Skeptical of the skeptic

IPY phone calls and emails, all with today's urgency, started from the (late) moment that I awoke.  I prepared breakfast but didn't get to enjoy it until after the third activity.  Many EOC activities; I gradually begin to understand the amount of time Rhian needed to devote to phone calls.  I wore my Skype earphones much of the day.  I did talk to Nicola; it took us only a moment to find a reason to share laughter.  

I spent the morning writing a rebuttal to a climate 'skeptic'.  I feel uncomfortable in that role.  I know a lot about climate, but I hold no detailed expertise (nor credentials) in any aspect.  Now, of course, I know a lot about polar issues, arguably more than anyone, but again without formal expertise.  On the other hand, I have willingness (such as by making time) and communication skills to relate climate information in accessible language, both of those perhaps rare attributes.  In this case, the radio station - our friends at CKLB in Yellowknife, Canada - asked me to prepare a rebuttal to an interview they had broadcast last week on their IPY show 'Ends of the Earth'.  We had the idea that I would submit my comments to their blog, so that they could ask me questions during an interview this afternoon.  

I didn't want to rebut point by point or error by error, matching one person's 'facts' with another set of 'facts'.  Instead, I wanted to provide a more general common sense view of how climate works, to help the listener understand why I (we, in this case, most of the scientific community) disagree with the skeptic.  I think I achieved my goal, although I know the few paragraphs I wrote could use a bit more 'aging'.  But the show must go on.  

(Later, I learned that CKLB wants to put my comments in their newsletter, online and print.  I re-read and then fixed a few typos in my little document.  Now they want a picture.  I thought we used the radio format to get away from pictures.) 

I enjoyed the interview.  I told Kirsten Murphy that she reminded me of my favorite radio personality, Susan Stamberg - funny, fresh, friendly.  We talked about the Senate hearing.  I allowed an impression to develop of a well-attended and active event.  Next we talked about climate skepticism in general terms, without specific reference to the interview from the previous week.  Kirsten surprised me (good!) with a question about political influence in climate science - how I would answer the frequent charge from skeptics that the climate 'enthusiasts' control the funding and publication processes, and exclude the skeptics, for their own political and financial benefit.  I rejected that viewpoint, without labeling it another lunatic conspiracy theory, but probably not very effectively.  Perhaps I should have voiced the conspiracy idea.

Then Kirsten offered some fun challenges.  Do I consider myself an important person?  Do I travel around the world (with the implication of a large carbon impact)?  Can I confirm what a little bird told her, that I often fall off of my bicycle?  (Now how would she know to ask me that?)  Did I come from the US or Canada - she thought I had a Canadian accent.  My answer: when people hear me speak, they often guess my identity as Canadian, but when they see me they group me with the Norwegians.  

Not all of this, in fact very little of the closing chatter, will go into the final interview.  But I look forward to hearing what she and William do with the material and the show.  Not in the live broadcast (0300 UK time) but in the audio library tapes.  

I have had positive feedback from people who attended the Senate hearing; several asked for the transcript.  I will prepare a summary of the hearing for the consideration of my fellow 'experts', as my second task of the weekend.  

Easy bike ride at the end of the day; hoping for a longer ride tomorrow (today, when I finally finished this entry).