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
Eric B (16:58:46) : So they sent the survey to a bunch of geological types (I have no problem with them) and a bunch of people in government agencies that are politically tainted. A few oceanographers. No atmospheric chemists or physicists, no non-governmental climatologists, or scores of other scientists who do work related to climate. Bad sample from the get-go. The first question is a no-brainer: yes, there has been warming since about the LIA. Do you BELIEVE man plays a role in it? Even I believe man has added to CO2 in the atmosphere and thereby raised the temp a little more that it would have been, so I would have to answer yes to that also.
The survey dodged the real questions:
Will man-produced CO2 cause catastrophic warming? NO! That’s the real question and the real answer. Is CO2 the main controlling agent of global temperature? NO, it is not!
Your survey is useless.
Chemical and Engineering News is generally a politically left-leaning publication.
As an ACS member (sigh), I fill out their survey every year I am offered one, about my likes and dislikes in C&EN. I have also complained about the bias of the editor. I have seen Rudy Baum editorials, not having anything to do with chemistry, bashing the Bush administration. I wonder what they do with my surveys, anyway.
Oh-I need to say something about climate — last night in Colo. Springs we set a new record low temperature for the date. Wait — that’s WEATHER, not Climate. My bad.
Climatology very quickly devolves to that of the paleoclimate. And that brings in many, many other disciplines, not all of them scientific — literature and history, for two. And of course, mathematics (writ large), chemistry, physics, geology, oceanography, and many, many others which are not, strictly speaking, within the direct realm of climatology.
It is a big science. It has big coattails. It has many camp followers. And like an 18th century army, it is only any good if well provided with rum and salt.
I’m not into conspiracy theories, but I think the makeup of editorial staffs of the major scientific publications are predominantly people who have been mediocre scientists in their own right, and are more skillful in the art of organizational politics. They ascended to their level of scientific incompetence long ago, and have moved in a direction where their lack of scientific ability is not the primary measure of success. The vast majority of ACS members wouldn’t want Baum’s job, and guess what, he probably couldn’t do theirs.
Of course we need to save the planet. Any one know a bank big enough? Maybe Jupiter?
The grants some chemists are looking for are for Carbon sequestration chemicals
Why not just dissolve it in water and pump it into big holes in the ground? Then when the government taxes soda pop we can pump it out and sell it on the black market.
I hear some guys are doing something not too different with plants and are making a fortune.
I’m a PhD Chemist, too, who recently let his ACS membership lapse. I find Baum obnoxious, and the continual credulous scare mongering in C and E News unbearable. One of their former editors wrote a piece that ran in the last year that suggested that something like 1 in 3 children have disabilities of some sort due to chemical exposure. I can’t be more specific because I had given up by the time I read it.
For years, all I read were the Science Concentrates, anyway. It was a good bet a lazy professor would put something from there on a cumulative exam or use it in class…
Eric B,
You state “climate change deniers” as part of your argument, the truth is that the climate is and always has been in a state of constant flux, change is the constant, stasis is not and never has been part of the biosphere.
The issue is whether climate change is ruled by natural cyclic variation governed by exterior and interior forces(milankovich cycle/solar influence/vulcanism/asteroid impacts etc) OR by man made influences chiefly the production of carbon dioxide by industrial output and activities.
Trying to claim a natural state of biosphere stasis and claiming the ability to cause and/or influence this climate stasis is questionable, in essence the question is does man have a discernable affect on the worlds climate?
The answer is either yes,no,maybe or perhaps the amount is certainly debatable isnt it?
The unknowns outweigh the knowns hugely, the case for the precautionary principle or the adaptation principle are open to debate but to choose one over the other BEFORE the facts are more fully known could be classified as gambling and that isnt science is it, the consequences of getting it wrong are going to be huge.
Many believe that acting on a show of hands(consensus) is anti science and that is only common sense, the amalgamation of science and politics in the form of AGW/MMCC/AAM is dangerous because it admits no doubt and admits no critics, the terrible way that critics of the consensus have been treated is nothing short of scandalous, the framing of your posts is saddening to read, so firmly do you hold to your beliefs that you find it acceptable to insult and demean the majority of highly gifted scientists and ordinary contributers of this blog.
If ‘real climate’ was as you have described it then why do they opperate a soviet style censorship of critisism and purging of dissent?
On this wonderful blog you can freely express an opinion or make an observation and it will be shown, the difference between the soviet style ‘real climate’ and WUWT is stark.
I make no claim to scientific qualification but I regard it as my right as a human being to question the orthodoxy, the nature of humanity is to question the status quo.
Just an add on thought so please snip as required.
I thought science was all theory which is then tested against observed actual reality, any theory which does not match real world observations is false.
What is the difference between between a scientist and an ideologue?
The true scientist readily admits ignorance and doubt whereas the ideologue admits neither doubt or ignorance, I put my trust in the former and reserve my distrust for the latter.
Amidst all the hoo-ha, has anyone noticed that nine of the ten warmest years of the 21st Century have occurred since 2000, and the tenth is happening as we write?
On the other hand, that’s equally true for the nine coolest. Go figure.
One of the best human beings I’ve ever met, also a sometimes surly curmudgeon, who knew his stuff cold, was a retired Lt. Colonel in the Air Force who went on to be a research chemist at US Steel then retired from that to be my High School chemistry teacher. Finest class I’ve ever had from anyone. It was he who taught me about accuracy and precision and gave me the foundation for:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/
My explanation of why all of the AGW panic is just dancing in the error bands of lousy math.
I’ve just finished a bit looking at a single line of GIStemp that, IMHO, alone accounts for about 1/1000 C of rise (and maybe a bit more – it has compiler dependent behaviours…) Now since GIStemp is about 7000 lines, it wouldn’t take many of those to add up to something…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/gistemp-f-to-c-convert-issues/
It’s a technical “in the weeds” math and computer code posting, but readable. FWIW, I’ve made an analysis program to characterize how much GIStemp raises the temperature average in the data set as it moves from step to step (looks like about 1/2C at first blush). In the process of doing this I hacked together a bit of code that shows, given the way the data are stored as an INTEGER with 1/10C significance; simple choices in how to add up the temperatures / divide by the count of temps to get the average can change the warming by about 0.6C.
Further, there is an interesting trend to that average of temps (by month): Only winters get a lot warmer. Summers do not warm up. Mr. McGuire also taught me that the gas laws do not take the summer off…
So how does CO2 manage to work in winter, but not in summer?… it can’t.
WIth thanks to Chemistry Teachers everywhere, kudos to the members of the Chemical Society!
And for the person who was looking for an introduction to what’s broken in the AGW thesis, I have up several pages at:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/category/agw-and-gistemp-issues/
Now including a repost of what started here on WUWT as a comment:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/agw-basics-of-whats-wrong/
Roger Sowell (19:55:00) :
My point Roger, was that I can’t see how you can measure a deviation without taking a temperature measurement.
DaveE.
Wikipedia antics:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/04/12/wikipedia-s-zealots-solomon.aspx
“For this reason, when visiting Oreskes’s page on Wikipedia several weeks ago, I was surprised to read not only that Oreskes had been vindicated but that Peiser had been discredited. More than that, the page portrayed Peiser himself as having grudgingly conceded Oreskes’s correctness.
“Upon checking with Peiser, I found he had done no such thing. The Wikipedia page had misunderstood or distorted his comments. I then exercised the right to edit Wikipedia that we all have, corrected the Wikipedia entry, and advised Peiser that I had done so.
“Peiser wrote back saying he couldn’t see my corrections on the Wikipedia page. Had I neglected to save them after editing them?, I wondered. I made the changes again, and this time confirmed that the changes had been saved. But then, in a twinkle, they were gone again! I made other changes. And others. They all disappeared shortly after they were made.”
Read the comments as well – some superb writing by ‘economart’ about objective truth.
Re the issue of temps above 80 degrees north have a look a this
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Click on each year since 1958 to 2009 does anyone discern any trend or warming? If so please advise us ASAP. Though the pole was warming dramatically! another blatant lie/Fraud
re previous “I thought” the pole etc…apologies
Climate Heretic (18:49:52) :
…………..
I for one welcome Eric B and look forward to the comments he will make in the future because sometimes watching someone flounder around is far more fun than rescuing them right away.
Lol – I agree keep it up Eric. Idiotic, hysterical juvenile postings like yours are all I ever see from warmers (and some lame attempts to “blind by science” on RC) and it is actually this attitude that led me to investigate the science behind this hypothesesis (Catastrophic AGW). I drew my own conclusions, independant of the consensus, I always do. It’s part of a little thing we like to call “scientific method”….
Talk about cherry picked.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
This is as good as Oreskes work. Doran makes a rather poor analysis of the chief concerns with Oreskes work, for not capturing the full diversity of scientic opinion.
Her main problems where; 1) her initial search parameters. She used terminology used by AGWers. (cherry picking). So she missed things like papers studing solar cycles, oceanic osscillations, etc. 2) Her use of the scientific method of “by implication”. And she doesn’t even bother to tell us what it takes to become by implication.
Then Doran to get his 90 some odd percent, narrows it down to people publishing in the area he wants. In short those on the AGWing gravy train. (Having worked in an arena where there was lots of gov. money. The experts came out of the woodwork when there was a big government grant.) The numbers were far smaller in Economic Geology and meterology.
Again we have another worthless work to prove that there is a consensus.
