Irregular Climate: a new climate podcast
Posted on 4 June 2010 by John Cook
There is a great new climate podcast, Irregular Climate by Dan Moutal (who also runs the Mind of Dan blog). I've become addicted to podcasts of late and have had trouble finding good climate podcasts so this new addition is very welcome. His second podcast has just come online today. In this latest entry, he discusses the New Scientist series on Skepticism vs Denialism, covers the issue of attribution (what's causing global warming) and touches on Climategate just to mention a few. Lastly, the latest podcast also includes a new feature - a 'Skeptic debunk of the week' by yours truly.
The idea with 'Skeptic debunk of the week' is each week, I pick a skeptic argument and record a one to two minute debunking. As this is the first time I've tried my hand at audio recording, I took baby steps, opting for the relatively low lying fruit of "human co2 emissions are tiny". Any feedback for future debunks is welcome - constructive criticism and suggestions on how to improve in future recordings would be much appreciated. One obvious area of improvement - I probably need a better quality microphone. Unfortunately, I can't do much about my mumbly Australian accent.
It's also worth mentioning that Dan is putting out a call for help with the podcast. Primarily, he needs a co-host to discuss climate with and also needs some help with theme music. You can find out more and get in touch with Dan here.
Lastly, I just had a look at Dan's Comment Policy and I'm quite impressed with his grounds for deleting comments:
Carl Sagan was known for saying “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. If you make an extraordinary claim (such as saying that mainstream science on global warming is wrong) then I will require extraordinary evidence. Failure to provide such evidence is grounds for your comment to be edited or deleted. And if you have some extraordinary evidence, you owe it to all of us to submit it to real scrutiny and publish it in the scientific literature.
Hmm, food for thought for the Skeptical Science Comments Policy.