AIR CON: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming by Ian Wishart

[FuckFaceMcGee02]

very interesting. People like this show that there is a real debate, and that skeptics shouldn't be readily dismissed. While I may not necessarily agree with him, I believe that he provides legitimate information. I have read his book, it is well argued. Something to think about.

[PrometheusFireNZ]

Suggest you educate yourself with a great series from a real journalist who on more than one occasion nails Al Gore

1. Climate Change -- the scientific debate

[PrometheusFireNZ]

Suggest you educate yourself with a great series from a real journalist who on more than one occasion nails Al Gore



[GreenMonarchsFC]

Did you catch his reference to lands that were once under the seas? He tried to claim this was due to rising seas over eons. Ever heard of plate tectonics and continental uplift and continental shelfs sliding over / under each other? He tried to slip that one past as another fact. Ha. What a joke,

[pcgamernum1]

@GreenMonarchsFC That is part of it true, but that is not the only way lands rise and fall into the ocean. Sea levels DO shift it's a fact, do you debate that during the iceage the sea would have been much much lower do to the amount of ice frozen? Then wouldn't it be logical to think that the current level of the ocean is not what it always has been? That it has probably been both higher and lower? Or are you going to ignore basic common sense?

[GreenMonarchsFC]

This video chooses to ignore the massive melting in the N. Hemisphere. Twisted 'facts' throughout. Throw a british voice on it to give it some sort of sophistication. Anti science. The plot is to discredit, using twisted data. Facts and stats can be obtained to argue any agenda, and that is all this video indeed has -an agenda.

[pcgamernum1]

@GreenMonarchsFC Every video has an agenda. Al Gore is a money loveing rich bastard who makes a living off of fear. I'm not sure on this guy yet but i'm sure it's something. Now do i belive in global warming? I'm undecided, interestingly enough though I enjoy arguing with global warming fanatics who refuse to see that there has yet to be significant facts to prove the theory and upcoming appocolypse that global warming theorists often predict.

[potter1s]

"4 and a half billion years ago Earth experienced its first sunset..." Nice to see Ian has accepted the age of the Earth as revealed by science and the scientific method. Whats next? A reluctant nod to the plausibility of evolution if it helps your arguments against GW theory?

[potter1s]

...lastly IW focuses on recent years climate data to 'prove' GW isn't happening. GW scientists look at climate trends over much longer timespans, not a few years or worse a geographical location in isolation. IW should look at the weather on Venus to see why we should take GW seriously.

[potter1s]

...that is the reason Wishart has jumped on this bandwagon. Just because climate change scientists disagree on some of the details does NOT mean that the whole theory is flawed or that man-made co2 has no effect on climate...

[potter1s]

...as a species we realised some time ago that science and the scientific method should be reverred rightly as the pinnacle of human attempts to understand nature. Wishart and his ilk would like to undermine this and replace it with religious doctrine and superstitions...

[potter1s]

Trouble I have with all of this is that Wishart is a fundamentalist christian, not, repeat not a scientist. As such he has an agenda. A religiously inspired agenda. In the past Wishart has discredited science and scientific theories in order to support his biblical beliefs...

[mattjoll]

I was wondering if anyone would explain how Ian Wishart is qualified to to make these statements? A science degree perhaps?

[potter1s]

@mattjoll No I don't think he has. Perhaps this should be filed under Wisharts more general 'antiscience' umbrella. Its a bit crowded though. Wisharts already got Darwin's theory of evolution under there...

[picbuck]

A geezer such as myself can remember past predictions of 2 and 3 foot sea level increases "within 50 years." Not different from what I hear today.

But I've looked for more than 50 years now, and no increases. So I'm going to keep on breathing carbon dioxide out. I expect the plants will then breathe it in, as they've done for some millions of years.

[cypress1337]

I only believe AAAS whos supported by 18 institutes. And they warned in 2009 that where pretty much doomed if we don't act now..

[nalejbank]

I have yet to figure out how any normal rational human being can be talked into giving up their freedoms and become serfs pure emotional bunk!

Ian Wishart was fully like you seem to be, but he woke up to the greater goal of the radicals pushing the green agenda. I invite you seek facts and question politicians more than you apparently do. Freedom or serfdom is the choice we are being given. Stop the global freedom destroyers and criminals at the top.

