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?
dbstealey,
What is unusual about properly presenting someone’s credentials when people believe in misinformation? My motivation is to stop the spread of misinformation. Name one thing I stated about Mr. Eschenbach that is not true and I will correct it. They are only considered personal attacks to Willis fanboys.
The definition I provided for a scientist is the only one anyone but those who never applied for a job takes seriously. I am well aware the “dumb like me” crowd and Willis fanboys do not care about credentials – everyone else does.
“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.”
I get roundly ignored every time I say it, but if we want to turn this debate around in a hurry, all it would take is a well designed survey by a large and respected polling firm to ascertain what percentage of qualified scientists….say those with a Ph.d …really buy the alarmist approach to “climate change.”
Consensus seeking is not a good way to conduct science of course, but claims of a consensus is a powerful argument to the average person, especially in this case where science is being used to drive policy. Overturn the 97 percent consensus myth, and you’ve changed the debate significantly.
Poptech,
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WILLIS HAS FAILED TO CORRECT HIS MISREPRESENTATIONS AND IS NOT CREDENTIALED CLIMATE MODELER OR SCIENTIST OR ANYTHING ELSE WORTH MENTIONING. WHAT DO YOU WANT NOW??????!!!!!!
Please reply to my question.
Here are some NON-CREDENTIALED PEOPLE. Nobody ever took them seriously because they were NON-CREDENTIALED PEOPLE as opposed to the wonderful credentialed scinetist we have today like Dr. Michael Mann. Mann compares very well to these NON-CREDENTIALED PEOPLE as I am sure you would fully agree. Einstein was so disgusted by these non-credentialed people that he hung up Faraday’s photo in his study next to Newton. What the hell did this foolish credentialed scientist know or respect about these despicable NON-CREDENTIALED PEOPLE?
• Michael Faraday
• Thomas Edison
• Charles Darwin
• Alexander Graham Bell
• Henrietta Swan Leavitt
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/05/what-defines-a-scientist/#comment-1606856
http://books.google.gm/books/about/Einstein_s_Heroes.html?id=XhDdiL8JJyIC&redir_esc=y%5D
Go seek help my friend. You undo a lot of your hard work by your Willis fixation. If I didn’t know better I would think you are suffering from some sort of envy.
Just to clarify the above were non-credentialed either all their lives or when they made the discovery / inventions / theory that made them known to a wider public etc.
I’m a bit confused really but it seems imperative they have to be able to enhance global welfare through verbal warfare-
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/04/04/shock-peer-reviewed-paper-advocates-information-manipulation-exaggeration-in-global-warming-debate-to-enhance-global-welfare-published-in-american-journal-of-agricultural-economics/
Presumably some squiggly graphs and test tubes, etc helps maintain the image?
Didn’t Feynman say: “Science is belief in the ignorance of experts” ?
Ignore what they SAY – look at what they DO. No real scientist would try to keep their raw data from being published with the excuse that it will be used to discredit them, and yet AGW proponents spend millions on lawyers to do just that. Case closed, IMHO.
I like to point out to true believers that most “research” on climate is about predicting what would happen IF climate change occurred. not about demonstrating that it HAS.
You are a [snip], hypocrite and a fool. Tell me that any of those things are not true. If you do then how do I know?
I have told you before and I will tell you again – YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. How do WE KNOW that you are a credentialed computer analyst? Why should we take your word for it? Not so easy eh? 😉 Get off your bloody high horse, you are boring the crap out of us.
@Poptech, Jimbo, DBStealey etc.
Cool it please. We have bigger issues to worry about.
Poptech is the one spreading disinformation by claiming he is a credentialed computer analyst while not providing the evidence.Where is your evidence that you are indeed a credentialed computer analyst as you claim? Where is it? You can’t do it because you are a HYPOCRITE.
I am not a hypocrite because I have told you before I am not a credentialed scientist. I am the lowest of the low but I will write what I want if allowed.
Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 2:07 pm
justthefactswuwt, I provided three examples from major news sites in my article where Mr. Eschenbach’s credentials were misrepresented and irrefutable evidence that he was well aware of it.
Can you cite any examples of where he “misrepresents his credentials”?
In none of those cases did Mr. Eschenbach show any attempt to correct these inaccuracies.
In terms, “knowingly allows them to be misrepresented”, as been shown in this thread, one does not need degrees or to have a certain type of job in order to be a scientist, modeler or an engineer or, so Willis has nothing to correct.
I have never seen this behavior from the owner of this website or others like Steve McIntyre. You may not like my criticism but it is completely valid, fully sourced and certainly not a smear.
I am interested to see where you “fully sourced” that Willis “misrepresents his credentials”.
Jim Bo says: April 6, 2014 at 2:12 pm
Then you should be more circumspect in avoiding the necessity for deferential strike-throughs of your “opinions”.
Being new here, I swallowed hard at that bit of rhetoric…and moved on.
Duly noted.
I will not make any further comment on this thread out of respect for our host’s wishes. I don’t want anyone thinking that I cannot reply, that is what I do.
It does not matter whether or not someone is a scientist; qualifications and/or experience change not one iota the veracity of their utterances.
Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 2:21 pm
This is what happens when you let any person write an article, especially those who do not know how to do proper research like justthefactswuwt, as they wind up spreading misinformation.
Please bestow upon us your wisdom on how to do this “proper research”, as apparently all of the research I’ve been doing to date is “improper”?…
Einstein had an undergraduate teaching degree in Physics and Mathematics and took the job at the patent office because he was unable to find work as a teacher.
So now an undergrad in Physics or Mathematics is enough for a scientist label? In your article you wrote that:
“Criticism: “Anyone who follows the scientific method is a scientist.”
Rebuttal: A scientist is ‘a person who is trained in a science and whose job involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems.'”
Either you need to have a “job” that “involves doing scientific research or solving scientific problems”, or you don’t, you can’t have it both ways. By your newly coined definition of scientists including Einstein, should we now refer to any patent clerk who has a undergrad in any area of science as a scientist?
His scientific credentials are impeccable.
And all of them, except an undergrad teaching degree, came after he done some of the most important scientific work in history. If Willis decides to get a PHD will that retrospectively make all of his work more scientific?….
Why is justthefactswuwt allowed to tell a half-truth about Einstein as if he was just some bumbling patent clerk?
Obviously you’ve never invented anything, nor had any interaction with any of the world’s patent clerks, as they are far from bumbling…
A “computer analyst” is a job title that has certain computer science/information technology job requirements, which I can easily prove by posting my resume but since I don’t post personal information online, you would have to take my word for it (or not). Either way I really don’t care as I have never claimed to be computer modeler, engineer or climate scientist.
I think our friend Dr Einstein understood people well when he said [the difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has it’s limits] just my take on this climate change saga.
Strawman, I said he, “either misrepresents his credentials or knowingly allows them to be misrepresented.” That was an open ended question of which I provided three examples as my reason for asking. Now I find it hard to believe three different journalists made up credentials for him on their own but anything is possible.
Why did you fail to present the quote of mine in it’s proper context? Are you intellectually dishonest?
Yes of course anyone can be a scientist, computer modeler or engineer by simply declaring it! Who knew? It must be nice to live in fantasy land, where credentials don’t matter and you never have to apply for a job.
Just a correction from a previous post. I misspoke when I said it was 130 yrs from the time of Galileo that parallax was demonstrated. Galileo’s second trial was in 1633 and he died in 1642. Bessel proved the parallax of 61 Cygni in 1838. My mistake.
CAGW provides the best test of what is a scientist.
It depends on putting models ahead of reality.
It depends on fanatical inductivism and ignorance or rejection of deductive reasoning, the opposite of Karl Popper’s definition of science.
It depends on a contempt for experimental data and those who collect and analyse it.
It depends on ignorance and/or contempt for climate history and palaeoclimate, and s belief that the world was created in 1850.
It depends on political support from an anti-science anti-technology anti-business anti-capitalist mob.
Anyone believing in CAGW cannot in any sense ever be a scientist.
Jimbo says:
April 6, 2014 at 4:48 pm
I will not make any further comment on this thread out of respect for our host’s wishes. I don’t want anyone thinking that I cannot reply, that is what I do.
Ditto that.
Answering the question; What is a scientist ? should be a piece of cake for anyone who can answer the question; What is an artist ?
