This issue is very much like the Athiest-Darwinian Theory of Evolution vs. the Intelligent Design Theory of Evolution in that the left trys to pass off what is little more than religious dogma as science.

Yes, athiesm is a religion and it is being taught in schools in violation of the mythical "separation of church and state" just as the leftists religious thoeries about human induced global warming are.

The leftists have no problem with religion being taught in schools, as long as it's their religion.

Brilliant! Make a scientist's position a political appointment!

Advocates of that might want to imagine what it would be like if "the shoe was on the other foot", politically speaking.

So your point is, we should believe Mr. Taylor's position because his research is funded by EXXON, and he has inflated his position to one that does not exist?

Well, that is much better than the consensus view of hundreds of scientists and government officials.

The screamers latch onto the screamers but no one pays attention to the 1500+ experts that signed a petition saying Global Warming as hyped today is total BS.
Which of you global warming believers is willing to pay my 'over' normal heating bills for the winter, of course less the rip off by the power company. I estimate it will exceed $500 over any normal or slightly abnormal winter.

Hey scrappie, how about we agree to a contract that for the next ten years I will pay your "over average" heating expensive, and you pay my "over average" central air electric bill. PLUS, you pay me your under average savings each winter, and I will do the same for you?

Well, that's just super that the states are making certain that scientists working for the state have the appropriate beliefs. But why stop there? State politicians should produce a list of all the polically correct positions required of all state workers including: Must drive hybrid cars; Must not buy food at McDonalds; Must not shop at WalMart; Must be a Democrat; Must not have a religion other then environmentalism; Must be anti-any-war; First marriage can be of opposite sex - second marriage must be of same sex, . . .

gc

The state should mandate that Mr. Taylor consume a goblet of hemlock!

State Climatologist Might Lose Title For Voicing His Opinion on Global Warming

Ahem:

Taylor is not among the leading Oregon scientists, including Abbott, whom Gov. Ted Kulongoski asked to help develop a state strategy on climate change. The governor last week questioned whether Taylor can legitimately call himself state climatologist since the position is not officially authorized in state law.

"He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know.

"He's not my weatherman."

The position of state climatologist was dissolved by the Legislature in 1989, Abbott said. Taylor runs the OSU-based Oregon Climate Service, which performs many of the same duties that the state climatologist once did, and OSU gave him the same title.

Oh no, he's going to lose the title he never had! How so, you ask? Well...

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.

So he's not Oregon's "State Climatologist" and his views are in direct conflict with the group that was actually appointed by the governor to craft the state's strategy, and he's funded in part by ExxonMobil (shocking, I know). Since he is dishonestly representing himself, the governor has decided to create the position of State Climatologist and appoint someone not in the pocket of an oil company. And this is a problem, why, exactly?

Yeah, this is a step in the right direction. Why not just have the politicians dictate the acceptable science and then mandate that non-believers need not apply. This is just silly.

Barney, where did you find the Exxon info? I didn't see it mentioned in the linked article.

Well, that is much better than the consensus view of hundreds of scientists and government officials.

Like government officials are experts on this topic? And there are plenty of scientists out there who disagree with your so-called consensus. This article, and the names in it, would be a good place to start.

So let me get this straight, the State created the State Climatology Office, and the climatologist working there isn't the State climatologist? (oh, and the University calls him the State Climatologist, because... that's what he was before the office was created) And why is this? Seriously, this is splitting hairs if I've ever heard of such a thing.

And where exactly does it say he works for Exxon?

"Consensus" means nothing in science - only facts do. The consensus of scientists in the mid 70's was that the earth was heading into another ice age.

Barney, where did you find the Exxon info? I didn't see it mentioned in the linked article.

I'll take you to the source. He's listed as scientific advisor to CO2Science.org, who are generously funded by Western Fuels and ExxonMobil.

So Taylor is a technical advisor for a website that is in part funded by ExxonMobil and he has written articles for websites funded by the oil industry. Yeah, sounds like he is bought and paid for, can count his opinions or interpretations of sceintific data. Give me a break.

