« Measure 37 shouldn’t be a guarantee to get rich | Main | Relax, right-wingers: George Taylor isn’t being fired »

February 08, 2007


You say he is not "the" state climatologist, but you ignore the fact that in "(1991), Oregon Senate Bill 661 passed, establishing the Oregon Climate Service at OSU. Taylor was hired on a full-time basis, and the department head in atmospheric science at that time requested to OSU that Taylor’s title be changed from meteorologist to state climatologist because his role was so similar to that which Redmond held (when he was state climatologist until 1989." You are just playing with words. Almost all considered George Taylor to be the state Climatologist!

Mover Mike, I'm not just playing with words. The fact that people "consider" Taylor to be the state climatologist is one thing. The fact that there is no state climatologist position in Oregon is another thing.

Now that global climate change is a confirmed scientific fact, and the world (including Oregon) is forming policies to reduce the human caused warming, this state needs a real state climatologist--not just someone who inherited the title after that position was abolished.

The bottom line is that Taylor isn't the state climatologist, because Oregon doesn't have one. It should, though. And that person should be knowledgeable about climate change (which eliminates Taylor from consideration for the job).

Since Taylor works at OSU, some of his contact information is available online. It can be found at http://directory.oregonstate.edu/?type=showfull&osudircode=3846.

The title listed for him there is "State Climatologist."

I find it a little amusing. Perhaps that will be changed at some point.

Yeah sure, anything to disguise the fact that it just so happens Taylor disagrees to some extent with our scientist-as-governor Kulongoski on the "human" cause of global warming. Right. I'm sure THAT has nothing to do with the guv stripping his title. Absolutely nothing.
Galileo, could you please pick up the white courtesy phone?

Victoria, Taylor's title can't be stripped, because he's never earned it. There's no authorized position of "state climatologist," as I reported in this post.

What the governor wants to do, I gather, is stop Taylor from claiming to be something that he isn't: the official state climatologist.

I listen to your program when it comes in clearly here in Salem (you need more watts). Thanks for interviewing Taylor. That gave me a great quote showing Taylor's ignorance of basic climate change facts. See:

One good thing about Taylor getting so much exposure on right wing talk shows is that the more he shares his uninformed views of global warming, the more obvious it becomes that his scientific credentials are seriously lacking.

Nice signature on your comment, by the way. First time I've had someone sign as an ad.


Thanks for asking for my opinion.

I agree that the Earth is not the center of the Universe.

I disagree with the Catholic Church on that.

I agree that human-caused emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause of the rise in temperature of the Earth's atmoshpere in recent history.

I disagree with George Taylor that this rise is not primarily due to human-caused emissions.

Thanks for asking.

Rome, Italy

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.

Global warming is a hoax. The greenhouse gas effect does not exist. Solar irradiation controls climate. The Earth is not getting warmer, but cooling towards another Ice Age.

You can get all exercised and fanatical, and write in ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, but it doesn't change the facts. You can claim special insights, that it is all so simple for you to see, but you see dimly, at best.

Read Imbrie. Get the basics. Stop acting like foolish sheep.

I know G. Taylor. He is smart, kind, and one of the coolest dudes in the state. Guv K is a total geek doofus in comparison.

Get on the bright side, dudes. Don't let the bleaters sway you into plonking doofiness. GW is a hoax. Don't be fooled.

Mike, if ignorance is bliss, you must feel like you're the happiest person on earth. Unfortunately, reality always breaks through. I hope one day you'll decide to look at what is real rather than what you want to believe. Then you'll be even happier. Until then, good luck with your erroneous beliefs.

This has me afraid, very afraid, what if you are a state employee and your views do not match the governor’s views, should you worry about your job as a government employee? How is this good for Oregon, what if business people start firing people based on there political views, that is what Ted is doing and that is a very bad trend to start. What other views does Ted have that might jeopardize other state workers? I can’t believe people are not concerned about this, many Americans have fought in wars so this kind of thing does not happen.

