Climate Revolt: Major Science
Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears!
Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!
Wednesday, July 29,
2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Climate Depot Exclusive
An outpouring of skeptical
scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting
against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed --
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.
The June
22, 2009 editorial in Chemical
and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and
condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded
his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful
efforts to respond to global climate change.”
Dozens of letters were published
on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum,
with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.
The editorial was met with a
swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all
of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views.
Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word “deniers” because of the terms
“association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum's
editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy
of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”
One outraged ACS member wrote
to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind
are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for
another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."
Baum 'startled' by
scientists reaction
Baum wrote
on July 27, that he was "startled" and
"surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of
the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."
"Some of the letters I
received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think
it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.
Selected Excerpts of
Skeptical Scientists:
“I think it's time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.
Geochemist R. Everett
Langford wrote: “I am
appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack
Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further
research—that the matter is solved.”
ACS scientist Dennis Malpass
wrote: “Your editorial was a
disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem
attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”
ACS member scientist Dr.
Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the
Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum's
attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to
hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change
deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is
disingenuous and unscientific.”
Atmospheric Chemist Roger
L. Tanner: "I have very
little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other
'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat.
Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific
truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."
William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would
use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in
membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary
information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a
hoax."
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.”
ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical
Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York
Times or
Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl,
who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as
well, calling
Baum's editorial an "alarmist screed."
“Now, the chemists are
thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to
promote his idiosyncratic political views," Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.
Baum cites
discredited Obama Administration Climate Report
To “prove” his assertion that
the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama
Administration's U.S. Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP)
study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor's
Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For
Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that
science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills.
See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering':
Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an
embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' -
July 8, 2009 )
Baum also touted the
Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the
emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note:
This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society
could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted
in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged
environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to
even reduce emissions! See: Climate
Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that
don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a
man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]
The American Chemical
Society's scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions
against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.
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. (See: Climate
Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years!
Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study
finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed
Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global
warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be
attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )
A March 2009 a 255-page U. S.
Senate Report detailed "More
Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming
Claims." 2009's continued
lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears.
See: Earth's
'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An
Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009
In addition, the following
developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India
Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a
canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that
global warming science is “settled”;
A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed
90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a
growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International
Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games,
was held in
Selected Excerpted
Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist's Reaction to Baum's
Editorial: (For full letters see here.)
Instead of debate,
members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the
left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who
disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about
the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although
under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and
skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor.
[...] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific
discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I
am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote
your left-wing opinions.
Thomas E. D'Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.
#
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?
Howard Hayden
#
I was a geochemist doing
research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers
in the scientific literature. [...] I am appalled at the condescending attitude
of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us
that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.
The
peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global
warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness' sake.
There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides
and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom
you disagree is not becoming.
R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands,
#
Your editorial in the June
22 issue of C&EN was
a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem
attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!
Are you planning to write
an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency's recent suppression of
a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard
Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize
on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?
Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile
endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to
climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will
be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and
ultimately ineffective.
Dennis
Magnolia
#
I can't accept as facts
the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are
more likely to support the regime in power than not. Baum's attempt to close
out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my
ACS is certainly alarming to me.
Edward H. Gleason
Ooltewah,
#
Having worked as an
atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with
environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum's editorials. But his
use of "climate-change deniers" to pillory scientists who do not
believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. [...]
Given the climate's complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we
justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally
guided only by a moral imperative to "do our part" for Earth's
climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who
think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by
increases elsewhere (
Roger L. Tanner
Muscle Shoals,
#
I would like to see the
ACS Board cap Baum's political pen and trade him to either the New York Times
or
Wallace
Columbia
#
In the interest of
brevity, I can limit my response to the diatribe of the editor-in-chief in the June
22 edition of C&EN
to one word: Disgusting.
Louis H. Rombach
Wilmington, Del.
#
I am particularly
offended by the false analogy with creationists. It is easy to just dismiss
anyone who dares disagree as being "unscientific."
Daniel B. Rego
#
While Baum obviously has
strong personal views on the subject, I take great offense that he would use
C&EN, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his
personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us
who honestly find these views to be a hoax.
William Tolley
#
I appreciate it when
C&EN presents information from qualified supporters of either, and
preferably both, sides of an issue to help readers decide what is correct,
rather than dispensing your conclusions and ridiculing people who disagree with
you.
P. S. Lowell
Lakeway, Texas
#
I am a retired Ph.D.
chemical engineer. During my working years, I was involved in many
environmental issues concerning products and processes of the companies for
which I worked. I am completely disgusted with the June 22 editorial. I do not
consider it to be very scientific to castigate skeptics of man-made global
warming. [...] [Global warming fears are] not of particular concern because
"the ocean is a very large sink for carbon dioxide." [...] The
overall problem here is that there is already an abundance of scientific
illiteracy in the American public that will not be improved by Baum's stance in
what should be a scientific magazine. Theories are not proven by consensus—but
by data from repeatable experimentation that leaves no doubt of interpretation.
Charles M. Krutchen
Daphne,
#
Please do not keep
writing C&EN editorials according to the liberal religion's
credo—"Attack all climate-change deniers, creationists, conservatives,
people who voted for George W. Bush, etc." It is a sign of weakness in
your argument when you attack those who disagree. [...] Your choice of
terminology referring to skeptical scientists who don't toe your line as CCD,
climate-change deniers, and putting them in association with Holocaust deniers,
is unworthy of an editorial in a scientific periodical. Who don't you go
head-to-head with the critics? Please don't keep doing this. Find a scientific
writer for the editorial page. We get plenty of this pap from the mainstream
media and do not need it in C&EN.
Heinrich Brinks
#
Your utter disdain of
CCDs and the accusations of improper tactics you ascribe to them cannot be
dismissed. However bitter you personally may feel about CCDs, 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. The results
presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which you call the
CCD's "favorite whipping boy," do indeed fall into the category of
predictions that fail to match the data, requiring a return to the drawing
board. Your flogging of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate
Change is not only infantile but beggars you to contribute facts to back up
your disdain. Incidentally, why do we fund climate studies by
William E. Keller
For all of the letters send
in repsone to Baum's editorial see here.