Climategate

Since the mid 1970s, global warming has been a widespread topic of public interest. Scientists, environmentalists, and politicians have warned us about the potential dangers of a changing climate. As a result, the green movement has expanded beyond activism and entered into our economy. In recent years, we have heard discussions about green cars, green housing, and green jobs. However, the last few weeks have presented us with another green phrase that we can add to our eco-friendly dictionaries- “green scandal.”

In late November, thousands of documents and emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in England were exposed. These communications were hacked into and posted on an internet blog by an anonymous source. Over the last few days, the emails have been confirmed as discussions among British and American scientists who are well-known promoters of the global warming theory. In the past, some of these men have been accused of silencing differing opinions. In many of the email exchanges, it seems that some scientists discussed how to manipulate or even get rid of data that does not directly support global warming. This is the main concern within the “Climategate” scandal.

Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit, and Professor Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State, are facing particular scrutiny. Both of these men have been involved with the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The most highly reported email comes from Jones and Mann’s discussion about an experiment with two sets of data. The first set includes thermometer readings over the past century, while the second contains tree density and the length of tree rings. Personally, I think this study is kind of unsteady from the start. One has to look at the inside of a tree to get the ring length, which means this environmental study requires that trees get chopped down. Very ironic.

Up until about 1960, the tree ring data and thermometer readings suggest a rise in average temperatures. The correlation here is that as the Earth warms, the trees have the capacity to grow larger. Then, for reasons that the scientists seem unable to explain, the tree density and average ring length begin to decline after 1960. However, the thermometer readings continue to rise into the second half of the twentieth century.

In the email, Jones mentions using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the tree data. This “trick” would present the warming temperature effects on the tree rings as more intense. These results would be useful because it would show one of the ways global warming has already impacted the Earth.

Professor Mann, in an interview with The New York Times, said that the email was legitimate, but the language was portrayed the wrong way. He stated the consistency of the tree-ring data was questionable, so it is no longer used. He also explained that “trick” is a word often used by scientists “to refer to a good way to solve a problem, ‘and not something secret’.”

Global warming skeptics don’t buy Mann’s explanation. They have pointed to this email as evidence that global warming studies and data may be overvalued. However, proponents of the theory have responded by saying the skeptics are “cherry picking” certain statements and taking them out of context in order to prove their point.

In another email, Professor Jones criticizes studies that suggest the relationship between human activities and global warming is uncertain. Jones writes, “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report.” He also promised to “keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Professor Jones finds himself in more trouble after a May 2008 email that encouraged his colleagues to “delete any email you may have had” about data for an IPCC report. The British Freedom of Information Act makes it a crime to delete this type of material, which is subject to a freedom of information request.

Since the debacle, Professor Jones has temporarily stepped down as the head of the Climate Research Unit. This will most likely last until an investigation of the CRU is completed. This independent review is intended to see if the accusations of manipulating data to present a stronger case for global warming are true. When asked about his choice to step down, Jones stated, “What is most important is that CRU continues its world leading research with as little interruption and diversion as possible...I have decided that the best way to achieve this is by stepping aside from the Director’s role during the course of the independent review…”

Another researcher involved was Dr. Kevin Trenberth, who works at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Trenberth discusses in an email that Boulder is dealing with a couple days of record low temperatures in October 2009. He mentions that the October weather is more typical of the month of January. In addition, he has concerns about the adequacy of his observation systems and claims, “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

There is nothing wrong with what Trenberth said, but it shows how the scientists were hungry for data and evidence to back up their predictions. Instead of analyzing the data and then drawing a conclusion, critics are saying these scientists were pushing for the results before conducting the experiment.

The news on Climategate has somewhat been covered on television channels and radio stations, but most of it is coming from the Internet. This seems fitting seeing as the story involves emails that were exposed on an internet blog. However, over the past few days, the news broke fast online and people have responded by offering opinions, suggesting conspiracies, and even creating videos that make fun of the climate scientists involved. If you search “Climategate” in Google, you will get over 30 million results. Compare that to other environmental terms such as “climate change” with 22 million or “global warming” with only 10 million.

Whether politicians support the theory of man-made global warming or not, it is important that they consider this scandal before spending billions through environmental legislation. However, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, the top Democrat in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has chosen to focus more on the “real culprits.” In a committee meeting, Boxer stated “You call it Climategate, I call it email-theft-gate.” She went on to add, “Part of our looking at this will be looking at a criminal activity which could have well been coordinated.” While the activity of the hackers was wrong, that does not take away from the fact that some of the scientists involved acted irresponsibly. Concluding accurate scientific results based on independent studies is legitimate, but only focusing on only the data that supports your own personal beliefs is unethical.

Few believe that Climategate is evidence to dump the global warming issue, but many are raising legitimate questions on just how serious the pattern may be. The conclusion to draw from this scandal is that there may be evidence in some studies that suggest mankind has an influence on climate, but in no way is the theory of man-made global warming indisputable.