This little dance about Geroge Taylor's "title" is truly sickening.

The entire and only point is, that even if he were THE "State Climatologist",,,, and even if he had been earlier appointed by Ted Kulongoski himself,
since he disagrees he would have to go.
That's all there is here.
Getting rid of the guy. Either by firing or distancing him from any State affiliation.

You watch. It won't be enough to call him the OSU climatologist or anything else. He'll be forced out of his State job, period.

Contrary to what Taylor's apologists say, here's what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) says about the greenhouse effect:


What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.


Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).


Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century, and about 0.4°F (0.2 to 0.3°C) over the past 25 years (the period with the most credible data). The warming has not been globally uniform. Some areas (including parts of the southeastern U.S.) have, in fact, cooled over the last century. The recent warmth has been greatest over North America and Eurasia between 40 and 70°N. Warming, assisted by the record El Niño of 1997-1998, has continued right up to the present, with 2001 being the second warmest year on record after 1998.

You people need to find better things to do with your time than verbally attack a man who simply has a different opinion than yourselves. Or am I to believe that you are all more knowledgeable about climate change than a man who has worked the field for so many years? If this is open-mindedness, I'll gladly be called "close-minded" by hypocrytes like a some of the people posting here...

Note the posting by Barry R citing the NOAA website. This may surprise some of Dr. Taylor's critics, but this is precisely what Dr. Taylor has been saying. The debate is not whether the earth has been warming or whether humans are having an influence on it, the question is "whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect." Is human activity the major reason?

Brian, can you point to the science that indicates the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere are the primary forcing agent in recent warming, to the EXCLUSION of other possible factors? It seems to me the IPCC has identified a suspect (CO2), and is building its case for a conviction without thoroughly investigating other possible suspects. Can you tell me why you're so certain that carbon dioxide is the culprit?

Ralph, have you read the IPCC summary? You should. It answers your question. See:

You'll find the quantitative facts that human release of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, is a major factor in global warming.

Obviously other factors are involved. No one denies that. Before humans came along there were cycles of global warming and cooling. The difference now is that we're affecting the climate, adding a new factor.

Again, read the report, which is a conservative summary of what was known up to 2005 about climate change. New research leads to ever more alarming conclusions (see recent issue of New Scientist).

The fact that Mr. Taylor is a climatologist and works for the State of Oregon in some capacity is not in dispute. More importantly what are his qualifications on making comments related to global warming. Has he conducted research in this area? Has he published articles related to his research on global warming in peer review journals? Or his he just a guy who tabulates stats on rainfall and temperatures for a small area of the globe, i.e. Oregon, with an opinion on global warming. I suspect the latter but I don't know.

OK, maybe I am stupid, as someone claims this is 5th grade science. I have looked at graphs of the world’s yearly average temperature, and the Earth was in a cooling trend from the mid-1940's until the early 1970's. That was a period of some of our most unabashed industrialization before pollution control. How does this fit in with the theory of global warming? (and I use the word theory because it hasn't been proven, no matter how many "experts" say it has or believe in it) Could this be the reason that the whole greenhouse gas scenario started out predicting global cooling and the oncoming ice age in the early 1970s?
The fact that George Taylor and others are arguing against the prevailing theory shows that there is debate on the issue. So, even if a Vice President says the debate is over, it isn’t.
Science is the argument, defense and refining theories in search of the truth, using facts. Politics is the domination of your beliefs over all others, regardless of their merit, truth be damned.

What our governor is doing is politics at it’s worst. Because someone disagrees with what you feel is the truth doesn’t mean they are unqualified. Politics truly are the scourge of science…and most everything else in life.

Oh, that graph, if you are interested, can be found at: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ , the NASA website, in case you think I got it from Rush Limbaugh or something

Mike, the facts always win out in the end. The page you linked to demonstrates that global warming has been occurring since 1880.

See those temperature lines going upward from left to right on the first four graphs? That's global warming

Thanks for making my point: George Taylor doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to climate change.

My concern isn't that George Taylor and his ilk don't know what they are talking about. My concern is they know EXACTLY what they are talking about.....and that if they say what they are paid to say by the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation, etc., they will leave some doubt about the subject of human induced climate change....enough doubt to prevent people from seriously addressing the issue NOW!

The reality is that anyone whose job it is to observe weather/weather patterns is SEEING CLIMATE CHANGE RIGHT BEFORE THEIR EYES, and it lines up with what climatologists/scientists have been saying will happen....worldwide heat-waves, droughts, precipation, etc. Just look at all the records that have been broken in Oregon ALONE in the last couple of years. This isn't some cosmic coincidence.

Honestly, anyone whose job it is to watch the weather, sees this happeneing, and then says "accelerated climate change isn't happening" isn't just a poor scientific observer....they are intentionally ignoring reality.

So the real question isn't "Should George Taylor be 'State Climatologist'".....it is "Why is Taylor purposefully ignoring the rapid climate changes he is observing right before his eyes?". I think the honest answer to this would be very telling indeed.


Help me out a bit here. Based on the following assumptions made from people who support the global warming theory:

1. The climate has been very stable for thousands of years

2. Man-made emissions are the main cause of the rise in the Earth’s surface temperature

3. Over the course of the last 100+ years, it’s gotten worse, driving up the average temperature

Based on this premise, I would expect a graph where the coldest year of the 20th century would be 1901, and it would be warmer every succeeding year with 2000 as the warmest. There might be variations in how fast the increase happened, based on the rate of growth. It’s possible you could find a downturn in temperature, but it would have to be caused by either some cataclysmic event like a plague or massive economic failure (reducing energy consumption), or a massive program to reduce greenhouse gases that was successful.

If you would look again at the graph, you will find the coldest year was about 1917 (it’s hard to pick exact years out of the graph). The warmest year was 1998.

The funny thing is that 1944 looks like it was the warmest year that century until 1981. Based on the five year mean, we had a peak in 1943 that was not surpassed until 1978.

What was going on during those 35 years? Aside from the last half of a World War, the dropping of two atomic bombs, the rebuilding of Europe and Japan, a bunch of five year plans in the USSR to industrialize, and towards the end of this, the beginnings of the environmental movement.

Not a 35 year span I would use as a model of how we should help stop global warming or clean up the environment.

I am not trying to be cynical, although it’s hard not to be. I honestly don’t know what the truth is. I am not a climatologist. I’m not a meteorologist. If anything I am a antiquecameraologist. Not a scientist. Not a college grad (but not because it was too hard).

When I go to not-global-warming websites, I am generally confronted with plausible scenarios, and quotes are generally attributed to scientific sounding papers and articles, that I could hunt down and read, so I will set aside some amount of skepticism. Most of the Global-warming-is-ruining-the world sites tend to mock anyone who doesn’t adhere to the party line, and accuse them of being fruitcakes, frauds or toadies of oil companies. But not much in the way of evidence. Mostly they say debate is over. Sorry, you missed that ship, it has sailed.

I have yet to find any site that claims the average recorded temperature is not higher today than any time since 1880. That doesn’t seem to be in debate.

I have seen:

Questions about the integrity of the data. We are dealing with an average yearly change over the course of the graph of less than .01 of one degree. How accurately were the temperature measurements in 1880? There is the possibility that many of the collection stations have been influenced by the heat trapping affects of being located in urban areas, surrounded by heat trapping cement and asphalt. George Taylor showed a slide in his debate with the Washington State Climatologist showing a temperature recording unit located between an air conditioning exhaust and a paved parking lot. Do you think that represents a bit of a change in 100 years?

Arguments that the temperature of the Earth would be more influenced by the changes in sunspot activity, which changes the amount of energy directed towards our planet from its heat source. And changes in the shape of our orbit that brings us closer or further away in cycles.

I’ve even read about what climate experts refer to as “The Small Ice age” that ended in about 1862, and started in 1250 through 1650, depending upon which source you quote. Which sort of dispels the idea that climate has pretty constant for thousands of years.

But I ramble on. The global warming crowd say that there is no debate, that global warming is a proven fact. I am not from Missouri, but what the heck. Show me. If it’s a fact, it shouldn’t be that hard to prove. I am all ears. Show me.

Mike, I'm no expert on climate change, but I've put some time into reading the writings of those that are.

You've encouraged me to write a post (maybe tomorrow) about climate models, and how accurately they are able to reproduce the observed changes in global temperatures.

The graphs that I'll post are darn impressive. They factor out the influences of natural and human causes. These facts are difficult to argue with. They clearly show that natural causes aren't sufficient to explain observed temperature variations.

You ask good questions. I'll try to shed a little light on them in my next post.

This is great - I see a debate here, with little or no name-calling. This is my first visit to this blog, but I've added the URL to my favorites so that I can follow this. I am truly open-minded and want to have the most informed opinion about this issue as I can. Congrats, Brian; your blog may be the only place in America where this is occurring! And you would do well to keep it this way - you can't lose!

If you convince even five skeptics to be less skeptical or to believe what the IPCC Summary (NOT a report, as yet) says, you may have done more for the future of mankind than Al Gore - because I became MORE of a skeptic after having watched "Truth". The sea-level-rising-20-feet scenario just made me laugh; I haven't seen a study or found any information on this, but I questioned in my mind whether there was enough freshwater ice in the entire world to cause that type of rise in the sea level. I believe that most people who watched the movie or have seen Gore's presentations live already believed. His theatrical and over-dramatic presentation are not convincing to the skeptic - but we all know the intent is to preach to the choir (as with Michael Moore and F9/11).

I'm a smart guy, but sure not much of a scientist. I DID take meteorology in college, but gained only a pedestrian knowledge of the complexities of weather systems. What makes me skeptical has absolutely nothing to do with politics; it has to do with the scientific method.

There are so many holes in the data used to further the theories of global warming. I don't know if that's because scientists believe that the lay public can't absorb the data, but it's just not very convincing. As you stated, Mike asked some very good questions above, and I've asked many of the same ones in the last couple of years. Call me a "new Missourian" also; SHOW ME!

Sadly, most of the believers are lefties, most of the skeptics are righties, and debate on this issue tends to devolve into partisan name-calling. Most skeptics and believers blindly believe what they want to, which is how our nation has gotten into many of its worst messes.

I look forward to following polite and informative discourse on this blog and learning something. Bring on some data!

Alan W.
Spokane, WA

The attempted political firing of George Taylor is a sad commentary on the governor of Oregon. He can't debate George scientifically on global warming so he debases himself by getting rid of him politically. In a democratic, free society, one should not shut off debate by ad hominem attacks. Climate change is a complex subject. If anyone is interested, a good primer is the book "Paleclimatology" by Crowley and North. After that one can then read some of the more recent papers and better decide what the "facts" are with regards to our knowledge of climate. I have done a lot of reading around climate change and I have read the aforementioned book. One thing I can say is that the word "fact" and "climate change" should never appear in the same sentence; unless you say that it is a fact that the climate has been changing for billions of years. As regards land temperature graphs showing global warming over the last few years...someone in the USHNC has been manipulating the data it seems.





Before we go running off screaming the sky is falling, let's at least use undoctored data to come to that conclusion.

Tony, let's get the facts straight--one more time. Kulongoski isn't trying to fire Taylor. He just wants him to stop claiming a title that he's not entitled to. That's one fact.

Another is that global warming is happening, and humans are a big cause of it. Put up a post about this yesterday:

The scientific evidence is very strong. However, some people also have a strong desire to believe what they want to believe, rather than what is true.

