Claim: The Independent Climate Change Email Review found the CRU scientists were unhelpful and unsympathetic to information requesters and at times broke FoI laws.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: The Science and Technology Select Committee report blamed the university for mishandling Freedom of Information requests and said it had "found ways to support the culture at CRU of resisting disclosure of information to climate change sceptics".

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as ``Climategate'') began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The Climatic Research Unit email controversy (also known as "Climategate") began in November 2009 with the hacking of a server at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) by an external attacker, copying thousands of emails and computer files, the Climatic Research Unit documents, to various internet locations several weeks before the Copenhagen Summit on climate change.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: In 2008, Hulme made a personal statement on what he called the "5 lessons of climate change", as: "climate change is a relative risk, not an absolute one" "climate risks are serious, and we should seek to minimise them" "our world has huge unmet development needs" "our current energy portfolio is not sustainable" "massive and deliberate geo-engineering of the planet is a dubious practice" After the Climatic Research Unit email controversy, he wrote an article for the BBC in which he said: At the very least, the publication of private CRU e-mail correspondence should be seen as a wake-up call for scientists – and especially for climate scientists.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Nature" reported that in the course of five days in July 2009 the CRU had been "inundated" with 58 FOI requests from Stephen McIntyre and people affiliated with his Climate Audit blog requesting access to raw climate data or information about their use.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Climate scientists at the CRU and elsewhere received numerous threatening and abusive emails in the wake of the initial incidents.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The Christian Science Monitor", in an article titled "Climate scientists exonerated in 'climategate' but public trust damaged", stated: "While public opinion had steadily moved away from belief in man-made global warming before the leaked CRU emails, that trend has only accelerated.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The Climate Change Scientific Program was occasionally criticized for the alleged suppression of scientific information.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: It said that emails showed harassment of researchers, with multiple Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit, but release of information had been hampered by national government restrictions on releasing the meteorological data researchers had been using.