Seems to me, the answer is in the eye of the beholder.
But I think there probably isn’t one universal definition of “scientist.”
Clearly, there have been some giants, who in some way unraveled the mysteries, of how the universe appears to work. It’s not at all clear that they ever put their “discoveries” to use.
Some scientists, clearly discover things; they may not care, whether that matters or not.
A lady Physicist, I happened to meet on the #18 train from CERN to downtown Geneva, clearly knew about the Higgs goings on, at CERN; I didn’t ask what she specifically did there. But a fellow traveler asked her what they really had discovered. Her response was that some of them felt that they had no idea what the answer to that question is. They think they found the Higgs Boson; but they really aren’t sure if they have found anything; just observed something different. No she didn’t say it was a load of guff.
But if Higgs, was the only missing piece of the standard model; why the hell are they all still working there. They don’t have a clear view, of a light at the end of a tunnel.
Well there is that upstart, Gravity, that is still stinking up the place. Maybe CERN++ can go looking for a graviton.
But back to scientists; is using accepted science to actually do something, being a scientist, or is that just “engineering” ??
I have a science degree; not an engineering degree; but I started in a high school, that was capable of turning out plumbers, and electricians (and did so ). But my working career has always been doing something; or making something. In some ways, perhaps an engineer, would have done a better job. S(he) might have found a more cost effective solution, where mine, might have been a higher performing result, except maybe not in the economics department.
I never liked stopping at “good enough.”. Engineers know what’s good enough; and NO, I do not mean they take safety shortcuts. I’ve never known any engineer, who thought it was ok to take safety risks.
So some of my patents have been text book classics; doesn’t mean they became economic success stories. But there is a certain satisfaction in being able to say; OK, let’s see you trump that !
Personally, I’m glad that my engineering career was founded on a science degree, and not an engineering degree. Some people will work forever on a problem, and never discover that you can’t get there from here, for fundamental scientific reasons.
Some of the very best engineers, I have known, were graduates from techniciandom; they had NO recognized engineering degree; but the learned on the bench, how to get stuff to work properly.
As for what is an artist; well I have no idea.
Poptech says: April 6, 2014 at 5:36 pm
Strawman, I said he, “either misrepresents his credentials or knowingly allows them to be misrepresented.” That was an open ended question of which I provided three examples as my reason for asking.
So you are are saying that you have no evidence that he “misrepresents his credentials”?
Now I find it hard to believe three different journalists made up credentials for him on their own but anything is possible.
If Willis was misrepresenting his credentials, don’t you think that he’d at least be consistent about it. Do you think it’s possible that these journalists looked at his body of work and made determinations about his areas of expertise themselves?
Why did you fail to present the quote of mine in it’s proper context?
It’s quoted in full in the article. I am excerpting the substantive portions for closer examination.
Are you intellectually dishonest?
That strikes me as projection in this context:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
Yes of course anyone can be a scientist, computer modeler or engineer by simply declaring it!
No, “anyone can be a scientist, computer modeler or engineer by simply” doing science, computer modeling or engineering, no degree or job required.
Who knew? It must be nice to live in fantasy land, where credentials don’t matter and you never have to apply for a job.
I don’t understand how that pertains to this discussion. Willis has credentials and has a job, they are just not in the field he has chosen to research and write on.
It might be more appropriate to ask what distinguishes the scientist from the engineer.
I was once told that the difference is that an engineer is required to take economics.
BTW, just in case anyone cares about the technical details, both science and mathematics are branches of philosophy.
I make the point because many people, even very well regarded scientists, do not know that. It’s pertinent especially when self-styled ‘rationalists’ suggest that we don’t need philosophy now that we have science (yes, some people actually say this!).
You made this strawman argument already, are you going try and address what was said in its actual context or not?
With a resume like his, consistency is the last thing he is known for. You seem to be unable to read sentences as well. Did you not notice the “or” in my statement?
And presented out of context. That statement was made followed by three clear examples to support the allegation. I ask again;
Are you intellectually dishonest?
How does it feel to live in fantasy land?
If I apply the scientific method to opening a bag of M&Ms am I now a scientist?
Please list his relevant scientific credentials (education or experience) in relation to climate science.