fayfreethinkers.com

DAR
I was going to put this at the bottom of some thread with a somewhat related topic but it is just too darn good. George Monbiot beautifully summarizes the upside down world peddled by the global warming deniers. Even if you don't read much on this GW issue, do read this:

There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out

Global warming scientists are under intense pressure to water down findings, and are then accused of silencing their critics

George Monbiot
Tuesday April 10, 2007
The Guardian

The drafting of reports by the world's pre-eminent group of climate scientists is an odd process. For months scientists contributing to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tussle over the evidence. Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus. This means that the panel's reports are conservative - even timid. It also means that they are as trustworthy as a scientific document can be.

Then, when all is settled among the scientists, the politicians sweep in and seek to excise from the summaries anything that threatens their interests.

The scientists fight back, but they always have to make concessions. The report released on Friday, for example, was shorn of the warning that "North America is expected to experience locally severe economic damage, plus substantial ecosystem, social and cultural disruption from climate change related events".

This is the opposite of the story endlessly repeated in the rightwing press: that the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures. In the wacky world of the climate conspiracists no explanations are required. The world's most conservative scientific body has somehow been transformed into a conspiracy of screaming demagogues.

This is just one aspect of a story that is endlessly told the wrong way round. In the Sunday Telegraph and the Daily Mail, in columns by Dominic Lawson, Tom Utley and Janet Daley, the allegation is repeated that climate scientists and environmentalists are trying to "shut down debate". Those who say that man-made global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.

Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example. The closest any of them have been able to get is two letters sent - by the Royal Society and by the US senators Jay Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe - to that delicate flower ExxonMobil, asking that it cease funding lobbyists who deliberately distort climate science. These correspondents had no power to enforce their wishes. They were merely urging Exxon to change its practices. If everyone who urges is a censor, then the comment pages of the newspapers must be closed in the name of free speech.

In a recent interview, Martin Durkin, who made Channel 4's film The Great Global Warming Swindle, claimed he was subject to "invisible censorship". He seems to have forgotten that he had 90 minutes of prime-time television to expound his theory that climate change is a green conspiracy. What did this censorship amount to? Complaints about one of his programmes had been upheld by the Independent Television Commission. It found that "the views of the four complainants, as made clear to the interviewer, had been distorted by selective editing" and that they had been "misled as to the content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part". This, apparently, makes him a martyr.

If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.

the rest here

article wrote:Nothing gets published unless it achieves consensus.

Right - consensus among political appointees. Scientists are pretty much out of the loop when it comes to these IPCC reports. As science, these reports are completely untrustworthy.

article wrote:... the IPCC, in collusion with governments, is conspiring to exaggerate the science. No one explains why governments should seek to amplify their own failures.

The incentive, as explained many times, is that massive government aggression is rationalized by the chicken little alarmist crisis-mongering. People who want "bigger" more powerful government use environmental alarmism as their excuse (now that statist socialism has been discredited as an excuse.)

article wrote:... the allegation is repeated that climate scientists and environmentalists are trying to "shut down debate". ... Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example.

Bullshit.

(CNSNews.com) - 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. (... Global Warming Skeptics Shunned)

article wrote:Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.

The writer of the article is pulling the usual idiotic strawman on his readers here. "No one" disputes that climate change exists. What global warming skeptics disagree with is some part(s) of the following claim: Average global temperature is increasing to catastrophic levels due to manmade greenhouse gasses.

DAR
Perhaps some people don't realize what a poor "news" source the above cited "cnsnew.com" is. It's unfortunate if someone were to be fooled by the junk at this consistently unreliable site. Oh well. Turns out they are just repeating this same line that was given on Tucker Carlson's show, Drudge and Worldnet Daily which are also very poor sources for accurate information (not to suggest that GW deniers are concerned about accurate information).

So lets take a little look at George Taylor, is he really Oregon's "state climatologist?" Is he a climatologist? Not really, on either count. Is he going to be fired from a position he doesn't hold because of a dissenting opinion? Nope. It's just more nonsense and lies from uninformed sources. As usual, roasting it is like taking candy from a baby. At least it does provide an opportunity to teach a little critical thinking to lurkers and that's a good thing.

Lets start here:

***
"George Taylor is an adult, and he should know better. You shouldn't go around calling yourself the "state climatologist" unless you're actually the state's official climatologist.

