The whole science of climatology has become increasingly politicized in recent years with many leaders of one of our major political organizations, the Republican Party, actively denying the accumulated scientific data supporting the argument that our climate is changing dramatically as the earth gets warmer. Perhaps a Republican governor would not want a climatologist who is not under his control and who would insist upon such quaint notions as making decisions that are based on facts and data.
Chip Knappenberger, of The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), also smells something foul. He writes:
The political battle to control the flavor of scientific discourse seemingly has claimed another victim. This time it was Dr. David Stooksbury, the 12-year veteran state climatologist of Georgia whose middle-of-the-road opinions about climate change apparently ran afoul of Georgia Governor Nathan Deal's more conservative views.
In an executive order issued last week, Governor Deal stripped Dr. Stooksbury of his title and conferred it to a current employee of the state's Environmental Protection Division--a position under direct government control, unlike Stooksbury's rather independent office at the University of Georgia.
If Crawford and Knappenberger are on target, and I'm betting they are, Georgia is not the first state where politics have trumped science on climate issues. Reports GWPF:
Stooksbury's ouster is just the latest in a string of state climatologists who have been replaced in recent years for what seem like political reasons.
Patrick Michaels in Virginia. David Legates in Delaware. George Taylor in Oregon. Those three now-former state climatologists were on the rather cautious (and outspoken) side when it came to the possibility for alarming climate changes to occur as a result of human changes to the large-scale composition of the atmosphere. All three were ushered out by governors who had a different take on the issue. Michaels, Legates, and Taylor were victims of their title of "state climatologist," even though, in this case, "state" referred primarily to geographical location more so than government. I guess the governors wanted to alleviate any confusion associated with the name and put someone in that position whose view better reflected that of the "State" (with a capital "S").
Is the public well served when political gamesmanship gets in the way of science? Tom Crawford, of Georgia Report, says the answer is no:
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
