3 ms·

Why does this matter? This isn't his field. It'd be like if an honorary professor in another field said something ridiculous about biology; we'd go, "Cool story

Why does this matter? This isn't his field. It'd be like if an honorary professor in another field said something ridiculous about biology; we'd go, "Cool story, bro." I'm saying: if Ray Kurzweil gets negative press when he says something absurd outside of his lane, then certainly a guy who openly says he's a climate science denier is going to.

the-dude 7y ago
So what would be the 'proper' field for commenting on 'climate science' ? Are there faculties of 'Climate Science' ? If anything, I will listen to anybody's arguments if they have a grasp of math first, physics second, chemistry 3rd.
- kelnage 7y ago
  I assume you therefore would also go to a mathematician or a physicist for a medical diagnosis, over a doctor or chemist too? If not, why not? (And yes, there are Environmental Science departments - or at least that's what they're called in the UK)
- KirinDave 7y ago
  > Are there faculties of 'Climate Science' ? Yes, actually. Most major universities in my country have an "atmospheric science" department and some of the major findings in the field have come from them. People who focus on climate are indeed called "climate scientists." > If anything, I will listen to anybody's arguments if they have a grasp of math first, physics second, chemistry 3rd. So you'd trust a particle physicists opinion about exoplanets over and astrophysicist who specializes in exoplanet hunting? I'm sorry, but that seems misguided. Why do you hate specialization? It's a pillar of modern physics.
  - the-dude 7y ago
    Why do you dismiss outside scrutiny so easily? Sounds very much like 'Only members of the church may critize the church'.
    - KirinDave 7y ago
      Well, strictly speaking the actual Church where this paper is from backs the Trump Administration in its climate science denial. But as others have pointed out: the claims in this paper aren't very strong. Further, they don't directly dispute anthropogenic global warming. All they do is suggest that methane shouldn't be regulated because it breaks down over 40 years. However, it breaks down to component greenhouse gases, which the paper fails to mention. This seems to be a fatal stake in the heart of this argument. Did you skim the article in question? Even quickly? If not, don't you feel a bit ashamed for participating in this discussion without making even the most basic effort?
- rexpop 7y ago
  Yes, environmental science is a real field.

the-dude 7y ago

So what would be the 'proper' field for commenting on 'climate science' ? Are there faculties of 'Climate Science' ? If anything, I will listen to anybody's arguments if they have a grasp of math first, physics second, chemistry 3rd.

kelnage 7y ago
I assume you therefore would also go to a mathematician or a physicist for a medical diagnosis, over a doctor or chemist too? If not, why not? (And yes, there are Environmental Science departments - or at least that's what they're called in the UK)
KirinDave 7y ago
> Are there faculties of 'Climate Science' ? Yes, actually. Most major universities in my country have an "atmospheric science" department and some of the major findings in the field have come from them. People who focus on climate are indeed called "climate scientists." > If anything, I will listen to anybody's arguments if they have a grasp of math first, physics second, chemistry 3rd. So you'd trust a particle physicists opinion about exoplanets over and astrophysicist who specializes in exoplanet hunting? I'm sorry, but that seems misguided. Why do you hate specialization? It's a pillar of modern physics.
- the-dude 7y ago
  Why do you dismiss outside scrutiny so easily? Sounds very much like 'Only members of the church may critize the church'.
  - KirinDave 7y ago
    Well, strictly speaking the actual Church where this paper is from backs the Trump Administration in its climate science denial. But as others have pointed out: the claims in this paper aren't very strong. Further, they don't directly dispute anthropogenic global warming. All they do is suggest that methane shouldn't be regulated because it breaks down over 40 years. However, it breaks down to component greenhouse gases, which the paper fails to mention. This seems to be a fatal stake in the heart of this argument. Did you skim the article in question? Even quickly? If not, don't you feel a bit ashamed for participating in this discussion without making even the most basic effort?
rexpop 7y ago
Yes, environmental science is a real field.