2011-05-30 16:15:09Are you a genuine skeptic or a climate denier?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47

ABC Drum have just published my article (which I sent to them around a month ago):

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2737050.html

Just reread the article - wrote it so long ago, forgot what was in there. Plenty of gratuitious SkS links which is nice of me :-) And the style is quite in-your-face for me, must've wrote it before I'd had my cup of coffee that day!

Comments get pretty feral on the Drum so feel free to drop in, join the discussion...

2011-05-30 16:26:19
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.93.7.219

Well, it gave me a few chuckles. Maybe you should start cutting back on the coffee?

2011-05-30 16:55:51Deprive myself of coffee, for the sake of the planet?
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47

I've made many sacrifices for the climate - am I willing to make that sacrifice?

Hmm, just noticed the second paragraph of the ABC Drum article uses the word 'consider' in two consecutive sentences. Bad writing!

2011-05-30 17:36:11
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
144.131.5.235

Should be interesting to see which of the regulars roll-up. Some won't be able to resist.

2011-05-30 17:39:18
PM

morris113@optusnet.com...
122.108.197.111

Just had a read, well done John! I expect that it will bring the regular denier crowd (Graeme Bird et al) out with the usual comments, some of which border on offensive if the last one done by jeff Davies is anything to go by...

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2722486.html

2011-05-30 17:54:33Expecting some Drum nastiness
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47

I expect the comments will get fierce. In fact, I expect the denier tactics I mention in the article to appear in the comments. So if SkSers could visit the page regularly and post replies, would be great. Will be keeping an eye on it myself as often as I can (will have the iPad cued up on that page and will be checking it during the ads tonight :-)

2011-05-30 18:01:36
Paul D

chillcast@googlemail...
82.18.130.183

I suspect they decided to publish it because of your book launch.

2011-05-30 18:03:00
Glenn Tamblyn

glenn@thefoodgallery.com...
144.131.5.235

John

 

Currently the post is coming up listed under Government & Politics but not under Environment. Could you post the ABC, see if they can link it under Environmnet as well?

2011-05-31 00:58:39
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203
Nice post John. Looks like no comments yet, perhaps all still in moderation.
2011-05-31 01:57:47Dana
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

I did a post about 2 hours ago. I suspect that all the posts are still in moderation.

2011-05-31 03:19:14
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
69.230.97.203

19 comments went through recently.  Lots of deniers saying they don't deny everything, therefore they're not the deniers.  Oh, and we're deniers for thinking we can solve the problem.  *sigh*

2011-05-31 04:01:26Is John Cook's statement about lines of evidence correct?
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

Perhaps this is a matter of semantics, but is the following statement correct?

"We have tens of thousands of lines of evidence that global warming is happening."

Based on what I know, i would say the correct statement is: 

"We have tens of thousands of emperical observations that global warming is happening."

I do not recall exactly how many "lines of evidence" were identified in the most recent IPCC report, but I don't think it was "tens of thousands", or even one thousand.

2011-05-31 09:30:10Tens of thousands of lines of evidence
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47

Well, when you consider we have tens of thousands of species all over the world migrating to the poles or higher land, that would constitute tens of thousands of lines of evidence.

Have started responding to the comments on the Drum. Plenty of opportunity to link to relevant SkS pages - the short URLs are coming in very handy.

2011-05-31 11:28:44183 comments and counting
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47

The comments are coming in like a flood now. I'm responding to many but my responses haven't gotten through the moderation yet. Great opportunity to provide links to SkS as many climate myths are being repeated.

2011-05-31 12:09:28Ok, I give up, 284 comments!
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47

Tried to respond to incoming comments but it's like when you're building a sandcastle and you fight off a few small waves then a huge wave comes along and totally overwhelms you. But a few interesting comments:

30 May 2011 6:03:10pm
I've made a couple of comments about John's science and could keep going but what I think would be more productive is to suggest that John publically debate his sparring partner, Jo Nova.

Jo is equivalently qualified and will be touring the East coast in July with Lord Monckton. Perhaps John would like to pair up with Graham Readfern to debate Lord Monckton and Jo Nova. That way John and Graham can put their moral superiority where their mouths are and nail 2 prominent 'denialists'.

So, what about it John?

Uh... thanks but no thanks!

30 May 2011 6:23:32pm
Finally, what ever happened to the massive hole in the ozone layer? If that is still there, and growing as they used to have us believe, surely gases would be escaping?

I LOLed at the ozone comment - good thing I wasn't drinking coffee at the time.

31 May 2011 9:51:11am
Climate change is as certain as the sun rising in the morning, and equally as human induced.

2011-05-31 12:32:01
Albatross
Julian Brimelow
stomatalaperture@gmail...
199.126.232.206

"Jo is equivalently qualified..."

Sputter...might have warned us about that John ;) What a load of twaddle.  She has hitcher her cart to Monckton?  Good riddens then.

And yes, don't "debate" a serial liar and who is an expert in prestidigitation (H/T to SheWonk for that cool and apt term).

2011-05-31 21:33:02
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.105.160

Debate is not a valid way to resolve a technical or scientific issue.

2011-05-31 21:35:11
Rob Painting
Rob
paintingskeri@vodafone.co...
118.92.123.9

No Neal, but it sure is a great way to waste time.

2011-05-31 21:38:42
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.105.160

Unless you're a very good actor, it's dangerous to do a debate. Debate victory is based 90% on style, 9% on psychology, maybe 1% on content.

2011-05-31 23:58:21Debate sucks...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

but the again we are not really engaged in a debate with climate denial bloggers, Rather, we are engaged in a propaganda war with them. 

If the deniers monopolize comment threads, their propoganda will carry the day for anyone skimming the thread out of curiosity.

Repetition carries the day in our (at least US) media culture. The "Birther" issue is a prime example. The "Swift Boating" of John Kerry was another.

2011-06-01 02:57:56
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.105.160

I don't mean to suggest abstaining from the blogging comments.

What worries me is in-person debate. Good climate scientists are routinely beaten by denialists in votes taken after forensic-style debates.

2011-06-01 08:16:09If you debate a denier, you lose
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.31.47
No matter what happens, what you leave the audience with is the impression that there's a scientific debate about global warming. So the denier wins. Instead, time and energy is better spent directly communicating with the public, explaining the science, why we have a consensus and explaining how deniers mislead.
2011-06-01 08:33:48
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.137

Agree. Not much to debate, let scientists do their job and just report on it.

2011-06-01 08:43:03However...
John Hartz
John Hartz
john.hartz@hotmail...
99.95.221.238

people act on emotions, not logic,