He really did say that -

If you asked me, 5 years ago, to  imagine over 400 people crammed into a room, 50 or so of them standing and told me that they were there to hear about global warming, I would never have believed you.

Not in a million years.  But that is just what I saw at the Global Warming Forum in OMSI's auditorium last night. 400 Oregonians: parents with children, seniors alone, seniors with spouses and grandkids, high school students (perhaps on direct order from one of their teachers), skateboarders, bicyclists, and individuals in business attire... All in one room to listen to two people present information on global warming.

This is what they heard:

1.) Phil Mote explained how global warming is caused by human factors -primarily by adding greenhouse gases to our atmosphere.

2.) George Taylor explaining why he believes global warming doesn't exist, and why as a result  greenhouse gases are not an issue.

1 question from the audience summed up the night:

To paraphrase: If we choose to follow one of these perspectives and we find out in 20 years we chose wrong, which incorrect choice is worse?

George Taylor quietly stated that we would probably be worse off if we chose to believe him and it turned out he was wrong. As this erroneous decision would have caused us to take passive action and make little investments to curb greenhouse gases.

Phil Mote's reponse? 
God, I hope I'm wrong. I really hope I'm wrong. I really, really hope I'm wrong.

I don't know about you, but I can't remember whether I have ever heard a scientist utter those words. "I hope I'm wrong."

Mote later added that when he first got involved in researching global warming he did so out of skepticism.  How could humans, we as these little people that cover this gigantic planet, how could we possibly change the temperature and climate of a planet?

He went on to explain how after years of research from locations all over the world, looking back hundreds and hundreds of years, the overwhelming evidence supports just that.  We are changing our Earth's climate. And doing it at a dangerous rate.

The data is there. George Taylor is now in the MINORITY. 

How much longer can we bet against the house before we realize the odds are against us and we could lose everything we care about?

Comments

[alantex]

When is the O going to stop referring to Taylor as the "Oregon State Climatologist? As they pointed out themselves a day or two ago, the position was abolished by the legislature almost 20 years ago. Taylor apparently uses that title because somebody at OSU gave it to him. Well, I've got news for OSU -- it's not theirs to give!

Why should this drooling idiot get to keep putting out his drivel with what sounds like an official state title?

If the O wants to keep quoting him (instead of, for instance, Jane Lubchenco), then they should make it plain that he is a garden-variety academic whose opinions are at odds with essentially all his peers.

[lin qiao]

Here's a BBC item about the forthcoming new assessment from the IPCC. First bit of the BBC item:

Climatic changes seen around the world are "very likely" to have a human cause, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will conclude.

By "very likely", the IPCC means greater than 90% probability.

This is a stronger position than the global organisation took in its last major report in 2001.

IPCC scientists have yet to finalise other elements - including forecasts of sea level rise - in their report due to be published on Friday.

[jami]

a few months back, opb promoted taylor as a "prominent global warming scientist." when his climate change knowledge amounted to "this one time, there was snow in greenland," i googled him, and i got so mad at opb i was shaking. opb has since changed the word "scientist" to "skeptic" on their description of taylor on the opb web site. i like to think my angry letter played some small part in that.

skepticism has a vital place in both science and politics. but when the data say one thing and corporate-funded skeptics keep saying another, the skeptics lose all claim to the title "scientist" and become empty shills.

[Snoot]

I think the most important questing about global warming is expressed here.
Is it better to do something and be wrong about global warming, or to do nothing and be right about global warming? I think the answer is clear. Seems like common sense to me.
And to Jami, I completely agree with you. People are acting like there is some huge conspiracy to silence the 'skeptics'. But just because there is overwhelming evidence that something is true and that the consequences are scary, doesn't mean that it is nothing more that alarmist left-wig dribble. (I’m glad to hear you wrote the letter you did).
Should we give equal media coverage to people who want to say the earth is flat or the holocaust never happened? Of course not. That just doesn't make sense. If we knew a nuclear bomb was going to be dropped on a major US city, should we play down how devastating it will be in fear of coming across as ‘chicken little’? Probably not.
So why is it that with the issue of global warming, people act like there is some kind of political scheme in play just because the majority of people agree our GHG emissions are responsible for the current warming and the results could be catastrophic?
Also, a lot of people seem to think that it is some kind of luddite anti-growth effort by the ‘extreme greens’ (as Fred Singer puts it) to ask people to cut back on their emissions. I consider myself an environmentalist, and I KNOW that I don’t have some kind of ‘back to the stone age’ mentality. But I do think that we are clearly avoiding advancements in clean technology. To purposely avoid funding and the development of technology that doesn’t steal from the planet in favour of continuing to use a very limited fuel source that we know is bad for the environment is more luddite in my opinion. Also, I find it hard to believe that any major company would willingly want to put themselves out of business. So then why is it that 10 major companies, including General Electric, Alcoa, DuPont and Caterpillar demanded there be mandatory emission caps put on all US businesses? Have the ‘extreme greens’ black mailed them all and made them do this? I seriously doubt it. Why is it that six of Ontario’s larges electricity distribution companies have joined together to form Powerwise (http://powerwise.ca/) to attempt to teach the public to reduce their consumption of energy when their whole business depends on people consuming energy? There’s obviously more to it than just some crazy nut jobs who want to send us back to the stone age and put us all out of business. At this point I’m sure that any member of the public who believes such things just isn’t bothering to use any form of common sense or do any real reading or research on the subject.

