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?
It is the method.
Unless a person applies the scientific method, they are not acting as a scientist.
No matter how many white lab coats they parade in, or how high they creep in academia.
Just as so many of the current social studies classes call themselves sciences, when it is clear they are not.
The current discussions from the easily alarmed or profits of CAGW, “NOT a Proper Scientist” is standard rubbish from the parasite culture.
Not a proper priest of the Cult of Calamitous Climate, unless they agree with the other priests.
O Yay we have a consensus.
Funny how application of scientific method requires rigorous scepticism, yet the self styled Climatologists, constantly demean sceptical questioners glorify opinion over data and wallow in appeal to authority.
Being deemed Not a Proper Climate scientist, is a blessing.
One only has to look to the eminent IPCC “scientists” to wonder if Gilbert and Sullivan did the cast recruiting.
I am the very model of a modelling Climatologist, I am so special I never will be missed.
Magma says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Between 1901 and 1904, Einstein published five papers in Annalen der Physik, the leading peer-reviewed physics journal of the time. He also completed his Ph.D.
I think that says a lot about Annalen der Physik. They published the work of a patent clerk who could not get a job in any university.
Can anyone imagine something like that happeneing in this enlightened age?
Magma says: April 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Between 1901 and 1904, Einstein published five papers in Annalen der Physik, the leading peer-reviewed physics journal of the time. He also completed his Ph.D. thesis in 1905.
So he wasn’t a “scientist” when he “was working at the patent office” on “questions about transmission of electric signals and electrical-mechanical synchronization of time, two technical problems that show up conspicuously in the thought experiments that eventually led Einstein to his radical conclusions about the nature of light and the fundamental connection between space and time”?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein
If you want to make him out to be an amateur on a par with WUWT bloggers… well, whatever.
Misinterpret it as you wish, but I think every one else here can see the difference between classifying them all as scientists versus classifying them all as possibly the best scientist ever to exist…
If you study the bible to figure out how the world is made does that make you a scientist?
By some definitions it would, which is why an exact definition is required to identify science from pseudoscience.
That is the whole point of the scientific method.
Science is a methodology.
A scientist is a person who employs that methodology.
As the von storch survey showed the vast majority of climate scientist are computer modellers who have studied applied maths through meteorology departments.
Meteorology is not a science, they do not employ the scientific method in any form and consequently the vast majority people who claim to be climate scientist are clearly not scientist.
If someone mentions “consensus” then it needs to be pointed out that a consensus is by definition unscientific and that scientific advancement comes at the expenses of the consensus.
RAcook wrote;
“So, what is the difference between a “scientist’ and an “engineer” ? The real world.”
Please, don’t restrain yourself so much, tell us what you really think….
I also have that terrible disease; “the knack”;
http://www.flixxy.com/dilbert-the-knack.htm
17 plus years and the “climate models” don’t match reality… Heck I have products that I helped design 17 plus years ago that are in the scrap heap now because better stuff came along. I have US Patents that have expired since they only last for 20 years,,,,
But, I’m a D-word…
Cheers, Kevin
I have a dream that one day we will be judged not by the letters on our diplomas but by the content of our arguments.
A scientist is anybody who doesn’t take other peoples’ word for things– who has to find out for him/herself — requires verification. Not too different from what used to be considered a real journalist.
DR says:
April 5, 2014 at 7:41 pm
LOL! I read some of the comments. Same old worn out bloviating Leftist pap. They can’t think for themselves, so must Appeal to Authority. Anyone questioning the cult leaders are told to shut up and stop watching Fox News.
This made me laugh! So true.
The word “science” comes to us from the Latin “scientia” meaning “demonstrable knowledge.” In addition to “demonstrable knowledge,” “science” has the meaning of “the process that is operated by people calling themselves ‘scientists’.” The ambiguity of meaning lays open the possibility that a “scientist” participates in operating a process that produces no demonstrable knowledge. This is the case for the “scientists” of the consensus.
When QANTAS were recruiting pilots in 1964, they went to University of London, and sat a very day long intelligence tests. Ones that were also designed for engineers and brain surgeons. (To make sure the surgeon did not lose concentration over a long time, ie. takeoff or landing or long surgery). Engineers have a lot of similarities in analysis and are scientific in their approaches to a problem. You don’t need to operate as a scientist in climatology to know how to read data. Archaeologists and Palaeoanthropolists, all analyse the environment that was present when examining and analysing data or artifacts. These jokers are protecting their profession as if their opinion is based only on data collected by computer modelling, but depends on which discipline in science ones knowledge is focused. As if we were attempting an brain operation without a medical degree. But most of us know a bit of first aid. And their data will be the type that fits their hypothesis. And we know that some data has been cherry picked or even wrong to assume or project their results. That’s not science.
Some years ago a huge chunk of sea ice broke away in Antarctica. “Climate change!” some screamed. It did not prove a threat to shipping and Antarctica scientists said, ‘This was caused by another large lump of sea ice, colliding with this one. Not climate change, it happens all the time”
That ill fated ship that got stuck in pack ice, should have taken note. See we senior citizens have long memories, and the ones that stick most is the weather, ‘The great storm of …” Snow at the wrong time of year, ‘Heatwaves” drought, floods, and the idiots I have met? LOL
Clearly, a scientist is someone who gathers in crowds and shuns and attempts to humiliate people who disagree with them.
Robert JM:
“If you study the bible to figure out how the world is made does that make you a scientist?
By some definitions it would, which is why an exact definition is required to identify science from pseudoscience.”
How so? I can think of no way to test for magic. Matter and energy have properties that can be tested. Religious ideas generally don’t. Perhaps an anthropologist or historian can study the Bible in a meaningful scientific way to find out more about the culture and society of the time period, but it cannot be studied scientifically as a means of studying the physical world.
When the truth will out, those who have collectively and professionally been found wanting, I would say their scholarly achievements will be dashed. I suspect that they are worried about having to explain the grants they have received.
I suggest that the quality of one’s predictive track record in scientific matters is the best objective measure of one’s scientific competence.
The IPCC and the global warming alarmists have predicted dangerous global warming and there has been no global warming for about 17 years, and perhaps the beginning of a global cooling trend.
The IPCC and the global warming alarmists have NO successful predictive track record – and hence no demonstrable competence in climate science.
The demand that Baugues conform to “consensus science” is a clear indicator that his detractors at USA Today aren’t scientists – they’re politicians and opponents of free speech, and more than that, they’re opponents of real science. It hardly bears repeating that there is no such thing as “consensus” in science.
As for the “97 percent” – i.e., 75 of 77 individuals who aren’t even all scientists – they’re outnumbered 450 to 1 by the signers of the Oregon Petition alone.
A Scientist is a person who are willing to put forward a thesis or a theory using Theories of Science-methods AND who are prepared to have his/her work presented in a way for other Scientists to follow and repeat(in theory or practise) every step in the logic of the Scientist’s work from thesis, background, correct not corrected or compromised facts, to the “bitter end” the conclusions drawn by the Scientist from logic proven A to B, B to C all way to S to T.
Many persons, skilled and with all sorts of Academic titles/positions in debates miss that Real-time observations always are better than theories of Scholars. No Scholar can say that he or she has found anywhere near a correct conclusions if not every factors needed is put on the table to be tested in reality. Reality always wins over fictive models. That one is easy. Fictive models miss needed information somewhere in the line. Mostly due to using Circle Proof instead of proving that A always leads to B and so on. Those two, missed information and usage of Circle Proof, been used in every so called computer models by the alarmists. All facts and factors needed are to be analysed, not chosen or corrected data used as facts.
I love that squealing noise they make when someone calls them on their B.S.
Poor guy though, I hope he doesn’t get destroyed for saying out loud what any sane person knows to be the truth.
I know what a scientist isn’t – someone who withholds their data because they are afraid someone may find fault with their hypothesis is not a scientist (i.e. Mann, Jones). Someone who refuses to acknowledge the failure of their hypothesis when confronted with overwhelming evidence is likewise not a scientist (e.g. the IPCC’s rising confidence in their failing computer models). Why don’t they qualify as scientists? Because they aren’t practicing science.
“Those that can, will learn. Those that can’t must be taught.”
Letters prove you can be taught. Not that you can think. pg
If you can hang a diploma on the wall from an accredited institution of higher learning saying you have a BA or BS in some scientific field of inquiry, you have proof you are a scientist. That doesn’t mean you actually do research or analysis, or that you are any good at it. But you can call yourself a scientist.
What gets me riled up is when scientists, highly successful in one field, jump into a new unrelated area and we assume automatically these big names are able to make meaningful and significant contributions in the new landscape. Or worse, when they make statements regarding issues in their new field and people believe they are suddenly experts.
