[nonhuman]

Lately, obviously, 'climate science' has been a big issue. Tons and tons of debate goes into who should be listened to in terms of the climate and environment. And it's very, very common that people say the only credible sources of information are 'climate scientists' and that scientists from other disciplines, such as physics, chemistry, and biology, don't have the background to make decent statements on matters of climate.

To the people who say this, I have one question: what do you think climate science is?

To my point of view, it doesn't really exist as a distinct science. Not at a basic level, at any rate. And to suggest that physicists aren't qualified to speak to climate issues is just ludicrous. The forces at work behind our climate and behind any and all climate change regardless of cause all fall squarely within the province of physics: the study of the physical (and energetic) universe. If not the people who, as part of their basic education, study thermodynamics and fluid mechanics? The is true of biologists and geologists: people who study the processes that have led to the composition of our atmosphere and who best understand the complicated ways in which our climate interacts with our planet and the life on it?

[ShortcutToMoncton]

I don't think anyone in the scientific world would say physicists or chemists or other disciplines of science have no say in climate science issues. That's simply ludicrous. Like many other areas of studying the natural world, a broad-based background is essential, if not required (which is probably why it's been a slow field to develop). I think you'll find most well-respected "climate scientists" have extensive knowledge in all those fields; I think you'll also find that most groups doing study have expert members in each field.

greg

[olePigeon]

Astronomy & cosmology are a few fields that don't have a Nobel Prize. You can't get a Nobel Prize in astronomy, it's usually awarded under Physics. The reason is because direct testing is often not possible. A lot of how we understand our universe is done through observation, supported by evidence. Cosmology and Astronomy include studies from all different fields of study, including graphic design! You're not going to find any one person that can definitively cover all the bases needed to study cosmology and astronomy.

Climate scince is the same. You have lots of different people who specialize in different areas, but the evidence they provide are the building blocks to a general understanding of climate science as a whole. As I said, there isn't any one person who is the best at everything involved in understanding climate science (and that goes for most areas of study on any topic.)

[OreoCookie]

Climate science is a very broad field like any field of science. There is physical chemistry and biophysics, too. But that doesn't mean that neither, biologists or physicists know their stuff! As with any field of (natural) science, you have a very broad range of possibilities: physicists could go into finance (model theory), chemistry, numerics, engineering, astronomy, climate science, mathematics, etc. Ditto for other fields.

However, it doesn't make you an expert on all the other fields. I'm a mathematical physicist. That doesn't mean I know a first thing about number theory or that I'd be qualified to discuss a particular model in climate theory.

If you really want to make this reduction, you're right: biology, engineering, chemistry, everything is applied physics (that's actually a running gag I'd like to make to friends from other fields). However, I couldn't build a bridge or explain the inner workings of a certain enzyme.

[nonhuman]

To clarify, I haven't heard anyone in the scientific world making those sorts of claims. It's the lay people who want to try and minimize the import of the studies that don't support their views. And it's not restricted to one side of the argument either, supporters and deniers both will try and claim that an otherwise respectable scientist shouldn't be listened to because he's not a 'climate scientist'. I suppose my original post was aimed more at trying to get to the root of that particular issue than anything else. It certainly seems to me that there are people out there who appear to believe that 'climate science' has nothing to do with physics or chemistry or biology. It's understandable when applied to, say, cosmologists, but even in that case I'd tend to respect the opinion of someone respected in that field on unrelated matters just for having proved their general intelligence (though obviously it probably wouldn't be a great idea to make decisions about climate based solely on the ideas of a cosmologist).

The fact that this belief only really exists (or mainly, as the case may be) outside of the scientific community makes it no less worrying to me. The majority of people are outside of the scientific community and therefore, as a group, have more political clout than scientists. We really, I think, need to be addressing the problem of a lack of scientific reasoning and logical thinking on the part of the average person. These are things that are clearly not being instilled in our youth as they should be, and I'd say it's almost definitely going to come back and bite us on the ass some day.