[VR]

One thing worth noting, is that most of the things we can do to fight global warming will have a positive impact even if global warming is a myth.

We will have much much cleaner air. We will have cleaner water and healthier forests.

We will have a much more diverse and distributed energy system. We will have many more options for transportation.

We will be less succeptible to any ONE event (terrorism, natural catastrophe, or other).

We will be more adaptable and have a more vibrant economy.

So even if we don't need to save the world, we can still save the world..

Since when is higher efficiency and less pollution a BAD thing? Since when is energy security and diversification a BAD thing?

Why on earth would anyone FIGHT to NOT make more efficient cars and cleaner cities and more reliable power?

I just don't get the opposition.

[Alan Locklear]

"Also, I find it hard to believe that any major company would willingly want to put themselves out of business. So then why is it that 10 major companies, including General Electric, Alcoa, DuPont and Caterpillar demanded there be mandatory emission caps put on all US businesses?"

I'm pretty certain that there are no oil or coal or automobile companies in that list. Therein lies the contradiction. The ruling elite in the U.S. is not monolithic, nor are the economic interests of their corporations. Big changes in transportation, power generation, construction practices, agriculture and other areas of our economy will hurt some economic interests and help others. Those who will be hurt are the ones who fight against the changes that must take place to slow global warming (there is no chance of stopping it at this point).

Unfortunately for all of us, those industries which will be hurt are some of the most powerful and influential in today's America, particularly with BushCo.

Of course, I don't maintain that the corporations who struggle for the status quo are rational, they're just committed to next quarter's bottom line -- proof, yet again, that markets are not capable of successfully operating a modern society.

[Grant]

"This is what they heard...George Taylor explaining why he believes global warming doesn't exist..."

Problem is, he never said that. In fact, one of the first points he made is that global climate is changing, and that no one disputes that, including himself. All he did was question some of the assumptions about the degree of human influence on climate, and how those assumptions are factored into computer models that are the basis for predictions on future changes.

I entered the speech very skeptical of what I assumed his position to be. I was, however, wrong on that assumption, and I think he raised some interesting points that are worthy of further explanation. For example, Dr. Mote's omission of all pre-1940s data from his most recent paper.

Look, I'm all about a healthy skepticism of what is clearly outside the scientific mainstream, but don't blatantly misprepresent what the man said. You make him sound like a Limbaugh or Jim Inhofe, and that is really not fair at all.

[Alan Locklear]

Let's get clear about something:
Anyone who argues that we need not make changes to combat global warming is arguing against the survival of human civilization.

At this juncture, there are only two reasons to argue that global warming does not require our society's fullest attention and willingness to sacrifice.

One reason is ideological: conservatives are aware that the changes we most need to make are things that environmentalists have been urging for the last 35 years. Conservatives can't bear the thought that they might be required to do things that "pinko enviros" agitate for. It's the most hateful kind of contrarianism.

The other reason is pecuniary: changes always gore somebody's ox -- in this case, the oxen which will get gored are some of the most powerful economic interests in this society. Since these interests have a strong interest in preserving the status quo and since public relations campaigns and contributions to right-wing think tanks are tax-deductible, these interests are willing to spend quite a lot of money buying up 2nd- and 3rd-rate academics and journalists and work hard to create the illusion that there is scientific uncertainty about humanity's contribution to global warming.

A person who maintains skepticism about global warming for either of these reasons has a right to his or her opinion and the right to speak his or her mind.

