barcha ma'lumotlarini tajovuzkor ravishda nashr etish orqali o'zlarini ko'p muammolardan xalos qilishlari mumkin edi" deb qo'shimcha qilingan. Qo'mita shu yo'l bilan universitetni tanqid qildi axborot erkinligi bo'yicha so'rovlar ko'rib chiqildi va bu kabi talablarni ko'rib chiqish uchun olimlarni etarli darajada qo'llab-quvvatlamaganligi uchun.^[90]

Qo'mita raisi Fil Uillis iqlimshunoslikdagi "odatiy amaliyot" odatda barcha xom ma'lumotlar va kompyuter kodlarini muntazam ravishda chiqarmaslik "o'zgarishi kerak va u tezda o'zgarishi kerak". Jons "dahshatli elektron pochta xabarlari" ni yuborganini tan olgan edi; Uillis "[Jons], ehtimol, elektron pochta xabarlari hech qachon ixtiro qilinmasligini xohlaydi", deb izohladi, ammo "bundan tashqari biz professor Jons ko'p jihatdan odamlar so'ragan narsadan umidsizlikka uchraganligi sababli jinoyatchilikka uchragan deb o'ylaymiz. uning tadqiqotlariga putur etkazadigan ma'lumot uchun. "^[34] Uillisning fikriga ko'ra, bu FOI to'g'risidagi qonun talablari bilan to'g'ri ishlamaslik uchun hech qanday sabab bo'lmadi, ammo qo'mita Jonsning qo'lidan kelgan barcha ma'lumotlarni tarqatganligini qabul qildi.^[34] Unda: "Professor Jons o'z lavozimini davom ettirmasligi uchun hech qanday sabab yo'q. U, albatta, ma'lumot olishni istaganlar bilan hamkorlik qilmagan, ammo bu barcha iqlimshunoslarga tegishli edi".^[91]

Qo'mita o'z hisoboti bir kunlik og'zaki ko'rsatuvlardan so'ng yozilganligini va boshqa so'rovlar singari chuqur bo'lmasligini ta'kidlashda ehtiyotkorlik bilan harakat qildi.^[89]

Ilmiy baholash paneli

Mustaqil Ilmiy baholash panelining hisoboti 2010 yil 14 aprelda e'lon qilindi va xulosaga ko'ra, "Iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'linmasining biron bir ishida qasddan qilingan ilmiy xatolarga oid dalillar yo'q". Unda CRU ishi "halollik bilan olib borilganligi" va "adolatli va qoniqarli" usullardan foydalanilganligi aniqlandi. CRU "ma'lumotlarga va ularning natijalariga nisbatan ob'ektiv va shafqatsiz" deb topildi va natijalarni ma'lum kun tartibiga moslashtirishga ishora yo'q edi. Buning o'rniga, "ularning yagona maqsadi iloji boricha so'nggi asrlarda haroratning rekordini o'rnatish edi."^[61]

Hay'at "statistik usullarga juda bog'liq bo'lgan sohada tadqiqotlarning professional statistiklar bilan yaqin hamkorlikda olib borilmagani juda ajablanarli" deb sharhladi. Shuni aniqladiki, CRU statistik usullardan noo'rin foydalanmagan bo'lsa ham, ishlatilgan ba'zi usullar bu maqsad uchun eng yaxshi usul bo'lmasligi mumkin edi, ammo "bu aniq emas, ammo yaxshiroq usullar sezilarli darajada farq qilishi mumkin edi" natijalar. " Unda CRU o'z ishini, ma'lumotlarini va algoritmlarini hujjatlashtirish va arxivlash uchun ko'proq ish olib borishi mumkin edi va olimlar o'zlarining ishlaridan kelib chiqqan holda jamoatchilik e'tiborini jalb qilish darajasiga "yomon tayyorgarlik ko'rishgan" deb ta'kidladilar va "ko'plab kichik tadqiqot guruhlari kabi ichki protseduralar ancha norasmiy edi. " The media and other scientific organisations were criticised for having "sometimes neglected" to reflect the uncertainties, doubts and assumptions of the work done by the CRU. The UK Government's policy of charging for access to scientific data was described as "inconsistent with policies of open access to data promoted elsewhere." The panel was also stated that "Although we deplore the tone of much of the criticism that has been directed at CRU, we believe that this questioning of the methods and data used in dendroclimatology will ultimately have a beneficial effect and improve working practices." It found that some of the criticism had been "selective and uncharitable" and critics had displayed "a lack of awareness" of the difficulties of research in this area.^[61]

Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly." He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists. He said that the repeated FOI requests made by climate change sceptic Steve McIntyre and others could have amounted to a campaign of harassment, and the issue of how FOI laws should be applied in an academic context remained unresolved.^[92] Another panel member, Professor David Hand, commended the CRU for being explicit about the inherent uncertainties in its research data, commenting that "there is no evidence of anything underhand – the opposite, if anything, they have brought out into the open the uncertainties with what they are dealing with."^[93]

At the press conference, Hand also commented on the well publicised 1998 paper produced in the United States by scientists led by Maykl E. Mann, saying that the xokkey tayoqchalari grafigi it showed was a genuine effect, but he had an "uneasy feeling" about the use of "inappropriate statistical tools" and said that the 1998 study had exaggerated the effect. He commended McIntyre for pointing out this issue. Mann subsequently told Guardian that the study had been examined and approved in the US National Academies of Science North Report, and described Hand's comment as a "rogue opinion" not meriting "much attention or credence".^[92]

The UEA's vice-chancellor, Edward Acton, welcomed the panel's findings. Describing its report as "hugely positive", he stated that "it is especially important that, despite a deluge of allegations and smears against the CRU, this independent group of utterly reputable scientists have concluded that there was no evidence of any scientific malpractice."^[94] He criticised the way that the emails had been misrepresented, saying that "UEA has already put on record its deep regret and anger that the theft of emails from the University, and the blatant misrepresentation of their contents as revealed both in this report and the previous one by the Science and Technology Select Committee, damaged the reputation of UK climate science."^[95] The UEA issued a statement in which it accepted that "things might have been done better." It said that improvements had already been undertaken by the CRU and others in the climate science community and that the University would "continue to ensure that these imperatives are maintained."^[96]

It later emerged that the Science Assessment Panel was not assessing the quality but instead the integrity of the CRU's science. Phil Willis described this a "sleight of hand" and was not what the Parliamentary Committee he had chaired had been led to believe. There were also questions about the selection of publications examined by the panel.^[97] Lord Oxburgh said that Acton had been wrong to tell the Science and Technology Select Committee in March that his inquiry would look into the science itself. "I think that was inaccurate," Oxburgh said. "This had to be done rapidly. This was their concern. They really wanted something within a month. There was no way our panel could evaluate the science."^[98]

Pensilvaniya shtati universiteti

Pensilvaniya shtati universiteti announced in December 2009 it would review the work of Maykl E. Mann, in particular looking at anything that had not already been addressed in the 2006 North Report tomonidan ko'rib chiqilishi Milliy tadqiqot kengashi ning Milliy fanlar akademiyasi which had investigated Mann's "xokkey tayoqchalari grafigi " studies and found some faults with his 1998 methodology but agreed with the results which had been reaffirmed by later studies using different methods.^{[99][100][101]} In response, Mann said he would welcome the review.^[101] The inquiry committee determined on 3 February 2010 that there was no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data related to the IPCC to'rtinchi baholash hisoboti, or misused privileged or confidential information. The committee did not make a definitive finding on the final point of inquiry – "whether Dr Mann seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly activities". The committee said that the earlier NAS inquiry had found "that Dr Mann’s science did fall well within the bounds of accepted practice", but in light of the newly available information this question of conduct was to be investigated by a second panel of five prominent Penn State scientists from other scientific disciplines.^[35][102]

The second Investigatory Committee reported on 4 June 2010 that it had "determined that Dr Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community." Regarding his sharing unpublished manuscripts with colleagues on the assumption of implied consent, it considered such sharing to be "careless and inappropriate" without following the best practice of getting express consent from the authors in advance, though expert opinion on this varied. It said that his success in proposing research and obtaining funding for it, commenting that this "clearly places Dr Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research." Mann's extensive recognitions within the research community demonstrated that "his scientific work, especially the conduct of his research, has from the beginning of his career been judged to be outstanding by a broad spectrum of scientists." It agreed unanimously that "there is no substance" to the allegations against Mann.^[103][104]

Mann said he regretted not objecting to a suggestion from Jones in a 29 May 2008 message that he destroy emails. "I wish in retrospect I had told him, 'Hey, you shouldn't even be thinking about this,'" Mann said in March 2010. "I didn't think it was an appropriate request." Mann's response to Jones at the time was that he would pass on the request to another scientist. "The important thing is, I didn't delete any emails. And I don't think [Jones] did either."^[105]

Iqlim o'zgarishini mustaqil ravishda elektron pochta orqali ko'rib chiqish

First announced in December 2009, a British investigation commissioned by the UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell, published its final report in July 2010.^[106] The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data. The "rigour and honesty" of the scientists at the Climatic Research Unit were found not to be in doubt.^[107] The panel found that they did not subvert the peer review process to censor criticism as alleged, and that the key data needed to reproduce their findings was freely available to any "competent" researcher.^[108]

The panel did rebuke the CRU for their reluctance to release computer files, and found that a graph produced in 1999 was "misleading," though not deliberately so as necessary caveats had been included in the accompanying text.^[109] It found evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them, though the panel did not ask anyone at CRU whether they had actually done this.^[110]

At the conclusion of the inquiry, Jones was reinstated with the newly created post of Director of Research.^{[107][108][111]}

United States Environmental Protection Agency report

The Qo'shma Shtatlar atrof-muhitni muhofaza qilish agentligi (EPA) 2009 yilda haddan tashqari issiqxona gazlari bo'yicha iqlim qoidalariga tayyorgarlik ko'rish uchun "xavf-xatarni aniqlash" ni e'lon qildi. Petitions to reconsider this were raised by the states of Virjiniya va Texas, conservative activists and business groups including the Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Savdo palatasi, Raqobatbardosh korxonalar instituti and the coal company Peabody Energy, making claims that the CRU emails undermined the science.^[112]

The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions, which "routinely misunderstood the scientific issues", reached "faulty scientific conclusions", "resorted to hyperbole", and "often cherry-pick language that creates the suggestion or appearance of impropriety, without looking deeper into the issues."^[113] In a statement issued on 29 July 2010, EPA Administrator Liza P. Jekson said the petitions were based "on selectively edited, out-of-context data and a manufactured controversy" and provided "no evidence to undermine our determination. Excess greenhouse gases are a threat to our health and welfare."^[114]

The EPA issued a detailed report on issues raised by petitioners and responses, together with a fact sheet,^[115] and a "myths versus facts" page stating that "Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results."^[116]

Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Commerce

In May 2010 Senator Jim Inxof so'radi Bosh inspektor ning Amerika Qo'shma Shtatlari Savdo vazirligi to conduct an independent review of how the Milliy okean va atmosfera boshqarmasi (NOAA) had dealt with the emails, and whether the emails showed any wrongdoing.^[117] The report, issued on 18 February 2011,^[118] cleared the researchers and "did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures". It noted that NOAA reviewed its climate change data as standard procedure, not in response to the controversy. One email included a cartoon image showing Inhofe and others marooned on a melting ice floe, NOAA had taken this up as a conduct issue. In response to questions raised, NOAA stated that its scientists had followed legal advice on FOIA requests for information which belonged to the IPCC and was made available by that panel. In two instances funding had been awarded to CRU,^[117] NOAA stated that it was reviewing these cases and so far understood that the funds supported climate forecasting workshops in 2002 and 2003 assisting the governments of three countries.^[119]

Milliy Ilmiy Jamg'arma

The Bosh inspektor idorasi (OIG) of the Milliy Ilmiy Jamg'arma closed an investigation on 15 August 2011 that exonerated Maykl Mann ning Pensilvaniya shtati universiteti of charges of scientific misconduct.^[120] It found no evidence of research misconduct, and confirmed the results of earlier inquiries.^[121] The OIG reviewed the findings of the July 2010 Penn State panel, took further evidence from the university and Mann, and interviewed Mann. The OIP findings confirmed the university panel's conclusions which cleared Mann of any wrongdoing, and it stated "Lacking any evidence of research misconduct, as defined under the NSF Research Misconduct Regulation, we are closing the investigation with no further action."^[122]

ICO decisions on Freedom of Information requests

Ikki holda, Axborot komissari boshqarmasi (ICO) issued decisions on appeals of Freedom of Information (FOI) requests which had been turned down by the university.

