Scientists against global warming emails

You're likely referring to the "Climategate" controversy, which involved the release of private emails and documents from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in 2009. The emails were hacked and published on the internet, sparking a media frenzy and controversy over the scientific consensus on global warming.

The emails were from a group of scientists, including Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Keith Briffa, who were leading researchers in the field of climate science. The emails were exchanged between 1996 and 2009 and were intended to be private communications among colleagues.

The controversy centered on several issues, including:

1. Allegations of data manipulation and falsification: Some critics claimed that the scientists had manipulated or falsified data to support their conclusions about global warming.
2. Allegations of hiding or deleting data: Some critics claimed that the scientists had hidden or deleted data that contradicted their conclusions about global warming.
3. Allegations of conspiring to suppress dissenting views: Some critics claimed that the scientists were conspiring to suppress dissenting views and silence critics of global warming.

However, subsequent investigations and reviews by independent bodies, including the UK Parliament, the US National Science Foundation, and the InterAcademy Council, found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. The investigations concluded that the emails were taken out of context and that the scientists had acted appropriately in their research and communication.

The emails were also analyzed by climate scientists and experts, who found that they did not support the claims of wrongdoing or conspiracy. For example, the emails showed that the scientists were discussing the limitations and uncertainties of their research, as well as the challenges of communicating complex scientific information to the public and policymakers.

In 2010, the UK Parliament's Science and Technology Committee conducted an inquiry into the Climategate controversy and concluded that the scientists had acted responsibly and that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. The committee also criticized the media for sensationalizing the story and creating a false narrative.

In 2011, the US National Science Foundation conducted an investigation into the allegations and found no evidence of scientific misconduct or fraud. The investigation concluded that the scientists had acted appropriately in their research and communication.

In 2012, the InterAcademy Council, a global network of science academies, conducted a review of the Climategate controversy and concluded that the scientists had acted responsibly and that there was no evidence of scientific misconduct. The review also criticized the media for sensationalizing the story and creating a false narrative.

In summary, the "Climategate" controversy was a media-fueled controversy that was based on a misinterpretation of private emails and documents from climate scientists. The controversy was fueled by misinformation and sensationalism, and was ultimately debunked by independent investigations and reviews.