Re: my last RT, climate curmudgeons love “gotcha” moments when they point out that you don’t have a PhD in climatology. Here’s the thing: there actually aren’t many. And that’s okay.
Climate science is a multidisciplinary field, involving earth science, atmospheric c science, physics, ecology, oceanography, geography, and more—plus intersections with policy, law, social science, history, you name it.
Climate scientists may have degrees in “geology,” “environmental science,” “geography,” “atmospheric and oceanic sciences,” etc. Degree names reflect institutional history and politics (eg, not all universities have the same departments or degrees, but cover the same bases).
For example, I’m a paleoecologist with a PhD in Geography. @IceAgeEcologist has a PhD in Geology. My students are getting PhDs in Ecology and Environmental Studies.
Our training is a mix of our core field, plus our specialization. We don’t all have the same background, and this is a good thing! We all share a strong knowledge of climate, but some of us work on ecological impacts and feedbacks, others the physics of the atmosphere, etc.
Regardless of our degree or background discipline, we still go through rigorous training. We bring our tools and perspectives to this big, complex, multi-faceted problem; we each work on our part, but we understand the whole.
I’m not a climate modeler; I can’t do what, say, @ClimateOfGavin does, and he can’t do what I do (generate prehistoric climate and ecological records). But I understand how models work, and he understands proxy data.
To summarize, don’t fall for the trap of “X doesn’t have a degree in climate science.” First, few do, for the reasons I described above. This is an attempt to use semantics to discredit scientists, which is 90% of the climate dismissive game.
