Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Oregon Governor Wants to Strip Title from State Climatologist


Well this is sure nothing new to people familiar with persecution of scientists in support of ID.

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

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.

Read the rest at the link above.

Does anyone even know how much CO2 our atmosphere can gather before we reach that "greenhouse effect"? Last I knew we still had 71% N, 28% O, and 1% other including CO2. Joseph
By ALL means, please reduce the greenhouse gases. What you don't have to do is lie to us to get us to do it. Joseph
For additional insights into the true state of global warming, check out "Shattered Consensus" by Patrick J. Michaels; this is a series of essays from several climate scientists. They make some very interesting points I had not heard of, particularly on some reasons why today we may actually be measuring temperatures that are warmer than they really are. This seeming contradition can be caused, at least in part, due to the following factors: - historically, global strife (WWII, politics, etc.) reduced the number of accurate temperature measurements, tempting some to "insert" or "extrapolate" according to one's favorite bias to fill in missing data; - more and more meteorological stations are located in urban areas where much of the vegetation is removed and the net radiation heats surfaces as opposed to evaporating or trasnpiring water: result = higher temperatures measured at that locale; - "desertification" also reduces biomass in areas, causing local temperature increases that are interpreted as global warming; - today's digital thermometers measure very slight temperature increases almost instantaneously; older mercury-in-glass thermometers may not have had sufficient time to measure the peak temps ; "warm eddies" which would have not been measured in the past are instantly recognized today (translation: the older instruments had a colder bias, the newer ones have a warmer bias, result means warm bias in temperatures today compared with yesterday); - measurement stations are being moved from remote areas and located closer to rural airports "specifically chosen as sites because they minimize cold air drainage"; - observation bias: during unusually cold mornings, people trudging out of their warm beds to read measurements would "double count" readings (use one cold reading for each of two days) and sleep in the next day; electronic sensors today, which provide continuous readings and eliminate the double-counting bias of extreme cold temps. The authors note that most of the above biases are towards warmer temps. Result: even if temps were exactly the same today (they're not), they would be measured as being warmer. One other issue that the book leads off with: The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Control (IPCC), which is the main body in the world pushing the global-warming issue, bases its major findings on a report issued by Michael Mann in 1998. Professor Mann was one of the lead authors in the IPCC's report that relied on Mann's own findings which have not been subjected to peer review, and which have not been directly reviewable due to Mann's unwillingness to provide complete copies of the data and algorithms used to generated his graphs purporting to show global warming. I suspect there's something he doesn't want us to see. ejruff
Honest, Dave, IDers like data. It'll take me a bit to work through it all, but this sure beats "some gobbledigook guru with some title said so." bFast
Bravo, Dave Scott! Arthur B. Robinson, eh? Interesting guy. Made the cover of The American Spectator and is the one that noted that Newton knew. So why would we ID mavericks tend to be less alarmed by the present hype? Well maybe it’s ’cause we’re more skeptical than your average academic—less inclined to blindly follow the party line. Michael Crichton sees this hysteria as a sort of caricature of Christendom, with its own indigenous Eden having been invaded by an Anglo-Saxon Satan and with a subsequent fallen world now seeking multicultural absolution while facing an environmental Armageddon the end of which we shall receive our just desserts in a global warming hell. Rude
The day the UN report was released the LA times ran the story on page 1, and all of the predictions for the next hundred years etc. In the same issue in the local section was a story about how scientists had wrongly predicted a rainy winter due to el nino currents. Of course the el nino currents failed to appear - you guessed it -because of Global Warming! They can predict the weather in a hundred years, but not next month! LMAO on that one. chunkdz
I think that thechristiancynic a great insight here. It may break down slightly only because humans have not employed their intelligence to increase CO2 levels INTENTIONALLY, and part of ID has to do with detecting, essentially, INTENT. You look at the bacterial flagellum, the arrangement of parts and you properly conclude "someone MEANT to do that" just as you would look at, say, a mousetrap and conclude the same thing. Design reflects the INTENT of the designer, at least to a large extent. But still, if our scientific explanations are necessarily limited to only "natural" causes, then can we even consider humans to be the cause? As sarcastic rhetoric, it strikes a chord with me even if it might not be a "perfect" fit. TRoutMac
Thanks for the good link Dave. jmcd
I find the global warming debate to be a very peculiar parallel to the ID debate, since you have on one side GW proponents who say that it is not plausible that the current climatological state could have occurred by natural causes (and so was caused by human causes) and the other who say this is a natural event that occurs without intervention. This article seems to me a prime example of the double standard involved. thechristiancynic
That's just downright MEAN, DaveScot… to actually back up your assertions with real data. What dreadful tactics… you should be ashamed of yourself!! (he, he) TRoutMac
Global warming alarmists - read this if you dare: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm DaveScot

Leave a Reply