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?
Can someone be a scientist one moment then a none scientist the next. YES. When a climate scientist refuses to give all the data and runs model simulation ‘experiments’.
There we go: a novelist is someone writing novels, an artist is making art, musicians make music, and scientists produce science. Charlatans are people collecting Nobel Peace Prizes.
The Daily Mail has a story this morning of how the IPCC report was ‘sexed up’ to create alarm. For example, the summary for policy makers now says “Climate change is projected to increase displacement of people because of extreme weather” – The original report explicitly contradicts this saying “Current alarmist predictions of massive flows of environmental migrants are not supported by past experiences of responses to droughts and extreme weather events”.
Sexed up Summary : “Climate change will increase risks of violent conflicts”
Original report says the opposite : “ Research does not conclude that there is a strong positive relationship between warming and armed conflict…wars may well be triggered not by global warming but by measures that try to limit it”
And many more…..
http://www.thegwpf.org/analysis-how-government-officials-sexed-up-un-climate-report/
Karim D. Ghantous says:
April 6, 2014 at 1:24 am
Exactly. 😀
In addition. many people I have spoken to who believe CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic global warming initially claim things like “it’s simple physics” and/or “the evidence is clear and all around us”. In other words, they claim the evidence for catastrophic global warming is allegedly so obvious that you don’t need any scientific training to know it’s true.
Yet, as soon as I start to point out my scientific criticisms with this apparent evidence, they invariably start backpedalling and telling me that they’re not a climate scientist, so they don’t really know… “but 97% of scientists say…” – that is they move the goalposts from “it’s simple science” to “well, scientists say”… 😉
Speaking of which, as others have pointed out here, that “97%” meme is just so bizarre! We wrote an essay on our Global Warming Solved blog a while back providing examples of climate researchers across the spectrum from believing “global warming” is almost entirely a man-made crisis to those who believe it is almost entirely a natural process. All of our examples would probably fall into “the 97%” of scientists who believe that (a) it is warmer now than during the late 19th century and (b) human activity can influence climate (e.g., urbanization bias). Yet, many of these researchers would be considered “climate deniers” by most people quoting the alleged “97%” statistic! It’s crazy.
In case any of you are interested, our essay is here – some of you might have seen it already, cause I mentioned it on an earlier thread, but if you’re interested in the whole “scientific consensus” issue, we include some nice video clips from a wide range of perspectives – you might like some of them!
ZombieSymmetry says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:27 pm
I was actually going to post a comment on the 538 blog, but they have a Facebook commenting system, which I found too awkward, and anyway most of the debate is just a rehash of the feud which has being going on for more than a decade between researchers like Trenberth, Emmanuel, Mann who are convinced CO2 is changing hurricane trends and researchers like Pielke Jr., Landsea, Maue who point to the lack of reliable evidence for that theory in the actual data.
But, we did write an essay a while back reviewing the debate and analysing the data. You might find it a useful discussion: http://globalwarmingsolved.com/2013/12/is-man-made-global-warming-causing-more-hurricanes/ Let me know what you think… 🙂
“I know how to identify the non-scientists in this debate, anyone who calls the gas CO2 “Carbon”.”
That is somewhat annoying, isn’t it? Anyway, I will bet you that most people would not know what is being referred to in terms such as Carbon Tax, Carbon Trading, Carbon Emissions, etc. It’s just a parroted buzzword.
@ur momisugly Big Mac & Chips
Re your statement:
“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 !”
I can see your point and agree to some extent, but would add the caution:
“Data is not information, information is not knowledge, knowledge is not understanding, and understanding is not wisdom.”
Cheers,
Mal.
An engineer is a scientist reined in by reality.
Great post, with some very good contributions, especially the link above to the Yorkshire Evening post.
In Central London, on Wellbeck Street is a plaque to Thomas Young, which simply says ” Man of Science”. Young’s Modulus of Elasticity is used daily throughout the world in the design of structures.
I’ve thought of writing to English Heritage to see if they would be prepared to put a plaque on one of the many top hotels where your very own Michael Mann has stayed.
” Mann of Nonsense”
Having earned a degree in engineering (a BASc otherwise known and a Bachelor of Applied Science) and having spent many hours in the same labs as chemists and physicists, I find the suggestion that engineers are somehow excluded from being scientist absurd. I have known many engineers that use the scientific method.and are experts in things like pharmacological research, as well as a few people without any science degrees that perform medical research using the scientific method (one in particular has a history degree but is an acclaimed medical researcher). So the desire to restrict credibility in a subject like climate to the few deemed to be climate scientists actually proves what all of us in law know (yes I have a law degree as well, but don’t hold that against me), that is, that deeming is a legal fiction, as I can say that the Toronto Maple Leafs are deemed to be the finest hockey team of all time.
I am certainly not a scientist, but I am well enough versed in science that I can smell a barnyard as well as any other well informed person.
@LevelGaze
When I say “WE”, I mean, we of a like mind.
That is to say, those of us with an inquiring mind,
who strive to find the truth, to find an explanation
for what we see, in the World and Universe around us.
Of necessity, such people will have the intellect to
understand rational argument and basic maths
and general school level science. That is all that
is required really to understand the hypotheses
around the so called science of climate-change.
All this is especially true, if you are reading this now
in this particular internet blog, since it is indeed …….
“The world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”
I don’t imagine that we shall find very many
deadheaded befuddled brains reading this
stuff in here. Maybe those unfortunates will
not, I concede, be able to be scientists in
any real sense.
Anthony, mods.
I am seeing https now on the right side posts and both Firefox and Explorer refuse to open the pages.
My Firefox says:
My Explorer says:
The difference between scientists and engineers if that scientists tend to be data gatherers and engineers tend to be analysts. Some of the better scientists usually have research assistants to gather the data and they (the scientists) do the analysis. Maybe these are guys who got their professions kind of mixed up. The vast majority of scientists are unfortunately just gatherers of data which they think they can analyze but dismally fail. Albert Einstein was more of a mathematician than a scientist since he could visualize a concept using maths , which is a type of analysis. As someone above pointed out he never got to do the lab work to prove his theories.
The interesting thing about the data gatherers is that they tend to gather all this data and come to a wrong conclusion because they do not have the right data. They may have mixed data which of course will give incorrect analysis. They may have the correct data but misapply it. However Climate Scientists (cough cough) commit the cardinal sin of changing data to suit themselves to come to a predetermined result. They are charlatans not scientists.
I think of a scientist as a person who wants to find the truth, no matter what it is. A scientist is not closed minded, he or she does not accept a belief without verifiable proof and then is willing to change a belief if the proof changes due to improved understanding or if he discovers the proof is faulty. A scientist does not attempt to find evidence to support his belief, rather he bases his belief around the evidence. A scientist does not attempt to silence someone who believes differently, rather he listens and debates with an open mind considering he may be in the wrong as much as the other person is. A title does not define a scientist. Neither does the employer. Being a scientist does not preclude one from being religious, indeed many of the great scientists have been and still are religious. But a scientist knows how to separate faith from study. Being a scientist also does not preclude a person from having a different opinion, but a scientist never ever denigrates those that do because he respects people.
For example: A scientist would not insult and attempt to discredit another scientist who did not believe in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or evolution. These are two areas where it takes a brave scientist to say he does not believe in. But those who believe in those theories should not insult and attempt to discredit a person who does not believe in those theories, rather a scientist will debate with an open mind and look at the evidence presented. Keep in mind that I am using this as an example and these are not the only two areas where alternative viewpoints are silenced instead of debated.
Steve B says:
April 6, 2014 at 5:13 am
“The difference between scientists and engineers if that scientists tend to be data gatherers and engineers tend to be analysts. ”
No; the difference is that engineers have not much time for data gathering as they have more things to do. So they automate the data gathering.
Be watchful out there. These thugs are trying to ‘trademark’ the very word ‘science’ to mean only one thing in matters of climate and global warming. If you make jokes like the one Mr. Baugues attempted, you will be labeled ‘anti-science’ very quickly. We have political parties in Canada who are very much corralling the word to their own purposes. They did it with the term ‘climate change’ and they will do it with the word ‘science’, I have no doubt.