Here's the thing: The Oregon Legislature abolished the position in 1989. But that hasn't stopped George Taylor, who spouts crazy global-warming-denial BS from his post at Oregon State, from calling himself that.

From the Oregonian:

The governor last week questioned whether Taylor can legitimately call himself state climatologist since the position is not officially authorized in state law. "He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know. He's not my weatherman."

Here's a pic of the fellow with his homemade state climatologist crown:



Continues:

"Please? We can't stop the crazy people from spouting their weird theories, but they shouldn't go around pretending to have titles.

Or maybe I'll just appoint myself the State Blogger. And Lord Protector of the Internet Tubes." link

DAR
But here is the clincher:

***
ThinkProgress is reporting that right-wing bloviators including Matt Drudge and Tucker Carlson have taken their jihad of global warming denial to Oregon. As ThinkProgress details, MSNBC's Carlson wrongly attacked Governor Kulongski for his plans "to fire the Oregon climatologist for his skeptical view of warming." According to Carlson:

"George Taylor, Oregon’s longtime state climatologist, holds a contrary view. Taylor believes global warming is mostly the result of what he calls natural variations, long-term trends that humans can’t control. Among climatologists, this is not considered a crackpot view, but politically in Oregon, it is heresy.

The Democratic governor of that state has announced that he will strip George Taylor of his title for daring to question the causes of global warming. Keep in mind that the governor is not a scientist. He hasn’t cited any dishonesty in Taylor’s scholarship. He just doesn’t think he ought to be allowed to disagree with the conventional wisdom on global warming." --Carlson

As both ThinkProgress and BlueOregon's Kari Chisholm have correctly pointed out:

1. Taylor is not the “state climatologist.” Oregon abolished the position in 1989. He was bestowed the title by Oregon State University, not by Gov. Kulongoski or the state of Oregon.

2. Taylor is not a “climatologist.” Taylor is a meteorologist. He does not possess a PhD or have a background in climatology.

3. He will not be fired. Taylor will not lose his job or income, which comes from Oregon State University. He will merely be stripped of his title, which he never earned but claims to retain. Gov. Kulongoski has the right to appoint a climatologist who is an expert in the field and adheres to the state’s climate policies.

DAR
Simple as 1, 2, 3.

And a little bonus background info on how the poor fellow got so far off the tracks:

***
When one of his colleagues at the OSU College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences was asked about how Taylor has come to hold his uninformed views, Prof. James Coakley said:

"The best explanation I can come up with is, George is very tied into the conservative bent. He gets all his information from the conservative-type think tanks. George picks it up and regurgitates it. Some of the stuff is half-baked at best, but sometimes it's so bad we have to call him on it and write letters to the editor. It's just not right; it just counters all the evidence." link

DAR
More on why it is important to respond to the loons. Note Taylor's basic incompetence and how he writes an inaccurate report on an article which he admits he read only "55 pages of a 140-page summary of the full 1,200-page report." Unbelievable.

***

"On Jan. 4 of this year, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said in a Senate floor speech, "As Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor has shown, Arctic temperatures are actually slightly cooler today than they were in the 1930s. As Dr. Taylor has explained, it's all relative."

Inhofe was wrong on two counts. First, Taylor is not a doctor; he has no Ph.D. (he received his master's in meteorology at the University of Utah in 1975). And second, Taylor is flat-out mistaken. Temperatures in the Arctic have, in fact, reached unprecedented levels, according to an exhaustive study by two international Arctic science organizations published last November that confirmed previous, similar results.

Mote, whose Ph.D. is from the University of Washington, surmises that Taylor is guilty of looking only at data that support his views, while discarding the rest. "You can only come to that conclusion if you handpick the climate records," Mote says.

"You can say whatever you want about a subject, but to defy expert opinion-it's just hard for me to understand approaching a complex subject like this and say, 'I know better than the experts,'" Mote says.

Accuracy about global warming matters, Mote says. By spreading misinformation about the world's most important environmental issue, Taylor can encourage people not only to have doubts about proven science, but to become complacent. "People will conclude it's still uncertain," Mote says, "so we don't have to do anything."

