Oregon’s state climatologist flunks Climate Change 101

You’d think that someone called the “state climatologist” would understand basic facts about climate. But George Taylor isn’t big on facts.

He doesn’t believe that humans are having a significant effect on global climate change, which puts him at odds with the world’s experts who just said otherwise. Of course, I’m sure there are a few biologists here and there who don’t believe in evolution.

Hopefully none of them have the title of “state biologist.” If any do, I’m embarrassed for that state. Just as I’m embarrassed that George Taylor has the title of state climatologist in Oregon.

Taylor has irritated me for several years. Now I find him more laughable than irritating, since the science of climate change has left him so far behind, it’s amusing to observe him trying to defend his “What, me worry about global warming?” attitude.

Willamette Week’s headline back in August 2005 captured Taylor perfectly: “Hot or Not. Oregon’s official weatherman has some good news about global warming—it doesn’t exist.” The story was good too. It showed how little Taylor knows about what a climatologist should know a lot about.

Climate.

Wednesday evening I was driving around, doing errands, listening to talk radio. Victoria Taft (KPAM) had George Taylor as a guest. I didn’t hear all of the interview but caught this gem from Taylor as I was pulling into our carport:

“We can’t prove that CO2 [carbon dioxide] causes or doesn’t cause warming.”

Are you kidding me? was my instant reaction. A story in today’s Washington Post says:

With at least 90 percent certainty, the IPCC's "Summary For Policymakers" concludes human-generated greenhouse gases account for most of the global rise in temperatures over the past half century. Hundreds of scientists from 113 countries prepared the report, which represents the most comprehensive overview of scientific climate research since 2001.

I also asked a distinguished faculty member at O.S.U.’s College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, where Taylor works, to comment on Taylor’s notion that it isn’t known whether carbon dioxide causes warming of the atmosphere. Jim Coakley’s email reply said, in part:

George's assertion that we can't prove whether CO2 causes warming or cooling, is, of course, nonsense. But then, no one tries to pin George down on what he means by "we can't prove..." First, one should ask what proof is needed? Would seeing the 3-5 C rise in temperature that we're predicting for this century serve as proof? Can you imagine the dilemma waiting to see such a rise would pose? We can't wait. Waiting is stupid.

Interestingly, Taylor himself agrees we shouldn’t listen to him on global warming. Which is exactly what all of us should do. Taylor is having a good time playing his “state climatologist” role, which he may or may not be (Kari Chisholm, the governor, and me all have our doubts).

Just don’t take him seriously. There’s no reason to trust a climatologist who flunks Climate Change 101.

Comments

[Melvin Glerup]

It is too bad for you that George is correct and you have to resort to personal attacks to try to make your point.

We don't know if Carbon Dioxide will cause a temperature increase in this century. It has not occurred and probably will not occur.

To all Global Warming advocates, remember that the last ice sheet that covered a lot North America including Chicago, Cleveland et al and it ended about 10,000 years ago. That is climate change and we will always have it despite all of your hot rhetoric.

[Brian]

Melvin, please, don't distort facts. Climate change is too important to play global denying games.

There's no personal attack in my quoting a respected OSU professor who says that Taylor's view that it isn't known whether carbon dioxide causes atmospheric warming is "nonsense."

There's no personal attack in my noting that the scientific evidence on this question is settled. I'm sure there a few people in the world who still think that the earth is flat, or the sun goes around the earth.

It isn't a personal attack to say, "They're wrong." Taylor isn't being attacked personally. What I'm attacking is the wrong information about climate change that he's spreading.

[Pedro]

What a foolish statement;
George's assertion that we can't prove whether CO2 causes warming or cooling, is, of course, nonsense. But then, no one tries to pin George down on what he means by "we can't prove..." First, one should ask what proof is needed? Would seeing the 3-5 C rise in temperature that we're predicting for this century serve as proof? Can you imagine the dilemma waiting to see such a rise would pose? We can't wait. Waiting is stupid.

This translates to 'you better believe us or you are wrong. No proof just name calling and fear mongering in attempt to move the latest enviro wacko pet issue forward. Keep drinking the kool aid and living on the fringe...

[Brian]

Pedro, do you realize that the person I quoted, who you say is engaging in "no proof just name calling and fear mongering" is a professor at OSU's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences?

Take a look at Dr. Coakley's background. Then tell me again that he's "drinking the kool aid and living on the fringe." See:
http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.search&searchtype=people&detail=1&id=459
http://www.coas.oregonstate.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=content.search&searchtype=people&detail=1&id=459&show=publications

[MELVIN Glerup]

A group of scientists once had a consensus that the world was flat.

Al Gore is a political scientist and his opinions are political. True scientists test their theories. Where are the tests of the IPCC theories. Most of the data they cite is less than 100 hundred years old.

The last major glacial period started about 2,000,000 years ago and average global temperatures was about 4 to 5 degrees colder than today. The glaciers would retreat when it got warmer and then advance again. We are in an interglacial period. Live with it.

[Brian]

Melvin, I'm honored to have you comment on my blog, since you know more about climate change than the world's leading climatologists.

May I assume that you've submitted evidence for your conclusions to science journals?

Since you seem to have come up with facts that have eluded thousands of full-time professional researchers, your knowledge should be shared with the world more widely than just on this blog.

[Melvin Glerup]

I have not published on Climate but even if I had and I agreed with George Taylor, you would assassinate, ridiclule, and otherwise demean my every word because it does not fit the "consensus of the "climate scientists of the world. Dr Taylor presents rational and calm analysis but many are calling for his job. It appears that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions is stupid and your side is very intolerant to say the least.

In todays newspaper, Ross McKitrick of the Univ. of Guelph who is one of the 2500 expert reviewers said "it would be a mistake to assume all of these experts endorse every in the summary, including its bottom-line assessment that most of the observed increase in globally averaged temeratures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

He stated that the summary that everyone is quoting was "drafted by a few dozen scientists and edited by hundreds of bureaucrats and politicians".

He stated that the report will not be distributed until May and the IPCC is going over the wording to make sure it is consistent with the summary. He stated that "this is a curious and disconcerting aspect of IPCC procedures;it needs a couple of months to revise a detailed report prepared by hundreds of scientists.

I have been a geologist for over 50 years and we study the science of the earth which includes climate. We use science and observations over millions of years. It is recommended that you read some of the references suggested by Dr Taylor so you will be able to make a more informed analysis. Thanks

[Karl Kibler]

Melvin writes:

"I have not published on Climate but even if I had and I agreed with George Taylor, you would assassinate, ridicule, and otherwise demean my every word because it does not fit the "consensus of the "climate scientists of the world."

In other words you have NO data to support your claims and excuse your lack of data by claiming there's an conspiracy against you. And you seriously expect us to believe that you're a scientist?

[D]

I find it interesting that you personally attack George Taylor by stating he "isn't big on facts", when your little essay is surprisingly short on facts. George Taylor is a respected faculty member at OSU. He is very big on facts and has published many factual articles. I don't know the rest of the quote on his statement about not being able to prove CO2 contributes to global warming, but I'm guessing you took his statement out of context. The facts are that there is not really a scientific consensus on man made global warming. There are many reputable scientists on both sides of this debate, but only the greenhousers that are religious zealots in claiming that they have the consensus (they don’t). When ever a reputable scientist disagrees with them they don't dispute the facts they name call. There are thousands of scientists that disagree with the so called mainstream. Many climatologists, paleontologist, and other scientists have been intentionally excluded from global warming symposiums, debates, etc. If you are truly interested in learning truths about global warming then email me and I would be happy to send you some interesting links that are easily verifiable.

[Brian]

D, why don't you a post another comment with the "many factual articles" Tayor has had published in peer reviewed journals? I bet you won't find many, if any.

Human caused global warming is indeed the scientific consensus. The IPCC conclusions represent that consensus. This is a fact.

