Friday, February 20, 2009
Politicizing science from the left: The dissenting state climatologists
Thursday evening I enjoyed the pleasure of an off-the-record dinner conversation with a leading "skeptic" of anthropogenic global warming. He talked at length about the political pressure that is brought to bear against scientists who have openly broken with the "consensus" promulgated by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Al Gore, and other putative authorities on the subject. The talk reminded me of the preface to the excellent book Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know
At the end of June 2009, I will be leaving the University of Virginia, as fine a public school as there is in the world. The university cannot guarantee me both academic freedom and a full salary from the Commonwealth of Virginia. My faculty position was "Research Professor and State Climatologist, Department of Environmental Sciences." My salary was paid in its large majority by a separate line in the university's budget, labeled "State Climatology Office," itself a part of the overall budget for the Commonwealth of Virginia.
I was appointed Virginia State Climatologist on July 7, 1980. Like most other State Climatologists, I was faculty at a major public institution, and the appointment was without term, although the faculty position itself was without academic tenure. It was nonetheless subject to the same review process (without teaching duties) for promotion to associate and then to full professor.
I served Republican and Democratic administrations. I met all the Virginia governors. I really liked Republican Governor George Allen. I told Governor Jim Gilmore, also a Republican, how fortunate I was to be able to speak the truth on climate change, even as it was becoming politically unpopular. I was incredibly impressed by the professional staff that served Democrat Mark Warner. His staff members were as good as or better than many federal staffers I have worked with.
Given the political nature of climate change, it was only a matter of time until some governor went after his State Climatologist. I'll be happy to say I brought it on myself. I'm articulate, chatty, and, thanks to the Cato Institute, have great access to TV, radio, and major news outlets. I fully used my privileges as a University of Virginia faculty member, which included the right to consult for whomever I wanted without jeopardizing my position or the academic freedom that went with it.
Which meant, of course, consulting for entities ranging from the Environmental Protection Agency to power producers with a dog in the global warming hunt. One of those was Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a small Colorado utility. When my work for them became public knowledge, Virginia Governor Timothy Kaine told me not to speak as State Climatologist when it came to global warming. If the State Climatologist is a political appointment, that's his call. If it is a lifetime honorific, it's not. But regardless of which of those it is, almost all my university salary was contingent upon my being State Climatologist.
The University of Virginia valiantly, if clumsily, attempted to paper this over. All of a sudden, I was told I should no longer refer to myself as Virginia State Climatologist. Instead, I should cite my seal of certification as Director of the Virginia Stat Climatology Office, given by the American Association of State Climatologists (AASC). The position of State Climatologist had apparently become a political appointment.
I wasn't asked to do the impossible, merely the impossibly awkward. The University of Virginia Provost wrote to me:You should refer to yourself as the "AASC-designated state climatologist" and your office as the "AASC-designated State Climatology Office," or if you prefer, "AASC-designated State Climatology Office at the University of Virginia." I recognize that the titles may be awkward but the message from the Governor's Office was very clear about what they expected.
Needless to say, this quickly became unworkable. Newspaper editors wouldn't suffer such encumbering verbiage, it didn't fit on a TV Chiron, and making a disclaimer every time I spoke, about climate that my views didn't reflect those of the Commonwealth of Virginia or the University of Virginia (despite their being correct!) would never fit a sound bite. So I had the choice of speaking on global warming and having my salary line terminated, or leaving.
Other State Climatologists soon had similar difficulties. George Taylor at Oregon State University, who is very popular with the AASC (and the only person ever elected to consecutive terms as president), was told that he was simply not to speak on global warming. Having read the playbook established by Governor Kaine in Virginia, Governor Ted Kulongoski (D) told Portland's KGW-TV that "Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases."
