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.

In what way do you think my post was misleading?

The entire blog post is judgement calls, it's eminently fair to call into question his judgement. Particularly is somebody goes by "The Honest Broker" but instead seems to prefer partisan political fights.

So in sum: if he frequently has partisan politics, that's pretty important to know.

Almost no climate scientists get active in partisan politics because they don't want it to taint the perception of the science. Since the perception was tainted anyway, and acceptance of facts and science have become so politicized along partisan lines, I think there are more scientists who are open to working with politicians, at somewhat of a distance.

> What makes someone a scientist?

When discussing climate change? A degree in climatology or meteorology or anything relevant. Pielke's father for instance is a PhD meteorologist (and prominent climate denier) so if he had weighed in, saying "this other scientist has an opinion" would be entirely fair.

I generally like Pielke Jr's pushback - it is important to consider the ramifications of what's being proposed and to have accurate info, but describing him as a "scientist that testified" really downplays his role.

> Who else did he witness?

Not sure what this question means..