More on George Taylor

There was a post on George Taylor at a site affiliated with the University of Colorado, Prometheus, Should A Scientific Advisor be Evaluated According to Political Criteria?. Now the answer to that is obviously no. I left the following comment:

The title "State Climatologist" was a title given to him by Oregon State University and himself. He was never the State Climatologist, Oregon has no such thing. By taking that title he gives the impression he is speaking for the government and people of Oregon - he is not.

The author responded:

Ron- Thanks. It is actually a bit more complicated than you suggest -- the "State Climatologist" is a federal designation under NOAA, see:

http://www.stateclimate.org/arsco/
But to keep this on point. According to the Governor's own comments cited above, this is not about George Taylor's qualifications or federal-state turf. It is, in the governor's own words, about Mr. Taylor's taking a position that differs from that of the governor.

OK, I guess the governor can't fire him anyway if it's not even a state position. I found this on the AASC (American Association of State Climatologists) site linked above.

The individual holding the directorship of the ARSCO, usually the State Climatologist, must also be qualified in terms of education and experience. The individual should also have the desire and the "heart" to serve his/her state's need for climatological data and information. The individual should be a willing advocate on behalf of the ARSCO and the other partners. The individual must be able to devote an appropriate amount of time to make the ARSCO successful.

Still nothing on who designated George Taylor the State Climatologist. The author indicated that this was a NOAA designation although I could find no evidence of this at the NOAA site. So the question remains who made George Taylor the "State Climatologist".

That said it appears that the AASC has nothing to do with the state of Oregon and perhaps it would be best to leave it up to the national organization to address the issue of George Taylor's science or lack of it and simply make it clear that he is not speaking for the state of Oregon or it's citizens.

No, George Taylor is not being fired.....

....he never had the job.
The headline at Newsbusters reads:
Oregon Governor Set To Fire State Climatologist Over Global Warming
It's in response to this story from Portland's KGW.
Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff

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.

But does he hold that title?

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

That's right he was appointed not by the state but by Oregon State University. As I reported here Taylor's title gives him credibility that "climatologists" from the EXXON financed American Enterprise Institute would not have making him more dangerous. If the state is going to have a State Climatologist it only makes sense the position should be filled by the Governor or legislature not Oregon State University. So George Taylor is not being fired only losing a title he had to right to in the first place.

Update above

What's Wrong With This Picture?

The eco friendly blue state of Oregon has a state climatologist, George Taylor . Mr Taylor is an ex-hippie vegetarian who rides a bicycle to work. No surprises so far. Now for the surprise; "Taylor is one of the leading circuit riders for the church of Global Warming Ain't Happening."

His views have been read on the floor of the U.S. Senate and, most recently, influenced global-warming bills in Salem. In the past, he also has tried to undermine global-warming legislation in Canada.

"Look, it's not that complicated," says Taylor, who, as head of the Oregon Climate Service at OSU, is known as the state climatologist. "It's not clear that we are seeing unprecedented warming, and it's definitely untrue that any warming trend can be assigned to human activities. Natural variations in climate are much more significant than any human activities."

A bad scientist with credibility
Taylor is considered a very dangerous man because he has more credibility as the climatologist from Oregon than scientists working for Exxon-Mobile. When he talks bad science people listen.

Taylor's position as the leading climate expert in Oregon, a state with a national environmental reputation, has given ammo to those who are hostile to the idea that the earth is warming up. 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.

Bad Science
It would appear that Taylor is guilty of cherry picking data.

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.

A dangerous man indeed.

Update (02-07-2007)
The latest on George Taylor here.