[OreoCookie]

Well, yes, true.
I'd judge someone to be a scientific expert depending on the journals (s)he publishes in and how `substantial' his contributions are (although that criterion may cause some debate). If someone has published only once or twice in his life and the last publication is a few decades old, I'd raise one eyebrow (if I could, like Mister Spock) or even two. Then it's a sign that this person is not a scientific expert.

[tie]

I don't agree. Most scientists are pretty highly specialized these days. (Not all, of course.) Often scientists entering a new field are pretty naive. Specifically regarding climate change, the climate is a lot more than thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. Even a specialist in thermodynamics or fluid mechanics might reasonably know absolutely nothing about the climate. Your suggestion goes even further -- that any physicist at all is qualified to speak about the climate, because thermodynamics or fluid mechanics is part of their "basic education." This I find ludicrous. Because someone took classes in thermodynamics in graduate school they are qualified to talk about the climate?

As to your broader question -- which I think is nearly unrelated to the climate issue -- my own feeling is that scientists to gain respect should be honest about what they know and don't know. Did you read Smolin's book? I was not impressed with string theorists. (I have also read rebuttals on pages like cosmicvariance.com, and am still not impressed.)

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by tie 

I don't agree. Most scientists are pretty highly specialized these days. (Not all, of course.) Often scientists entering a new field are pretty naive. Specifically regarding climate change, the climate is a lot more than thermodynamics and fluid mechanics. Even a specialist in thermodynamics or fluid mechanics might reasonably know absolutely nothing about the climate.

I don't think that's what he was trying to say. He was objecting that physicists were deemed as incapable to make qualified statements about the climate. He's also trying to get a grasp on the field of climatology as a whole and what kinds of sciences can contribute.
He hasn't said `any physicist is qualified', he has said that he objects to the opposite statement.

Originally Posted by tie 

As to your broader question -- which I think is nearly unrelated to the climate issue -- my own feeling is that scientists to gain respect should be honest about what they know and don't know.

Why do you (falsely) assume scientist don't know what they don't know? Do you have to know everything or have done all the research yourself to make a qualified statement?

Originally Posted by tie 

Did you read Smolin's book? I was not impressed with string theorists. (I have also read rebuttals on pages like cosmicvariance.com, and am still not impressed.)

People who don't speak the language of physics, mathematics, can't make a judgement either way as usually many things can't be grasped by non-experts. When the field of research hasn't matured yet, as is the case with string theory in my opinion, even experts should reserve judgement until it becomes clear whether or not that field is going to be fruitful or not (although personally, I don't think much of string theory ).

[tie]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why do you (falsely) assume scientist don't know what they don't know? Do you have to know everything or have done all the research yourself to make a qualified statement?

I'm not sure where you got that assumption. Perhaps I phrased myself incorrectly. It is fine to make a qualified statement. But unless you have done research in the area yourself, I'm not going to count your opinion for very much. I think there are lots of examples of well-respected scientists entering different fields and embarrassing themselves. (Of course I wouldn't say this is a rule, and I'm also not going to name names.) Anyway, we're probably talking past each other.

[Doofy]

What do you think climate science is?

Whatever helps to get the grant.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm not sure where you got that assumption. Perhaps I phrased myself incorrectly. It is fine to make a qualified statement. But unless you have done research in the area yourself, I'm not going to count your opinion for very much. I think there are lots of examples of well-respected scientists entering different fields and embarrassing themselves. (Of course I wouldn't say this is a rule, and I'm also not going to name names.) Anyway, we're probably talking past each other.

I agree, however I think it would be even more foolish to completely disregard someone's opinion simply because they've studied a different, or even unrelated, branch of science.

There's more to understanding an issue and coming up with a good hypothesis than being heavily educated in the specific field you're looking at. Sure there are examples of scientists entering different fields and being wrong. There are also examples of scientists entering different fields and, largely thanks to their unrelated background, making a completely unprecedented and groundbreaking discovery.

