14. In November 2009, a large cache of e-mails and technical documents from the Climate Research
Unit (CRI), part of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, appeared on several Internet file-
servers and could be downloaded by the public. The University has yet to determine whether the
posting of the proprietary files were the result of a hacker’s effort or whether they were posted by
a whistleblower with CRI.
CRI’s research and data have been used by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC) as the basis for its support for both the Kyoto and Copenhagen Protocols, a form
of international treaty that would have countries agree to curb their carbon emissions. The Kyoto
Protocol fizzled when the United States declined to adopt it. The meeting at Copenhagen for the
adoption of emissions standards began on December 7, 2009. Fossil-fuel industries would be
affected by the Protocol. Those industries include oil and gas, auto industry, and fossil-fuel
based utilities (coal, oil, and gas). Those industries did undertake voluntary reductions following
the demise of the Kyoto Protocol. To date, businesses and industries in the United States have
achieved one-half of the reductions that Kyoto would have mandated.
The 1,000+ e-mails from the scientists at CRI reveal what MIT scientist Michael Schrage has
called “malice, mischief, and Machiavellian maneuverings” among the scientists with regard to
their data and research on climate change. The e-mails include the following revelations:
• Ongoing efforts to manipulate the peer-review process for manuscripts that were submitted
for publication in academic journals if those manuscripts challenged the research and
conclusions of CRI scientists.
From: Phil Jones. To: Many. March 11, 2003
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they
rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
Professor Jones appears to be lobbying for the dismissal of the editor of Climate Research, a
scientific journal that published papers downplaying climate change.
From Phil Jones To: Michael Mann (Pennsylvania State University). July 8, 2004
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"
• There was considerable disagreement acrimony among the CRI scientists about the results,
meaning, and interpretation of their data and work – something not revealed in either their
publications or speeches.
• Significant portions of data from CRI were withheld from public disclosure or examination by
scientists outside CRI.
• University of Arizona professor Jonathan Overpeck expressed concern to his colleagues in
the e-mails, “Please write all e-mails as though they will be made public.”
• CRI scientists ignored requests for the release of raw data.
• One CRI scientist deleted his e-mails after demands for the data were made public.
However, he neglected to delete an e-mail that revealed his actions in response to a British
Freedom of Information Act (BFOIA), “I am supposed to go through my emails and he can get
anything I’ve written about him. About 2 months ago I deleted loads of emails, so have very
little – if anything at all.” There is an investigation of possible violations of the BFOIA.
• That the CRI scientists were aware that the reconstruction of the earth’s climate
(paleoclimatology) during periods prior to actual human measurement and recording is a
massive and complicated undertaking that is dependent upon statistical interpretation of raw
data, interpretation that would ordinarily result in intense academic controversy. However,
the e-mails reflect efforts to prevent or obscure the controversy. Again, CRI Scientist Phil