Role of state climatologist comes under scrutiny
Local governments crack down on unorthodox views.
Many climate scientists get frustrated with those who don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, but should having such views be a sackable offence? In recent months, two US state climatologists have been asked to stand down from their posts because of it, triggering debate about whether personal views should determine suitability for what many see as an academic position.
Read more here.
Comments
kind of lame. That is just politics. Asking everyone to believe the same thing as a prerequisite to proper planning is a far greater moral and political failing.
Holding an opinion wouldn't prevent any state climatologist from doing their jobs (whatever than is: I assume it would mostly be bureaucratic), and it isn't even a sign of incompetence. Furthermore, no voter or elected official would tolerate a government's excuse that any plan of action that is contrary to the consensus position would not be irresponsible because their state climatologist sees nothing wrong with doing nothing on climate change.
There are regularly Surgeon Generals and health ministers that also have non-standard positions on matters of medical policy (abortion, drug-addiction, roles of private/public payment), yet this doesn't, imo, greatly influence medical policy (either legislation or practice).
What matters to tackle global warming are people intent on guiding the processes (economic, social) needed to mitigate it. The contrarian opinions of one voice are not going to a substantial influence on that process in any well run government.
Posted by: crf | February 21, 2007 06:28 AM