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?
Politicians choose their experts depending on the politicians’ chosen policy direction. Politicians respond to political pressure. Our battle is for the hearts and minds of the public. When there is massive public pressure to end the “Global Warming – government” complex (apologies to Ike), then it will be ended. The Democrats will back off if they think they will lose more votes than they will gain by sticking with CAGW. (as always, they will talk out of both sides of their mouths and try to keep both sets of voters)
Alba,
I take your point about the Inquisition, but there’s no reason to defensive and snarky about it. For one thing, it’s uncharitable. A lot of the people who post here are serious researchers and scientists, who probably have a hard enough time just keeping up with the literature in their field as well as jousting with these idiots who think computer models are more real than Reality.
This is an invaluable website because of that. I would prefer a good science website with scientist commenters who are also well-versed in recent advances in historical understanding. But if I can’t, I’d rather they continue be good and honest scientists, even if they have gotten their history from Voltaire, Washington Irving, Thomas Dewey – or even Stephen Hawking, who is our greatest living scientist, but a rubbish historian.
T-Bird says:
April 6, 2014 at 8:28 am
“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. ….
——————————————–
Excellent summary. I Understand that Galileo also obstinately asserted that the Sun sat fix and immovable at the center of the Solar system, and/or Universe.
My understanding is that a big part of his troubles were caused by his insistence that certain hypotheses were “facts”, although not yet proven, which at the same time seemed to contradict what was written in the Bible.
I once had a CAGW by CO2 proponent tell me that Galileo was tortured and executed by the Church. lol
The worst thing about this pseudoscience cargo cult is that WE ARE BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR IT.
It’s obscene.
Laymen scientists are to be respected also. Not booklearned but, still know water runs downhill.
When they have proof of their predictions of doom that can be defended, I might listen. Until then, I wish to rant and rave against this evil that plagues the earth currently known as (Climate something or other).
Going out back now to test a few laws of thermodynamics. Charcoal smoker vs. 2 15 lb. turkeys. I think I know who’s going to win. 🙂
Whenever I hear the word “scientist” I think Ph.D. in science (not engineering). Anyone else is not a “scientist”. To be a “scientist” you have to be recognized within the scientific establishment. After all that’s why they create all these ridiculous societies and then have secret meetings.
Willis isn’t a scientist. He’s just really smart. There is a big difference between being a scientist and being really smart. Just ask Michael Mann. He’s a scientist.
When I hear the word “scientist” (which is not a publicly owned word) I think about John Harrison, the clock-maker man of little formal education who solved the longitude problem in navigation and was rejected the cash prize by the scientific establishment (the Board of Longitude). They eventually caved in (after the King intervened).
Which leads to an even more interesting question. What defines a King?
…So what do you think, what defines a scientist?…
There is NO SUCH THING as a ‘scientist’.
There is the ‘scientific method’, which is a way of addressing a problem or gaining new knowledge. It involves considering known (or believed) facts, making a hypothesis, testing that hypothesis and then disseminating the results so that others can confirm the validity, or otherwise, of your findings. It is often used to gather knowledge about natural phenomena which are believed to display certain patterns termed ‘laws’. People can have disagreements in detail about how the method should work, but that does not mean that there is no such method…
During our lives, most of us will use the scientific method, or some variation thereof, at some point. We may wish to solve problems as simple as ‘Why do I keep loosing my keys?’. When we use this method we are ‘acting scientifically’ – using the method. So all of us can be ‘scientists’, and are, at various times, if you accept this definition.
Some of us spend our lives trying to solve problems in natural philosophy, and are paid to do this. They are paid by government or big companies who have specific ‘natural’ problems – the pharmaceutical, aviation and energy companies, for example. These people expect to use the scientific method frequently, and may get very good at it. Or maybe not. Certainly they have ready access to methods of disseminating their findings. The newspapers call these people ‘scientists’. I call them ‘researchers’. They might usually be expected to have an informed knowledge of how things behave in their area of research.
But this informed knowledge does not mean they are always right, does not mean that others cannot question their findings or beliefs, and does not mean that they alone should be called ‘scientists’…
Well you are obviously not a climate scientist because they do that almost every day.
——-
Do you need formal training to be a mechanic? Some of the best mechanics I have ever known were entirely self taught. Yet today we see the same love of formal credentials even in a common career like auto mechanics where it is difficult to get a job if you don’t have half a dozen formal certifications. Those certifications do not in any way guarantee you have common sense, mechanical aptitude, are observant, prone to take unsafe short cuts when working on people’s cars, or simply push parts until you accidentally fix the problem never knowing you had no clue about what was wrong in the first place.
Science is the same, it is the practice of a method not a title or a rank.
A 9 year old who systematically figures out how to take a toy apart is a scientist, if he used the scientific method.
“I wonder if this is will pop off if I pry here?” Tries to pry off the cover (conducts experiment). No that does not work (test failed) must be another way to get this thing apart (throws out old hypothesis). Oh look 2 tiny screws under this cover (makes new observations). I wonder if those hold it together?(formulates new hypothesis). Formulates new test plan (takes screws out to test hypothesis) … cover comes off after screws removed. Eureka battery covers on this toy are held in place by two small screws under the rear panel.
We have become a society in love with certifications and with little regard for actual performance. Some of the dumbest people I have ever met (speaking practical application of knowledge) have been people who hold advanced degrees. They learned more and more about less and less until they knew a whole lot about nothing, yet had no concept of practical application of all the knowledge they had nor did they have any concept of the limitations and uncertainties inherent in that knowledge.
@Alba 8:45.
The mass hysteria is the same.
Faithful? Unfaithful?
Purely in the eyes of those with the power.
Persons exterminated by the cause rarely leave a record of their side of the story.
Kangaroo courts flourish in days of mass hysteria.
Canada has these Human Rights Commissions, which short of execution are no different from religious inquisitions.
Truth is not a defence?.
So sayeth our supreme court, hate speech is criminal even when true and accurate.
However, nice snark.
One who follows the scientific method is a scientist.
A scientist is someone who understands and applies the scientific method such as described by Richard Feynman.
An engineer is someone able to take scientific models and make useful applications.
Especially those who exemplify “the knack” as explained by Dilbert.
Those who claim Eschenbach is not a “scientist” are committing an ad hominem logical fallacy and do not understand science – just as the Aristotelians denigrated Galileo.
Although I have my own ideas about what constitutes a “scientist,” it strikes me as interesting that the highest position in the popular pantheon is occupied by “rocket scientists”–who are really engineers.
“Chris B says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:13 am
… Excellent summary. I Understand that Galileo also obstinately asserted that the Sun sat fix and immovable at the center of the Solar system, and/or Universe.”
He also thought, a la Aristotle and Ptolemy, that planetary orbits were perfectly circular, which any Jesuit astronomer of the day knew, by mere observation, was false. Only by a great deal of historical distortion can you really work Galileo into a Martyr for Science.
As commie bob notes, one of the greatest scientists of our day, Freeman Dyson does not have a PhD, indeed, if I remember correctly, he doesn’t even have a BSc. He’s quite proud to sign himself Freeman Dyson MA (Maths).
DaveE.
“Back in 1996 Danish physicists suggested that cosmic rays, energetic particles from space, are important in the formation of clouds. Since then, experiments in Copenhagen and elsewhere have demonstrated that cosmic rays actually help small clusters of molecules to form. But the cosmic-ray/cloud hypothesis seemed to run into a problem when numerical simulations of the prevailing chemical theory pointed to a failure of growth.” (But read on…)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/04/svensmarks-cosmic-ray-theory-of-clouds-and-global-warming-looks-to-be-confirmed/
Svensmark is a scientist. A hard working dedicated scientist.
…and where is that physicist who with determined vigor told me nothing could travel faster than the speed of light…so then, how did we discover the “black hole?”
Keep a clear mind. Think. Be curious. Ask questions.
We forget. It is not normal science, but post-normal science that is at issue.
Forget observations and measurements, stick to the party line and promote the necessary alarm-ism, otherwise you are not a scientist.
(Written by an engineer)
Scientists are men who are madly in love with a theory and confirm it. Theories are what Bacon, the founder of empirical science, quaintly (but it turns out correctly) termed “idols.” Theories are idols and all men come under the sway and control of their own assumptions and theory.
Popper showed that the only way out is critical discussion, open society, and falsifiability.
You cannot have Kuhn and Popper too.
The current progressives wish to define out of existence all those with views that differ from their own. Consequently, we must define journalists as those with certain narrow perspectives and experiences, scientists with proper views on topics such as climate science, tolerance with specific views on social subjects such as gay marriage and social justice. All other views must be stricken from the public forum. Jonah Goldberg calls this Liberal Fascism. Thus, if you can be defined out of existence we no longer need to consider your views.
Ben
Note: Upon a request from Anthony I have struck-through the reference to PopularTechnology.net as “smear” site in the article above. I thought this to be a factual label, in that PopularTechnology.net stated that:
“The bigger concern is that Mr. Eschenbach either misrepresents his credentials or knowingly allows them to be misrepresented.”
http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/10/who-is-willis-eschenbach.html
which I do not believe to be a fair characterization of Willis’ actions.
However, in deference to our host, the label of “smear” has been struck-through in the article. If anyone disagrees with the original label of PopularTechnology.net, or anything else I post, they are encouraged to do so in comments, as my goal is to present only the facts.
:Steve from Rockwood says:
April 6, 2014 at 9:49 am
….
When I hear the word “scientist” (which is not a publicly owned word) I think about John Harrison, the clock-maker man of little formal education who solved the longitude problem in navigation and was rejected the cash prize by the scientific establishment (the Board of Longitude). They eventually caved in (after the King intervened).
Which leads to an even more interesting question. What defines a King?”
The King who intervened was George III, King during the American Revolution.
For the alarmist zealots complaining that Keith Baugues is not a scientist, a scientist is someone with no sense of humour who follows the global warming religion to the letter who must take every opportunity to alarm and hype CO2 hysteria, ridicule and silence contrarians.
This is why the media support climate change hysteria. Alarmism sells newspapers and gains audiences. Try selling a newspaper with the headline “The weather tomorrow is going to be normal” verses “Repent our CO2 sins Thermageddon is upon us”.
I have four types of birdseed.
My hypothesis is: “Birds in my backyard will prefer feed type #1”,
I placed all four types of feed out in separate feeders to test my hypothesis. The birds actually ate more of feed type #4. So, I’ve changed my hypothesis to “Birds in my backyard prefer feed type #4”.
With my original hypothesis dis-proven, I’ve changed it to match the empirical evidence that I have collected. I will re-test it for empirical truth.
I am a scientist.
A “scientist” is anyone who uses the Scientific Method to gain knowledge.
Truth and reality, or even accurate measurements of mundane objects and events,can scarcely be established by a democratic vote. Furthermore, the idea that the more limited the scope of study of the observer/reporter, the more scientific he is, is patently absurd. It would result in the philosopher being the least scientific of all categories of researchers, followed closely by the theoretical physicist, the cosmologist, the astronomer, and the geologist.
As in all assessments of human endeavour and capability, the assessor himself (in this case, the writer of the assessment, or his/her editor/publisher, etc.) is the ultimate judge of the definition of competence of the author of advice being offered, just as in decisions as to what religious, medical, legal, or financial advice to accept.
It is essentially nothing but the mass media assuming the mantle of God-given omniscience so recently torn from the shoulders of the prelates of the Christian churches. But looking at the situation reasonably, one has to conclude that if the reading public of the developed world hasn’t understood by now that one cannot accept the printed word uncritically, and that ultimately, the reader must take responsibility for what he/she believes, then there is little hope for the future of humanity.
@Rob Roy
I have four types of birdseed.
My hypothesis is: “Birds in my backyard will prefer feed type #1″,
I placed all four types of feed out in separate feeders to test my hypothesis. The birds actually ate more of feed type #4. So, I’ve changed my hypothesis to “Birds in my backyard prefer feed type #4″.
Ah! That is where you made your mistake!
You are using raw data WITHOUT CORRECTIONS. All proper climate scientists use corrections. I think that you will find, once you have done the stats, that feed type #2, which has a very high tax on it, is the proper answer…