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.

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.

> 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.

Why do you dismiss outside scrutiny so easily? Sounds very much like 'Only members of the church may critize the church'.

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?

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)

Yes, environmental science is a real field.

And he only collaborated with the gov in the early 90s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer#Career

He also single-handedly set back US Gov’t climate change efforts by a few crucial years. He’s evil and deranged.

Source: several climate change people I know who work for Uncle Sam.

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"

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

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.

Every scientist is getting paid.

Agreed, but the original argument was also not meaningful. The credentials are not useful.

You should report it to the mods and ask if they agree.