Democrat Governor Seeks to 'Fire' State Climatologist, a Global Warming Skeptic

[Crazed Rabbit]

Remember that non-story about the Bush admin alledgely trying to suppress evolution advocates, in relation to the Grand Canyon?

Well, here's a real story, except this time the Dem Gov. of Oregon is seeking to fire the State Climatologist because he doesn't agree with man-made global warming. I'll wait for your indignation at Oregon, Lemur.

After all, is this not government censorship of science, something raged so strongly against whenever its hinted the Bush admin might be thinking about considering it?

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/storie....59f5d04a.html

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

06:09 PM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007

By VINCE PATTON, kgw.com

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.

“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.

Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies.

So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,” Kulongoski said.

Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.

In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.

A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.

Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change.

The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"

CR

[Banquo's Ghost]

I am confused.

If the university created the title, how does the state have the power to remove it - unless "State Whatever" is a protected designation, in which case why was the university allowed to use it in the first place?

The fellow is entitled to his views. However, if the democratically elected state legislature adopts policies that he is unable to support, and if he is in their employ as a state official (not sure from the article that he is, he seems to be emplyed by the university) they are in their rights to replace him.

However, if he's doing his job properly, there should be no issue with his private views as long as he is not campaigning against state policy as a state official.

[Xiahou]

The fellow is entitled to his views. However, if the democratically elected state legislature adopts policies that he is unable to support, and if he is in their employ as a state official (not sure from the article that he is, he seems to be emplyed by the university) they are in their rights to replace him.

And if a government scientist is unable to support the policies of a democratically elected president, it's different how?

I needed to fix something in that news story CR:

Hundreds of scientists politicians last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.

[Fisherking]

Global warming is a politically correct conclusion and inconvenient facts have no place in the debate. More accurately there will be no debate, we have come to a decision regardless of fact and anyone with the gall to disagree with that "Fact" is to be ostracised, persecuted, and silenced by any means possible.

So, why does one side want to silence any rational discussion? Are they afraid of being proven wrong?

In the end it just plane doesn't matter. If we want to learn to control the temperatures of the earth, then try…but don't give a bunch of lame excuses to hire climatologists or to fire them if they disagree with popular opinion.

[Banquo's Ghost]

And if a government scientist is unable to support the policies of a democratically elected president, it's different how?

I think there's a difference between a state official (ie representing the state) and a person simply employed by the state in a capacity such as a scientist.

I would expect the president's spokesman on science to reflect the president's views. It's usual if their views diverge for the spokesman to resign. But government scientists are employed to do science, to inform. They should be unaffected by government pressure to conform if they are to do this effectively otherwise the information is useless.

If I have misread, and this fellow is employed by the state merely to do climatology, then you are right - he should be left alone and is entitled to argue his views.

If his job is to be wheeled in front of cameras to explain the state's policies, then I think they have the right to choose someone who will do this to their satisfaction. Though personally, I wouldn't have a problem with him being opposed and in post, as while I think he's wrong on the evidence, it all very healthy to maintain the debate.

Unlike with the creationist line alluded to in the first post, there is still considerable doubt as to the causes of global warming, though the evidence is significant for man-made influence. As I noted in an earlier thread, the solutions to global warming are beneficial whether it's man-made or sun-cycles or leprechaun farts.

[Fisherking]

In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.

It looks to me that the Gov. wants to be able to call his puppet the state climatologist instead of allowing the university to call their department head the state climatologist.

Gosh! A new government job with a lot of pay so some guy can tell the Governor what he wants to hear. No wonder these guys all agree with the politicians…so how are the unemployed ones the ones that are bought off? Just a question you know….

[English assassin]

As to the story, the man is not being fired, his job title may be changed. There is a difference. Its to do with "still getting paid". As I understand state universities in the US they are subject to a surprising degree of political interference from their states. Personally, I work on the rule that only a fool argues with a fool, and I would have left him alone, but that's just me.

And that rule is why I will not be rising to this.

