The Right Parrot for the Job?

Wednesday, February 07, 2007

Via Matt Drudge, Oregon is preparing to fire its state climatologist for doing his job, while Delaware's is facing intense criticism for his stand on global warming. From the first of these articles:

In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.

Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.

...

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.


...

Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies."

Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change. [bold added]
Setting aside whether there should even be such a thing as a "state climatologist", just what the hell is a "consultant" supposed to do? According to Brad Avakian, it is apparently to serve as a yes-man. Global warming is, after all, "so important" that it trumps any evidence or theory to the contrary.

A parrot could qualify for the job of state climatologist by Brad Avakian's standards for scientific debate!

It is bad enough that state funding of science poses the threat to objectivity that it does, but to see open attempts by government officials to dictate what scientists say is a new low.

-- CAV

8 comments:

Sid said...

Ow. So because you don't agree with the majority, you're a liar. That's just what global warming has descended into (though it may actually very well be man-made). You are 100% correct (re your earlier posts on it): the important thing today for scientists is not to promote debate, but to stifle it.

Why does this remind me of the 15th-16th century, and the geocentric view of the Universe? God knows how many people have been burned on the stake for that.

Gus Van Horn said...

It isn't the scientists who are stifling debate -- although some are -- so much as politicians and celebrities, who are vying for the role of "Lysenko".

Having said that, your parallel is better than you think. They're already talking about making violations of environmental regulations prosecutable as crimes (versus merely civil offenses) in the EU.

Inspector said...

"The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals"

Freudian slip, right there. This is his problem: facts are getting in the way of the state's goals of making us Dhimmi to the "environment."

Sid said...

So, it's politicians today = Catholic Church then. Not surprising at all. History repeats itself.

Gus Van Horn said...

Boy! That quote you zeroed in on IS bad, Inspector. The "crow" must be getting to me.

And Sid, the parallel to the Catholic Church is no surprise given that leftism is merely a secularized Christianity....

Inspector said...

Gus,

Haha, "crow."

How many bad things are contained in that Politician's statement?

Many.

Anonymous said...

Gus, where would the U.S. be today if scientific concensus rather than skepeticism and intellectual honesty were the order of the day? If you can find an Imam in a cave near you, he will surely let you know how much the former has helped Islam remain backwardly pure.

Or, you may be curious about something on topic that the New York Times published about 3/4 of a century ago, here:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1930.pdf

Vigilis

Gus Van Horn said...

Good point, if you mean "manufactured consensus".

Interesting link, BTW!