It created a media feeding frenzy and unfairly dragged climate scientists' reputations through the mud, but nobody will be prosecuted for the "climategate" email hack. The UK police has closed its two-and-a-half-year investigation into the crime, as there is no prospect of bringing charges.
Thousands of emails were stolen from the servers of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in November 2009 and posted on a Russian email server. Climate sceptics seized on their contents to claim that climate scientists had conspired to withhold or alter data, unfairly manipulated the peer-review process, and smeared their critics. The majority of the allegations relied on emails being taken out of context.
The resulting storm made it easier for climate sceptics to get their views into the mainstream media, says Edward Acton, the university's vice-chancellor. "At the time it did have an effect."
In an official statement, Norfolk Constabulary's Detective Chief Superintendant Julian Gregory said the attack was "the result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU's data files, carried out remotely via the internet".
No charges, no insiders
The investigation has run out of time, as in the UK people have to be charged with a computer crime within three years of the offence.
"Despite detailed and comprehensive enquiries, supported by experts in this field, the complex nature of this investigation means that we do not have a realistic prospect of identifying the offender or offenders and launching criminal proceedings within the time constraints imposed by law," Gregory said.
However, one thing has been learned: despite claims to the contrary, it is unlikely that the emails were leaked by a disaffected employee at the university.
"There is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime," Gregory said. The nature of the attack suggested the hackers did not have inside knowledge of the university's computer systems.
Inquiry after inquiry
In the months after the hack, a series of inquiries examined whether the scientists at the CRU and elsewhere had done anything wrong. They were cleared of misconduct and their research was found to be honest and robust. However, they were criticised for not consulting statisticians during their work, and for their closed and unhelpful culture that left them reluctant to share information with outsiders.
Since the leak, climate scientists have endeavoured to share more of their data and be more open generally.
"You really need to be proactive about getting information out," says Acton. "Climategate has played a part in making scientists more conscious of that."
A second tranche of emails was released late in 2011, but had much less impact. That was partly because the university immediately clarified what the emails referred to, and partly because the first batch contained the most apparently damaging emails.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
Only subscribers may leave comments on this article. Please log in.
Only personal subscribers may leave comments on this article
Subscribe now to comment.
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
war eagle war eagle pawn stars restrepo nba news nba news florida gators
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.