A scientist is a person who advances knowledge via strict application of the scientific method. In part, this means that he or she arrives at conclusions using strong (I.e. not fallacious) reasoning.
Conclusions based on appeals to authority ("the NAS says..."), social proof (consensus "97% agree..."), consequences, fear, pity, ignorance (it can't be anything else), begging the question ("it's already been proven...the debate is over...it is incontrovertible"), and ad hominem ("denier"..."dupes of the oil companies") are sure signs that the person speaking is a non-scientist. He may have scientific credentials, but he has abandoned the scientific method, and taken up the weapons of propaganda. He is, therefore, not a scientist. He is functioning as a religious zealot, and the two identities are mutually exclusive.
Regardless if someone is a scientists or not there are many types of scientists. A paleontologist is a scientist but he does not know the first thing about the climate or the physics involved. A 'scientist' is someone who has studied up on the subject and has a degree in the field for which he has studied from a reputable university or college or some other form of post-secondary education institution. When talking about specific things regarding science, such as climate science, there are only a handful of scientists that know enough about climate science to be able to tell you exactly what is occurring as that is what they have studied and what they have their PHD in. And, of those scientists, there are only a handful that can tell us the ins and outs of specific things related to climate science such as what the satellites say about the energy budget of the planet, about ocean acidification, and so on. Merely stating that someone is a scientist, though shedding a bit more detail on what they know on the subject, really does very little in describing what they know. To do that you'd most likely have to delve into their published peer reviewed literature.
I actually have the title of scientist but that isn't what my definition would be. There are some scientists that don't think in a scientific way. I wouldn't classify them as a scientist even if he has a degree. You could technically call someone with a degree in a scientific field a scientist, particularly if they work as a "scientis", but that doesn't mean that much to me. My father, who dropped out of high school in the 8th grade had a very scientific and curious mind and probably knew more about general science than most with a science degree. Science degrees tend to be specialized. I learned about geology but if I didn't learn about biology much in my geology classes. I didn't learn much about most other science fields. I had to do that on my own. You get people who are self proclaimed climate scientists who don't have a clue about other fields. Personally I am interested in many fields of science and am curious about everything I can learn. I get irritated by the alarmist habit of saying scientists believe this or believe that. It just demonstrates they are clueless about scientists in particular and science in general IMO.
There is a quote attributed to Isaac Asimov that goes, "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."
This statement is a good preamble to any discussion or definition about what a scientist is-and what he or she is not. There has to be an intellectual curiosity and an open-minded outlook that spurs a person on to examine and understand things that he or she doesn't; a recognition of one's own ignorance, perhaps. Science requires a certain amount of humility; the ability to not become arrogant about your knowledge, and the ability to understand the difference between that knowledge and information. Anyone can google information on the internet, and this is perhaps one of the liabilities of the internet itself-information on just about any topic can be disseminated and the person who does so can take on the appearance of an expert-someone who is apparently truly knowledgable about the topic but is not, falsely assuming those "credentials" by virtue of the 'cut and paste' methods so many of us disdain.
So...someone may have assembled information and come to unshakable conclusions about a particular topic...he may even go so far as to proclaim himself a 'true scientist'-sometimes laughably so in a way that is knee-slappingly funny...and ironic. Yet there is something paradoxically sinister in such proclamations, and Asimov has hit it on the head, for this outlook is part and parcel of the 'cult of ignorance' that has been pervasive in the United States quite vividly for some years, and of course, has reared its ugly head in other countries and societies throughout history. It is often politically fed, as is a very large portion of the debate over climate change, and that has very little to do with science.
So that's what a scientist is NOT. A scientist is, by actual definition, someone who has 'systemitized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc; science represents a branch of knowlege, especially one that systemizes facts, principles and methods...it is a skill or technique. A scientist is a specialist in science, such as biology, chemistry, etc.' That is not my definition I don't redefine things to suit my own sensibilities...that is THE definition, albeit paraphrased from Webster.
Obviously, this specialization requires study, and that study provides credentials. By that definition, a specialist in biology or chemistry is not a specialist in other fields. While scientific credentials may give an invidual analytical skills that are applicable to other specialties, the knowledge required to research something like climate science is by no means within the skill set of a biologist or specialist in another branch of science. There is no doubt that ego, money and many other elements can compromise a scientist in any field; publications from time to time make note of fraudulent science promoted for those reasons and others. However, those who decide absolutely that a scientist or dominant group within a branch of science-like climate science recently-is fradulent based on political beliefs and ideology,media pundits and the like,is forming his our her opinion based on information, not knowledge, therefore and often unknowingly, becoming part of the cult of ignorance Asimov decries.
Typically, a scientist is someone that either has an advanced degree (past the bachelor's) in a scientific field or is working on the advanced degree. They actively pursue research in the field AND present it to other scientists, at conferences and through scientific papers. Sometimes this gets a little tricky when the scientist works for a private company and is not allowed to present results publicly. I worked for a private company one time and wrote a paper, but was forbidden to submit it because they considered the work proprietary. There are definitely climate scientists that would fall into that category too.
Weather broadcasters are usually not scientists. Engineers are usually not scientists (although they can be). People who dabble in science but only present their results on blogs are not scientists.
EDIT for Ottawa Mike: You've apparently never been to downtown L.A. (or studied petroleum):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Brea_Tar...
To Ottawa Mike:
<
American Association of State Climatologists...>>
Really?
Scientists are people who look at all the facts, all the evidence, they do not cherry-pick one piece of data which just happens to support their opinion and ignore all the rest.
You again have cherry-picked data, this time by quoting a 2001 American Association of State Climatologists (AASC) statement (one which according to AASC's own website is no longer active) and placed it in direct comparison to something James Hansen said last year.
Currently the AASC has no stated policy on Climate Change yet that does not mean that a 12 year old statement, based on science available 12 years ago, remains active today as the AASC's website clearly states ("AASC Policy statements are applicable for 5 years by unanimous vote of the membership - July, 2008")
Edit @OMike2:
<
You're not making much sense now, Mike. In your original answer you nonetheless preferred a 12 year old statement above that of an actual climate researcher with lots of peer-reviewed papers.
<<...unlike James Hansen who thinks tar comes from the ground.>>
What is popularly known as tar sands does indeed come from the ground. Or are you really that desperate now to come up with something against a well-respected (within the science community. where it counts) scientist that you willfully ignore how bituminous sands are popularly known?
What is a scientist? Well, I suppose it's a group of people who can communicate their opinion like this:
American Association of State Climatologists
Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.... The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future.
Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate. http://www.stateclimate.org/publications...
As opposed to this:
James Hansen
GLOBAL warming isn’t a prediction. It is happening. That is why I was so troubled to read a recent interview with President Obama in Rolling Stone in which he said that Canada would exploit the oil in its vast tar sands reserves “regardless of what we do.”
If Canada proceeds, and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinio...
As a scientist, you would think that he would know that "tar" is a man made material.
_______________________________________...
@Gringo: "Currently the AASC has no stated policy on Climate Change"
That's an even better example of them being good scientists. Stay out of it until you know what you're talking about unlike James Hansen who thinks tar comes from the ground.
A scientist is someone whose career is the study of a scientific subject. A climatologist is a scientist whose subject of study is climate. The majority of the 31,000 people who signed the OISM Petition Project are just university graduates and not scientists. The 75 of 77 scientists from the Doran survey are a representative sample of professional climatologists.
It doesn't matter. And here's why: When the subject is Global Warming, the scientists are gods decended to earth. When the subject is genetically modified foods... well then these same scientists are moronic bozos who coulnd't reason their way out of a paper bag. So which is it? It can't be both.
Not too sure, but there's almost thirteen million in the USA.
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/20...
In Climate change arguments, it is repeatedly said "he is a scientist" or "he is not a scientist" so what's your definition?
You can be degreed as in the science of cosmetology.
Most of the denier BS, particularly the lists of scientists are primarily degreed in physics, geology, mathematics, astronomy and meteorology.
When we talk 97% consensus these are climatologists who are degreed in climate science.
Below is an incomplete list but any of these could sign a petition and you could say it is a list of scientists
Bachelor of Science in Aerospace Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Actuarial
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture
Bachelor of Science in Architecture
Bachelor of Science in Architectural Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Biology
Bachelor of Science in Biomedical Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration
Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Chemistry
Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Clinical Laboratory Science
Bachelor of Science in Computer Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Computer Science
Bachelor of Science in Construction Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Construction Management
Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice
Bachelor of Science in Criminology
Bachelor of Science in Diagnostic Radiography
Bachelor of Science in Education
Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Engineering Physics
Bachelor of Science in Engineering Science
Bachelor of Science in Engineering Technology
Bachelor of Science in English Literature
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science
Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies
Bachelor of Science in Food Science
Bachelor of Science in Foreign Service
Bachelor of Science in Forensic Science
Bachelor of Science in Forestry
Bachelor of Science in History
Bachelor of Science in Hospitality Management
Bachelor of Science in Human Resources Management
Bachelor of Science in Industrial Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Information Technology
Bachelor of Science in Information Systems
Bachelor of Science in Integrated Science, Business and Technology
Bachelor of Science in International Relations
Bachelor of Science in Journalism
Bachelor of Science in Management
Bachelor of Science in Manufacturing Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Marketing
Bachelor of Science in Mathematics
Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Medical Technology
Bachelor of Science in Meteorology
Bachelor of Science in Microbiology
Bachelor of Science in Mining Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Molecular Biology
Bachelor of Science in Neuroscience
Bachelor of Science in Nursing
Bachelor of Science in Nutrition science
Bachelor of Science in Software Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Petroleum Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Podiatry
Bachelor of Science in Pharmacology
Bachelor of Science in Pharmacy
Bachelor of Science in Physical Therapy
Bachelor of Science in Physics
Bachelor of Science in Plant Science
Bachelor of Science in Politics
Bachelor of Science in Psychology
Bachelor of Science in Quantity Surveying Engineering
Bachelor of Science in Radiologic Technology
Bachelor of Science in Real-Time Interactive Simulation
Bachelor of Science in Religion
Bachelor of Science in Respiratory Therapy
Bachelor of Science in Risk Management and Insurance
Bachelor of Science in Science Education
Bachelor of Science in Systems Engineering
A DA denier here post 3 lists at 3 different times which totaled more than 400 scientists and out of that 400 was one paleo-climatologist
I have participated in the GW forum for well over a year and have yet to see any denier here post any real climate science to support the denier position. Most denier BS comes from think tanks who have received funds from Exxon or Koch
Maxx frequently links to the Global warming video. One of the prime participants in the video is Willie Soon who has personally received more than 1,000,000 dollars from big oil
The denier BS originated from executives from big oil and coal. One of the coal execs actually said not only was CO2 good for plants, it is good for people too.
Heartland one of the organizations that spew denier crap were paid by tobacco lots of money to say second hand smoke wasn't harmful This doesn't speak well of their credibility
