>Why should we give a platform to any random person? Do we no longer care about a persons expertise on the subject?
In 2002 all of the media and the experts said that Saddam Hussain had WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda and we went to war and hundreds of thousands of innocent people died.
I'm not saying that experts don't exist, I would much rather have the chief surgeon at Harvard perform surgery on me than some random guy off the street. But, the idea that "non-experts" shouldn't be able to you cannot question climate scientists on a large platform gets your right back to the Iraq war situation.
Honestly, I wish people took climate change more seriously, and I wish that people didn't become alcoholics and obese, but that is a tradeoff that exists in a free country.
>But, the idea that "non-experts" shouldn't be able to you cannot question climate scientists on a large platform gets your right back to the Iraq war situation.
I'm not saying you cannot question climate scientists though. I'm not saying you cannot question any expert.
The difference, and my complaint, is that this isn't just questioning experts but taking an expert and a non-expert and treating them as if they are equal experts in the subject. People listen to these non-experts in a subject (because they are an expert in some other subject) and accept what they are saying as correct.
If you want to discuss clinical psychology then by all means have Jordon Peterson on, after all he is a clinical psychologist.
But don't ask a clinical psychologist about quantum computing or climate change or any other subject they're not an expert on and present what they say as if they're an expert.
Imagine inviting a race horse breeder on a show to discuss horse racing and then the conversation pivots to Formula 1 engines and race car physics and you treat what they say as expert advice because well horse racing and Formula 1 are both racing sports aren't they. Surely this persons knowledge of breeding a horse transfers over right? That's about the same level of "transfer" that Jordon Peterson's clinical psychologist background has to climate change science.
As for Iraq and WMD that is a far more complicated discussion and the comment section of Hacker News is not the place for it.
This is the difference, I actually would like to hear a expert horse racer's thoughts on F1 racing. I'm not saying that a house racer is better at F1 racing than an experienced F1 racer, but it would be interesting to get their perspective.
Jordan Peterson clearly doesn't understand climate change in detail, I understand that, and I can watch him talk without thinking that climate change is a hoax.
That isn't what I said. I specifically said "Formula 1 engines and race car physics". I put it this way because I mean the specifics of Formula 1 engines and car physics. Not a general chat about Formula 1 but specific specialist areas.
Sure if it was just a general "oh what do you think of F1?" and they shared their personal opinion then fine but if they start saying stuff like "All the F1 engineers in the whole world don't know what they're doing" nobody is going to take them seriously (or you would hope not).
It is this important point, general opinion vs specific area expertise, that is the big issue for me.
Following the Dr Peterson example, had he said something like "oof I think climate change is all overblown and stupid and I don't agree with any of it" then that is his opinion and of course he is entitled to voice his own opinion.
But he didn't say that, he went in to attack specifics about climate models that he patently has no expertise in but talks as if he does. He presented it as if he is sharing factual information and that "nobody" working in climate science is correct.
All climate projections are models without full information over a long period of time. He is correct about that. The issue is that he isn't proving the opposite, he doesn't have any proof that increased CO2 levels will cause minimal problems over the long run.
In 2002 all of the media and the experts said that Saddam Hussain had WMDs and ties to Al-Qaeda and we went to war and hundreds of thousands of innocent people died.
I'm not saying that experts don't exist, I would much rather have the chief surgeon at Harvard perform surgery on me than some random guy off the street. But, the idea that "non-experts" shouldn't be able to you cannot question climate scientists on a large platform gets your right back to the Iraq war situation.
Honestly, I wish people took climate change more seriously, and I wish that people didn't become alcoholics and obese, but that is a tradeoff that exists in a free country.