> he is a political scientist, not an actual scientist,
He is an "actual scientist" by any measure. He has many peer-reviewed papers. One of the things he's spent the most time researching is around costs and trends in damage from extreme weather.
It is ironic that someone would make a post like this when we are talking about a blogger claiming that a different scientist's work was invalid.
It's amusing how the HN sentiment shifts on the validity of social sciences degrees depending on the topic at hand.. IMO, if your PhD is outside of "STEM", you probably shouldn't call yourself a 'scientist'. There are plenty of english literature PhDs who have many peer-reviewed papers, and none of them are 'scientists', so no I don't buy that a PolySci or Econ researcher are scientists "by any measure".
In any case, don't listen to me, listen to a certain Roger Pielke Jr.:
> Now I am not a climate scientist and just like I accept the consensus of the IPCC, I am compelled to accept the consensus of the hurricane community.
He is an "actual scientist" by any measure. He has many peer-reviewed papers. One of the things he's spent the most time researching is around costs and trends in damage from extreme weather.
It is ironic that someone would make a post like this when we are talking about a blogger claiming that a different scientist's work was invalid.