By WUWT Regular “Just The Facts”
According to USA Today on April 3rd and repeated on April 4th:
“Keith Baugues is not a scientist, but that didn’t stop him on a recent wintry day from expressing skepticism about global warming — something that is broadly accepted in the scientific community.”
“Baugues studied engineering at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in Terre Haute and has spent six years at the Department of Environmental Management and nine years with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” USA Today
So what did Keith Baugues write such that USA Today chose to identify him as “not a scientist”?:
“He took to a government message board one day in February, complaining that his normal 45-minute commute had turned into a painful three-hour slog. “Anyone who says global warming is obviously suffering from frostbite,” he wrote.”
“Baugues would later say he was only joking. But he wasn’t just any government bureaucrat. Baugues is assistant commissioner in the Office of Air Quality in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, the man in charge of cleaning up Indiana’s air.” USA Today
And what was the predictable response to an “assistant commissioner in the Office of Air Quality” joke and declaration that “I am a skeptic on global warming”?:
“Reaction was swift, according to remarks posted to the message board reviewed by The Indianapolis Star. Several IDEM staff members wrote that the comment flew in the face of nearly unanimous scientific consensus and offended and embarrassed them.
“Either support consensus science or please keep your opinions to yourself. The rest of us are embarrassed by your unwillingness to accept what is happening,” one worker wrote.
Another said that Baugues “should not speak on such matters until he is better informed.” Then that person, who was not named, took pains to point out that recent extremes of cold weather were caused by warming global temperatures. That resulted in more water being absorbed into the atmosphere, pushing the arctic jet stream farther south.” USA Today
The assertion that “warming global temperature” “resulted in more water being absorbed into the atmosphere, pushing the arctic jet stream farther south.” is demonstrably false. Even the author of the paper that this assertion has based upon has backtracked and said “I also agree that greenhouse-gas induced warming will reduce, not increase, the likelihood of breaking cold temperature records” Dot Earth
The claims of Baugues detractors appear to be empty rhetoric, e.g.:
“‘The fact that [Baugues] disparages the exact kind of science that disproves his statement only further illustrates how out of touch this administration is with the current environmental crisis facing not only Hoosiers, but the entire world,” the person wrote.'”
Furthermore, USA Today uses two duplicitous canards in claiming that:
More than 97 percent of the world’s climate scientists agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, according to several studies published on the NASA website.”
Firstly, the 97 percent number has been demonstrated to be false and the claim that “warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities” is erroneous, because there is no credible evidence that Anthropogenic CO2 emissions prior to 1950 were sufficient to influence Earth’s Temperature. In fact NASA’s website actually states that:
“Climate model simulations that consider only natural solar variability and volcanic aerosols since 1750—omitting observed increases in greenhouse gases—are able to fit the observations of global temperatures only up until about 1950.”
Duplicity aside, USA Today’s “not a scientist” attack is similar to one that was leveled against our own Willis Eschenbach by this site PopularTechnology.net, i.e.:
“He is not a “computer modeler”, he is not an “engineer” and he is certainly not a “scientist” (despite all ridiculous claims to the contrary).”
Popular Technology cites Webster’s definition of a Scientist to support their assertion, i.e.:
“a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”
PopularTechnology.net claims that:
“Willis has no educational background or any professional experience as a scientist. The only thing he can be considered is an amateur scientist.”
However, Webster is but one definition of a scientist, so let’s take a look at the others. Dictionary.com defines a scientist as:
“an expert in science, especially one of the physical or natural sciences.”
“a person who studies or practices any of the sciences or who uses scientific methods”
Oxford Dictionary defines a scientist as:
“A person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences”
Google Dictionary defines a scientist as:
“a person who is studying or has expert knowledge of one or more of the natural or physical sciences.”
Wikipedia defines a scientist as:
“A scientist, in a broad sense, is one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge. In a more restricted sense, a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.[1] The person may be an expert in one or more areas of science.[2] This article focuses on the more restricted use of the word. Scientists perform research toward a more comprehensive understanding of nature, including physical, mathematical and social realms.”
In terms of Webster’s definition of a scientist as “a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”, it is shown to be inaccurate by the fact that Einstein was a Patent Clerk when he wrote the Annus Mirabilis papers:
“The Annus Mirabilis papers (from Latin annus mīrābilis, “extraordinary year”) are the papers of Albert Einstein published in the Annalen der Physik scientific journal in 1905. These four articles contributed substantially to the foundation of modern physics and changed views on space, time, and matter. The Annus Mirabilis is often called the “Miracle Year” in English or Wunderjahr in German.”
“At the time the papers were written, Einstein did not have easy access to a complete set of scientific reference materials, although he did regularly read and contribute reviews to Annalen der Physik. Additionally, scientific colleagues available to discuss his theories were few. He worked as an examiner at the Patent Office in Bern, Switzerland, and he later said of a co-worker there, Michele Besso, that he “could not have found a better sounding board for his ideas in all of Europe”.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annus_Mirabilis_papers
So what do you think, what defines a scientist?
