This doesn't make much sense. If it isn't a state position then the state government clearly doesn't have any jurisdiction over his title, so why the fuss? On the other hand, it says the state climatology office was created by the state legislature so there might be some state control over the office.

I don't know anything about this climatologist, and I'm sure you guys don't either; so I'm not going to pass judgement like you did, Jefferson. Global warming isn't a cult: its backed up with a substantial amount of empirical evidence; while cults have the attribution of fullheartedly believing in something on an irrational basis without any evidence (you know, like religions).

There seems to be a confusion between opinion and evidence; between belief and science. This confusion permeates also into the evolution debate. Perhaps this stems from people too used to the political arena and are unfamiliar on how science works, I don't know. But unlike the political arena, in the scientific community one doesn't acquire an equal playing field for their side merely because they have a difference in opinion; but they only acquire equal attention when their argument has substantial evidence; a scientific and empirical basis on which we may consider that argument to be of a significant contender for the scientific truth.

What we have here is that the overwhelming majority of evidence points to the existence of global warming, and human activity as a primary cause. People such as this climatologist aren't shunned in the scientific community due to some overreaching and cultish culture in the scientific community, but because there is little to no empirical basis or peer-reviewed studies for such a position. If this climatologist is found to be preaching his opinions at the expense of scientific data, he by all means should be fired.

And anyways, it was the Bush administration that has been censoring scientific reports that emphasize the urgency of global warming as well as threatening scientists.