Claim: “[T]he 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal  involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made  warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern  science.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: He said that it was not a single scandal, but "a sustained and coordinated campaign" aimed at undermining the credibility of the science.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: In blogs, talk radio and other new media, we are told that the warnings about future global warming issued by the national science academies, scientific societies, and governments of all the leading nations are not only mistaken, but based on a hoax, indeed a conspiracy that must involve thousands of respected researchers.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: In this context, John Tierney of The New York Times wrote: "these researchers, some of the most prominent climate experts in Britain and America, seem so focused on winning the public-relations war that they exaggerate their certitude – and ultimately undermine their own cause".

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: "A controversy over leaked e-mails exchanged among global warming scientists is part of a 'smear campaign' to derail next month's United Nations climate summit in Copenhagen, one of the scientists, meteorologist Michael Mann, said Tuesday...Climate change sceptics 'don't have the science on their side any more, so they've resorted to a smear campaign to distract the public from the reality of the problem and the need to confront it head-on in Copenhagen' said Mann"; Feldman, Stacy (25 November 2009).

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: During the Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate") in 2009 in the lead-up to the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, the Times wrote in an editorial "these revelations of fudged science should have a cooling effect on global-warming hysteria and the panicked policies that are being pushed forward to address the unproven theory."

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Some climate change sceptics including bloggers asserted that a number of the leaked e-mails contain evidence supporting their global warming conspiracy theory that scientists had allegedly conspired to manipulate data and to keep scientists who have contrary views out of peer-review literature.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Ever-strengthening scientific consensus on climate change means that skepticism is becoming less prevalent in the media (although the email scandal in the build up to Copenhagen reinvigorated climate skepticism in the media).

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: There have been allegations of malpractice, most notably in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy ("ClimateGate").

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: They argued that the emails showed that global warming was a scientific conspiracy and that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Evidence for warming accumulated.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Climate change sceptics gained wide publicity in blogs and news media, making allegations that the hacked emails showed evidence that climate scientists manipulated data.