There’s a very amusing blog-exchange going on between Gareth Renowden of climate blog Hot Topic and Ian Wishart of independent current affairs mag Investigate. It’s on the subject of Wishart’s new book “Con Air”, about how global warming is an unscientific fraud. Renowden tore it to shreds in a review, and predictably Wishart responded; Renowden decided it was simpler not to engage with his nonsense, which got another Wishart response. So Renowden proceeded to dismantle Wishart’s claims, picked up another Wishart response, and then shot that one by showing the research Wishart was talking about actually meant the opposite of what he thought it did.
There are lessons here of course, about how keeping the argument going is a de facto win for the forces that want to stop us from addressing climate change.
There are much bigger lessons here about the fixation of belief and how people like Wishart find themselves adopting the positions they do. (See also.)
But really, I just recommend these for the popcorn value. Wishart is always a laugh when he goes on the attack, which he pretty does when anyone looks at him funny. He calls Gareth “trufflehunter” instead of his name, under the impression that this is an insult; I imagine Gareth, as past president of the NZ Truffle Association, would be quite comfortable with this moniker. (Gareth’s co-blogger is referred to as Quasimodo, which is taken with surprising good grace.)
The argument over whether climate change is anthropogenic ended a few years ago. There’s plenty of science to argue over, but not this. The Ian Wisharts of the world will keep thrashing for a while yet, and to be honest, we should be gentle with them. They’re having a hard time of it, the poor wee things.
18 thoughts on “Crazy Ol’ Ian Wishart”
Comments are closed.
I’m a bit uncertain what Wishart’s main point is. Is it that “the earth is not actually warming” (hence arguing that “Antarctica is cooling”, “the oceans are not warming”, “arctic sea ice is the same as it ever was”), or is it that “the earth is warming but it’s nothing to do with us”? (his comments about aerosols, the sun “forcing” CO2 emissions from the warming (?) oceans) I’m not sure that he can have it both ways.
Wishart’s main point is “anyone saying my lifestyle is fundamentally unsustainable is wrong”.
More seriously, this is a commonplace among those sceptical of AGW – any evidence that seems to undermine any part of AGW is seized upon and cited, without any overarching structure. What’s important is not actually engaging with the science and trying to build a model of what is happening, but trying to chip away at a model that has consequences they deem unpleasant. The slipperiness of this approach is also hard to battle in the world of public media, where blog posts and newspaper articles can present these chips perfectly but are poorly configured to handle bigger questions about how the various pieces fit together.
Ramble ramble.
Actually, having read Air Con and now browsed Wishart’s blog and Gareth’s responses, I’d say it’s Hot Topic on the backfoot at the moment.
Wishart’s right, Gareth quoted him out of context left, right and centre, and hasn’t dealt with the science in Air Con.
Have any of you actually checked it? Most of Wishart’s key points are cited back to peer-reviewed studies with direct quotes from those involved.
I haven’t checked it. Wishart’s premises are ludicrous to me, so I don’t need or want to engage with the arguments that proceed from those premises.
Counterwise, have you really thought through the implications of Wishart’s argument, that the vast majority of scientists in dozens of disciplines are politically compromised?
I know scientists. They argue about everything, but not about the validity of anthropogenic global warming, not any more. That argument is done. Wishart is wrong.
Morgue, I think you’re a bit early on the “war is won” talk wrt global warming. I know a decent number of highly educated scientists and engineers who are sceptical about the whole thing. You know from your own activities that there are still a large number of sceptics generally, including prominent politicians et al.
alasdair: I’ve been singing the “debate closed” song for a long time. I don’t think I’m overstating things at all – saying the argument is over is, as far as I can tell, an accurate reflection of what’s going on in the sciences. Scientists who are sceptical about the reality and seriousness of AGW are outliers.
Morgue, if you seriously believe there are not a significant number of peer reviewed scientists who take a different view to the IPCC, you need to wake up and inhale the coffee.
Wishart’s book lays out chapter and verse from studies published in climate, atmospherics, physics, geophysics journals, as well as Science and Nature, that are suggesting different conclusions to what you are saying.
Take a look at Wishart’s blog today http://www.tbr.cc , there’s a post from climate scientist Roy Spencer suggesting 90% of rising CO2 levels are naturally-forced, not anthropogenic. Spencer is one of the experts in the field.
Sure, you can believe whatever you like, but it’s your reputation on the line as more people read the Air Con book. That’s why I was saying last night, Hot Topic are kidding themselves if they think their review dealt with the substance of Air Con.
If you want to sound informed on this, you are actually going to have to read it.
Trent: I prefer to get my science from people who believe in evolution.
That counts for Spencer as well as Wishart, by the way.
I would have thought anyone professing a belief in science would actually be prepared to look at the evidence. After all, that’s what science does, testing hypotheses for and against.
I’m pretty certain you’ll find nearly all major scientific advancements made in the past thousand years came from scientists who didn’t believe in evolution. That didn’t prevent Newton from being right about gravity, Galileo being right and so on.
If we adopted your criteria as a hard rule, chances are we’d still be riding horses and carts.
What’s actually wrong with Spencer’s study?
Trent: the conversation you’re looking for won’t happen here.
The bigger point is this: we all must apply some methodology to determining what we believe (inasmuch as the concept of belief is itself a useful one; I entertain doubts). I submit that personally evaluating whatever science claims we, as lay readers, come across is a fundamentally flawed way to choose our beliefs. This is for a number of reasons – some simple ones are the difficulty of correcting for the source of the science claim, and of avoiding the possibility of misunderstanding the point and context due to lack of subject expertise.
A far superior method is to determine reliable authorities and trust in their recommendations. The process of determining the reliability of any given authority is, of course, relatively fraught; but it’s pretty hard to argue with [scientific method + time] as a rule of thumb.
If this were the planet Vulcan we’d each be able to engage with all the science ourselves and do a fair job with it; but this isn’t Vulcan, I am not Spock, and if we can’t do the job well then its better to figure out who can and pay attention to them.
You said “Wishart’s premises are ludicrous to me, so I don’t need or want to engage with the arguments that proceed from those premises.”
How can you argue against something you don’t know?
John: your question doesn’t match your quote. I know Wishart’s premises. I’m happy to attack them. There’s no point me learning about the arguments that proceed from his premises. This is basic logic, dude. E.g. there’s no point me listening to your take on Jesus’ intended meaning for the parable of the prodigal if I don’t believe in an historical Jesus.
(For the record: I do believe in an historical Jesus.)
Hi, I am doing a rating of NZ Blogs and therefore trying to identify them.
Is “from the morgue” a NZ blog?
From this blog I have determined that Morgue is possibly the most religious of the lot – accepting what some so called experts profess to be the truth without even thinking about it himself. Not only that, but refusing to even look at material of a conflicting point of view.
You can’t argue with people like this – they are called fanatics.
Hi duncan,
You haven’t read carefully enough.
Cheers!
Wishart ain’t too bad, he got struck by a white light in a church, he once said he didn’t believe in God at all, now he does. He goes one way or to the other- in extremes. He will find the balance.
You know he’s going to crack the Ben Smart and Olivia Hope case….choice eh? A big police cover-up.
Be grateful we have truthseekers.
I haven’t read the book but i have been responding to quotes from it by writers to The Southland Times. So far I have been able to refute, easily, every piece of information from Wishart’s book. The worst information I found was his list of 10 warmest years was that of the USA, not of global temperatures. What kind of researcher fails to read the heading of a table? Much of his information seems to come from blogs.
What source funding ‘Investigate’ magazine?