| Computer hackers publicized e-mails between | | | | numerous information points a climate scientist has to |
| Pennsylvania State University's Professor Michael | | | | take into consideration: "human and natural influences... |
| Mann and England's University of East Anglia | | | | natural internal variability of the climate system... |
| Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate | | | | Volcanic influences... Solar influences..." Therefore, |
| Research Unit, in the fall of 2009. These e-mails were | | | | scientists must examine the collected data from many |
| given an immense amount of media notice because | | | | viewpoints. |
| they appeared to imply that there was a degree of | | | | Next, one must not be influenced by political influences |
| collusion involving the scientists. It seemed that | | | | when researching such a heavily politicized issue as |
| information was hidden in order to influence the peer | | | | climate change. Although Jones' records showed |
| review process for some scientific papers which had | | | | otherwise, it appears as though he may have felt |
| points of view dissenting from those of the Climate | | | | pressured to submit the "right" records. He may have |
| Research Unit. For example, in one e-mail, Dr. Jones | | | | felt compelled to do so because of the influence of |
| noted, concerning the global climate status, "I've just | | | | science and politics. When questioned by the BBC, |
| completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real | | | | Jones admitted that, although there has been certain |
| temps to each series for the last 20 years ie, from | | | | warming, there has not been major global warming |
| 1981 onwards and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the | | | | from 1995 to the present, and that "Achieving statistical |
| decline." Since the scandal and subsequent media | | | | significance in scientific terms is much more likely for |
| attention, Jones has stepped down as head of the | | | | longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." |
| Climate Research Unit. | | | | What this means is that Dr. Jones may have felt the |
| Recently, in a BBC News question-and-answer format | | | | need to stretch his data to seem sympathetic to the |
| interview, Jones defended the substance of his | | | | topic of climate change. Now there are doubts cast on |
| e-mails. Nevertheless, there is no denying that his | | | | all of his records, not just those referred to in his |
| e-mails have resulted in hostility regarding how | | | | e-mails to Mann. |
| scientists treat records, especially when it comes to | | | | Finally, when it comes to scientific issues, the general |
| climatology. Responding to his critics in the interview | | | | public is not well-versed in thinking critically. Science is |
| with BBC, he says that the "...'trick' did not refer to any | | | | not black and white and most scientific conclusions are |
| intention to deceive -- but rather 'a convenient way of | | | | complicated and layered. Rather than looking at |
| achieving something'." | | | | records without prejudice and with a healthy dose of |
| This leads us to inquire if there is there a "correct" | | | | skepticism, occasionally the media and politicians will |
| approach to interpret scientific data, and if not, how | | | | take their own point of view and then search for |
| does one educate a young scientist to clarify facts in | | | | scientific information to back up their already-formed |
| order to point toward the best possible depiction of | | | | opinions. Obviously, the manner in which scientific |
| reality? We have to inquire why and how something | | | | details are offered to the public is often imbalanced |
| like "Climategate" could take place. What do the data | | | | because of this. |
| truly reflect? If the periods studied do not show a | | | | These are significant concerns when it comes to |
| warming trend of statistical importance, what does this | | | | science and how scientists portray their findings to the |
| mean? How well do the interpretations of the records | | | | public, and these problems point to a desperate |
| point toward what is actually happening with the | | | | obligation to overhaul science education. It is not |
| climate? Was the need to "hide the decline" a scientific | | | | enough to rely on the "professionals" and though there |
| obligation or was it political? Furthermore if it was | | | | will always be a need for professional opinion, |
| political how much should politics influence the | | | | everyone needs have a better grasp of science and |
| interpretations of science? | | | | the scientific method. Better science education is not |
| First, the analysis of scientific data and the prediction of | | | | merely an essential for children who want to become |
| climate change are not precise science--there is not a | | | | scientists when they grow up, it is also crucial that |
| single accurate approach to either one. The science of | | | | politicians, journalists, and everyday readers who follow |
| climatology is complex since there are so many | | | | the news be educated to think critically and |
| variables involved. Jones notes just a few of the | | | | comprehend the boundaries of scientific research. |