by David Safier
Ruth McClung calls herself a rocket scientist, so it must be so, right?
After all, she works at Raytheon where they only hire rocket scientists — don't they? — so I guess it must be true.
What does McClung actually do at Raytheon? I don't know, since I've never heard her mention it, except on her Bio page, where she writes,
Ruth McClung, a physicist who is currently working as a rocket scientist at a local engineering company . . .
A google search gave me no more information about her responsibilities at Raytheon.
Here's her educational background. See if you would claim to be a rocket scientist, or even a physicist, with this level of college work.
McClung went to Pima Community College for her first two years, then transfered to UA, where, according to her Bio page, she earned her BS in Physics in 2004. I've heard people say she earned a BA, not a BS, but I'll take her word for it.
That's it, unless she's being modest and not listing graduate work.
If Raytheon gives someone who only has a BS in Physics high level, rocket scientist work, we're in big, big trouble.
Frank Antenori also works at Raytheon, but he doesn't call himself a rocket scientist. He's a Program Manager. I don't know exactly what that is, but it's not rocket science. Frank is a smart guy — I wouldn't use the term "intelligence" to describe him, but he's definitely got smarts. Ruth doesn't seem to be dumb, but smart? Rocket scientist smart? Rocket scientist educated? I think not.
But repeat it often enough — "I'm a rocket scientist, I'm a rocket scientist, I'm a rocket scientist" — and pretty soon, it's taken as fact.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
P.S. I guess I outdid myself on typos, but my time is limited.
I have a life.
Oops — typo. I included NOT because Salon is good source for science!
When I first heard that a “rocket scientist” would be running against Raul Grijalva, I thought “how neat!” I already knew that conservative running in my district (Jesse Kelly), was the typical alleged “conservative” we see these days, dedicated to breaking government and operating what’s left on foreign money, and quite deliberately running up huge deficits for the profit of the already-too-powerful (See “Kyl, Jon”).
But a “rocket scientist”! Wow! Maybe she was working on the Phoenix lander program? I might have philosophical disagreements on running government, but, hey, at least CD7 would have an intellgent debate and, either way, an advocate of science would win.
Then I found out the truth.
Here is one media article, which I include because Salon is a good source for science, but because it’s written by an oceangrapher who links to numerous primary sources (i.e. real science), and patiently explain how scientific research really works (something McClung obviously does not know).
Two particularly relevant portions:
—————————————-
“How sad that the WSJ and CNBC have so little conception of what science really is, especially since scientific advances drive so much of the economy. If that’s what Jenkins thinks science is, one would assume he is equally skeptical of flossing, antibiotics and even boarding an airplane.
(Note to WSJ: One reason science works is that a lot of scientists devote their whole lives to overturning whatever is the current hypothesis — if it can be overturned. That’s how you become famous and remembered by history, like Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein.)
In fact, science doesn’t work by consensus of opinion. Science is in many respects the exact opposite of decision by consensus. General opinion at one point might have been that the sun goes around the Earth, or that time was an absolute quantity, but scientific theory supported by observations overturned that flawed worldview.
One of the most serious results of the overuse of the term “consensus” in the public discussion of global warming is that it creates a simple strategy for doubters to confuse the public, the press and politicians: Simply come up with as long a list as you can of scientists who dispute the theory. After all, such disagreement is prima facie proof that no consensus of opinion exists.
So we end up with the absurd but pointless spectacle of the leading denier in the U.S. Senate, James Inhofe, R-Okla., who recently put out a list of more than 400 names of supposedly “prominent scientists” who supposedly “recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.”
As it turned out, the list is both padded and laughable, containing the opinions of TV weathermen, economists, a bunch of non-prominent scientists who aren’t climate experts, and, perhaps surprisingly, even a number of people who actually believe in the consensus.
But in any case, nothing could be more irrelevant to climate science than the opinion of people on the list such as Weather Channel founder John Coleman or famed inventor Ray Kurzweil (who actually does “think global warming is real”). Or, for that matter, my opinion — even though I researched a Ph.D. thesis at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on physical oceanography in the Greenland Sea.
What matters is scientific findings — data, not opinions. The IPCC relies on the peer-reviewed scientific literature for its conclusions, which must meet the rigorous requirements of the scientific method and which are inevitably scrutinized by others seeking to disprove that work. That is why I cite and link to as much research as is possible, hundreds of studies in the case of this article. Opinions are irrelevant.”