But, we, on the other hand, are not obligated to respect, like, or tolerate the company of such a person. Nor should large daily newspapers or television networks provide them a soapbox from which spew their B.S.

If they want to continue to agitate against our survival, let them buy ads -- they've got plenty of money for that.

[DJ]

Other than Grant, the credibility of the posters on this blog is rather low. Let me clear up some misstatements.

Tresa: You are misrepresenting George Taylor’s position. He DOES believe GW exists. You say, “the data is there’ ...do YOU understand the data? Have you compared the absorptivity data for CO2 to that of H2O? Or do you abdicate responsibility for scientific understanding to the Mommy State and the IPCC?

Alantex: You’re splitting hairs. So what…Taylor’s not Oregon’s State Climatologist, but the Oregon State University Climatologist…both are funded by Salem.

Lin qiao: The IPCC is a UN organization; be skeptical of it’s member’s motivations. Former members have resigned in protest due to its scientifically unsound approach.

Jami: Here, in his own words, is GT’s response to a WWeek report on him: http://www.ocs.orst.edu/page_links/publications/taylor_response.html. Secondly, if corporate funded skeptics are just empty shills, then I presuppose you believe the same of researchers motivated by academia’s publish-or-die pressures or those who frame their grant applications and results in an effort to grab some of the billions of government tax dollars annually expended over claims of looming climate disaster.

Snoot: What if the cure is worse than the disease? What is, after all, the optimal temperature of the planet? Instead of 1C warmer, what would be the implications of a planet 1C cooler? Don’t know? Still want to spend billions on the prescription? …And, you asked why ten major companies would demand emission caps. The answer isn’t altruism – it’s money, YOUR money: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/kstrasselpw/?id=110009578

VR: Everything sounds great there in your land of unicorns and free cotton candy for all. When you awake from your daydream, do a little research on all of those wonderful carbon cap side effects you…something maybe a bit more specific than “much, many, less, and more.”

Alan: Don’t let your hatred for Bush and the corporations cloud your reason. You state, “I'm pretty certain that there are no oil or coal or automobile companies in that list.” You are wrong on all accounts. Duke Energy owns many dirty coal fired power plants. PG&E, FPL, and PNM Resources are also utilities that, like most utilities in the US, own coal fired power plants. British Petroleum is just that, a petro company. And among other things, Caterpillar supplies engines for over the road trucks, recreational vehicles, and recreational boats.

Alan again: You state that there are only two reasons to not give GW society’s fullest attention and sacrifice: ideological reasons and pecuniary reasons. Wrong again. You are wrong because you have let the Mommy State conclude for you that CO2 is the cause for GW. If you knew anything about CO2, it’s location on the IR and LW wavelength spectrum, radiation saturation levels at those same locations on the spectrum – and if you compared this data to the same set of characteristics for H2O – then you’d understand why CO2 matters very little. Because you are blinded by your own leftist ideology, you’ll accept without question the Mommy State misdiagnosis. That means…if GW DOES careen out of control like Al Gore and Phil Mote think it will…but for a reason that George Taylor is still in search of…you will have done zilch to protect human civilization from it.

[Bob Maginnis]

DJ, The 15 micron IR window is not saturated with water vapor, especially at high latitudes and altitudes. Extra CO2 reduces the net radiative heat loss from the surface, resulting a higher equilibrium temperature after the Ocean warms and the glaciers melt. For the others who think GW is a problem, don't settle for McCain Lieberman cap and trade. We need a tax on all fossil fuels and also a war tax for oil, some of which should finance $100 billion per year extra energy efficiency.

[Alan Locklear]

DJ,
You are clearly from the ideologue camp. Your arguments are refuted by 98% of the scientific community and you can only keep up your ridiculous charade because you have turned off your common sense and human feelings.

I won't waste any more of my time arguing with such a preposterous fool.

[DJ]

Bob M: you are correct, across a spectrum from 0 to 30+, there is a narrow window at 15 micron not saturated by water. It is because the window is so narrow and still partially occupied by water that CO2 has a small impact on GW rather than no impact. The narrow band has the effect of creating a logarithmic relationship between CO2 concentration added and corresponding temperature rise. Because a log curve is nearly flat on the temperature axis of the scale, the result is that doubling or quadrupling of atmospheric CO2 produces only a slight rise in atm. temperature. Conclusion: for those who believe in GW, you have NOT found the key driver in CO2. Throwing money at CO2 is like shooting a shotgun at what scares you in the shadows.

