flacaltenn
Diamond Member
You know, I find it astounding how many non-scientists these deniers tend to quote mine. If NASA relied on such out-of-the-field people these deniers do, they would never have gotten off the launch pad.
Actually NASA DID depend heavily on "out of field" people constantly. Because the majority of challenges were brand new. The experience CREATED specialties, but many of these didn't EXIST when NASA needed them. I worked at NASA Kennedy HQ for a year and and a half.. One of the most elegant multi-disciplinary workplaces on the planet..
As an example -- the development of Simulator technology was HIGHLY multi-disciplinary. With A LOT of med/psych/physics/electronics/mechanical folks straddling A LOT of the borders that you don't think can ever be crossed.
Here's your prob Oroman.. There are a shitload of trained psychologists that know MORE ABOUT statistical methods and Monte Carlo simulation than your average Climate Scientist.. In fact -- the stats requirements for most Climate Science undergrad degrees are kinda wimpy.. I don't think you have a broad picture of how all these skills are transferable or DESIRABLE to improve areas of EVERY discipline..
Last edited: