Comments 1 to 8:

1. Doug Bostrom at 17:51 PM on 7 June, 2010
   Few "umms" or "ahhs" and your thoughts keep up with your mouth, which does not run too fast. You interview well, John. I can't help but note some underlying dramatic tension here. Skeptically Speaking is produced in Alberta, a province up to its ears in tar being enthusiastically liquefied in vast quantities, monetized, shipped south here to the U.S. where we burn it. "They said it couldn't be done", but at $70/barrel the logistical obstacles to creating a mess on this scale turn out not be a problem. Nice that a little of that money is going to programs like this one.
   0 0
2. John Russell at 01:58 AM on 8 June, 2010
   To add to what Doug says; you know your stuff, and you keep it simple, John, which means that you make a good interviewee. The only point where I thought you sounded a little defensive was on the question about extreme weather events. While your answer was, of course, perfectly correct, it might have been worth pointing out that a lack of convincing evidence of the increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes does not in any way detract from all the other accumulated evidence that AGW is real. Overall though, a very good show -- with every new interview you'll get even better.
   0 0
3. DrTom at 04:18 AM on 8 June, 2010
   I am sorry to post off-topic but I cannot find the discussion about this which my doc friend just sent me as proof positive that what we observe is not happening. Would someone please direct me to the rebuttal, please?: Oregon petition project
   0 0
   Moderator Response: The Oregon petition project is covered here.
4. Stephen Baines at 15:42 PM on 8 June, 2010
   Good Job John! These kinds of things scare the bejeebus out of me, like that sink hole in Guatemala... an endless pit of despair! I'm sure I would trail off into an trail of mindless factoids that would fly right over people's sleeping heads. You kept focus well. I wonder about that weather vs climate metaphor, though. You nailed the sense that weather is random, and that we'll feel the changing climate mostly in the extremes. But that dice analogy doesn't really accomodate a superimposed trend. Not sure I have a better option. Thought of hiring a rapper to do a jingle? I mean, if they can get em in Alberta, why not Queensland.
   0 0
   Response: Re the dice analogy, the superimposed trend comes from the weighting of the dice so that it rolls a 6 more often. Maybe I didn't explain that bit clearly enough.
   
5. sailrick at 15:53 PM on 8 June, 2010
   I know you were looking for SkepticalScience posts on the Oregon Petition, but these might be useful. Scrutinizing the 31,000 scientists in the OISM Petition Project http://www.skepticalscience.com/scrutinising-31000-scientists-in-the-OISM-Petition-Project.html http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/denier-myths-debunked/the-oregon-petition/ http://rabett.blogspot.com/2008/11/so-thats-wherethe-junk-mail-came-from.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
   0 0
6. Jim Powell at 23:07 PM on 8 June, 2010
   It is heartening to know that a program like Skeptically Speaking exists in the first place. You did an excellent job, John, especially of sticking with science instead of being drawn into "teaching the controversy."
   0 0
7. Megan Evans at 08:19 AM on 11 June, 2010
   Great interview John! Well worth the listen.
   0 0
8. Lars Bergestrom at 18:08 PM on 6 June, 2011
   I heard your interview and enjoyed it very much. The homeopathic believer who called in was a little intense, but they tend to be, I guess. It is good to see you verbalize from the heart. Well-handled and your site is now bookmarked! Have a good one.
   0 0
   Response:

   [DB] Please do not embed SPAM links.  Comments containing them are normally deleted outright.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.