Alan - unlike Bob, you severely hurt the credibility of your camp. Your rants are so emotionally ideological, they're almost childlike. By 'defnding' your positions with a personal attack rather than demonstrable evidence, you say more about yourself than I could ever invent.

[VR]

DJ:

If the planet was here, operating just fine *before* the industrial revolution,

How on earth could capping CO2 emmissions made BY MAN in processes that NEVER EXISTED before 300 years ago be a bad thing?

The fact remains that before the industrial revolution, MANKIND put very little CO2 into the atmosphere. After the industrial revolution, we put a LOT of CO2 into the air.

We have the science, we have the technology. Why not make things cleaner and better? Why do we insist on sticking to 100 year old technology?

Your jab about "land of unicorns and free cotton candy for all" just makes you look silly.

The horse and buggy folks fought the introduction of the car because it hurt THEIR industry - but if they had instead started building cars they would have been AHEAD.

The time is now to have companies start investingin clean renewable technology instead of fighting it.

It *will* come, and the companies that see that now will be in the best position to make money off of it in the future.

No cotton candy required.

[DJ]

VR: Like most on this board, you are asking the wrong question. The question isn't as you put, "how could capping CO2 emissions be a bad thing" ...the question is whether capping CO2 emissions will make more than a negligible difference. Because of the relative absorptivity and concentration characteristics between CO2 and H2O, the answer to that question is "no." With this understanding you can then see that capping CO2 emissions does have a downside ...because it diverts the world's attention and resources away from diagnosing and treating the real cause for the GW disease. No different than buying snake oil and expecting it to cure you, when you should have spent that money on seeing a doctor. But alas, you believed the snake oil salesman, and now you're gonna die. See the downside to chasing the wrong cure???

You say the planet was operating "just fine" pre-IR. Really? Just fine for whom? Neanderthal man would beg to differ. There was no famine? No plague? No drought? No species went extinct? No ice ages? No temperature rises that preceded CO2 buildup? I'm sorry, VR, but you make pre-IR days sound like, yes, a unicorn cotton candy fantasyland...and that makes you look silly, not me. If I were given the choice to be alive in pre-IR days, today, or 200 years from today - I certainly wouldn't pick pre-IR days when the planet was operating "just fine."

Lastly, let me address your analogy about the horse and buggy vs. the car. That analogy actually supports those who support a market solution to energy and GW. Don't you see that the automobile prevailed over the horse and buggy DESPITE the H&B lobby efforts to stop them - and it did so WITHOUT gov't assistance??? The automobile succeeded because the market decided its time had come.

[lin qiao]

DJ writes: The IPCC is a UN organization; be skeptical of it’s member’s motivations. Former members have resigned in protest due to its scientifically unsound approach.

OK, nice smear on the UN, but it leaves me cold.

As for the panelists: one of them is a friend, someone I've known through scientific contacts for 20 years, someone who's won awards from the American Geophysical Union, for example. I expect I can get an honest appraisal from him. Meanwhile please tell me precisely what you think is wrong with the IPCC.

[DJ]

Lin qiao: The UN is inneffectual because its 192 member states must reach consensus to achieve goals. Even in cases where the UN Security Council members reach consensus, the UN has a record of failure to execute due to lack of will (consequences/enforcement), lack of resources, and corruption. Examples: Iraq broke 17 resolutions with no consequence, failure to prevent Rwanda genocide, failure to intervene in the Srebrenica massacre, failure to successfully aid starving Somalies leading to the battle of Mogadishu, failure to enforce resolutions to disarm Fatah and Hezbollah, failure to confront Iran on its nuke program, failure to confront genocide in Darfur, bias on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, failure to confront ethnic cleansing in Tibet, and the widespread abuse and corruption uncovered in the UN oil for food program.

By extension, objective non-partisan (as OLCV members call themseves) observers should view the IPCC through the lens of its mother organization, the UN. Like the UN, the IPCC is an intergovernmental organization pre-disposed to reach consensus, regardless of the actual opinions and dissent by voting members, meaning most of its work and conclusions are driven more by politics than science. To hide dissent among its members, the IPCC uses summaries of their work that can misrepresent what many of the scientists say. In some cases entire chapters that don't support the intended summary message are condensed to just a sentence. It also uses language that means different things to scientists and laymen, in an attempt to exploit public ignorance over the subject matter. While the IPCC report is presented as a consensus among hundreds or thousands of scientists, none of them are actually asked if they agree with anything in the report EXCEPT for the chapter/pages they themselves worked on. Further watering down the IPCC's credibility - its emphasis as an intergovernmental agency is to get representation from 100+ countries. Because only a handful of countries do quality climate research, representation by qualified scientists is made a secondary concern.