Taylor had long questioned glib statements about a 50 percent decline in Pacific Northwest snowpack, which were being made by climate alarmists worldwide. The 50 percent figure is only part of the story. That figure accrues if one starts with the data in 1950 and ends in the mid-1990s. If one uses the entire set of snowpack data (1915-2004), a different picture emerges [Figure omitted]. Taylor was told to shut up as State Climatologist even though he was merely telling the truth.
Taylor resigned his Oregon State University position in February 2008.
David Legates, at the University of Delaware, was told by Governor Ruth Ann Minner (D) that he could no longer speak on global warming as State Climatologist. His faculty position is a regular tenured line in the geography department. He's free, as State Climatologist, to say anything about the weather, so long as there's no political implication. Unfortunately, as most State Climatologists will attest, most reporters specifically ask whether this or that unusual storm or unusually hot (or cold!) day is related to global warming. Scientists who refuse to answer that question don't get return calls.
Minner was upset because Legates was an author of an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court (Baliunas et al) in its first global warming-related case, Massachusetts v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Baliunas et al. sided with the federal government (namely the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]), which maintained that it was not required to issue regulations reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Justice Antonin Scalia cited Baliunas et al. in his dissent, as the court voted 5-4 that it was within the EPA's purview to propose and then enforce carbon dioxide limitations.
So Legates stopped speaking about global warming as Delaware's State Climatologist.
Out West, things got even uglier. The Assistant State Climatologist for Washington, Mark Albright, was fired because, despite his boss's orders, he refused to stop e-mailing -- to journalists, to inquiring citizens, to anyone -- the entire snowfall record for the Cascade Mountains rather than the cherry-picked one. For e-mailing that record, the assistant state climatologist in Washington lost his job.
What had started with Oregon's George Taylor had migrated across the Columbia River.
State Climatologist Phil Mote terminated Albright. Both positions were in the University of Washington's atmospheric science department, one of the world's best. A senior member of that department, Professor Clifford Mass, commented, "In all my years of doing science, I've never seen this sort of gag-order approach to doing science."
What is so scary that some governors don't want you to know it?
Apparently it is this: The world is not coming to an end because of global warming. Further, we don't really have the means to significantly alter the temperature trajectory of the planet. All of this will be spelled out in considerable detail within the rest of this book.
Imagine the outrage if Republicans had done these things, and remember these men the next time you are pinned to the wall at a cocktail party by some liberal whining that the Bush administration politicized science in some unique way.
Read the whole thing
.20 Comments:
By 
, at
Sat Feb 21, 12:30:00 AM:
If you'd like to view more lies by Al Gore and friends, please join us for Global Warming Theater:
http://www.hootervillegazette.com/Videos.html
By , at
Sat Feb 21, 08:09:00 AM:
As a rule of thumb, any political viciousness the Democrats decry is or will be their intended policy.
By 
TOF, at
Sat Feb 21, 09:17:00 AM:
The left seeks to politicize everything. It is the only venue they know.
By Kinuachdrach, at
Sat Feb 21, 10:20:00 AM:
Thanks for publishing this, Tigerhawk. First I have heard of this. Where are the media who are so protective of the First Amendment?
In his famous farewell address in which he warned about the dangers of the military-industrial complex, President Eisenhower also warned about the dangers of government funding increasingly coming to dominate academic research. Perceptive man, our Ike.
By TOF, at
Sat Feb 21, 11:22:00 AM:
...and, of course, the lefties are not alone in this politicizing of science. Certain members of the right had their cause in fetal stem cell research. I know, it's not like they were trying to get people fired or anything, but they were squelching scientific inquiry.
By , at
Sat Feb 21, 12:18:00 PM:
Your point is well taken, TH. On a salient note, I wonder why there are state climatologists at all? After all we have a NWS and the NOAA. State Climatology Depts strike me as a good example of wasteful spending at the state level. These departments consume salaries and eventually pensions..for what?
By , at
Sat Feb 21, 01:03:00 PM:
Now think of the people who will be appointed to replace the dissenting climatologists...
By Escort81, at
Sat Feb 21, 01:21:00 PM:
What ever happened to good, collegial peer-reviewed science?
I guess climatology is not really a "hard" science because complex controlled experiments can't be set up and repeated (a key component of the scientific method). Perhpas it's more like sociology or economics, where there are too many exongenous variables and confounding factors to yield consistent results in a controlled fashion, so experimenter bias inevitably creeps into the equation.
Does anyone remember the "cold fusion" claims of 20 years ago? The labs weren't repeatable and the thing died fairly quickly based on peer review. Ah, chemistry and physics -- the purity of good science. I realize that the culture wars have been a part of the academy for a few decades now, but exactly when did it start to affect subjects where, you know, math and chemistry was involved, with actual data and equations and stuff? Is the Calvin cycle still valid: 3 CO2 + 9 ATP + 6 NADPH + 6 H+ → C3H6O3-phosphate + 9 ADP + 8 Pi + 6 NADP+ + 3 H2O ? Or is the output of too much carbon sugar now frowned upon?
By richard mcenroe, at
Sat Feb 21, 02:38:00 PM:
A Global Warming Book for Parents Who Love Their Children
By richard mcenroe, at
Sat Feb 21, 02:40:00 PM:
" On a salient note, I wonder why there are state climatologists at all? "
Dude. Everybody who's ANYbody knows climate stops at state lines...
By Viking Kaj, at
Sat Feb 21, 05:52:00 PM:
Earmarks started with Tufts and Columbia.
American higher education will be the ruin of us all.
By Viking Kaj, at
Sun Feb 22, 03:52:00 AM:
Looks like Central NJ is in for another dose of global warming tomorrow.
I've got the ice melt and shovels handy.
By Foxfier, at
Sun Feb 22, 06:39:00 PM:
Kinuachdrach, at Sat Feb 21, 10:20:00 AM
There's a difference between falsifying science and covering up that falsification--which is what this post is about-- and saying "this branch of research is immoral."
I mean, nobody thinks that opposing Sigmund Rascher's "work" is anti-science, do they?
By , at
Tue Aug 10, 02:35:00 AM:
Escort81:"I guess climatology is not really a "hard" science because complex controlled experiments can't be set up and repeated (a key component of the scientific method). Perhaps it's more like sociology or economics..."
Or perhaps like geology or evolutionary biology? The Right doesn't exactly trust those fields either, is there a connection?
By Foxfier, at
Tue Aug 10, 04:23:00 PM:
....The "right" doesn't trust geology?
Some factors of which are very, very good for controlled, repeatable experiments?
(Shoot, even a lot of things that can't be controlled can still be used properly with scientific theory-- see effect, make theory, wait for it to happen again, see if theory is invalidated.)
By , at
Tue Oct 05, 08:06:00 PM:
"....The "right" doesn't trust geology?"
Well, maybe not geology to the same degree...still, I challenge you to find a single young-earth creationist with Leftist politics.
"Some factors of which are very, very good for controlled, repeatable experiments?"
The key-word is "some" (although I can't imagine what those would be), the majority of geological processes (perhaps you are not referring to the same field as I am?) take place over thousands or millions of years (at the least).
" Shoot, even a lot of things that can't be controlled can still be used properly with scientific theory-- see effect, make theory, wait for it to happen again, see if theory is invalidated.)"
Unfortunately, most scientists, nor civilizations, have geological life-spans.
By Foxfier, at
Thu Oct 07, 05:37:00 PM:
ALL of the young-earthers I know are solid Dems, because of social issues. They think the Dems' support of abortion is outweighed by other factors.
I'm just not dumb enough to try to tie their young-earth beliefs in to their politics, or extrapolate it to others who share their political views.
Unfortunately, most scientists, nor civilizations, have geological life-spans.
...
Are you seriously that ignorant? Go check out geology.com until you figure out that "geology" doesn't just mean "Plate Tectonics" and such beyond-ancient related things, it's everything from how rocks are formed to mudslides, finding oil or mineral deposits, figuring out volcanoes and earthquakes... it's a HUGE field.
By Wallaby07, at
Fri Nov 19, 05:28:00 PM:
"ALL of the young-earthers I know are solid Dems, because of social issues. They think the Dems' support of abortion is outweighed by other factors."
Alright, I'll take your word for it; but that is strongly counter-intuitive. This Gallup poll shows that their is a general republican trend with creationists generally (http://www.gallup.com/poll/108226/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Creationism.aspx) and I can't imagine why it should reverse itself for young-earthers rather than being even more pronounced (since YEC is generally considered a stronger version of creationism).
"I'm just not dumb enough to try to tie their young-earth beliefs in to their politics"
You yourself pointed out that the young earth creationists you know take an anti-abortion stand. I do not think that it is at all "dumb" to believe that the philosophies and worldviews that support people's political views can also find expression in their opinions on scientific issues. Sometimes, as in the climate change controversy, these are one and the same.
“Are you seriously that ignorant? Go check out geology.com until you figure out that "geology" doesn't just mean "Plate Tectonics" and such beyond-ancient related things, it's everything from how rocks are formed to mudslides, finding oil or mineral deposits, figuring out volcanoes and earthquakes... it's a HUGE field.”
If you recall my previous post, I said “the majority of geological processes” take place over long periods of time, at least as long as the periods of time being discussed in the climate change debate (which, if you will recall, was the field to which I was originally making the comparison). Your examples to the contrary are not particularly strong, either: oil and mineral deposits, as well as most types of rocks and minerals form over long periods of time, and often deep within the earth, where they are not amenable to study. There may be some types of rocks and minerals that form within decades, but I highly doubt that these are typical. Yes, there are volcanoes, earthquakes, mudslides, short-term soil erosion, et-cetera, but there are also examples of short term evolution (eg. this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment). However, this doesn’t change the fact that evolutionary biology generally deals with processes that take immense amounts of time and can often only be known about after the fact (something which many creationist critics have pointed out), it is the same with geology. So no, I do not think that I am “that ignorant”; my point still stands.
By Foxfier, at
Mon Nov 29, 02:05:00 PM:
Your link doesn't say "most republicans are creationists," it says that 60% of those who self-IDed as Republican found"
"God created Man basically as-is within the last 10k years"
to be closer to their beliefs than
"God evolved Man over millions of years"
or
"Man evolved without God over millions of years."
Independents had a 40% agreement, and Dems had a 38%.
Over a third of Dems have this "creationist" (in the strictest meaning, not the "Genesis is 100% accurate" meaning) view, while a bit less than two-thirds of Republicans do, so it really isn't all that amazing that a group that VERY highly values social issues (as YEC tend to) would fall, in a random sampling, into the Dem side.
If you recall my previous post, I said “the majority of geological processes” take place over long periods of time, at least as long as the periods of time being discussed in the climate change debate (which, if you will recall, was the field to which I was originally making the comparison)
You said:
Or perhaps like geology or evolutionary biology? The Right doesn't exactly trust those fields either, is there a connection?
In response to:
Escort81:"I guess climatology is not really a "hard" science because complex controlled experiments can't be set up and repeated (a key component of the scientific method). Perhaps it's more like sociology or economics..."
Your claims were thus:
1) the "right" doesn't trust geology.
2) complex, controlled experiments can't set up and repeated in geology.
In response to having it pointed out that, actually, we CAN make testable theories about geology (including "Hm, based on this, this and this, there will probably be X minerals/resources down here, rather than Y" and the whole field of volcanic activity monitoring) is to say it's weak?
Your point has fallen so hard that it's sad, and all the flailing really isn't working.
By Foxfier, at
Mon Nov 29, 02:24:00 PM:
On a side note: of course it's counter-intuitive. It doesn't fit your biases, or instinctive beliefs about the world.
