Free Markets, Free People

The Revolt Of The Scientists

Apparently it is getting a little hot in the scientific community when it comes to AGW and skepticism. And it is the skeptics who are firing the broadsides. Melanie Phillips brings us the latest:

More and more scientists have just about had it up to here with the rubbish being put out as the ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming. Marc Morano reports how members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) have risen in revolt against the group’s editor-in-chief — with demands for his removal — after an editorial appeared claiming ‘the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.’

The editorial claimed the ‘consensus’ view was growing ‘increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.’ The editor now admits he is ‘startled’ by the negative reaction from the group’s scientific members.

His readers had responded as you see in these two representative replies:

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: ‘Baum’s remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist’s soul. Let’s cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to ‘climate change’ instead of ‘global warming’ because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?’

William E. Keller wrote: ‘However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.’

Some pretty heavy shots across the bow.  I’d love to see if Baum answers the two questions Dr. Hayden posed (especially the first).

ACS isn’t the only “revolt” that is taking place among scientists:

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: ‘Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.’

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University’s Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a ‘considerable presence’ of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly ‘published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.’ An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views.

I bring these sorts of examples up over and over again because it has become obvious that there is absolutely no scientific “consensus” concerning AGW – none. And those who continue to contend there is are, in fact, the real deniers.


  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Tumblr
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • email
  • Print
  • Google Bookmarks

12 Responses to The Revolt Of The Scientists

  • But how many of the deniers have Ph.Ds?

  • Ph.Ds?

    P(iled) h(igh) and D(eep)?  Among AGW dead enders I reckon quite a few

  • “I’d love to see if Baum answers the two questions Dr. Hayden posed (especially the first).”

    I would especially like to see some real scientists put their reputations on the line by backing these computer models and stating flatly how accurate they are.


  • It’s a sorry, sorry day when politics and lies find their way into the normally dry, impersonal, scientific pages of J.Am.Chem.Soc. I’m not sure why Baum felt called upon to use the pages of a HIGHLY respected scientific journal to malign scientists who have demonstrated that most vital of scientific attitudes (skepticism), but I do hope that the ACS shows him the door. There is no place in science for “consensus”: either you’ve got data to back up your theory, or else you go back to the drawing board and try again.

  • I wish they’d said something sooner than when cap & tax was already halfway passed.
    Oh, I’d like them to find one real statistician that will say that horrible hockey stick graph is in any way sound. I know what a load of crap it is (they basically invented a new method that completely makes no sense, and for years wouldn’t even share their crappy algorithm) and I only studied with a real statistician for a few months. His goal in life was to prevent the scientists at the school from embarrassing them by doing horrible linear fits. (Note: a linear fit only works if what you’re modelling actually has a linear relationship. :D )

    • I was under the impression that (when coupled with other events from years earlier) when every seventh Monarch butterfly in Coffeyville Kansas flutters its wings at precisely 10Hz that the ensuing wind-turbulence causes exactly 7.316624790355…  Black Angus bulls in the Texas Panhandle to simultaneously sneeze, belch, and fart precisely 22 years after the initial flutter, which in turn results in 5% of all unattached heifers within a 30 foot radius of the bulls to almost immediately snort, giggle, and toot. Expelling a total volume, Bulls and heifers included, of 1.3167895364… liters of methane and other unidentified gasses at standard SAE pressure and temperature.

      It is believed that this small percentage of  Black Angus Bulls are affected by particular pollen that originated in Egypt and was disseminated into the atmosphere some 2000 years ago by a plague of Locusts. It is also believed that the Coffeyville Monarch with its 10 Hz wing frequency is the main supplier of the pollen to the Panhandle; at least that’s the general scientific consensus. A consensus, I might add, that is supported by 476,321.316624790355…UN scientists…all Nobel Laureates.

      So there you go, slap a 345 polynomial on those irrefutable facts and we can make a hockey stick that Gordie Howe would come out of retirement for.

      Hmm, wonder if the coming “wind farms” will have any effect on the Coffeyville Monarchs? Or the changes in wind patterns generated on the interstate highway system due to the move to smaller cars? Scary stuff!


  • 30,000 climate scientists including 9,ooo PhDs have joined a lawsuit against Al Gore to debate his AGW theories.  Gore suggests that the debate is over.  Here are a few interesting links of some AGW skeptics:
    Dr. Reid Bryson, father of Climate Science
    Dr. John Christy, NASA
    John Coleman  & 9,000 PhDs, 30,000 total  IPCC, 52 scientists.
    Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski paper (pdf) download here
    Dr. Joe Laguardi, Boston (Hot liquid warning)

  • Sounds like we’ve got a new group:  Scientific Nonconsensus Deniers.

  • Oh, come on!  I wanted to see Erb’s avitar and get my Monday morning dose of smarmy political scientist, appealing to (imaginary) authority,  mumbling non-scientific mumbo jumbo about hunting for the very few, and clearly looney based, claims that AGW was bunk.

    I want my Erb-TV!