|
The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate")〔Chameides, Bill. "(Climategate Redux )." ''Scientific American'', 30 August 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2011.〕〔"(Closing the Climategate )." ''Nature''. 18 November 2010. Retrieved 17 August 2011.〕 began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker,〔Pooley 2010, p. 425: "Climategate broke in November, when a cache of e-mails was hacked from a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England." See: Pooley, Eric (2010). ''The Climate War: True Believers, Power Brokers, and the Fight to Save the Earth''. Hyperion Books. ISBN 1-4013-2326-X; Karatzogianni 2010: "Most media representations of the Climategate hack linked the events to other incidents in the past, suggesting a consistent narrative frame which blames the attacks on Russian hackers...Although the Climategate material was uploaded on various servers in Turkey and Saudi Arabia before ending up in Tomsk in Siberia..." Extensive discussion about the media coverage of hacking and climategate in Karatzogianni, Athina. (2010). "(Blame it on the Russians: Tracking the Portrayal of Russians During Cyber conflict Incidents )".''Digital Icons: Studies in Russian, Eurasian and Central European New Media''. 4: 128–150. 〕〔 copying thousands of emails and computer files to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change. The story was first broken by climate change critics〔 with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term "Climategate" to describe the controversy.〔 Those denying the significance of human caused climate change argued that the emails showed global warming was a scientific conspiracy, that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.〔〔Somaiya, Ravi (7 July 2010). "(Third Inquiry Clears 'Climategate' Scientists of Serious Wrongdoing )". ''Newsweek''. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "For skeptics, the 1,000 or so e-mails and documents hacked last year from the Climactic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA), in England, establish that global warming is a scientific conspiracy...Climategate, now a firmly established "gate," will probably continue to be cited as evidence of a global-warming conspiracy"; Efstathiou Jr., Jim; Alex Morales (2 December 2009). "(UK climate scientist steps down after email flap )". ''Bloomberg''. LiveMint. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "The emails, dating back as far as 1996, have been cited by sceptics of man’s contribution to global warming as evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data to support research...'They’re conspiring to keep papers out of published journals,” Marc Morano, a climate sceptic who is editor of a website on the issue, said referring to the emails in a 24 November interview. “You see them as nothing more than a bunch of activists manufacturing science for a political goal'"〕 The CRU rejected this, saying the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas. The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December.〔 Because of the timing, scientists, policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference.〔Winter, Brian (25 November 2009) "(Scientist: Leaked climate e-mails a distraction )". ''USA Today''. Retrieved 12 May 2011. "A controversy over leaked e-mails exchanged among global warming scientists is part of a 'smear campaign' to derail next month's United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, one of the scientists, meteorologist Michael Mann, said Tuesday...Climate change skeptics 'don't have the science on their side any more, so they've resorted to a smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen' said Mann"; Feldman, Stacy (25 November 2009). "(Hacked climate emails called a "smear campaign" ). ''Reuters''. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "Three leading scientists who on Tuesday released a report documenting the accelerating pace of climate change said the scandal that erupted last week over hacked emails from climate scientists is nothing more than a "smear campaign" aimed at sabotaging December climate talks in Copenhagen"; Carrington, Damian; Suzanne Goldenberg (4 December 2009). "(Gordon Brown attacks 'flat-earth' climate change sceptics )". ''guardian.co.uk''. Retrieved 15 May 2011. "On the eve of the Copenhagen summit, Saudi Arabia and Republican members of the US Congress have used the emails to claim the need for urgent action to cut carbon emissions has been undermined...The concern for some of those attempting to drive through a global deal is that the sceptics will delay critical decisions by casting doubt over the science at a time when momentum has been gathering towards a historic agreement...'The sceptics have clearly seized upon this as an incident that they can use to their own ends in trying to disrupt the Copenhagen agreements,' said Bob Watson, Defra chief scientist and former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change"; Fimrite, Peter (5 December 2009). "(Hacked climate e-mail rebutted by scientists )". ''San Francisco Chronicle''. Retrieved 12 May 2011. "A group of the nation's top scientists defended research on global climate change Friday against what they called a politically motivated smear campaign designed to foster public doubt about irrefutable scientific facts...'They have engaged in this 11th-hour smear campaign where they have stolen personal e-mails from scientists, mined them for single words or phrases that can be taken out of context to twist their words and I think this is rather telling,' Mann said"; Carrington, Damian (28 October 2010). "(IPCC vice-chair: Attacks on climate science echo tobacco industry tactics )". ''The Guardian''. Retrieved 13 May 2011. "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, according to the vice-chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...'It is a very similar process to what the tobacco industry was doing 30 or 40 years ago, when they wanted to delay legislation, and that is the result of research – not my subjective evaluation – by Prof Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.' Oreskes, a science historian at the University of California San Diego, told the Guardian she agreed with Van Ypersele's that the attacks on climate science were organised: 'Many of us were expecting something to happen in the run-up (Copenhagen ). When it happened, the only thing that surprised me was that, compared with the events we documented in our book, the attacks had crossed the line into illegality.'〕 In response to the controversy, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades, with the AAAS concluding "based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway...it is a growing threat to society."〔Henig, Jess (2009). "(FactCheck: Climategate Doesn't Refute Global Warming )". ''Newsweek''. 11 December.〕 Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.〔The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee ) (UK); (Independent Climate Change Review ) (UK); (International Science Assessment Panel ) (UK); (Pennsylvania State University ) (first panel ) and (second panel ) (US); (United States Environmental Protection Agency ) (US); (Department of Commerce ) (US); (National Science Foundation ) (US)〕 However, the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work, for example by opening up access to their supporting data, processing methods and software, and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests. The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations.〔Biello, David (Feb., 2010). "(Negating 'Climategate' )". ''Scientific American''. (302):2. 16. ISSN 00368733. "In fact, nothing in the stolen material undermines the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that humans are to blame"; See also: Lubchenco, Jane (2 December 2009) House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming (House Select Committee). "(The Administration's View on the State of Climate Science )". House Hearing, 111 Congress. U.S. Government Printing Office. "...the e-mails really do nothing to undermine the very strong scientific consensus and the independent scientific analyses of thousands of scientists around the world that tell us that the Earth is warming and that the warming is largely a result of human activities." As quoted in the report published by (Office of Inspector General ).〕 == Timeline of the initial incident == The incident began when a server used by the Climatic Research Unit was breached in "a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack",〔 and 160 MB of data〔 were obtained including more than 1,000 emails and 3,000 other documents.〔 The University of East Anglia stated that the server from which the data were taken was not one that could be accessed easily, and that the data could not have been released inadvertently.〔 Norfolk Police later added that the offenders used methods that are common in unlawful internet activity, designed to obstruct later enquiries.〔 The breach was first discovered on 17 November 2009 after the server of the RealClimate website was also hacked and a copy of the stolen data was uploaded there.〔 RealClimate's Gavin Schmidt said that he had information that the files had been obtained through "a hack into () backup mail server."〔 At about the same time, a short comment appeared on Stephen McIntyre's Climate Audit website saying that "A miracle has happened."〔 On 19 November an archive file containing the data was uploaded to a server in Tomsk, Russia,〔 and then copied to numerous locations across the Internet.〔 An anonymous post from a Saudi Arabian IP address〔 to the climate-sceptic blog ''The Air Vent''〔 described the material as "a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents", adding that climate science is "too important to be kept under wraps".〔 That same day, Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit was forwarded an internal email sent to UEA staff warning that "climate change sceptics" had obtained a "large volume of files and emails". Charles Rotter, moderator of the climate-sceptic blog ''Watts Up With That'', which had been the first to get a link and download the files, gave a copy to his flatmate Steve Mosher. Mosher received a posting from the hacker complaining that nothing was happening and replied: "A lot is happening behind the scenes. It is not being ignored. Much is being coordinated among major players and the media. Thank you very much. You will notice the beginnings of activity on other sites now. Here soon to follow." Shortly afterwards, the emails began to be widely publicised on climate-sceptic blogs. On 20 November the story emerged in mainstream media.〔 Norfolk police subsequently confirmed that they were "investigating criminal offences in relation to a data breach at the University of East Anglia" with the assistance of the Metropolitan Police's Central e-Crime unit,〔 the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) and the National Domestic Extremism Team (NDET).〔 Commenting on the involvement of the NDET, a spokesman said: "At present we have two police officers assisting Norfolk with their investigation, and we have also provided computer forensic expertise. While this is not strictly a domestic extremism matter, as a national police unit we had the expertise and resource to assist with this investigation, as well as good background knowledge of climate change issues in relation to criminal investigations." However, the police cautioned that "major investigations of this nature are of necessity very detailed and as a consequence can take time to reach a conclusion."〔 On 18 July 2012, the Norfolk police finally decided to close its investigation because they did not have a "realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law". They also said that the attack had been carried out "remotely via the internet" and that there was "no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime". 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Climatic Research Unit email controversy」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|