SNIP

Taylor himself has supplemented his government salary with oil money. On Nov. 22, 2004, the ExxonMobil-funded website Tech Central Station (techcentralstation.com-"Where Free Markets Meet Technology") published the 2,300-word article by Taylor that Inhofe had read on the Senate floor. Taylor's article was a review of a report that had shown significant warming in the Arctic. Taylor, who has written seven articles on climate change for Tech Central Station, says he was paid $500 for the review.

The Arctic report said the North Pole is losing its permafrost, and frozen bogs are melting in Alaska and Siberia, spewing vast amounts of methane, another greenhouse gas. Sea ice and glaciers are retreating, temperatures are rising, the growing season is extending and robins are now living above the Arctic Circle for the first time in history.

Taylor's review said the authors of the Arctic study looked at only the last 35 years, ignoring data from the 1930s that show conditions were comparable to those of today. "Why not start the trend there?" he wrote. "Because there is no net warming over the last 65 years?"

It's not clear what report Taylor was reading. In fact, the Arctic study takes into account an entire thousand years and places the Arctic in the context of the entire globe.

Taylor acknowledges he reviewed only 55 pages of a 140-page summary of the full 1,200-page report, yet still found fault with its sourcing. "Oddly, the [report] does a very poor job of documenting its sources of information," Taylor writes. "For such an ambitious document its science consists primarily of blanket statements without any sort of reference or citation."

If Taylor had waited to review the full report (preliminary versions of chapters are posted on the Web; the final version is due in September), he would have noticed the report's detailed documentation and lengthy list of references.

I have an opinion on this issue," says George Taylor. "I'd rather go ahead and express that opinion than shut up because I might offend somebody."

Taylor also complains that the "doom-and-gloom report" failed to consult several studies that he contends disprove Arctic warming. Were any of his favored sources considered by the authors of the report? he asks. "It's hard to say-one can only guess 'no.'"

In fact, the report does list most of Taylor's references-among hundreds of others.

Taylor concludes his article with a snarky little dig: "Nice graphics, but bad science."

Some people would be happier if George Taylor would roll up his own charts and graphs and just go do something else.

"Mr. Taylor has a right to speak his mind, but he does not have the right to use his position as state climatologist to spread disinformation," says Chris Hagerbaumer, a program director at the Oregon Environmental Council. "Like other global-warming deniers, Taylor has never submitted his opinion for peer review by actual climate scientists because those scientists would reject his ideas out of hand."

The state climatologist does not speak for the governor on global warming, says Van't Hof, Kulongoski's sustainability policy advisor. "George Taylor doesn't represent the governor's office, and he doesn't represent the state of Oregon," the aide says. "The governor consistently is in favor of addressing global warming. Global warming is real and is greatly accelerated by human activity."

Taylor's colleagues at Oregon State's College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences have grown frustrated over the years with what they consider his misunderstanding of climate-change facts. On multiple occasions, faculty members found it necessary to correct statements in Taylor's regular "Weather Matters" column in the Corvallis Gazette-Times.

In 2004, a letter to the editor of the Gazette-Times signed by Prof. James Coakley "and all professors of the College of Atmospheric Sciences" said Taylor's statements in the newspaper "misrepresent the widely accepted scientific knowledge concerning the Earth's climate and global warming."

In 1999, another letter to the Corvallis newspaper, signed by six of the college's faculty members, took Taylor to task for dismissing the depletion of the ozone layer as "a rather small problem." Another letter written by a faculty member, the late Jack Dymond, observed, "First with ozone depletion and now with global warming, George Taylor continues to misinterpret the science of some of the most important environmental issues facing the planet."

"He missed his calling as a used-car salesman," Coakley, an expert on clouds, said in an interview with WW. "George is a nice guy, runs his shop pretty well. We're not happy with his pronouncements. They drive us bonkers."

link

Wow! With all the mudslinging about Taylor, the Oregon "state climatologist," many may miss the bottom line: "He was bestowed the title by Oregon State University."

The rest is the usual alarmist ad hominem, e.g. villify the news source, villify the man, question his credentials, claim he's paid off by evil oil firms, etc. Weak.

Hogeye wrote: Wow! With all the mudslinging about Taylor, the Oregon "state climatologist," many may miss the bottom line: "He was bestowed the title by Oregon State University."

Here's the thing: The Oregon Legislature abolished the position [of state climatologist] in 1989. But that hasn't stopped George Taylor, who spouts crazy global-warming-denial BS from his post at Oregon State, from calling himself that.