The IPCC claims its report is peer-reviewed. In true scientific fashion, this would mean a panel of reviewers must accept a study (including an objection/answer process) before it can be published. The IPCC does not do this. Instead, authors are at liberty to ignore criticism, and have their work published "as-is" with the list of reviewers still appearing in the report, feining the appearnace of peer-review approval.

Don't take my word, ask your friend. Be skeptical and seek the truth, the Mommy State is not going to reveal it for you.

[TH]

Excerpts from a 2004 Willamette Week article:

On Jan. 4 of this year [2004], 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."

[Tresa]

This article is from 2005 actually.

[DJ]

In fairness to Taylor, his responses to excerpts from the 2005 WWeek article:
(How prophetic his last comment is in relation to the attacks on him at the OLCV website).

WW: "'There is a valued and much-needed role for skeptics to question the prevailing view," says Philip Mote, Taylor's counterpart in Washington state and a professor at the University of Washington. "Once in a while, the skeptics are right. But there is no debate in the scientific community over whether human-caused global warming is possible or observed. The only way one could come up with that opinion is not being familiar with the scientific literature.'"
Taylor: The issue is not “do humans affect climate?” Clearly there IS a human influence. The question is, “how much?” In my opinion, natural variations dominate the climate system, and will continue to do so. I have NEVER denied the human influence, but unlike Phil Mote I do not believe human impacts dominate the climate system.

WW: 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."
Taylor: Journal articles show that Arctic trends are similar to US trends and Oregon trends: the warmest decade of the last 100 years was the 1930s. In Oregon and the US, the warmest year was 1934. In the Arctic, it was 1937 (references available upon request).

WW: "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.""
Taylor: The fact that humans have a minor effect on climate does not mean “we don’t have to do anything.” There are plenty of reasons to reduce our fossil-fuel use, for example, including air pollution, foreign trade, and high fuel cost. I ride a bicycle to work every day, partly for the exercise and partly to conserve resources. Most of my most vocal critics drive cars. I wish they all rode bicycles!

WW: "Scientists have had to find a different source for their climate data. They turned to tree rings, coral, and boreholes dug deep into ice and soil for information. They added some Fortran code and produced a series of results. Since the year 1000, global temperatures were essentially flat until around 1900. In the past 30 years they have been rocketing skyward. When plotted on a graph, the result looks like a hockey stick lying on the ice, its blade pointing toward the sky."
Taylor: The “hockey stick” graph which appeared in Nature in 1998 and was quickly adopted by the IPCC has been the subject of three scientific journal articles in the last 12 months, all of which have shown that it contains significant errors. There is an interesting blog site by one of the reviewers at www.climateaudit.org.

WW: "Satellite data confirm the results recorded by thermometers on the Earth's surface. They also show that the area of Earth covered by snow has decreased by about 10 percent since the late 1960s. Scientists have documented widespread retreats of glaciers and sea ice, and a serious thinning of the polar ice cap in the Arctic. The oceans are warmer since the 1950s, and sea levels have risen several inches in the past century."
Taylor: This is very common: pick a cool decade (the 1960s) and begin a trend there. Yes, snow cover probably HAS decreased since then. That’s why I prefer to look at a longer record. Granted, we have no satellite data from the 1930s, but a perusal of temperature and snow information shows that the earlier period was significantly warmer and less snowy than the cool 1960s.

WW: "The National Academy of Sciences, the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all agree that humans are forcing global temperatures upward."
Taylor: I am a member of the American Meteorological Society and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist. No one asked my opinion before crafting the Society’s statement. I understand the same is true of the others. And again, the human influence is acknowledged by scientists everywhere; it’s the DEGREE of influence that is being debated.

WW: "It is hard to find a single peer-reviewed journal article that agrees with Taylor's views. A report last December in the journal Science found that of 928 major peer-reviewed academic papers on the subject of climate change, all supported the consensus view that a significant fraction of recent climate change is due to human activities."
Taylor: The report cited has been widely discredited. There are hundreds of journal articles which support my viewpoint (regarding historical trends in climate in the last 100 years) (references available upon request).