Maybe the veteran can contribute in the new field, but I would not assume a priori he can. Why would he be even as successful as a post doc? Is it his approach to problem solving? Or is it because he attracts and funds the talented postdocs who actually solve the problems? I have plenty of respect for the latter, because that is a critically important role. Someone has to keep in mind the big picture, guide efforts in one general direction, make sure work is published and grants are written (and politics played), and deal with chaos lurking in the lab.
One exceptional opportunity is when someone successful in one field is able to bring the knowledge of their previous area of study to bear on problems in their new area of inquiry. Nevertheless, there are no guarantees of success.
Here is a discussion of Francis Crick’s contributions to neuroscience. He chose a very tough nut to crack. How well did he do?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC535570/
This is actually very good news indeed. Scientists are sceptical by definition. If you as a person believe in something to the exclusion of any other possibility – then you become an advocate not a scientist.
The original comment about global warming/frostbite was probably an off the cuff remark. Most sensible people would have had a wry smile and moved on.
But what this remark did was to act like a bait.
And that bait, however innocently laid out – caught some who profess to be “scientists” and want to be seen as scientists – but who are now advocates of a belief.
Jo/e public is not stupid – Jo/e public can now see what is happening here. And that is entirely thanks to the actions of the advocates – the believers.
It has very little to do with science and the scientific method.
Doug UK:
That’s like saying the Inquisitioners “took the bait” laid out by the witch they are about to burn.
“Hah,” says the witch! “I caught you all! You have revealed yourselves to be believers in witches!”
Doesn’t matter … the witch is still gonna get burned.
The tables turn on such linguists since the scientific method itself disqualifies those who torture data in favor of a theory as being even called scientists instead of charlatan crooks. Most fields of science evict such rogues from professional society, and since climate “science” instead celebrates and rewards them, their whole field now disqualifies their claim to being a science at all.
These are not minor points, mere opinionated jabs, but are the deeply fundamental and defining criteria that separates and elevates science from all other endeavors.
After Willis’ simple plot of the Marcott 2013 input data that utterly falsified the blade of that new Harvard “super hockey stick,” one of the biggest nails of all was driven into the coffin of the hockey stick team cult operation. In infamy will their fame be forever converted into notoriety, dragging the now fully invested and committed progressive era of statism down with it, the temperature record itself becoming the loudest skeptical voice.
Lewandowsky’s latest two part paper now claims that greater uncertainty due to skeptical input is *mathematically* proven to result in greater climate disaster risk. It has reached preposterous levels of misdirection as such “scientists” who do not follow the scientific method any more than did Enron, are given fellowships by the Royal Society. The biggest loser for a century will be science itself, since us *correct* amateurs were attacked by every official scientific body that we reached out to for explanations of their support of corruption, and the public *knows* this. All the heads of academic departments will now suffer a legacy of being at the peak of their career during the biggest and most obvious fraud in human history, yet they supported it! Are they then scientists? No, they are not. They are fellow scammers in a plot to invoke energy rationing genocide in our era of abundance.
One doesn’t need a science degree to know the truth. Tim Flannery is by rights a palaeotologist, with some archaeological experience. His theories on mega-fauna extinction have been reviewed and contradicted. When they all died off, we weren’t hunting them to extinction but it coincides with a change from ice age to an interglacial. Those that were browsers died, those that were grazers actually grew smaller. Like the North American bison, there were bigger ones around once.
Thomas Edison was an engineer — you know, the kind that builds the world. Scientists are *supposed* to underpin the engineering, but engineers know to check their own bases (that’s the plural of “basis”, guys).
Even mathematics has the same dichotomy of theory vs practice. The theoretical is called “formalism” and is practiced by most mathematicians, it features the law of the “excluded middle”, that is, something is either true or it is false, there is no grey area in between. In opposition is the practical, called “constructivism”, which says that there is a valid middle area where something is neither true nor false. Schroedinger’s Cat falls into this nebulous area, where if you do not know the state of the cat, it cannot be held to be either one or the other, rather it is both. Back in university days I was a staunch constructivist and so fielded quite a bit of criticism from my professors, but the hallmark of constructivism is that for something to be demonstrated it must be constructed, and not simply indicated. Most mathematicians get their gravy from formalism and produce ridiculous truisms, but constructivism, much criticized, has had the last laugh because computation requires its rigor and rules.
I know my little essay here will be lost forever in the flood of comments, but it is a little marker that the schizophrenic behavior of science even extends to mathematics, where you would think it cannot be. Indeed, even number theory which builds its foundations on integers is in question, as the universe appears to operate on a logarithmic basis more so than discrete integers. Physical law is such a bitch.