From the Oregonian:

The governor last week questioned whether Taylor can legitimately call himself state climatologist since the position is not officially authorized in state law. "He's not the state climatologist," the governor said. "I never appointed him. I think I would know. He's not my weatherman."
Of course, it appears that Oregon State has bestowed the title upon him, despite the lack of any statutory authority to do so.

See here.

DOUG
And you overlook the bottom line, Hogeye: the university can't give out such a title. He's a weatherman.

Hogeye wrote:The rest is the usual alarmist ad hominem, e.g. villify the news source, villify the man, question his credentials, claim he's paid off by evil oil firms, etc. Weak.

Villify? Is that what revealing lies is called?

DAR
Jed Clampit used to go around (and perhaps still does) calling himself the "Arkansas State Musician." No one takes it very seriously but at least, he actually is a musician, and I don't know that the governor has specifically and publicly pointed out that he does not have this title (as is the case with George Taylor).

Being the piano technician for the University of Arkansas, perhaps I should be the "Arkansas state piano technician." Maybe I can get a little lapel pin or something (they offered to give me a little web page on the music department site).

Perhaps someday hoggy will stop playing the fool and learn to apply a wee bit of critical thinking to the material he niavely posts from notoriously biased rightwing hack sites. And perhaps someday someone will be able to come up with a cogent, peer-reviewed argument from a qualified, respectable, honest, non-loon personality from the GW denier side that can't be ripped to shreds with 5 minutes of checking.

And perhaps someday pigs will fly.

(The "delicate flower" Exxon (love that) made $40 billion last year. You would think they could buy one.)

Darrel
"State Piano technician"

PS This just in! Three hours ago Belle Goat gave birth to two kids. One white (nanny), one black (billy).

Darrel wrote:PS This just in! Three hours ago Belle Goat gave birth to two kids. One white (nanny), one black (billy).

DOUG
Make them the state goats!

DOUG
Make them the state goats!

DAR
Okay, but their main task is to be our freethinker scape goats, accept sins and teach people about atonement theory.

And I think I made a boo regarding their gender. I think they are both nannies. But I am the state piano tooner, not the State Goat Farmer so the mistake is understandable (and their bits are really small).

D.
"State Piano Technician"

Doug wrote:Villify? Is that what revealing lies is called?

There is no evidence whatsoever that Taylor lied. Saying he lied is drawing an unfounded conclusion from 4th generation reporting. Note that, in all Darrel's diatribe, he didn't quote the alleged lie. In all likelihood, Taylor wrote something like I'm an Oregon State (University) climatologist. This is no more remarkable than an agronomy prof at OSU saying that he's an Oklahoma State agronomist, or the basketball coach at ASU saying he's the Arkansas State coach. Darrel may call himself the Arkansas State piano-tuner, if he tunes the pianos at Arkansas State University. [Added edit:] "State Climatologist" is a title given by the American Association of State Climatologists. Taylor is in fact the Oregon State Climatologist. Here is Taylor's response to the nonsense that Darrel brought up above.[end edit]

About the term "climatologist:" this refers to anyone who worked in this field, from Ben Franklin to Michael Mann to George Taylor to Tim Ball. It is a rather loose term, like "environmentalist." Darrel, and now you Doug, portray anyone without a degree specifically in "climatology" as unfit to listen to. This is wrong; by that standard Michael Mann is no climatologist. His degrees are in geology and physics. Now he's in the Department of Meteorology at Penn St. Does that make him a mere "weatherman?" The fact is that climatology encompasses parts of meteorology, geology, physics, chemistry, astronomy, statistics, and other fields.

Rising up a level, whatever Taylor happens to call himself, that of course has no relevance to the truth value of his claims about the climate.

And finally back to the topic: Taylor was just one example of someone getting ad hom slimed for bucking the PC alarmist view. Cf: Bjorn Lomborg author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist, or RealClimate ad hom tirades against Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon, Ross McKittrick, Steven McIntyre, and so on. My point #3 holds. Here were my points about the topic article "There is climate change censorship - and it's the deniers who dish it out," just to refresh everyone's memory after the red herring.

1) Contra the article writer, the IPCC reports are political in nature, and not scientific consensus as claimed in the article. Even IPCC's own page admits that political hack get the last crack at interpretation and write the reports.