David Holland, an electrical engineer from Nortxempton, made a 2008 FOI request for all emails to and from Keyt Brifa haqida IPCC to'rtinchi baholash hisoboti; the university's information policy and compliance manager refused the request. On 23 November 2009, after the start of the controversy, he wrote to the Commissioner explaining in detail the relevance of the alleged CRU emails to his case,^[123] with specific reference to a May 2008 email in which Fil Jons asked others to delete emails discussing AR4 with Briffa.^[124] In January 2010 news reports highlighted that FOI legislation made it an offence to intentionally act to prevent the disclosure of requested information, but the da'vo muddati meant that any prosecution had to be raised within 6 months of the alleged offence. This was discussed by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee.^[125] The ICO decision on Holland's requests published on 7 July 2010 concluded that the emails indicated prima facie evidence of an offence, but as prosecution was time-barred the Commissioner had been unable to investigate the alleged offence. On the issue of the university failing to provide responses within the correct time, no further action was needed as Holland was content not to proceed with his complaint.^[124]

The Climatic Research Unit developed its gridded CRUTEM ma'lumotlar to'plami of land air temperature anomalies from instrumental temperature records tomonidan o'tkazilgan Milliy meteorologik tashkilotlar around the world, often under formal or informal confidentiality agreements that restricted use of this raw data to academic purposes, and prevented it from being passed onto third parties. Over 95% of the CRU climate data set had been available to the public for several years before July 2009,^[72] when the university received numerous FOI requests for raw data or details of the confidentiality agreements from Stephen McIntyre and readers of his Climate Audit blog. Phil Jones of CRU announced that requests were being made to all the National Meteorological Organisations for their agreement to waive confidentiality,^[126] with the aim of publishing all the data jointly with the Met Office.^[127] McIntyre complained that data denied to him had been sent to Jones's colleague Peter Webster at the Jorjiya Texnologiya Instituti for work on a joint publication, and FOI requests for this data were made by Jonathan A. Jons of the University of Oxford and Don Keiller of Angliya Ruskin universiteti.^[128] Both requests were refused by the UEA by 11 September 2009.^[129]Though some National Meteorological Organisations gave full or conditional agreement to waive confidentiality, others failed to respond, and the request was explicitly refused by Trinidad va Tobago va Polsha. In discussions with the ICO, the university argued that the data was publicly available from the Met organisations, and the lack of agreement exempted the remaining data. In its decision released on 23 June 2011, the ICO stated that the data was not easily available, and required the university to release the data covered by the FOIA request.^[129] On 27 July 2011 CRU announced that the raw instrumental data not already in the public domain had been released and was available for download, with the exception of Poland which was outside the area covered by the FOIA request. The university remained concerned "that the forced release of material from a source which has explicitly refused to give permission for release could have some damaging consequences for the UK in international research collaborations."^[128][130]

In September 2011 the ICO issued new guidance to universities, taking into account issues raised in relation to the CRU information requests. This describes exceptions and exemptions to protect research, including allowance for internal exchange of views between academics and researchers, leaving formulation of opinions on research free from external scrutiny. It notes the benefits of actively disclosing information when it is in the public interest, and disclosure of personal email information related to public authority business.^[131]