Science is about truth, not belief. I respect your right to believe what you want to, but not to claim that untruth is truth.

Climate skeptics like Tony Knudson will never be convinced of accelerated human-induced climate change by facts, logic, common sense or basic physics. They LOVE to spin the truth (ie. saying Kulongoski is firing Taylor - instead of saying that Kulongoski is ASKING OSU to change his title) either because they just don't understand reality, or they have alterior motives to reinterpret it. To be perfectly honest, if Taylor WERE fired, that would be the best thing for all of us - because the man is doing more harm than good at OSU.

People like Tony Knudson need absolute, categorical undeniable proof of human-induced climate change (and when they get it they ignore it anyway), but believe that a supernatural omnipotent god controls everything (but chooses not to intervene in human failure and folly because of "free will") without a shred of concrete evidence.

Honestly - there's no point debating or educting people like Tony, because they don't pay any attention to facts, logic, or basic physics.....only what paid oil shills like Taylor, Lintzen, Singer and Baliuanas tell them to believe.

Wow, interesting to read these insightful comments about myself from one post. First, I said political firing. Stripping a person of their title that was given to them by OSU is a great example of political firing. Secondly, no where in my post do I deny global warming. Like I said, I've done a lot of research on this. My training is in statistics so I've had a lot of fun reading climate papers that deal with large time correlated data sets, like temperature. The latest warming on Earth has been going on for 12,000 years. Do I think man may be contributing to this warming? Yes. But, is it a 90% contribution or 10%. I don't know. One must keep an open mind, read papers from both sides of this argument and keep a clear head. I read the work of so-called "shills" and I also read realclimate.com. I ignore the shrill posts of people like Brian.

I used to design integrated circuit (aka ICs or "chips") for telecom/computers systems. These designs are predicated on the understanding of EXTREMELY complex and subtle sub-atomic physical behavior, quantum mechanics and mathematical equations. To think that physicists can accurately predict how an electron will cross a p-n junction for MILLIONS of transistors typical of todays chips, and then say that scientists can't predict how increasing CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere will increase IR energy absorbtion (aka. the Greenhouse Effect) is truly laughable.

If you understand even basic physics, and learned about the Greenhouse Effect in grade 5, you know that CO2 and Methane in small concentrations trap heat, and the more greenhouse gas, the more heating. The resulting weather changes are certainly complex and harder to predict, but the fact that each car typically dumps several TONS of CO2 into the atmosphere annually, thus increasing atmospheric CO2 concentations exponentionally, means that humans are INDEED accelerating global warming.

Sure there are natural variations, including changes in solar intensity, the Milankovich cycles, etc., but the resulting natural cycles have typically been 10s of thousands of years long - not a DECADE OR LESS as we have been seeing. People who talk about natural cycles need to undstand that they are not magical - THEY ARE CAUSED BY PERIODIC CHANGES, but DO NOT negate the impacts of exponentially increasing CO2 and methane, which are DIRECT BY-PRODUCTS of human activity today.

If you believe "god controls the climate" or your are a beneficiary of fossil fuel sales, you will likely choose to ignore the basic scientific underpinning of climate and say "human's can't really change the climate". Unfortunately, when you have 100s of millions of people producting tons of CO2 annually each, we can and ARE changing the climate.


You will have more luck convincing people of your arguments if you don’t write in a style that is condescending. You used to design computer chips, I used to run a pre-press department in a printing shop, now I sell vintage cameras. I am sure you know way more about designing chips, and I am willing to bet I know more about vintage cameras than you do. And neither really pertains to climate change.

I know how to cook, but I don’t know how to bake. Science has put a man on the moon, but has not cured cancer. The fact that science has learned how to make computer chips doesn’t mean that science understands all of the factors involved in climate or weather.

If climate is so well understood, and they can prove without doubt that global warming is a man made phenomenon, then why can’t they make models that accurately forecast the weather?

On a simplistic basis, you can say that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, which in theory should cause a rise in surface temperature. But climate is a complex issue, involving a variety of factors. Is it possible that the climate variations we are seeing is affected more by variation in the output from the sun, changes in the rotation and tilt of the Earth, and even the shifting of the continents?

And what of the data that we have? I would suspect that the most recent data is probably the most accurate. Assumptions are being made that the data was collected in an identical manner. But that’s not true. I read about a site where data is collected here in Oregon. The temperature sensor was located between a air conditioning exhaust and a paved parking lot. I would hazard to guess neither of those were there 100 years ago. I know we are never going to have perfect data, but let’s keep that in mind when we are considering all of this. After all, we are talking about a net change in temperature of about one degree over a hundred year time span.

And I have yet to have anyone explain why, if the CO2 buildup is responsible for the increase in global temperature, why from about the mid 1940’s until the mid-1970’s we were experiencing global cooling. In fact the original climate change scare was “Global Cooling” with another ice age imminent.

Can you do that?

I also think it would be more productive if we tried to avoid disparaging remarks. I am really sick of hearing that anyone who questions global warming must be employed by an oil company. Also, repeatedly stating that “GLOBAL WARMING IS A MAN-MADE PROBLEM AND THAT IS A PROVRN FACT” doesn’t make it so. Even if you type in all caps.

As for George Taylor, we don’t need to nit-pick semantics. He’s a been using a title that OSU created, and has been using for over twenty years. Taylor doesn’t believe that human activity is the predominate cause of global warming. As this conflicts with our Governor’s belief, the Governor is doing what he can to minimize his stature. I don’t think it’s really ever a good idea for politicians to meddle in science. Science should be the continuos search for the truth, while politics is mostly bending and twisting the facts to promote a goal.

I just finished listening to the The News Hour's presentation of Mr Taylor's perspective of our cultures global warming analysis process. I just had to write someone and say how refreshing it was to here a seasoned perspective combined with several ounces of common sense.

Finally, a reasonable source presents a perspective that presses a rational needle into Chicken Little's perspective of our ever changing climate. It is perplexing how our media services thrive on almost anything controversial. Why can't we have a more balanced presentation from our extraordinary media resources, silly me, it must be that I've been watching too much Boston Legal.

However, I am thankful to The News Hour for giving a voice to Mr Taylor, and to his perspective on better data resources and more rational observations.

I wonder what the next fascination will be, we can only hope its something just as impossible to comprehend, and as politically tantalizing.

Boerne, TX

fascinating display of close-mindedness and fanatacism - global warming is "settled" and entirely caused by humans - case closed!!! If one dares to objectively examines the immense body of "factual" data, complete with the inconsistencies embedded in the widely-sold theories of the GW fanatics (Gore, David, Crow, the mainstream press, IPCC, et. al.), you are quickly branded a right-wing nut-job in the pockets of "big oil". The use of ad hominem arguments are relied upon by those with weak arguments - and accepted by small minds lacking critical thinking skills:


But, hey, why examine argument logically when can pander to a bevy of willing, wild-eyed and fearful subjects while you shill for huge research grants and accollades (what a "hero" for "saving" humanity!). Facts, schmacts, attacks - but, remember, the "unbelievers" or skeptics are the evil ones (repeat over and over and over until it becomes true!):


Scott, the case on global warming isn't closed. Science isn't a closed process of learning about reality. It continually adapts to new information.

That's why the evidence in favor of human-caused global warming is so persuasive. The IPCC reports represent the consensus of thousands of leading climate scientists who have openly debated the scientific research in this area.

Sorry, but your side is the one that is closed-minded. I subscribe to a bunch of science and news magazines. Every single one agrees that the debate about whether human-caused global warming is happening is over, given the current evidence.

Now the question is: what do we do about it?

