ANYONE with a physics degree can certainly comment on the physics of AGW theory.
Sure, they may comment, but that doesn't mean they have any qualifications for making an informed judgment. A bachelors in Physics does not necessarily prepare you to understand chaotic biological and thermodynamic systems at a global scale any more than a bachelors in Nuclear Science or Computer Science. You may have proven that you can stomach the math and a logical thought process, but surprisingly there is actual, applicable knowledge being offered in an ecology major (depending on the school offering it).
For what it's worth, a 40-year position at the EPA doesn't necessarily prove he's qualified either, because he could have just as easily earned that experience by calculating budgets for dam construction or making policies for airport rainwater runoff allowances.
Finally, a PhD in Economics CERTAINLY doesn't prove he's qualified to judge the scientific findings. His input may be invaluable in determining the most practical way to budget for (or ignore entirely) the scientifically-analyzed situation, but not to evaluate the scientific findings themselves. If you are experiencing symptoms of a possible stroke, you don't take advice from your accountant until you've had a doctor examine you.
That being said... I still find it appalling that his report was squashed and hidden from sight. Scientific debate is about considering the all the evidence and a winning theory should be able to explain any major questions or inconsistencies. Rather than silence the report, qualified scientists that have arrived at the contrary scientific conclusion (i.e., Global Warming) should simultaneously distribute a paper that convincingly refutes the "rogue" economist's arguments. Government should be about transparency, and Science even more so. If the officials think he's just interfering with the new policy for political (and not scientific) reasons, then their counterpoint should seek to reveal his dishonest intentions. At least, that's the proper response in an ideal world...
Exactly, the definition is the key. In my opinion, there is a vast difference between the term "free will" as attributed to human decision-making and as a term in contrast to cause-and-effect.
I for one, can't see any way of defining "free will" as pertains to human choice that DOES include randomness. I see free will as describing a sentient life form's ability to evaluate a external situation, select a set of goals, and based on internal preferences, take an action or pursue a plan of actions that the actor deems desirable. If, instead, human free will were described in terms of randomness or probabilities, the notion of future planning would be superficial and we would be faced with the same conclusion that a belief in absolute Fate leads to: that we are not responsible for our choices.
In contrast, my view of free will could never be applied to an object without first establishing sentience. A quantum particle may respond to stimulus in a probabilistic manner, but there is no evidence that evaluation, preferences, and planning take place.
Under these definitions, the OP's report does nothing more than reestablish the common belief that our actions (liberated under free will) can have an effect and impact on our world and universe. Just because the ultimate outcome of any quantum measurement will be influenced by the experimenter's free will doesn't mean that a probabilistic reaction itself embodies choice and sentient free will.
Granted, I don't know as much about the science as the researchers do, but my off-the-cuff impression is that they are abusing the definition of a decision.
I suppose I did read your
this
broadly.
To properly address your point then, I offer you some examples where average scientifically-minded people think of evolution as a Darwin-centric idea, or where Darwin is a synonym for natural selection:
These are just a few examples of how Darwin is used to encapsulate the entire field of evolutionary biology. Sure, professional biology scientists may not use Darwin's name so casually, but is there any wonder why average people who support the theory of evolution also appear to idolize Darwin?
That the NYT thinks this is really the case is shocking.
You must not have read the article at all, huh? You have entirely misunderstood and mis-characterized the NYT article into the complete opposite of what it actually says. Allow me to paraphrase TFA for you.
NYT says that while Darwin's theory of natural selection was a "step beyond common knowledge," it also:
The NYT article is effectively supporting the same argument you are - that characterizing evolution as Darwin theory does a disservice to Science and allows creationism to flourish.
Memory fault - where am I?