[Fussio15]

Maybe Climate Change isn not happening but why cant we decrease our emissions? Pollutions are cause huge amounts of sickness in humans and nature yet it seems were happy to pollute ourselves and nature so that we can live a so called "better life".

[shlabangana]

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."

George Orwell

Global Warming is happening. That mankind is responsible for global warming is the agenda-riddled universal deceit.

[mnipgailid]

@shlabangana That quote has no bearing on the subject matter as the general consensus is that global warming is happening, saying that it isn't is a revolutionary act.

[PetSplash]

Okay , joined Sierrea Club in "71" & Green Peace in "79" it does not make me an expert. But I learned a lot and live a Green Life. Honestly this video makes more sense and now that its been revealed that Data has been altered for 40yrs. Also , it kinda wierds me out that the UN & Sen Boxer (US) Only want to investigate the Whistle Blowers. That kinda sends up "red flags" with me. Don't trust the UN or Senators , they are only for themselves and their PocketBooks

[shlabangana]

You write a thought provoking book Ian. And I voted very much in your favour during the Close Up debate (partly too because Gareth Morgan is also a self proclaimed Investment 'expert' too and his KiwiSaver funds are the worst performing in NZ)

Remember the threat of global nuclear winter, the disaster of the expanding ozone hole? Those threats are, more than ever, still there! No money in it though.

If only a few more similarly brave men stood up against the baying masses.

[ericinnit1]

Also, how is the sun more powerful than it was in the past?

It's apparently losing millions of tonnes of mass every second. I understand about solar flares that can cause our planet to warm up more, but that doesn't mean the sun is more powerful or getting hotter.

[CollinMaessen]

This has to do with the fact how the sun feeds it's nuclear fusion, how it's mass influences this and the kind of fuel the sun is currently using for it's fusion. Currently it's using hydrogen and has a contracting core that's getting hotter.

Look up the sun life cycle on wikipedia, good starting point with a lot of references to good sources.

[eeeirik]

you should take off the techno-music. Actually makes it hard to hear what you're saying ;)

With that said, thanks a bunch for your great blog and review of the CRUhack!

[ericinnit1]

I'm not a believer in global warming, but the 4.5billion years ago is just plain rubbish (it was 6000 years ago). Please keep the science good.

Then at 6mins into the video saying the 100 meter hill was at the bottom of the ocean, that's only due to the global flood around 4500 years ago.

Still quite a good video though. Gets the main points across.

[muse13bliss]

The point he is making is that the earth is always changing and that global warming has nothing to do with these changes.

[dbolton9]

He he. You're funny.

[RealStefcho]

*CO2 is plant food.

*CO2 follows climate change (from the sun).

*Climate change is big business.

*Climate change is a guaranteed vote winner for politicians.

*The campaign for "Global warming" defeats and undermines true science. It manipulates and hides data, manipulates the media and uses science for political ends - it deliberately confuses the very people it should be informing... and does so for the worst reasons - for money and power.

[cypress1337]

Lol which plants? We are killing them too.. And btw, there is more plankton then plants who eat co2.

[haiiyaa]

i dont know what to believe anymore, theres so many many experts contradicting eachother on global warming

[iceman14877]

ian wishart isnt a expert.

[rtvandle]

they should take gore's peace prize and whack him over the head with it

[kmhappel]

iwishart,

the stolen emails completely verify your views, describe how change academics conspired to hide the last decade's cooling trend and show that your statement that they don't know what they knew is a kindness, they knew and lied, betraying science itself.

[iwishart]

Part two of my reply:

The scare stories hinge on whether ice sheets will lose traction and skate into the sea if the ice around the edges disappears, but there's no evidence of a problem currently. The glacier moving three times faster than any other in Antarctica happens to be one perched atop a volcano, so you can't extrapolate it out as typical of the ice continent.

[iwishart]

CIRESTodd, no one denies the West Antarctic has warmed, and indeed I make the point in the video. You are setting up a strawman.

West Antarctica is a small portion of the continent - the rest is getting cooler. Only ice on the edges vulnerable to warmer oceans currents is melting, but the extra evaporation is being re-dumped as snow and compacting to ice, so the net loss is not the same as the amount originally melted.