2) The article writer admits that he has no clue about why governments would engage in alarmism. Even Darrel, our resident alarmist, understands why: People with a bias toward big government have a bias toward believing in crises which would justify bigger government.

3) Contra the article writer, skeptics of imminent catastrophic GW are smeared and villified by the PC crowd. If you want examples of argumentum ad hominem, here is a rich field.

4) The article writer claims that deniers deny that climate change is occurring. Yet, as we have seen in "denier" films like "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled" and the more recent "The Great Global Warming Swindle," deniers totally agree that climate changes occurs and has always occurred. All but a handful agree that global warming occurred in the late 20th century. The article writer is trying to pull off a cheap, misleading strawman.

DAR
Lets recap. Monbiot asserts in his article:

"Those who say that man-made global warming is not taking place, they claim, are being censored.
Something is missing from their accusations: a single valid example."

Hogeye dilgently searches the world over to find the best example he can of a GW denier being censored. He props up Mr. Taylor, who he claims (via citation) to be a climatologist, Oregon's State Climatologist, and a fellow endanger of being fired for holding contrarian GW views. This was his first and best example (still is BTW).
Only problem is, hilariously, Taylor is:

not a climatologist,

not Oregon's State Climatologist (Governor says so and Taylor knows it),

not even in danger of being fired.

Wrong on all three counts.

A couple points. I never asserted Taylor lied, although now after reading some of his responses at the links provided, he must either be a liar or severely deluded/incompetent. Does it matter which? Does it really matter if creationists are lying, deluded or intellectually dishonest? What is important is that they are profoundly incorrect.

Some quick howlers:

"This is no more remarkable than an agronomy prof at OSU saying that he's an Oklahoma State agronomist."

This confuses "an" with "the." Standard switch. Completely dishonest. Nice try.

"Darrel may call himself the Arkansas State piano-tuner, if he tunes the pianos at Arkansas State University."

It's really unfortunate when a person is so dull they fail to understand when they are being made fun of. At least others will get it. Notice the switch back to "the."

"State Climatologist" is a title given by the American Association of State Climatologists."

Unfortunately the link doesn't show that Taylor has received this. Not that it matters. Many people receive the title of "member" of the Piano Technicians Guild who don't work on pianos or know anything about working on pianos (salespersons, wives etc). Being a member of the AASC does not make one a climatologist. Anyone familiar with how such clubs/groups/guilds operate knows this. Often, you pay your dues, you're in.

"Taylor is in fact the Oregon State Climatologist."

You will have to do a little better than mere assertion. Here are a few reasons why he is not:

a) The governor (Ozarkian translation: "ruler") says he isn't.
b) The position of "Oregon State Climatologist" was abolished in 1989
c) He isn't a climatologist

Here is Taylor's response to the nonsense that Darrel brought up above.

I actually wasted some time reading that. It responds to very little of what I brought up and, as expected, is filled with howlers, some so ridiculous and dishonest they can't be dismissed as simply ignorance. I would definitely put Taylor in the liar column now. If anyone (except hogeye) has an interest in me giving a thorough debunk of Taylor's response I will do it. Nothing could be easier. But I doubt anyone is interested in another roast of another clueless dishonest underqualified GW denier. The GW denier community desperately needs someone who can do good science and behave honestly. There are a few, but they aren't loons, and thus don't over state their case, so they don't get quoted around here it seems.

About the term "climatologist:" this refers to anyone who worked in this field, from Ben Franklin to Michael Mann to George Taylor to Tim Ball. It is a rather loose term, like "environmentalist."

And we get the inevitable redefinition game. Define the word climatologist so loosely that it includes anyone making observations about the weather. As is well known, Michael Mann has probably the most extensive and documented expertise in climatology as anyone. I look at a list of his Refereed Journal Articles and count 72. I look at a list of "Other Reviewed/Edited Contributions" and count 26. His Curriculum Vitae spans 21 pages in Word. This man does not watch TV. Looks like he has about 19 graduate students, mostly working on Ph. D.'s. Probably most of them will be qualified "climatologists" when they are done (maybe one of them will stray over to the doubting side, even Steven Jay Gould had a doctorate student graduate with a Ph.D. who was a young earth creationist). Perhaps Mr. Taylor should consider becoming a student of Mann and obtain an advanced degree. Then if he were to go to the trouble to publish something on this topic for peer-review, other experts would and should give it good consideration. Maybe then if Oregon re-opened the position of "State Climatologist" he could apply.

Tim Ball is a climatologist but he is a loon, hasn't published in over a decade, and misrepresents his resume. Incidentally, our local Pat Briney is a micro-Biologist (Ph.D.) but is unemployable in this field because of his flat earth misunderstandings of biology (due to a mental infection brought on by xtian fundamentalism).

D & D portray anyone without a degree specifically in "climatology" as unfit to listen to.

One can listen, and then rebutt and snicker if appropriate. Almost without exception the people put forward around here are not only unqualified, they have material and ideas that would and should get them laughed out of a climatology conference. Most of the time it is the equvialent of a creationist lecturing at a biology conference. Evangelical "scholars" grew tired of having their idiotic and impossible fundie beliefs laughed at at the real conferences put together by real scholars, so they started their own pseudo-scholar conferences. And predictably, to participate you have to sign an oath saying you believe in biblical inerrancy and all sorts of BS before you can even join. That's not scholarship, it's the opposite of scholarship, and the unreviewed claims put forward by your standard tribe of unqualified misfits, including but not limited to: "Bjorn Lomborg, Ross McKittrick, Steven McIntyre, George Taylor, John Daly, Robinson" is not science, it's the opposite of science.

Taylor was just one example of someone getting ad hom slimed for bucking the PC alarmist view.

Obviously it isn't "getting ad hom slimed" to point out that your claim that he was threatened with being fired, was false. Also, the claims about his qualifications were false. Try again.

skeptics of imminent catastrophic GW are smeared and villified by the PC crowd.

Actually the claim in question was are they being "censored." And as Monbiot pointed out, no one has yet provided a single, valid, example. Georgie Taylor was tried and you made a big belly flop.

You repeatedly make the charge that the award winning, non-political climatology site run by real climatoligists realclimate, smears and villifies the skeptics. Readers should note that you have never, not once, provided a single, valid, example.

It is not vilification or smearing to point out a lack of qualifications (in a very specialized area of science), lack of published peer-reviewed material backing up claims and lack of basic honesty of the few who are still in denial about human caused GW.
Two years ago I didn't know diddly squat about the GW issue and was objective as could be. Didn't care either way. I have been reading skeptic mags and general debunking material for about 13 years which requires examining the claims of all sorts of minority or religious groups like psychics, creationists, fundies etc. Having read a lot on this issue now I can easily say that this group of GW deniers are as blatantly and consistently intellectually dishonest as any psychic, creationist or fundie. That's a broad brush for sure, and catches the few honest ones, but unfortuntely the few honest ones are completely drowned out by the loon's and charlatans. I sincerely wish it wasn't the case and if ever a good GW denier argument pops up I will gladly change my position.

D.

Darrel repeats some claims that I've already refuted. Perhaps he's not even reading the replies. Repeating: "Climatologist" is a loose term. If George Taylor isn't a climatologist, then neither is Michael Mann. His second point is simply false. If he'd read the last message he would know that the governor of Oregon has absolutely nothing to do with the title "Oregon state climatologist." It comes from the American Association of State Climatologists. The gov is irrelevant.

Darrel's third point, that Taylor is "not even in danger of being fired," may be correct. Certainly the gov would like to take the title away from Taylor. From this article:

Today state Senator Brad Avakian phoned me after I’d emailed him some questions about the Oregonian story. Avakian has been working on legislation that would allow the governor to appoint an official state climatologist.

Luckily, it's up to the AASC and not the Oregon government, so there's really nothing they can do about it.

Apparently Darrel doesn't dispute my other three points about the article.

DAR
Competely non-responsive, borderline incoherent. Let's simplify some more. George Taylor is being provided as supposedly the best example of what Monbiot asked for: a GW skeptic that is being censored (Monbiot provided many well known examples of bona fide climatologists being directly censored by government at the highest level).

Back up your claim that Taylor has been censored.

Regarding the incidental:
"governor of Oregon has absolutely nothing to do with the title "Oregon state climatologist." It comes from the American Association of State Climatologists."

