Ian Wishart’s delusion (Global warming from man made pollution IS happening)
Ever since Ian’s climate denying book ‘Air Con’ came out, dear old Ian has been posting on Tumeke trying to claim that his book really does prove that global warming isn’t happening from man made pollution.
BULLSHIT! I had a respect for Ian, his ‘The Paradise Conspiracy’ was a brave courageous work at a time when there wasn’t much courage in NZ journalism, but then something happened. He got involved with hard right Christian groups and then came a plethora of weird shit that never gelled intellectually with reality – intelligent design, a raving homophobia claiming that a vast gay conspiracy was secretly running the country and trawling Helen Clark’s personal life from the gutter. He waned quickly on me to being something irrelevant even with the best of humour and a packed bong.
He still finds fans in Talkback radio world, (but then again bigots and rednecks like Michael Laws and Leighton Smith also have fans) and there in the talkback wilderness one would like him to fade away, but Ian’s special level of delusion makes him think he can still put out work of an academic level that can challenge the science behind global warming, so let’s get into that now shall we?
Firstly let me be clear – I have come to my conclusions about man made global warming and the possible irreversible consequences for our species BASED ON THE SCIENCE. I am wanting changes to our consumer capitalism and the wasteful consumer culture we live because of my readings of that science, I have zero interest in demanding changes from my fellow citizen based on bullshit, if someone can really show me that we’ve made massive mistakes in the science I am more than happy to drop the issue and admit I’m wrong – I come to this climate change debate as a thinking individual who has done a massive amount of reading on this topic and my conclusions are from a decade of activism, I’m not an idiot and treat new information on global warming with an open mind, which is why when I turned my attention on Ian’s claim that he had proved global warming from man made pollution wasn’t true with a certain amount of interest – had Ian seen something the majority of the scientific community had missed?
Short answer – no. Gareth over at Hot Topic (the best climate change blog in the NZ Blogosphere) has been reviewing Ian’s book and what becomes quickly apparent is that Ian doesn’t actually understand anything about the topic at all, in fact he gets it wrong over and over and over again. If Ian had any credibility after Intelligent Design, massive Gay conspiracy and gutter trawling Helen Clarks personal life, well he’s blown it with ‘Air Con’ – don’t take my word for it, read the point by point derailment of Ian on Hot Topic.
Ian seems to live in a fantasy world, where he simply ignores being demonstrably wrong.
Original review here
He got upset, claimed Gareth hadn't dealt with his main points, so Gareth did
Which stirred him up even more
But eventually he showed himself to be a know-nothing clown
Since then, Gareth has dealt with his "central thesis" (CO2 is coming from oceans)
And corrected him on polar bears
And finally I believe the term is ‘handed him his arse on a platter’.
Global warming from man made pollution IS happening and the denial now isn’t a scientific one, it is a cultural one. All those folk who derided the green movement would hate to now admit not only was the Green movement right, but that by denying the debate this long, the deniers have become part of the problem.
Climate deniers like Ian are as relevant to the climate change debate as creationists are to evolution.
posted by Bomber @ 6:40 am
21 comments
21 Comments:
nice blog bomber
Feel free to give a speech on global warming down in Wellington in July.
I'll arrange a marquee to be set up at the southern end of Wellington Airport lol!
By the way its already fucking freezing down here lol!
Once again Bomber you display your bias and inability to understand the topic.
Relying on Gareth won't save you, because as I pointed out on one of your old posts I've pointed out numerous mistakes in Gareth's snide and out of context 'review'.
I even gave you the links but I noticed not one of those is posted above...meanwhile the book remains at number one.
As I have patiently said to every attempted critic (and they have all relied on Gareth - none have actually read the book themselves to see if his review stacks up): Gareth was looking for cheap shots and deliberately quoted things out of context. He has failed to address most of the points I've raised in response.
Anyone who wants to see my responses to Gareth can read them at http://www.tbr.cc
He has failed to address most of the points I've raised in responseThis is nonsense Ian. Your book stands or falls on what it says - and as I showed in my review and subsequent posts, you are either misleading or totally wrong on many of the points you claim to be "central" or "key". Your blog posts either don't directly address my points or move the goalposts.
But the most telling thing is not your scientific illiteracy (though that's bad enough), it's your assertion that the whole thing is a propaganda stunt co-ordinated by greens and socialist billionaires.