Re-reading the USA headline raises the question:
Why should one have to be a scientist in order to have an opinion about climate change, much less make a joke about it?
The arrogant thought suppression at the heart of the USA article is ironic and insulting, since the article was written and edited and published by non-scientists.
And then behind that is the record of major media, including USA Today, of ignoring the scientists who do question the climate consensus.
So the article is not only oxymoronic in that it seeks to use an argument from authority to intimidate even a mild questioning of climate consensus, while not honestly reporting that most of the protests over this comment is itself from non-scientists.
USA Today is a legacy of bad journalism, and this is agreat example of why.
Martin 457 says:
April 7, 2014 at 10:25 am
———————————-
There is an alternate interpretation. This same argument occurred at JoNova’s site involving the same individual. The same issues were vehemently defended – “qualified scientist” and “peer review”.
Now most sceptics can see that most climastologists are not qualified to tie their shoe laces. I have been through uni and I can tell most climastrologists are “C” students. That’s not “C” for credit average, that’s “C” for conceded pass.
Secondly everyone knows the David Apell argument against sceptics “but, but, but it’s not peer reviewed” was destroyed for the fellow travellers when the climategate email – “we’ll keep these papers out even if we have to redefine what peer review means” was exposed. All can now see the poor quality of pal review that is the rotten core of climastrology.
Now when someone is defending the “but they’re not a climate scientist” or “but it wasn’t peer reviewed by climate scientists” lines, I start to ask questions. The defence may be oblique, but over many threads and sites it becomes apparent.
A scientist is a truth seeker, no matter where that leads him/her
Nobel for Higgs Boson Discovery Ignores How Modern Science Works
“The Nobel Prize for the theoretical discovery of the Higgs boson, a tiny particle that explains why the building blocks of the universe have mass, went to Peter Higgs, from the UK, and Francois Englert from Belgium. They represent just two of the six scientists who made the Higgs boson prediction as part of three independent groups in 1964—not to mention the thousands of scientists and engineers who helped confirm the existence of the particle at the 27-kilometer-long Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, in Geneva.
Glamorous prizes such as the $1.2 million Nobel celebrate the idea of the “great man” (or woman) by recognizing just a few individuals, said Ashutosh Jogalekar, a chemist, in a blog post for Scientific American. That encourages the public to believe that modern science is still driven by the occasional brilliant genius who works alone to advance his or her field of science—an idea that distorts the reality of many scientists and engineers working together in labs or within international teams.”
These billion dollar projects are replacing the individual scientist, apparently. And all of the processing of the noise to find that signal takes a village. They say it is replicable but really, who has a cool 4 billion laying around?
Zeke says:
“They say it is replicable but really, who has a cool 4 billion laying around?”
Well, the State Department had $6 billion. But they… um… ‘lost’ it. ☹
dbstealey says, “Well, the State Department had $6 billion. But they… um… ‘lost’ it. ☹”
You got me with that one. 😀 Would it be too much to ask that they not receive a Nobel Prize for that? (;
Poptech, do you like arguing for argument sake? The truth is what ever title a person wishes to go by, or whatever employment they are in, if they present a paper on any scientific research, it can be argued by a peer group. Now if that peer group is biased in their opinion it is validated.
That is what has happened with the UNIPCC. And overtime, when new research comes in, previous arguments and a hypothesis can change. Quantum mechanics for one, and even Stephen Hawkings has changed his mind about black holes? It doesn’t mean previous research was in anyway totally wrong, it has been updated and reviewed. It is the methodology and data collected that is important. But one still stands as correct, Darwins theory on selection. “Survival of the fittest” which translated means those species that are successful in breeding another generation, who go on to breed another generation, etc.
Nature has a selective process that has passed as correct in time.
A scientist is an engineer that did not want to go to school for an extra year.
They offer evidence that he may have. No such conclusion can be drawn as we have not heard from the author’s of the articles. Get all three authors to admit that they did it on their own and I will remove this allegation.
Funny, that ever computer illiterate who does not know how Alexa works delusionally believes those numbers are accurate.
The fact that you do not understand how significant having a higher page rank is says everything anyone tech savy needs to know about you. I don’t make any money off Popular Technology.net so I don’t spent any time worrying about traffic let alone Alexa rankings (worthless). Regardless, the real traffic numbers for the site have nothing to do with the garbage you are posting.
ROFLMAO! I am going to share this idiocy, as I don’t others confusing you with educated skeptics.
You are such a computer illiterate you just told everyone you are using Firefox and are from the United States.
“Climate skeptic blogger Willis Eschenbach, whose credentials include a massage therapy certificate and a B.A. in Psychology will also be speaking.”
“Their line up is made up almost exclusively of climate deniers including the likes of Willis Eschenbach whose credentials include a bachelors degree in pyschology and a massage therapy certificate.”
ROFLMAO! How does it feel to fail in epic fashion like this and prove MY point?
OK Poptech, you’re done. JTF, you too. Comments closed. I’m tired of this petty bickering over pointless points.