Competition from down under

Gareth Renowden over at Hot topic along with Glenn Williams of KIWI FM radio, have put together a little video show on climate called, The Climate Show. I just finished watching and I recommend that anyone who doesn’t yet listen or watch enough climate related content, head on over to Hot Topic and watch the first episode now.

I should also point out that the climate science group of the University of Western Australia has begun producing short audio clips (One of which was featured in Episode 12 of Irregular Climate), that are well worth a listen.

This is great news. While there is a large amount of well researched and interesting written content about climate change on the web, there is almost no audio/visual content.

I am happy to see this begin to change.

This article was posted in Blog.

Comments:

  1. I notice that the byline to this site is; ‘for skeptics, not deniers.’ and I think that this highlights a certain problem with the debate about climate change, namely the lack of one that has carried along the general public.

    The public only get to hear about the debate between the sceptics and the believers in man-made global warming when there are headline grabbing scandals. First we are told that the debate is over within science itself, then there is some scandal or apparent report to the contrary and everyone is left wondering what an earth is going on.

    I think that part of the problem is that in the early days of the whole build up of consensus on this problem there was a type of person who was already willing to believe in climate change because if they hadn’t found this domesday scenario they would have found some other.

    Clearly I don’t think that everyone involved in the anti-sceptical side is an anti-humanist doomsday merchant but there was and still is a tendency within the movement toward a certain readiness to accept that human beings meddle too much with nature.

    This idea that human beings are a problem is something that the science behind global warming has to challenge in its own ranks and the biggest part of this challenge is to promote the need to have the debate out in the public arena. The science of global warming may be politically neutral but what we do about it is not.

    People are the solution and not the problem, and if there is a problem only human ingenuity can fix it. The people need to be trusted to decide for themselves and given a full public debate on this issue. Science should not whisper in the ears of committee members on some unelected body deciding things that affect everyone.

    Some people actually want to believe that human activity has caused a problem, some are forced to believe. Anyone from the first group will hide behind the science and refuse a public debate because at root they don’t trust people to make the right decision. Until then the debate will not be over, because it will never have been had.

    • I discussed the differences between what I call skeptics and what I call deniers in the first few episodes of the podcast. The short version is that being skeptical doesn’t mean one doesn’t accept AGW, it means one looks at the issue critically and with an open mind. Any scientist worth his salt is a skeptic. A denier is is someone who denies the evidence.

      As for this public debate, well sorry that isn’t how it works. Science isn’t a democracy. What matters are facts and data. What the majority of the public thinks has no bearing on what is.

      What we have, or rather had, was a scientific debate. And it has mostly concluded given that the overwhelming majority of evidence point to an anthropogenic influence on the climate.

      What we do about this reality is up for public debates. But if that debate is to be useful the public needs to understand reality, not fantasy.

      SO far that hasn’t happened. Mostly due to the well documented tactics by the deniers of sowing confusion, and manufacturing scandals. This is then amplified by an uncritical media that is obsessed with false balance (what Jay Rosen calls the view from nowhere).

      BTW your comment is completely off topic. I probably shouldn’t have approved it. But I did. However this is not the place to have this debate. Find the proper venue.


Leave a Reply