Expertise

I’ve recently been reminded of Tom Nichols’ 2017 book, The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters, which I very much wanted to like and be able to recommend. I bought it when it was published, read it, and gave it three stars at Goodreads with this very brief review: “Marred by the author stepping out of his area of expertise and making causal and explanatory claims without proper data or argument on journalism, education, and philosophy of science.” ...

This timeline has been updated with Trump rallies and golf playing since (as of March 31, 2020) he is now trying to create a narrative that claims he was trying hard to address the pandemic early on, but was distracted by his impeachment. He was impeached by the House on December 18, 2019, and his Senate trial ran from January 16, 2020 to his acquittal on February 5, 2020. 2015: Obama’s National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, establishes the Global Health Security and Biodefense Unit in the White House National Security Council. (https://web.archive.org/web/20240324101926/https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-trump-fired-pandemic-team/partly-false-claim-trump-fired-entire-pandemic-response-team-in-2018-idUSKBN21C32M/) January 13, 2017: The joint Obama-Trump transition teams run an exercise for pandemic preparedness. Trump transition team attendees include: Steven Mnuchin, Rep. Mike Pompeo, Wilbur Ross, Betsy DeVos, Dr. Ben Carson, Elaine Chao, Stephen Miller, Marc Short, Reince Priebus (resigned), Rex Tillerson (fired), Gen. James Mattis (fired), Rep. Ryan Zinke (resigned), Sen. Jeff Sessions (resigned), Sen. Dan Coats (fired), Andrew Puzder (not confirmed), Dr. Tom Price (resigned), Gov. Rick Perry (resigned), Dr. David Shulkin (fired), Gen. John Kelly (resigned), Rep. Mick Mulvaney, Linda McMahon (resigned), Sean Spicer (fired), Joe Hagin (resigned), Joshua Pitcock (resigned), Tom Bossert (resigned), KT McFarland (resigned), Gen. Michael Flynn (awaiting criminal sentencing after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI), Gary Cohn (resigned), Katie Walsh (resigned), and Rick Dearborn (resigned). (https://www.justsecurity.org/69650/timeline-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic-and-u-s-response/) May 2018: The Global Health Security and Biodefense Unit in the White House National Security Council is disbanded by National Security Advisor John Bolton after its head, Timothy Ziemer, leaves the Trump administration. Pandemic response functions are folded into other teams. (https://web.archive.org/web/20240324101926/https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-trump-fired-pandemic-team/partly-false-claim-trump-fired-entire-pandemic-response-team-in-2018-idUSKBN21C32M/). January-August 2019: Nineteen agencies of the federal government and twelve states conduct a pandemic functional exercise, “Crimson Contagion.” The scenario is a novel influenza virus that arises in China and spreads to the United States, but stockpiles of vaccines are not a match to enable the virus to be contained. (https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/crimson-contagion-2019-simulation-warned-of-pandemic-implications-in-us/2243832/) The Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Robert Kadlec, appointed by Donald Trump in 2017 and who played a key decision-making role in this exercise, downplayed the risk of pandemic, cut the budget, and cut the program for stockpiling personal protective equipment (PPE). Instead, he spent money on stockpiles of smallpox vaccine, purchasing $2.8 billion of it from a company that had previously employed him as a consultant. (Smallpox was eradicated in 1980.) (https://web.archive.org/web/20231208051050/https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/before-pandemic-trumps-stockpile-chief-put-focus-on-biodefense-an-old-client-benefited/2020/05/04/d3c2b010-84dd-11ea-878a-86477a724bdb_story.html) July 2019: The Trump administration made the decision to eliminate the position of CDC’s resident advisor to the U.S. Field Epidemiology Training Program in China, Dr. Linda Quick, in September 2019. She quit her job in July after receiving the news. (https://web.archive.org/web/20250105064056/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-china-cdc-exclusiv/exclusive-u-s-axed-cdc-expert-job-in-china-months-before-virus-outbreak-idUSKBN21910S/) September 2019: The Trump administration ends a $200 million pandemic early warning program, PREDICT, at the U.S. Agency for International Development, started in 2009, aimed at training scientists in China and other countries to detect and respond to new viruses. During its lifetime, the project identified 1,200 viruses with pandemic potential. The PREDICT program involved 60 foreign laboratories, including the Chinese lab in Wuhan which identified SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. (https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-02/coronavirus-trump-pandemic-program-viruses-detection) October 25, 2019: Former Vice President Joe Biden tweets: “We are not prepared for a pandemic. Trump has rolled back progress President Obama and I made to strengthen global health security. We need leadership that builds public trust, focuses on real threats, and mobilizes the world to stop outbreaks before they reach our shores.” (https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1187829299207954437) December 24, 2019: As of June 2021, this is now the earliest suspected date of COVID-19 infection in the United States, per antibodies in blood donated by nine individuals between January 2 and March 18, 2020. (https://web.archive.org/web/20230331172651/https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/when-was-coronavirus-first-in-us/2021/06/15/1aaa6b56-cd2d-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html) December 31, 2019: Donald Trump tells assembled guests at the Mar-a-Lago New Year’s Eve celebration that “We’re going to have a great year, I predict. I think it’s going to be a fantastic year.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444) January 2-3, 2020: Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Director Robert Redfield has conversations about a virus outbreak in China with his counterpart at China’s CDC, Gao Fu, who warns him that it is extremely serious. (https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3084092/us-cdc-had-very-good-interaction-china-after-coronavirus) January 8, 2020: The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) issues its first warning about a novel coronavirus now known as COVID-19. January 9: Trump holds a campaign rally in Toledo, Ohio. January 9: Berlin, Germany scientist Olfert Landt’s company, TIB Molbiol, develops its first COVID-19 test based on existing SARS tests. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/asia/testing-coronavirus-science-intl-hnk/index.html) January 10: The RNA sequence data for COVID-19 was published online: http://virological.org/t/novel-2019-coronavirus-genome/319 January 11: Olfert Landt sends a developed COVID-19 test to the Taiwan CDC and Roche in Hong Kong for validation. The test ends up working. January 14: Trump holds a campaign rally in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. mid-January: The U.S. begins some screening of passengers from Wuhan, China, at airports in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and New York City. Prior to this event, at least 4,000 passengers arrived in the U.S. directly from Wuhan, China without any screening. (https://web.archive.org/web/20260210193406/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-travel-restrictions.html) January 16: The U.S. House sends articles of impeachment to the Senate, starting Trump’s first impeachment trial. January 17: WHO publishes Olfert Landt’s COVID-19 test protocol. TIB Molbiol manufactured four million tests by the end of February, and 1.5 million per week after that. January 17: CDC announces that it has its own COVID-19 test. (See February 5.) January 18: Dr. Rick Bright, director of the HHS Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority at HHS, sends an email to ASPR Robert Kadlec asking to convene a Disaster Leadership Group (DLG) meeting over COVID-19. Kadlec responds that he doesn’t think it is necessary and doesn’t see the urgency. (https://theintercept.com/2020/05/07/coronavirus-whistleblower-hhs-n95-ppe/) January 18: Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar phones Trump at Mar-a-Lago to warn him about the risk of coronavirus, but “Even before the heath [sic] secretary could get a word in about the virus, Trump cut him off and began criticizing Azar for his handling of an aborted federal ban on vaping products, a matter that vexed the president.” (https://web.archive.org/web/20250531184306/https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2020/04/04/coronavirus-government-dysfunction//) January 18: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida. January 19: Trump (possibly) plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida. January 21: CDC confirms first U.S. case of COVID-19. (https://web.archive.org/web/20231030201443/https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-novel-coronavirus-travel-case.html) See December 24, 2019 above. January 22: “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be just fine.” (https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-says-he-trusts-xis-word-on-coronavirus-its-all-under-control) 314 global cases in 4 countries, 309 China, 4 outside China (Thailand, Japan, South Korea). January 26: Sen. Schumer calls on the Department of Health and Human Services for coronavirus to be designated a public health emergency. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/30/how-coronavirus-shook-congress-complacency-155058) January 27: Joe Biden writes an op-ed warning of the U.S.’s lack of preparedness for the coronavirus pandemic. (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/nobody-expected-the-coronavirus-pandemic-joe-biden-did.html) January 28: Elizabeth Warren releases a plan for “Preventing, Containing, and Treating Infectious Disease Outbreaks at Home and Abroad." January 28: Trump holds a campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey. January 30: Trump holds a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa. February 1: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida. February 2: Trump (possibly) plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida. February 2: Trump’s ordered restrictions on travel from China take effect. These restrictions do not apply to Americans returning from China. 279 flights from China occurred after this date, and screening of returning passengers was haphazard and inconsistent. (https://web.archive.org/web/20260210193406/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/04/us/coronavirus-china-travel-restrictions.html) February 2: “We pretty much shut it down coming in from China.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/02/us/coronavirus-airports.html) 14,557 global cases in 23 countries, 14,411 China, 146 outside of China (WHO). CDC starts sending out test kits in first week of February, which turn out to be faulty. February 5: The U.S. Senate impeachment trial votes to acquit Trump on both articles. February 5: CDC announces it will begin shipping COVID-19 tests to states. Shortly thereafter, it is determined that the CDC test kits don’t work. February 6: Patricia Dowd of Santa Clara County, California, dies from COVID-19, though this is not determined until late April. (https://www.axios.com/first-us-coronavirus-death-earlier-autopsy-dbc72f86-30ed-47e5-b5d8-6811643f9853.html) February 7: Trump to Bob Woodward, in an interview for his new book, Rage: “It’s also more deadly than your – you know, your – even your strenuous flus…This is 5%, versus 1% percent and less than 1%.” (https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump-coronavirus/index.html) 31,481 global cases in 24 countries, 31,211 China, 270 outside of China, 637 deaths in China, 1 death outside of China, U.S. 12 cases (WHO). February 10: “You know in April, supposedly, it dies with the hotter weather.” Interview with Trish Regan, Fox Business. (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-interview-trish-regan-fox-business-february-10-2020) 40,554 global cases in 24 countries, 40,235 China, 319 outside China, U.S. 12 cases (WHO). February 10: Trump holds a campaign rally in Manchester, New Hampshire. February 15: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida. February 19: Trump holds a campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona. February 20: Trump holds a campaign rally in Colorado Springs, Colorado. February 21: Trump holds a campaign rally in Las Vegas, Nevada. February 23: Trump and the White House National Security Council is sent a memo from White House economic advisor Peter Navarro warning of coronavirus epidemic in the U.S. which could kill up to two million Americans. (https://www.axios.com/exclusive-navarro-deaths-coronavirus-memos-january-da3f08fb-dce1-4f69-89b5-ea048f8382a9.html) February 24: “The Coronavirus is very much under control in the USA… Stock Market starting to look very good to me!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1232058127740174339) Dow closes down 227.51 points at 28,992.40. 79,331 global cases in 29 countries, 77,262 China, 2,069 outside China, 35 U.S. 12 labs other than CDC can perform coronavirus testing. February 25: “CDC and my Administration are doing a GREAT job of handling Coronavirus.” (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1232492821501771776) 80,239 global cases in 33 countries, 77,780 China, 2,459 outside China, 53 U.S. February 25: “I think that’s a problem that’s going to go away… They have studied it. They know very much. In fact, we’re very close to a vaccine." In India. (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-coronavirus-control-us-problem/story?id=69198905) The vaccine was, in fact, for Ebola, not COVID-19: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/25/white-house-says-trumps-vaccine-claims-about-ebola-not-coronavirus.html February 25: “This president will always put Americans first. He will always protect American citizens. We will not see diseases like the coronavirus come here.” Trump press secretary Kayleigh McEnany to Trish Regan on Fox Business. (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444) February 26: First confirmed community spread (from person to person unrelated to travel in China) within the United States (per evidence as of June 2021). (https://web.archive.org/web/20230331172651/https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/when-was-coronavirus-first-in-us/2021/06/15/1aaa6b56-cd2d-11eb-8cd2-4e95230cfac2_story.html) February 26: “The 15 (cases in the US) within a couple of days is going to be down to close to zero.” White House Press Conference. (https://web.archive.org/web/20210120162052/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-conference/) 81,109 global cases in 37 countries, 78,191 China, 2,918 outside China, 53 U.S. First day with more new cases outside China than in China. First two reported COVID-19 deaths in the U.S. in Seattle, Washington, though there had already been earlier deaths not yet attributed to COVID-19 (see February 6). (https://www.axios.com/first-us-coronavirus-death-earlier-autopsy-dbc72f86-30ed-47e5-b5d8-6811643f9853.html) February 26: “So we’re at the low level. As they get better, we take them off the list, so that we’re going to be pretty soon at only five people. And we could be at just one or two people over the next short period of time. So we’ve had very good luck.” White House Press Conference (same link as above) February 26: “We’re going very substantially down, not up.” White House Press Conference (same link as above) February 26: “Low Ratings Fake News MSDNC (Comcast) & @CNN are doing everything possible to make the Caronavirus look as bad as possible, including panicking markets, if possible. Likewise their incompetent Do Nothing Democrat comrades are all talk, no action. USA in great shape! @CDCgov…..” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1232652371832004608) February 27: “One day it’s like a miracle, it will disappear.” At White House. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/donald-trump-coronavirus-miracle-stock-markets/index.html) 82,294 global cases in 46 countries, 78,630 China, 3,664 outside China, 59 U.S. More new cases in Korea than China. February 27: Laura Ingraham on Fox News in front of screen that shows an NPR story “Italy Reports 650 Cases And 17 Deaths” with a Fox chyron reading “LEFT TRYING TO PANIC AMERICANS OVER CORONAVIRUS.” (Photo from Sean Howe on Bluesky.) February 27: Sean Hannity in front of a screen that says “CORONAVIRUS DEATHS IN U.S.” with the number “0”. (Photo from Nothings Monstered on Bluesky.) February 28: “We’re ordering a lot of, uh, elements that frankly we wouldn’t be ordering unless it was something like this. But we’re ordering a lot of different elements of medical.” At White House. (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1233516512830459908) 83,652 global cases in 51 countries, 78,961 China, 4,691 outside China, 59 U.S. February 28: Trump holds a campaign rally in North Charleston, South Carolina. At this rally, Trump said: “Now the Democrats are politicizing the coronavirus, you know that, right? Coronavirus, they’re politicizing it. You say, ‘How’s President Trump doing?’ They go, ‘Oh, not good, not good.’ They have no clue. They don’t have any clue. … ‘Mr. President, they tried to beat you on Russia, Russia, Russia.’ That didn’t work out too well… Think of it. And this is their new hoax. But we did something that’s pretty amazing. We have 15 people in this massive country and because of the fact that we went early. … So a number that nobody heard of recently, and I was shocked to hear it, 35,000 people on average die each year from the flu. Did anyone know that? 35,000, that’s a lot of people. And so far we have lost nobody to coronavirus in the United States. Nobody. And it doesn’t mean we won’t and we are totally prepared. It doesn’t mean we won’t, but think of it. You hear 35 and 40,000 people and we’ve lost nobody and you wonder the press is in hysteria mode. … My administration has taken the most aggressive action in modern history to prevent the spread of this illness in the United States. We are ready. We are ready. Totally ready. … A virus starts in China, bleeds its way into various countries all around the world, doesn’t spread widely at all in the U.S. because of the early actions that myself and my administration took against a lot of other wishes. … We had [to] quarantine some people. They weren’t happy, they weren’t happy about it. I want to tell you there are a lot of people that [were] not so happy, but after two weeks they got happy.” Trump’s statement that no one in the U.S. had been lost to COVID-19 was false both by not-yet-known deaths (see February 6) and by publicly reported deaths (see February 26), but the first officially confirmed COVID-19 death came on February 29. (https://twitter.com/JuddLegum/status/1259119606955945986) February 29: First confirmed U.S. COVID-19 death, a man in Kirkland, Washington. (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/1st-coronavirus-death-u-s-officials-say-n1145931) March 1: Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro warns Trump in a memo to “MOVE IN TRUMP TIME” to invest in preparations for coronavirus, including drug ingredients, tests, and other supplies. “There is NO downside risk to taking swift actions as an insurance policy against what may be a very serious public health emergency. If the COVID-19 crisis quickly recedes, the only thing we will have been guilty of is prudence.” Trump ignored these recommendations; on April 7, 2020 he said he hadn’t seen the memo. (Washington Post story, March 31, 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20250722080101/https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/03/31/navarro-pandemic-supply-contracts-trump/) Navarro subsequently used his influence to push to award hundreds of millions of dollars in government contracts to untested firms, including a $354 million contract from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA; also see January 21, 2021 entry below), a $96 million no-bid deal for respirators, and a $34.5 million deal from the VA which ended with a contractor pleading guilty to fraud, among other examples documented by ProPublica (https://www.propublica.org/article/trump-covid-pandemic-contracts). March 2: “You take a solid flu vaccine, you don’t think that could have an impact, or much of an impact, on corona?” White House coronavirus task force meeting. (https://web.archive.org/web/20201224220916/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-members-coronavirus-task-force-meeting-pharmaceutical-companies//) 88,948 global cases in 64 countries, 80,174 China, 8,774 outside China, 62 U.S. CDC removes number of tests completed from its website (474 on March 1). (https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/2/21161693/cdc-coronavirus-testing-numbers-website-disappear-expansion-us) March 2: “A lot of things are happening, a lot of very exciting things are happening and they’re happening very rapidly.” White House coronavirus task force meeting, same as previous link. March 2: Trump holds a campaign rally in Charlotte, North Carolina. March 4: “If we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people that get better just by, you know, sitting around and even going to work - some of them go to work, but they get better." (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/trump-disputes-coronavirus-death-rate-121892) 94,091 global cases in 76 countries, 80,422 China, 12,669 outside China, 108 U.S. March 5: “I NEVER said people that are feeling sick should go to work.” (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/05/trump-disputes-coronavirus-death-rate-121892) 95,324 global cases in 85 countries/territories/areas, 80,565 China, 14,759 outside China, 129 U.S. March 5: “The United States… has, as of now, only 129 cases… and 11 deaths. We are working very hard to keep these numbers as low as possible!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1235604572850343937) March 5: The U.S. Centers for Disease Control planned to post a global travel alert for all countries, but it was delayed by the White House until March 11. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/politics/coronavirus-travel-alert-cdc-white-house-tensions-invs/index.html) March 6: “I think we’re doing a really good job in this country at keeping it down… a tremendous job at keeping it down.” At CDC. (https://web.archive.org/web/20210119235343/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-tour-centers-disease-control-prevention-atlanta-ga//) 98,192 global cases in 88 countries/territories/areas, 80,711 China, 17,481 outside China, 148 U.S. March 6: “The tests are beautiful…. the tests are all perfect like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect. Right? This was not as perfect as that but pretty good.” At CDC, same as previous link. March 6: “I like this stuff. I really get it. People are surprised that I understand it… Every one of these doctors said, ‘How do you know so much about this?’ Maybe I have a natural ability. Maybe I should have done that instead of running for president.” At CDC, same as previous link. March 6: “I don’t need to have the numbers to double because of one ship that wasn’t our fault.” At CDC, same as previous link. March 6: “It’s something that nobody expected.” (https://web.archive.org/web/20210119044548/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing//) March 6: “Everybody who wants a test can get a test.” At CDC, same as previous link. In fact, tests are still hard to come by on March 23: https://thebulwark.com/where-are-the-tests/ March 6: “It’ll go away.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444) March 7: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida. March 8: “We have a perfectly coordinated and fine tuned plan at the White House for our attack on CoronaVirus.” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1236634209516752896) 105,586 global cases in 101 countries/territories/areas, 80,859 China, 24,727 outside China, 213 U.S. March 8: Trump plays golf at the Trump International, West Palm Beach, Florida. Prior to March 9: CDC wanted to recommend people over 60 stay at home, but Trump administration said no. (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/mismanagement-missed-opportunities-how-white-house-bungled-coronavirus-response-n1158746) March 9: “So last year 37,000 Americans died from the common Flu. It averages between 27,000 and 70,000 per year. Nothing is shut down, life & the economy go on. At this moment there are 546 confirmed cases of CoronaVirus, with 22 deaths. Think about that!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1237027356314869761) 109,577 global cases in 104 countries/territories/areas, 80,904 China, 28,673 outside China, 213 U.S. March 9: “And we have a great economy, we have a very strong economy, but this came – this blindsided the world. And I think we’ve handled it very, very well. I think they’ve done a great job.” Press conference. (https://factba.se/transcript/donald-trump-remarks-coronavirus-briefing-march-9-2020) March 10: “Be calm. It’s really working out. And a lot of good things are going to happen.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/joshtpm/status/1237453485899223040) March 11: “Health insurers have agreed to waive all copayments for coronavirus treatments.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/owermohle/status/1237922717699014658) In fact, this only applied to tests, not treatments. March 11: CDC posts a global travel alert that had been intended for release six days earlier but was delayed by the White House. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/20/politics/coronavirus-travel-alert-cdc-white-house-tensions-invs/index.html) March 12: White House says neither Trump nor Pence will be tested for coronavirus despite contacts with people who have tested positive. (https://web.archive.org/web/20251001155744/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/12/us/politics/trump-brazil-coronavirus.html) March 12: “It’s going to go away.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444) March 13: Trump repeatedly shakes hands at White House coronavirus press conference, despite knowing that he has recently been exposed to people who have now tested positive for the virus. (https://web.archive.org/web/20240724040659/https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/03/13/trump-handshakes-coronavirus-press-conference/) 132,758 global cases in 122 countries/territories/areas, 80,991 China, 51,767 outside China, 1,264 U.S. Dow closes the week at 23,185.62. March 13: “I don’t take responsibility at all.” White House press conference, in response to question about whether Trump takes any responsibility for the failures in U.S. coronavirus testing. (https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/13/trump-coronavirus-testing-128971) March 13: Trump says he likely will be tested for coronavirus. Same White House press conference. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/13/politics/donald-trump-emergency/index.html) March 13 (evening just before midnight): White House doctor Sean Conley issues statement saying that Trump doesn’t need to be quarantined or even tested for coronavirus because he is at low risk. (http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2020/images/03/14/whmemo.png) March 14: “SOCIAL DISTANCING!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1238824050924883968) CDC has tested 3,958 specimens (not individuals). 142,539 global cases in 135 countries/territories/areas, 81,021 China, 61,618 outside China, 1,678 U.S. March 14: “It’s something that nobody expected.” (https://web.archive.org/web/20210119044548/https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-briefing//) March 14: Trump says he has been tested for coronavirus and is awaiting results expected in a day or two. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/trump-press-conference-coronavirus/index.html) March 14: New screening measures are introduced at airports, which lead to delays from processing bottlenecks and large crowds of people. (https://web.archive.org/web/20230630014421/https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2020/03/14/europe-travel-ban-airport-delays/) March 15: The White House announces Trump has tested negative for coronavirus. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/trump-press-conference-coronavirus/index.html) The Fed announces $700B in quantitative easing as stock market futures hit circuit breakers after a 5% drop. March 15: “We’re learning from watching other countries … This is a very contagious virus, it’s incredible, but it’s something that we have tremendous control over.” (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/15/politics/fact-check-trump-control-coronavirus/index.html) March 16: “That’s not under control for any place in the world. … I’m not talking about the virus.” Press conference. (https://web.archive.org/web/20201206094954/https://twitter.com/aaronblake/status/1239637609309261826) 167,511 global cases in 151 countries/territories/areas, 81,077 China, 86,434 outside China, 1,678 U.S. (CDC count for U.S.: 3,487). March 16: The Supreme Court announces that it is postponing its next argument sitting, for the first time since it did the same in 1918 due to the deadly global influenza outbreak. March 16: “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves.” On conference call with U.S. governors. (https://web.archive.org/web/20200316201705/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/16/world/coronavirus-news.html) March 16: “It’s so contagious. It’s so contagious. It’s like record-setting contagious.” White House press conference. (https://metro.co.uk/2020/03/16/donald-trump-admits-contagious-coronavirus-control-12407873/) March 17: “I’ve always known, this is a real … this is a pandemic. I felt it was a pandemic long before it was called a pandemic.” White House press conference. (https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/politics/fact-check-trump-always-knew-pandemic-coronavirus/index.html) (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1239956622312701952) 179,112 global cases, 7,426 deaths (WHO), U.S. 4,226 cases, 75 deaths (CDC). March 19: “You’re actually sitting too close. You should really – we should probably get rid of another 75%, 80% of you. I’ll have just two or three that I like in this room.” White House press conference. (https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1240678632361807873) March 19: “I only signed the Defense Production Act to combat the Chinese Virus should we need to invoke it in a worst case scenario in the future. Hopefully there will be no need, but we are all in this TOGETHER!” Twitter (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1240391871026864130) Trump didn’t sign the Defense Production Act, which was signed into law in 1950 by Harry S Truman, who, as Kevin M. Kruse noted in response to this tweet (https://web.archive.org/web/20220722143216/https://twitter.com/KevinMKruse/status/1240446891055251457), famously said “the buck stops here,” rather than the “I don’t take responsibility at all” of this president. As of March 23, Trump still hasn’t invoked the Defense Production Act. 209,839 global cases, 8,778 deaths (WHO), U.S. 10,442 cases, 150 deaths (CDC). March 19: In an interview with Bob Woodward for his new book, Rage, Trump says of the coronavirus that “I always wanted to play it down. I still like playing it down, because I don’t want to create a panic.” He admits he knew that it was deadly and worse than the flu. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bob-woodward-rage-book-trump/2020/09/09/0368fe3c-efd2-11ea-b4bc-3a2098fc73d4_story.html) March 20: Yamiche Alcindor asks Trump at his press conference: “When will everyone who needs a coronavirus test be able to get a test?” Trump’s response: “No-one is talking about this except you, which doesn’t surprise me.” Alcindor: “What about people w/ symptoms who cannot get a test?” Trump: “Yeah, well, OK. I’m not— I’m not hearing it.” (https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1241056026872426496) 234,073 global cases, 9,840 deaths (WHO), U.S. 15,219 cases, 201 deaths (CDC). Tests done to date: CDC: 4,524, public health labs: 49,681, commercial labs: 88,000. (https://web.archive.org/web/20200321003513/https://twitter.com/davidalim/status/1241111313935458305) March 20: “We haven’t been given the credit we’ve deserved.” White House press conference. (https://x.com/atrupar/status/1241054458525765634) March 22: “Ford, General Motors and Tesla are being given the go ahead to make ventilators and other metal products, FAST! @fema Go for it auto execs, lets see how good you are? @RepMarkMeadows @GOPLeader @senatemajldr” (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1241732681366482944) 292,142 global cases, 12,784 deaths, U.S. 15,219 cases, 201 deaths. This tweet apparently a reference to Ford making respirators in partnership with 3M and GE Healthcare: https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/24/business/ford-3m-ge-ventilators-coronavirus-duplicate-2/index.html March 23: 332,930 global cases, 14,510 deaths (WHO), U.S. 33,404 cases, 400 deaths (CDC). Dr. Fauci doesn’t appear at Trump’s daily press conference. March 24: “Our people want to return to work. They will practice Social Distancing and all else, and Seniors will be watched over protectively & lovingly. We can do two things together. THE CURE CANNOT BE WORSE (by far) THAN THE PROBLEM! Congress MUST ACT NOW. We will come back strong!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1242455267603877894) 372,757 global cases, 16,231 deaths (WHO), U.S. 44,183 cases, 544 deaths (CDC). March 25: “Just reported that the United States has done far more “testing” than any other nation, by far! In fact, over an eight day span, the United States now does more testing than what South Korea (which has been a very successful tester) does over an eight week span. Great job!” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1242824631230308353?s=19) 414,179 global cases, 18,440 deaths (WHO), U.S. 68,440 cases, 994 deaths (CDC). While the U.S. has done a greater number of tests, it also has a much larger population – where Korea has tested 1 of every 170 people, the U.S. has tested 1 of every 1,090 people. March 26: “I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they are going to be. I don’t believe you need 40,000 or 30,000 ventilators.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1243354645927530498) 462,684 global cases, 49,219 deaths (WHO), U.S. 68,440 cases, 994 deaths (CDC). March 27: 509,164 global cases, 23,335 deaths (WHO), U.S. 85,356 cases, 1,246 deaths. Unknown date, likely after official launch of these machines on March 27: Trump secretly sends Abbott Point of Care COVID test systems to Vladimir Putin for his personal use, per Bob Woodward’s 2024 book, War. (https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/08/politics/bob-woodward-book-war-joe-biden-putin-netanyahu-trump/index.html) March 28: “You can call it a germ. You can call it a flu. You can call it a virus. You can call it many different names. I’m not sure anyone even knows what it is.” Press conference. (https://twitter.com/Yamiche/status/1243670348211654664) 571,678 global cases, 62,514 deaths (WHO), 103,321 cases, 1,668 deaths (CDC). March 28: “I am giving consideration to a QUARANTINE of developing “hot spots”, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. A decision will be made, one way or another, shortly.” Twitter. (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1243953994743103489) Advance notice of a quarantine order caused many people to leave northern Italy and spread the virus (https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/italys-virus-lockdown-dash-train-69469683). The three states here already had shelter-in-place orders from their governors. Trump subsequently retracted his quarantine suggestion in a pair of tweets (https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1244056559577071616). March 29: “We sent thousands of generators to New York … the people in New York never distributed the generators.” Press conference, Trump means ventilators. (https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1244394071982051329) 634,835 global cases, 29,957 deaths (WHO), U.S. 122,653 cases, 2,112 deaths (CDC). March 29: “You’re talking about 2.2 million deaths … So if we can hold that down, as we’re saying, to 100,000, it’s a horrible number, maybe even less, but to 100,000, so we have between 100 [thousand] and 200,000, we altogether have done a very good job.” (https://www.vox.com/2020/3/30/21199586/us-coronavirus-deaths-trump-200000-good-job) March 30: “It will go away. You know it–you know it is going away, and it will go away, and we’re going to have a great victory.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444) March 30: Dr. Stephen M. Hahn of the FDA tweets that the FDA has issued an authorization (on March 29) to Battelle for an N95 mask decontamination system recommended by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine; Trump retweets it with thanks to DeWine. The system does not work and the authorization is revoked by April 30, 2021. (https://twitter.com/SteveFDA/status/1244472087831552004) March 31: “It’s going to go away, hopefully at the end of the month. And, if not, hopefully it will be soon after that.” (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/12/29/worst-predictions-about-2020-451444) ...

One of the regular critics of creationism on the Usenet talk.origins newsgroup (where the wonderful Talk Origins Archive FAQs were originally developed) was a guy who posted under the name “Dr. Pepper.” His posts would always include the same request–“Please state the scientific theory of creationism.” It was a request that was rarely responded to, and never adequately answered, because there is no scientific theory of creationism. A parallel question for those who are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change is to ask for a global climate model that more accurately reflects temperature changes over the last century than those used by the IPCC, without including the effect of human emissions of greenhouse gases. For comparison, here’s a review of the 23 models which contributed to the IPCC AR4 assessment. While these models are clearly not perfect, shouldn’t those who deny anthropogenic global warming be able to do better? ...

One of the courses I took this semester was a seminar on the human dimensions of climate change, a geography course that briefly looked at the scientific evidence for climate change and then focused primarily on the social science aspects of the problems of mitigation and adaptation. The paper I wrote for the class was about the philosophical problem of how a layman can identify relevant expertise and evaluate the debate without being an expert, by looking at features such as relevance of expertise, consensus within fields, credentials and institutions, track records, logical validity and cogency of arguments, and so forth, and then applying these criteria to the IPCC scientists vs. the climate change skeptics. What follows is a list of some of the organizations promoting skepticism about anthropogenic climate change and some of the individuals associated with them, with some information about their credentials and activities. It’s my impression that those with the best reputations tend to agree that there is a global warming trend and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are a contributing factor to that warming, but the organizations tend to promote a more skeptical view (fairly characterized as “denial”), as exhibited by such evidence as expressions of apparent pleasure at the recent 2009 Pew survey result that showed a decrease in American acceptance of global warming. Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) One comparison I made was between the scientists of the IPCC and the scientists of the NIPCC, a group sponsored by The Heartland Institute. I compared the fourth-most-cited paper of the top 83 scientists of the former to the fourth-most-cited paper of all of the 2008 NIPCC participants, using Jim Prall’s excellent website of citation counts for climate scientists. Of the 619 scientists of the AR4 (2007) Working Group 1 on the physical science basis of climate change, the top 83 each have more than 200 citations to their fourth-most-cited paper. There are only thirteen climate skeptics with that level of citation, most of whom received those citations for papers having nothing to do with climate science, and none of whom were involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. (In 2009, William Gray, who is in that category, participated in a second NIPCC meeting, but I didn’t review that for my paper.) The top scientist of the 2008 NIPCC report with publications containing the word “climate,” the organizer and editor of the report, S. Fred Singer, has 31 citations to his fourth-most-cited paper. He’s a retired physics professor (Ph.D. earned in 1948) who is not only a skeptic about climate change but about the health effects of second-hand smoke, the link between CFCs and the ozone hole, and has received tobacco and oil company funding for his work. His name pops up frequently when it comes to attempts by corporations to block environmental regulation. There were 24 participants listed as authors on the 2008 NIPCC report, six of whom have no academic credentials or affiliations and no published academic work of relevance to the climate change debate (Dennis Avery, Christopher Monckton, Kenneth Haapala, Warren Anderson, Klaus Heiss, and Anton Uriarte). The top-cited scientist, Lubos Motl, has 150 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper, but he’s a theoretical physicist with no publications containing the word “climate.” The next guy after Singer, George Taylor, has an M.S. in meteorology and 25 citations for his fourth-most-cited paper. There are a few people on the list with relevant credentials, but none are top names in climate science. The majority with scientific credentials have little or no relevant expertise, like Fred Goldberg, with a Ph.D. in welding technology, and Tom Segalstad, a mineralogist with a Ph.D. in geology. It should be noted that the climate skeptics with the best credentials in climate science tend to be participants in the IPCC process, such as John R. Christy, who was a lead author on the Working Group 1 reports in 2001 and 2007. Robert Balling of ASU has also participated in the IPCC process, and despite being often regarded as a skeptic, agrees that there is global warming and that it has a human component, and told me that the IPCC report is the best place for the layman to find accurate information about climate science (see my summary of his recent talk at ASU). The Heartland Institute The Heartland Institute, founded in 1984, was the sponsor of the NIPCC (above) and has its own category at this blog. Between 1998 and 2005, it received $561,500 in funding from ExxonMobil, 40% of which was designated for climate science opposition (see the Union of Concerned Scientists Exxon report (PDF)). In April 2008, it published a list of “500 Scientists With Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares” compiled by Dennis Avery, participant in NIPCC and co-author of a 2007 anti-AGW book with S. Fred Singer which attributes periodic warming to a 1500-year solar cycle. The publication of this list resulted in protests from 45 scientists on the list who stated that they are not AGW opponents and requested that their names be removed. Rather than remove the scientists from the list, The Heartland Institute changed the title of the list to “500 Scientists Whose Research Contradicts Man-Made Global Warming Scares." The Heartland Institute’s list of 138 climate change experts contains many individuals with no relevant expertise or credentials. Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP) Singer has another organization devoted to arguing against human-caused climate change, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), which he founded in 1990. That organization also opposes the ban on CFCs and other EPA regulations. There are nine people listed on SEPP’s board of science advisors, of which five are dead (Gerholm, Higatsberger, Mitchell, Nierenberg, and Starr). Ames is a well-known scientist in his field, molecular genetics, which has nothing to do with climate change. The others with the most citations are elderly or dead physicists (Starr, 1935 physics Ph.D.; Böttcher, 1947 physics Ph.D.; and Mitchell, 1951 physics Ph.D.). The rest have only single-digit citations to their fourth-most-cited paper. George C. Marshall Institute The George C. Marshall Institute was founded in 1984 to support Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, but since 1989 has been active in opposing AGW. The current board of directors, according to its website, are William Happer (Princeton physics professor), William O’Keefe (former executive VP and COO of the American Petroleum Institute and president of a consulting company), Gregory Canavan (physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory), John H. Moore (former president of Grove City College, former economics professor, and former Deputy Director of the NSF), Rodney W. Nichols (former president of the New York Academy of Sciences), Milan Nikolich (electrical engineering Ph.D., a nuclear weapons program consultant associated with CACI, a defense contractor), and Roy Spencer (climate scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville). Of these, only Spencer, who is also a Bible-believing anti-evolutionist, has a climate science background. (Happer is a highly-cited particle physicist.) The George C. Marshall Institute has published works by some of the more reputable AGW opponents with a high level of citations for their fourth-most-cited publication–e.g., Richard Lindzen of MIT (274), Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (129), Roy Spencer (124), and John R. Christy (88). Others with relevant credentials but not quite the high level of citations include Patrick Michaels (37), Robert Balling (29), and Timothy Ball (8). The George C. Marshall Institute has also published and promoted the work of Stephen McIntyre of the ClimateAudit blog, a former mineral exploration executive with a bachelor’s degree in mathematics, and economist Ross McKitrick. Former George C. Marshall Institute executive director Matthew Crawford left the organization after five months when, he said, he realized it was “more fond of some facts than others” and that his job “consisted of making arguments about global warming that just happened to coincide with the positions taken by the oil companies that funded the think tank” (Carolyn Mooney, “A Hands-On Philosopher Argues for a Fresh Vision of Manual Work” (PDF), The Chronicle of Higher Education, June 15, 2009). Cato Institute The Cato Institute is a libertarian think tank founded in 1977 by Edward Crane and Charles Koch. Charles and David Koch are co-owners of Koch Industries, which is one of the largest privately owned companies in the U.S. (often #2, but has occasionally been #1). Koch Industries has major holdings in petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Patrick Michaels (already mentioned in connection with the George C. Marshall Institute) is the Cato Institute Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies and their only climate science expert on staff, though Cato has also published articles co-authored by Michaels and Robert Balling. Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) The SPPI was founded in 1994 by chairman George Carlo, former assistant football coach for the Buffalo Bills who subsequently entered the public health field and earned a Ph.D. and law degree. He is an advocate for the view that cell phones cause substantial health risks, including cancer and autism. [That’s a different SPPI; see John Mashey’s comment below.] The SPPI’s chief science advisor is Willie Soon, a Harvard astrophysicist also associated with the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (about which more will be said below). Other science advisors include William Kininmonth, Robert M. Carter, David Legates, Craig D. Idso, James J. O’Brien, and Joseph D’Aleo, all of whom except O’Brien and Legates were involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. The chief policy advisor is Sir Christopher Monckton, an AGW opponent from the UK with no relevant science credentials, also involved with the 2008 NIPCC report. Legates, the Delaware State Climatologist, was a commenter on Patrick Michaels’ most recent climate change skepticism book at an event at the Cato Institute, and is a climate scientist whose fourth-most-cited paper has received 226 citations. D’Aleo, first director of meteorology for The Weather Channel, has a 1970 M.S. in meteorology and has not published any academic work since. Kininmonth, with an M.Sc. degree (not sure in what) was the former head of the Australian National Climate Center. Craig Idso has a Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University and is founder and chairman of the board of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change; his fourth-most-cited paper has received 20 citations. Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change This is a small Phoenix-based nonprofit run by Craig Idso (chairman) and his father Sherwood B. Idso (president) which argues that increasing CO2 levels are beneficial. The organization has received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil. Both Idsos and Craig’s brother Keith have also been on the payroll of the Western Fuels Association. Sherwood Idso, a 1968 physics Ph.D. who was a research physicist for the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory starting in 1967, has a fourth-most-cited scientific paper which has received 189 citations. Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM) The Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (OISM), a private research organization run by Arthur Robinson and his two sons Noah and Zachary Robinson, was founded in 1980. The OISM faculty listed on their website are the three Robinsons, Martin D. Kamen (a deceased chemist), R. Bruce Merrifield (a deceased chemist), Fred Westall (a biochemistry professor), Carl Boehme (who has an M.S. in electrical engineering), and Jane Orient (a medical doctor). The OISM sells DVDs on “nuclear war survival skills” and civil defense, as well as a home schooling curriculum, and has taken over the publication of the late Petr Beckmann’s Access to Energy newsletter which defends nuclear energy and now also criticizes AGW. (Beckmann was a physicist who became an electrical engineering professor at the University of Colorado, and in addition to promoting nuclear energy also challenged Einstein’s relativity and published a journal for that purpose called Galilean Electrodynamics.) The OISM Petition Project was set up to oppose U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Treaty and currently has over 31,000 signatures of Americans with degrees in a scientific subject. The initial call for signatures was sent out with a letter from Frederick Seitz while he was still president of the National Academies of Science, along with a 12-page “Research Review of Global Warming Evidence” by Arthur and Noah Robinson and Willie Soon which was formatted to look like a publication in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. The petition was originally billed as a “survey,” but it has not been reported how many solicitations were sent out compared to how many were returned, nor how many scientists disagreed with the statements on the petition (as pointed out by Gary Whittenberger in eSkeptic). The signature breakdown by level of education was 29% Ph.D., 22% M.S., 7% M.D. or D.V.M., and 41% B.S. or equivalent. By field, it was 12% earth science, 3% computer science or mathematics, 18% physics and aerospace sciences, 15% chemistry, 9% biology and agriculture, 10% medicine, and 32% engineering and general science. The percentage of Ph.D.s in relevant areas isn’t available, but it’s clear from the breakdown that at least two thirds have less than a Ph.D. and at least 80% do not have education in a relevant field. (Blogger Chris Colose has looked at a subsample of names on the petition, without finding any with climate-related publications.) One of the other “faculty” at the OISM is Dr. Jane Orient, M.D., of Tucson, Arizona, whom I’ve heard speak in opposition to AGW. She is the executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a conservative organization that publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPANDS). This journal published an anti-AGW articles by Arthur Robinson, Noah Robinson, and Willie Soon (2007), and by Arthur Robinson, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, and Zachary Robinson (1998), as well as articles opposing vaccination of children, claiming that HIV is not the cause of AIDS, that homosexuality causes crime and disease, opposing fluoridation of water, accusing the FDA of fraud for banning DDT, and criticizing the theory of evolution (see evaluations by Kathleen Seidel and Orac). The Robinson et al. (1998) article is apparently a version of the article originally distributed with the Oregon Petition, and another anti-AGW article by the same authors was published in the journal Climate Research (Soon et al. 1998). Arthur Robinson has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Caltech and was an associate of Linus Pauling. Noah Robinson also has a chemistry Ph.D. from Caltech, and Zachary Robinson is a veterinarian with a bachelor’s degree in chemistry. None has relevant climate science expertise. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (1980 Ph.D., astrophysics) are astrophysicists at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who study solar variability, both have also been associated with the George C. Marshall Institute and the Heartland Institute; Soon is the chief science advisor for the Science and Public Policy Institute (above). Baliunas received the Petr Beckmann Award for Scientific Freedom from Doctors for Disaster Preparedness (DDP), a group associated with OISM (Jane Orient is president of DDP). In 2003, Soon and Baliunas published an anti-AGW article (arguing that warming was due to solar variation) in Climate Research that led to protests from 13 of the authors cited that their work had been misrepresented and misused. Subsequently the new editor-in-chief, Hans van Storch, resigned along with two other editors when the publisher refused to print an editorial about improvements in the journal review process. Baliunas’ fourth-most-cited paper has 230 citations; Soon’s has 68. Timothy J. Osborn and Keith R. Briffa (2006) repeated Soon and Baliunas’ methodology in a paper published in Science that did not reproduce their results. Osborn and Briffa are both climate scientists associated with the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University; Osborn’s (1995 Ph.D., environmental sciences) fourth-most-cited paper has received 152 citations and Briffa’s (1984 Ph.D., dendroclimatologist) has received 250. I’ve given special attention to OISM and AAPS because of the extent of crankery associated with them. Three Miscellaneous Items My last three items are not organizations but are worthy of further note. (1) This year, S. Fred Singer circulated a petition to attempt to get the American Physical Society to revise its statement on global warming from being supportive of AGW to be in opposition to it. He collected 206 signatures from APS members, about 0.45% of its 47,000 members, and the petition was rejected. John Mashey analyzed the social network of the first 121 signers (PDF), and found that the initial signing clustered around the SEPP, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Heartland Institute, and the Cato Institute, along with other interesting demographic information. (2) Ian Plimer, a prominent Australian geologist, published a book in early 2009 opposing AGW, titled Heaven and Earth: Global Warming-The Missing Science. Plimer has in the past been an active public critic of creationism in Australia, and was criticized by me for using inaccurate and misleading claims in his arguments, and by me and Jeff Shallit for plagiarism in a prior book. Plimer’s new book has been similarly found to contain not only inaccurate statements and misrepresentations, but plagiarism. (3) The Center for Inquiry’s Credibility Project was a review of the scientific credentials of the signers of global warming denier Sen. James Inhofe’s Senate Minority Report on Global Warming, which found, similar to what I report above, that most of them have no relevant expertise or credentials. Summary The above doesn’t demonstrate that climate skepticism is without merit, but it does demonstrate that there are reasons to be skeptical–and in many cases extremely skeptical–about some of the organizations and individuals promoting climate skepticism, independently of their arguments. In my view, the arguments for climate skepticism in most cases just increase the grounds for skepticism. I recommend the RealClimate blog and Skeptical Science blog as two good sources of information about those arguments. To really dig into the details, read the IPCC WG-1 Report. UPDATE: Also worthy of note is Wikipedia’s list of scientific organizations which have issued statements on anthropogenic climate change. Noteworthy for its absence is any organization with a statement arguing against anthropogenic climate change; since 2007 only the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has had a noncommittal statement. Wikipedia also has a nice list of scientists who oppose the consensus views and what their actual positions are. (Like JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, they do not have a consensus view of their own.) I also neglected to mention a paper that I cited in the paper I wrote for my climate change class, a 2008 study that examined 141 “English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005” found that over 92% of them were connected to conservative think tanks, either published by them or authored by persons directly affiliated with them (Peter J. Jacques, Riley E. Dunlap, and Mark Freeman, “The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental scepticism,” Environmental Politics vol 17, no. 3, June 2008, pp. 349-385). In the above list, is there any organization or individual that does not come from a conservative or libertarian political ideology? UPDATE (December 17, 2009): Other posts at this blog on climate change include: “Climate Research Unit email scandal” (November 23, 2009) “Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change adaptation” (November 7, 2009) “Roger Pielke Jr. on climate change mitigation” (November 6, 2009) “Robert Balling on climate change” (October 30, 2009) “Ian Plimer on climate change” (May 22, 2009) “Reason to be skeptical about anthropogenic climate change” (April 26, 2008) “Garbage in on climate change measurement” (October 25, 2007) “Lomborg, global warming, and opportunity costs” (September 15, 2007) “The consensus for anthropogenic global warming” (August 19, 2007) “David Friedman on global warming” (March 15, 2007) “Taxonomy of questions about global warming” (March 13, 2007) Among several others. Those who are accusing me of obvious liberal bias might want to take a look at these. I have my share of political biases, but I do my best to defer to the best arguments and evidence over political ideology. UPDATE (December 19, 2009): Peter Staats, in the comments, suggested that belief in anthropogenic global warming is entrenched among scientists and will disappear as the older generation dies (citing Planck, whose point is also made in Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions). I responded that I thought he has it backwards–that AGW has become more and more supported, and the holdouts tend to be older, as some of the data about the anti-AGW organizations above already suggested. So I tested our respective hypotheses against Jim Prall’s data, for IPCC WG1 scientists vs. the signatories of the AGW-skeptical documents. I looked at the average year of the last academic degree awarded, first for those with citation counts for their fourth-most-cited paper >= 200, then, since that was such a small sample for the climate skeptics, for citation counts >= 100, and then for all the 623 IPCC WG1 scientists vs. the 469 signatories of AGW-skeptical documents. Here are the results: Citation counts of 4th-most-cited >= 200: IPCC WG1: N=83, 12 w/o year, N=71, average year of last degree = 1981 Skeptics: N=13, 4 w/o year, N=9, average year of last degree = 1965 Citations counts of 4th-most-cited >=100: IPCC WG1: N=201, 51 w/o year, N=150, average year of last degree = 1983 Skeptics: N=38, 15 w/o year, N=23, average year of last degree = 1968 All IPCC WG1 vs. AGW-skeptical document signers: IPCC WG1: N=623, 208 w/o year, N=415, average year of last degree = 1989 Skeptics: N=469, 346 w/o year, N=123, average year of last degree = 1973 BTW, for this last group, there’s more info on degree breakdowns than year of degree (note that those without degrees are excluded along with the n/a, no web, and no cv categories–there were several of those among the skeptics and one undergrad in the IPCC scientists, not counted here): IPCC WG1 scientists: N=504 Ph.D.: 474 (94.0%) M.Sc.: 13 (2.6%) Cand.: 5 (1.0%) D.Sc.: 2 (0.4%) D.Phil.: 2 (0.4%) Sc.D.: 2 (0.4%) C.Phys.: 2 (0.4%) B.Sc.: 2 (0.4%) And one each (0.2%) of Nobel laureates and Ph.Lic. Skeptics: N=322 Ph.D.: 254 (78.9%) M.Sc.: 25 (7.8%) B.Sc.: 13 (4.0%) B.A.: 4 (1.2%) M.S.: 3 (0.9%) B.S.: 3 (0.9%) M.D. and Ph.D.: 1 (0.3%) And one each (0.3%) of M.D., D.Eng., Tekn.D., Dipl., M.Eng., M.A., P.E., Dipl.Bio., M.C., D.Env., B.E., R.P., “Doctorandus”, B.S.E.E., Dip.ES., and J.D. UPDATE (December 21, 2009): Theoretical physicist (a string theorist), former Harvard physics professor, and climate skeptic Lubos Motl, referred to above as the most-cited scientist involved with the 2008 NIPCC report, has just demonstrated the quality of his reasoning at his own blog. In a post about James Randi’s expression of skepticism about AGW and his temporary (and quickly retracted) suggestion that the Oregon Petition Project seemed legitimate, Motl infers that this must have been the cause for Phil Plait being fired as president of JREF–an event which didn’t happen. When Randi himself showed up to point out that Plait is still president of JREF and had already given notice of his departure at the end of the year prior to these events, Motl’s response was “If you have been truly violently, physically blackmailed and harassed by the AGW fanatics, I could understand what you just wrote. If you were not, let me just state that in that case, you became a morally worthless human in my eyes.” Way to be reasonable, Motl! He continues: “The ‘denialist’ dictionary you adopted and the attacks against the Oregon Petition are pretty disgusting." UPDATE (December 25, 2009): I’m reading Steven Epstein’s book, Impure Science: AIDS, Activism, and the Politics of Knowledge, 1996, Berkeley: University of California Press, which I had previously read chapter 6 of for one of my classes. In ch. 4, “The Debate That Wouldn’t Die,” about Peter Duesberg and those who deny that HIV causes AIDS, I just read about Project Inform’s “Discussion Paper #5” of 3 June 1992, which was titled “Who Are the HIV Heretics?”, which sounds fairly analogous to the this blog post. I’ve not been able to find a copy online, but I would love to see that document. Epstein, pp. 156-157: The seriousness with which Project Inform took the resurgence of interest in the causation controversey was indicated by the publication in early June of a six-page ‘Discussion Paper’ devoted entirely to the topic. The report began by blasting the media for their irresponsibility and sensationalism. Why do reporters love the HIV dissenters? Why have they confused Montagnier’s position with Duesberg’s, despite Montagnier’s own disavowals? “Apparently because it makes a good story–‘Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong! Top Scientists in Error Ten Years! Secrets! Coverup! Big Business, Big Science Collusion!’ … Such is the sorry state of AIDS reporting in some circles today." Focusing on four groups opposing the HIV hypothesis–the New York Native, Spin magazine, assorted journalists, and certain scientists–Project Inform was at pains to question the credibility of each and to uncover motivations for adopting heretical stances. … In considering the fourth, crucial group of HIV dissenters–the scientists–Project Inform’s report similarly emphasized the issue of credibility. Root-Bernstein “works in a field not directly related to AIDS” and “has not conducted or published any AIDS research other than editorials,” yet “Spin calls him ‘one of the leading AIDS researchers in the US.’” Kary Mullis, while “obviously a serious scientist,” was similarly “an outsider to AIDS research”; furthermore, his PCR test “has, if anything, helped to bolster the case for HIV.” Of all the heretical scientists, only Sonnabend “is professionally involved with AIDS,” but “primarily as a clinician”: “While Dr. Sonnabend has earned respect in many ways, his arguments against HIV are no more valid than the others." … In focusing on formal credentials, Project Inform walked a fine line. This, after all, was a grassroots organization staffed by self-educated AIDS experts; its executive director, before the epidemic came along, had been a business consultant. A big part of Project Inform’s work involved disseminating highly technical knowledge about AIDS to laypeople in order to create what might be called a mass-based expertise. In its reckoning of the tokens of expertise, Project Inform was not about to argue that academic degrees or journal publications are everything. Lacking the right credentials, Peter Duesberg could still be considered an AIDS expert of sorts–but not in a way that would make him stand out from the crowd: “Perhaps his most relevant work is that he has studied the medical literature on AIDS (as have thousands of patients, physicians, and activists), and this qualifies as a form of expertise.” But “Duesberg’s supporters and the media spread misinformation when they present him as an ‘AIDS researcher’ in the sense that phrase is usually meant.” His published writings on AIDS were “simply editorials." Project Inform noted that there was a “legitimate” scientific question that had been “lost in the fog” generated by media fascination with Duesberg and other dissenters: How does HIV cause AIDS? Following the lead of Gallo and others, the report emphasized that pathogenesis was separate from etiology; while part one of the report was entitled “Is HIV the Cause of AIDS?” part two was called “How Does HIV Cause AIDS?"There are lots of interesting parallels here, including political. Epstein notes (pp. 158-159) HIV dissenters and promoters of their views being libertarian (Charles Thomas) and conservative (Phillip Johnson, Bryan Ellison, Tom Bethell, Patrick Buchanan). Johnson, Bethell, and Buchanan are also anti-evolutionists; Bethell and Buchanan also deny that there’s anthropogenic global warming. UPDATE (December 28, 2009): The Center for Public Integrity’s project, “The Climate Change Lobby," identifies who’s lobbying the U.S. Congress on climate change. UPDATE (January 3, 2010): This Republican Party PR firm memo from 2000 about how to “win” the global warming debate by continuing to stress uncertainty as the case for warming become stronger is interesting in its similarity to the Tobacco Institute’s PR strategy about the evidence that smoking causes cancer. UPDATE (January 5, 2010): Donald Gutstein’s “This is How You Fuel a Community of Climate Deniers” covers similar ground to the above (with some familiar names), with a Canadian focus. UPDATE (January 7, 2010): Jeffrey Masters’ “The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole” shows how a similar debate came out in the 1970s, which included S. Fred Singer arguing that CFCs don’t deplete the ozone layer. That article notes that Singer’s atmospheric science work has been negligible since 1971. ...

