The Climate Show #33: Salinger, carbon carnage and recursive fury

by Gareth on February 8, 2013

In this week’s news-packed edition of The Climate Show we have an exclusive interview with Jim Salinger, probably New Zealand’s highest profile climate scientist, talking about extremes and the shape of things to come. John Cook discusses his new paper with Stephan Lewandowsky, Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation, which is already upsetting climate cranks around the world, plus we look at carbon bubbles, renewable energy beating coal on price, and a simply superb iPad app.

Watch The Climate Show on our Youtube channel, subscribe to the podcast via iTunes, listen to us via Stitcher on your smartphone or listen direct/download from the link below the fold.

Follow The Climate Show at The Climate Show web site, and on Facebook and Twitter.

The Climate Show

Story references

News

Carbon bubble begins to bite: Hot Topic.

Increases in extreme rainfall linked to global warming: Science Daily.

New Mexico Utility Agrees To Purchase Solar Power At A Lower Price Than Coal: Climate Progress.

Renewables now cheaper than coal and gas in Australia: REneweconomy.

Interview

[13:15] Jim Salinger, NZ’s best-known climate scientist.

Debunking the sceptic

[31:30] John Cook of Skeptical Science discusses Recursive fury: Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation. Shaping Tomorrow’s World blog post here.

Solutions

EarthViewer app for iPad: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and at the iTunes app store.

We have an email! feedback@theclimateshow.com

Thanks to our media partners: Idealog Sustain, Sciblogs, and Scoop .

Theme music: A Drop In The Ocean by The Bads.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

noelfuller February 10, 2013 at 10:53 am

I have known a considerable variety of conspiracy theorists but with respect to climate science my first such experience was with a person on the net whom I suspected of being a professional denialist (ahem – part of a conspiracy!?) and was simply exploiting this weakness in immature minds. I did not try to argue against his conspiracy theories, usually a mistake, but generated a rhetorical outburst expressing astonishment that he should even try to entertain such notions. Now a bit of rhetoric can be motivationally powerful. The effect was to invite others to jump into the thread also deploring this device. That stopped him on conspiracy theory for about a year. A second dose seemed to stop him for good with respect to that particular thread which ran on for a number of years.

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: