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
Gee Eric B, you seem to place a lot of faith in polls.
What do you suppose the answer to this polling question would be?
“I believe my organization (fill in the blank) should limit debate on climate science because those with opposing views should not be heard.”
And BTW, for someone who keeps saying his time is better spent elsewhere, why are you still here?
Just curious Eric B., What else would “climate scientists” be studying other than the current theories about man made disaster? It seems to be that if a “climate scientist” disagreed with the orthodoxy, he would no longer be one. Saying that 97+% of climate scientists believe in anthropological GW isn’t surprising since that is all the field is.
I was a member of the ACS from 1994 to 2009. After sending in several letters to the editor complaining of this Rudy Baum and his liberal slant to the “scientific” publication, I finally gave up. I complained to the President of the ACS and others but never received a response. I finally fiquit the ACS because I refuse to support an organization that has overstepped its boundaries. The ACS is NOT supposed to be a political organization. It is supposed to be a scientific organization.
I hope that all those ACS members that are fed up with Rudy Baum and his ilk do as I did…quit the ACS.
This is excellent! I am not at all surprised by the tone and intensity of the response letters to C&EN’s editor.
Many chemical engineers are also member of ACS. The chemical engineers and chemists I meet with regularly, and speak to occasionally, are very much skeptics of any man-made influence on climate. The undeniable fact that CO2 rises regularly, while global temperature oscillates is sufficient proof that there is absolutely no validity to the IPCC’s claims, and that there is zero reason to modify fossil fuel use. When I give my speeches, chemical engineers and chemists in the audience recognize this instantly.
One of the world’s most prominent chemical engineers, Dr. Pierre R. Latour, PE, started a similar uproar in Hydrocarbon Processing magazine in January, 2009. His letter to the editor may be found here: http://tinyurl.com/nutznq. Hydrocarbon Processing is one of the two most-respected industry journals read world-wide among chemical engineers and energy professionals.
Dr. Latour’s brief bio may be found here, starting with paragraph 5:
http://www.controlglobal.com/articles/2004/236.html
DaveE
“he just can’t take the heat”
Thus far, I’ve answered (I think) everyone who’s responded to me, despite being gang-raped by their intuitive assumptions that supposedly disprove AGW. I have to leave home soon so regrettably this ping pong match between AGW realist-AGW ~snip~ is coming to a close.
“I’m sure that Leif would love to know that he is out of his depth in disbelieving the AGW meme”
Well, I’m not Hansen or anyone. I merely advocate the conclusions of the consensus. If you believe that the thousands of scientists who advocate the issue are “out of their depth,” I’d suggest you write a peer-reviewed paper on the issue on submit it to a journal.
Have you heard about Nancy Oreskes’s study, by the way? It concluded that, out of 920 some peer reviewed articles (some of which concerned paleoclimatology, however), 0 of them disputed the AGW consensus.
I should hasten to amend my last post, to state that the editors of Hydrocarbon Processing were not in any way the target of Dr. Latour’s remarks.
Eric B (17:13:18) :
This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the warmest year on decade. The 90’s rounds off the top two.
Forgot to also mention on this one, though I have done before…
http://i44.tinypic.com/29dwsj7.gif
Looks pretty flat from the 30s on the original. Why’s it changed?
DaveE.
Karl B
“Using terms like “denier” and “flat earther” just make you look ridiculous.”
My terminology is hyperbole, perhaps. I see it as fighting fire with fire. Almost everyone on this board presumes to know more than the thousands of scientists who work in the field of climate scientist, which is quite ridiculous and presumptuous itself.
Eric B (16:58:46) :
“….This is fuzzy math, not that climate change deniers are unfamiliar with underhanded mathematics….”
Specifically it was the number given to me by the lawyers and VP of Quality at a OC Drug manufacturer when I was liaison between quality and the law firm handling complaints., Since the firm is now defunct I do not have acess to their statistics. Your 50 letters could easily be hundreds since there is concrete evidence that not all the letters were published.
I am merely pointing out that your down playing the complaint letters on the basis of the word “dozens” is incorrect on two points. “dozens” does not represent the total number of letters recieved and “dozens” does not represent the total number of chemists who viewed the article with distaste.
“Dozens” does show the word “consensus” is incorrect since ONE skeptic means there is no “consensus” I am a chemist and I am a skeptic, so are others posting here. NO consensus
Well, for heaven’s sake, the question is not whether the climate has warmed 0.7C for the 20th century. (Actually, the raw data per USHCN station for the US puts the trend at +0.14C, which is “adjusted” to ~ +0.7C, but nver mind that.)
If the globe warmed 0.7C over the 21st century as it has supposedly done over the 20th, we could all pack up and go home — no emergency here.
The question is whether global temperatures will increase ~3.5C over the 21st century, which is the IPCC midline projection. That’s five times the adjusted rate of the last century. So far, since 2001 (which is when the century “officially” began), we have seen an actual decline.
I happen to agree that some of the warming is anthropogenic. But there are lots of anthropogenic causes that have little if anything to do with CO2. Land use and “dirty snow” spring to mind.
I also believe a great majority of the warming since 1977 is a result of the six major oceanic-atmospheric oscillations going from cold to warm phase one by one until 2001. For several years they were all in warm phase, and temperatures plateaued. Now they are starting to go cool and we see a drop.
AGW hypothesis is a loaded term.
It can be true even if CO2-theory is mostly false (direct forcings are probably more or less true; positive feedback assertions are highly questionable).
It can be true in ways that the best course of action is doing nothing about it.
It can be true even if the amount of potential warming turns out much less than feared.
We are not a bunch of idiots, here. Please stop treating us as if we have never considered these issues. I would also like to know why we should necessarily trust scientific organizations that refuse to release their adjustment procedures so they can be reproduced.
I will add that the PDO was not even described by science until the late 1990s. The field is new and wide open. We re not disputing the possibility of splitting the atom. We are disputing that which is not established, such as positive feedback theory.
And, as a matter of fact, if positive feedback theory is wrong (as it begins to appear to be), and if Monckton is correct that the 4-part forcing equation is exaggerated in all parts, the whole theory falls to bits.
EricB:
wrote “…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…”
who would dispute, that the globe has been warming and that land use change and UHI are a significant factor ? Who would disagree that man(n)-made-type data analysis contributions were another significant factor ?
I think, the scientific bodies should poll their members on this issue and then present the result. Otherwise the bodies represent only the opiniopn of a few. Actuially, they don’t have to have an opinion on a matter of open research or politics at all.
Eric B at (17:13:18) writes: “This decade, it appears, will go in the books as the warmest year on decade. ”
Huh?????????????????????????????????
Eric B (16:04:32) :
No, I don’t agree. But in order to not be a hypocrite about it, please provide your credentials showing everyone that you are a climate scientist, and thus by your own rules, qualified to comment.
You are mistaken believing that CO2=AGW hypothesis is anything more than that. It is a falsified hypothesis, based on computer models. There is no real world, actual measurement showing the effect of “A” in GW. None of the models can predict the climate. None.
As climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer points out, no one has falsified the theory that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability. Do you even understand what that means?
If not, I’ll explain: Prior to the invention of the CO2=AGW hypothesis, natural climate variability was, and remains, the generally accepted theory of global climate change. In order for a new hypothesis to replace the existing theory, the new hypothesis must be able to explain reality better than the theory it is trying to replace. GCMs have been unable to predict the climate.
Dr. Spencer makes clear that in the Scientific Method, the way to knock off a hypothesis, a theory or a law is by falsifying it. Since no one has been able to falsify the existing theory of natural climate variability, the AGW hypothesis fails. The winner, and still champ, is natural variability.
On the other hand, the CO2=AGW hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified. If you like, I can provide at least fifty papers that have the cumulative effect of shredding the CO2=AGW hypothesis. Just ask.