Show where the AASC has deemed Taylor "The Oregon State Climatologist"

If hoggy wants to get proper instruction on the specifics he should avoid the debating tactic of being vague, such as:

"Darrel repeats some claims" and Darrel doesn't dispute my other three points

One distortion I almost missed:

"Now he's [Mann] in the Department of Meteorology at Penn St.

I'll expand on that a little. He is the:

Director, Earth System Science Center (ESSC), Pennsylvania State University

And:
Associate Professor, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Meteorology [joint appoint-ments in Department of Geosciences and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute (EESI)]

As the page notes:

"Welcome to the ESSC Webpage...
Founded within the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences in 1986, the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) maintains a mission to describe, model, and understand the Earth's climate system."

His Primary Research Interests:

"(1) Climate signal detection and climate change attribution; (2) Statistical and time series analysis methods; (3) High-resolution paleoclimate reconstruction; (4) Study of forced and internal variability in coupled ocean-atmosphere models; and model/data intercomparison; (5) Coupled ocean-atmosphere modeling; (6) Use of climate scenarios to drive process-oriented models of geophysical phenomena"

DAR
Reasonable people will understand that this level of expertise and speciality differs substantially from a "meterologist" who waves his arms in front of a green screen on the evening news, or someone who participated in the level of science that existed during the time of Ben Franklin (1706-1790), or someone such as Georgie Taylor who has published precisely nothing regarding global climatology.

D.
----------------------------
ps Turns out my two new baby goats are both billy goats. Seems I know about as much about being a goat farmer as most of these GW deniers know about climatology.

Darrel wrote:Back up your claim that Taylor has been censored.

I never made any such claim. My opinion is that neither skeptics nor alarmists have been censored. Censorship is initiation of force (usually by government) preventing communication that someone is entitled to make. Simply declining to fund someone's speech is no more censorship than declining to let someone give a lecture in your living room. Monibot in his article doesn't get this - he conflates censorship with non-aggressive attempts to reduce opposing publicity - or "shut down debate" as Monibot put it.

Darrel, apparently you misunderstood my claim. I simply disagreed with Monibot when he asserted that there were no examples of skeptic opinions being "shut down." The George Taylor example was just one of many - the first that popped up on a search - hardly "the best example" or the only example. Monibot (ironically, since it disproves his own point) gives us a good example: The IPCC report writers stifled the opinions of scientists, both skeptics and alarmists. (Some of the skeptic IPCC scientists are interviewed in the documentaries mentioned earlier.) But Monibot's observation of the political nature of the IPCC reports agrees with what I've been saying all along. BTW it is ludicrous to call the IPCC reports "peer reviewed." Political operatives are not peers of scientists; politically-inspired editing of reports doesn't count as peer review. Calling the IPCC reports "scientific studies" is an insult to scientists.

Darrel wrote:Show where the AASC has deemed Taylor "The Oregon State Climatologist"

You have to be able to put 2 and 2 together here. From the AASC about page:

AASC wrote:State Climatologists are individuals who have been identified by a state entity as the state's climatologist and who are also recognized by the Director of the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as the state climatologist of a particular state.

Now go to the popup menu on any of the AASC pages and select "Oregon." Voila! George Taylor's mugshot with designation "State Climatologist" on AASC's Oregon page.

Darrel wrote:If hoggy wants to get proper instruction on the specifics he should avoid the debating tactic of being vague, such as: "Darrel repeats some claims" ...

Hardly vague, since I listed the claims immediately after the quote you give:

Hogeye wrote:Repeating: "Climatologist" is a loose term. If George Taylor isn't a climatologist, then neither is Michael Mann. His second point is simply false. If he'd read the last message he would know that the governor of Oregon has absolutely nothing to do with the title "Oregon state climatologist." It comes from the American Association of State Climatologists.

Darrel wrote:... and "Darrel doesn't dispute my other three points."

Again, quite mysterious, since I clearly listed and numbered my points in the previous message. To wit:

Hogeye wrote:1) Contra the article writer, the IPCC reports are political in nature, and not scientific consensus as claimed in the article. Even IPCC's own page admits that political hack get the last crack at interpretation and write the reports.

2) The article writer admits that he has no clue about why governments would engage in alarmism. Even Darrel, our resident alarmist, understands why: People with a bias toward big government have a bias toward believing in crises which would justify bigger government.

3) Contra the article writer, skeptics of imminent catastrophic GW are smeared and villified by the PC crowd. If you want examples of argumentum ad hominem, here is a rich field.