WW: "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." "In fact, the report does list most of Taylor's references-among hundreds of others."
Taylor: My review of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was made shortly after its release in November, 2004. I reviewed a very cursory summary, and made my comments based on that summary. A longer report was issued in June, 2005, and I have not published comments on that report, but I was pleased to see that more detail and many additional references had been added. These included most of the journal articles I had listed in my review, so perhaps my review enabled the authors to bring more balance to their report. Perhaps, in a sense, I served as an unofficial peer reviewer.

WW: '"The best explanation I can come up with is, George is very tied into the conservative bent," Coakley added. "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.'"
Taylor: Actually, I get most of my information from peer-reviewed journals, including Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, and Climate Research. The articles I write (including, for example, the Arctic article) are based on journal articles and contain full bibliographies. Admittedly, I seldom give“both sides” of the argument, because the “other side” (the one that suggests that human activities exert a dominant role in the climate system) is well-represented in journals and the media. My goal is to be a voice saying “wait, maybe there’s another side to this. Take a look at THIS data and see what you think. Then let’s talk about it.” Unfortunately, this issue has become such a divisive and angry one that ad hominem attacks have replaced dialogue..

[Snoot]

DJ, I find your description of how the IPCC works interesting. I would definitely be very skeptical of this new report if in fact it was the only study and report that came to the conclusion that our GHG emissions are responsible for the current warming.
It, however, isn't. There are plenty of scientists who are not part of the IPCC who have come up with similar conclusions. Are they all corrupt and in it for the money as well?

I personally have a good friend who does research for the WWF. She knows how the funding works and the mentality of her coworkers. The WWF is actually losing money because of global warming because their climate change campaign pulls money from all their other conservation campaigns. There is no one who works at the WWF who doesn't actually think global warming is real and that we are the cause. They are not milking the 'ignorant' public for money for a cause they know is a hoax or a political scheme.

Not all scientists who have come to the conclusion that our GHG emissions are responsible for this warming are all in it for the money, or just telling the public what they want or want to manipulate the public or economy or government. If that was the case, then how can you be sure that every other campaign isn't doing the same?
How do you decide which group is more corrupt than another? How do you know which group of scientists are in it for the money and which are not? Do you wonder about the credibility of scientists who are funded by oil companies to do research on climate change considering they have the most to lose from us no longer using their product? Doesn’t it seem more likely that they are in it for the money? Doesn’t it seem to make more sense to be skeptical of their motives? I’m still not 100% sure what kind of incredible worldwide plan the crazy environmentalists have or how they managed to corrupt the majority of scientists. I am skeptical, and that doesn’t make any sense to me.

The National Geographic Society, which is one of the largest scientific organizations, believes we are responsible for this warming. Are they corrupt too? If their credibility can so easily be thrown out the window, then is there any hope for believing in the credibility of any scientist or scientific organization? Has science now just become a tool for manipulating public opinion and government policies? If so, then how on earth can you tell which science is solid and which is junk? How can you talk to us like we are all morons just because we happen to believe one body of evidence, while you believe another? You have also accused all of us of not having an original opinion. I'm not sure what it is you want to hear. It sounds like even if something is the truth, just because the majority of people agree with it, it’s them not having an original opinion. If everyone says the sky is blue, that doesn’t mean they don’t have an ‘original opinion’. But if you’re waiting for someone to come along saying the sky is pink before you start listening, that doesn’t mean it’s right, even though it is ‘original’.

The truth is that it has reached the point where I know it doesn't really matter what I, or anyone else who agrees with me says. You and every other skeptic will most likely never change your mind about this issue no matter what information is presented. At every turn skeptics are coming up with reasons as to why we are not responsible and that we are wasting our time trying to change our wasteful life styles. I'm sure that if it reached the point where every scientist in the world agreed we are responsible for this warming, you'd still think there was some plot behind it or hidden agenda. If tomorrow the Bush administration and major oil companies openly admitted to ignoring the problem and have known for years that we were responsible but funded people to create a fake debate, I'm sure you'd think they were pressured into doing by the 'extreme greens', or that they were saying it for some economic benefit. You have to admit that you really have no plan on changing your opinion on the issue no matter what is presented to you. You accuse all of us of being ill informed and just puking out the left wing propaganda that we have been brained washed to believed. I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you were such an expert on the subject. I suppose you have done your own studies on the cause and effects of global warming? If not, then you are doing exactly what we are doing, which is reading information presented to you and deciding what makes the most sense in your opinion. Just because what you have read and what you believe differs from many other people doesn't mean we are all moronic sheep. Just out of curiosity, what WOULD it take for you to change your mind? And please don’t say ‘a sound body of evidence’, because that is pretty much already out there.

