^ I'm really mixed on this. I get part of his intent, in that using more common terms can harm complex things. His third paragraph exactly states however why lay people become involved. Further, climate science is much more impactful to everyone as he states than neuroscience, and certainly more than string theory and black hole physics. Therefore, many more will be interested. My education has nothing to do with atmosphere science, but that doesn't mean I cannot weigh climate change as my most important interest outside of my professional field.
I also think he is running up against just uneducated people. Don't take this too far; I mean that regarding the scientific method that is learned at higher levels of high school (primary school overseas?). More so at the university level, as it is practiced. If I got anything out of undergraduate studies, it was how to look at research in my field, how to create it at a basic level as an undergrad, and how to be critical of it. As a result of this, it made me value *anything* that is created at this same level of rigor. So no, I cannot read a research article on quantum physics and know basically anything that is stated. However, that is what the abstracts are kind of for. I can sure as heck see the structure, know what went into it, and therefore hold it up as an attempt at scientific truth.
However, part of being a teacher is being able to explain in more common terms complex topics. By citing DunningĖKruger, and stating that conversations with lay people will contain nearly all field jargon, he is failing at this. Further, a lot of this sounds condescending.
This all being said, I'm sure he is beyond frustrated. And encounters with deniers, who often may ignorantly pass off science would probably not yield any beneficial conversations anyway.
I know I get frustrated with co-workers who couldn't navigate a research article, let alone have a meaningful conversation on the science behind my profession. And one's who mail in continuing education.