So we should only trust scientists with degrees in climatology, so should we trust these people?

Question

Bill Nye, B.S. Mechanical Engineering (Bill Nye the Science Guy)

Gavin Schmidt, Ph.D. Applied Mathematics (RealClimate.org)

James Hansen, Ph.D. Physics (NASA, Gavin Schmidt's Boss)

Lonnie Thompson, Ph.D. Geological Sciences

Michael Mann, Ph.D. Geology & Geophysics (RealClimate.org)

Michael Oppenheimer, Ph.D. Chemical Physics

Richard C. J. Somerville, Ph.D. Meteorology

Answer 1

Anyone can wish to be and claim to be a “climate scientist”. But the climatologists that I prefer to listen to are the ones who have RECENTLY PUBLISHED, in per-reviewed journals, on the subject of climate.

Answer 2

Climate Scientist = someone with an advanced degree in a scientific field related to some aspect of climate, that's currently involved in climate research for a legitimate scientific organization and publishing in climate related peer reviewed scientific journals.

I don't know who you think said "only trust scientists with degrees in climatology", but it sure wasn't me.  I wouldn't trust a climatologist to write the software for a climate model, but I also wouldn't trust a computer scientist to develop the physics equations to use in a climate model.  It requires scientists with various specialties and areas of expertise working together.

Answer 3

Phony question.  No scientist here has EVER said we should only trust degreed climatologists.  Many of the people you cite have many years of experience and extensive publications in climatology.

What are easily dismissible are people without any real credentials in the field, like TV weathermen or specialists in mathematics or hurricanes with no general climatology experience.

EDIT - I don't ask anyone to believe ME.  You give me too much credit, I've never done any professional climate research.  That's why my answers about technical questions are packed with links to the real scientists.

Your question was not technical.

Answer 4

We should only trust UN funded scientists.

Answer 5

I don't know, could you provide their CVs and lists of recent publications.

Answer 6

You forgot their Canadian cheerleader Dr. David Suzuki, Zoology.

Answer 7

And we should trust ingorant, politically motivated pundits, shills, hacks and cranks?

Answer 8

Of course not.  Trusting people of one specific discipline is like trusting only chiropractors when you have back problems.

Objective science knows no discipline.  Objective science will be true even if you don't have a specific degree.

Those that say you should only trust a small group of people are trying to eliminate others who aren't of like minds.  Science isn't about limiting debate, but proving theories.

Answer 9

How about this, try opening an almanac...then you won't have to bother with the brainiacs.

Answer 10

It is not so much a matter of trusting the individual scientists, but rather examining their data and coming to your own conclusions as to whether they can be trusted.  

If you are serious about this, and do not feel you have the knowledge to interpret scientific data, I would suggest that you find someone with a background in statistics.  Statisticians have expertise in evaluating whether data is valid, or not.

As a former researcher and science teacher, I am impressed with the critical thinking you used in posing this question.

Answer 11

no.

maybe.

maybe.

maybe.

maybe.

maybe.

probably.

thats just taking into account there formal qualifications to make a better judgement you would need to know if any of them write papers or are involved in research currently? you also need to take into account the evidence they use to support there theories.

Answer 12

There is cause for concern.  Most plants :breathe in Carbon Dioxide and transform it into Oxygen . When the C02 level exceeds the O2 we won't have anything to breathe.  Our fossil fuel energy sources are causing abnormally huge amounts of C02 to be produced, which in effect causes global warming thereby causing the greenhouse effect.  The earth will cleanse itself, but we won't be around to enjoy it.

What you are inferring by calling these climatologists alarmists is that there is no problem.  One doesn't need a climatologist to observe what IS happening worldwide .