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
MikeE
“Ive always found it fascinating how falt earthers are compared to people skeptical of an unproven hypothesis”
First off, it’s a theory, not a hypothesis. In science parlance, “theory” is not merely a hunch but rather something substantiated by mountains of evidence. Popular theories include the theory gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, theory of atoms, theory of cells, and the theory of evolution.
I don’t deny that AGW is unproven. Look at gravity and the theory of atoms, those are unproven too. But I can only imagine what scorn I would meet if I told a Ph.D. professor in chemistry that he’s all wrong, that in fact Democritus was right and atoms can’t be split.
“Flat earthers, where the consensus scientific group of their day”
Yeah, among philosophers. There weren’t many scientists in Aristotle’s day…
One of the larger classes of skeptics includes Scientists speaking outside of their field. They are applying their regular scientific skepticism, but the problem is that they apply it to a field they have not been actively researching in.
This is evident from the people that you list. Those of you who are not so religiously attached to AGW ‘skepticism’ – here’s a challenge for you. Take any three people from the above list. Put their name into scholar.google.com, and see what field they are publishing in. Do their publications put them in a position to be able to make serious challenges to the AGW consensus?
Let’s take the first few. Everett Langford is not a climate scientist, he researches weapons. Dennis Malpass? An organic chemist. Howard Hayden? A Biochemist. You see a pattern emerging; the only atmospheric chemist on the list is quite reserved with what they say.
Eric B (16:04:32) : “I’m sure Mr. Howard Hayden is a brilliant man, but these are the reasons why we should leave climate science to climate scientists.”
The entire idea of turning off one’s rational faculties on any topic except one’s own professional speciality is antithetical to the very concept of science. “Climate science” should be defensible against rational analysis performed by anyone.
Indeed, many of the most telling arguments can be understood by any reasonably intelligent and rational person. As it happens, I have just put up an article demonstrating exactly this for one of the most decisive arguments about AGW:
http://peacelegacy.org/articles/how-see-yourself-global-warming-climate-models-are-false
If that doesn’t make sense to you, please tell us what special mental faculty is possessed by a “climate scientist” that the rest of us mere mortals simply cannot acquire?
Eric the half a B @16:04:32
You are a Monty Puthon Sketch, Sir.
Stacy
“The hypothesis that man made CO2 emissions will cause dangerous global warming is not proven.”
I agree with you there, none of the models are proven and mainstream models vary in their 100 year projections by a factor of three. The only thing scientists agree on is that CO2 has been the primary forcing the past 30 years, CO2 will continue to play a role in global temperatures, and that it would be in our best interest to do something about.
By the way, do you ~snip~ the fact that the AGW THEORY has evolved beyond the status of “hypothesis”?
gt
“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.”
“Dozens of letters” proves that the 31k scientists on the petition (which once included none other than Geri Halliwell and John Grisham) “are indeed REAL scientists”? Amateurish mistakes like these really prove that the petition underwent absolutely no third-party verification.
Re: Scientific American, I let my subscription lapse when they pilloried Bjorn Lomborg.
Ron de Haan, I also think of polywater when told “the science of catastrophic AGW is settled”.
When we can actually do controlled experiments on our planet’s climate system, then maybe we’ll gain some measure of certainty.
Eric the 0.5 x B,
The AGW HYPOTHESIS has not evolved beyond that; the observational data falsify the AGW HYPOTHESIS.
DaveE
“Try casting your posting in a different denier mould, then post on RC.”
No, it’s no fun on RC. On RC everything is well-sourced, and the regulars and webmasters are climate scientists themselves. Here we’ve got the garden-variety neoconservative with little to no understanding of fundamental science.
The ACS would not have come out with a pro-AGW stance unless the elected directors agreed with it. If normal, sane people start standing for election on an anti-AGW stand, then the incumbents will start to get an idea that have done something very wrong. So for members of the ACS who don’t like its pro-AGW position, stand for election as soon as possible. That goes for every other professional socieity too.
Eric B (16:38:59) :
Proof of climate change isnt actually proof of the cause, with gravity we have gravitational lensing that PROVE that mass bends time and space around it. We know co2 is a green house gas, and i would defiantly class GHG theory as a theory. But to make the leap to claim co2 is the main climate driver IS a hypothesis. Thats what AGW is about, not basic greenhouse theory.
And the flat earthe hypothesis was still the “consensus science” through the dark ages. I could easily draw many parrallels between them, and the stance you and many like minded individuals take in regards to debate, and objective scientific method.
Ron House
Perhaps I was unclear. I use the term “climate scientist” broadly, as climate science itself is an interdisciplinary field. There are computer scientists, chemists, physicists, atmospheric scientists, oceanographers, biologists, geologists, statisticians, etc. who are climate scientists, at least by my personal definition. That’s because they apply their particular field on a climatological scale. It by no means suggests that every physicist, statistician, etc. is a climate scientist.
Eric B – I’m not sure you can even claim that scientists “agree on” CO2 as a primary anything. Some make that case, and others support that position to one degree or another, but your argument loses all weight when you attempt to make an absolute out of it.
