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?
Scientists create lofty ideas from ivory towers designed and built by engineers.
Engineers are professionally liable if their work fails. Scientists offer no such warranty on their work. Thus we have buildings and bridges that work and climate models that don’t
Zombi, your idea is illogical, they are trying to put down those that have shown courage in putting up an alternative argument. Ferd, you are so right. Oh, LOL, has anyone practiced the Heil hitler salute recently.
In my foolish youth I would have said that a real scientist was someone who used the scientific method to address questions about the natural world. They might be cranky and vindictive (or ditzy and ineffectual, etc.) in their private lives, but when it came to their research, they were coldly logical and objective. Assumptions were always tested, experiments were designed to hit the weakest part of the hypothesis, data rigorously analyzed, and falsified hypotheses discarded. New hypotheses replaced old (ad hoc adjustments were not allowed) and, because the method was so robust, even when initial hypotheses were wrong, some truth about the natural world was eventually revealed. False scientists were those who couldn’t let go of gorgeous hypotheses, valued theory over data, or believed, irrevocably, that they knew the answer before they did any experiments.
Perhaps it was like that in the golden years (a fallacy of course) when scientists pursued knowledge as its own reward (along with prestige and honours). A modern scientist, however, pursues money designated for a particular purpose and designs experiments to prove the assumptions of whatever generous agencies (government, business, NGOs) provided the money.
Therefore, I think a better definition of a modern scientist would be something like this: “A scientist is someone that knows what is expected to be true and is able to publish proof of the hypothesis. A really good scientist is one who is able to generate a press release that magnifies the importance of their normative research by a large, but undefined number (‘undefined’ is required, since X x 0 = 0). The best scientist the world has ever seen is the one who can capture the essence of a field of ‘research’ and make it their own.” I think Dr Mann is one of the best scientists in the modern world.
Dave you are being sarcastic. Science is a precise and progressive methodology that is demonstrated by adequate study and research into a given discipline that provides adequate and provable data, that forms a hypothesis. That can be demonstrated by validation of the hypothesis by observations and experiment. Such as splitting the atom. Gee we got that right didn’t we to our chagrin.
The problem is peer reviewed hypothesis. If enough say, his scientific research is OK, then it is accepted and it is validated. One can’t validate a prediction though.
Please remind USA today that the Callendar Effect which defines the relationship between CO2 and global temperature was named for a steam engineer, not a scientist.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Stewart_Callendar
Science is a philosophy and not a bunch of university credentials and it is about the process of observation and falsification – it’s not about proving anything. Scientists are people, any people, who apply the scientific methodologies to learn more about the world by dispelling myths and falsehoods, learning or discovering things that are more ‘right’ than the previously assumed ‘right’. For example, the mass of an electron was determined at a point in time by a scientist. this mass was then found to be a little off by another scientist and different experiments determined a figure closer to the one we use today. This process continues forever in science.
Anyone can be a scientist too, from the mother at home who on hearing the oft cited blither that vinegar and bicarb soda when mixed make an excellent cleaning product does some reading and discovers that no, just because two things individually work well, when mixed they do not. This is science – and Karl Popper would be proud. Science is a skepticism based on rigorous testing.
On the flip side I know of desktop researchers and epidemiologists who have no grasp of the concept of falsification, no concept of causality differing from coincidence, yet they hold their science qualifications up as proof of themselves being scientists.
“Magma says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm
If you want to make him out to be an amateur…”
The man who once suggested that the profile of Africa (A) and South America (SA) somehow seem to be similar and when he cut out A and SA and offered them up to each other he theorised that they could have been joined at sometime in the past. This man was an amateur geologist. His theory was dismissed but eventually proven correct, in large part due to the US Navy mapping the floor of the oceans, sadly after his death. Many of the greatest scientific discoveries were made by “amatuers” who had no peers.
As for professionals in “climate science”, well, they are worce than amateurs, they are blantant liars on the taxpayers coin.
@ur momisugly Just The Facts:
What do you call a person who does not create scientific experiments following the scientific method? Einstein was a mathematician- he never did one experiment. Other scientists proved his theories through experiments. I can make up a hundred theories a day, but I can’t make up data.
Yes, and they utilize their popular and positive image to the public. Al Gore must be right as he once was vice president. We trust our politicians don’t we (NOT!) If some appears better educated than you on a subject, you assume they are right. (NOT) I know when I went to university, my head tutor told me to read widely. ‘Data will change and expect the archaeological record, with all its gaps to be filled in one day by new discoveries’ Archaeology and Palaeoanthropology is a science too. But I don’t know of any weather prediction science? Do you?
Well I suppose one studies weather at a Meteorology college, or take one of those uncredited climate change diplomas that have suddenly popped up on the web.
Robert JM
You raise an important observation about the bashing from the rag: that using a “consensus” argument (argumentum ad populum) is unscientific because it it quite literally illogical.
