East Anglia e-mail controversy

East Anglia e-mail controversy
Title	East Anglia e-mail controversy
Date	2009
Place	University of East Anglia
Outcome	Multiple inquiries and reports

East Anglia e-mail controversy was a high-profile episode involving the unauthorized release of electronic correspondence from a British research institution that sparked debate among Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, BBC, The Guardian, The Times, and The New York Times. The affair prompted formal examinations by bodies including University of East Anglia, House of Commons, Science and Technology Committee, and independent panels such as those chaired by Muir Russell and Sir Nicholas Stern. The episode influenced discourse in climate policy arenas including the European Union, United States Senate, Australian Parliament, and various national legislatures.

Background

The material originated at the Climatic Research Unit within the University of East Anglia during a period of heightened attention to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment process and following publications by researchers such as Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Hans von Storch. The timing coincided with releases like the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and public debates involving figures from Royal Society, American Meteorological Society, National Academy of Sciences, and commentators at BBC Newsnight. The breach intensified scrutiny from politicians including James Inhofe, Al Gore, Margaret Thatcher, and David Bellamy and advocacy groups such as Global Warming Policy Foundation, Friends of the Earth, and Greenpeace.

Content and technical issues

Released files contained e-mails and data related to paleoclimatology, instrumental records, and statistical methodologies used in reconstructions like the hockey stick (climate) and studies by Michael Mann. Correspondence referenced software tools and processes involving authors such as Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Tom Wigley, and Ben Santer. Technical topics invoked included proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, sea surface temperature, and statistical approaches discussed in literature by Raymond Bradley and Ed Cook. Critics including Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick highlighted alleged data handling and data access issues, while defenders cited practices endorsed in publications from Nature (journal), Science (journal), Geophysical Research Letters, and contributions by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change authors.

Scientific and institutional responses

Academic responses involved statements and reviews from institutions such as University of East Anglia, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, Columbia University, and labs like National Center for Atmospheric Research and Met Office Hadley Centre. Scientific societies including the Royal Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science, European Geosciences Union, and American Meteorological Society issued commentary on peer review, data archiving, and openness, citing standards in journals like Nature (journal) and Science (journal). Independent reviews led by figures such as Muir Russell, Sir Nicholas Stern, Edward Acton, and Sir John Laws assessed conduct, data management, and correspondence against norms articulated by Committee on Publication Ethics and practices in climatology research.

Political and public reaction

The disclosures fueled debates in parliamentary bodies including the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, the House of Lords, the United States Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and the Australian Senate Standing Committee. Media outlets such as The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph, The Times, The Washington Post, The New York Times, and broadcasters like BBC and CNN amplified narratives promoted by commentators including Christopher Booker, James Delingpole, George Monbiot, and Mark Steyn. Activist organizations ranging from Friends of the Earth to the Global Warming Policy Foundation mobilized public opinion, while policymakers including Barack Obama, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, and Kevin Rudd faced pressure concerning positions on emissions targets and instruments like the Kyoto Protocol and proposals relating to the Paris Agreement precursor negotiations.

Investigations and inquiries

Formal inquiries examined legal and ethical dimensions. The Information Commissioner's Office evaluated data access and confidentiality, while the Muir Russell inquiry and panels established by the University of East Anglia reviewed scientific conduct. Parliamentary scrutiny by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee and legal actions engaged entities such as UK Crown Prosecution Service and university disciplinary frameworks. International assessments referenced standards from bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and practices recommended by the Royal Society and the National Research Council (United States), with reports addressing data stewardship, archiving, and peer review.

Impact on climate science and policy

The episode affected data archiving practices at institutions including University of East Anglia, Met Office Hadley Centre, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and prompted policy discussions in the European Commission, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Australian Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, and agencies linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It stimulated reforms in journal policies exemplified by Nature (journal) and Science (journal), encouraged open data initiatives championed by organizations like PLOS and DataCite, and influenced public trust debates involving commentators from The Economist and Financial Times. Subsequent research continuity by scientists such as Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and Raymond Bradley contributed to continuing assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and national academies, shaping later negotiations on emissions frameworks and adaptation finance at venues like COP15 and COP21.

Category:Climate change controversies