And the whole issue about the title State Climatologist seems silly really. I guess it woudln't have been a problem if he had just fallen into line like everybody else.

"Barney, where did you find the Exxon info? I didn't see it mentioned in the linked article." JR

You find his affiliations with EXXON funded groups here:
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

This one good. Check out the list of contributing authors
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=112

Here is Taylor's Bio from the same organization as above.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/biotaylorgeorge.html

The consensus of scientists in the mid 70's was that the earth was heading into another ice age.

Bullshit.

"Since he is dishonestly representing himself, the governor has decided to create the position of State Climatologist and appoint someone not in the pocket of an oil company. And this is a problem, why, exactly?"

Because he'd be in the pocket of the governor. Oh, but that matters not to you mantis huh, I forgot that whatever the libs want to do is fine but god forbid the republicans do the same. Also, he is in no way dishonestly representing himself, the article clearly states that the University created that job title, not the Taylor.

Sorry can should say can't above.

And thanks mantis, I found a reference about his connections in the Oregon Live article you linked to and was responding as you posted more links above.

OK, time for a moment of levity.

This headline is now appearing on seattletimes.com

"Sims announcement launches day of global-warming efforts"

See it for yourself here.

It's even funnier when you take into account that Sims is one of Wa State's most powerful Democrats and King County Executive. Then again, maybe it's just "in" Seattle joke :-)

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- A think tank partly funded by Exxon Mobil sent letters to scientists offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in a major global warming study released Friday which found that global warming was real and likely caused by burning fossil fuels.

I wonder how much money the inscrutable Mr. Taylor has or will receive?

"I wonder how many global warming prophets are being funded by the environmentalist movement, or for that matter, being funded by groups that are anti-capitalism." Lori

How is this for an idea, why don't you research it and find out?

I have provided documented evidence that Mr. Taylor has a financial relationship with EXXON/Mobile, and others have pointed out his lies about his position in the state government of OR.

What proof do you have?

I wonder how much the scientists received for working on the IPCC report?

Of course that wouldn't apply because they were just doing that report in the interest of science right? No agenda at the UN, right Barney?

Fact: This most recent bout of global warming we've been experiencing began tens of thousands of years ago and tens of thousands of years before the first fossil fuel was burned and tens of thousands of years before George Bush or any modern day "neo-cons" were born.

The clause "Global warming is real" is designed to fool idiots into believing the rest of the statement "and likely caused by human activies" is also true.

"The consensus of scientists in the mid 70's was that the earth was heading into another ice age.

Bullshit."

We all know you'd love to revise history mantis, but it is absolutely true. Here you go, may 1975 NYT, "sooner or later a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable"...

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf

From TIME, 1974,
"Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,944914,00.html

Some more choice headlines:

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

D-hoggs, if you know anyone suffering from cancer, please be sure to show this:

"Lorraine Day, M.D. tells her electrifying and hope-filled personal story of recovery from terminal breast cancer, without chemotherapy, radiation or mutilating surgery. She reveals how she found the courage, faith and strength to hang on when she was dying and defy everything she had been taught in her medical training in order to get well by following God's totally natural health plan."

See according to an expert, we don't need doctors, we can just need to follows God's diet.

Barney,

I applaud you for your skepticism of any "scientist" that might be carrying water for the evil oil industry...

Its just too bad that you don't extend your dilligence and skepticism to any scientists that might be working for the agenda of an organization like the UN, or other leftist political organization with an agenda...

We all know you'd love to revise history mantis, but it is absolutely true.

Gee, I had no idea that the NY Times and Time magazine were scientific bodies representing the consensus of scientists. Thanks for clearing that up. Have a look here for a rundown on the global cooling myth.

Because he'd be in the pocket of the governor.

Wait, wasn't this the sort of thing Wizbang was recently defending?

Oh, by the way, Hoggs, why don't you read the articles you post? The very first paragraph from the NYTimes piece:

The world's climate is changing. Of that scientists are firmly convinced. But in what direction and why are subjects of deepening debate.

