It also appears the Governor wants to limit, restrict and stifle free speech too. Maybe he should put a sock in it!

Anthropic global warming hasn't got a scientific leg to stand on. CO2 rises in ice cores are due to global warming, not the other way around. AGW posits effect before cause. Even at the highest possible concentration, CO2 goes from 0.3% to 0.5% is anyone stupid enough to think that tiny increase will actually affect the course of our weather. Oh, I guess we already know the answer to that: the UN is stupid enough.

Re the previous comment, I must have missed the part where the governor wanted to have the OSU prof arrested. He's still free to say whatever he wants, on his own time, however misiniformed. The guv apparently just wants to be sure that if an alleged scientist is speaking in the name of the state, he should be actually be chosen by the state's elected leaders.

It would be nice if his "official" statements (and people will take them that way if he claims to be the state climatologist) actually reflected the overwhelming consensus of real, disinterested scientists who aren't on the payroll of energy companies. Is it too much to ask that a "state" scientist's views reflect actual science?

How do you figure creating a real state climatologist limits and restricts free speech? Taylor would still be free to spout off as much as he wants, and he could presumably still use OSU as his platform. Maybe he could even get ExxonMobil to funnel him a little money for his fake research. He just wouldn't be able to claim he represents the state of Oregon when he does it. Or not without getting sued.

George Taylor should be transferred to the English Department where he can hone his skills in Science Fiction.

He should also join the coaching staff of the OSU Basketball Team where he can use his eminent skills of deduction to figure out why their defense in the paint isn't so hot.

And while he's looking for ways to contribute to society he might offer a lecture to the infamous OSU Forestry Department about the vlaues of academic freedom.

Or he could just as well quit OSU right now and go shill for Shell full-time without all the distractions of acedemic rigor or public scruitiny - oh, wait, that IS just like OSU.

How dare a scientist- an educated, experienced climatologist to be precise- question the prevailing opinions/agenda of a political movement on the subject of climate change.

Get on the bandwagon or be smeared, vilified and place your livelihood in jeopardy. Smells real similar to tactics recently employed by a current administration in response to any who dared question the wisdom of their agenda.

My purpose is not to argue the validity of global warming theories here, but to state a simple truth: Any science tainted by politics (or religion, etc.) is bad science. I don't care if you're advocating for a cleaner world or happen to be a prolific polluter looking to lighten restrictions. Much like religion, ulterior political agendas invalidate the scientific process. Critical thinking, reason and honest open debate are a must.

Professor Taylor should just be happy he's got tenure

George Taylor is neither a professor nor tenured. Check the OSU College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences website.

Just a short story about Mr. Taylor.

I was trying a case where the weather in a particulat area was an issue. In order to establish this fact, I subpoenaed Mr. Taylor, who advertised himself as the State climatologist, asking him as the custodian of the public records to bring them to court to verify them. When you subpoena pubic records there is only a standard $40 witness fee from the custodian.

His response to my subpoena? "You are asking for an expert opinion, and my fee is $125/hour" (this was 1997, so double taht for today). I guess when it comes to fees, he clearly understands he has no official government position.

The key issue here is that the position of "state climatologist" isn't authorized in any state statute. Taylor serves as head of the Oregon Climate Service. Apparently the dean of the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences gives Taylor the title of state climatologist, which lets him be recognized as such by the American Associate of State Climatologists.

But he has no standing as a spokesman for the state of Oregon. So when he uses the title of "state climatologist," that's misleading. He's the OSU climatologist. He's the head of the Oregon Climate Service. No way does he speak for the state on climate matters.

Hopefully Avakian's efforts will clean up the confusion. We need someone in this position who doesn't spout nonsense about climate change. See my blog post about how Taylor flunks Climate Change 101.

“How do you figure creating a real state climatologist limits and restricts free speech?”

If a person is appointed by the governor to an official title of State Climatologist, the person must answer to and agree with the governor to keep his or her job. Science then becomes politically motivated and distorted. Appointing an official State Climatologist is buying a scientific opinion that must agree with the governor’s opinion. The science of climatology is not an absolute. Opinions vary, even from those within the field that have similar credentials. It is important to free speech the state listen to all of sides of an issue, and not simply just purchase a theory the governor agrees with off a shopping list for the purpose of filling a bought and paid for position that can then be used to dictate an official and politically motivated policy. This could be called imbedded social engineering. Giving a person the official title of State Climatologist is a way of manipulating influence and therefore interferes with constitutionally guaranteed free speech.

"We need someone in this position who doesn't spout nonsense about climate change."

TRANSLATION: We need a mouthpiece who will parrot our political agenda regardless of his/her own opinions of available scientific data and proposed theories. What were really after is more of a political spokesman than an actual scientist, but one who can play one on TV.

"It's a sorry day on BlueOregon when Joe12Pack is right on the money."

Ouch! I have received some backhanded compliments in my day, but that one stung a bit.

George Taylor should be transferred to the English Department where he can hone his skills in Science Fiction.

Yeah? And your expertise in climate science is???

There are many open questions about the climate at this point, and about the computer models that many of the warming claims are based on. Science is not a social project based on "consensus." Science is based on verifiable evidence.

Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were warmer than they are now -- before the CO₂ increase. What about that "inconvenient truth?"

Actually, the original posting is in error. it ought to refer to Bob Avakian.

If a recognizable model of a human can be made from five or six popsicle sticks, then a number of the current hagiarchy apparently think they can use those figures, apply vast strings of numbers and giant computers to crunch them, and then tell you where the human race will be in 30 years. That is what climate modeling is. That is why I suspect George Taylor may be upset -- his scientific training makes him a skeptic when it comes to highly politicized science, and Kulongoski's use of our tax money to send Bradbury around the State testing the politcal waters for Al Gore sure seems like politics, don't it?.

About 15 years ago, at an international global warming/carbon sequestration at OSU, I delivered an analysis of computerized climate models as reflected by documented historical forest conditions in the western US. Other scientists from Russia, China, Canada, and the US also delivered papers at the conference, and the results were published by EPA in 1993 (I'll send a link to anyone interested). The forest predictive models that were being used at that time to reflect climate change had the same flaws noted by George Taylor and Portland's Chuck Weise for current climate models:

a) they couldn’t accurately (or even close) predict the past;

b) they were incredibly simplistic, given the nature and complexity of the systems they purport to predict (see "popsicle stick man");

c) there were vast “gaps” in scale between the types of data gathered, the timeframes considered, and the long-term, global-scale predictions this stuff was claiming to produce. The problem was exacerbated by attempts to use multiple models to “span” these gaps.

That was before Al Gore got on the problem, though, and Governor Ted rushed to his aid in Oregon. My own scientific research is in the area of western US catastrophic wildfires; my professional expertise is in reforestation and reforestation planning; and I have had some experience with computerized predictive models, including writing peer-reviewed publications on the topic. Here’s my best advice, based on those perspectives, if we want to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible in Oregon, and want to make good money doing it:

1) Stop unnecessary forest wildfires — a massive source of carbon in the sky — and protect our remaining (and highly threatened) old-growth at the same time by a comprehensive and sustained effort to remove competing brush and ladder fuels.

2) Log as many snags as possible as quickly as possible and turn them into solid wood products and electricity. The power is an off-set, but solid wood products will last longer than rotting snags–especially when they reburn. At this time there is a superabundance and unprecedented great number of dead trees in western Oregon. Their principal “function” (Conservation Biology-speak) seems to be to burst into incredibly hot and destructive flames from time to time, thereby further accelerating the carbon in the air problem, killing ever more wildlife, and destroying ever greater amounts of wildlife habitat and cultural resources. And threatening rural residents and communities, etc.

3) Plant a lot of healthy young trees to replace the dead trees, and begin regular maintenance with prescribed fire to protect the old-growth. The people doing this work would be ideally equipped and trained and located to manage occasional wildfires, further reducing long-term operating costs.

Trust me. If this prescription is followed, the Kulongoski crew will be boggled by the amount of carbon credits they can give to each other, and even to other states (California) and countries (Canada)! Plus, we’ll have great increases in stable, well-paid, skilled, full-time employment and good schools in our rural Oregon communities again; safe, beautiful, and attracitve forestlands; more wildlife, wildflowers, and wild berries; and a lot more carbon in our electricity, wood products, forests, and soil, and not in the air. Honest.

Bob Zybach

<hr/>