Global warming is a politically correct conclusion and inconvenient facts have no place in the debate. More accurately there will be no debate, we have come to a decision regardless of fact and anyone with the gall to disagree with that "Fact" is to be ostracised, persecuted, and silenced by any means possible.

So, why does one side want to silence any rational discussion? Are they afraid of being proven wrong?

In the end it just plane doesn't matter. If we want to learn to control the temperatures of the earth, then try…but don't give a bunch of lame excuses to hire climatologists or to fire them if they disagree with popular opinion.

If you want rational discussion please will you read the latest IPCC report, http://www.ipcc.ch/ perpared by hundred of leading scientists based on peer reviewed research, and then explain why the undecided of the Org should prefer the self serving opinions of a few computer games fans?

You and Xiahou HAVE read the IPCC report, right Only you seem so sure its all baloney I'm sure you aren't just venting gas? I know, link me to one paper in a leading scientific journal, Science, Nature, PNAS, and so on, published in, say, the last five years, that seriously casts doubt on man made climate change. Just one. In the last five years. Thats all I ask, and then I will agree that you are right, and there is a "debate" to be had.

IMHO methane emissions (think about it kids) from climate change deniers are a major cause of global warming.

I'm a brain surgeon BTW. I know naff all about brains, or surgery, and I can't be bothered to find out, but I have sincerely held opinions. That's all it takes, right? Can I come round and perform surgery on you?

[Idaho]

Climate change deniers, creationists, Bush supporters and those who thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea - I salute you you poor fools

[English assassin]

Climate change deniers, creationists, Bush supporters and those who thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea - I salute you you poor fools

So often the same people too...

[Xiahou]

You and Xiahou HAVE read the IPCC report, right Only you seem so sure its all baloney I'm sure you aren't just venting gas? I know, link me to one paper in a leading scientific journal, Science, Nature, PNAS, and so on, published in, say, the last five years, that seriously casts doubt on man made climate change. Just one. In the last five years. Thats all I ask, and then I will agree that you are right, and there is a "debate" to be had.

Do you really think there isnt any? This took me about 3 seconds to find.

Btw, the IPCC summary report was written largely by politicians- often distorting the research in the actual report drafts which are done by real scientists. Read if you're interested.

[BDC]

Do you really think there isnt any? This took me about 3 seconds to find.

Btw, the IPCC summary report was written largely by politicians- often distorting the research in the actual report drafts which are done by real scientists. Read if you're interested.

Except that doesn't have a great deal to do with global warming necessarily.

I think the whole thing is so complex that it's unlikely anyone is going to know for sure for a long time. And people being people, all the ice caps could have melted and they would still be denying it.

[Fisherking]

As to the story, the man is not being fired, his job title may be changed. There is a difference. Its to do with "still getting paid". As I understand state universities in the US they are subject to a surprising degree of political interference from their states. Personally, I work on the rule that only a fool argues with a fool, and I would have left him alone, but that's just me.

And that rule is why I will not be rising to this.



If you want rational discussion please will you read the latest IPCC report, http://www.ipcc.ch/ perpared by hundred of leading scientists based on peer reviewed research, and then explain why the undecided of the Org should prefer the self serving opinions of a few computer games fans?

You and Xiahou HAVE read the IPCC report, right Only you seem so sure its all baloney I'm sure you aren't just venting gas? I know, link me to one paper in a leading scientific journal, Science, Nature, PNAS, and so on, published in, say, the last five years, that seriously casts doubt on man made climate change. Just one. In the last five years. Thats all I ask, and then I will agree that you are right, and there is a "debate" to be had.

IMHO methane emissions (think about it kids) from climate change deniers are a major cause of global warming.

I'm a brain surgeon BTW. I know naff all about brains, or surgery, and I can't be bothered to find out, but I have sincerely held opinions. That's all it takes, right? Can I come round and perform surgery on you?

I have…numbers don't mean everything and I am not making denials. I am just saying that opposing views are not welcome.

And just because something is in print doesn't make it true….
Numbers do not make fact of a lie…
Not that it is…

I have not seen enough hard rational facts to form a solid opinion, both are using questionable data and I am not declaring anyone the winner…debate…not us them!!!

