Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Oregon wants to 'fire' state Climatologist

redguru

New member
Because he doesn't agree that humanity caused Global Warming.

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff
06:09 PM PST on Tuesday, February 6, 2007

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.

Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.

“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.

Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.

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.

“He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist,” Kulongoski said.

Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science.

In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen.

A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter.

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.

The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'"

(KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)
 
another attempt of the liberals to censor people who dont' agree with them...

See snickers bar for example.
 
mightymouse69 said:
another attempt of the liberals to censor people who dont' agree with them...

See snickers bar for example.

Good thing the conservatives call out their own people when they do the same.
 
bluepeter said:
Good thing the conservatives call out their own people when they do the same.

how come you can't argue the point? rather than just defer to the republicans? I didn't bring up republicans? Have you no defense?
 
Oregon also has a 9% State Income tax. jeebus, I left PA because I thought I was getting robbed at 2.5%
 
mightymouse69 said:
how come you can't argue the point? rather than just defer to the republicans? I didn't bring up republicans? Have you no defense?

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
 
redguru said:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.


Thanks for the analysis, I was thinking something like that but couldn't describe quite as nicely as you have. I think we see our society going in bad direction the same way. No real debate anymore, just these silly finger pointing exercises.
 
mightymouse69 said:
how come you can't argue the point? rather than just defer to the republicans? I didn't bring up republicans? Have you no defense?

Your statement didn't attempt to paint this as another case of 'liberals' censoring people who don't agree with them? (which considering the current administrations track record in that regard, has to rank right up there for hilarious statements of the year) You didn't use the word 'liberal' in your post? Which, although it isn't necessarily true, most conservatives use to mean 'Democrat'?

I believe you did, hence my sarcastic response insinuating that you do not call out your own brethren guilty of the same BS. It's called h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

As for my actual opinion, that would depend on who pays this gentlemen's salary.
 
redguru said:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

See my original response to MM as it applies here as well. You and your conservative brethren on here are as guilty of using 'straw man' arguments as any 'liberal' member but it's only a bad thing when utilized by the left.
 
bluepeter said:
Your statement didn't attempt to paint this as another case of 'liberals' censoring people who don't agree with them? (which considering the current administrations track record in that regard, has to rank right up there for hilarious statements of the year) You didn't use the word 'liberal' in your post? Which, although it isn't necessarily true, most conservatives use to mean 'Democrat'?

I believe you did, hence my sarcastic response insinuating that you do not call out your own brethren guilty of the same BS. It's called h-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.

As for my actual opinion, that would depend on who pays this gentlemen's salary.

The State of Oregon pays his salary, but are you going to condone firing him as head of the Climatology department at Oregon State University because he doesn't agree with the premise that Global Warming is predominately caused by man?
 
redguru said:
The State of Oregon pays his salary, but are you going to condone firing him as head of the Climatology department at Oregon State University because he doesn't agree with the premise that Global Warming is predominately caused by man?

Absolutely not, although that's not what I read in that article. If they are indeed trying to fire him, that's wrong on multiple levels. However, I'm reading that they wish to take simply the title from him and bestow it on another position which would be accountable to the governor.
 
bluepeter said:
Absolutely not, although that's not what I read in that article. If they are indeed trying to fire him, that's wrong on multiple levels. However, I'm reading that they wish to take simply the title from him and bestow it on another position which would be accountable to the governor.

Why should he be accountable to the governor? That would be akin to Newton being accountable to the Crown on issues regarding Calculus or Elementary Forces. The title was created by OSU, not by the government and should remain independent of politics.

You're right about not firing him, just wanting to remove the title, BTW.
 
There is not much point in scientific research if you just pay the ones to say what is expedient to your cause.

While I'm a "liberal" and do believe that something needs to be done about global warming, firing a scientist for having a differing opinion is bullshit, as long as he used sound scientific methodology in coming to his conclusions.
 
redguru said:
Why should he be accountable to the governor? That would be akin to Newton being accountable to the Crown on issues regarding Calculus or Elementary Forces. The title was created by OSU, not by the government and should remain independent of politics.

You're right about not firing him, just wanting to remove the title, BTW.

I'm not saying he should be accountable to the governor. What I am reading is that they want OSU to give him a different title than 'state climatologist; because they wish to create a new position by that name who would be appointed by the governor. Which they certainly have every right to do.
 
I see we are getting somewhere once we drop our biases. I think we all agree to let the politicians argue among themselves, but let research speak non-partisan.
 
I work for the State of Oregon, and my wife has as well. I can't even start to tell you how messed up this system is. I do like the fact that our positions are represented by unions. The bad part about it is that seriously incompetent individuals remain employed in positions they should have been fired from along time ago.

I am looking at Oregon State University for their MBA program. It is a highly regarded educational institution around here.
 
Longhorn85 said:
The classic liberal approach to science: stifle dissent.

Dude, you just made me spew strawberry kiwi fruit juice out of my nose at the incredible irony of that statement.
 
Longhorn85 said:
The classic liberal approach to science: stifle dissent.


Yeah, that's definitely a "liberal" tactic. After all, they're the ones making that whole push for creationism to be taken seriously...
 
sardonicone said:
Yeah, that's definitely a "liberal" tactic. After all, they're the ones making that whole push for creationism to be taken seriously...

Not to mention the current admin pressuring scientists to change their research/views/reports on global warming. Let me just pull up the thread the conservatives on this thread started expressing outrage at that. Oh wait.......
 
bluepeter said:
Not to mention the current admin pressuring scientists to change their research/views/reports on global warming. Let me just pull up the thread the conservatives on this thread started expressing outrage at that. Oh wait.......


Idiocy knows no party affiliation.
 
Who cares what a states position is on global warming? This is a national concern.
 
sardonicone said:
Yeah, that's definitely a "liberal" tactic. After all, they're the ones making that whole push for creationism to be taken seriously...
LOL....yep!
 
Dial_tone said:
Who cares what a states position is on global warming? This is a national concern.

National, its by far only a US problem. You all may want to include China in your discussions as potential contributiors.

Lots of america haters on this thread
 
medical said:
As long as it's not Organon firing their head chemist I'm fine.



Where?

I thought "Ganon" was the villian in the Zelda games...


tev_char_ganon.jpg
 
Well obviously he's an idiot. Probably in the pocketbooks of the big corporations.
 
i'd like to think of big corporations as carrying huge wallets, not pocketbooks. sounds too feminine. feminine corporations would be no good. they'd do nothing but sit around and drink tea, discuss their feelings, and maybe stab each other in the...oh wait, never mind.
 
So what we have is a bunch of ass licking democrats attacking a respected scientist to further their own agenda to put a puppet (governor appointed position) into place (who wants to bet that puppet will be a Duck?). Sigh.

The governor is a joke from what my parents say. The whole situation is laughable.
 
Top Bottom