United Nations to probe climate e-mail leak

December 4, 2009 By RAPHAEL G. SATTER , Associated Press Writer
Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Dr. Rajendra Pachauri talks to the media during a press conference at the European Parliament in Brussels, Thursday Dec. 3, 2009. Rajendra Pachauri spoke at the European Parliament's hearing on Global Warming and Food Policy in order to launch his key message Less Meat equals Less Heat, one week before the Copenhagen summit. (AP Photo/Thierry Charlier)

(AP) -- The United Nations will conduct its own investigation into e-mails leaked from a leading British climate science center in addition to the probe by the University of East Anglia, a senior U.N. climate official said Friday.

E-mails stolen from the climate unit at the University of East Anglia appeared to show some of world's leading scientists discussing ways to shield data from public scrutiny and suppress others' work. Those who deny the influence of man-made have seized on the correspondence to argue that scientists have been conspiring to hide evidence about global warming.

In an interview with BBC radio, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, said the issue raised by the e-mails was serious and said "we will look into it in detail,"

"We will certainly go into the whole lot and then we will take a position on it," he said. "We certainly don't want to brush anything under the carpet."

The University of East Anglia has defended the integrity of the science published by the climate unit and its researchers, but on Thursday said it would investigate whether some of the data had been fudged. Phil Jones, the director of the unit, stepped down earlier in the week pending the result of the investigation.

East Anglia said its review will examine the e-mails and other information "to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice."

The theft of the e-mails and their publication online - only weeks before the U.N. summit on global warming - has been politically explosive, even if researchers say their content has no bearing on the principles of climate change itself.

Britain's Ed Miliband, the climate change secretary, acknowledged the revelations may have an impact on the Copenhagen talks on a new global emissions reduction pact, but dismissed as "flat Earth-ers" critics who claim the e-mails are proof the case for man-made climate change is exaggerated.

"We need maximum transparency including about all the data but it's also very, very important to say one chain of e-mails, potentially misrepresented, does not undo the global science," Miliband said Friday. "I think we want to send a very clear message to people about that."

"There will be people that want to use this to try and undermine the science and we're not going to let them," he said.

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives have grilled government scientists on the leaked e-mails in a hearing Wednesday in Washington, but the scientists countered that the e-mails don't change the fact that the Earth is warming.

"The e-mails do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus ... that tells us the Earth is warming, that warming is largely a result of human activity," said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

She said the e-mails don't address data from her agency or the U.S. space agency NASA, which both keep independent climate records that show dramatic .

©2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Explore further: UK University to probe integrity of climate data

Related Stories

Key scientist says politics behind stolen e-mails

November 24, 2009

(AP) -- A leading climate change scientist said hackers breaking into a university's computer server and then posting documents online show the nasty politics of global warming.

Scientist: Leak of climate e-mails appalling

November 23, 2009

(AP) -- A leading climate change scientist whose private e-mails are included in thousands of documents that were stolen by hackers and posted online said Sunday the leaks may have been aimed at undermining next month's ...

UK climate scientist to temporarily step down

December 1, 2009

(AP) -- The chief of a prestigious British research center caught in a storm of controversy over claims that he and others suppressed data about climate change has stepped down pending an investigation, the University of ...

Obama science advisers grilled over hacked e-mails

December 3, 2009

(AP) -- House Republicans pointed to controversial e-mails leaked from climate scientists and said it was evidence of corruption. Top administration scientists looking at the same thing found no such sign, saying it doesn't ...

Hackers leak e-mails, stoke climate debate

November 21, 2009

(AP) -- Computer hackers have broken into a server at a well-respected climate change research center in Britain and posted hundreds of private e-mails and documents online - stoking debate over whether some scientists have ...

Recommended for you

Scientists determine source of world's largest mud eruption

October 17, 2017

On May 29, 2006, mud started erupting from several sites on the Indonesian island of Java. Boiling mud, water, rocks and gas poured from newly-created vents in the ground, burying entire towns and compelling many Indonesians ...


