My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Faith-based global warming | Main | Top climate scientist accused of more false reporting »


Rob Taylor

Ian Wishart's ignorance and lies have been well and truly exposed by Gareth Renowden on "Hot Topic"

Ian Wishart

Rob...for an atheist fundamentalist, you crack me up. So does Gareth.

He ends up conceding a number of my points as "technically correct" whilst offering a different interpretation. That's fine. If you dug deeper you'd find alternative scientific views to those cited by Gareth.

But please, Hot Topic still relies on RealClimate and Grant Foster's Tamino as "credible" authorities. You'll excuse me and the rest of the audience here for rolling all over the floor laughing our heads off for the next six months.

Have a Happy New Year.


And somehow Marc Morano is more reputable??! You're surely kidding....his stuff even reads like The National Enquirer.


>>>Because if you choose a low starting point, say 280, and you can show we've risen to 380 today, then that's a big rise in CO2 levels. But if the starting point was really 335, then the increase is nowhere near as big, and that would be "inconvenient" for the human impact on global warming argument that Thomas is running.<<<

Incredibly ironic point from someone who has used 1998 as a starting point for 'recent' temps...

Ian Wishart

Craig, for the most part Morano merely links to other reports, whether journal or popular. That makes Climate Depot incredibly useful.

RealClimate on the other hand is utterly discredited after Climategate.

Rob Taylor

For a detailed expose of Wishart's pseudoscience, see

I wonder how long Ian will leave this link up?

Rob Taylor

Gosh, Ian, does your "thermal lag" mean I can leave my fridge door open tonight?

Last time I looked, ice cubes started melting right away when I put them in the sun; I suspect you have gotten confused with the concept of "latent heat", which does actually exist.

Rob Taylor

IMHO, Ian Wishart is beyond a joke – a religious fundamentalist with no scientific training whatsoever, he denies physical climatological evidence whilst, at the same time, proselytising fantasies of imaginary sky gods and miracles!

Ian Wishart


Rob, you are positively fizzing at the bung old chap!

I'll leave the link up forever, because it is a joke.

Thermal lag was defined as a response time. The full details are quoted from US National Science Foundation reports, verbatim, at pages 96-98 of Air Con (and Gareth incidentally still fails to understand what they are saying the same way as he misquoted a SkepticalScience page in support of one of his earlier arguments.)

Sigh. Sadly Rob I understand more about the science of climate change than you or Gareth will evidently ever know...but don't let that stop you frothing at the mouth, it's highly entertaining.

God bless you Rob, the Lord loves a trier :)

Rob Taylor

"You'll excuse me and the rest of the audience here for rolling all over the floor laughing our heads off for the next six months."

Ian, are you suggesting that your audience are as ignorant of basic physics as your good self?
If not, perhaps one of them could attempt to explain your concept of centuries-long "thermal lag" in glaciers?

Ian Wishart

And apparently he's paranoid too, as evidenced by this comment over at Hot Topic:

Rob Taylor January 10, 2010 at 8:14 pm
As an indicator of just how much confidence Wishart has in his own pseudoscience, he appears to be deleting all posts on his blog that link to Gareth’s article above.

My last such started:
“Gosh, Ian, does your ‘thermal lag’ mean I can leave my fridge door open tonight?”

[End snip]

Probably a case of "Typepad lag", but I doubt you would understand that either.

Rob Taylor

quite right, Ian, just my slow internet connection - not unlike the slow neuronal connections AGW deniers appear to be inflicted with.

Or, in your case, is it just a matter of "telling lies for God"?

Still waiting to hear why glacial ice takes centuries to respond to warming...


Rubbish Ian, I've read numerous examples of Morano pulling all sorts of standard denier rubbish together and spinning it into a narrative. The majority of it doesn't stand up the barest of scrutiny. Most are 'reports' from joke places like the Heritage Foundation.


Rob, you'll probably enjoy this piece

Rob Taylor

Thanks, CM, very appropriate to this venue.

Rob Taylor

Ian Wishart | January 10, 2010 at 08:46 PM
"Sigh. Sadly Rob I understand more about the science of climate change than you or Gareth will evidently ever know...but don't let that stop you frothing at the mouth, it's highly entertaining."

Careful, Ian, it is people like you who give vainglorious narcissists such a bad name...

I note that you still cannot explain "thermal lag" other than appealing to the authority of papers you evidently do not understand.

Here is a simple physics test - can I leave my fridge door open tonight? If not, why not?

I await your sage advice, O guru of all matters cyrogenic!

In the meantime, I'll just have to console myself with James Hansen's latest book on climatology - what a shame they had to waste all that money on satellites and computers when you could have put them right in an instant...

Ian Wishart

Read the book Rob...I'm not retyping it just to amuse you or Gareth (who can't even understand information on sites he agrees with, let alone skeptic sites), and it's a lot more informative than Hot Topic.

IIRC, it's you and Gareth who have constantly accused me of knowing less than yourselves. Judging from what we've seen, that could be difficult...

Ian Wishart

PS, if your fridge's ice compartment happened to be 8,000 feet thick, and three thousand kilometres wide, you could probably leave the door open for millions of years and it wouldn't completely defrost. After all, Antarctica hasn't. :)

Rob Taylor

But, as we all know, the defrosting (melting) would start immediately, which gives the lie to your bizarre claim that glaciers are melting, today, because of warmth applied centuries ago.

"the melting we are seeing now is a delayed reaction to warming that took place between a hundred and a thousand years ago."

Clearly, you are clueless and/or a fraud - have you never wondered why fridges have door alarms, or why ice cubes quickly become slippery?

If you cannot grasp basic primary school physics,why should I even bother with your book?

Ian Wishart

Rob ya goose...Antarctica is still there, and its door has been open all the time.

Try this experiment. Sit your ice cube on a sheet of black metal in the sun, and at the same time sit another ice cube on a cubic metre block of ice.

Which will melt first and fastest?

The ice cube supported by the larger chunk of ice will take far longer to disappear, and if the experiment were conducted on a glacial scale you would find short term losses balanced out by short term gains, or alternatively a long slow reaction one way or t'other.

It is not that melting does not happen, it is that the mass of ice involved dictates how much energy it is going to take to do more than lick the edges.

That's why glaciologists recently had to admit they'd screwed up on the Greenland hysteria they'd been pushing. The IPCC, later parroted by the RSNZ, had claimed Greenland's tipping point would be reached three degrees C higher than now. Latest studies have found that's a load of old cobblers, and Greenland's capacity to resist significant melt is far greater than previously calculated.

Not that I would expect you HT bunnies to understand all this.

The comments to this entry are closed.