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

Relevant passages:
Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit <=SEP=> Freedom of Information requests to the Climatic Research Unit featured in press discussions of disputes over access to data from instrumental temperature records , particularly during the Climatic Research Unit email controversy which began in November 2009 .   The UK Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) came into effect in 2005 , and FOI requests were made to the Climatic Research Unit ( CRU ) at the University of East Anglia ( UEA ) for the raw data from weather stations used in developing instrumental temperature record datasets , for copies of agreements under which the raw data was obtained from meteorology institutions , and also for email correspondence relating to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report .   In many cases the raw data which CRU had obtained from National Meteorological Organisations was subject to restrictions on redistribution : on 12 August 2009 CRU announced that they were seeking permission to waive these restrictions , and on 24 November 2009 the university stated that over 95 % of the CRU climate data set had already been available for several years , with the remainder to be released when permissions were obtained . In a decision announced on 27 July 2011 the Information Commissioner 's Office ( ICO ) required release of raw data even though permissions had not been obtained or in one instance had been refused , and on 27 July 2011 CRU announced release of the raw instrumental data not already in the public domain , with the exception of Poland which was outside the area covered by the FOIA request .   A 2008 FOI request by David Holland for emails discussing work on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report was refused by the university . In November 2009 he alleged that CRU emails posted online discussed deleting the emails he had requested : in January 2010 the Deputy Information Commissioner told a journalist that this indicated an offence under section 77 of the FOIA , but prosecution was time-barred by statute of limitations . Newspapers misrepresented this as a decision in relation to raw data , and the issue was discussed by the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry , which found there had been a lack of openness . The ICO decision published on 7 July 2010 stated that this potential offence had not been investigated as it was time-barred . As Holland was content not to proceed with his complaint against the university , no further action was needed , but the ICO would `` consider whether further action is appropriate to secure future compliance . ''   In September 2011 the ICO issued new guidance to universities . This described exceptions and exemptions to protect research , including allowance for internal exchange of views between academics and researchers free from external scrutiny , as well as commending actively disclosing information when it is in the public interest .

Climatic Research Unit documents <=SEP=> Climatic Research Unit documents including thousands of e-mails and other computer files were stolen from a server at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in a hacking incident in November 2009 . The documents were redistributed first through several blogs of global warming skeptics , and allegations were made that they indicated misconduct by leading climate scientists . A series of investigations rejected these allegations , while concluding that CRU scientists should have been more open with distributing data and methods on request . Precisely six committees investigated the allegations and published reports , finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct . The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged by the end of the investigations .   The incident occurred shortly before the opening December 2009 Copenhagen global climate summit . It has prompted general discussion about increasing the openness of scientific data ( though the majority of climate data have always been freely available ) . Scientists , scientific organisations , and government officials have stated that the incident does not affect the overall scientific case for climate change . Andrew Revkin reported in the New York Times that `` The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument . ''

Climatic Research Unit email controversy <=SEP=> 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 .   The story was first broken by climate change denialists with columnist James Delingpole popularising the term `` Climategate '' to describe the controversy . Several people considered climate change `` skeptics '' argued that the emails showed global warming was a scientific conspiracy , that scientists manipulated climate data and attempted to suppress critics . The CRU rejected this , saying the emails had been taken out of context and merely reflected an honest exchange of ideas .   The mainstream media picked up the story as negotiations over climate change mitigation began in Copenhagen on 7 December 2009 . Because of the timing , scientists , policy makers and public relations experts said that the release of emails was a smear campaign intended to undermine the climate conference . In response to the controversy , the American Association for the Advancement of Science ( AAAS ) , the American Meteorological Society ( AMS ) and the Union of Concerned Scientists ( UCS ) released statements supporting the scientific consensus that the Earth 's mean surface temperature had been rising for decades , with the AAAS concluding , `` based on multiple lines of scientific evidence that global climate change caused by human activities is now underway ... it is a growing threat to society . ''   Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports , finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct . However , the reports called on the scientists to avoid any such allegations in the future by taking steps to regain public confidence in their work , for example by opening up access to their supporting data , processing methods and software , and by promptly honouring freedom of information requests . The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations .