It appears to me to be a lot of ado about nothing The only reason the Gov. would even care about this guy is because he disagrees and the Gov. Wants to hit back. On the Face of it,the best that can be said about it is that the Gov. Comes off looking Petty. I would let it go if I were the Gov. and try to pick my confrontations a little more prudently.

Why did you use "self-appointed" in describing the title George Taylor has?

Did you read somewhere that Taylor had "appointed" himself the "State Climatologist"?

And what do you suppose the Governor will call for when Taylor is quoted in the future as the Oregon State University climatologist? Or any other government title?

He'll be run out of his job then, if not before.

Lets hear it for free speech and the right to dissent under the big K. Or does free speech only apply to speech that K supports?

This is pretty obvious retalliation for disagreement on a political issue. How can anyone respect K after this?

Thanks JK

JK: How exactly does asking someone to stop using an official-sounding title that they have never been officially given qualify as retaliation (or retalliation, which presumably is similar, but with more letters)?

And while I'm here--tell me again how the environment is a political issue, beyond the fact that too many politicians have for too long lacked the balls to do anything about the myriad ways in which we are ruining the planet.

"This is pretty obvious retalliation for disagreement on a political issue."

JK,

This is only a political issue to people such as yourself who will do anything to twist science to conform to your own political beliefs. Of course, you are well versed in retalliation for disagreement on a political issue.

Christine: JK: How exactly does asking someone to stop using an official-sounding title that they have never been officially given qualify as retaliation (or retalliation, which presumably is similar, but with more letters)?

And while I'm here--tell me again how the environment is a political issue, beyond the fact that too many politicians have for too long lacked the balls to do anything about the myriad ways in which we are ruining the planet.

JK: Can you honestly say that the timing is not just a little suspicous?

Thanks JK

Remember, when Al Gore yammers on about global warming, he's clearly speaking outside his expertise.

Again, why did you use "self appointed"?

JK: I'm glad that I do not need to suspect the Governor of inaction on this matter; would you prefer that he take the Denny Hastert route and ignore it until it blew up in his face? That may be how things work in a Republican Congress, but it isn't the way we do things here in Oregon.

I think I'm going to make myself the "state weatherologist" so my opinions would get some news coverage, too.

Lets hear it for free speech and the right to dissent under the big K. Or does free speech only apply to speech that K supports?

I would be pleased to hear exactly how George Taylor's 1st Amendment rights are being restricted. As far as I know, the governor is not telling Taylor that he cannot state his opinions. The O is free to talk to Taylor and he is free to express his opinions. Taylor can post to this blog. He can start his own blog (for all I know, he already has). The actual issue at hand here is whether or not Taylor is operating outside the scope of his official duties.

The censorship claim is a red herring. Taylor is being "censored" in exactly the same way that someone whose obscenity-laced postings to BlueOregon are blocked is being "censored"--in other words, not at all.

Remember, when Al Gore yammers on about global warming, he's clearly speaking outside his expertise.

Gore has never presented himself as a scientist. He has, however, sought out expert advice from many folks.

A few more words about the "censorship" red herring and the business of whether or not George Taylor is operating outside the scope of his official duties (which I make no judgment about, not having seen his contract)...this follow sfrom my own experience as a scientist with a public agency:

If Taylor makes statements to the media and does not say anything about being an employee of the State of Oregon, and makes it clear that he is speaking as a private citizen, then it's hard to see how he can be criticized.

If Taylor makes statements to the media and adds to his comments about his status as a state employee, then he is de facto putting the State's imprimatur on his statements. Taylor undoubtedly has a supervisor who assesses his performance, and has certain rules he, as a public employee, is expected to abide by. If those rules forbid him from offering "official" opinions without his supervisor's OK, then there is legitimate reason to question whether he is operating outside the scope of his duties.

"The actual issue at hand here is whether or not Taylor is operating outside the scope of his official duties."

No it isn't, you made that up? Classic.

"Gore has never presented himself as a scientist. He has, however, sought out expert advice from many folks."

Not from anyone who disagrees with him. He's just like Kulongoski.

What the heck does that mean anyway? Gore is smarter than Taylor?

As if Taylor isn't a climatologist at all and he has never colaborated with or gained any knowledge for other experts?

"As if Taylor isn't a climatologist at all."

Richard,

Well you have that one right. George is a meterologist. He never earned a Ph.D and he is commenting outside of his area of expertise. Moreover, his voice carries more than it should exactly because of his so called title and his willingness to use it...far more than if he was just another meterologist with a master's degree. It might qualify him to be a TV weatherperson or as Doretta note think about the weather...but not comment with authority on global warming.

lin qiao Gore has never presented himself as a scientist. He has, however, sought out expert advice from many folks.

JK: DO you suppose he understands the implications of the following on his mentor’s web site:

At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years or so. realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

The text goes on to explain how we do not know what starts global warming, but AFTER 800 years of warming, CO2 continues the warming. I want to stress that this is on the web site run by (or for) the creator of the hockey stick that AL Gore uses..

BTW, do you happen to have any comments on the above article? I have noted your silence on another thread when I presented this article. If there is an attack on it, I would like to know so that I can move on, or do you accept it at face value?

Thanks JK

"Remember, when George Taylor yammers on about global warming, he's clearly speaking outside his expertise."

You have got to be kidding me Kari. Please, tell me that was a joke. Oregon State University's climatologist "yammers on" about global warming? Not nearly as much as the so-called progressives and environmental activists who drone on ad nauseam on the topic having far less scientific expertise than Taylor. Oh, that's the ROFLMAO quote of the day right there, my friend.

jim karlock,

since you are copying and pasting one of the "death by a thousand cuts" climate denial talking points (albeit it, excerpted [and leaving out vital context], from the original source--a 2004 article on realclimate), i will copy and paste the current scientific thought on the subject, but first, here's a few notable points you left out from the source that you cited!:

Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is no.

it doesn't?? but you said...

It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate. Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.

ah. so other things can initiate heating... but what about that lag?

The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data.

so basically, heating releases CO2, and rising CO2 concentrations increase heating. in prehistoric periods, something other than carbon started the warming period, and then for the majority of that period CO2 increases accelerated and magnified the warming. seeing as what we are now talking about is anthropogenic global warming, where CO2 levels are raised by mostly human actions that can be accounted for, we know that CO2 has begun the warming process, and that further into the process CO2 increases will accelerate and magnify the warming. so your argument is a distraction at best. whether or not CO2 started warming periods in the past, it is starting this one!

see the full scientific discussion below (linked here):

A close examination of the CH4, CO2 and temperature fuctuations recorded in the Antarctic ice core records does in fact reveal that yes, the temperature moved first in what is, when viewed coarsely, a very tight correlation. But what it is not correct, is to say the temperature rose and then 800 years later the CO2 rose. These warming periods lasted for 5000 to 10000 years (the coolings lasted ~100kyrs) so for the majority of that time (~90%) temperature and CO2 rose together. This means that this wonderful archive of climatological evidence clearly allows for CO2 acting as a cause while also revealing it can be an effect.

The current understanding of those cycles is that changes in orbital parameters (Milankovich and other cycles) caused greater amounts of summer sunlight in the northern hemisphere. This is a very small forcing. But it caused ice to retreat in the north which changed the albedo increasing the warmth in a feedback effect. Some ~800 years after this process started, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere began to rise and this also amplified the warming trend even further as another feedback mechanism.

You can also go here ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 ) for a discussion by climate scientists of exactly this question but with greater technical detail and full references to the scientific literature.

So, CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, Greenhouse Gas forcing was the largest factor in the ultimate change.

One thing that this says for the future is that we may well see additional natural CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process that took place repeatedly over the last 650K yrs begins to play out again. The likely candidates are outgassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils and methane from melting permafrost.

for all those crying "wah" this is just politics. let's remember who george taylor is.

first he is a board member and a “scientific advisor” to the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change , an oil industry front organization that has received a fair amount of money from Exxon. and he has written (for money) for Tech Central Station, another propaganda wing of the oil industry. and he routinely used his column in the Corvallis Gazette-Times "Weather Matters" to misrepresent the facts on the issue of global warming.

he's quite simply been using his implied status as "state climatologist" the be a paid shill for the global warming denial lobby. even if this was not an informal title, and he was an official state employee, i would think people would be concerned that he was getting paid by private industry groups to use his perch to influence the climate "debate" in their favor. let him do it in his capacity as private citizen, without a formal state title, as it should be.

pedro: The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data. JK: Lets look at that quote you got from my reference (and yours too, below). Note the clear statement: CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming Please tell me what did and why that could not be causing today’s warming. (hint: it appears that the sun is not constant as most models assume.)

pedro: and rising CO2 concentrations increase heating. in prehistoric periods, something other than carbon started the warming period JK: Where is the proof that CO2 just happened to take over the warming that something else started? That is an un-necessary complication and violates Occam’s razor. The simpler explanation is that the same unknown factor (think sun & misc. astrophysics) that started the warming, continued it and the CO2 is irrelevant. What is the proof that CO2 actually warms the earth? It is a tiny trace gas (.03%) and has increased from, what, .025% to .035%. I keep hearing that water vapor has more effect than CO2 - there is surely a heck of a lot more of it (clouds etc.).

pedro: You can also go here ( http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13 ) for a discussion by climate scientists of exactly this question but with greater technical detail and full references to the scientific literature. JK: That is the link that I used - didn’t you notice? And don’t you notice the logical fallacy there? I described it above: X starts a process that releases Y therefore Y is responsible for the process continuing. Such things do happen, but the more common event is that X started the process and X continues to drive it, Y(CO2) being irrelevant.

pedro: So, CO2 did not trigger the warmings, but it did contribute to them, and according to climate theory and model experiments, Greenhouse Gas forcing was the largest factor in the ultimate change. JK: These are all experiments on a computer model, not the real world. Computer models are full of pitfalls, many of which are not even realized. Besides we have REAL DATA: something else started the warming, so why assume it was taken over, when is simpler to just assume that the “something else” continued (like the sun).

pedro: One thing that this says for the future is that we may well see additional natural CO2 come out of the woodwork as whatever process that took place repeatedly over the last 650K yrs begins to play out again. The likely candidates are outgassing from warming ocean waters, carbon from warming soils and methane from melting permafrost. JK: And just where is the proof that CO2 is a cause of warming, when something unknown started it?

BTW does this theory also explain Mar’s global warming? The sun does.

Thanks JK

The real issue is George Taylor using the term State Climatologist in order to amplify his voice on the topic of global climate change. It's misleading. And I believe he's doing it on purpose.

He could solve the whole dilema by making two things clear when he writes or is interviewed on the topic of global warming: first he is not the "official state climatologist of Oregon", and second he is not an expert on global climte change.

Imagine if the company I worked for had a position called Jim Karlock's Psychiatrist (maybe my boss has a sense of humor). There's nothing particularly wrong with that. Further, I doubt there is a need to legally keep my boss from coming up with such ludicrous job titles.

However, once I start claiming that Jim Karlock is dangerously delusional with obessessive tendencies on certain political issues and callimg myself "Jim Karlock's Psychiatrist" so people will believe me, then I have crossed an ethical line. I am intentionally misleading people about my credentials. I'm a liar.

Of course, if Taylor really works for one the faux climate front organizations funded by the petroleum industry, then he crossed that ethical line a long time ago. This is just further evidence that the truth doesn't matter.

As Ted should be doing, he is making a political decision. He is the Governor, we elected him, he can make appointments and change appointments as he pleases. I trust him. l voted in the election and I stand by my vote, he was clear prior to the election his position on climate and issues such as renewable energy. If you are not able to make the connection, sorry, I dont have time to explain it. I dont know George Taylor, never heard of the guy before Tucker Carlson got the right wing all stirred up, quite successully I might add. I do believe the earth is changing, and I have seen all over the world, not just in the hills outside Estacada, that human destruction of the earth is rampant. I support a new way of thinking about energy, transportation, industrial materials. I want to grow hemp in my back yard, smash the seeds, use the stalk and fibers, make biodiesel, heat my home, fuel my car, and grow more. Am I really chasing a rainbow? Some people want me to think that, they are wrong. Its already being done and has been done before the Petrochemical economy started.

Kari,

Who says anybody "wants it both ways?" We (objective reviewers of hypothetical statements) just want legitimate scientific methodology to support a proposition... Funding has nothing to do with the pursuit of scientific fact until a scientist and his patron profits from a bogus analysis of phenomenon. This lapse in ethics transforms a scientist into a spokesman, which seems to be what we are entertaining over at OSU.

"Can you name three scientists - with PhDs in a relevant field - that will say global warming isn't real, or isn't manmade?"

"Scienticians" who hold those views probably exist, but who cares? The vast majority of scientists and climate experts agree that Earth is experiencing a warming period and human activity exacerbates it to some degree. The data is on the former is indisputable and most all agree that the latter is "very likely". However, there is still much to be learned about Earth's climate cycles and what percentage of blame we assign to the burning of fossil fuels is still widely debated. Unfortunately, science is being hijacked by politics. The eco crowd jumps on the issue for use as a battering ram to shove through their agenda while our worst polluters and their political minions attack it to defend the status quo. Both bastardize the scientific process- the search for truth.

It's no wonder the attack on Taylor is underway. The misinformation being distributed and embellished by our local human caused global warmists and this blog feed the frenzy. A whole bunch of people here are now convinced Taylor is a paid hack for oil companies, that he is no more than a glorified weather man, he has never collaborated with any experts on global warming, has never done any background or research work himself, he has nothing to back up ANY of his viewpoints, no one else in the State shares his views and (as Kari added) Taylor's State Climatologist title was "self appointed". So everyone add a little more to the pile of misinformation and soon Taylor will be removed and silenced as intended. How progressive of you all.

Here is a good display of the lying revealed.

Some of you may have heard about a recent story in the British newspaper, the Guardian insinuating that the American Enterprise Instititute (AEI) attempted to bribe climate scientists to lie about climate change with money supplied by ExxonMobil. The Guardian's false accusations, which appear to have been planted with the newspaper by Greenpeace and/or the Public Interest Research Group, are quickly unraveling. Here are the latest developments, as well as some of the original documentation:

Steve Hayward and Ken Green, the AEI scholars accused by the Guardian, write about their experience and place it in the larger context of the climate debate in "Scenes from the Climate Inquisition" in the latest issue of the Weekly Standard (article attached).

Joe Nocera of the New York Times called the bribery charge "ridiculous" in an article on ExxonMobil a couple of days ago (article attached).

The British newspaper the Independent has retracted its charge that Exxon tried to bribe climate scientists, as reported in the following blog (I confirmed the quote from the Independent with a Nexis search): http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/world_wakes_to_correction/.

I've been told that NPR also corrected its story, but I haven't been able to track down an actual transcript or audio file yet. If you have a link, or know when the retraction ran, please let me know.

Several senators sent AEI an "are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic"-style letter reiterating the bribery insinuation. Chris DeMuth, AEI's president, sent a reply (www.aei.org/doclib/20070209_demuthreply.pdf). The reply includes the senators' original letter, as well as Hayward and Green's letters to climate scientists and economists inviting them to participate in the AEI project that was the subject of the Guardian's original hit piece. Something to keep in mind is that these same senators all voted to repudiate the Kyoto treaty in the Byrd-Hagel resolution (vote: 95-0). These senators are also free to vote to ratify Kyoto at any time, but have so far chosen not to do so, despite their claimed worries over climate change and U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on the "climate smear" last Friday (pasted in below and also available here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009649). The NY Sun ran an editorial on the smear today: http://www.nysun.com/article/48447.

AEI's David Frum wrote about the Guardian's tactics here: http://frum.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDgwZjRjOTEwMjEzZTlkOGZlMzk5YzdmYjQ3Y2M2MDU=

The original Guardian story and Chris DeMuth's note to AEI scholars and staff on the day the story broke (see attached).
AEI has a web page devoted to the Guardian affair here: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp

The solution to Global Warming is simple....

More air conditioners!

So Richard, are you saying: 1. Mr. Taylor has never accepted money from any major oil company. 2. Mr. Taylor has a degree (even a B.S.) in Climatology. 3. Mr. Taylor has published peer-reviewed original research in the areas of global climate change in international science periodicals. 4. Mr. Taylor was appointed by an elected state official and works on the state payroll as Oregon's official state climatologist.

If none of these issues are true, then Mr. Taylor needs to create his own website to publish his own views and opinions and stop presenting himself as something he is not.

TJ,

Get back to you hard hitting journalism and find some more fake stranded polar bears to discuss.

Hey TJ, I'm calling you out.

If Al Gore is even close to correct, and the sea will rise by 10 feet, why is beachfront/water-front real-estate appreciating at strong clip in places like Manhattan and Hawaii? The money always answers the question. If serious minds really thought these places would be under-water in the next 10-30 years, prices would fall. Keep in mind, most of the people owning land that will be submerged in Gore's fatalistic vision are New Yok liberals. Their actions diverge from their political speech.

Sorry, people who actually think don't accept this latest attack on the American culture from the lazy socialists.

New Liberal bumber-sticker:

"Save a polar bear, tax a conservative"

Wow, I'm sure with JK's amazingly line-by-line deductive reasoning that he can solve any problem that so-called scientists and researchers are stumped by!

Next up: JK, can you find us a cure for cancer and HIV? I'm sure that a couple lines of text will prove conclusively that it's a gay-only disease that popping a couple asparin can solve, right?

jim karlock,

ok, you are very clever, you appear to have massive amounts of free time to spend on this stuff, and now you are throwing up a bunch of stuff to see what will stick. i'll be honest, i don't have the time or energy, especially since you are obviously just going to believe what you want to believe (which--i think--tends to be whatever riles up "portland progressives"), and that's that. so this will be my last response.

"Lets look at that quote you got from my reference (and yours too, below). Note the clear statement: CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming Please tell me what did and why that could not be causing today’s warming."

because jim, we are comparing prehistoric data which is rich and detailed, but limited to certain areas and time periods, with current and historic data that is not limited in scope, and are constrained in a smaller period of time. We know the precise levels of CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and so on which are measured on a monthly (weekly? daily even?) basis across around the whole planet. we also know the position of the sun, which volcanoes have errupted, how hard, and when, how much water vapor is being left in the upper atmosphere by airplanes, and so on.

based on this data, and the laws of physics concerning the radiative properties of greenhouse gases (which we know are mostly ours), we know that--right now, on present day earth--rising temperatures are due to rising ghg concentrations in the atmosphere, and "not 'something else' (like the sun & misc. astrophysics)" (or say ... the devil farting from the lower depths of hades).

just for your edification, we do have a historic examples of rising temperatures following rising ghgs. during the paleocene eocene thermal maximum ocean ph levels dropped drastically, likely due massive releases of methane from the ocean floors, and global temperatures rapidly rose 5 degrees celsius in less than 5000 years (and possibly much faster). fyi, the result from this event was a mass extinction.

Where is the proof that CO2 just happened to take over the warming that something else started? That is an un-necessary complication and violates Occam’s razor. The simpler explanation is that the same unknown factor ... that started the warming, continued it and the CO2 is irrelevant.

i know you like simple answers, but your simple answer here would only work if we could ignore either the evidence, or the laws of physics. but let's pretend that CO2 was irrelevant in past warming cycles because of overwhelming "other factors" (like the sun & misc. astrophysics). pretending that that is the case (though there is no evidence to support it), it still wouldn't matter! you would need to prove, not that CO2 was irrelevant in past warming due to overriding factors, but that CO2 cannot cause/contribute to warming regardless of any other possible factors. there is absolutely no evidence for that particular hypothesis.

BTW does this theory also explain Mar’s global warming? The sun does.

i couldn't let this one slip by. you have spent years on these boards denying global warming on earth--for which there is tons of evidence and scientific concesus--with any spec of evidence that you can misconstrue to convey doubt about this issue, and now, with only one fragment of evidence (photographs of one ice covered region in the southern martian hemisphere that shows melting over a two year period) for global warming on mars, you are a true believer! since we know the sun is not the cause of our current warming, it does not matter that that hypothesis would account for simultaneous warming on the earth and mars--the data contradicts it. a hypothesis without data is rank speculation (or wishful thinking, as the case seems to be here). better luck next time.

torridjoe: Part of the problem of oil-industry funding is that they have explictly admitted that their goal in funding such research is to confuse the issue and deny the peer-reviewed research. JK: Of course one of Al Gore’s sources admits that CO2 does not cause the first 800 years of warming in previous cycles. Why are you still ignoring this fact (see above posting)?

torridjoe: I have to love Karlock's analysis. Based on his premise,... JK: Care to address the FACT that something OTHER THAN CO2 caused the start of warming in previous warming cycles as claimed on the PRO WARMING web site that is run by/for the man who created Al Gore’s hockey stick temperature graph? Even one of Al Gore’s mentors admits that CO2 did not cause previous warming! Why do you continue to believe CO2 is a cause of warming? Where is the experimental evidence?

torridjoe: ... had he been standing in the Lower 9th Ward in August 2005, ankle deep in water caused by the hurricane, he would have told people not to worry about the 17th Street Canal breaching, since "the canal breach didn't cause the flood!" And as the waters moved swiftly therafter up to his neck, he'd still be calling for us to find "the true cause" of the flood. JK: Once again, you admit that you can’t support your position on warming and have to resort to diversions.

I am still waiting for a reply from lin qiao on this too. He is strangely silent.

Thanks JK

torridjoe: I've got an easy answer for that: because while the scientific community does not classify anthropogenic warming as under debate, JK: Where did you get that crap? The journals are still publishing things on the sun’s influence on the weather as well as on other aspects of the weather. Science is almost never settled. The only people who make claims that the science is settled are fools like Al Gore. BTW, do you agree with Al that we should let women die to preserve trees that we get Taxol from?

torridjoe: a majority of recent media articles on the subject DO present it as under debate. This is because of the denial movement funded by Mexxon, Richard Scaife, AEI and others. JK: Wrong again. It is because the science is far from certain. Even the upcoming IPCC report reduces their certainty probability to 90% from the ususal 95%. (Even 95% certain things are frequently found to be not so.)

torridjoe: Our faithful media take the scientific evaulation, as firm as its been on anything in many years, and attempt to "balance" it by quoting non-scientists who try to claim that the scientific community is full of shit. JK: “Firm”, just like the coming ice age was 30 years ago. see saveportland.com/Climate/index.html for PROOF.

Joe, you and your crowd, are going to have to find some other excuse to remake society back to the middle ages.

Thanks JK

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/08/oregon-denier/

Find a good debunking of this right-wing smear job at the link above.

George Taylor is not a CLIMATOLOGIST. He is a METEOROLOGIST.

He is not the "State" anything.

But that didn't stop the right wing noise machine from running with this trash before even checking the most fundamental of facts. (Or maybe they did check - and it's all just deliberate lies. It's one of the two - sloppy or purposeful.)

They could have checked the PAPER OF RECORD for an article that explains it all way back on January 29, 2007:

Experts square off on climate change, The Oregonian

While Mote is in step with the great majority of scientists, Taylor is far from it. His distance from the scientific mainstream and the public has widened as evidence of global warming has mounted in the form of rising temperatures, shrinking glaciers and accelerating snowmelt.

"The public is just moving past him," said Mark Abbott, dean of the College of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at Oregon State University. "The science certainly has."

Taylor's background is in meteorology, and other scientists say much of his work on climate change has not gone through the full scrutiny of peer review by independent researchers. He has written on the subject for Web sites financed in part by the oil industry.

Taylor is listed as a scientific adviser for a group that receives money from ExxonMobil and says on its Web site that escalating greenhouse gases are good for the Earth, promoting plant life and bringing "growth and prosperity to man and nature alike."

The governor last week questioned whether Taylor can legitimately call himself state climatologist since the position is not officially authorized in state law.

...

The position of state climatologist was dissolved by the Legislature in 1989, Abbott said.

...

Taylor says on the Oregon Climate Service Web site, and in a new report on forests and climate change, that the 1930s were the warmest decade on record in the Northwest.

"That's absolutely not true," Mote said, adding that the 1990s were the warmest.

Jane Lubchenco, a well-known OSU professor and marine ecologist who led one of the governor's task forces, said Taylor "muddies the water" by leading the public to believe there is still a debate about whether global warming is real.

None of the right-wing sources even MENTIONED that Taylor is funded at least partly by the oil industry. That omission is unethical and misleading. Report ALL the facts and let the readers decide whether or not he is biased.

torridjoe: "JK: Of course one of Al Gore’s sources admits that CO2 does not cause the first 800 years of warming in previous cycles. Why are you still ignoring this fact (see above posting)?"

Because it's entirely irrelevant to whether CO2 itself causes warming, a point over which there is no debate. JK: It is not irrelevant. Based on AL Gore’s source: We do not know what caused the previous warmings. PERIOD. Then the source goes on to claim, without evidence, that CO2 caused the warming to continue. Why is it not more logical to assume that the original, unknown cause, simple continued?

JUST ANSWER THAT please and drop the rest of the BS.

Thanks JK

torridjoe: "JK: It is not irrelevant. Based on AL Gore’s source: We do not know what caused the previous warmings. PERIOD. Then the source goes on to claim, without evidence, that CO2 caused the warming to continue. Why is it not more logical to assume that the original, unknown cause, simple continued?

JUST ANSWER THAT please and drop the rest of the BS." JK: I’m still waiting.

torridjoe: Are you deranged? "Without evidence?"... The question you cannot duck is: "Does elevated CO2 cause warming of the planet?" The answer is 100%, irrefutably, tested and proven, YES. JK: It is not tested. It is not proven. It is only a computer model.

Please prove that it is proven with a credible citation. Make it a few years old, so there has been time for scientists to have criticized it.

torridjoe: Therefore, we have a moral imperative to reduce the chance of further warming by reducing CO2. End. Of. Lesson. JK: What lesson? The only lesson here is that you do not get good science from politicians or from money grubbing environmental groups. Or form the hacks that employ you at the local government agency.

(Aren’t you spending a lot of public payroll time on the blogs today?)

Thanks JK

TJ,

You never did answer why "smart" liberals are willing to pay seven figures for property that will soon be part of Atlantis, according to the inventor of the internet, Albert Gore.

Money speaks and money is buying beachfront properties. Thus, it must just be that successful Liberals and Conservatives that can afford waterfront properties are just too dull to understand the "science" from which you and Al speak.

Torrid, The question you repeatedly duck is how much effect does the paltry "man made" portion of all CO2 have on our climate? You don't help the debate by telling us that CO2 warms the planet. That is irrelevant. Try and focus on the man made CO2. How mucy is it warming the planet? It is NOT 100%, irrefutably, tested and proven" that man made CO2 is warming the planet beyond the minute level man's share of all CO2 would suggest,,, if at all. In fact it may be far more likely that deforestation by man impacts climate more than our CO2 emissions. In this regard Metro has sat around planning while acre after acre of Douglas fir have been mowed down and replaced with scant parking strip leaf trees selected for cooperation with sidewalks and roads. Great to watch all these years. You are ready, like so many others, to leap at accelerated emissions reductions requirements without any solid evidence it will make any difference AT ALL on global warming. With ongoing technology advances and peak oil supposedly around the corner our CO2 emissions will be moderating over the next couple of decades anyway. With man contributing a very small portion of all CO2 and vague predictions of around a 1.2 degree F temperature increase 100 years I'd say your clamor is irrational. So go plant a Doug fir.

"Of course one of Al Gore’s sources admits that CO2 does not cause the first 800 years of warming in previous cycles. Why are you still ignoring this fact (see above posting)?"

jim,

it's really entertaining to see you continue to repeat this debunked point all the while insisting other people (namely, torridjoe and lin quao) are ignoring it, since i fully explained earlier and then you proceeded to ignore me!!!

that's some serious gall.

this is the post that you ignored.

torridjoe: I gave you a host of credible citations JK: No You DID NOT. Please come up with just one or two.

torridjoe: --every major scientific organization on the planet believes it to be proven. JK: That is simply not true. Also not true is that they believe it to be proven - even the IPCC puts it at 90%, not even 95%. You are just blowing smoke because you have no proof..

torridjoe: I agree with the others. You don't actually have a leg to stand on; you just have a political agenda that is threatened by the performance of scientific inquiry. JK: IT is AL Gore that is threatened by real science.

torridjoe: So that's it for me. You asked, I responded. JK: No you didn’t: torridjoe: "JK: It is not irrelevant. Based on AL Gore’s source: We do not know what caused the previous warmings. PERIOD. Then the source goes on to claim, without evidence, that CO2 caused the warming to continue. Why is it not more logical to assume that the original, unknown cause, simple continued?

JK: JUST ANSWER THAT please and drop the rest of the BS." JK: I’m still waiting.

JK

"JK: I’m still waiting"

actually, i am still waiting, since you are still ignoring my post that address your concerns, all the while claiming others are ignoring you.

Pedro,

I wouldn't hold your breath on getting a straight answer out of JK. For weeks on other blogs he has been ducking the question as to whether he receives or has received funding or support from political, policy or advocacy groups...which is to say that the same questions he puts to others JK frequently ducks himself.

zeke,

thank you for pointing out, yet again, the JK routinely ducks questions that are either inconvenient, or hard to answer without a pre-packed right-wing/libertarian talking point.

i won't hold my breath, i don't even care about a response. i just want to make sure it is painfully obvious that when it comes to ducking questions , JK is the expert.

