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?
Oh look, another “consensus” science that now the tide is turning. The author of the article makes a comparison of climate change and cholesterol “science”.
Oh look, another “consensus” science that now the tide is turning. The author of the article makes a comparison of climate change and cholesterol “science”.
http://notrickszone.com/2014/04/05/paging-george-clooney-99-of-all-doctors-agreed-on-cholesterol-now-its-turning-out-they-were-all-wrong/#comment-930009
P.S. With link this time 🙂
So now using the definition of a scientist following the scientific method we must conclude, that AGW as per IPCC’s conclusion of for most of the warming since 1950 being man made, has been falsified? Observations V Projections? 17+ years of surface temperature standstill? Would 20 years do it? No?
Talking of qualifications, or lack there of, in a given field. Einstein was not a refrigeration engineer however, worked with someone (I forget who) to improve the safety of the domestic refrigerator which was dominated by ammonia as the refrigerant. They actually developed a working design, which was safer. Unfortunately, freon became the dominant refrigerant rendering their efforts redundant. I don’t think either of them lost any sleep over progress. And now, after such progress, CFC’s and HCFC’s are being banned and ammonia is being favoured! One step forward, two steps back!
To my opinion, a scientist is someone who commits scientific research. His background does not matter, what is important is the way he carries out his research.
“Just the facts” highlights the fact that Einstein was a clerk when he published key papers in 1905. A similar, and relevant case is James Croll, of Croll – Milankovich cycle fame. He educated himself as a youth by getting a job as a janitor at the university library. When he began writing about the link between ice ages and variations in earth orbit, he was a caretaker at Anderson College museum.
LevelGaze says:
April 6, 2014 at 12:31 am
“I really don’t know if Hans Popper would have approved of my concepts…”
_____________________
I’m sure you meant Karl Popper (or did you really mean Hans Popper, the lead caster?)
OK, it’s seems clearer now. He published the groundbreaking papers BEFORE he received his PHD. That is correct?
I rather like Richard Feynman’s definition of science: ‘Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts’.
MikeA
Some Warmists have pointed out to me that such and such a person is an astrophysicist. I point out that the Father of modern day global warming, Dr. James Hansen, studied physics and astronomy and I assume is also an astrophysicist.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/hansencv_201308.pdf
Isn’t it interesting that if you disagree with a scientific idea, you are attacked for not being a scientist, and even if you are one, you’re criticized for not being a *specific* kind of scientist? That takes care of at least 80% of objections. The rest can be dismissed as ‘out of touch’ or whatever.
But if you agree with a scientific idea, then any requirement for qualification is waived, as if… by magic.
Oh and BTW, skepticism is merely one aspect of doing science and does not define science. Other fields within and outside philosophy also have skepticism as an aspect.
Skepticism is not in any way near the top of the list of desirable qualities necessary for doing good science. It’s on the list though, that’s for sure.
I guess Faraday, an uneducated apprentice of a bookbinder and a religious fanatic as well was not a “scientist” either, therefore we should quit using electricity ASAP.
@ur momisugly Alan Robertson
You’re right first time 🙂
The older I get, the worse I get with names.
Thank you, James.
About a year ago, the sceptic blog run by Jo Nova, asked how many readers were scientists or engineers and in what field. Many hundreds of people responded. I suspect if WUWT did the same it would be many thousands, especially if it was a stand alone post one day.
In my opinion, geologists know the most about climate and how it works in a historical sense.
Geologists – with the obvious exception of government ones, where there are continuing employment considerations – are the most sceptical group on the planet. I am a geologist and I know of no geologist who believes in alarmist CAGW theory.
A scientist is not someone who ‘works as a scientist’, rather someone who thinks acts and experiments like a scientist.
Children who test the frequency of seed germination under different conditions with their primary school teacher are scientists. They posed a question, designed some experiments, carried them out and interpreted them. If they say that results obtained in NYC automatically transpose to identical results in Patagonia then maybe they are being naive, unless their school has a link to a school in Patagonia and they shared their results which were identical, albeit 6 months or so apart.
Farmers who design- and carry out experiments to test the effect of certain composts, mulches, additives or fertilisers are behaving like scientists. They may not have a BSc, but they are doing what scientists do in their own particular field.
Whilst (a) degree(s) in science may indicate an exposure to scientific information and, in some cases, 3 – 5 years practice of experimental science, the test of whether someone is a scientist or not is how they respond in situations of controversy.
The reality is that science almost always collides with politics in the most heated arenas of controversy and hence, the scientists who refuse to engage politically may end up like the Shakers, politically pure but on the way to extinction.
“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.
Well that’s one thing that DOES NOT define a scientist, conformation to orthodoxy has nothing to do with science. So Keith Baugues scores having enough brains to put orthodoxy to one side and form an objective opinion.
So according to this “worker” scientific opinions are only to be expressed when they reinforce the orthodoxy viewpoint. I guess that’s why whoever it is, is a “worker” at Indiana Department of Environmental Management, and not a scientist.
the scientist is the one escorted by security from Casinos…….for winning!
Below are some notable people who were not ‘scientists’ or not credentialed at the time they made their discoveries, inventions etc. according to the USA Today article. They must realise that today’s scientists are Standing On The Shoulders Of Giants.
Apparently Albert Einstein kept a picture of Faraday on his study wall, alongside pictures of Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell.