As for AGW theory vs hypothesis – do we yet have criteria that can prove it true (or false) with a respectable degree of certainty? It seems to me that none of the test cases to date properly reflect real-world conditions.
Gail Combs
“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.”
This is fuzzy math, not that climate change deniers are unfamiliar with underhanded mathematics.
But I’ll indulge you.
Let’s say there were 50 letters. 50 x 100= 5000. 5000/160,000=3.125%
Ironically, this is comparable to the number of active climate scientists who dispute global warming:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
According to this study, 97.4% of climate scientists and 82% of Earth scientists agree that the globe is warming and that man-made contributions are the a significant factor in the warming.
We are clearly at a ‘tipping point’ in the whole AGW ‘debate’.
Maybe if everyone here wrote to the editors of their own respective subscribed magazines with their own views we could really start the snowball rolling.
Eric B (16:38:59) :
MikeE
“Ive always found it fascinating how falt earthers are compared to people skeptical of an unproven hypothesis”
First off, it’s a theory, not a hypothesis. In science parlance, “theory” is not merely a hunch but rather something substantiated by mountains of evidence. Popular theories include the theory gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, theory of atoms, theory of cells, and the theory of evolution.
I don’t deny that AGW is unproven. Look at gravity and the theory of atoms, those are unproven too. But I can only imagine what scorn I would meet if I told a Ph.D. professor in chemistry that he’s all wrong, that in fact Democritus was right and atoms can’t be split.
“Flat earthers, where the consensus scientific group of their day”
Yeah, among philosophers. There weren’t many scientists in Aristotle’s day…
WOW.
AGW came to the table as a full fledged theory, substantiated by mountains of evidence, based I presume on a whole 30 years of observation which now appears to be going teats up.
Given http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif I wouldn’t trust the World product too much.
Don’t give me that it agrees with HadCRUT. Why should I believe them when all they want to do is prevent others from checking their data?
DaveE.
JEM
“I’m not sure you can even claim that scientists “agree on” CO2 as a primary anything. Some make that case, and others support that position to one degree or another, but your argument loses all weight when you attempt to make an absolute out of it.”
Check the link I posted in an earlier post, there’s a pretty robust consensus that CO2 is a significant forcing.
Gee, I really opened a can of worms. If someone on here agrees with scientists the deniers let out the lions. I think I’m going to stick to sites that perform primary research, like GISS and NOAA.
You guys might be interested to learn that not a single scientific organization disputes AGW:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations
But you all probably presume to know more than these thousands of scientists?
David Archibald:
“So for members of the ACS who don’t like its pro-AGW position, stand for election as soon as possible. That goes for every other professional socieity too.”
With numbers like these:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
I don’t think deniers will be winning elections anytime soon.
Are you the David Archibald who posts videos on Youtube? On Y!A the other day a regular was asking a question about your credentials:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AtEehEJ6krBiaO7i0hqbUa3sy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20090729145627AA29ZHv
DaveE
“based I presume on a whole 30 years of observation which now appears to be going teats up”
This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the warmest year on decade. The 90’s rounds off the top two.
Eric B:
“No, it’s no fun on RC. On RC everything is well-sourced, and the regulars and webmasters are climate scientists themselves. Here we’ve got the garden-variety neoconservative with little to no understanding of fundamental science.”
I’m not sure you could paint with any wider a brush than that.
Eric B, I am sorry, but your statements are idiotic.
Using terms like “denier” and “flat earther” just make you look ridiculous.
I have never used those terms and I I have never heard other scientists use those terms.
Robert Wood
“the observational data falsify the AGW HYPOTHESIS”
And which observational data would that be? Apparently GISS, RSS, NOAA, about every scientific organization, etc. missed the memo…
Robert Wood
Dammit man, How can I ever take Eric B seriously again I ask you?
I have this B&W image of Eric the half a bee in my head now!
It is clear that his thinking has been befuddled by AGW, he just can’t take the heat and has to defend his untenable position by decrying the readers of WUWT.
I’m sure that Leif would love to know that he is out of his depth in disbelieving the AGW meme, as would the physicists & chemists I know.
DaveE.
It all began when some green idiot described something he/she supposed in his/her empty skull to be bad, as being “bad because it is a chemical“.
Could some one of those green donkeys tell me what in the world, including them, is not chemical?
So, we chemists, are the bad guys, the same as polluters (morons´killers).
Included in those chemical non sense are those supposed “organical” products, these, supposedly again, not considered “chemicals”, so…LOL, a mineral KNO3 is called “organical” and the same KNO3, from a chemical company, it is not “organical”, which is the difference?
And..the CO2 nonsense…the same kind of “urban myth”, to say the least.
Eric B (17:13:18) :
DaveE
“based I presume on a whole 30 years of observation which now appears to be going teats up”
This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the warmest year on decade. The 90’s rounds off the top two.
And I can also confirm that the top of the sine wave I am looking at on my oscilloscope indicates the highest positive voltage on screen.
DaveE.