It has been one of those days…first the GISS data train wreck in apparently reusing last months temperatures to make this months “hottest October ever” announcement, now we find that the director of The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) may not have the goods for the PhD he goes by. He’s about to become the president of the American Meteorological Society. Interesting times – Anthony
Reprinted from NRO’s Planet Gore
Dr. Pepper, Dr. J, Dr. Karl . . . [Chris Horner]
Well, this testimony, submitted to the House of Representatives is strange, what with “Dr. Tom Karl” – now the lead author of the U.S. government’s Climate Change Science Program assessment being prepared to support EPA regulation of carbon dioxide – having never earned an academic Ph.D.
That’s according to North Carolina State University, that is, which is the school from which I found a Karl resume claiming a Ph.D., earned “1977-78”. I first found this on a Johns Hopkins website but, after asking Karl’s employer NOAA to clarify where the “Dr.” title they serially tout was earned, that CV has been taken down (but not before I saved the file, of course). NOAA wouldn’t answer my question, but only sniffed that if I can point to them claiming Karl has a Ph.D. – as opposed to just promoting him as “Dr. Karl” apparently on the basis of a 2002 honorary doctorate of humane letters – I should tell them.
The thing is, I have just received documents under the Freedom of Information Act showing that Mr. Karl is indeed styled as “Dr. Karl” on the express basis of having earned that 1978 NCSU Ph.D., as a proposed “co-investigator” in an application for a million-dollar-plus federal grant. The grant was awarded. No word yet whether the U.S. mail was involved in the process.
I suppose it’s possible that Hopkins just made this up to get the grant, and wasn’t relying on anything Mr. Karl told them. And the same could be true of NOAA, which reviewed the grant application (as evidenced by a letter in the responsive documents), and then received $100,000 from the proceeds of the grant. Maybe they got together to prepare Mr. Karl’s House testimony without his input, too.
Given the apparent seriousness of these revelations, I’ve got some correspondence underway seeking clarification from Hopkins, NOAA, and Karl. But, this is a busy time, what with – have I mentioned this? – a book coming out today. More later.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suppose someone in Raleigh could go over to the NC State library and see if there’s a disseration in his name.
This is odd because if he was listed on a grant application at a Ph.D level position he must have been pretty far along in grad school. Students don’t drop out at this point unless there’s a family/financial crisis or illness, or the dissertation committee says sorry, start over and we’ll see you in 2-3 years.
(Rarely, the band you play in on the weekends becomes world-famous and you take 30 years off to be a rock star, then return to write your dissertation. I don’t think the Brian May Exception applies here.)
You know, this is actually small beans. It isn’t his lack of a PhD that is important, it’s his lack of scientific integrity. Steve McIntyre also doesn’t have a PhD, nor does Freeman Dyson. Or Harry van Loon for that matter. Nor me.
==========================================
Oh what a tangled web they weave.
this months “hottest October ever” announcement – GISS does not appear to have made any such announcement, as far as I can tell. Got a link?
Of course, those on that list don’t go around calling themselves Doctor either. Other people call them that sometimes, though. Colloquially, ‘Doctor’ is sometimes used for those with expertise, but not academically, and this dude is an academician.
=================================
Matt I share your horror twice over. First Parcheesi now Karl.
The ignominity of it all!!
“It is common knowledge in the climate science community that Karl does not have a PhD. Here is a 1997 bio: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/971105DD.html”
While this may be true, it is NOT common knowledge OUTSIDE the climate community (see, for example, the references I cited), and I think it is very disingenuous of Mr/Dr Karl, who has made his name in the science/physics community, to portray himself as something he’s not…which is the holder of a doctorate in his field of study from an accredited college or university.
Steve and Matt,
Don’t forget John Edwards as well.
BS ChE 1991
BraudRP (06:28:43) :
And at the right time.
Good article in the New York Times of last Sunday explaining the strategic choices confronting the new administration.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
If the schemes for the AGW crowd are to be implemented, they have to somehow get a high priority for climate change. There is going to be a lot of competition for attention, with the economy coming first. Then there is health care. Energy independence, etc. etc.
No need to pretend there is a crisis in the economy; everyone knows this needs to be addressed.
The only way to get attention focused on climate change is to announce something catastrophic and it has to start happening pretty quick because the honeymoon will be over within the first hundred days, maybe two hundred.
People are going to really start balking at taxes (whatever they are called) on energy. We can see Europe already backing off of some the drastic suggestions calling for more expenditures.
http://www.upi.com/Energy_Resources/2008/11/06/European_Union_alters_climate_plan/UPI-96551226004671/
This is why some in the AGW crowd have been warning about a tipping point in the climate, from which we will never recover.
However, the costs of any of these programs is going to be huge and people are not going to be enthusiastic about these costs. It is one thing to give lip service to environmentalism and recycle some plastic bags; it is quite another to sacrifice one’s job to the effort.
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-ridenouranti1101.artnov01,0,4457964.story
From the above article:
We’re going to see more and more wild reports and allegations regarding global warming over the next few month, because this is the big chance extremist have to get some of the changes they want.
And if you were wondering where all the money was going to come from to pay for our new programs, take a look at this:
http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/dems-target-private-retirement-accounts.html
From the above:
We live in interesting times.
I can say, “I am the Master.” But I cannot say, “I am the Doctor.”
Come to think of it , we never really did vet Mr. Vader or Mr. Who, did we? (Did they sign a release form?)
I have sympathy with David Ball. Hunter College entered my BA in hard-copy record but entered a course I audited several years later in their soft records. Not only do they claim I got an F in the course (which I was merely auditing to brush up; I had passed the exact same course years earlier), but they show only that and not my BA. You have to ask them specially to look in their non-computer records and give the dates to get the right answer out of them. This isn’t a problem if they have your permission to search. But I have reason to believe (not proof) that I was secretly checked up on and “found wanting”–it’s very easy to get info out of a registrar over the phone if you have the subject’s SocSec number and other vital statistics.
Fortunately, I have no such trouble with Columbia, where I got my MA.
A “Doctor of Humane Letters” is typically awarded for contributions to something other than science. So why is this doctorate of any relevance whatsoever to his work on climate science. Or is this a way of signifying that his major accomplishment is not science?
More… (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_degree)
“An honorary degree[1] or a degree honoris causa (Latin: ‘for the sake of the honour’) is an academic degree for which a university (or other degree-awarding institution) has waived the usual requirements (such as matriculation, residence, study and the passing of examinations). The degree itself is typically a doctorate or, less commonly, a master’s degree, and may be awarded to someone who has no prior connection with the institution in question.”
“Usually the degree is conferred as a way of honoring a distinguished visitor’s contributions to a specific field, or to society in general. The university often derives benefits by association with the person in question.”
“Recipients of an honorary doctorate do not normally adopt the title of “doctor.” In many countries, including the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, it is not usual for an honorary doctor to use the formal title of “doctor,” regardless of the background circumstances for the award.”
From the AGW believers perspective I can understand why they would feel the need to lie and cheat, the end justifies the means and any dishonesty is acceptable to assist the greater political aim.
AGW/MMCC is a political aim and so political tactics are being used, when the science doesnt support the political aim so the science must manipulated to fit the greater agenda, science to the AGW believer is nothing more than a belief verification tool and is only useful when used to support the greater narrative, when science and the political aim diverge then science is cast aside,perverted,altered,faked as required.
The believers have the MSM on their side and more or less have total control of the traditional information chain so any lies/dishonesty found out will never be spread to the general public to a threatening extent as it would if a sceptic(denier)were found to have commited a similar offence.
The AGW/MMCC believers are playing their game straight from the political subversion/agitation playbook and untill people realise the real game then all the real science in the world will never get beyond the information dissemination safety nets constructed over time specifically for this type of scenario.
Knowest thine enemy?
We tend to fall prey to the propaganda Technique of Irrelevance called Degrees and Titles. The title and educational degrees of the person who authors a treatise does not validate its content. The content of the treatise validates the author.
National Climatic Data Center/NESDIS/NOAA map of continental hot-spots.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/01_10_2008_DvTempRank_pg.gif
Using “Dr. Karl” may be a bit disingenuous. But it still doesn’t bother me as much as “Noble laureate Al Gore.” 🙂
this months “hottest October ever” announcement
It is, now. #B^1
It’s the hottest announcement I’ve heard in quite a while.
” Dan Klein (07:46:57) :
It is common knowledge in the climate science community that Karl does not have a PhD. Here is a 1997 bio: http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/seminars/971105DD.html ”
Dan you are right. However, that story refers to him as Tom or Thomas. Seems that more recent writings refer to him as Dr. I’ve always been of the understanding that it is improper etiquette to do so when one hold an honorary degree. My observation would be he seems to be doing nothing to clarify the designation, thereby implying agreement.
Not to worry. He’ll probably claim that he’s a victim of a sinister plot by “Big Oil”, and squeak out of this embarrassment. Hey, Al doesn’t have a science degree and Hansen isn’t a trained climatologist, so what’s new? The inmates are running the asylum.
Google “Dr. Thomas Karl” and you’ll find several summaries and articles that pre-date 2002.
Somebody may have been telling porkies…
“NOAA wouldn’t answer my question, but only sniffed that if I can point to them claiming Karl has a Ph.D. – as opposed to just promoting him as “Dr. Karl” apparently on the basis of a 2002 honorary doctorate of humane letters – I should tell them.
So they don’t know? It was easy enough for me to find one instance in a matter of minutes:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080619_climatereport.html
http://www.ametsoc.org/stationscientist/noaanewsclimateweather.pdf
“News from NOAA”, with letterhead, dated June 2008, titled
“Scientific Assessment Captures Effects of a Changing Climate on
Extreme Weather Events in North America”
[…]
“This synthesis and assessment product examines this question across North America and concludes that we are now witnessing and will increasingly experience more extreme weather and climate events,” said report cochair
Tom Karl, Ph.D., director of NOAA’s National Climate Data Center in Asheville,
N.C.”
Well I don’t have a doctorate, and it is embarrassing to have to explain to persons who have written to me as Dr Smith, which I am not, that I am not, never have been, and never have represented myself to be, any kind of a doctor.
And the only such degree that would be of any interest to me, would be DSc, which to me is a real doctorate in the field of science. In the meantime, I could get a PhD (I’m not a philosopher either) in Ice cream making, and perhaps that would equip me to understand why it is cold in the Arctic, and warm in the Tropics.
To me, the use of Dr as one’s title (other than a stage name for example) by anyone in the field of science; that is neither a DSc, nor a PhD, is simple plain fraud.
Dr Laura is a PhD; but who would take her advice on matters of science; not that I am suggesting she may be a science ignoramus; it’s just not her educational background.
For me, I just have a simple bachelor’s degree (Dual major admittedly) plus 48 continuous years in industry as a practicing physicist and mathematician; while sometimes masquerading as an EE, which I have no degree in, but spent at least half my career working as. Well I did start with Elec. and Mag. and Mechanics at what would be equivalent to 8th grade, so maybe that equipped me to design complex mixed signal (analog/digital) CMOS integrated circuits right down to the bare metal, including device and process design. Some how I was just too busy making stuff that sells to take time out to go back to the cobwebs of academia to get a bigger shingle.
If you ever get to where you can say, that ordinary people have put down their own money (not government or institution) to exchange for almost one billion gizmos that you had a hand in the design of, or have controlling patents for (and it;s not a jelly bean); then I am prepared to listen to your explanation of why I am not qualified to do what I do.
No I am NOT a climate scientist; but I do understand the basic physics of the important processes that determine climate (though not exactly how they all work to do that; it’s too chaotic for that).
For those of you in Academia, or who do work for institutions that do research in these climate fields or weather for that matter; I do sense the pressure to conform to the institution’s party line, and I’m sympathetic to that. I don’t have that problem; my stuff has to work; or I get fired.
Dr Karl has to be called to account.
Who is this guy Karl, and does he even have a masters or any science degree??
From this annual NOAA report he identifies himself
below his signature as “Thomas R. Karl, L.H.D.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/2007-annual.pdf
According to Wiki, an “L.H.D.” is “The degree of Doctor of Humane Letters (Latin: Litterarum humanarum doctor; D.H.L.; or L.H.D.) is always conferred as an honorary degree, usually to those who have distinguished themselves in areas other than science…”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Humane_Letters
“Tom Karl, Ph.D., director of NOAA’s National Climate Data Center in Asheville,
N.C.”
Whoops…
Well, as I said, it’s never too late for Dr./Professor Thomas R. Karl to go back to school and actually EARN a REAL Ph.D.
PS
For those of you graduate students out there slaving away to get your doctoral degree – hey, just quit school start calling yourself “Doctor”! If it works for Tom…
This fits in with some of the claims made recently in Lindzen’s tell-all paper on behind-the-scenes chicanery in the climate scene. Here’s a few relevant quotes.
On lobbyists for professional societies issuing scientific statements.
“Of course, the nominal interaction involves lobbying for special advantage, but increasingly, the interaction consists in issuing policy and scientific statements on behalf of the society. Such statements, however, hardly represent independent representation of membership positions. For example, the primary spokesman for the American Meteorological Society in Washington is Anthony Socci who is neither an elected official of the AMS nor a contributor to climate science. Rather, he is a former staffer for Al Gore.”
On environmentalists sneaking into scientific organizations to appear credible as science experts.
“Thus, John Firor long served as administrative director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. This position was purely administrative, and Firor did not claim any scientific credentials in the atmospheric sciences at the time I was on the staff of NCAR. However, I noticed that beginning in the 1980’s, Firor was frequently speaking on the dangers of global warming as an expert from NCAR. When Firor died last November, his obituary noted that he had also been Board Chairman at Environmental Defense– a major environmental advocacy group – from 1975-1980.”
“The UK Meteorological Office also has a board, and its chairman, Robert Napier, was previously the Chief Executive for World Wildlife Fund – UK. Bill Hare, a lawyer and Campaign Director for Greenpeace, frequently speaks as a ‘scientist’ representing the Potsdam Institute, Germany’s main global warming research center.”
This one might be relevant to Mr. Karl.
“John Holdren, whose primary affiliation is the Woods Hole Research Center (an environmental advocacy center whose name is designed to confuse it with the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a research center), is also a professor in Harvard’s Government Department, and has served as president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of Sigma Xi (the science counterpart of the honorary scholarship organization, Phi Beta Kappa). He was the Clinton-Gore Administration spokesman on global warming. The making of academic appointments to global warming alarmists is hardly a unique occurrence. The case of Michael Oppenheimer is noteworthy in this regard. With few contributions to climate science (his postdoctoral research was in astro-chemistry), and none to the physics of climate, Oppenheimer became the Barbara Streisand Scientist at Environmental Defense.”
There’s lots more at the link.
Oops forgot the link.
http://tinyurl.com/6lcelj