3 ms·

Why are climate scientists giving Scott Pruitt a hard time? Saying what people want to hear does not make you a good researcher. They don't take him seriously

Why are climate scientists giving Scott Pruitt a hard time? Saying what people want to hear does not make you a good researcher. They don't take him seriously for the same reason we don't take young-earth creationist researchers seriously. It's not good research. Edit: I'm not an economist, and I'm not going to do justice to the criticisms (which aren't hard to find), but fine, here are links: http://www.robertdkirkby.com/blog/2015/criticisms-of-piketty/ http://www.robertdkirkby.com/blog/2015/criticisms-of-piketty... https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-03-27/piketty-s-three-big-mistakes-in-inequality-analysis https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-03-27/piketty-s...

meowface 10y ago
Maybe that's true, but your comment isn't adding much to the discussion without explicitly saying why it isn't good research.
enraged_camel 10y ago
Sorry, but comparing Piketty to Pruitt is laughable. One is a distinguished professor of economics. The other is a businessman and lawyer who apparently knows nothing about science.
- omginternets 10y ago
  >One is a distinguished professor of economics. ... with a Nobel prize, to boot.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Piketty likely will get a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences awarded one day, but he doesn't have one at the moment
    - omginternets 10y ago
      Ah, I thought he already had it. Duly noted, thanks for the correction.
- valuearb 10y ago
  That's an appeal to authority. Pruitt's background is no more a measure of his qualifications to be a scientist than Michael Faraday's were. We judge science based on testable theories and results, and the quality of the work done to make those results trustworthy. Pruitt may heavily flunk that part, but any intelligent person who doesn't can contribute to science, regardless of their background.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    >>That's an appeal to authority. Argument from authority is not always fallacious. Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Struct... I posit that the argument I made uses the valid form: people who are established authorities on a given topic are more trustworthy when making claims about that topic, because they are more likely to be correct. Pruitt himself has proven the opposite to be true as well by being repeatedly wrong about science and rejecting scientifically established facts.
metaphorm 10y ago
the fact that there is good-faith professional disagreement in the field of Economics does not indicate that Piketty is a charlatan in the same way that Scott Pruitt is a charlatan when it comes to climate science. Piketty is a world class economist that presents rigorous arguments backed by very large amounts of empirical data. Scott Pruitt is a political hack paid to lie about climate science for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. The fact that you conflate them says more about you than it does about Piketty or Pruitt.

meowface 10y ago

Maybe that's true, but your comment isn't adding much to the discussion without explicitly saying why it isn't good research.

enraged_camel 10y ago

Sorry, but comparing Piketty to Pruitt is laughable. One is a distinguished professor of economics. The other is a businessman and lawyer who apparently knows nothing about science.

omginternets 10y ago
>One is a distinguished professor of economics. ... with a Nobel prize, to boot.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- notahacker 10y ago
  Piketty likely will get a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences awarded one day, but he doesn't have one at the moment
  - omginternets 10y ago
    Ah, I thought he already had it. Duly noted, thanks for the correction.
valuearb 10y ago
That's an appeal to authority. Pruitt's background is no more a measure of his qualifications to be a scientist than Michael Faraday's were. We judge science based on testable theories and results, and the quality of the work done to make those results trustworthy. Pruitt may heavily flunk that part, but any intelligent person who doesn't can contribute to science, regardless of their background.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  >>That's an appeal to authority. Argument from authority is not always fallacious. Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Structure https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority#Struct... I posit that the argument I made uses the valid form: people who are established authorities on a given topic are more trustworthy when making claims about that topic, because they are more likely to be correct. Pruitt himself has proven the opposite to be true as well by being repeatedly wrong about science and rejecting scientifically established facts.

metaphorm 10y ago

the fact that there is good-faith professional disagreement in the field of Economics does not indicate that Piketty is a charlatan in the same way that Scott Pruitt is a charlatan when it comes to climate science. Piketty is a world class economist that presents rigorous arguments backed by very large amounts of empirical data. Scott Pruitt is a political hack paid to lie about climate science for the benefit of the fossil fuel industry. The fact that you conflate them says more about you than it does about Piketty or Pruitt.