BOULDER—The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) is concerned that emails and data, including personal information about individuals, have been hacked from the University of East Anglia. The selective publication of some stolen emails and other papers taken out of context is not a responsible way to engage on the issue of climate change. Nevertheless, some people have used this material to raise concerns about the conduct and validity of climate research.
NCAR and UCAR take the credibility of science very seriously. Research must be conducted in an ethical manner and be transparent and reproducible. The core science of climate change is based on exhaustive peer review involving hundreds of scientists at many independent institutions in the United States and around the world, and it is in no way changed by the content of the stolen files of East Anglia.
The fundamental scientific conclusion from decades of research is that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are changing our climate in significant ways. NCAR and UCAR have been prominent institutions in climate science, and the overarching findings from the research conducted by our scientists and our many university and other scientific partners support this conclusion.
Many of the stolen emails deal with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report from 2007. This report had over 450 lead authors, 800 contributing authors, and over 2,500 reviewers from over 130 countries. Two major reviews were carried out in producing the report, and climate “skeptics” can and do participate, some as authors. All comments from reviewers were responded to in writing. The IPCC process is open and thorough, and we stand by those findings.
Letter to Federal Agencies from U.S. Scientists
Open Letter from U.S. Scientists on the IPCC (March 2010)
Editorials and Analysis
Nature editorial (December 3, 2009)
About the IPCC
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research manages the National Center for Atmospheric Research under sponsorship by the National Science Foundation. Any opinions, findings and conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.