In January 2008 the film “Untraceable," starring Diane Lane, will be released. It looks awful. The premise is that a serial killer is killing people live on the Internet, via an “untraceable website” that is connected to contraptions that kill his victims as more people visit the site. The whole concept of an “untraceable website” or the idea that such a thing would be unstoppable by ISPs and law enforcement is absurd–the immediate upstream provider of the site would merely need to null route the IP address(es) where the website is hosted, and traffic stops. They’d also be able to quickly identify the customer who owns the server in question. Even if that server was compromised and being used to reverse proxy or redirect traffic to other servers, it would still be a relatively simple matter to track that backwards, though it would be somewhat more difficult than stopping the traffic. Even if the domain name pointed to a new server on a compromised host every second, it would still be possible to contact the domain name registrar and get the domain name shut down. If users can get to it, it can be seen how and what they’re getting to, even if that’s only the front end in a chain of successive proxies. If it has a domain name, that provides another path to shutting off access. UPDATE (January 2, 2008): I came across the script online while searching for information about the writers. Let’s just say that my opinion above is not nearly negative enough. In the first 16 pages are at least six or seven scenes that really bring on the stupid. For example, FBI Agent Jennifer Marsh, who works in the FBI’s cyber division, is monitoring machines that are being compromised by hackers (honeypots, essentially, though the script doesn’t use the word). One of her machines gets compromised and she sees that it copies her files including fake financial information. It then accesses eBay to use a stolen credit card to purchase a watch. In reality, the stolen financial information wouldn’t be likely to be used from the same machine, it would be sold to another player in the underground economy. Marsh then types commands to look for the IP address of the connecting host–but if they’ve already got honeypots or honeynets in operation, that should already be logged. She then does the usual CSI-style conversion of an IP address into a name and address without issuing a subpoena to an ISP, and discovers that it’s a home belonging to a 56-year-old woman. She immediately concludes that the actual criminal must be a neighbor using her wireless connection, despite the fact that she has no evidence that the woman has a wireless access point and isn’t just another victim with a compromised machine being used as a proxy. Without doing any more verification, she arranges to get a warrant to knock the door of the neighbor down, and it turns out to be a teenage kid. On p. 16 appears this nice quote: “She types several commands into a unix shell. Trace routing algorithms begin to run. A different screen shows possible IP addresses. The list begins growing, from ten to hundreds to thousands…. Marsh shakes her head at the futility.” There are multiple methods of performing traceroutes and even of adding fake hops to a traceroute, but traceroute is unnecessary to find out the IP address of a website–it’s only useful for finding the path traffic takes to get to that website, e.g., for finding the upstream provider. But getting a list of upstream providers is better done by looking at routing tables rather than doing traceroutes, anyway. The real investigative steps would be to look at the DNS information for the domain, get the IP address or addresses from the authoritative name server (and check to see if those are changing with a short TTL), then find the upstream providers. Funniest exchange I’ve seen so far in the script (p. 26) is this marvel of self-contradiction: [FBI agent] GRIFFIN: I traced it to a Georgetown sophomore named Andrew Kinross. But then I looked closer and saw the post didn’t actually originate from his computer. MARSH: Our guy got into his computer and posted it from there. GRIFFIN: That would be my guess. MARSH: So let’s go after the originating computer’s IP. And so far, I’ve not mentioned how the hacker mastermind hacks into the FBI agent’s car (which features the fictional “NorthStar” instead “OnStar”)–in the preview, the hacker apparently is able to control the steering of her car. I suspect drive-by-wire steering will come soon in the future of the automobile, but I don’t believe it exists today. (Turns out the preview gives a misleading impression of what the script says is happening–the hacker doesn’t actually control the steering, but remotely shuts off the car’s electrical systems and power steering.) ...

Richard Bennett has an interesting post about Wikipedia and the decentralization of knowledge collection titled “Teaching the hive mind to discriminate." He argues that while Wikipedia is good at accumulating the knowledge of a large number of individuals, it also collects their “prejudice, mistaken beliefs, wishful thinking, and conformance to tradition.” It is unrealistic to expect that these erroneous beliefs will automatically be weeded out because “expertise is not as widely dispersed as participation”: So the real question about information and group scaling is this: are there procedures for separating good information from false information (”discrimination”) that are effective enough to allow groups to be scaled indefinitely without a loss of information quality? It’s an article of faith in the Wikipedia “community” that such procedures exist, and that they’re essentially self-operative. That’s the mythos of “emergence”, that systems, including human systems, automatically self-organize in such a way as to reward good behavior and information and purge bad information. This seems to be based on the underlying assumption that people being basically good, the good will always prevail in any group.Readers of this blog know that I would argue that many religious and political beliefs are examples that support Bennett’s position. On a related point, Ed Felten has a recent post about how reputation systems on the Internet can be manipulated, referencing a pair of articles at Wired by Annalee Newitz. A common flaw is that the reputations of the raters themselves is either not taken into account or is easily manipulated. If there were a way of reliably weighting expertise of raters within appropriate knowledge domains, that could provide a method of discrimination to sort out the good from the bad information. This is a subject that my planned (but never completed) Ph.D. dissertation in epistemology (on social epistemology, specifically on obtaining knowledge based on the knowledge of others) at the University of Arizona should have touched upon. One philosopher who had touched on this subject at the time I was working on my Ph.D. (back in the early 1990s) was Philip Kitcher, whose book The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions (1993, Oxford University Press) contains a chapter titled “The Organization of Cognitive Labor” (originally published as “The Division of Cognitive Labor” in the Journal of Philosophy, 87(1990):5-21). ...

The International Information Systems Security Certification Consortium ("(ISC)2")’s CISSP (Certified Information Systems Security Professional) certification is the best known information security certification. According to “(ISC)2”’s website, all CISSPs “are required to commit to fully support” the “(ISC)2” Code of Ethics. This code of ethics includes four mandatory canons: Protect society, the commonwealth, and the infrastructure. Act honorably, honestly, justly, responsibly, and legally. Provide diligent and competent service to principals. Advance and protect the profession.The second of these canons is spelled out in more detail with a set of bullet points, the first of which is: Tell the truth; make all stakeholders aware of your actions on a timely basis.Clearly, honesty is a key requirement of this code of ethics. An up-and-coming certificate for information security managers is the Certified Information Security Manager (CISM) certification from the Information Systems Audit and Compliance Association (ISACA). ISACA also has a Code of Professional Ethics, which states that all ISACA certificate holders will comply with seven statements, the third of which is: 3. Serve in the interest of stakeholders in a lawful and honest manner, while maintaining high standards of conduct and character, and not engage in acts discreditable to the profession.Again, honesty is clearly a key requirement. I recently learned that these requirements are not met by a prominent information security professional who frequently speaks at high-profile security conferences, has held the Chief Security Officer position at Exodus, Cable & Wireless, and Savvis, has been Chairman of the Internet Security Alliance, and is Chairman of the FCC’s NRIC Homeland Security focus group on cyber security. “Dr.” Bill Hancock has degrees from a diploma mill, has repeatedly told false stories about being a Vietnam war veteran, a Navy SEAL, and a prisoner of war, and has lied about his martial arts expertise.

The December 2005 issue of Communications of the ACM contains an “Inside Risks” column raising concerns about some of the risks of Wikipedia: relying on Wikipedia presents numerous risks: * Accuracy: You cannot be sure which information is accurate and which is not. Misinformation has a negative value; even if you get it for free, you’ve paid too much. * Motives: You cannot know the motives of the contributors to an article. They may be altruists, political or commercial opportunists, practical jokers, or even vandals (WP: Wikipedia:Most_vandalized_pages'').</p><p> * Uncertain Expertise: Some contributors exceed their expertise and supply speculations, rumors, hearsay, or incorrect information. It is difficult to determine how qualified an article's contributors are; the revision histories often identify them by pseudonyms, making it hard to check credentials and sources.</p><p> * Volatility: Contributions and corrections may be negated by future contributors. One of the co-authors of this column found it disconcerting that he had the power to independently alter the Wikipedia article about himself and negate the others' opinions. Volatility creates a conundrum for citations: Should you cite the version of the article that you read (meaning that those who follow your link may miss corrections and other improvements), or the latest version (which may differ significantly from the article you saw)?</p><p> * Coverage: Voluntary contributions largely represent the interests and knowledge of a self-selected set of contributors. They are not part of a careful plan to organize human knowledge. Topics that interest the young and Internet-savvy are well-covered, while events that happened before the Web’’ may be covered inadequately or inaccurately, if at all. More is written about current news than about historical knowledge. ...