I certainly wouldn't build a hydroelectric dam based solely on the recommendations of a quantum physicist. But that doesn't mean that a quantum physicist couldn't come up with some good ideas for improving the efficiency of a dam. Particularly at the theoretical level, there is great value to including people from diverse backgrounds. Simply having a scientific background and being well versed in the scientific method, in my opinion, qualifies someone to at least have their opinion on a scientific issue outside of their field listened to.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

I agree, however I think it would be even more foolish to completely disregard someone's opinion simply because they've studied a different, or even unrelated, branch of science.

It's not disregarding someone just because they're from another field. It's disregarding someone because they disagree with everyone who is in the relevant field, and they're from another field (and they don't have any evidence to support them; to borrow a talking point from Ken Miller, arguing from personal incredulity is not the slightest bit convincing when the evidence is against you). As I've said here before, the burden of credibility is much higher when you're trying to contradict the consensus than when you're not.

Now of course there's exceptions to everything, but I don't think climate science is an exception to this. Speaking as an outsider, admittedly, climate science seems to be dominated by inconceivable volumes of data points. The concepts are not difficult, it's the data that is. This strikes me as an example where an extensive background knowledge of the field is particularly important in order to contradict all the conclusions of all the other scientists who actually do study it for a living.

There are also examples of scientists entering different fields and, largely thanks to their unrelated background, making a completely unprecedented and groundbreaking discovery.

Who do you have in mind?

I certainly wouldn't build a hydroelectric dam based solely on the recommendations of a quantum physicist. But that doesn't mean that a quantum physicist couldn't come up with some good ideas for improving the efficiency of a dam.

A perfect example of what I said above. The physicist in your example is agreeing with the engineering consensus about what dams generally do. He's not saying the dam should be upside down and inside out, and that the consensus on dam building is doing everything exactly wrong. IOW, he's not contradicting everyone who's job it is to build dams, therefore his burden of credibility is not as high as physicists who contradict global warming.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by tie 

But unless you have done research in the area yourself, I'm not going to count your opinion for very much.

Well, you see, the difficult point is that a layman cannot really judge whether someone is an expert or not. Also, people aren't experts in all of climatology, but usually in rather narrow fields. This means they have a very good knowledge about (i) general mechanisms and (ii) current research done by others, but it doesn't necessarily imply they are specialized in that particular topic. And by this, I don't mean the layman's term (for they are experts in that field), but compared to other specialists.

However, the other point is that usually you receive a broad-enough education during your study of physics (also applies to chemistry and mathematics) that you can get into climatology even if you are not specialized in it. Mathematicians could work on numerical algorithms, chemists could study the influence of certain reactions in the atmosphere and physicists could include the finding in a new model that is implemented with the help of a numerics specialist. So I don't think that `well-respected scientists' can embarrass themselves in front of you, just perhaps in the eyes of their colleagues.

Originally Posted by tie 

I think there are lots of examples of well-respected scientists entering different fields and embarrassing themselves.

Like who?

[tie]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Well, you see, the difficult point is that a layman cannot really judge whether someone is an expert or not.

To a degree. But in most cases one doesn't have to be all that close to a field to figure it out. It is the remaining cases which are interesting, of course.

So I don't think that `well-respected scientists' can embarrass themselves in front of you, just perhaps in the eyes of their colleagues.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Anyway, the only examples I know are of people in my own field. I conjecture that the situation extends more broadly.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by tie 

To a degree. But in most cases one doesn't have to be all that close to a field to figure it out. It is the remaining cases which are interesting, of course.

I don't quite understand what you're getting at here. I was referring to the fact that specialists in a larger field (such as climatology) aren't experts in all sub-fields (obvious enough). Those specialists are not one and the same as people who aren't in the field of climatology.

Originally Posted by tie 

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Anyway, the only examples I know are of people in my own field. I conjecture that the situation extends more broadly.

Well, that's what I mean: you know examples in your field which probably implies that a relative layman (such as me) couldn't judge whether (s)he has `embarrassed herself'. Probably I don't even recognize the names of the Big Shots in your field …