My teacher wants us to find out this special season

My teacher is having us read a book called the stranger and he has to do with this special season. My freind and i are trying to figure out what it is. I think he is the wind or the lyptical orbit or the elnenoe or the autum equater. My friend ashley thinks it is either the wind or the fall. So we need ur help trying to figure out what it is. Dont tell us just lead us to it email us back thankyou. peyton

Well, Brian, it looks like the discussion may be over, but there are 31,072 American scientists that disagree with your "bunch of science and news magazines." Please check out the petitionproject.org website.


Jeannette, you've fallen for a hoax. All you need is a bachelors degree in science, a B.S. to sign the petition. And B.S. is exactly what this farce is.

Check out the truth about it (myth #2):

Science doesn't progress through petitions. It progresses through research, experimentation, hypothesis testing, publishing of reports in respected journals.

Not by online petitions. I'm sure you could get many thousands of people to assert that God created every living thing in seven days, but that wouldn't mean evolution is false.

Nor would it prove that the big bang isn't real if people signed a petition saying that God created the entire universe instantly.

Global climate change is real. This petition is a joke. Big difference.

It would be good if folks (the author included) could focus on the science, instead of the usual tactic of trying to dicredit the messenger. But then, its easier to take cheap shots and try and change the subject than deal with science fact over science fiction.
You'll do well in Washington DC.

my name is hazel howard was macrae taylor my dad come from soctland are you a relative if so contact me.

Mike, if you had ever talked with Mr Taylor, it was not a title he flashed around. He is a pretty humble and sensible guy. Thanks for all of the opinions in your "fact" sheet. Science used to be about test and retest theories. Its been interesting these last 10 years as the basic scientific method has been tossed out the window, along with any scientist that questions the Climate Change Group-Think. We've seen this group-think before back when the world was going to starve to death from "Global Cooling". Let the scientists keep questioning instead of just being a mouthpiece for those in congress that fund them.

Dan, your facts need some checking. Glad to oblige. From 1965 to 1979, 62% of scientific studies predicted global warming was happening; only 10% predicted global cooling. See:

Also, the scientific method hasn't changed. What's changed is the lack of respect for truth/facts among climate change deniers. The truth about global warming has been acknowledged by every country in the world, and every major institute of science. The evidence has been carefully assessed.

Scientific skepticism is fine. Denial of reality after skeptical arguments have been considered and found to be false is a whole other thing. See:

Climate change is real. Don't be led astray by disinformation efforts led and funded by the fossil fuel industry. That's like believing the tobacco industry when they used to claim that cigarettes didn't cause lung cancer.

It is totally surreal how people actually believe that man caused climate change is a fact. There are many scientists who agree with Taylor that climate change is just part of nature. Have any of the global warming alarmists ever stopped to consider how much the Earth warmed all by itself after the last ice age? Sea levels raised by over 100 meters before man had any significant influence on the Earth at all. Now if sea level rises by a few inches it's considered some kind of a horrible crisis that had to be caused by man. It is just laughable.

Contrary to what many on here have said the debate about man caused global warming is not over. Some of the most brilliant atmospheric scientist in the country are arguing against it. Just do a quick search on Ed Berry if you want to see for yourself.

Jim, you're wrong on several counts. First, there is no serious debate among climate scientists about whether human-caused global warming is happening. 97% agree that it is. Argument is over. See:

Second, sure, the climate has changed in the past. For the same reasons the climate is changing now. Laws of nature stay the same. What's different is that humans are now part of the climate changing equation.

Rising levels of greenhouse gases caused global warming in the past. Same thing is happening now. Except, humans are pumping out vast quantities of greenhouse gases, so there's a new cause for climate change. See:

As that article says, lightning can cause a forest fire; humans playing with matches also can cause a forest fire. It's crazy to argue that humans can't cause a forest fire, because before humans came along, all fires were caused without humans being responsible.

I think it is a perfect storm of factors coming together at once with greenhouse gases maybe tipping the scales or hastening the process. Although I have heard compelling arguments from both sides of the debate, one thing is clear..temps are rising.

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.