We are constantly told that scientists like Dr. William Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Judith Curry and Dr. Roy Spencer are somehow “less qualified” to speak on climate change than famed experts like Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Gavin Schmidt or Dr. James Hansen.

So, if credentials matter so much, let’s take a closer look at them…

Dr. William Happer:

• B.S. in physics from UNC, Chapel Hill, 1960

• Ph.D. in physics from Princeton, 1964

Dr. Richard Lindzen:

• B.A. in physics from Harvard, 1960

• M.S. in applied mathematics from Harvard, 1961

• Ph.D. in applied mathematics from Harvard, 1964

Dr. Judith Curry:

• B.S. in geography from Northern Illinois University, 1974

• Ph.D. in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago, 1982

Dr. Roy Spencer:

• B.S. in meteorology from the University of Michigan, 1978

• M.S. in meteorology from UW-Madison, 1980

• Ph.D. in meteorology from UW-Madison, 1982

Now for,

Dr. Michael Mann:

• A.B. in applied mathematics and physics from UC Berkeley, 1989

• M.S. and MPhil in physics from Yale, 1991

• MPhil in geology and geophysics from Yale, 1993

• Ph.D. in geology and geophysics from Yale, 1998

Dr. Gavin Schmidt:

• B.A. (Hons) in mathematics from Jesus University, Oxford, 1988

• Ph.D. in applied mathematics from University College London, 1994

Dr. James Hansen:

• B.A. in physics and mathematics from the University of Iowa, 1963

• M.S. in astronomy from the University of Iowa, 1965

• Ph.D. in physics from the University of Iowa, 1967

So, tell me exactly what makes these three individuals (used as an example) more “qualified” to speak on climate change than Drs. Happer, Lindzen, Curry or Spencer? What makes Dr. Mann a “climate scientist” and Dr. Happer or Lindzen not? All of them have a heavy physics background. None posses a degree in “climate science.” I don’t think such a degree even exists.

I’d recommend people address or refute their arguments with supporting facts or data, not playing the credentialism card. All of them have the “qualifications,” but they have different perspectives. That is the beauty of science. Unfortunately, only one side is open to debate and civil dialogue. Therein lies the fundamental difference between the two.