Willamette Week outs Oregon’s climatologist

Ah, appropriately enough it warmed my heart to read today’s Willamette Week cover story about Oregon’s global-warming-denying climatologist, George Taylor.

Last March I emailed Willamette Week and suggested that they do a story on Taylor, saying “It bothers me that while it is official Oregon policy that global warming is a threat to the northwest, Oregon’s official climatologist is going around spouting an exactly opposite view.”

This is one of the themes in the Willamette Week article, “Hot or Not: Oregon’s official weatherman has good news about global warming—it doesn’t exist.”

I’ve been blogging on about the absurdity of an environmentally conscious state being represented by someone who has his head in the sand concerning the reality of human-caused global warming.

I started with “Oregon’s climatologist denies global warming,” followed up with “Oregon’s climatologist still a Pollyanna on global warming,” and most recently observed that “Kansas is to evolution as Oregon is to global warming.”

Whenever I wrote about George Taylor, sometimes I’d think to myself, “Maybe I’m being too hard on this guy. If I ever meet him, I’d probably like him.”

Indeed, the WW story starts off with: “George Taylor shouldn't scare anybody. He has been a vegetarian since the 1970s. He commutes to work by bicycle. He's an ex-hippie and an ex-surfer. He recycles. He likes trees and salmon.”

But then the article’s author, Paul Koberstein, says: “He’s also, according to his critics, one of the most dangerous men in Oregon.”

Dangerous, because global warming is no joke. It’s real, it’s here, and it’s going to create a lot of problems for the world. Everyone has the right to his or her own personal opinions. However, science isn’t about personal opinions—it’s about facts.

Taylor is quoted as saying, “A lot of people wish I’d shut up. I have an opinion on this issue. I’d rather go ahead and express that opinion than shut up because I might offend somebody.”

Well, for Taylor as an individual, that’s fine. But when Taylor runs around making speeches and signing petitions as Oregon’s official state climatologist, he should have his facts straight. Which, he doesn’t, as the WW article makes clear.

Now that I’ve read the article, I feel like I’ve been too easy on Taylor, not too hard. When one of his colleagues at the OSU College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences was asked about how Taylor has come to hold his uninformed views, Prof. James Coakley said:

"The best explanation I can come up with is, George is very tied into the conservative bent. He gets all his information from the conservative-type think tanks. George picks it up and regurgitates it. Some of the stuff is half-baked at best, but sometimes it's so bad we have to call him on it and write letters to the editor. It's just not right; it just counters all the evidence."

It’s time Oregon got a new state climatologist. Way past time. I hope the heat continues to be kept on George Taylor and those at Oregon State University who are keeping him in his position.

Here are email addresses for George Taylor ([email protected]); Mark Abbott, the Dean of his college ([email protected]); and Edward Ray, the President of OSU ([email protected]).

Read the Willamette Week article, then let them know what you think about Taylor remaining as Oregon’s state climatologist.

Comments

[Leon Horren]

(1) Why such hostility here?
(2) Should we go around firing any professor we disagree with?
(3) What makes you so absolutely sure that George Taylor is wrong?

Can you please present me with some material that suggests that (a) global warming is happening, (b) humans are causing it, (c) it will have catastrophic results, and (d) perhaps most importantly, that a cost-benefit analysis indicates that it will be worth it for humans to reduce CO2 emissions?

Thank you.

[Sid]

Leon-

You sound like one of those Intelligent Design guys asking for scientific proof of Darwin's theory.

[Leon Horren]

Sid-

Cute response, but can you present this material or not?

[Brian]

Leon, I suggest you read the links in my most recent post (other than today’s) on this subject:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2005/08/kansas_is_to_ev.html

The RealClimate links are particularly edifying, as well as the statement by the science academies of every major industrialized nation. Like I said in the post, there is no doubt that global warming is real, humans are helping cause it, and something needs to be done about it. Those are facts.

