Climate Debate Daily

by Will Wilkinson on February 13, 2008

My one climate post in forever reminds me that I should link to Climate Debate Daily, the new-ish site edited by Denis Dutton (overseer of the famed Arts & Letter’s Daily) and Douglas Campbell.

Here’s the site’s statement of what Denis is up to:

At the University of Canterbury he has recently introduced a new course on the distinction between science and pseudoscience. Dr. Dutton is skeptical about the degree to which human activity has contributed to the general warming trend that began in the 1880s. He adds, however: “Working at the university where Karl Popper taught in the 1930s and 40s, I am more than a little aware of the way that good scientific hypotheses must always be open to falsification. The best way for science and public policy to proceed is to keep assessing evidence pro and con for anthropogenic global warming. That is the idea behind Climate Debate Daily.”

Good idea. Campbell looks to be a bit more convinced of AGW and thinks action is warranted. But he wants to hash it out. Good man.

  • NS
    Now if they would only get an RSS feed.
  • Aaron
    I took that course last year. I think it should be requisite for any science students. (It's your basic critical thinking course with basic philosophy of science.) I'd say the site is in good hands.
  • Quite sad: a denialist running a course of what constitutes pseudoscience. Fox guarding the henhouse? If he wanted a fair site, why not bring on an equal to present the pro-science side, rather than a graduate student?

    Of course, the website it a classic case - science does not proceed through weighing arguments, it proceeds through weighing evidence. Providing "both sides" (without distinguishing science from pseudoscience) and expecting the public to decide is a classic denialist tactic.
  • Will Wilkinson
    Yes, A sophisticated, non-predetermined discussion about the methodology, findings, and implications of climate science is almost too sad to bear. Couldn't agree more.
  • And, science DOES proceed (partially) through weighing arguments.

    Evidence isn't evidence until it's interpreted through a theory. The best theories are able to withstand criticism (both experimental and logical).
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: