Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and ‘trade him to New York Times or Washington Post’
An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group’s editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”
The editorial claimed the “consensus” view was growing “increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is “startled” by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the “world’s largest scientific society.”
The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”
Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.
The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum’s colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum’s climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum’s use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum’s editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”
One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: “When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise.”
Baum ‘startled’ by scientists reaction.
Baum wrote on July 27, that he was “startled” and “surprised” by the “contempt” and “vehemence” of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming “consensus.”
“Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming,” Baum wrote.
Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:
“I think it’s time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D’Ambra wrote.
Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”
ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”
ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? […] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?”
Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum’s attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me…his use of ‘climate-change deniers’ to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”
Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: “I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other ‘free-market fanatics,’ and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.”
William Tolley: “I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.”
William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. […] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”
ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board ‘cap’ Baum’s political pen and ‘trade’ him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.” [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum’s editorial go here and see below.]
Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum’s editorial an “alarmist screed.”
“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views,” Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.
Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report
To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration’s U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor’s Note: Baum’s grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: ‘Scaremongering’: Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: ‘This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA’…’Misrepresents the science’ – July 8, 2009 )
Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor’s Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don’t even exist – No detectable climate impact: ‘If we actually faced a man-made ‘climate crisis’, we would all be doomed’ June 20, 2009 ]
The American Chemical Society’s scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.
On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”
The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University’s Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.
In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Global Warming could stop ‘for up to 30 years! Warming ‘On Hold?…’Could go into hiding for decades,’ peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! ‘Nature not man responsible for recent global warming…little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans’ – July 23, 2009 )
A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed “More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” 2009’s continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth’s ‘Fever’ Breaks! Global temperatures ‘have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth’ – July 5, 2009
In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: ‘2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC’ & see full reports here & here – Also see: UN IPCC’s William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]
h/t to ClimateDepot.com go there for links to the above referenced stories.
The ACS letters to the editor are here: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.html
Has sanity returned to American science, or is this only a brief interlude in our headlong plunge into Hades? Will this be a signal to the membership of the many other scientific organizations, which have been compromised, to raise up and overthrow the political puppets that have been placed above them? If this is the beginning of the stirrings of a new scientific honesty, it is due in no small part to the work of WUWT, CA and many others on the internet. Thanks to all here who have helped to bring about some progress on a very difficult problem.
Mike
I think Rudy Baum is another William, Connelly (gatekeeper of the climate pages of Wikipedia.)
Rudy has a certain world view and doesnt like giving those he disagrees with too much publicity. The first link shows his financial support for Obama and other democrats-nothing wrong with that-most of the states supported the Democrats.
http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributions/rudy-baum.asp?cycle=08
The next link gives a bit of background on him
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Rudy_Baum
More revealing perhaps is this piece, in which he defended the highly biased stance he took on AGW which extended to his activities at the ACS
Rudy wrote;
“…In the case of the global climate, critics of our coverage maintain we don’t present the views of the handful of scientists who publicly disagree that humans are affecting Earth’s climate. But we have reported that critics exist, and we’ve reported their views when their criticism has been published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at scientific meetings.
No we do not give critics of global climate change the same amount of ink we give the far larger number of scientists who think global climate change is real. Quite bluntly, they don’t deserve it. They are a tiny minority whose analysis of the available data is rejected by the vast majority of the scientists who have reviewed that data. As good journalists, we acknowledge the critics existence, and then move on to cover the dramatic story that is unfolding around us.”
The guy is perfectly entitled to express his views, whether he should use the ACS as his personal mouthpiece might be another matter however.
Tonyb
Anthony
Interesting reaction – in my case there are rumblings to also remove me as editor of Aust. Inst. Geoscientists News but from the climate changers, not sceptics.
A telling reaction was a comment about the recent Plimer-Warden debate held in Perth, 9 July – “Just wanted to say what a fantastic event it was last night. Well Done! I was thoroughly entertained by both the speakers and the audience members. It was so interesting to note the different opinions on a topic I had thought was universally accepted. I hope we can do something similar again in future. Fantastic.”
Comment was from an Australian National University academic, (who remains anonymous) but it does show how insulated they are from their professional colleagues.
Off Topic — They are at it again! Those wacky green adventurers, this time in a sailboat heading for the NW Passage to prove the Global Warming impacts on the Arctic.
Follow the Mission Here..
http://www.aroundtheamericas.org
I will be Posting Canadian Ice Service Maps of the Passage on my site
http://www.theclimateheretic.com
and commenting on the progress, perhaps WUWT can also follow along.
Consensus – Agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.
Please read his response (from which came the “startled” comment) at this link:
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/87/8730editor.html
“I am startled that they so blithely impugn the integrity of so many of their colleagues.”
He is therefore not startled that there seems to be such a large number dissenters, more that they’re being nasty. In other words, his opinions have not been challenged – in his own mind – one tiny bit.
And why say, “Some of the letters I received are not fit to print.”? Who decides that? If they really are not fit to print, don’t mention them, unless you’re attempting to imply something about the character of the writers.
It seems he has his agenda, his beliefs, and will stick with them regardless. That is not the mark of a scientist; it’s the mark of an advocate. Shame on him.
If we were doing a list of magazines I can’t and won’t subscribe to any more I would add Discover and Skeptical Inquirer
Gary Lund (13:48:08) :
“….As a dues paying member of the ACS for over 30 years, I had had enough of Rudy Baum’s pro-alarmist editorials….. I was thanked for my letter and iniformed that unfortuantely the editor determined it would not be printed…..”
DaveE (13:50:59) :
“….To be fair, many of the protests were in relation to the manner in which people of contrary views were treated by that editorial, not necessarily disagreeing with AGW per-sé……”
Dave, we have no way of knowing how many letters were “disagreeing with AGW per-sé” since the entire number were not printed. Given the bias of the editor…..
I also would like to thank WUWT for honest science debate. Very refreshing reading.
The irony here is the editor, who is a journalist, is telling scientists (chemists for the most part) that only idiots don’t toe the consensus line and deny the truth. Perhaps this editor needs to get past the propaganda and find out why so many of the scientists who make up the ACS are having such a difficult time coming to the same conclusions he has.
THE WHEELS ARE FALLING OFF
Thanks to Burt Bacharach / Bob Hilliard and The New Christy Minstrels (Three wheels on my wagon)
Three wheels on my wagon,
And I’m still rolling along
The Scierntists are chasing me
Reasons fly, right on by
But I’m singing the same ol’ song
I’m singing a higgity, temperatures, they go high
AGWarmists, they never just say die
A mile in the sky there’s a hidden warm
And we can watch those skeptics fry
Go galloping by
Two wheels on my wagon,
And I’m still telling a lie
Them scientists are agin me
Flaming facts, burn my ears
But I’m singing a scary song
I’m singing a higgity, temperatures, they go high
Pious ones, they never say die
Half a mile up the sea will rise, a hidden cave
Where we can sell our carbon pie
Go galloping by
One wheel on my wagon,
And I’m still rolling along
That planet Earth
Not all in flames, drowning too
But I’m singing a desperate song
I’m singing a higgity, temperatures, they go high
Delussionals folk never say die
Right round that turn there’s a global scare
But it never arrives, don’t know why
Go galloping by
No wheels on my wagon,
Stuck here in the cold … goddam Sun
None to sell carbon credits to
Folks are mad, things look bad
But I’m singing a happy song
I’m singing a higgity, termperatures, they go high
Tenured profs never say die
I’m singing a higgity, temperatures, they go high
Delussional folks never say die
Right round that turn there’s a global scare
But it never arrives, don’t know why
Go galloping by
It’s amazing how there were merely “dozens of letters” objecting to the article when ACS has about 160k members. Clearly global warming ~snip~ make up for their lack of numbers by speaking loudly.
Just look at Howard Hayden’s remarks: ” ‘Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?’ ”
Now surely, as anyone with a sheer cursory knowledge of the field knows, ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are terms that have been used interchangeably for decades. Just look at this scientific paper from the 1970’s which uses both terms in its title:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/189/4201/460
I’m sure Mr. Howard Hayden is a brilliant man, but these are the reasons why we should leave climate science to climate scientists.
These people resent being called !snip~ yet they recycle the same Rush Limbaugh rhetoric about volcanoes spewing more CO2 than humans and the lack of a tropical tropospheric hotspot disproving AGW. Mr. Baum is just calling a spade a spade.
peter_dtm (13:13:15) . Warwick Hughes and Douglas Hoyt present a global warming “scorecard” — see
http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/scorecard.htm
Reed Coray
“I also would like to thank WUWT for honest science debate. Very refreshing reading.”
Debate? Admittedly, I rarely mire in ~snip~, but since when has WUWT ever hosted “honest science debate”? My brief little foray into WUWT’s climate change ~snip~ has revealed the site to be little more than an echo chamber for~snip~.
Mr. Anthony Watts posts an article about isolated, local temperature lows, like-minded, holier-than-thou followers chide in about how smart they were and about how AGW realists MUST be wrong about the theory because a city that comprises 0.00001% of the Earth’s surface is witnessing snow in July, and everyone pats each other on the back. This in no way advances our understanding of climate science, but then again, what do I know? I’m an “alarmist.” If throwing around that word is fair game, then why can’t I call you people ~snip~?
[Reply: Equating someone with a different view than yours to Holocaust deniers is clearly insulting, and unacceptable here. ~dbstealey, mod.]
Nobody want to see thier organization or members collectively or separately thrown under the bus.
What this says is that the guy making the statement of support for Political AGendaWarming was not in the habit of communicating with those whom he was supposed to be representing. Oops. He forgot to take the temperature of the place.
We are soldiers in a vicious war of truth.
Forced-corruption is the enemy.
Brave chemists, your sacrifice in defense of future civilization has been noted.
Sincerely,
Paul Vaughan
Ecologist, Outdoor Enthusiast
Eric B
You are confused. Everyone knows the evil conservative Frank Luntz forced everyone to use the term “climate change” just a few years ago.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/windy-citys-climate-plan/?apage=2#comment-38117
Please get a proper historical perspective, otherwise you will be thrown out of the believer’s club.
Quote 1 “If your result needs a statistician then you should design a better experiment”
Quote 2 “All science is either physics or stamp collecting.”
I suppose if Ernest Rutherford were around today he would add climate science.
Comment is Free if you agree.
“Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming.”
Baum’s incredulity at the outrage and tone of the letters is simply a mark of his total cluelessness about how wrong he is. True Believers like him are in for the shock of their lives. It’s a good thing for him and his ilk that tarring and feathering are out of style.
JLawson (12:46:16) :
“Scientific American” has been hot on the ‘Global Warming’ bandwagon for years. I got angry at first – then I started ignoring the junk articles, but I’ve written a few e-mails specifying that I’d like to see more SCIENCE than OPINION from them.
Don’t know that it’s done any good – though I’ve noticed the last few issues are a bit less AGW-centric.
Please tell us when ever it has any real science contents again. I used to subscribe in the early 80’s when the magazine was simply fascinating, if a bit over my head. I stopped subscribing some 10 years ago when I could not stand the junk anymore. Apparently it is still going down hill. Compare the issues from 1980-82 (I still have them) and today.
Eric B (16:11:53) :
Ive always found it fascinating how flat earthers are compared to people skeptical of an unproven hypothesis… Flat earthers, where the consensus scientific group of their day.. Oh the irony 🙂
Eric B (16:04:32) : said
“….It’s amazing how there were merely “dozens of letters” objecting to the article when ACS has about 160k members. Clearly global warming deniers make up for their lack of numbers by speaking loudly….”
“…Dozens of letters from ACS members were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief….”
And Gary Lund said “…I was thanked for my letter and informed that unfortuantely the editor determined it would not be printed…”
Do you know the actual number of letters received??? In answering customer complaint letters, we in quality, were cautioned each letter received from an irate customer represented 100 dissatisfied customers who didn’t bother to write. Dozens of letters is significant from a Quality Control point of view. This is especially true if it could mean the loss of a job or promotion.
The response from the ACS members (whom I’d assume most of them have at least a degree in science or other fields) seems to vindicate that the 31,000 individuals who signed the petition against AGW/ACC are indeed REAL scientists. The skeptical view is mainstream and growing, despite the effort that the MSM try to portray the contrary.
And what is Mr. Baum’s education and credential anyways?
@Eric B
“Hey friend wake up I’m throwing rocks at your window pane get out of bed I got something to say.”
The hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming is not proven.
Don’t be aggressive we all have differing views but lets remain civilised with it.
Take care
Gail Combs (15:42:56) :
Dave, we have no way of knowing how many letters were “disagreeing with AGW per-sé” since the entire number were not printed. Given the bias of the editor
Very true, I can only go by those that were. Given the editor bias, not fit for printing may mean, “Does too much to discredit the AGW cause.” I don’t know
Eric B (16:11:53) :
“I also would like to thank WUWT for honest science debate. Very refreshing reading.”
Debate? Admittedly, I rarely mire in anti-science propaganda blogs, but since when has WUWT ever hosted “honest science debate”? My brief little foray into WUWT’s climate change denial has revealed the site to be little more than an echo chamber for flat-earthers.
Mr. Anthony Watts posts an article about isolated, local temperature lows, like-minded, holier-than-thou followers chide in about how smart they were and about how AGW realists MUST be wrong about the theory because a city that comprises 0.00001% of the Earth’s surface is witnessing snow in July, and everyone pats each other on the back. This in no way advances our understanding of climate science, but then again, what do I know? I’m an “alarmist.” If throwing around that word is fair game, then why can’t I call you people “deniers”?
Personally, I couldn’t give a damn if you call me a denier. The fact that I don’t deny that climate changes is irrelevant to you but I will allow you your infantile rant.
Try casting your posting in a different denier mould, then post on RC.
See if it ever reaches the pages, then say debate isn’t allowed here!
DaveE.