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.

[ . . . ]

Brian

May I offer a slightly different take on the UN’s Global Warming Luau? I will leave to one side the question of whether, or to what extent, there is a human component to the climate phenomena we are experiencing. I would ask us to take a step back, because our discord/debate obscures some issues in this matter that we might find useful to examine.
The time machine and Ms. Rosett’s carefully researched and substantiated reporting have shown us that where the UN is involved things are often not what they seem or are said to be. It’s like a funhouse constructed by Barthes in one of his more perverse moods. So, what’s it really all about, this baroque extravaganza? It’s quite a son et lumière show, but what do all the signs show us, what does it mean? Here’s one possible movie script embroidered from the UN Global Melt Shindig signs…. Is this really real, or fiction? Well, what is real, especially at the UN, besides this is movie magic!
We have layer upon layer of supporting players all artfully arranged for greatest effect by an expert hand: See and hear them, ladies and gentlemen, hundreds of the greatest scientists of our time, all carefully rehearsed and singing from The Book of Desolation, their research handsomely funded by a supporting cast of hundreds of NGO’s, themselves carefully nurtured by the UN High Command. And the oratorio they all croon with one voice is all about death and destruction — and it’s all our fault. Yup, Whoopee, we’re all gonna die! Why? Because we’re sinners: we are evil capitalists who have exploited, and polluted and defiled, leaving waste, and ruin in our wake. And we must be punished for our sins! We must repent, yes, we must equalize — and we must divest ourselves of all that filthy lucre that we don’t deserve anyway, we must give it, most of it anyway, to the saintly (cue Kofi) souls (of the Secretariat) who alone can absolve our sins and save us from ourselves. Just give them the money, and they’ll take care of everything…… The UN, the one true world government, will take care of us and show us the way…..
Hold on…….Wait a minute…..Stop the music. What happened to our democratically elected governments? Where’d they go? And what about the sovereignty of nations?….And who are these guys? No one elected them. I don’t know about you, but I didn’t ever vote for the likes of Mark Malloch Brown, let alone the Kofster himself (their virtual but saintly presence is everywhere in the NGOasphere) or any of their cronies who continue to infest the current UN hierarchy. And though it may be a really hot arrangement, haven’t we heard this tune over and over from the UN? — just give us your money, a global tax would be good, because, after all the UN is the one and only true sovereign world government. Well, I give them points for persistence; but they just don’t know when to give it a rest!
Enough! OK, Applause…., applause…., quite a production they put on in Paris anyway. Auteur! Auteur! Who is the creator of this very subtle and clever légerdemain? Well, Kofi and Brown, even when they were in a more manifest state and present day to day in Turtle Bay, were only ever assistant directors…… As with everything at and about the UN —–it’s all about layers: layer, behind layer, behind layer, behind layer – rather like one of those intricately carved ivory spheres from India, sphere within sphere within sphere within sphere. There is a man of consummate ability and intelligence, someone who for years as Kofi’s closest confidant in the Secretariat, pushed just this agenda: Maurice Strong. A Canadian who, with his own brains and skill, made a fortune in energy, and all manner of other industries, who always shunned the limelight, preferring to work behind the scenes, and whose mega-Rolodex bulged with the names of everyone, everywhere, who could make things happen. Mr. Strong retired from his duties at the UN sometime in 2005, turning up eventually for some time in Beijing. Throughout his many years in and around the UN, Mr. Strong brilliantly interwove the themes we found in our recent steamy UN GW oratorio: Climate Change crisis perpetrated by human agency and requiring emergency human intervention to the tune of bazillions of dollars, and to be led and orchestrated by the UN, the only global entity capable of doing the job, the sovereign world government. The genius of his plot is that with the art of a really great magician he directs the audience’s attention which is completely taken by the fear of the looming global calamity. While the audience is thus absorbed, the magician accomplishes his true objective and installs the UN as the de facto world government. Et voilà. Are we really scared yet?

So, that’s my script of significations from the signs of the UN Molten Globe Luau. But then Barthes always used to say you can make many different movies from the same set of signs. Give it a try!

There is far more correlation between the just stated facts, than between GW and mand made green house gases.

Oh, yes, incidentally, the report has been acknowledged as accurate by the Bush/Cheney White House.

Which only makes sense, since much if not most of the science comes from US government agencies such as NOAA.

The only variance NOW is that the Bush/Cheney folk have fallen back to a voluntarist/technofix approach to the crisis.

Ahhhh . . . yeah . . . and your point is . . . ?

Brian

Which only makes sense, since much if not most of the science comes from US government agencies such as NOAA.

The only variance NOW is that the Bush/Cheney folk have fallen back to a voluntarist/technofix approach to the crisis.

spynverzyon

“which elevates brutal dictators, justifies terrorist tactics, condemns democracies that defend their right to exist, oversees “peacekeeping” operations in which people are raped and slaughtered, enables graft and bribery in its various aid programs,”

joan then takes evasive action regarding my description of the UN (by changing the subject, much the way she attacks a straw man instead of responding to Ms. Rosett’s warning about the UN climate initiative):

Are you talking about the US controlled CPA in Iraq?

No, I’m not, since I’m not into moral equivalency and Emerson’s hobgoblins. But I’ll take that non-response as an admission that joan agrees with my description of the UN.

“Skeptics are not welcome,”

. . . and replies:

Yes they are as far as i am concerned. But skeptics also need to make a coherent and logical arguement.

Which part of the skeptic’s argument do you find incoherent and/or illogical?

joan continues:

Personally, I am not fully convinced by the global warming argument either.

Are you suggesting that your skepticism is based on the incoherent and illogical arguments of the skeptics? Or are you in possession of information that others haven’t properly weighted?\

joan continues:

I had a little dig at claudia its true, but only when her anti-UN bias clouds her better judgement. I enjoy her posts/ site in any case.

I see Claudia being skeptical of the UN’s institutional honesty; of it’s ability to conduct business transparently; and of its commitment and/or ability to serve the interests of the people it claims to be looking out for.

She certainly has provided a wealth of information which a disinterested, objective third party could easily conclude was a rational basis for skepticism. This is hardly bias.

Are you sure you haven’t conflated “bias” and “skepticism?”

Brian

“Skeptics are not welcome,”

Yes they are as far as i am concerned. But skeptics also need to make a coherent and logical arguement.

Personally, I am not fully convinced by the global warming argument either.

I had a little dig at claudia its true, but only when her anti-UN bias clouds her better judgement. I enjoy her posts/ site in any case.

“which elevates brutal dictators, justifies terrorist tactics, condemns democracies that defend their right to exist, oversees “peacekeeping” operations in which people are raped and slaughtered, enables graft and bribery in its various aid programs,”

Are you talking about the US controlled CPA in Iraq?

We believed it was flat, then learned that it was round, with the old, false information discredited.