2010-10-02 07:35:14Anyone ever heard of this website? Apparently they're on the radio in Canada...
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244

http://www.climatechange101.ca/index.php?id=2

Anyone ever hear of this website?

It is a big skeptic website but im wondering to we have any background information on them. They do a list of myths that are easily debunked if prepared appropriately.

Apparently they're on the radio in Canada...

My friend in ottawa told me its playing frequently, them asking people to go to their website cause we are being "lied to"

2010-10-02 07:41:33nope
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
38.223.231.249
I thought I'd seen just about every 'skeptic' website referenced, but I've never seen that one before.
2010-10-02 08:35:22comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
hearing it is on the radio has completely frustrated me but I can't do a rebuttal because im in a conference tomorrow and this evening.
2010-10-02 11:58:40This seems to be designed as an anti-SkS
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.55.72

It doesn't seem to have much history, and there don't appear to be any names openly associated with it.

It seems to have the same general concept as SkS: it has a breakdown of topics into type; then the topics ("global-warming myths") are separately de-bunked (or perhaps I should say, "bunked").

The problem is, How to respond? There doesn't appear to be a comment blog. There is a "contact" address, but they're not likely to respond to take-downs of their arguments. Unless perhaps a pseudo-naif can bait them into going out on a limb with more and more complex explanations: "I almost understand you, but could you explain how it works in this case...?" Would have to be done very carefully, as if they see it's a trick, they don't have to respond.

Could be fun for the right person, but difficult.

 

2010-10-02 12:07:11comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
I think it would have to be similar to the response to Jo Nova... In that it would have to be a .pdf document responding to the numerous "myths" they have... The reason I bring it up is a friend texted me about it saying it was on very frequently... I would be very interested to know where the funding comes from... these aren't even myths that are hard to debunk... I mean if I ever get a day free this would be an easy thing to address (who says satellites aren't showing warming in this day and age... idiocy)... Either way they're getting a lot of airtime on ottawa's most popular channel hot 89.9 so I hope they don't have too much effect.... My inclination is towards calling the channel at some point and saying essentially they have been debunked and if they wish to challenge this assertion I challenge them to a debate...
2010-10-02 12:17:26
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
84.151.55.72

Is it a public radio station or a commercial talk-radio station? If the first, maybe we could appeal for something like equal-time access. But if it's Fox-News-like, good luck.

Unless you have good experience as a live debater, I would stay away from that format. I've heard two or three AGW debates, and the skeptics ALWAYS win against the scientists: They're always more debonair, better with the audience, and "less defensive". Extremely few people in a debate audience are in any position to evaluate an argument on technical merits, even very superficial technical merits.

2010-10-02 12:25:20comment
Robert Way

robert_way19@hotmail...
142.162.21.244
I've heard a few debates too... the problem is the debaters tend to spend too much time proving warming is happening and its bad and not enough time proving it is us who is causing the warming. I do understand your reservations though but sometimes  its better to try than to say nothing
2010-10-02 17:50:25
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.215

You might do better as just a counter-contrarian caller: "How do you guys explain the fact that it's warming at night-time more than at day-time?", etc. Rather than trying to set up a formal debate.

It is not just that the scientists focus on one point. I have participated in debates in high school, and it was really surprising to me how apparently intelligent people pay much more attention to HOW someone enunciates and stands than whether what he is saying makes any sense at all. In the debate I listened to, Michael Crichton and a few well-known friends wiped out Gavin Schmidt and a few others, whose boots they were not qualified to clean. Their audience appeal was just so much better: voice, pausing, dramatic effect, etc. The final votes were not even close.

There are a couple of SkS folks who are Canadian, so that should be good for a couple of call-ins per show. Another possibility: Is radio program webcasted? (I listen to KQED in San Francisco by webcast.) Then it could be possible to call into the program from anywhere in the world. People could use Skype to call from PC to phone: To reach a phone in Canada, it's pennies per minute. If we managed to get 3 or 4 counter-contrarian calls into each program, it would really change the program.

I would NOT plug or mention SkS during these calls: I'm sure they'd find a way to start blocking us out.

2010-10-02 22:41:40Update
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.215

This is a spin-off of Friends of Science. See:

http://www.desmogblog.com/climatechange101ca-new-friend-science

 

 

2010-10-02 23:02:02by the way
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.101.215

I ran across a classic putdown of Monckton:

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2010/08/jay-inslee-greets-christopher-monckton.html

It's worth seeing all the way to the end.

2010-10-03 21:15:03
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.234.1
Ha, absolute classic Neal. 
2010-10-04 07:20:19
doug_bostrom

dbostrom@clearwire...
184.77.83.151

Inslee on Monckton: "In our athletic democracy we don't need a fake lord to tell us not to act."

Right you are, Neal, worth sticking with it to the end. Morbid humor...