The protagonist expressed an opinion based on experience and observation. The antagonists decried his opinion not because it was unscientific, but because, they claimed, he was himself not qualified to hold a valid “scientific” opinion, that ridiculous argument supported by a baseless claim that he was not a “scientist”, a claim easily proven false by any definition.
There are three clearly unscientific elements to this: the attack on the protagonist, the consensus claim and the rag’s definition of ‘a scientist’s.
Hypotheses’ are not theories.. Einstein’s theory of relativity, is a theory. Hypotheses are data related ideas demonstrated and presented in a scholarly methodology and process with references to prove their point and the extent of the research. Or by presenting a holistic experiment, ie. tree rings? That was a bad choice Mikie, as there are archaeologists that can challenge your methodology was flawed. But some hypotheses can be challenged, as nothing is absolute. Some can never be proven anyway. But can be proven wrong.
It’s laughable, that person criticizing Willis. I’d bet my life savings that if invited to a debate with Willis, they’d be a no show
And, neither Bill Gates or Steve Jobs were qualified computer engineers.
Climate scientists rely on data from thermometers. Only highly trained and trusted individuals should be allowed to interpret thermometers.
Albert Einstein was not a refrigeration expert and yet he worked with someone (I forget who) to make home based refrigerators safer due to the refrigerants used at that time (Ammonia I think. Rather ironic now as CFC’s and HCFC’s being banned, ammonia is now becoming more popular, again). They had a working solution but were beaten by technological advances where safer refridgerants (Freon I think) were used.
In the life sciences (immunology), I have personally observed real scientists by standard measure (academic and lab training, a PhD dissertation, accepted 1st author publications, grants) who would have been better described as technicians IMHO. They were skilled (or had been at one time) at the techniques needed to examine the questions. They could write. They could critically think about how their data and who it squared with a hypothesis. They were skeptical or single expt data. But many lack one key ingredient that I think has to make a successful scientist (like Einstein), they did not have that burning curiosity to really try to understand curious secondary observations or why an experiment might have failed to produce “expected results.”
Any operationla definition of succesful scientist has to include a burning curiosity about the field of their study. Otherwise it quickly just becomes a job and need to keep grant money flowing with data and boring publications few read.
What defines a scientist? Curiosity, integrity, honesty, determination.
@roger Dewhurst:
“It might be more appropriate to ask what distinguishes the scientist from the engineer.”
I was always taught that there are two kinds of scientists theoretical scientists and applied scientists. Theoretical scientists are the ones who do research on leading edge topics. Applied scientists are engineers (all types) and architects, essentially. They certainly use scientific principles to design things – otherwise structures would fall down or equipment would fail. Or electrical power relay stations would blow up a lot.
Where do TV meteorologists fit into that? They aren’t doing research, but they are certainly scientists – I’d call them applied scientists.
Pointless debate – I am a scientist, but I also hold a PhD in “Engineering” from an Engineering Department – the lines are very blurred. However, a scientist is not someone who quotes what others are saying without undertaking sufficient inquiry to satisfy themselves that what others are saying is correct. Case in point – many “scientists” will carry on about the polar bear, without evenknowing that its linnean name is Ursus maritiumus – the sea bear. They have just been told that without sufficient ice the polar bear will drown.
What Defines A Scientist , for the AGW faithful the unquestioning support of ‘the cause ‘ no matter how bad your ideas or anti-science your approach. Dogma is all .
Like so much on this area , don’t think science, think religions or political fanatic , and you will understand how it works.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that I suppose.
——————-
Al Gore is not a scientist. There are many other Warmists who are not scientists.
What’s this from 3 days ago? Here is the Emeritus Professor Les Woodcock and former NASA scientist.
# Sera and bushbunny
Definitions should be absolute, but be careful which of the available choices you pick.
My idea of a hypothesis is something that is just a speculation (e.g. apples fall to the ground because the gods don’t like things that float in air) with no empirical evidence for it and no way to test it. After all, maybe the gods really don’t like things that float in air so they invented gravity, who’s to know?
A theory on the other hand may begin as an idle speculation but subsequently (in private, if the thinker is prudent) is elaborated to include a known or unknown mechanism, which can be tested by experiment and therefore is susceptible to falsification (like seeing whether 17years 8months worth of additional carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere does indeed raise average global temperature).
Einstein’s generalised theory fulfilled these requirements – indeed he explicitly said that light would bend around massive objects in space (so-called Einstein lensing) and if it didn’t his theory was wrong. Subsequently, Einstein lensing was found to be a physical fact, so he well and truly qualifies as a “scientist” (as if anyone ever seriously doubted it).
I really don’t know if Hans Popper would have approved of my concepts of hypothesis and theory, because I find his writings far too leaden to bother with. Anyway, my ideas on these matters work just fine for me.
One academic who was foretelling the importance of science in schools, described it as being not just a discipline based on experiments but is also needs a creative mind to think about and solve problems that have as yet not be solved. I think the AGW group mistakenly felt this should be creative bullshit, you can fool some people some of the time, but not all people all of the time.
Which came first? The Annus Mirabilis papers were produced in 1905.
—————————–