Finally, where is the AGW? The planet is at just about the same temperature now that it was at thirty years ago, despite steadily rising CO2: click
[PS- it’s Naomi Oreskes, not Nancy. You’re a newbie on this subject, aren’t you? Maybe you should read this deconstruction of Naomi Oreskes to help you get up to speed: click]
Eric B (17:09:21) :
You dont really understand science huh, if we stuck with “consensus” science, there would still be no such thing as plate tectonics, we;d all live on a flat earth, with the sun revolving around us. Evolution wouldnt exist, and the universe would be static… There is a reason why science is supposed to be testable. Before its classed as a scientific fact. And the suppression of debate on an issue has never aided in the advancement of knowledge. All the great break through haven’t come from group think. We are too herd like in nature. It has come from individuals challenging the consensus views of their day. And proving their theories through experiment/observation. AGW comes up short on that card. There should be an observable hot spot in the upper troposphere in the tropics… there isnt.
The climate has always changed, so pointing at a trend isnt proof of the course… to believe it is, would require you to believe in a static climate. Through the ice cores and sediment analysis we know that the holocene period is punctuated with periods of rapid climate change, many dwarfing the current trends. And we are currently comfortably inside the bounds of oscillation of this period. So we know that the current trends “could” be due to natural phenomenon.
I am of the opinion myself that we do effect climate, but im not sold on our contribution driving the climate. And i wont, unless its proven.
Those who dont learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
the EricB wrote:
“Almost everyone on this board presumes to know more than the thousands of scientists who work in the field of climate scientist, which is quite ridiculous and presumptuous itself.”
if you just look at a few of the most influential publications of the real climate scientists…
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2322
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6473
… the funny thing about everybody’s presumption is
… that it is most likely true.
Smokey (17:55:54) :
Sorry, but you can’t discount that Wikipedia contend that Benny Peiser withdrew his assessment. The fact that he didn’t is of course immaterial from the AGW viewpoint, but they did indeed contend that.
Any attempt to amend that contention is of course vehemently denied, as is any opinion or contradiction to the Connelly monopoly of the Wiki. I can’t remember where the Kim fiasco is on the web 🙁
DaveE.
course=cause That is annoying me sorry.
DaveE, I was not aware of that. Got a link, so I can read up on it? Thanks.
Roger Sowell (17:28:12) :
I just LOVE Temple’s “Climate scientists do not measure a “global temperature,” but instead use deviations from historic averages, from a massive number of stations. This is an extremely accurate and reliable method of measurement.”
Mmmmmmmmmmm
How do you measure a deviation without measuring a temperature? I’ve often asked myself that!
DaveE.
It only takes one straw to break the camels back… Keep it coming real scientists – I know you are out there.
Thank you, readers of ACS for having a backbone and standing up to the politico-religious indoctrination that is AGW.
Thank you also Anthony for posting – articles like this give me hope that the world has not gone completely mad after all…
Consensus in the English language is defined firstly as unanimous or general agreement; and secondly group solidarity of belief or sentiment.
The use of the word consensus has become deminished over time.
If we discussed temperature using the absolute scale the average temperature of the earth’s surface would be 320 degrees absolute and consideration of tenths of a degree change would seem ridiculous.
leave climate science to climate scientists.
That’s as bad as leaving war to the generals.
Smokey (18:12:13) :
Sorry Smokey, best I can do is the name Soloman who tried to amend it. (Spelling may be wrong). Kim is a male & had a heated argument over it.
DaveE.
Thanks to the brave folks at Climate Depot and Whatupwiththat and many other uppity Americans, Gore and company has not gotten away with politizing “science” and railroading his global tax agenda. They had the courage to stand up even when the Left discussed arresting “deniers” for thought “crimes against humanity” and the majority of scientists in the US merely went along to get along with their far left wing overseers within science.
Now that the lie has been exposed, the liars using science for their socialist politics must be exposed and demoted. They do not deserve positions of leadership.