I’m not angry at Taylor personally, but I do take it personally when scientists put their conservative political views ahead of good science needed to keep the earth habitable for future generations.

Did you read the Willamette Week article? Or , like many global warming-deniers, are you basing your skepticism on nothing more than what unscientific right-wing, oil industry funded "think" (actually "unthink") tanks say?

The article is tremendously damning of George Taylor, much more than I have been. It's also damning of the entire global warming-denying movement. Here's a quote:

"It is hard to find a single peer-reviewed journal that agrees with Taylor's views. A report last December in the journal Science found that of 928 major peer-reviewed academic papers on the subject of climate change, all supported the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities."

Leon, there's the proof. As Sid observed in his comment, asking for scientific proof of what has been proved scientifically shows that the person asking for such proof is either (1) uninformed of the facts or (2) ignoring known facts.

Human caused global warming is a fact. It's up to deniers of this fact to prove otherwise. And, they can't. Because it is a fact.

[Leon Horren]

Thanks for the feedback.

I did read the WW story. Unfortunately, the author lost credibility with me when he said that Portland has shown that you can reduce CO2 without cost (even though in the previous sentence he said that Portland's C02 went up). This peculiar logic indicated to me that he was biased.

In any event. I have printed out 10 articles about global warming that you have posted on your site. I will try to read them this evening.

I don't have a stong position one way or the other on this issue. I am currently uninformed about all the facts here. I am eager to learn more about it.

[Rob]

Kudos Brian, for stimulating reflection, researching and discovery upon this urgent and timely issue!

[Alex]

Hello,

It was indeed good to see the Willamette Week article. Too bad the major media have trouble conducting any analysis of the contrarian movement ...

My search for more information was prompted by a whole lot of tripe on the Lars Larson show about this topic - one of his guests today was George Taylor. At least three of the points he made have been addressed and refuted, as noted at WeTheSheep.net/warming. Of course, Lars was just lapping it up. It makes you wonder just how many of these contrarians have their hands in the pockets of Big Oil (either that or they're frightened to death that this means we need to make some changes). Keep up the bloggin'!

[Paul Koberstein]

As the author of the Willamette Week piece, I'd like to correct Leon Horren's post about the article.

Leon writes: "I did read the WW story. Unfortunately, the author lost credibility with me when he said that Portland has shown that you can reduce CO2 without cost (even though in the previous sentence he said that Portland's C02 went up). This peculiar logic indicated to me that he was biased."

Apparently, Leon did not real the article very carefully. I did not say Portland has shown that you can reduce CO2 without cost.

What I wrote was: "...the city shows that fighting global warming may be possible without hurting the economy."

So there you go: a journalist is misquoted. And then, based on a misquote, the journalist is accused of being biased.

So here's a topic for discussion on this blog: Why do global warming skeptics find it necessary to resort to personal attacks against people they disagree with? Why can't people debate this issue solely on the facts? I'm beginning to understand why.

[Dalene]

"So here's a topic for discussion on this blog: Why do global warming skeptics find it necessary to resort to personal attacks against people they disagree with? Why can't people debate this issue solely on the facts? I'm beginning to understand why." -- Paul Koberstein

I think you will find, if you read through very many blogs and journals at all, that attacking a person being debated with to be standard form. Before the world of blogs, when listening to a debate, I felt personal attacks to be a sign of bad form on the part of whomever was launching the personal attack, as opposed to staying with the topic being discussed. It was as if this was a tactic used by persons without much strength for their side of the debate. Blogs have illuminated the practice as common. Too bad. Debate, on any topic, is how we move concepts and ideas forward. Personal attacks defuse the interest in the topic itself and put everyone in a position of defensive measure.

[Travis]

It doesn't matter whether global warming or climate change is a direct or inderect cause of human activity.
It is real and the "blame game" doesn't get us anywhere.
We should realise the economic dangers that climate change presents to everyone on this planet and work to make our impact on global warming as minimal as possible.