Local 4Casters

Last month, somebody broke into an e-mail server at the United Kingdom’s University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), stole 3000 personal e-mail communications from climate scientists, and then leaked these e-mails to the press.  The decided minority who oppose the comprehensive 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report (most of them not scientists) then initiated a massive public relations campaign trumpeting these e-mails as “proof” of a “conspiracy” among climate scientists to hide and manipulate data to support their conclusions.  This could not be further from the truth.  Here’s what you need to know:

 1.  E-mail allows us scientists to rapidly communicate with each other to informally discuss and debate the latest research.  However, the illegally obtained e-mails are only personal communication, and do NOT represent the final, peer-reviewed, debated science that appears in scientific journals (which forms the basis for the IPCC conclusions).  For example, let’s say you e-mailed a friend that you wanted to buy a new Cadillac, but said that you didn’t have the money for it.  What if somebody then stole that e-mail, and used it to publicize that you were having severe money problems?  Would that be fair?  Of course not.  The e-mail was stolen, taken out of context, and the person who stole it had no factual information about the specifics of your financial situation.  This is exactly what happened to the CRU scientists.

 2.  There is an overwhelming amount of scientific research conducted independently by climate scientists around the world that strongly supports the IPCC conclusions.  I was in touch with many of these scientists immediately after the “climategate” story broke, and every single one of them confidently said that the stolen e-mails will not in any way alter their research conclusions, which have been independently verified by colleagues at other research institutions and in other nations, and have not been proven wrong in numerous attempts by global warming skeptics.  To believe that a single scientist can manipulate the world’s entire scientific community on global warming is as ridiculous as believing that men did not land on the moon, and that smoking is good for your health.

 3.  Finally, our Local 4 Defenders routinely investigate corruption, but they never stoop to illegal activity to get the information they need.  Documents are legally requested through the Freedom of Information Act, and they consult with our corporate attorney to ensure that any undercover investigating they do is both legal and ethical.  The person or people who stole the CRU e-mails are guilty of criminal activity.  Would you trust Local 4 investigations if this is how we acquired our information?  Then why would you trust the opinions of non-scientists who illegally obtained personal e-mails with scientific discussions, and then published those e-mails without the proper context?

Yes, “climategate” is a public relations disaster that will only serve to confuse the public.  However, we scientists are not concerned about climate change science itself, which is rock-solid and has withstood scientific scrutiny for many years now.

Paul H. Gross, C.C.M., C.B.M.

WDIV-TV Meteorologist and Executive Producer of Weather

Yes, our globe is warming.  In fact, it is warming at a very unusual rate, and an overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world agree.  I know this because I hear directly about this subject from some of these scientists.  I also know this because of a 2008 George Mason University survey of climate scientists, which indicates that 97% of these scientists  – who had to be professional members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union to participate in the survey – agree that the planet has warmed over the past 100 years, and 74% of the scientists agree that the warming is human induced (I’ll get into why the warming has occurred in my next blog).  I am also confident that most scientists agree about the warming because of  the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which represents the participation of 3000 to 4000 climate scientists based upon the balance of research evidence available at the time (and the evidence is even more convincing today).

The have been some accusations lately by a small minority that all of this is wrong, because the warming has slowed to a stop since 1998, and it is indeed true that temperatures during the most recent eleven years have been relatively stable.  However, what these skeptics do not like to discuss is that the planet’s warming is not linear.  In other words, temperatures do not rise in a straight line, just like the stock market.  In fact, take a look at any stock market graph showing a sharp gain or decline…you will always see “ups and downs” within the overall trend.  In fact, just last year (2008), one of the worst years that the stock market has ever seen, the Dow Jones 30 Industrials average set an all-time daily gain (nearly 900 points).  Would you believe somebody who told you that 2008 was a good year for the stock market because of that record one-day gain?  That’s what global warming skeptics are trying to get you to believe when they tell you that the warming is not happening because the past eleven years have been stable.

Skeptics also will not tell you that the newest climate models actually predict one-to-two decade long “flat periods” in the warming, and that the sharp warming resumes after each one.  So, not only are the past eleven years explainable, they are actually predicted by some of the world’s most sophisticated climate models.

One important thing to remember is that there are those with strong political views who are deeply disturbed by some of the policy recommendations to try and slow our warming.  This series of blogs will not address politics, and will stay focused strictly upon the science.  However, I need to stress that some of these people reject the science because of the policy ramifications.  What all of you need to remember is that there is a big difference between the scientists who do the climate research, and politics.  In these blogs, I will share with you scientific facts that are accepted by the world’s climatologists.  My goal is for these blogs to help you gain insight into the science, without it being clouded by the politics.