Climategate
Climategate is an incident that occurred with the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the
University of East Anglia (UEA) involving a breach of information via emails. Over 1,000 of
CRU’s emails were hacked and released to the media. They contained information regarding the
research of the University on climate change, specifically the warming trend over the past 50
years. CRU has been a leading group on climate change for the past 20 years. Their main sources
of data are global surface temperatures and proxy data of tree-ring growth to expand climate
science into past climates and predict and understand future warming trends. Their work has
been a source of interest for not only climate science but also policy makers and the public.
Throughout Muir Russell’s review of Climategate it is not the goal to discredit the
scientists’ abilities or their work; however, the behavior of the scientist, the peer review process,
policy making concerning scientific findings, research funding, and releasing data to the public
are being reviewed. The scientists’ behavior is a large concern of mine and the process of
communication through email. The review is someone else’s interpretation to determine the
meaning behind the emails. Also, it was believed that CRU was skewing the peer review process
and threatening journals that were not in support of their ideas. It was thought that CRU had
misrepresented data, changed data, and prevented access to data.
The breach of emails and information was very misrepresented to the popular media.
Many people assumed that since the behavior of the scientists was being questioned that their
data and information were false as well. Many rumors circulated that climate change is not real
and the data was falsified and misrepresented. Some media sources also claimed that Climategate
was a “manufactured scandal” even the review that we read was criticized and stated to be an
evasion of the real issue. I suppose this is expected though because many people in the general
public do not understand that the process of research will not always produce exact answers.
Climate Research is still a very young field, and the process of “science” takes many
years before answers can be given on causes or effects. It is unfortunate for the scientists at CRU
because their work is now not validated, as it would have been if Climategate had not occurred.
This seems to be a setback for the current climate research that is occurring due to all of the
questions raised from the media and the process itself. Climate change now has a name for itself
to go along with a scandal. It is also unfortunate because once CRU is in the news it will always
have this “Climategate” associated with its name. However, it can bring about positive change as
well. Policy makers and research funding can better understand their role in the daily lives of
scientists.
An interesting note about Climatgate is how concerned the reviewers became with the
emails. Why was no one concerned with the actual “science” behind what these statistics are
showing? Since I have an education background as well I have learned a lot about
communicating and teaching. Every scientist seems to be part teacher as well. The emails sent
between scientists probably resemble the emails teachers send to other teachers concerning
school policy, changes, students, and parents. Every email someone sends is his or her personal
opinion and bias, its not meant to be read by the entire world. Of course all of these statements
will be taken out of context, they were never meant for a scientific or public audience. It seems
only looking at the context of the emails without understanding the ideas and methods behind the
research made an appropriate “review”.
The peer review process also seems to be a vicious cycle. Scientists are able to have their
work validated by someone who agrees with their research and findings. The status of those
people who can validate their work is determined by how well their research has been supported
by having journal articles published. This results in publishings that are completely useless and
articles being rejected which had very good ideas. Clearly with Climatgate the peer review
process played a big role in the releasing of data and openness of the researchers.
Back to my educational theories, just as teachers learn to communicate between each
other, administration, and their students, they also have a large concern in dealing with “policy
makers”, parents. It seems there have always been issues in science and communicating to the
public, the same way a doctor has to “dumb it down” to talk to a patient, scientists must deliver
information to the public that always has a one-sided bias. The topic of global warming certainly
causes people to be concerned, especially when research is saying that human influence is the
main culprit.
I have not learned a great deal about the topic of global warming in my college career. I
know that data shows significant increases in the levels of carbon dioxide since the Industrial
Revolution in the mid-1800s but none of my professors have chosen to expound on the topic.
From a geologic perspective we are actually in a cooler phase because there are glaciers present.
However, the changes occurring in the past 150 years have been dramatic. I do believe our
society can be proactive, and has been before. The changes that have occurred in the field of
education in the past 80 years could not have been foreseen. Hopefully we can begin to embrace
that we have a say in the changes that are occurring in our climate.
It is still very interesting though that the whole review and scandal of Climategate really
has nothing to do with the science behind what is happening in our atmosphere. It seems like the
scientists, policy makers, research funders, and public were all at a stalemate. It has not seemed
to produce any new ideas or findings about our climate, nor have their been extreme policies
released since this scandal. I feel like tensions just rose to a breaking point and this “review” was
a civil fight between the scientific world and the people who control it.
The public needs a radical shift in their view of science, especially climate science.
Funded research also needs a change. It is impossible to do quality work when every action is
being questioned, doubted, and criticized. The researchers at CRU were under immense amount
of pressure because of public funding and the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA). I’m not sure
if it will ever be accepted by the public the harm we are doing to the Earth or that there are ways
to change.