Another Hack Journalist Talking Science On The Gormley Show

And, in this case, that hack would be me.

Yeah, I guess word has reached John Gormley about me declaring victory in our climate science bet (you can read about that in the latest issue), as it seems I’ll be back on his show this (Tuesday) morning. I expect we’ll be discussing the difference between weather and climate.

Update: My time on the show wrapped about 45 minutes ago. Wow. That was hard. Talking to callers and trying to stay polite is reeeeeeeally hard. Steve likened it to me being thrown into a monkey house. I don’t know if I’d go that far but… yeah…. Cosmic rays? Seriously??

Author: Paul Dechene

Paul Dechene is 5’10” tall and he was born in a place. He’s not there now. He’s sitting in front of his computer writing his bio for this blog. He has a song stuck in his head. It’s “Girl From Ipanema”, thanks for asking.

You can follow Paul on Twitter at @pauldechene and get live updates during city council meetings and other city events at @PDcityhall.

12 thoughts on “Another Hack Journalist Talking Science On The Gormley Show”

  1. “Steve likened it to me being thrown into a monkey house.”

    Yeah, a monkey house full of ADD chimps hurling poop and running headfirst into branches. John’s callers were, uh, goofy. Hopefully some of them will come here and entertain us with their ape antics.

  2. Well I suppose I’ll be the “ape” in the debate. First off does anyone here study atmospheric sciences? Cause I do and I will let you guys in on a little something. It isn’t one specific cause that has resulted in climate change (we don’t even what that is yet). There is multiple reasons and I disagree with Mr. Duchene where he is pointing his finger at one specific cause and that is C02 emissions and like all climate junkies they won’t take into account extraterrestrial solar radiation. I don’t care what anyone says the sun is a major, major factor in the energy budget along with our magnetic field that surrounds the earth. It isn’t a “small” factor it IS APART OF THE FACTOR!!!!!

  3. #5: What is your speciality or vocational training within the broad catch-all of atmospheric sciences? I’m curious, as your use of terminology – as well as syntax – puzzles me.

  4. Look at it this way: We know that 150 years of dumping into our oceans is causing them to become toxic; ocean fish contain high levels of mercury, and you’re not supposed to eat it more than once a week.

    Are climate-change deniers trying to tell us that 150 years of dumping toxins into the sea is poisoning the ocean, while, on the other hand, 150 years of pumping warming particles into the atmosphere is NOT necessarily warming the planet?

    It’s like they know that temperature in intangible, unlike a fish carcass or vial of ocean spew, so I guess they tie, for now.

  5. I listened to that podcast. It’s entertaining how both John and Paul debated, yet remained true to their views in a civil sort of way. John groaned a lot. I respected Paul’s concerns for his own kids future.

    Some callers had a sense of humor and good debaters while some callers were out of touch.

    Since both John and Paul won’t budge on their views, both claim they have won.
    To me, they both lost.
    John lost on denying the oceans are rising due to increasing temps. I found an old CNN article about a lighthouse in Louisiana being submerged by water, too bad it doesn’t have pics anymore.

    http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9712/05/sinking.bayou/

    Paul lost for being too alarmist. People now tend to disregard those who spread too much doom/gloom/worry worst case scenarios. Al Gore is a perfect example of that. Even James Lovelock himself recently admitted that.

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

  6. I listened to that podcast. It’s entertaining how both John and Paul debated, yet remained true to their views in a civil sort of way. John groaned a lot. I respected Paul’s concerns for his own kids future.

    Some callers had a sense of humor and good debaters while some callers were out of touch.

    Since both John and Paul won’t budge on their views, both claim they have won.
    To me, they both lost.
    John lost on denying the oceans are rising due to increasing temps. I found an old CNN article about a lighthouse in Louisiana being submerged by water, too bad it doesn’t have pics anymore.

    http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9712/05/sinking.bayou/

    Paul lost for being too alarmist. People now tend to disregard those who spread too much doom/gloom/worry worst case scenarios. Al Gore is a perfect example of that. Even James Lovelock himself recently admitted that.

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

    BTW – funny pic of a gruff looking John roasting in a land of fire over a hot sun.

  7. I listened to that podcast. It’s entertaining how both John and Paul debated, yet remained true to their views in a civil sort of way. John groaned a lot. I respected Paul’s concerns for his own kids future.

    Some callers had a sense of humor and good debaters while some callers were out of touch.

    Since both John and Paul won’t budge on their views, both claim they have won.
    To me, they both lost.
    John lost on denying the oceans are rising due to increasing temps. I found an old CNN article about a lighthouse in Louisiana being submerged by water, too bad it doesn’t have pics anymore.

    http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9712/05/sinking.bayou/

    Paul lost for being too alarmist. People now tend to disregard those who spread too much doom/gloom/worry worst case scenarios. Al Gore is a perfect example of that. Even James Lovelock himself recently admitted that.

    http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite

    BTW – funny pic of a gruff looking John roasting in a land of fire over a hot sun.

  8. anonymous: Just so you know, when you embed URLs we have to approve the post manually. It’s to cut down on spam. I approved your most-recent comment.

Comments are closed.