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?
They love to trot out Bill Nye the Science Guy as a Defender of the Faith, but he is an engineer, too.
As the von storch survey showed the vast majority of climate scientist are computer modellers who have studied applied maths through meteorology departments.
Galileo was skeptical of the geocentric theory of the solar system and he ended up in prison. Thankfully, we have progressed so much more today in science. (/very dry sarc)
“You are what you habitually do.”
Do you study the natural world >b>and use the scientific method? If so, you are a scientist.
Do you pretend to study the scientific world to get paid by supporting an agenda so as to acquire grant money, while refusing to release your code and data, so as to cover up your cherypicking and other deviations from the scientific method? You are not a scientist. In fact, what you are habitulally doing is, at best described as “grand theft by means of manupulation”. Throw in “conspiricy” if you do it with others who do similar things.
The Band “Coldplay” sings about the scientific method of love ?
Anyone who attacks the person rather than the theory is not a scientist. Why don’t they refute our claims rather than attack us as people?
I once saw a blog post that said that putting Climate in front of Scientist was rather like putting Witch in front of Doctor.
Many a true word …
In this day and age a scientist is apparently someone who accepts the predictions of computer models as facts, ignoring evidence-based data if it does not agree with the models.
Wrong question. It is not relevant to ask about the author but to ask whether what has been written is science – that it follows the scientific method.
You can see it here, too. PhD s are trained to look for the proof, the evidence for the claims called hypothesis. Amateurs do not. Instead of data they look for the prestige of the author.
1 – So far, nobody has mentioned Freeman Dyson, arguably one of the nation’s greatest scientists.
2 – Saying that somebody’s argument should be ignored because of the lack of a Ph.D., is a confession that you, personally, don’t understand the issues.
3 – One thing that separates engineers from scientists is the ethics exam. Nuff said …
My Webster’d Third New International Dictionary and Seven Language Dictionary from 1966 puts it a little different than the Popular Technology.
“one learned in science and especially natural science: a scientific investigator. “
So what do you think, what defines a scientist?
I don’t know. But there is one thing I do know.
Science is not anything a scientist does. Science is science that anyone does.
How do I regard Willis? He is what used to be referred to as a “citizen scientist” (of whom Jefferson or Franklin were among the foremost exponents). He’s also an engineer, which makes him a mathematician, and a practical one at that. Not afraid to be wrong. Not afraid to ask questions.
Sorry wrong formatting in my last post.
My Webster’d Third New International Dictionary and Seven Language Dictionary from 1966 puts it a little different than the Popular Technology.
“one learned in science and especially natural science: a scientific investigator. (what distinguished the scientist is his ability to state problems, to frame questions, so that the technician can make the machines yield facts that are significant – W. A. L. Johnson)”
The practical distinction between a scientist and an engineer is easily understood by this mildly amusing joke:
A scientist and an engineer enter a room. At the other end of the room is a beautiful woman in lingerie lying on a bed with a “come hither” look in her eyes. A voice over a loudspeaker informs them that for every minute that passes, they may close exactly half the distance to the woman. The scientist says, “I won’t do it” and turns around to leave. The engineer says, “Okay, I’ll do it.” The scientist turns to the engineer and says, “Don’t realize that you will never actually reach her?” The engineer says, “yes, but I’ll get close enough for all practical purposes.”
hunter says: April 6, 2014 at 6:06 am
I’m afraid its considerably worse than that. They demonstrably advocate a position that you have too much existence.
Bow-tie and the ability to avoid all facts ?
Saying that somebody’s argument should be ignored because of the lack of a Ph.D., is a confession that you, personally, don’t understand the issues.
Unfortunately, the answer to that is (words to the effect that) yes, they freely admit they do not understand the issue. They certainly will not admit any possibility that we might understand the issue. (And falsifiability dictates that maybe we don’t.)
This is then followed up, by some form or other of appeal to authority.
The problem here is that in science, you can’t do that, but in policy matters, we devolve to the judgment of experts all the time. And if there is a better way to do it, I certainly never heard of it. But policymakers are playing in real time, and that ain’t easy.
So there is an appraisal, as accurate and balanced as I can figure out.
I’d say “follow the pea”, but the correct answer to that would be “how many”?
We are dealing with mass hysteria here. Climatology is the rationalisation and cover. Looking into the climate to understand the hysteria is like looking in the garden for a key lost in the basement on the grounds that there is more light in the garden. The Leqwandowsky debacle proves the point.
“Galileo was skeptical of the geocentric theory of the solar system and he ended up in prison. Thankfully, we have progressed so much more today in science. (/very dry sarc) …”
I get your point, but I’m skeptical that Galileo was ever put in prison. Because, he wasn’t. He was put under house arrest, which is where he did all his work anyway. In fact, his “imprisonment” was under such exceedingly generous terms it barely mattered. He was still allowed to work, to communicate with other scientists, and to attend Mass everyday which he did to the very end of his life. Should it come to that (it won’t) for us “Climate Deniers,” you’d best hope for such generous terms.
The Galileo Affair was a modest little conflict blown into a tempest by Enlightenment spin doctors who wanted to paint religion as the enemy of science. It involved Church Politics, envy among scientists, historical context, as well as Galileo’s monumental ego and repeated small dishonesties (he did not invent the telescope, he probably did not perform the experiment of dropping balls of different weight from the Tower of Pisa.) Incidentally, it should be pointed out that at no time was he able to give a slam dunk proof of Heliocentrism (and he was just dead wrong about the nature of comets and the tides). That had to wait until parallax was demonstrated 130 years later. Galileo overreached (on many occasions), went out of his way to offend his friends in positions of power, and frankly deserved his slap on the wrist, not for his belief that Copernicus was right, but for being an ass.
Even “Darwin’s Bulldog” Thomas Huxley, examining the case, concluded, “The Church had the best of it.”
I once interviewed a lady who had a PHD in “Environmental Sciences” for a position managing an environmental cleanup project of indutrial wastes. Found out she had no real math, chemistry, physics or statistics to speak of. She had lots of courses in tree planting, horseback riding and bird watching. Anyone can obtain a PHD if they have the time and money.
Whatever one wants to designate as necessary conditions for being a “scientist”, it must include skepticism and independent thinking along with quantitative methods and courses appropriate to the discipline in which they are attempting to operate if they are not to be simply an analyst of other people’s ideas.
“Jim G says:
April 6, 2014 at 8:28 am
I once interviewed a lady who had a PHD in “Environmental Sciences” for a position managing an environmental cleanup project of indutrial wastes. Found out she had no real math, chemistry, physics or statistics to speak of. She had lots of courses in tree planting, horseback riding and bird watching …”
What? No Basket Weaving? .
Looks to me that Keith Baugues needs to replace many of his staff that have ceased to do science and bought into the lie called consensus even though that too has been show a lie.
The only people I question as not being scientists are those who were embarrassed by someone who is one and practicing real Science..
Michael Jankowski says:
April 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm
Holy hell. Are we going to have something akin to the Spanish Inquisition now for the unfaithful?
Well, I suppose that it’s inevitable that sooner or later someone’s going to mention the Spanish Inquisition, especially someone who obviously knows very little about it. An Inquisition “for the unfaithful”? Go and do some reading on what the Inquisition was really all about and THEN you might, just, be in a position to make some intelligent comment about it.
The Spanish inquisition or the Catholic Crusades…. Both were to force people who did not believe into submission. BY Force… its coming too, one must simply look at how many of those cultists want to shoot deniers or imprison them…. Some of the most prominent Sooth-Sayers of AGW are already advocating it.