Torrid,

"Sigh. Can we move on now, please?"

No. Your'e still ducking. I didn't ask you for some opinion on the "increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the pre-industrial period", now did I? Huh? Did I?

I asked you "how much effect does the paltry "man made" portion of all CO2 have on our climate?" I don't need to hear "CO2 warms the planet" or that "fossil fuel use since the pre-industrial period has added CO2 to the atmosphere"

Sigh. Can we move on now, please?

Try and focus on the man made CO2, what it's percentage of ALL atmospheric CO2 is and how much the MAN MADE CO2 is warming the planet.

The IPCC 2007 link didn't work.

Sounds as if someone is wondering about the IPCC website. HERE IT IS.

Apropos the IPCC, I corresponded today with a paleoclimatologist friend of mine who served on the IPCC this time around. I wrote him as follows:

You realize, of course, that the latest report, which you are contributing to as co-conspirator, has been intentionally delayed so that it can be doctored to conform to all the UN's prejudices. At least, that's the buzz on the blogosphere.

and here's his reply:

Yep, we're part of an evil cabal, I bet. I've always wondered what the denialists would say to the other possible models. The 'deal' is that we write the science, and then the summary for policymakers, and then the government reps get to suggest changes for clarity that do not change the science. As I understand the history, this was part and parcel from the beginning. Furthermore, if the government reps decide on changes for clarity, the wording changes propagate back into the chapters, although the science cannot change. (In fact, the web site maintained by the Technical Support Unit has a list of every single change being made in the underlying text...) The main document will run to close to 1000 pages, and has to be formatted, proofread, etc. So, suppose we had the governments approve the summary for policymakers in Paris, and then said 'It's a secret until we get the proofreading of the main document done.' ("WHITEWASH!!!") Or suppose we published the main document and didn't format it so it looked good, just dump it out there. (NO PROFESSIONALISM, UNBELIEVABLE!!!?). I have this nagging suspicion that this is one that can't be won.

I find Doretta's argument kind of bizarre: yes, Taylor is a climatologist, but no, his professional opinion about human-induced climate change is not worth considering.

Is George Taylor recognized as a "climatologist" in the eyes of people who do scientific research on climate? I kind of doubt it. For one, Taylor's job is to run a climate-statistics bureau and supervises the construction of nice maps, not to do research. It's a perfectly decent, worthwhile, societally helpful job, of course. Second, if you take a few moments to do a search of the scholarly literature using, say, the Google Scholar search engine, you will find that G.H. Taylor's name appears on (as far as I could tell) two articles in the scholarly literature, neither of them recent, and in neither case as the first author. Compare this with, to cite just one example, Phil Mote, the Washington state climatologist: Mote has a lengthy record of scholarly publications.

The "degree in climatology" argument is a red herring. I doubt there even is such a thing. People who call themselves climatologists have almost certainly gotten their training in departments of atmospheric science, or meteorology, or earth science, or geography, or even oceangraphy. "Climatology" is generally recognized as a discipline within such broader fields.

Is George Taylor operating outside the scope of his duties when he starts making pronouncements about the causes (or not) of global warming? Surely this is a legitimate question. I do applied scientific research for a public agency, and I assure you that I do not have carte blanche to make statements to the media or to represent my expertise as something that it isn't.

With free speech now on the Governor’s chopping block, maybe it is time to hurry up and eliminate the title of Governor for the State of Oregon too; at least until the next election. Currently Oregon has a socialist dictator in the position. Anything he doesn’t like he tries to stifle or kill, even if to the disregard of voters.

Doretta--"postgraduate" is alright (British usage actually). I always appreciate corrections, by the way, but the fact is that "climatology" is a subdiscipline subsumed variously within many academic disciplines, as I noted. As just one example, a "climatologist" friend of mine got his degree from the geography dept. at the University of BC. Did you actually locate such a thing as a "Department of Climatology"? (Another example: hydrology. Virtually all hydrologists trained in the US get their degrees from departments of either geology or civil engineering.)

By the way, the Oregonian commented on Taylor's credentials on Thursday.

<h2>OSU should delay no further in appointing an [official] "Oregon State" Forester (the Dean of its Forestry Institute) and an [official] "Oregon State" Theologian. After all,OSU does have a nationally recognized and highly respected (rightly so) theologian in its Dept. of Philosophy.</h2>