Sounds like consensus to me! From the Time article:

Some scientists like Donald Oilman, chief of the National Weather Service's long-range-prediction group, think that the cooling trend may be only temporary. But all agree that vastly more information is needed about the major influences on the earth's climate.

Wow, absolutely unequivocal! Why don't you try reading a real scientific publication once in a while and stop slinging bullshit about what a couple of magazines and newspapers wrote about what was then a very young science. Science, as you would know if you ever spent a day in your life, is a process, not an absolute. Experiments and conclusions are constantly refined and retested, leading to ever-more robust theory. If you had any clue of the work that has been done on climate change since the seventies you would see how foolish your assertions are, but of course you choose to live in ignorance, ever searching for your next Gotcha! moment, regardless of how ill-founded it is. You are pathetic.

Its just too bad that you don't extend your dilligence and skepticism to any scientists that might be working for the agenda of an organization like the UN, or other leftist political organization with an agenda...

Too bad I have never, ever seen anyone give any sort of evidence that any prominent (or not-so prominent) scientist is "working for the agenda of an organization like the UN, or other leftist political organization with an agenda."

The vast majority of climate scientists, at least in this country, are funded by government grants. Are you saying our government is a "leftist political organization?"

I one time got in a discussion with a liberal about global warming when I quoted something Michael Crichton said about the hype of man made global warming. The lib was aghast and said something about what in the world made Crichton an expert on the subject?

I then said and what makes Al Gore and Laurie David (producer of Inconvenient Truth) experts on the subject? And besides, Crichton has more degrees than either of them.

Needless to say he got very quiet very quickly.

A "consensus" is what one strives for when one lacks proof. Further, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

There's a very rough long term correlation between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures but there is no scientific proof of causation. Interesting thing is when you look into global warming you'll find the long-range temperature records. About 13,000 years ago the earth for no reason warmed by 20 degrees and the glaciers melted. Native Americans watched it happen, didn't hurt them a bit, their oral tradition is full of stories of the massive waterfall that filled Lake Huron for example.

There's been four ice ages in the past 1 million years. They typically last more than 100,000 years and are interrupted by brief (10,000 year) interglacial warm periods. The entire course of human history fits into one of those warm spells and the next ice age already is 2,000 years overdue.

12,000 years ago Boston was under ice 3 miles deep. 5,000 years from now it'll be under 3 miles of ice again. Maybe with global warming we can reduce it to 2.5 miles of ice. But the pathetic small amount of carbon dioxide we're pumping into the air won't amount to a piss hole in the snow when the glaciers return.

But the Democrats can try to reduce CO2, won't hurt anything (unless they destroy the world economy in the process). But it also won't have any effect on so-called Global Warming either.

Too bad I have never, ever seen anyone give any sort of evidence that any prominent (or not-so prominent) scientist is "working for the agenda of an organization like the UN, or other leftist political organization with an agenda."

Um, dude... read the article... the guy who is "replacing" the current climatologist is exactly that.

You won't "see" anything unless you open your eyes...

I then said and what makes Al Gore and Laurie David (producer of Inconvenient Truth) experts on the subject? And besides, Crichton has more degrees than either of them.
Needless to say he got very quiet very quickly.

What he should have done is shown you where Gore cites his sources in the scientific community, and then asked you to show him where Crichton cites his. And then pointed you to the myriad sites out there like this.

Um, dude... read the article... the guy who is "replacing" the current climatologist is exactly that.

Um, dude, I did read it. Care to point out in the article where it names the person to be appointed Oregon's State Climatologist (not replacing Taylor, since he never held the position in the first place)? Also kindly point out where it states how he/she is funded by a "leftist political organization."

What he should have done is shown you where Gore cites his sources in the scientific community, and then asked you to show him where Crichton cites his.

Don't know about Crichton, but Gore's movie is hardly an airtight case. See
http://www.cei.org/pages/ait_response-book.cfm for details.