4) The article writer claims that deniers deny that climate change is occurring. Yet, as we have seen in "denier" films like "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled" and the more recent "The Great Global Warming Swindle," deniers totally agree that climate changes occurs and has always occurred. All but a handful agree that global warming occurred in the late 20th century. The article writer is trying to pull off a cheap, misleading strawman.

Strangely and unnecessarily, Darrel gives Mann's resume, supporting my opinion that Mann is a climatologist. I think Darrel wished to support his claim that Mann is a climatologist but Taylor is not. To convince anyone of this, Darrel would need to 1) define "climatologist," and 2) show that Mann qualifies but Taylor doesn't. Simply spewing data about Mann doesn't hack it.

Hogeye wrote:

Darrel wrote:Back up your claim that Taylor has been censored.

I never made any such claim.

DAR
I didn't think you could back it up.

My opinion is that neither skeptics nor alarmists have been censored.

DAR
Apparently you didn't read the article you trying to respond to. Not a good idea.

Censorship is initiation of force (usually by government) preventing communication that someone is entitled to make.

DAR
Gee, my dictionary has:

1. an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.

Simply declining to fund someone's speech is no more censorship than declining to let someone give a lecture in your living room.

DAR
Good, so if you are removed from this forum, you won't think that is censorship?

Monbiot's gives a few well known examples of censorship in his article which I didn't directly quote. It is easy to see that they are in line with the standard definition given above. Let's look at them now:

***
If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.

The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints. 1. “Pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming’, or other similar terms” from their communications. 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors which “changed the meaning of scientific findings”. 3. Statements by officials at their agencies which misrepresented their findings. 4. “The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate”. 5. “New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work”. 6. “Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings.” They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years(9).

In 2003, the White House gutted the climate change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency(10). It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, which suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.

After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station to tell the programme that Knutson was “too tired” to conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the “White House said no”. All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes(11).

Last year the top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by public relations officials at the agency that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases(12).

Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US Fish and Wildlife Service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand “the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues.”(13)

At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former aide to White House who was previously working at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration(14). Though he is not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming(15).

LINK

www.monbiot.com

References:

9. Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, February 2007. Atmosphere of Pressure: Political Interference in Federal Climate Science. http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/ ... essure.pdf

10. Andrew Revkin and Katharine Seelye, 19th June 2003. Report by the E.P.A. Leaves Out Data on Climate Change. The New York Times.

11. Union of Concerned Scientists and Government Accountability Project, ibid.

12. Andrew Revkin, 29th January 2006. Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him. The New York Times.

13. Andrew Revkin, 8th March 2007. Memos Tell Officials How to Discuss Climate. The New York Times.

14. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 19th March 2007. Committee Examines Political Interference with Climate Science. http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1214

15. Andrew Revkin, 8th June 2005. Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming. The New York Times.
***

DAR
So hoggy, want to revise your statement: "My opinion is that neither skeptics nor alarmists have been censored."

I didn't read the rest. Off to work.

D.

Your definition is for "censor" rather than "censorship," but it'll do. Note the word "official" in the definition you give. This seems to be distinguishing from an owner. The word "suppressing" also implies lack of entitlement. When the owner of a radio station, or the editor of a newspaper, decides to omit content, he is editing, not censoring. There is a difference between editing and censoring - entitlement to be precise. Editing involves rightful control of your radio station, newspaper, or living room, while censorship involves an initiation of force over someone elses property.

If I am removed from this forum by the owner, it is not censorship. If I am removed due to an FBI or Homeland Security or Mafia threat or outright force, it is censorship. Get it? Let's try your examples.

Monbiot wrote:Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.

If they were threatened by an initiation of force, then it is censorship. If they were only threatened by e.g. firing, then it is not censorship. Don Imus was not censored.

Monbiot wrote:The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints. ...

It's not censorship if someone declines to pay for publication, or an employer sets criteria or standards. These scientists are free to quit, self-publish or find a magazine or newsletter that consents to publish their stuff, or put it up on their own web pages, or whatever. Clearly Monibot doesn't understand what censorship is. All he gives in the stuff you quote is govt declining to subsidize their speech. There is no right to be subsidized!

I have yet to see a single example of censorship of alarmists or skeptics.