4 ms·

How is that relevant to climate? Atomic physics with no training in climate science doesn't seem especially helpful here. > A summary of their paper, which has

How is that relevant to climate? Atomic physics with no training in climate science doesn't seem especially helpful here. > A summary of their paper, which has not been published in a mainstream science journal, was submitted to EPA during the public comment period on a plan to roll back regulations for methane leaked during the production, processing, transmission and storage of oil and natural gas Sounds like old man, from an irrelevant field has become a useful industry shill. One way to top up the pension in your 80s I guess. Methane seems a nice follow-up after being [from Wikipedia]: co-founder and board member of an advocacy group called the CO2 Coalition. Happer described the group as aiming to "educate the public that increased atmospheric levels of CO2 will benefit the world"

the-dude 7y ago
Such a shallow dismissal ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )
- koheripbal 7y ago
  Agreed, but the original argument was also not meaningful. The credentials are not useful.
- geofft 7y ago
  The "shallow dismissal" rule is based on the assumption that everyone is acting in good faith. When some posts their latest weekend project with their Raspberry Pi, that's a fair assumption. When someone who's worked for the White House is publishing a climate change denial paper with the funding of the oil and gas industry and the Koch brothers, good faith is no longer a rational assumption. They may of course still be genuine in the end, but the first task is to establish signs of good faith before immediately assuming the argument is intended to be serious. It does no benefit to discourse to seriously engage with people who aren't trying to play the game by the rules in the first place.
  - the-dude 7y ago
    Every scientist is getting paid.
- KirinDave 7y ago
  You should report it to the mods and ask if they agree.

the-dude 7y ago

Such a shallow dismissal ( https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html )

koheripbal 7y ago
Agreed, but the original argument was also not meaningful. The credentials are not useful.
geofft 7y ago
The "shallow dismissal" rule is based on the assumption that everyone is acting in good faith. When some posts their latest weekend project with their Raspberry Pi, that's a fair assumption. When someone who's worked for the White House is publishing a climate change denial paper with the funding of the oil and gas industry and the Koch brothers, good faith is no longer a rational assumption. They may of course still be genuine in the end, but the first task is to establish signs of good faith before immediately assuming the argument is intended to be serious. It does no benefit to discourse to seriously engage with people who aren't trying to play the game by the rules in the first place.
- the-dude 7y ago
  Every scientist is getting paid.
KirinDave 7y ago
You should report it to the mods and ask if they agree.