Unfortunately science, (last time I looked.) isn’t about consensus. It’s about who has the right answer.
Free market fanatics (R. Tanner) – that sounds like a chemist (analytical, logical, objective, scientific, reasoned).
I suggest any emotion be directed toward the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. If these organizations were doing their jobs, there would be no Heartland sponsoring meetings of scientists.
If it is true that Al Gore received a standing ovation at an AAAS meeting, the scientific community is in serious trouble, and Heartland has nothing to do with it.
Walter
Another piece of Doran. His first question was, “When compared with pre-1800s
levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” (I’m a bit suprise his number were that low.)
The next bit of news from Doran will probably be that scientist think it’s warmer than it was during the Plistocene.
Roger Sowell (17:28:12)
Thanks for the Hydrocarbon Processing link. I have designed instruments for hydrocarbon processing plants that include an auto-tune function based on some of the original control papers in that field. Greatly enjoyed reading that.
As is typical of WUWT, there was a link to all of the data, in this case all of the letters in that issue. Some supported the editor and the editorial. Most of those used the same ad hom attacks and appeals to authority as the original editorial. A few seemed to be attacking the members that complained about the editorial. I wonder how they knew about the complaints.
The world owes Anthony Watts, Steve Mcintyre, Roger Pielke, and a number of other brave men and women of science a huge debt of gratitude for providing not only forums to debunk the AGW non-sense, but giving real scientists the morale boost to speak out like the Chemical Society membership has done.
Dave E., exactly.
As Dr. Latour (and many others in the control field) have said, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t control it.” Stated another way, if the measurements are junk, then it is futile to attempt to control it – no matter what “it” is.
As an aside, there are several (perhaps many) areas in process control where direct measurements are either very difficult or impossible. Some clever control and process engineers have devised ways to infer the desired parameter. These are usually successfully applied in the control algorithm, but frequently must have the inferential calculation updated.
This is why, to a control engineer, it sounds plausible initially that global temperature, which cannot be measured, can be inferred by proxies. WUWT readers will know what those are, no need for me to provide an exhaustive list here.
But as Dr. Latour said, it is all junk when the inferred results do not comply with control fundamentals: CO2 continues to rise, while the global temperature measurement (however badly determined) sometimes rises, sometimes decreases, and sometimes remains stable for decades.
Imagine trying to drive a car and maintain a desired speed, when pressing the gas pedal sometimes slows the car, sometimes speeds it up, and sometimes simply maintains the current speed for hour after hour. It cannot be done. That is what Dr. Latour is saying. So do I.
M. Simon, you are welcome. I also did some work in process control in refineries and petrochemical plants.
You might like to read my blog entry on Dr. Latour’s letters to the editor:
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/chemical-engineer-takes-on-global.html
(not Eric B, but I think the same way}
danbo (05:10:05) :
“”Talk about cherry picked.
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Then Doran to get his 90 some odd percent, narrows it down to people publishing in the area he wants. In short those on the AGWing gravy train. (Having worked in an arena where there was lots of gov. money. The experts came out of the woodwork when there was a big government grant.) The numbers were far smaller in Economic Geology and meterology.””
Sorry but you are not making sense here. People who publish in a specialty are going to know more about the details, and can evaluate the issues much better than those who do not have detailed knowledge. In medicine, surgeons clearly are on a gravy train. If your GP tells you surgery is needed, he is not going to do it. He will send you to a surgeon. It will be expensive. Of course, y
ou would want to see statistics on the efficacy of the surgery being recommended. That is what peer reviewed publication is all about. It is not perfect, but better than looking at blog posts by non climate scientists.
To assume that 97% of the climate scientists who publish, are lying about their opinion in a confidential survey, in order to keep their jobs is a silly unsupported hypothesis. There is no evidence for it. It is similar to claiming that the Bush adminstration planned 911 because they benefited from it politically.
People go into scientific research out of curiosity, a desire to understand natural phenomena. People who are interested in money go into finance. There is no evidence that climate scientists earn more than others and that is why they enter the field. Just like biology, the field of climatology is an area of great interest to mankind. The idea that mandkind is influencing the climate is an idea that has a long history, since 1896, when Arrhenius first proposed it , and is a legitimate reason to do research on the mechanism of climate, however it comes out. If scientists choose climate science because this idea is intriguing, there is nothing corrupt about that.
“Again we have another worthless work to prove that there is a consensus.
Unfortunately science, (last time I looked.) isn’t about consensus. It’s about who has the right answer”
If you are a nonscientist, science to you, should be what scientists say it is.
That is what should go in scientific texts. If you deviate from that, you are in danger of being duped by quacks, or people with an economic interest in making up their own version of science. There is no reason to believe that nonscientists are more correct or pure in thought than the scientists who work in the field.