He is also a Princeton Physics Professor. But that would make just a boring headline?
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.
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.
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.
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?
(And yes, there are Environmental Science departments - or at least that's what they're called in the UK)
Source: several climate change people I know who work for Uncle Sam.
> 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"