The problem is not that people in other fields can't make contributions. They certainly can if they work at learning the field and trying to understand what has been done previously. The problem comes when people from other fields make incorrect assumptions about what goes on in climate science, because they have not studied the field enough, then they make superficial observations about it which are often not true.
What areas of science do you think are not included? Physicists, Chemists, Biologists, Geologists, Mathematicians, Geographers, and Ecologists all study climate change and all contributed to identifying AGW.
>>Cambridge is still unique in that you can get a PhD in a field in which you have no undergraduate training.<<
That's odd because I got into Engineering graduate school at the University of Arizona without ever having taken an engineering course in my whole life - and I've never had an engineering job. I went on a interview once about 15 years ago, but when they asked me why I wanted to be an engineer, I couldn't think of a reason. But I enjoyed the free trip to Denver.
Why is there this believe that only climate scientists can have a say on climate change?
Any one can have a say and yahoo answers is proof that it doesn't matter if they are right or wrong, but surely no denier would have actual climate scientist [1] teach children about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere or how the CO2 got there.
Anyone who speaks out can be thrown out of the discussion as not a climate scientist.
They definitely need statisticians on their team, as well as economists. The Stern Report was false on its face, using a discount value of <1%.
The problem with your question is that it's wrong.
Scientists from all disciplines agree that global warming is both real, and a problem.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warm...
"The finding that the climate has warmed in recent decades and that human activities are already contributing adversely to global climate change has been endorsed by every national science academy that has issued a statement on climate change, including the science academies of all of the major industrialized countries."
Science academies are not limited to a single discipline.
There are many different disciplines, so that there is diversity.
Now I expect that you'll claim that science education in general produces that bias.
Just like science education produces the evolution bias.
And the age of the world / universe bias.
The real problem is that it's uneducated folks that seem to fall for the "Run your car on water" lie.
Lack of education is a serious handicap.
It makes one susceptible to the guy selling snake oil.
AND, then, of course, there are the people that sell snake oil.
They do know better. But they do it anyway.
Would you like your doctor to be a Javascript expert or a doctor?
Do you want the electrician who sets up traffic lights to be an expert, or a chiropractor who might have something really useful to say about when the light turns green or red?
On the other hand, as you point out, other points of view - from people who have also spent many years immersed in rigorous research - propel science forward.
And, as you suspected, climate study is indeed a field in which experts come from other fields to add to the research and discussion:
From wikipedia: " [Climatology] is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time. This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences and a subfield of physical geography, which is one of the Earth sciences. Climatology now includes aspects of oceanography and biogeochemistry.
You don't have to worry, it is not a narrow field.
You can also think about it logically: climate science is relatively new. Senior researchers simply had to do their research in other fields in the past, because climatology didn't exist.
For example, the first computer programmers did not have PhDs in computer science.
I sorry but that is rot, climate scientists are just one group among many that's work is used in the overall theory of climate change there are also Marine scientists (sea level) Glaciologists (glacial and sea ice) Biologists (effects on animals like the Polar Bear), Solar Physicist's who study the Sun.
A classic example of deniers lack of understanding on the science involved is the tree ring proxy data, Mann is singled out on this but Mann got that data from Dendrochronologists whose field is the study of tree rings.
When alarmist's point out the lack of relative credentials in denier experts?, it is because they are all to often mining geologists, engineers, one who made the top of one of several denier petitions to (whoever) was a Nobel winner (although it was not mentioned he won for work in semiconductors).
The array of links I use often covers many of the fields I refer to, of course I doubt you will even try and reply on where the equivalent deniers sources are as deniers have no science sources, unless you again want to pretend Heartland is a science source, remind me again what are Joseph Bast's scientific qualifications about the same as Watts or Mockingtone, nonexistent.
You seem to be trying to claim it is a narrow field a subset of Geography, So Volcanology is a subset of Geology is that a science you also want to deny, frankly I do wonder why you guys make these absurd claims as all you really do is showcase your own lack of understanding of science.
The driving force of Denialism is anti-Science Republicans/Conservatives, Christians/Creationists, The Fossil Fuel Industry, and just plain dumb people
Anyone can have a say but if you disagree with the predictions and think the conclusions are exaggerated then you get labeled a denier, if you are a non climate scientist and disagree then your NOT a climate scientist, if you are a climate scientist and don't agree then your being paid to lie or are just not a good climate scientist, and of course disagreeing with the conclusions and predictions makes all of these people conspiracy nuts or stupid if you're not being paid to lie and criminals if you are being paid to lie. Warmist are simply narcissistic, how a mind gets programmed to think in such a rediculous manner is beyond my comprhension.
The science is out there - anyone can have their say about it. If any experts disagree they can always submit their own work via the correct channels and peer review process. But they would need to have some damn robust evidence to alter consensus based on the work of over 700 climate scientists and 1,700 reviewers. Youtube videos and lame websites with dodgy graphs are not going to cut it.
Can have a say on climate change, surely it is an advantage to have input from other sources of science who might have a new slant or some origional ideas.
Biology and DNA sequencing advanced hugely when some physicists (who knew nothing about biology) were imported into the field.
Science seem very narrow now, to quote from another article
Cambridge is still unique in that you can get a PhD in a field in which you have no undergraduate training. In America you’ve got to have credits from a large number of courses before you can do a PhD. That’s very good for training a very good average scientific work professional. But that training doesn’t allow people the kind of room to expand their own creativity.
What do you think?
We need more than just climate scientists to address the issue of global warming. The more input from several informed sources, the better the information we will have about the issue. We can then form a informed conclusion of our results.
Scientists by nature are supposed to be objective. Those involved with AGW propaganda are not climate scientists. They are climate activists with an agenda.
