Nova versus Glikson: finally, we see how empty her claims are

Perth’s Jo Nova is a key figure in Australia’s denial movement, and one of the few to have a science background. That her degree in limited to an undergraduate degree in microbiology does not seem to stop her holding herself as a climate change “expert”.

DeSmogBlog provides a good overview of her career to date:

Joanne Nova holds a Bachelor of Science degree in microbiology from the University of Western Australia. She also has a Graduate Certificate in Science Communications from the Australian National University. After graduation, Nova joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus, a Shell-sponsored program that employs university students to travel around Australia teaching interactive science programs to children. Currently, Nova works as a professional speaker, the Director of Science Speak, and the writer and creator of the blog, JoNova.

In short, Nova worked for an oil company in a “science circus”. Yes, I saw the obvious pun there as well… basically, its the Wiggles meets science. [1]

Nova has no experience outside her undergraduate degree and has published nothing via the peer review system. And yet this former science “entertainer” believes she can take on the scientific community?

Thankfully, we now have plenty of evidence demonstrating her complete misunderstanding of climate science. Normally Jo does not like to tackle “da science” so openly, as it obviously exposes her deep misunderstandings. However we now have some wonderful evidence of what she constitutes her “arguments” against the science.

And yes, they contain the expected howlers.

At this very moment she is engaged in a debate with Dr. Andrew Glikson of Australian National University (ANU) being facilitated by the rather right-wing magazine Quadrant. That Quadrant would adopt the knee-jerk “scepticism” is no surprise. However, the debate is fascinating as we finally have some very good evidence at what constitutes Nova’s argument against climate science.

6 thoughts on “Nova versus Glikson: finally, we see how empty her claims are

  1. Sou says:

    Jo keeps pushing for money. It’s verging on the obsessive. Don’t max out your credit cards, Jo – especially when you’re two bob short of a quid 🙂

    In her ABC Unleashed post she referred to her lack of money and in her blog on the same topic she did the same. Her fans mustn’t be donating enough into her tip jar.

    Now she’s on about $$$ again. At least we know what motivates her. She wants to make sure she doesn’t have to pay (at least now) for her excessive use of carbon.

    If Jo learnt a proper trade she might be able to get a paid job to solve her money problems. I don’t know what she’d be good at, but it’s obviously not climate science.

  2. Anarchist606 says:

    Naomi Oreskes answers the “how to we know it’s us?” question simply and in easy to understand terms – put simply; plants ignore some isotopes of CO2, so if the excess CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels, which in turn comes from plants – there will be a clear ‘fingerprint’ of isotopes composition that you would expect to find (as opposed to if it came from natural cycles of erosion or volcanoes) – and – surprise, surprise; that’s precisely when the measurements find.

    Wow – the models are right after all.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks A606 – I was thinking about this very issue this morning, and how the demands of the denial movement meet the classic trope of all anti-science movements: demanding impossible standards of proof and evidence.

      I was going to do a quick follow up post on the how we do know (and how the deniers ignore the evidence), though generally I try to avoid getting too much into a science discussion. There are better sites and places for that. Still, in fairness I should put out exactly how well understood the issue is.


  3. Berbalang says:

    Just a heads-up on some more denier nonsense. Al Gore bought a house near the ocean in California and this somehow disproves Global Warming.

    [Lol – that does make me laugh ~ Mike @ WTD]

  4. mrluigi says:


    This is great stuff and I really like the way you are taking the argument up to incompetents like Jo Nova.

    My only gripe is that you’ve been a bit hard on the science circus. Questacon and the science circus are pretty well respected in the science education community, so to make out Jo worked for some sort of suspect organisation (and even that she worked for Shell) is somewhat off the mark.

    • Watching the Deniers says:

      Thanks for the comments – and yes, I shouldn’t be so hard on Questacon. They do *GREAT* things. Thanks for pointing out the fact that my comments were overzealous.

      Cheers ~ Mike @ WTD

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: