Posted on 02/08/2007 10:36:26 AM PST by Froufrou
The political climate isn't good for scientists with dissenting views on global warming, leaving some researchers to fear that honest research could be blackballed in favor of promoting a "consensus" view.
A dispute erupted this week in Oregon, where Gov. Ted Kulongoski is considering firing the state's climatologist George Taylor, who has said human activity isn't the chief cause of global climate change.
That view is not in line with the state policy of Oregon to reduce "greenhouse gases," which are considered by many researchers to be the chief cause of global warming.
And Taylor is not alone.
Although a recent United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report summary said there is 90 percent confidence that human activity is the main cause of global warming, climatologist are far from unanimous in that view.
"It seems if scientists don't express the views of the political establishment, they will be threatened and that is a discomforting thought," said Alabama state climatologist John Christie, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Christie told Cybercast News Service that while research has not been politicized in his state, he's concerned about others. State climatologists in Virginia and Delaware as well as Oregon have faced scrutiny from state government officials for their views on global warming.
Christie stressed that Taylor and others do not deny that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are problematic to the environment, nor do they deny that global warming exists. Rather, he said, they argue that the matter is not as catastrophic as environmentalists argue.
Environmental groups have argued that global warming skeptics should be ignored or marginalized, but the American Association of State Climatologists urges policymakers to move cautiously when addressing the matter.
"Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible," the AASC says in a policy statement . "The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long term climate future."
The policy statement recommends that "policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climate conditions regardless of future climate."
"Climate is always changing on a variety of time scales and being prepared for the consequences of the variability is a wise policy," it says.
Delaware state climatologist and leading skeptic David R. Legates recently filed a friend of the court brief opposing his state's position in a multi-state lawsuit to force the Bush administration to impose stronger regulations on autos.
The state's Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control objected because Delaware has taken the position that changes are needed to curb the risk of rising sea levels.
In Virginia, Gov. Tim Kaine has sought to distance himself from state climatologist and global warming skeptic Patrick Michaels by noting that he is not a gubernatorial appointee.
But Michaels, a professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia, was appointed in 1980 by then-Gov. John N. Dalton (R), according to press reports. Nonetheless, Kaine insists that Michaels is speaking only as a research professor and not on behalf of the state.
There are 47 state climatologists, each recognized by the director of the National Climatic Data Center, a division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They are typically professors of a state university.
Former Vice President Al Gore - whose film on climate change "An Inconvenient Truth" has been nominated to win an Oscar for best documentary - is the latest global warming proponent to echo allegations that skeptics are offering money to scientists to debunk global warming claims.
But Christie counters that it's the "alarmist" view that is driven by money.
"Follow the money," he said Wednesday. "To justify their funding, they have to show a huge problem."
There should be room for both sides of the argument, says Jan Curtis, a board member of the state climatologists group who works for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Center in Portland, Ore.
"It's a complex issue and we encourage open debate," Curtis said.
He declined to take a position in the global warming debate, but said of the skeptics, "They are concerned about the limited resources and our dependence on foreign fuels. They just believe you don't need the reason of climate change to do common sense things.
"The real issue here is conservation of limited resources as the population grows," Curtis said.
nods
I love how only a week or two after the headlines were filled with dire predictions that 2007 would be the warmest year on record we are now faced with record cold temperatures for the Great Lake States and much of the North East. Along with this comes record snow levels some places reporting up to 8 feet of snow falling over the last couple of weeks. A Freak thing they will say, but little do they remember the President's Day snowstorm of 2003 which capped off the sixth month in a row of below normal temperatures.
Every word so true. And here so many of us are on to them and yet they continue with their [search for word] posturing? Play-acting?
I swear, politicos get more like actors every day. And almost as good/bad.
And those who have expressed skepticism have also had their funds pulled.
Believe me, there are a lot of people driving the hybrids here. They actually have enough power to drag race with loaded dump trucks and city buses. I wonder if any of the leftover hippies ever thought that there are power plants using natural gas, coal or other fuel to recharge the batteries on most of the hybrids.
Another way to waste taxes collected,
no more belly-aching about a budget,
when money is going down the drain like this,
our Troops are at war,
and they want to waste more funds on 'global warming',
time to say, 'CONGRESS, NO WAY', not a cent,
not till every Troop is home.
Thank-you. I couldn't remember if it was he or Copernicus.
Global warming turns people gay (?) (!)
Luckily it was been about 10 degrees here in NY all week, so I no longer have teh ghey.
I bought an '06 Highlander Hybrid in November. I think I've filled the gas tank a dozen times since then.
It has 269 h.p. that will set you back in your seat!
I love that idea!!! All money on the war, since they've been screaming to stop it!
I love that idea!!! All money on the war, since they've been screaming to stop it!
I love that idea!!! All money on the war, since they've been screaming to stop it!
Looks more like global cooling, to me.
You've fallen into the trap of arguing global warming. If climate were naturally stable and unchanging, as some wit recently observed, "Winnipeg would still be under a mile of ice glacier..."
That is not the real issue. We should be arguing about the contribution modern civilization makes, if any, adaptation, and CO2-free energy production, not draconian social engineering by the self appointed elites, or a fascist state to address the neuroses of the ignorant.
Don't forget that 2006 was projected to be a catastrophic hurricane year, much worse than 2005, according to the usual suspects, most of whom have silently removed said predictions from their web site and archives.
But I saved copies, somewhere... I need to find those.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