[Einstein’s Heroes: Imagining the World through the Language of Mathematics”, by Robyn Arianrhod UQP, reviewed by Jane Gleeson-White, 10 November 2003
http://books.google.gm/books/about/Einstein_s_Heroes.html?id=XhDdiL8JJyIC&redir_esc=y%5D
the narrative against the valid position in science of a skeptic when a type 1 error is in place [H0: no wolf] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_positive#Type_I_error is an appeal to authoritarianism extending into the language dominance
“Dominance may initially be established by fighting, or simply by threatening displays or interchanges. Once established, however, dominance is usually maintained by agonistic (competitive) behaviours with aggression considerably reduced or sometimes absent. In the maintenance of dominance relationships, the behaviour of the sub-dominant animal is critical. If a dominant animal perceives its status is being threatened, it will likely threaten the sub-dominant individual.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_%28ethology%29
In the language of monarchy to make yourself king you have to adopt a narrative that makes others common ie a language designed to belittle and degrade and to trick the person into thinking they are lower not equal.e.g. ‘know your place’
In science the data and method are king not people [even if they have a string of successes does not disqualify them from making errors]. Using dominance narrative against people means something else is going on. Which is why they do not accept the role of the skeptic when [H0: no wolf] is present and instead of calling them by their correct term in science they use other more colourful emotional words of the ‘monarchy’ narrative and must describe them as ‘illegitimate’.
whenever [H0: no wolf] is present you will get skeptics.
One of the leading post war- astronomers never went to university, although in later years he was granted an Honorary Ph. D.
Dyring the war the late Sir Patrick Moore turned down a place at Cambridge and lied about his age to join the RAF, serving as a navigator with Bomber Command and rising to the rank of Flight Lieutenant. After the war he turned down a grant to study at Cambridge and taught for a time at a prep school but his interest in astronomy came to dominate his life. He built his own telescope in the garden of his Sussex home and began to observe the moon. The detailed maps of the moon’s surface that he produced during this time were used by Nasa as part of the preparations for the moon landing.
Buzz Aldrin, the pilot on the Apollo 11 moon landing, paid him this tribute in a BBC interview in 2009. “Astronomy has grown in leaps and bounds and it’s people like Patrick who have been able to put it into perspective so that ordinary people understand the enormity of the universe.”
The Royal Society made Moore an Honorary Fellow.
Websters would certainly not have called him a “scientist”, which goes to show how unreliable is that dictionary.
As for those who claim that engineers are not scientists it is worth noting that the Generalised Hurst Exponent, which is widely used as a measure of the long-term memory of a time series,
was so named by Mandelbrot when he realised the important role that these exponents, first discovered by Hurst, could play in fractal geometry. Hurst’s papers were originally published in Civil Engineering journals, and as a Hydrologist he was known as an engineer not as a physicist.
When, after the Suez affair, the British were expelled from Egypt, Hurst’s importance, as the world’s leading Nilologist, was such that Nasser invited him to return within weeks of the expulsion.
DR wrote; ‘Anyone questioning the cult leaders are told to shut up and stop watching Fox News’
With respect, the LAST TV feed anyone should watch for NEWS are channels like Fox, Chicken Noodle News and the BEEB.
My reccomendation is RT for informed opinions on world matters or for mostly unbiased factual; stick to first person feeds like Reuters.
And for detailed. ‘both sides of the coin’ opinion on give subjects, excellent blogs like this one!
“a scientist is an individual who uses the scientific method.”
The “Scientific Method” as defined by the Einstein School
The Inductive Method of Science (Gerald Holton, 1996).
1. Draw tentative hypothesis from experimental results
2. Refine hypothesis by making analogies with math or physics
3. Make predictions and draw logical conclusions that are
structured for experimental analysis
4. Run the experiment or check against known observations
5. If the observations or experimental results fit the hypothesis,
then the hypothesis is universally valid.
[ 6. If not universally valid, go back to step 1. ]
Anyone, including Einstein, Edison, Watts, Monckton, or even YOU
are a “scientist”, if following the “scientific method” as per G. Holton.
Anyone can read anyone else’s hypothesis,
and making informed comment, correspond
with the authors of that hypothesis. Should a
valid point be made which is accepted by the
authors, and indeed should the hypothesis be
altered as a result of that, then it does not matter
one jot, as to the so called “scientific credentials”
of the examiner and correspondent,
“scientific credentials” you will all realise, are mere
pieces of paper, signifying that the nominee has
“passed” some examination or other whose questions
are set by some other individuals, with reference to
supposed “known facts” at the time of the examination.
Known facts change over time, as we gather more
evidence about the physical universe, and its observable
and measurable effects on the biosphere, in which we live.
Measurement instruments and techniques change over
time, as do analytical processes, hence what was known
when an “accredited scientist” passed their examinations
may not even be relevant today. A so called “Amatuer”
or “Autodidact” scientist may well be better informed
about the facts and evidence that are known today,
The Scientific Method is the thing, and sadly, lately,
not very many “scientists” have been using it. They
prefer to use fixed dogma, as though what was in their
examination syllabus all those years (decades?) ago
had never changed, and never will. New evidence is
never seen by those blinkered guys (and gals).
Here in the “information age” with the powerful personal PC,
and computing in the cloud, with the Android & iPhone …..
WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY AT OUR FINGERTIPS
WE CAN ALL BE SCIENTISTS NOW, IF WE WANT TO !
codicil – AL GORE will NEVER be a scientist,
because that Dogmatist will NEVER
use the Scientific Method.
This is an example of the “No true Scotsman” logical fallacy.
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal.”
Person B: “I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my oatmeal.”
Person A: “Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his oatmeal, therefore you cannot be a true Scotsman.”
Person A. “All scientists believe in catastrophic man-made climate change.”
Person B. “I am a scientist but I am sceptical about it.”
Person A. “Therefore you are not a real scientist.”
Maurice Strong, the man behind the Rio Summit and the whole scam, was not a scientist.
I know how to identify the non-scientists in this debate, anyone who calls the gas CO2 “Carbon”.