[Papewaio]

Stupidity.
Talk about focusing on the wrong thing.

So what if his title says 'State' in it. Are all titles with 'State' in it exclusively appointed by the state? All state titles, competitions, state champions, state produce xyz assigned by the government? And does having 'State' in the title means they work for the state and more specifically the political body in charge of running the state? Is the Miss America State finalist a political appointee who must be a spokesperson for the current political chiefs?

And what is wrong with have a dissenting opinion? Nothing.
Science is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. Outcomes should not be decided by popularity nor should those who disagree be cut off based on political correctness.

Stuff the politicians. Let the guy have his opinion, and let him hopefully show some science to back it up.

[Xiahou]

And what is wrong with have a dissenting opinion? Nothing.
Science is neither a dictatorship nor a democracy. Outcomes should not be decided by popularity nor should those who disagree be cut off based on political correctness.

Stuff the politicians. Let the guy have his opinion, and let him hopefully show some science to back it up.

Amen to that.

[Goofball]

I've read the article twice now, and can't figure out who is getting fired.

[Papewaio]

Do you really think there isnt any? This took me about 3 seconds to find.

Have you read the pdf?

Because it reminds me of Princess Bride:

Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I don't think that pdf means what you think it means...

[Slyspy]

I've read the article twice now, and can't figure out who is getting fired.

Errr, no one.

Despite what Rabbit thinks no one is trying to fire the guy, or silence him.

The Governor appears to want to remove the job title since it makes the guy sound like a government official and representative, which he is not. Thus the embarassing confusion when he argues against the state's policies on climate change.

[Goofball]

Errr, no one.

Despite what Rabbit thinks no one is trying to fire the guy, or silence him.

The Governor appears to want to remove the job title since it makes the guy sound like a government official and representative, which he is not. Thus the embarassing confusion when he argues against the state's policies on climate change.

Ohhhh!

I see.

So essentially, this is a... what was CR's term?

Oh yes: non-story.

[Xiahou]

Have you read the pdf?

Because it reminds me of Princess Bride:

I don't think that pdf means what you think it means...

Seems pretty straightforward:

A new estimate of sampling error in the heat content record suggests that both the recent and previous global cooling events are significant and unlikely to be artifacts of inadequate ocean sampling.

[Papewaio]

So you accept what the pdf says is true then?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Ohhhh!

I see.

So essentially, this is a... what was CR's term?

Oh yes: non-story.

*rolls eyes*

The State of Oregon created a state climate office at Oregon State University. OSU gave the title 'State Climatologist' to George Taylor, who does not believe that global warming is man made.

Because of his position on the matter, the governor wants to take from the state climate office - a vehicle for research, not parroting the state's views - the ability to name the 'state climatologist'. I.e., the government is trying to take power away from scientists who disagree with them.

Oh, I forgot, it's a non-story unless Bush is alledged to be doing it, and everyone who dares question man made global warming is 'a poor fool'.

So, my question is - can I call people I politically disagree with fools?

CR

[Papewaio]

So, my question is - can I call people I politically disagree with fools?

CR

Not without getting a warning that would have from 0 to 2 points depending on how it is worded.

Now, I suggest that you follow the British system and be very polite to those you dislike and disagree with. "Would the Honourable Member for the Donkey's please explain the political clap trap of removing titles that have state in it..."

[Slyspy]

But Mr Taylor is not actually an employee of the state right? So the title, given by the University, confers a level of power, to use your word, to which he is not actually entitled. His role with the state climate office is merely an academic position, not the political one which his job title suggests. Am I right?

Further more, and you must see this as plain fact yourself, no one is being fired as your opening post inaccurately stated.

[Lemur]

Well, here's a real story, except this time the Dem Gov. of Oregon is seeking to fire the State Climatologist because he doesn't agree with man-made global warming. I'll wait for your indignation at Oregon, Lemur.

What exactly did I do to get on your *bleep* list, Rabbit?