Ommaviy axborot vositalarida yoritish

The initial story about the hacking originated in the blogosfera,^[6] kolumnist bilan Jeyms Delingpol picking up the term "Climategate" from an noma'lum blogger kuni Watts Up With That?, a blog created by climate sceptic Entoni Uotts. The site was one of three blogs that received links to the leaked documents on 17 November 2009. Delingpole first used the word "Climategate" in the title of his 20 November article for Telegraf: "Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?" A week later, his co-worker Christopher Booker gave Delingpole credit for coining the term.^[8] Following the release of documents in the blogosphere, unproven allegations and personal attacks against scientists increased and made their way into the traditional media. Fizik Mark Boslou of the University of New Mexico noted that many of the attacks on scientists came from "bloggers, editorial writers, Fox News pundits, and radio talk show hosts who have called them liars and vilified them as frauds". Ga binoan Kris Muni and Sheril Kirshenbaum in their book Unscientific America (2010), the accusations originated in right-wing media and blogs, "especially on outlets like Fox News". Jurnalist Suzanne Goldenberg ning Guardian reported that according to an analysis by Media masalalari, "Fox had tried to delegitimise the work of climate scientists in its coverage of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia" and had "displayed a pattern of trying to skew coverage in favour of the fringe minority which doubts the existence of climate change".^[14]

The intense media coverage of the documents stolen from climate researchers at the University of East Anglia created public confusion about the scientific consensus on climate change, leading several publications to comment on the propagation of the controversy in the media in the wake of a series of investigations that cleared the scientists of any wrongdoing. Tahririyatda, The New York Times described the coverage as a "manufactured controversy" and expressed hope that the investigations clearing the scientists "will receive as much circulation as the original, diversionary controversies".^[132] Yozish Newsweek, jurnalist Sharon Begley called the controversy a "highly orchestrated, manufactured scandal", noting that the public was unlikely to change their mind. Regardless of the reports exonerating the scientists, Begley noted that "one of the strongest, most-repeated findings in the psychology of belief is that once people have been told X, especially if X is shocking, if they are later told, 'No, we were wrong about X,' most people still believe X."^[133]

Jan-Paskal van Ypersele, rais o'rinbosari Iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha hukumatlararo hay'at (IPCC) and science historian Naomi Oreskes said that the "attacks on climate science that were made ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit were 'organised' to undermine efforts to tackle global warming and mirror the earlier tactics of the tobacco industry".^[134] Noting the media sirk that occurred when the story first broke, Oreskes and Erik Conway writing about iqlim o'zgarishini rad etish, said that following the investigations "the vindication of the climate scientists has received very little coverage at all. Vindication is not as sexy as accusation, and many people are still suspicious. After all, some of those emails, taken out of context, sounded damning. But what they show is that climate scientists are frustrated, because for two decades they have been under attack."^[135]

Bill Royce, head of the European practice on energy, environment and climate change at the United States communications firm Burson-Marsteller, also described the incident as an organised effort to discredit climate science. He said that it was not a single scandal, but "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science. Disproportionate reporting of the original story, "widely amplified by climate deniers", meant that the reports that cleared the scientists received far less coverage than the original allegations, he said.^[136] Journalist Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review criticised newspapers and magazines for failing to give prominent coverage to the findings of the review panels and said that "readers need to understand that while there is plenty of room to improve the research and communications process, its fundamental tenets remain as solid as ever".^[137] CNN media tanqidchisi Xovard Kurtz expressed similar sentiments.^[138]

Public opinion and political fallout

Jon Krosnick, professor of communication, political science and psychology at Stenford universiteti, said that scientists were overreacting. Referring to his own poll results of the American public, he said: "It's another funny instance of scientists ignoring science." Krosnick found that "Very few professions enjoy the level of confidence from the public that scientists do, and those numbers haven't changed much in a decade. We don't see a lot of evidence that the general public in the United States is picking up on the (University of East Anglia) emails. It's too beysbol ichida."^[139]

Christian Science Monitor, in an article titled "Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged", stated: "While public opinion had steadily moved away from belief in man-made global warming before the leaked CRU emails, that trend has only accelerated."^[140] Pol Krugman, uchun sharhlovchi The New York Times, argued that this, along with all other incidents that called into question the scientific consensus on climate change, was "a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media".^[141] But UK journalist Fred Pirs called the slow response of climate scientists "a case study in how not to respond to a crisis" and "a jamoat bilan aloqa falokat ".^[142]

A. A. Leiserowitz, Director of the Yel universiteti Project on Climate Change, and colleagues found in 2010 that:^[6]

Climategate had a significant effect on public beliefs in global warming and trust in scientists. The loss of trust in scientists, however, was primarily among individuals with a strongly individualistic worldview or politically conservative ideology. Nonetheless, Americans overall continue to trust scientists more than other sources of information about global warming.