————————————————
And regarding McClung statement the it’s all due to “the sun”:
————————————————
“Ignoring all the evidence, doubters and deniers keep asserting that the cause of global warming isn’t human emissions, but is instead natural forcings, primarily the sun. Last year, brief presidential candidate Fred Thompson commented on claims that planets like Mars were supposedly also warming — an idea debunked by RealClimate. Thompson said sarcastically:
I wonder what all those planets, dwarf planets and moons in our SOLAR system have in common. Hmmmm. SOLAR system. Hmmmm. Solar? I wonder. Nah, I guess we shouldn’t even be talking about this. The science is absolutely decided. There’s a consensus. Ask Galileo.
The view that the sun is the source of observed global warming seems credible mainly to people who are open to believing that the entire scientific community has somehow, over a period of several decades, failed to adequately study, analyze and understand the most visible influence on the Earth’s temperature. Such people typically cannot be influenced by the results of actual research and observations. Those who can should visit Skeptical Science, which discusses deniers’ favorite arguments. In one discussion, the site explains that the “study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can’t be causing global warming.” Doh!
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/02/27/global_warming_deniers/index.html
——————————————————–
Doh, indeed. How can someone who’s actually studied a natural science be dense enough to absorb neutrinos? The answer, of course, is ideological committment to a predetermined outcome and also–of course–generous support from those who have a vested interest in such an outcome.
re: so what does she really do?
re: running simulations and classified work
Why are some people so fixated on this one claim? what does it matter? I think it matters. It reveals the character of our candidate.
Note that most of the thousands of employees working at Raytheon Missile Systems require security clearance due to the sensitive nature of the work. Even the IT people need a certain level of clearance and cannot talk details about their job.
Although one may not divulge details about a particular job or project, it is fine to be able to generally describe the nature of the job’s responsibilities. For example… supervising small team of embedded hardware engineers, simulation application software development, simulation modeling and development in C++, test equipment calibration, field test support, project manager, collecting simulation performance metrics, company representative to contractor, human resources administration, programs security, and on and on. Yet, even if the program is unclassified and it’s not against the rules, it’s just prudent to not publicly announce what you do and to minimize these sort of details going out in any public way.
If she said “running simulations”. It could be anything. But if it was anything of note, we’d have heard about it magnified tenfold by now. The bulk of these type of tasks are given to new hires. I’ll be generous and add that she even develops simulation models and debugs those models. If there was supervisory responsibility, we would have heard about it. Obviously, the tasks aren’t so critical that she can be away from work to campaign. The work’s important, sure, just as all the other tasks, and it is amusing to call oneself a rocket scientist because at a stretch it can be literally true because there are rocket engines and science involved somewhere in the chain whether one’s directly involved or not!
But how the phrase “rocket scientist” is being used for projecting a certain image for political purposes is disingenuous and disappointingly dishonest to those who know. It is a white lie. There is a sliver of literally truth in it but it’s lie nevertheless because its intent in projecting a false image. She’s made an allusion to a self-image of great intelligence by using the term “rocket scientist”. It’s funny, amongst Raytheon engineers or as a (inside?) cocktail party joke. But, it’s rather disheartening to see it being used to deceive a population for personal gain.
Has any of her peers, colleagues, or supervisors have even indirectly confirmed her rocket scientist-ness? I’d like to hear her supervisor’s opinion.
Ruth McClung in her own words:
“o what extent, if any, does global warming pose a threat to lives, property and the economy?
Climate change has existed throughout history. We have seen through archeological evidence that temperature swings are natural. The question that remains; “Is man causing large perturbations in the climate?”
After researching the causes of temperature fluctuations on earth, I found the largest factor to be the sun. The earth’s orbit changes. Also the earth’s spin and axis change over time. When areas of the earth are closer to the sun, the temperature is hotter and when they are further away, cooler. The sun also has more activity at times and less at other times. They have been able to map out large changes in the earth’s temperature over time to the sun. Times with no polar ice caps have corresponded to times when we were closer to the sun. Ice ages have corresponded to times when we were further from the sun.”
That’s utter nonsense, not “research.” The peer-reviewed science has long since gone past looking at some simplistic models. You will not find a single peer-reviewed paper that supports this conclusion. So where is
Where is McClung finding her “research”? I suspect Raytheon and other donors who have a short-term (and short-sighted) interest in blocking climate legislation have more to do with it.
Let’s note for a moment that this “rocket scientist” cites Wikipedia and media articles for her own “research” (try that one some time on your next paper!). Moreover, aside from the media articles she cites to put together a inconsistent, piecemeal “theory”, there is one study–from from the Science and Public Policy Institute, a group whose directors have ties to industry anti-science groups like the Greening Earth Society and George C. Marshall Institute, and is not well-regarded among the mainstream scientific community.
Predictably, McClung joins the oil-funded conspiracy theorists by attacking the process of science itself, and the cites the phony “Climategate” scandal (a handful of scientists being human) as somehow evidence that the consensus of 30 years of peer-reviewed research is not just wrong, but a hoax.
That is indisputably anti-science, and the vapidity of her argument merely confims that she just met the requirement of a Physics degree (I’d really like to see her grades), and has not actually done any real scientific research.
She is attacking peer-reviewed science itself:
Having said the above, I’m none too impressed with McClung’s climate research. Here is her op-ed on global warming.
http://www.ruth4az.com/Issues/GlobalWarming.html
Now, I think legitimate debate exists about the extent of global warming and its relationship to human activity, but this isn’t the kind of analysis we need. McClung just announces, with no reason beyond a gut guess, that anthropogenic climate forcing consists of “fourth, fifth, sixth, or even higher order effects,” and therefore is not important. This is a pretty arrogant dismissal of climate research, which, even if wrong, has certainly been the subject of intense research by able physicists. Can it be dispensed with so lightly? Is the emperor really that naked? Even if so, a more rigorous argument would be called for. For, granting (as anyone would) that solar output makes more difference to our climate than greenhouse gasses do, solar output is quite stable. So it remains possible that “fourth order effects” significantly affect our climate.
On the plus side, it is clear that McClung wrote this herself, which is more than can be said for most public statements by congresscriters. It does show her to be fairly intelligent. But maybe not as expert as she thinks.
I have a BS in physics, and I would hesitate to call myself a physicist. To most people I know, “physicist” means someone with a PhD in physics. That said, I still think a B.S. in physics would be way more useful in Washington than yet another J.D. Wouldn’t it be great to have someone in a meeting about global warming who, you know, has heard of the Stefan-Boltzmann law?
Also, lots of B.S. physics graduates are perfectly capable of “high-level, rocket-scientist work.” That’s the great thing about science and engineering: it’s grounded in reality, and most of the time graduating seniors actually know something after four years in college. They’re prepared to do what, to most people, would seem like “high-level” rocket science, because they don’t spend all their time writing peons to diversity and analyzing TV shows for their social messages.
“If Raytheon gives someone who only has a BS in Physics high level, rocket scientist work, we’re in big, big trouble.”
Maybe the reason you’re confused about this is because a BS in engineering or the sciences are worth a lot more than a degree in sociology or psychology, which most people get because they want to drink beer for four years. Technology companies in most industries will put you to work right away in the field in which you were trained, and within two years you will be a very important piece of the puzzle. How many liberal arts or humanities majors go to work right out of college in the field they were trained?
Also, “Rocket Scientist” isn’t an official title at my, or any other aerospace company that I know of. But it sure got *your* cackles up, didn’t it?
Ruth is a very intelligent physicist, who does indeed have a BS in physics and took a handful of courses towards an optics masters degree. She could have easily finished but spending time with her new husband was clearly a high priority for her. The terms “tried to get a degree” and “dropped out” are a little harsh – she could go back now and finish the degree as those courses and grades are still valid.
Firstoff, Ruth would kindly point out to Rage that gravity is a force between any two objects with mass, completely independent of their status inside or outside an atmosphere. If you had to be inside the atmosphere for gravity to take effect, the earth and the sun would be having a rather heated conversation, eh? Rage – PLEASE – trust me, your question doesn’t make any sense as posed.
Eawarner is correct that many Raytheon employees cannot talk in detail about their work. In fact, some Raytheon employees cannot even tell other Raytheon employees what they do. She’s actually divulged quite a bit saying she runs missile simulations and works for the guidance and controls department (heard this several times). Putting two and two together, it seems that she may do code of some sort that would be involved with guiding a missile/rocket. Guiding a rocket – gosh you’d have to know about thrust and gravity and – wait! That sounds rather sciency to me. Stop the presses – she may ACTUALLY be a rocket scientist!
Sorry Dave but you are incorrect about her her education putting her pretty-low on the science totem pole. Do you really think they take someone with a physics degree and plunk them down at a computer to be a button pusher? Physicists know basic mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, materials engineering, optics, most of them can program, and Raytheon probably makes good use of them. Some “low-level” physicist who has been there for 8 years can easily be doing more rocket science than someone with an specialized engineering degree who has worked there for 20 years.
One last thought, if Raytheon had a problem with Ruth saying she was a rocket scientist she probably wouldn’t be saying as much; her rocket scientist slogan would have been dead a year and a half ago. My guess is a janitor announcing he works for Raytheon as a rocket scientist wouldn’t fly.
I hope some of what I write can at least convince you to choose to attack something other than her intelligence or work qualitifications. What you’re really attacking is her character and ability to be honest and 99% of people who know Ruth would stand here and tell you that’s low. You don’t have any ground to stand on to claim that she doesn’t really DO rocket science. Stick with the politics.
Sigh.. . .look at Ms. McClung’s attacks on peer-reviewed science, on her very own website.
Look at her answer on the causes of Global Warming on the AZ Central website, and revel at the ignorance of basic astronomy from this “rocket scientist.”
My anger renders me almost speechless, because ranting incoherently is the fashion now, and it’s exactly what we DON’T need.
Young intellectuals. . .PLEASE!!.. . challenge this “rocket scientist.” For example, ask her how Newton’s Third Law of Motion applies to her work. Ask her this: when an object travels through a gravitational field, what effect does the path taken between point A and point B have on the work done? Objects that enter the atmosphere–like rockets–have to encounter gravity.
She can google the answers, but, trust me, this Stepford “rocket scientist” will not be able to answer such simple inquiries off-the-cuff.
DAMorales, thanks for the added information. Unfortunately, though, it doesn’t take us any closer to knowing what McClung actually does. Someone who has majored in science and works on projects that involve rockets can be called a rocket scientist, but that says nothing about the level of expertise or intelligence that person’s job takes.
It’s clear why she uses the term “rocket scientist.” It implies the highest level of intelligence. It’s no wonder she doesn’t divulge what she actually does, since I’m willing to bet most people wouldn’t be terribly impressed with a detailed job description.
I could be wrong, of course. But it’s her job or the job of her campaign to offer more information so the voter knows what being “Ruth McClung, rocket scientist” entails.
I asked Ruth about this. She got her Physics degree in 2004, then tried to get a masters in optics. She said she fell in love and dropped out.
Now she works at Raytheon.
What exactly is a “rocket scientist.” In some sense, even the janitors are rocket scientist since they are helping making rockets by keep the place clean and safe…
BS’s and BA’s are almost indistinguishable these days.
Rocket Science is almost trivial compared to Political Science! Even Physics, although the mathematics can be daunting, is much more straight forward than sciences that include a human element. I say this after a thirty year career in a Dept. of Mathematical and Computer Sciences at a university that specializes in Engineering and Applied Sciences.
Bill Astle
Come to think of it, Dorothy says, “There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home, there’s no place like home” three times while clicking her ruby red slippers…so maybe if I click my ruby red slippers together three times and say, “I am Heidi Klum, I am Heidi Klum, I am Heidi Klum” pretty soon, it’ll be taken as fact? SWEET!
Nope, I didn’t attack her intelligence. But I surmised that, lacking more information, I am assuming a BS degree doesn’t get you into the highest levels of Raytheon work, the kind of thing I think of as “rocket science.” My guess is, in the desk-type jobs, Ruth’s education puts her pretty low on the corporation’s science totem pole.
You may consider it an attack to say Ruth is not “rocket scientist smart.” If that’s so, I’m attacking myself and probably 98% of the country. That’s why, when you say someone isn’t very smart, you either say, “He/She’s no Einstein” or “He/She’s no rocket scientist.” Those two are shorthand for the smartest of the smart.
But “runs missile simulations” is as close as I’ve heard to a job description. But honestly, it doesn’t say much.
Do you really expect her to explain her work in detail? Anyone who lives in Tucson knows that many Raytheon employees cannot talk about their work. I have known Ruth for 6 years, and she has told me that she runs missile simulations. I have two other close friends who have been at Raytheon for years, and they have never said anything even that basic.
You may have some legitimate complaints about Ruth’s political positions, but attacking her intelligence because she has ‘only’ a B.S. in Physics is just ridiculous.