[DJ]

Snoot, to answer one of your questions, no, I have not read a single original thought on this board. For a group so passionate, why is there no critical thinking? For example, you find my description of the IPCC ‘interesting’? But you’re just going to leave it at that? No follow up??? Read on about why the IPCC and its intergovernmental affiliates are inherently scientifically flawed.

I am an engineer who has studied physics, fluid dynamics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer. I am NOT a climate scientist, but largely have the tools to critique those who claim to be. I understand that most of the public is not in this same position. For those not trained to take a skeptical view of science itself, it is EVEN MORE IMPORTANT to question the motives of the organizations driving the science. Based on responses so far, we’re talking about most of you on this blog. Sound science from a non-governmental source would be the most effective way to convince myself and others regardless of the findings. Read on to see why.

As public observers, each of us filters information through our own perspectives. Since the 1960’s, the American public has become increasingly savvy politically while at the same time becoming notoriously weak in understanding of math and fundamental science. The result is that most Americans (not all, of course) – both liberal and conservative, on all sides of the GW debate – pass GW related issues through their respective filters and then merely regurgitate on faith the information they are fed that aligns with their perspective. GW deniers (of which I am NOT one) who are scientifically challenged make all kinds of baseless arguments. Scientifically challenged GW proponents do the same. In most cases, on both sides, these arguments and perspective stem from a pre-existing bias or agenda, whether it be the person’s political slant, religious ties, professional/union affiliation, or combination of this and other life experiences…pretty much everything BUT understanding of science.

Because most of the world’s scientific advancement is market driven, in most cases the public is protected from politics and other hidden agendas in the choices we make as consumers. (Those who manipulate free markets are typically exposed and made examples of, Enron just one example). Thus we can make informed decisions to select the best products (i.e.: cell phone, camera, computer) without understanding the science behind how they work. The reason we can do this is because markets harness greed and the competition that results from greed. For the same reason, it is legitimate to have faith that what we read in Consumer Reports or online at CNET will be unbiased, and make consumer choices accordingly. Free market competition between these ‘consumer advisers’ ensures you know they have no agenda but that you be pleased with your purchase and come back to them again next time.

If only we could say the same of governmentally driven initiatives. Unlike the free market’s inherent ability to harness greed and competition to its advantage, most government run initiatives are inherently flawed by the introduction of greed, and are threatened/stifled/hamstrung by competition. Washington politics is the perfect example…it is corrupted by the exchange of money and by the exchange of favors and earmarks, and operates under rules that enable one side to suppress the will of the other (i.e.: the filibuster, the ability to deny up/down vote on nominees, etc.). The closest Washington politics gets to competition is the ugliness of the campaign cycle; once in office it’s back to business as usual. Another example is the public school system. Out of greed and the need to maintain control, public school teacher unions resist merit pay; out of fear of competition teacher unions oppose charter schools. NASA, for all it’s achievements, is still another example… while not blatantly corrupted by greed, its inability to positively harness the power of greed has left its technology lagging compared to the rapidly improving space travel technology resulting from the X Prize Foundation’s spirit of competition and capitalism (see http://www.xprize.org/).

Snoot, this leads to my conclusion and the answer to your question, “How do you decide which group is more corrupt than another?” Conclusion: any human endeavor can contain corrupt elements, but government initiatives by their very nature are far more likely to succumb to greed, stifle competition, and become subject to politics. This makes government an especially poor vehicle for scientific research on subjects that have become controversial. For this reason, so called findings of consensus by IPCC and other governmentally driven studies say very little about the quality of the science behind the study. In fact, for a science in such infancy as climate science currently is (the degree of unknowns and assumptions acknowledged by all sides of the debate is astounding), the claim of consensus at this point in time is actually a RED FLAG signaling the likely illegitimacy of that consensus.