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

1.8 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2009
This is akin to having ACORN hire their own "independent investigator".
1.4 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2009
This is just more obfuscation and the bottom line is really the trillions of dollars that will pass from the wealthier nations to the poorer nations making up the vast majority of the UN.
Create confusion by pointing everywhere than to the facts that the climate journals peer review system has been corrupted, Jones et al at UEA have altered the data to fit the theory, and Mann et al at NASA's GISS have so modified the statistical method of analysis that no matter what the climate data is entered it fits the same theory, i.e. the infamous hockey stick graph.
So, ANY climate data and reports from the UEA AND from NASA has to be considered suspect and discounted out hand until proven to be accurate. That is the scientific method.
The consensus of climate scientists believing or making a living on this silliness are their "consensus", whereas the vastly larger consensus of ALL scientists see AGW for what it really is, a charade.
1 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2009
3.5 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2009
If you admit there is Global Warming, there is no excuse for anyone living expressly for ones own self-interest. The point, if man is the big reason or not doesn’t matter to the ending results. The staggering cost to nature, what about the trillions in coastline/city damage the US alone if most of the polar caps melt? Many have convinced themselves that innovation will cost too much or not be perfect from day one. With this thinking, we would not have cars, planes or personal computers. It is millions now looking for solutions compared to trillions later or even worse, being too late.
3 / 5 (10) Dec 04, 2009
if man is the big reason or not, doesn't matter to the ending results

I've been avoiding ad hominems recently, but you sir, are an idiot.

If man isn't the cause it means we can't do anything about it (nevermind that if man IS the cause, we still probably can't do anything about it), EXCEPT make ourselves as adaptable as possible (what we should have been doing from the beginning).

Which means renewables. Beginning to relocate geologically unsustainable cities might not be a bad idea either (new orleans, venice, florida, etc.).

What all brainwashed AGW people fail to see, is that it's our GOALS that are NOT AFFECTED BY CLIMATE. No matter what, we need to have energy independence, we need to be able to adapt to ANY climate change, we need to REDUCE ACTUAL POLLUTION AND CONSUMPTION. These are the things that ARE NOT up for debate. AGW will ALWAYS be up for debate. So forget about it. It's resultant policies are just wheel spinning, we need REAL goals that guarantee results.
4.3 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2009
^ This guy knows whats up. Regardless if the earth is warming or not, if we are causing it or not, renewables must be a priority. Even disregarding climate concerns, we'll run out of fossil fuels eventually and have to switch to something else anyway, so we might as well get a head start on it.
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2009
I agree with Velanarris. Having the UN which is heavly invested in AGW investigate Climategate is like having ACORN investigate itself.

What will probably happen is like ACORN, Like Planned Parenthood, they will go after the whistleblowers.... and ignore, hide, and dismiss any and all criminal activities they find.
3 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2009
I'm against making references to a person appearence, but why did AP run with the picture of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri? It is a horrible picture that makes him look crazy. Is AP of all things now taking climategate seriously?
1.9 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2009

If the UN is ever to be taken seriously in the future, it must act promptly to distance itself away from fraud and deceit.

That will be a very difficult task indeed, since it appears to the casual observer that Al Gore and the UN's IPCC led the way to climategate.

Best wishes for a complete and candid recovery!
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA PI for Apollo
Emeritus Professor of
Nuclear and Space Science
1.8 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2009
PS - Thank you, thank you, PhysOrg.com for having the courage to publish this information.

Major news media in the United States have avoided it like the plague.

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
1.5 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2009
This is akin to having ACORN hire their own "independent investigator".

No. Dr. Rajendra Pachauri himself should investigate this abuse of science.

It is great to have the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, in the hot seat.

You and I know that AGW is nonsense, and so will Dr. Pachauri if he seriously studies the data.

If he tries to avoid the truth and lie his way out of this mess, the matter will only get worse.

At the very basis of science is a spiritual truth that Dr. Rajendra Pachauri must understand:

"Truth is victorious, never untruth."
Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.6; Qur'an 17.85

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
4.3 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2009
1) Renewable energy sources are the top priority.
2) Any controversy around AGW is irrelevant.
3) Rinse and Repeat

Self-righteousness is NOT in short supply, please stop competing to be the top dog in the supply chain.

The earth is fast losing it's capacity to support all of its inhabitants. This is truth that cannot be denied. We must get smarter about how we live and consume.

