• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 WORLD'S LARGEST SCIENCEGROUP REJECTING MAN-MADECLIMATE FEARS
 
By Marc MoranoJuly 31, 2009NewsWithViews.com An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American ChemicalSociety (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with somedemanding 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 tochallenge, 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 American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."TheJune 22, 2009 editorial in
Chemical and Engineering News
by  editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from AmericanChemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that“deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climatechange.”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'scolleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum'sclimate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word “deniers” becauseof the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists calledBaum'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 urnfor 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 printedare, 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 attitudeof Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us thatthere is no need for further research?that the matter is solved.” ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled withmisinformation, 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 theUniversity 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 thechase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models hassettled 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 anthropogenicglobal warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"
Edward H. Gleason wrote:
“Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against allmy scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...hisuse of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate changeis a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”
 Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner:
"I have very little in common with thephilosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I considermyself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better thanto propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purpleprose."
 William Tolley:
"I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical andEngineering 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 aboutCCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely —off nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] Thegrowing 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 competentprofessionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in thescientific method?characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”
 ACS member Wallace Embry:
“I would like to see the American ChemicalSociety Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Timesor Washington Post." [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorialgo here and see below.]Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed inon 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 wellestablished,” Baum cited the Obama Administration's U.S. Global Change ResearchProgram (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate DepotEditor's Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to citethe June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growingstronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensivereport on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering': Scientists PanObama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episodefor the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' - July 8, 2009 )Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth tocontrol 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 theclimate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups forfailing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See:Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems thatdon'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 recenteruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review itscurrent climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected seniorscientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicistspetitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The54 physicists wrote to APSgoverning board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th- 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical andgeological 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 letterby 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, thePolish National Academy of Sciencereportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-madeglobal warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for30 years!?- Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'OnHold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds ? Discovery.com—March 2, 2009 &Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not manresponsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warmingand cooling can be attributed to humans' —July 23, 2009 ) A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed "More Than 700International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." 2009's
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...