[potter1s]

@iwishart - Yes. Negative and positive climatic feedback mechanisms are characteristics of climate change and painful attempts have been made to factor these into global climate change models. Hence the word model. To pick out those feedbacks that may slow a global warming trend is only part of the picture...

[potter1s]

@iwishart ...and for every negative feedback there are some very ominous positive ones for example, methane release from tundra swamps, co2 release from warmer ocean floors and reduced albedo from smaller global ice caps. None of this refutes the theory that man-made co2 is a root cause of GW.

[iwishart]

@potter1s Get over yourself, Potter...and read the book...the scientific basis for all of this is clearly listed in Air Con, including links to the peer reviewed literature.

Belief is irrelevant...both yours and mine...facts are facts.

[potter1s]

@iwishart "Get over yourself". Ch'ya. You're the one who's posted this on YT and that's you're answer to the first poster to offer any constructive criticism. I only did so cause GW was part of my science degree and it was plain for me to see the holes in your analysis. As for the book no thanks, Eve's Bite was more than enough for me thanks.

[pcgamernum1]

@potter1s I bet you are the same type of lame brain jump on the band wagon scientist who would have been right ontop of Global cooling when that was the hot debate. Scientists like you, who refuse to look at ALL of the facts disgust me. Feel free to imagine me spitting at your feet for being a disgrace to scientists everywhere. A real scientist would look into the possibility that what he assumed to be true was wrong instead of immideatly pushing it aside and saying that the 'bite' was plenty.

[CIRESTodd]

The warming shown over Antarctica since the last International Polar Year includes ALL AVAILABLE DATA -- there is no hidden or falsified data (like one would have to do if one was trying to show a cooling).

One cannot choose to believe in or not believe in global warming any more than one can choose to believe in gravity or not.

[CIRESTodd]

Conway, H., B. L. Hall, et al. (1999). "Past and future grounding-line retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." Science 286(5438): 280-283.

Mercer, J. H. (1978). "West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster." Nature 271: 321-325.

[CIRESTodd]

Alley, R. B. and D. R. MacAyeal (1994). "West antarctic ice sheet collapse: chimera or clear danger?" Antarctic journal of the U.S. 28(5): 59-60.

Alley, R. B. and I. M. Whillans (1991). "Changes in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet." Science 254(5034): 959-963.

Bindschadler, R. and P. Vornberger (1998). "Changes in the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Since 1963 from Declassified Satellite Photography." Science 279(5351): 689-692.

[CIRESTodd]

Too bad you don't understand the science and are spreading untrue claims muddling the actual true climate science.

[littl3x]

This is great. I subscribed and I can't wait to see the rest. ^_^

[malawidick]

Good to see someone knows the truth-we are quite naive to think that man kind could be driving climate change

[Crintingnut]

So should John Key, Nick Smith, Rudd and all the others espousing the Chicken Little views.

[greyflcn]

Lol, he calls Bob Carter a climate expert.

Yet he's never written a scientific paper on the subject.

[Crintingnut]

He doesn't have to. He is merely summarising the various views.  Sadly, the present government, just like the last, is intent on destroying our economy with nonsensical EMS taxes.

[greyflcn]

Well that's trick though.

Ideology has many "views".

Reality however, there's only one Reality.

Saying that there person with the "view" that the world is flat, is just as valid as the "view" that it is round. That isn't Science.

Furthermore, economics has nothing to do with whether or not the Science is correct either. It's actually disgusting how people argue "I wouldn't like it if it were real, therefore it can't be real".

[greyflcn]

Now let's go over the arguments in this video 1:10 Argument #2 greyfalcon. net/ climate 1:31 Argument #10 greyfalcon. net/ climate 3:55 Rapidly growing arctic ice? REALLY? greyfalcon. net/ arctic 5:00 The same graphs greyfalcon. net/ moberg2005.png 8:00 No problems with Greenland? greyfalcon. net/ greenland

[Srekwah]

John Howard would never have sold out Australia. Never. Quite the opposite. So don't equate John Howard's pragmatic stance of 2 years ago with this piece of shit.

[empirion13]

Excellent, Ian. Unfortunately, I fear the politicization of the natural sciences is the greatest tragedy to come.

[Riellysdad]

Nice one Ian...more please.