As that kid who wrote the phonied up paper on lobsters demonstrated, a scientist is anyone who writes anything that climate kooks approve of.
Roger Dewhurst says:
April 5, 2014 at 7:32 pm
> It might be more appropriate to ask what distinguishes the scientist from the engineer.
My definitions are “A scientist work to create tools that describe how things work, an engineer uses those tools to create new systems.”
Further, “A Golden Era” is when you can’t distinguish the two.” For example, I define the years ca. 1960-1985 as the Golden Era of Computer Science. We went from computers with vacuum tubes and dollar a byte memory (after core memory got established) to LSI silicon based computing. People building time sharing systems and computer networks had to create the tools for things like data structures, queuing theory, etc to create the systems that implemented those.
I’m glad to have been deeply involved with most of that era, mostly since 1968, but I programed a drum based process control computer in 1962 that my father designed. Since 1985, it’s mostly been faster, smaller, cheaper.
Genetic Engineering is in its Golden Era, but one that will last longer than computing’s. It hasn’t really arrived yet. It will when you can sit down with a catalog and look for a gene for a enzyme in a step in sugar metabolism and have a dozen choices ranging from very high performance within 5 degrees of where it denatures to lower performance that works from 0-100°
We’re in the Golden Era of solar physics, but it doesn’t have as big a system building aspect to it.
Karim D. Ghantous says:
April 6, 2014 at 4:31 am
.
Yes, but it is not a scientific buzzword.
In a war never let your enemy choose the site of the battle ground.
In an argument never let your opponent frame the terms of the debate.
This is a rather silly discussion, since it all comes down to the Climatists dismissing anyone who disagrees with them as “not a scientist,” or “not a real scientist,” or “not a climate scientist.” Said Climatists are most often not even close to doing any science themselves, being bureaucratic, media, or academic toadies. It has nothing to do with qualifications, activities, methods, mindset, or anything else except whether you profess blind obeisance to the Gospel of Climate Change. Patrick Hadley summed it up nicely above:
Obviously anyone who investigates Nature with an open mind, using the Scientific Method, can call himself a ‘scientist’, no matter what the True Believers and Useful Idiots of the Climatist religion say. The trick is not to let them get to you. Willis Eschenbach is very good at that: follow his example.
/Mr Lynn
By this USA TOdaystandard, who else is not a scientist?
Well, let’s look at the IPCC:
Rajendra K. Pachauri, Ph.D., was elected the Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in April 2002 and reelected by acclamation in 2008. The IPCC was established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988.
His PhD is in engineering.
Off with him, then.
Oh, yeah: he supports climate alarmism.
Bloated insurance premiums are not the only cost the climate concerned have imposed on us. The climate obsessed also think we have too much free speech.
scientist (noun) \ˈsī-ən-tist\ : a person who uses the scientific method to examine and explore the world around them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_principle
DR says:
April 5, 2014 at 7:32 pm
> By their chosen definition, Thomas Edison was not a scientist.
Nor by mine. Edison was an inventor and an industrialist. He was much more interested in building, new useful things than in understanding the science or even using its new tools. That was one of the reasons Nicola Tesla’s employment with Edison was only six months.
His sole contribution to science is called the “Edison Effect,” the observation that a current could flow in one direction between a filament in a light bulb and an unheated metal plate within the light. It wasn’t until John Flemming and Le De Forest developed it in to the vacuum tube (or valve) that opened the way for the radio era.
http://www.edison.me.uk/development-of-edison%27s-effect.htm
http://edison.rutgers.edu/tesla.htm
BTW, all that wasn’t very long ago – Thomas Edison’s eldest daughter, Marion Oser, was my grandmother’s next door neighbor and best friend. Aunt Marion, as my father and I called her, gave me my first books on Edison when I was in grade school.
That joke of Baugues about global warming was in extremely poor taste, and he should be ashamed. You should never joke about someone’s religion.
Most of you seem to miss the point, this isn’t about who is or is not a scientist, it is about a political mob demanding full allegiance to whatever they say or else. It is about thought police demanding people shut up or be fired. And it isn’t happening just in AGW it is ubiquitous. The academic, media, and political “elite” are totalitarian and everyone better wake up to this fact pretty darned quick.