This idea from climate change activists that you can’t question their creed unless you have a very specific set of advanced scientific “qualifications” and papers published in a prestigious journal is flat-out stupid. These are just stamp collecting tactics. If you are having a scientific discussion or debate with someone, the only thing that matters is being able to back up your arguments with data. People like Ben Franklin, Michael Faraday and the Wright Brothers never went to college, yet revolutionized modern science. Are they unqualified? The definition of a scientist is “someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.” A degree isn’t required to do that. Sure, being formally trained in a physical science is important, but the validity of someone’s argument doesn’t hinge on that standard, especially in a field that has thoroughly been corrupted by a political agenda. To showcase just how cringe activists’ appeals to authority are, let me use this as an example: If you didn’t go to culinary school to become an “expert chef,” does that then mean you aren’t “qualified” to cook your own meals? That’s how these clowns sound. And lastly, when the climate activists are shown multiple scientists with solid “credentials” who disagree with the [demonstrably fake] “99% consensus,” the activists automatically dismiss their arguments because they don’t align, usually devolving to accuse these scientists as being under the thumb of Big Oil. So, stop pretending credentials actually matter.
@ChrisMartzWX I find that the "skeptics" usually want to deny the data.
@ChrisMartzWX You can't back up your arguments with data though, so this falls apart immediately.
@ChrisMartzWX A core tenant of science is the unfailing faith in the fallibility of the experts. Blindly or semi-blindly following the experts or those with certain "expertise" is the core tenant of religion and is absolutely incompatible with science.
Renewable energy is now cheaper than fossil fuel for generating electric power which is why Texas invested more in renewable energy than California in 2023 and by 2025 will have more renewable energy and grid batteries then California. EV will reduce the cost of fuel by $540 billion a year, reduce oil consumption in the US which means less profit for Russian and Middle East terrorists and stable fuel price and supply in the US.
@ChrisMartzWX There's a nugget of truth in that tweet, which is that who made an argument is irrelevant to its validity. But no one ever suggested otherwise. Credentials are actually used as a crude but effective attention prioritization metric. Given how much stuff there is to sift through,
💯Actually had a debate quite a while back with a science teacher I worked with, who was an ardent supporter and believer in climate change. I pointed out a flaw in the whole CO2 argument, and used a well known chemist who wrote a very good article and had some solid research to back his conclusions. The teacher immediately dismissed the research as not valid, and I quote "He is not a climate scientist, he is just a chemist".