Other contributing factors, examples, and signs that the “consensus” is a ruse:
- GW media darling James Hansen admitted publicly that he thought it was ethical to exaggerate the effects of GW to spur public concern.
- GW scientists identify methane as the most important GHG behind CO2, but almost never mention that since 1984 its atm. concentration growth rate has leveled off and actually gone into decline.
- Al Gore’s movie AIT…basically a summary of the consensus…contains 91 errors and omissions (see http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=411).
- Al Gore’s army of 1,000 slide-show toting messengers who travel the country spreading those 91 pieces of misinformation is comprised of bureaucrats, politicians, and entertainers. Why with so many scientists in consensus, are they not his messengers instead?
- Bill Bradbury recently spoke at my employer’s conference center as one of Gore’s messengers. Among the many errors, he incorrectly portrayed Kilimanjaro’s disappearing snows as the result of CO2 buildup, with no discussion about local land use and local deforestation.
- At the final Q&A when asked why his temp/CO2 slide for the last 650K years shows rises in temp preceding rises in CO2 level, Bradbury said he hadn’t noticed that, and would have to take some time and go back and review that. (Again I ask, why doesn’t Gore have the many scientists on this road show instead? Hmmmm…)
- Unlike real science which leverages multiple points of view, those in the so-called consensus are making ever-more organized and concerted efforts to silence their skeptics. (See http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200701/CUL20070123a.html).
- Speaking of censoring data… To lend legitimacy to its conclusions, the IPCC and other “consensus” studies have re-written the climate record by eliminating the prosperous Medieval Warm Period of the 12th and 13th centuries that had been recognized in climate textbooks for decades and had appeared in earlier IPCC reports. Only by pretending this warm period never happened can they now show the so-called ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph and claim we are living in the hottest period of the last millennium (see http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/StateFear-Deming.htm).
- In true biased media-spin fashion, the editorial board in yesterday's Oregonian tries to draw a parallel between Galileo and those aligned with the IPCC “consensus.” But in fact, anyone who knows the story of Galileo knows that he was a pure scientist and lonely skeptical voice of his day. Because Galileo challenged the consensus position of the scientists who represented the ruling authority (the church) he was systematically discredited and ultimately imprisoned, and his work censored. Like today, governing bodies in the day of Galileo did not embrace competing viewpoints, but feared them, at the expense of good science itself. Since Galileo’s day, science has made great advancements. Meanwhile, human nature is all but unchanged.
- Galileo is quoted as saying: “The conclusions of Natural Science are true and necessary, and the judgment of men (read: consensus) has nothing to do with them.”
- Galileo is further quoted as saying: “The crowd of fools who know nothing is infinite.
- A review of the National Geographic Society (Snoot’s suggestion) shows that they perform no research on climate change, but do issue editorials and stories referencing the work of others, much like general media and the Oregonian.

One last item for you Snoot… you say the WWF is losing money to the current GW initiative. This underscores my point about finite resources. The WWF does great work toward concrete known issues…yet they are being pushed back in line to address the speculation of GW. Doesn’t this alone illustrate to you why chasing the wrong cure can be a bad thing? Again I ask, where is your critical thinking?

[DJ]

An account of Taylor and Mote's appearance at OMSI ("The Great State Climate Debate") can be found at http://www.sosforests.com/?p=455

The above URL also provides links to VIDEO of the entire Mote-Taylor discussion. View it and ask yourself how Tresa@OLVC could have possibly thought she witnessed, "George Taylor explaining why he believes global warming doesn't exist, and why as a result greenhouse gases are not an issue." (Hint: agenda-driven censorship and misrepresentation are alive and well right here on this blog). In fact Mote himself makes it clear from the outset in his opening comments that the two agree on many points including that global average surface temp has increased over the 20th century by 0.6C. and that concentrations of atm. GHG's and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities...

You will also hear the actual answer to the Q&A question (and I quote), "What is the effect if your analysis is wrong and, two, what is the effect if the other speaker’s analysis is wrong?"

I was impressed with the rapport and respect the two men had for the other and for the other's positions.

[Tresa]

Referring to the previous post:

It is true that the BLOG DJ has directed everyone to reads,

"Taylor agreed with Mote that a _small global temperature increase_ has occurred in the last 100 years."

It also adds:

"Taylor *disagreed* that _human activities_ were the primary drivers behind it."

Anyone who is interested in learning more on this issue, should definitely watch the video and listen to both sides; really focus on the data.

While I personally appreciated Taylor's light humor and his willingness to almost draw his own caricature, I made an effort to stay focused on the data as it was presented by Dr. Mote, who earned his PhD in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington in 1994, and that presented by Taylor, who earned his Masters of Science in Meteorology from the University of Utah in 1975.

[DJ]

Tresa, Alantex, Lin Qiao, Jami, Snoot, VR, Alan, and Bob...you could all learn a lot by reading and reflecting on this new article from yesterday:

"Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?"
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Intro:
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

[xanax]

Please one more post about that.I wonder how you got so good. This is really a fascinating blog, lots of stuff that I can get into. One thing I just want to say is that your Blog is so perfect