Credit where credit is due.
I know I’ve been critical of many of the things Perth “climate sceptic” Jo Nova has written on her blog, but I do have to pay tribute to the fact that she has given Andrew Glikson, Earth and Paleoclimate scientist from Australian National University a guest post on her blog.
Glikson has been given the opportunity to present the evidence for anthropogenic global warming. It’s highly technical, but well worth reading.
Dr Andrew Glikson and I have been debating the evidence first through Quadrant, and then here. Kudos to him for following this up in a polite, diligent manner. This kind of open debate is extremely rare, and I am happy to encourage it.
This is encouraging, it punctures the intellectual wall both climate deniers and warmists can build around their communities.
Sure Jo, we are going to disagree on the science. But I will compliment you on presenting arguments that run counter to your own the beliefs. Also, hats off to Glikson who is prepared to engage this community.
Months ago when I conducted my “Dunning-Kruger” experiment I noted that many of the commentators on Nova’s blog where articulate and curious. I stated:
Helping them understand just how fiendishly complicated the science that supports climate change actually is may engender more respect for the work scientist do. I also think those in the denier community might enjoy the opportunity.
Perhaps we should be less concerned with bombarding the deniers with the results of research, but engaging them with how the science works. I actually think many of them would be fascinated.
Otherwise many of these individuals are left to the mercy of the peddlers of conspiracy theories and pseudo-science.
Personally, I believe the sceptics are misguided in discounting the overwhelming evidence for AGW. But I think Glikson should be applauded to engage them in discussion and present the scientific case for AGW.
If you do go over there to join the debate, try to keep it civil. This could be constructive. Some of the posters there are irate that Glikson was allowed to post his material, others are working hard to discredit the evidence.
I’ll be watching this development on Nova’s blog with interest.
True, its great Glikson posted there but…
it still makes for nought if you read the comments.
also when you say “both climate deniers and warmists” I reckon that should read “both climate deniers and believers in science” .
I agree, the comments are a desperate attempt to wave away the science. And in some respects Nova allows Glikson to post in order to enhance her credibility (“See, I’m engaged in a debate!”).
Still, I applaud Glikson’s efforts.
Re who are the science advocates… yes, that’s us 😉
I would have to caution to use of the term believers in science, not hard to see that the deniers would twist that to show a “belief” system aka the religion of climate change.
It might be just me, but I really don’t like saying I believe in Science or I believe the evidence of Anthropogenic Climate Change.
To me it is not about belief, it is rational aknoledgement that all other theories to explain the observation are not correct.
But like I said that could just be me.