It created a media feeding frenzy and unfairly dragged climate scientists鈥� reputations through the mud, but nobody will be prosecuted for the 鈥渃limategate鈥� 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 (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 , the university鈥檚 vice-chancellor. 鈥淎t the time it did have an effect.鈥�
Advertisement
In an , Norfolk Constabulary鈥檚 Detective Chief Superintendant Julian Gregory said the attack was 鈥渢he result of a sophisticated and carefully orchestrated attack on the CRU鈥檚 data files, carried out remotely via the internet鈥�.
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.
鈥淒espite 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,鈥� Gregory said.
However, one thing has been learned: despite , it is unlikely that the emails were .
鈥淭here is no evidence to suggest that anyone working at or associated with the University of East Anglia was involved in the crime,鈥� Gregory said. The nature of the attack suggested the hackers did not have inside knowledge of the university鈥檚 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.
鈥淵ou really need to be proactive about getting information out,鈥� says Acton. 鈥淐limategate has played a part in making scientists more conscious of that.鈥�
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.