Our survival depends on all of us understanding this.

2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 04, 2009
1) Renewable energy sources are the top priority.

Renewable energy is a laudable goal. But our top priority must be scientific integrity or all else will be in vain.

Renewable energy is unattainable while:

a.) The US Department of Energy ignores the fact that neutron repulsion is the primary energy source of the Sun and falsely claims that solar neutrinos oscillate away, and

b.) NASA ignores clear experimental evidence that the Sun - Earth's heat source - is made of Fe, O, Si, Ni & S, like the Earth and ordinary meteorites and falsely claims that the interior of the Sun has the same composition as the top of the Sun's atmosphere 91% H and 9% He - the two most lightweight elements.

2) Any controversy around AGW is irrelevant.

Deceit in any branch of science - climatology, nuclear physics and space science, for example - is very relevant because that completely destroys the integrity of science.

That's my opinion,
Oliver K. Manuel
4 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2009
I presume, people are deciding impact of global warming by its apparent evidence, not by some leaked e-mails. Leaked mails cannot substitute apparent melting of glaciers as an evidence.
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2009
I presume, people are deciding impact of global warming by its apparent evidence, not by some leaked e-mails. Leaked mails cannot substitute apparent melting of glaciers as an evidence.

AGW has little to do with melting glaciers.

AGW theory is that man has introduced CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere to catastrophic effect. The leaked emails show thaty hypothesis to be a ruse.

No one is denying what we can physically see. We're denying the ridiculousness that is the flimsy explanation for it. These leaked emails confirm allegations of dubious data and intellectual dishonesty. That's what we're judging.
1.8 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2009

The earth is fast losing it's capacity to support all of its inhabitants. This is truth that cannot be denied. We must get smarter about how we live and consume.

What evidence? Energy costs keep dropping as more oil is found. Food is plentiful except where government regulations inhibit distribution or supply (DPRK or Zimbabwe).
Supporting free market innovations will (because it has in the past) resolve your worries. (See the piece about pork in petri dish?)
Demanding more government control will not, as demonstrated by USSR, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and DPRK.
3 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2009
AGW theory is that man has introduced CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere to catastrophic effect. The leaked emails show thaty hypothesis to be a ruse.

I agree that the emails are very disturbing, but I worry that everyone will over-react to them. Someone on one of these forums turned me on to H. L. Mencken(and thanks for that, I'm going to pick up some of his books) and one quotation I found very insightful:

The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth--that the error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it is cured of one error, is usually simply another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.

I don't believe in the doomsday predictions, but doing a complete 180 could indeed be worse.
3 / 5 (2) Dec 11, 2009
doing a complete 180 could indeed be worse

This is the problem with AGW proponents. They think it's only one way or the other.

You either believe in AGW and want to save the world and believe that stifling economies can do it, OR you are an oil lobby shill who believes nature should be dominated.

It's flat-out wrong, absurd and idiotic.

As I said above, it should not matter what the global climate is doing. Our nations goals need to be independent of global climate, our goals should not change climate does.

We have concrete goals that we should be working directly towards, instead of this ruse of trying to control the global climate, as the IPCC would have the world believe is possible.

I am an environmentalist and conservationist, I seek to expose AGW and it's associated legislation for the fraud it is. You can be anti-AGW and pro-environment, nobody can comprehend this though because AGW has equated environmentalism with carbon-footprint, which is complete and utter bull.
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2009
"A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen."

Anyone surprised?
1 / 5 (1) Dec 13, 2009
When one of the Climate Experts on the review panel flatly states that figures used in the third IPCC report were fraudulent and needed revision, I'd say we need to look deeper into this than the hacked emails and documents.

When a paper resided on their server that clearly stated that today's period is a relatively warm period and that the most favorable period for tree growth in Siberia was during the same time period that is also identified as the so-called Medieval Warm Period, and the evidence of the leaked documents shows that they ignored this data and smoothed it out by clever "tricks" with the data, I'd say this is call for an investigation and a complete redo of everything, including revelation of the program code, with rights retained to the owner but revealed nonetheless. Otherwise, since it is not duplicatable precisely all the data should be dumped and the raw data made fully available to the public.

I just hope that the UN does not sweep this under the rug later.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.