Nestled on the fifth floor of the Walker Building, the meteorology department is one of the smaller programs at Penn State -- but it has spent the last few weeks in the international spotlight.
As the Penn State inquiry of meteorology professor Michael Mann and the international investigation of the hundreds of climate-change e-mails leaked from a server at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in England continues, debate has not waned throughout the political and scientific communities.
On Nov. 21, e-mails from the climate research center at UEA were illegally obtained and released to the public. Uproar over an e-mail sent by Phil Jones, the center's director, focused on his request for his colleagues to delete certain e-mails.
Some climate change skeptics allege the e-mails suggest the scientists either manipulated or fabricated information on which they built their theory of man-made climate change.
Mann has remained steadfast in his support for his research and said he did not comply with any of the requests to delete the e-mails.
Still, calls both of support and disdain have been placed to the meteorology department in larger numbers than they are accustomed to since the news broke late last month.
William Brune, head of the meteorology department, said Tuesday it is still too early to speculate what kind of impact "Climategate" will have on the department. But, he said, there have been many e-mails and phone calls from people with opinions on both sides of the global warming debate.
Many of the calls have been from alumni, Brune said, calling in large numbers to pledge their support for the department -- regardless of what decision the university reaches.
Although many of the alumni are concerned about the future of the department's reputation, they are glad the university is following through with the inquiry.
"I'm really happy to see it," Brune said of the alumni support.
Brune said the topic of climate change is something now on everyone's mind. While it would be easy to speculate on the outcome of both the inquiry and investigation, he thinks it must be approached with diligence and an unbiased view to achieve the fairest result possible.
"You just have to do the right thing," he said.
In the face of the influx of calls and e-mails, some professors said they do not want to involve themselves with any of the speculation.
Meteorology professor William Syrett said he feels meteorologists in general are used to taking "some heat" for their predictions -- calls and e-mails are nothing totally abnormal. People will continue to feel the same way, he said.
"I don't think any scientist is going to be swayed by something like this," Syrett said.
People with legitimate scientific concerns should be able to express them, meteorology professor Jenni Evans said, but if they are neither skillful nor courageous enough to express them in the right forum, scientists are not going to take any notice.
"I think that people that have to stoop to deception and theft probably don't have strong ground to stand on," she said.
Evans said if scientists did listen to everything people tried to tell them to do, it would leave no opportunity for science to advance -- and no one would learn anything new.
"You can't tell scientists what to think," she said.
