Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Morgan-Wishart debate

Turns out I’m not the only one who didn’t hear yesterday’s “global warming debate” on Leighton Smith’s show between the authors of two recent tomes on the subject, Ian Wishart and Gareth Morgan – so here’s a link to the audio:   Click here.  (Interviews start around 13:45.)

Labels: , , ,

15 Comments:

Anonymous Falafulu Fisi said...

First Round
===========

Wishart => 1
Morgan => 0

5/20/2009 02:21:00 pm  
Blogger Richard McGrath said...

I was surprised to see Gareth Morgan come out on the side of the warmists. If you listen, though, you will hear him say he remains open minded about the AGW issue - as does Wishart. I predict Gareth will one day recant his warmist views and come down firmly on the side of the sceptics. Nice to hear his cynical views on the repulsive Al Gore at the end of the interview.

5/20/2009 05:25:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

I love listening to this things on Win Media Player: you can speed it up and listen to a half hour interview in about 22 minutes. Love the internet!

5/20/2009 07:15:00 pm  
Anonymous the drunken watchman said...

Do I detect a salient lack of comment on Ian Wishart's book?

I've read it and think most of it is bloody well done. I learnt a lot from it. Thanks Ian Wishart.

I'm half way through Gareth Morgan's. At this point, I find it hard to believe he started out as a skeptic, as he claims. And his book is full of irrelevance. Half way through I haven't read anything I hadn't before.

(however I have yet to compare graph for graph - it seems anyone can come up with a graph to support their viewpoint.)

I know many conservatives are writing off Wishart's book on the grounds that he is a conspiracist by reputation. In this case, world "governance", UN hegemony etc. Sound familiar?

So woe is Ian, eh?. Seems a bloke with a bad reputation can't ever write a good book.

Or is a grudge borne? I find the silence telling.

5/20/2009 07:27:00 pm  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

Eh? Gareth says his researchers concluded that warming means less clouds, so there's a positive feed back (clouds reflect solar heat, so less cloud, more solar radiation gets through to the earth's surface).
You try telling me that warm Auckland has less cloud than cool Wellington.
Warmer places have higher evaporation, higher humidity, more cloud, more rain*. Most "sceptic" scientists call this a NEGATIVE feedback, not positive.

*The exceptions include those places where there is no water to evaporate, such as central Aussie, North Africa, Arizona, etc.

5/20/2009 07:32:00 pm  
Anonymous the drunken watchman said...

CF-

you talking to me?

5/20/2009 07:39:00 pm  
Blogger StephenR said...

If you listen, though, you will hear him say he remains open minded about the AGW issue - as does Wishart. I predict Gareth will one day recant his warmist viewsMorgan spent half a million dollars and a great deal of time on this, as did those working with him - i'd say you're overly optimistic.

5/20/2009 08:25:00 pm  
Blogger Kool Aid said...

As I stated earlier, Wishart is a God-botherer and social conservative .. unapproved .. by the unwitting dupes for the left [i.e objectivist libertarians]

5/20/2009 10:13:00 pm  
Anonymous Sus said...

Hi Kool & Drunk: I only speak for myself, but not from me will you find an anti-Wishart stance for the sake of it. Because that's bullshit -- and it's decidedly non-objective.

I'll support anybody if I happen to agree with their view on a particular issue. And that can make for strange bedfellows at times, but so be it.

5/21/2009 10:53:00 am  
Anonymous Sus said...

Oh, and what I caught of the radio discussion, I'd go so far as to say that Morgan seemed to be out of his depth on the matter.

He didn't sound 'with it', inasmuch as you had the feeling that he was preoccupied with something else at the time.

His manner was very much in contrast with the confidence he exudes when speaking on economic matters. If it wasn't for his recognisable voice, you wouldn't have known it was the same bloke.

5/21/2009 11:00:00 am  
Blogger Clunking Fist said...

You are right, Sus, about his hesitant tone (?).

No, Drunkie, I wasn't talking to you, it was a kind of shout at the radio remark. I argue with people on the radio all the time, but they seldom have an answer to the points I raise.

5/21/2009 12:20:00 pm  
Anonymous the drunken watchman said...

Sus - you appear to be something of a lone voice on this one - you must have noticed the silence. BTW have you read his book? bloody brilliant effort.

Sus and Clunkie -

it's funny, isn't it, how perception works. I thought Gareth was the perfect advocate for warmism for an audience of sheeple. Aw shucks.

Stephen R - yeah, I don't know how Gareth will handle it if it all goes against him (more than it has already, if that is possible). Recant? Doubt it, more like a cyanide capsule. Did you hear him say his next book is on the way? Yep, on POLICY to deal with the 'problem'in lieu of ETS etc.

No wonder we have conspiracists.

However I suspect Gareth thinks he knows more than enough about the power of persuasion and the sheeple's need to be led to be cocky in his stance.

5/21/2009 08:50:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The best part was when Ian Wishart said he follows the evidence wherever it leads... coming from a Christian who doesnt believe in dinosaurs or evolution!

That's almost as dumb as his chapter claiming Geoge Soros is 'bad' due to his stance on cannabis law reform.

5/22/2009 09:04:00 pm  
Anonymous the drunken watchman said...

"The best part was when Ian Wishart said he follows the evidence wherever it leads... coming from a Christian who doesnt believe in dinosaurs or evolution!

That's almost as dumb as his chapter claiming Geoge Soros is 'bad' due to his stance on cannabis law reform."

Thanks for illustrating my point about prejudice, "Anonymous".
You seem to be saying a creationist cannot define a law of physics? You think Copernicus was dumb?

Remember meteorologist Augie Auer? You see the tributes paid to him by PC, Perigo etc? They knew Augie was a religious nutter when thay paid these tributes to his opinions on AGW. You ever hear of consistency? You care about it? Or you just got a silly little agenda all of your own?

You know what I think? I think you have a hard-on for Wishart which is just as irrational as his occasional nutty views.

Judging his book on one chapter about Soros says more to me about your ability to judge a book than Wishart's ability to write one.

5/22/2009 10:17:00 pm  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The fact is Wishart obviously doesn't always go wherever the evidence leads as his creationist stance proves. Pointing this out is hardly prejudice.

And of course a creationist wouldn't define laws of science because their whole outlook is based on discrediting science on behalf of 'god'.

5/23/2009 12:12:00 pm  

Post a Comment

Respond with a polite and intelligent comment. (Both will be applauded.)

Say what you mean, and mean what you say. (Do others the courtesy of being honest.)

Please put a name to your comments. (If you're prepared to give voice, then back it up with a name.)

And don't troll. Please. (Contemplate doing something more productive with your time, and ours.)

Links to this post:

<< Home