« Local Portland news fixated on fluff and crime | Main | Measure 37 fight gets us on the 11 o’clock news »

January 29, 2007


This article is wrong. Taylor heads the "Oregon Climate Service," which was established in 1991 by the legislature to "disseminate and interpret climate data and information for the state." But now that the head of the Oregon Climate Service has scientific findings that differ from the governor's, the governor wants to change the rules.

Get your facts straight.

352.245. Establishment of the Oregon Climate Service; duties
Laws 1991, c. 727, § 1.

tortdog, I do have my facts straight. That's exactly what I've been saying: that Taylor is head of the Oregon Climate Service. I said that if he used this title, that'd be fine.

Instead, he keeps referring to himself as the "state climatologist," a position that doesn't exist in state statute and seems to be bestowed on him merely by the dean of his college.

An OSU media person says he's going to get back to me on the state climatologist position issue.

I appreciate your interest in my blog, but I don’t see how what I've been saying is wrong. This KGW news story, which I just ran across, says that a bill has been introduced in the state legislature that would prevent Taylor from falsely claiming he's the state climatologist. So I'm looking even more correct.

>This KGW news story, which I just ran across, says that a bill has been introduced in the state legislature that would prevent Taylor from falsely claiming he's the state climatologist. So I'm looking even more correct.

That's one legislator's spin on this story. Fact is that the American Association of State Climatologists recognizes Taylor as the state climatologist for Oregon, and the law gives to his office that he heads the sole right to "disseminate and interpret climate data and information for the state."


So you go with the politicians. I'm going for the words of the law and the AASC.

So call him what you will, he's the guy who disseminates the information on climatology for the state of Oregon, and since at least 1994 he's been recognized as such by the AASC. If it quacks and walks like a duck, it's a duck.

Besides, your governor doesn't even know the difference between a weatherman and a climatologist. Not sure why you'd want this to be a political position.

tortdog, you're still missing the point (like you're probably missing the reality of global warming).

The fact that the dean of OSU's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences calls Taylor the "state climatologist," and that this title is accepted by a national organization, doesn't mean that he is Oregon's official state climatologist.

That position doesn't exist in state statute. Which is why state Sen. Avakian wants to create the position. See:

Fact: Taylor isn't the official Oregon state climatologist, because this position isn't authorized in state law (only the head of the Oregon Climate Service is).

Who cares about the fellow's title? The important point is whether Oregonians choose to believe their scientist's view of global warmning or their government's view of global warming.

We don't have a scientist yet, we have Taylor. The gap between the two is enormous.

Greenhouse gases are a serious problem and are even threatening the Martian climate. If we don't get this pollution problem under control then our entire solar system will be one blazing inferno.

Check out this article:


I must express an affinity with the idea that humans play only a lesser part in Earth's climatic shifts. I haven't heard much of George Taylor, or evaluated the information surrounding his claim to title of "State Climatologist." To me, his political title seems irrelevant compared to how his climate theories polarize people regarding their beliefs. I have noticed humans strive to find scientific studies that justify our popular "truths," forgetting how fleeting the constructs of our political imaginations appear relative to the scale of our cosmos. To credit ourselves with more than is due regarding climate change, seems to me an invitation towards justifying conquering, rather than understanding nature. Perhaps an evaluation of Mr. Taylor's theories, rather than his political persona would serve well for a future article?

...just a link to Taylor's rebuttal...

CHAOtipper, I'm not qualified to evaluate Taylor's theories, but the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sure is. I included one link, among many on the Internet, in this post:

The panel's recent report reflects the consensus of the world's leading climate scientists. I'm not out to attack Taylor personally; I'm out to attack his unsubstantiated statements about climate change.

Taylor doesn't publish his maverick conclusions. He just spouts them. As a scientist, he should be presenting research to back up his theories. Which includes the notion that we don't know whether carbon dioxide causes warming of the atmosphere.

As I noted in another post, one of his (competent) colleagues says, "That's nonsense." See:

When the state climatologist promulgates nonsense, that's ridiculous. Which is why Taylor either has to go, or stop his nonsense.

Honestly - the greenhouse effect is GRADE 5 SCIENCE. The more greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, the more warming. Sure the relative %age of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere is relatively small, but that's all it takes to keep the Earth's surface temperature what it is, and any increase in these concentrations will increase the planets temperature.

How exactly this will impact weather and specific climates is the variable, and that's where paid climate skeptics like Taylor, Lintzen, Singer, Baliunas, etc get traction. They say - "they weather is too complex to predict, so you can't prove human induced climate change". The reality is that the underlying science of the greenhouse effect, and increased, human-induced global warming, is very simple, understandable and IRREFUTABLE.

Although the politics seem irrefutable the science is still being done and very few scientists are as convinced as the activists. Keep an open mind. The recent data indicating that increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations follow ocean warming rather than preceed it should give an open mind pause. One thing that climatologists agree on is that we are in an interglacial period and that global cooling is inevitable. I suggest that the current energy crisis is a far more critcal problem. We are at the "peak" of conventional cheap oil production and face huge increases in transportation and home heating costs. Society has major restructuring to do regardless of CO2 effects.

Go back to California you freaks or better yet go live on a commune you old ex hippie nuts.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Strange Up Salem

Welcome to HinesSight

  • Salem Political Snark
    My local political rants are now made on this badass blog. Check it out. Dirty politics, outrageous actions, sleaze, backroom deals — we’re on it. 

  • Twitter with me
    Join Twitter and follow my tweets about whatever.
  • Church of the Churchless
    Visit my other weblog, Church of the Churchless, where the gospel of spiritual independence is preached.

  • Welcome to HinesSight. If this is your first visit, click on "About this site--start here" in the Categories section below.