2011 yil oxirida, Stiven F. Xeyvord wrote that "Climategate did for the global warming controversy what the Pentagon hujjatlari did for the Vietnam war 40 years ago: It changed the narrative decisively."^[143] In tahririyat Tabiat said that many in the media "were led by the nose, by those with a clear agenda, to a sizzling scandal that steadily defused as the true facts and context were made clear".^[144]

Further release, 2011

On 22 November 2011, a second set of approximately 5,000 emails, apparently hacked from University of East Anglia servers at the same time as those in the 2009 release, was posted on a Russian server, with links distributed to the message boards on several climate-sceptic websites.^[145] A message accompanying the emails quoted selective passages from them, highlighting many of the same issues raised following the original incident. Juliette Jowit and Leo Hickman of Guardian said that the new release was "an apparent attempt to undermine public support for international action to tackle climate change" with the start of the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference scheduled in Durban, Janubiy Afrika, bir hafta o'tgach.^[145][146] Tabiat described the further release as a "poor sequel" and claimed that "it is hard for anyone except the most committed conspiracy theorist to see much of interest in the content of the released e-mails, even taken out of context".^[144]

Qo'shimcha o'qish

• James Lawrence Powell. 2011 yil. Iqlim fanlari bo'yicha inkvizitsiya. Kolumbiya universiteti matbuoti.

Shuningdek qarang

• Buyuk Britaniyada iqlim o'zgarishi
• Global isish bo'yicha fitna nazariyasi
• Global isish bo'yicha tortishuvlar

Adabiyotlar

Tashqi havolalar

• "Kamayishni yashirish" bandini echish, klimatecrocks.com saytidagi batafsil video qamrov, 2011 yil 28 aprel.
• Iqlim urushlari: buzilgan elektron pochta xabarlari tomonidan tergovning to'liq qo'lyozmasi Guardian elektron pochta xabarlariga.
• Ovoz yozish a Guardian - 2010 yil 15 iyulda bo'lib o'tgan Climategate bo'yicha homiylik qilingan bahs. Debatchilar Trevor Devies, Dag Kinan, Stiven Makintayr, Fred Pirs va Bob Uotson; munozara raislik qildi Jorj Monbiot.
• "Buyuk iqlimiy munozara". Da bo'lib o'tgan ma'ruza videosi MIT 2009 yil 10 dekabrda Fan maktabi. Moderator Genri D. Yakoby (MIT). Spikerlar edi Kerri Emanuel (MIT), Judit Layzer (MIT), Stiven Ansolabehere (MIT va Garvard), Ronald G. Prinn (MIT) va Richard Lindzen (MIT).
• "Sharqiy Angliya universiteti iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limining iqlim ma'lumotlarini oshkor qilish". Video Jamiyat palatasi qo'mitasini tanlang og'zaki dalillar sessiyasi, 2010 yil 1 mart dushanba kuni soat 15.00 da. Guvohlar: (1) janob Hon Lord Lovson Blaby, Rais va doktor Benni Peiser, Direktor, Global Issiqlik siyosati fondi; (2) Richard Tomas CBE; (3) Professor Edvard Ekton, Sharqiy Angliya universiteti prorektori va iqlim tadqiqotlari bo'limi direktori, professor Fil Jons; (4) Sir Muir Rassell KCB, Iqlim o'zgarishi bo'yicha mustaqil elektron pochta xabarlarini ko'rib chiqish rahbari; (5) professor John Beddington, Hukumat bosh ilmiy maslahatchisi, professor Julia Slingo OBE, Bosh ilmiy xodim, Met Office va professor Bob Uotson, Bosh olim, Atrof-muhit, oziq-ovqat va qishloq ishlari bo'yicha bo'lim.