Much Ado About the CRU

Sorting out fact from fiction: can we afford to be wrong?

Over the past several weeks, there has been much ado about the CRU.  Otherwise known as the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, the CRU came under fire in the days leading up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit.

Claims of falsifying data have hounded the organization, which have since been largely proven as untrue.  The claims… not the data!

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, global warming skeptics seized upon the rumors of scandalous cover-up, anointing it as “Climategate.”  On the other hand, those who recognize climate change as real have defended against the claims, referring to the attacks as “Swifthack.”

Here’s where the rumors started:

What is really at stake in Climategate?

In case you’ve been living under a rock for the past few weeks, the CRU scandal started last month when thousands of emails from the University of East Anglia were hacked from its server. The unauthorized release of the emails raised suspicions concerning alleged withholding of information and internal questions as to how to address the claims of climate change skeptics.  As of the date of this posting, investigations into the hacking incident are ongoing by both the Norfolk police and the FBI.

The CRU director has also agreed to step aside during the Climate Research Unit’s review which will examine:

1. E-mail exchanges and any other CRU information to determine whether there is any evidence of data manipulation or suppression that is contrary to acceptable scientific practices.

2. Internal policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings, and their compliance with best scientific practice.

3. Whether CRU has complied with the University’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) and the Environmental Information Regulations (“EIR”).

Of course, I agree that investigation needs to be completed concerning some of the claims – particularly with respect to whether data was withheld, instead of disseminated in compliance with FOIA.  But ultimately, it seems to me that there has been too much ado about the CRU.

Do we really believe that climate change is not occurring (regardless of whether there is consenus on whether it is manmade)?  Are we willing to be distracted by this whole scandal in order to continue to put our heads in the sand concerning rising sea levels, melting glaciers and shrinking snow packs?  Is the CRU incident a convenient excuse for mankind to go about its polluting ways without seriously asking – what relatively small steps can we each take on a daily basis to share the planet’s resources?

I tend to agree with the observations at FactCheck.org about “Climategate:”

The e-mails (which have been made available by an unidentified individual here) do show a few scientists talking frankly among themselves — sometimes being rude, dismissive, insular, or even behaving like jerks. Whether they show anything beyond that is still in doubt. There are two investigations underway, by the U.K.’s Met Office and East Anglia University, and the head of CRU, Phil Jones, has “stepped aside” until they are completed. However, many of the e-mails that are being held up as “smoking guns” have been misrepresented by global-warming skeptics eager to find evidence of a conspiracy. And even if they showed what the critics claim, there remains ample evidence that the earth is getting warmer.

Even as the affair was unfolding, the World Meteorological Organization announced on Dec. 8 that the 2000-2009 decade would likely be the warmest on record, and that 2009 might be the fifth warmest year ever recorded. (The hottest year on record was 1998.) This conclusion is based not only on the CRU data that critics are now questioning, but also incorporates data from the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). All three organizations synthesized data from many sources.

My opinion?  Let the University sort out the claims concerning compliance with policies, scientific practices and release of information.  The rest of us should jump off this merry-go-round and ask ourselves what we are going to do to reduce individual impacts on the environment which have been documented by numerous organizations world-wide, and illustrated in a number of heartbreaking photographs.

Glacier National Park, Montana (1932)

Glacier National Park (2005)