If you care to add to the above comment some peer-reviewed articles in reputable scientific journals that find the opposite --that humans aren't contributing to global warming -- I'll be interested to read those articles.

I've never heard of any. I wait for your evidence. Remember: peer-reviewed in reputable scientific journal.

[Sad]

The IPCC conclusions represent that consensus. This is a fact.

"the FACT is they based their conclusions on FALSE DATA"

OMG I bet you watch fox and cnn for the "truth"

[Will]

The climate models that have been used to show global warming have been wrong, completely.the earth has been cooling for 10 years now, according to NASA and the Co2 has been rising? doesn't that tell you that maybe we need to rethink this whole Co2 thing again? Maybe something much more powerful plays a much greater efferct on out climate? OH, yeah, the Sun. the frequency of solar flairs in the ninties was at a high and since the late ninties we've begun to see solar decrease in frequency which directly explains the cooling trend we are having now and that solar flair activity is expected to be at zero by 2015. we've got some cold days ahead of us. This was from Two atmospheric physicist(I don't have their names at the moment.

There is no consensus as many would have you believe, congress has had a petitions sent to them signed by over 3500 scientist from across the US that wants them to stop pushing legislation that incude global warming stuff in it because all of them believe it is not caused by Co2.

If anyone wants to debate some facts go for it but please bring facts to the table and not just the IPPC says so.

The IPPC was put together by government who wants there to be global warming because ther is alot of money and power in it. that cant afford to be wrong or they wont get what they want, more money though taxes and more control over the rest of us.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist, just a farmer with a little physics and meteorology background.

[Nw]

The fact is that the Portland Oregon area set a new record for consecutive days (10) 90 degrees or greater August 3rd:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_080309_weather_hot_stretch_record.a50efae9.html
beating the previous record from 42 years ago of 8 days.
Worst typhoon in 50 years hits Taiwan:
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=22469
Makes me wonder how big of a weather event it will take to shake the true believer global warming deniers: Big chunk of Antarctica ice sheet sliding into the sea raising global sea level? Gulf stream stops operating? (it actually stopped for 10 days in 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/oct/27/science.climatechange)

[Blogger Brian]

Will, global warming is real, and the climate models have accurately predicted the human contribution to it. This is a fact, no matter what you may believe.

Check out various debunkings of global warming deniers on the respected independent PoltiFact site. For example:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/apr/01/cato-institute/cato-institutes-claim-global-warming-disputed-most/

Some say that there hasn't been global warming for the past decade, or even that we have entered into a period of global cooling. As the link above says, this is false.

[LOL@yourscience]

Guess you look pretty silly now

[LOL@yourscience]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html?mod=rss_Today's_Most_Popular

check this out

[Blogger Brian]

LOL, you also need to check this out. The hacked emails show that global warming is real:
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2009/11/climate-research-email-hack-shows-global-warming-is-real-1.html

This is a pathetic smear campaign by people who are anti-scientific and likely are being supported by oil companies. See:
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE5AO4TW20091125

[D.L. Johnson]

Auth: if readers knew about controls on this blog confirmed by the statement: "Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.", I for one would not have read the posts to the end. The proviso suggests information filtering.

[Blogger Brian]

D.L., you're wrong with your suggestion. I filter comments for spam, which I get a lot of, not for content -- so long as the comment is related to the theme of the post. If someone is trying to sell something, their comment doesn't get published. Many newspaper web sites/blogs moderate comments, so this is nothing unusual.

[Malcolm the Climatologist]

Re Brian's statement "This is a pathetic smear campaign by people who are anti-scientific and likely are being supported by oil companies."

I was a true believer of AGW until I saw "Inconvenient Truth". That movie had so many obviously false statements that I had to rethink my beliefs. Thanks to Al Gore, I'm now a "global warming skeptic".

I hope you will tell "the oil companies" my name and address, so they can start supporting me. I could use the assistance.

ROTFLMAO