Climate change is an issue I generally stay away from. It's too politicized right now. I have no doubt that the climate changes, but there's so much F.U.D. that's been generated on both sides of the argument, it's sort of pointless to weigh in on it. What's the gist of this story? Some researcher may lose a non-paying title that has no bearing on his ability to do his work? And he's getting free publicity from the event?

Whatever. I'm as bemused by people who declare that man-made global warming is bunk (they just know it!) as I am by people who know that man-made global warming is real and measurable (they just know it!).

You mess with evolution, however, and you're messing with the foundation of all life sciences. Might as well get pissy about the periodic table.

[Crazed Rabbit]

But Mr Taylor is not actually an employee of the state right? So the title, given by the University, confers a level of power, to use your word, to which he is not actually entitled. His role with the state climate office is merely an academic position, not the political one which his job title suggests. Am I right?

But he is entitled - he was given the title by the state-created a 'state climate office'. I do not see how a title 'state climatologist' means he must be a political appointee - should not such a position be scientific? Or are scientists employed by the gov't supposed to be polticians first and scientists second?

Further more, and you must see this as plain fact yourself, no one is being fired as your opening post inaccurately stated.

Well, the governor is seeking to change things such that the current holder of the title is stripped of it - seems a bit like firing to me. His reason is because he doesn't like what the state climatologist is saying.

Not without getting a warning that would have from 0 to 2 points depending on how it is worded.

Just wondering...

Climate change deniers, creationists, Bush supporters and those who thought the invasion of Iraq was a good idea - I salute you you poor fools

EDIT:

What exactly did I do to get on your shit list, Rabbit?

I don't have one. I said it because of your thread about the Bush admin supposedly pushing creationism at the Grand Canyon.

Crazed Rabbit

[Goofball]

Whatever. I'm as bemused by people who declare that man-made global warming is bunk (they just know it!) as I am by people who know that man-made global warming is real and measurable (they just know it!).

You have pretty much summed up how I feel about the Global Warming issue.

[Papewaio]

Seems pretty straightforward:

From the introduction of that article:

With over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, the World Ocean is the largest repository for changes in global heat content [Levitus et al., 2005]. Monitoring ocean heat content is therefore fundamental to detecting and understanding changes in the Earth’s heat balance. Past estimates of the global integral of ocean heat content anomaly (OHCA) indicate an increase of 14.5 × 1022 J from 1955 to 1998 from the surface to 3000 m [Levitus et al., 2005] and 9.2 (± 1.3) × 1022 J from 1993 to 2003 in the upper (0 – 750
m) ocean [Willis et al. 2004]. These increases provide strong evidence of global warming. Climate models exhibit similar rates of ocean warming, but only when forced by anthropogenic influences [Gregory et al., 2004; Barnett et al., 2005; Church et al., 2005; Hansen et al., 2005].

While there has been a general increase in the global integral of OHCA during the last half century, there have also been substantial decadal fluctuations, including a short period of rapid cooling (6 × 1022 J of heat lost in the 0–700 m layer) from 1980 to 1983 [Levitus et al., 2005].

So the the article states that there is global warming, but what they are focusing on are the short cooling events...

The discussion in the article is also quite interesting:

The recent cooling of the upper
ocean implies a decrease in the thermosteric component of sea level. Estimates of total sea level [Leuliette et al., 2004; http://sealevel.colorado.edu], however, show continued sea-level rise during the past 3 years. This suggests that other contributions to sea-level rise, such as melting of land-bound ice, have accelerated. This inference is consistent with recent estimates of ice mass loss in Antarctica [Velicogna and Wahr, 2006] and accelerating ice mass loss on Greenland [Rignot et al., 2006] but closure of the global sea level budget cannot yet be achieved.

[Kanamori]

The real problem is that the governor isn't sending him to jail... we need to get rid of these types of people.

[Fisherking]

The real problem is that the governor isn't sending him to jail... we need to get rid of these types of people.

Ah, yes! That's the spirit…Let's go get'em!

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

One at a time.........................

[Watchman]

Who let Godwin in ?