Global warming is real, happening now, and we're causing it. What we do about it is where the debate should be. You could have written a book that contributed to that debate, but instead you chose to echo the cranks. Your mistake.
Finally: a challenge. You think the planet is going to cool (Air Con p208). I am willing to bet $100 (for the charity of your choice) that there will be a new record global average annual temperature within the next five years (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, or 2014 - barring significant Pinatubo-style volcanic activity) on the temp series of your choice: GISS, Hadley, UAH, RSS. I will even take the cold side of that bet (ie, that there won't be a new record) at odds of 20:1 - that is, that if there is no new record, I pay you $100, but if there is, you pay my chosen charity $2000.
Do you feel lucky?
at odds of 20:1 - that is, that if there is no new record, I pay you $100, but if there is, you pay my chosen charity $2000.I'd just like to note that when you challenge someone to a bet at certain odds - 20:1 in this case - it is pretty standard, if you really back yourself that is, to be the one taking the hard end if you are wrong.
So Gareth are you prepared to stand behind those 20:1 odds where you pay the $2,000? You'd be quite gutless if you didn't.
Nope. The odds are testing Wishart's certainty, not mine. Evens for the warm side - my preferred bet - but if he's really sure of himself, I'll offer those odds on the cold. Pretty standard, I would have thought, and no gutlessness involved.
My reply was too long for your comments section, so I have posted it at http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/05/hot-topic-author-a-sucker-for-punishment.html
I'll have a detailed reply at Hot Topic in due course. Note for Wishart fans: he's good at bluster, but not much good at understanding earth science...
Gareth's certainty is just as relevant as Ian's.
And since Gareth proposed the bet, that's all the more reason why he should be willing to take the hard side of 20:1.
If he doesn't he is a coward and a hypocrite.
Response. Well, do you, punk?
Anonymous 12:13 your grasp of maths is a bit weak isn't it?
No 'Con' if you look at the previous comments compared to Gareths latest response you will see he has backed down on his 20:1 bet.
I can't see why, since Gareth is adamant he understands the science and Ian doesn't.
No backing down involved. Wishart didn't seem terribly interested (or confident), so I kept things simple. But if he really, really believes the world is not going to warm, I will take the "cold" side bet at the odds I mention above.
I might also be tempted to take a suitably framed bet on 2010 being a new record-setting year, but I wouldn't want to bet a lot of money, and would like some odds (say $25 at 4:1).
On the shorter timescales, the temp series chosen becomes important too - for example GISS has 2005 as the warmest year, whereas Hadley still has 1998. That's why my original bet was framed the way it was, over five years on any temp series.
By the way, if you visit Roy Spencer real-time satellite temp site here, and select the 900mb series, have a look where today's temperatures are... (I chose 900mb because the "near surface" series doesn't include 20 year averages). Looks warm to me... ;-) And there seems to be an El Nino on the way, so perhaps those 4-1 odds on 2010 might shorten a little...
I have read a number of books on the subject now, including Ian's. But for a totally unbiased view, look at Geoffrey Blainey's 'A Very Short History of the World' which cites many examples of warming and cooling cycles throughout prehistory and history. He makes no argument for or against global warming (in fact does not mention it at all) but his book points the way towards legitimate scepticism.
The comment about global warming denial being like Holocaust denial is deeply offensive and does not enhance the argument for global warming one jot. Nor does the insistance on calling people 'non-believers' or 'skeptics'. Perhaps we 'heretics' should be burned at the stake, as Galileo so very nearly was for declaring that the earth orbited the sun.
This, in my view, sums up the basis of the global warming argument:
In 1989, a little-known and unremarkable US Senator named Al Gore chaired a conference on the environment, at which a paper was presented suggesting the theory of global warming brought about by anthropogically increased CO2 levels.
Al Gore, typical of his calling, saw an opportunity and seized upon it. He promoted it and has made his fame and fortune (and won a Nobel Peace Prize) from it. As an American politician, he will never be swayed from it and will defend it ruthlessly to the death (preferably the death of anyone who disagrees with him - not his own).
The United Nations and the environmental movement embrace it because it empowers them in the world.
Scientists are drawn to it because it opens doors to limitless study funds (provided, of course, the studies proposed and the expected outcomes are ‘correct’).
Politicians accept it for three reasons; international peer pressure, the fear that it might be true, and because it excuses them from providing infrastructure they cannot afford, including roads and electricity.
The media loves it because it provides a continuous flow of doomsday stories that sell newspapers and radio and television advertising space.
The public accepts whatever is fed it in the biggest and most persistent doses.
Global warming is now a multi-million dollar industry and bringing it into question affects and offends some of the most powerful people in the world.
Just as Galileo was nearly burned as a heretic six hundred years ago by showing that the Earth revolved around the Sun (which affected the teachings, and therefore the unquestioned power, of the Christian church), global warming adherents will stop at nothing to quash dissent, labelling non-believers as 'skeptics' and worse.
Yet in the name of gobal warming, you and I will be charged thousands of addition dollars a year in carbon offset taxes designed to stop a phenomenon which in reality does not exist. The real reality is that we will be lining the pockets of a new industry and a new privileged and wealthy class – starting with Al Gore.
One must not throw the baby out with the bathwater; global warming should not be confused with or linked to other environmental issues such as sustainability, pollution, deforestation or the ozone layer. The planet needs looking after, but not by crying wolf.
Wishart was advertising his book based on 5-star reviews (all 2 of them) on Amazon from, presumably, a couple of friends or relatives. When I posted a 1-star review and reasonably methodically listed a bunch of mistakes and deceptions in the book, he really took umbrage in the most amusing way - AND posted his own 5-star review :)
I don't think he's entirely stable, frankly. And his book won't have 1/100th the negative impact of Heaven and Earth, thank God.
As for the poor thing's bet, we've seen this before - either an El Nino or simply a fluctuation will create a record, or it won't. If it does, they'll come up with some Byzantine reason why warming is cooling instead of warming and welsh, and wait 5 years, and tell you warming stopped then (Case 2005). If it doesn't, they'll define cooling as from the last peak (Case everything but 2005, and 2005 in one measure). Not only was 2005 warmer than 1998 by most measures, but it was clustered with a couple of years warmer than most years around 1998, but try telling them about something called a trend and you'll get a non-response. Their bets are like their debates. PR strategies for anti-scientists.
Finally, for the anonymouse above me. I was involved in helping scientists with ozone depletion data in the South, by the early 1980s I was already involved in global warming, when Gore's book (EITB) came out, I critiqued it for ignoring the exported pollution and environmental depradation of the 3rd world by the 1st world which was more impactful than all the environmental harm from the communist world of that time combined, but praised it for including carbon ppm and global warming. The science involved is well over 100 years old. And when we were dealing with ozone depletion, very late in the day, the same "cry wolf" lies came out of the people who emotionally identify with the most destructive industries. The idea that we're all jumping on some hype bandwagon is nonsense. The big scientific work was done in the 1970s, but it was simply weeding out alternative hypotheses. By the 1950s, a considerable minority of climate scientists already expected about as much global warming and C02 increase as we've gotten - there were never, ever more scientists believing we'd cool, but a majority were "too early to tell" then.
Climate creationism is a dead-end street, kids. Ian Wishart is your brain on science denial.
WOW!! That’s the first thing that came into my mind as I was watching this above book cover. Its very nice. Humans have become less susceptible to the effects of heat (global warming) due to a combination of adaptations, particularly air conditioning.
Bomber should stop knocking Wishart for being Christian, so what if he's Christian, that does not make the man not worth listening to, and just shows Bumber's own bigoted attitude. Wiashart puts out a revered and popular magazine, and has done so for years. You Lefties just hate the truth and twist the facts, especailly on the global warming debate! So the sky is apparently falling...you believe everything you read, so long as it suits your agenda.
You Lefties just hate the truth and twist the facts,
LOL - Are you describing the bible?
Sheep farmers know you only have to get one sheep to go through the gate or jump over the cliff and the rest
follow
Socialists and Global warmers are like sheep with similar brains
Wishart's book is accurate, well referenced and on the money. The science is not settled, the IPCC discredited, and there is no evidence that man's miniscule CO2 emissions have anything to do with climate change. Prof. Bob Carter's latest book Climate Change: The Counter Consensus and Andrew Montford's The Hockey Stick Illusion provide further proof of the fraud behind the Greenies claims of climatic catastrophe. Wake up World, you are being conned!
Follow the money and you can lay this one to rest. Blood and Gore is a good start.
Post a Comment
<< Home