13 August 2009
Air Con author preparing defamation papers against Herald columnist and newspaper
The author of an international bestseller on climate change is preparing to sue the New Zealand Herald and one of its journalists for defamation.
Ian Wishart, whose book Air Con has been a #1 bestseller in New Zealand and on Amazon.com in the United States, says Herald columnist Chris Barton has gone a bridge too far by defaming him without first reading the book.
“Barton has accused me of being dishonest, and or stupid, on the issue of climate change,” Wishart said today.
“Honest opinion is one thing, but when such allegations are leveled even though Barton has not actually read Air Con and instead relied on a discredited review by a rival pro-anthropogenic global warming author, Barton and the Herald need to face up to their own stupidity,” Wishart said.
“Air Con is packed full of peer-reviewed scientific papers. It has been read and positively reviewed around the world, including by climate scientists. A negative review based on a genuine appraisal of the book is perfectly fine, but for the Herald to publish Barton’s vitriol on the basis of someone else’s flawed hatchet-job of a review is ridiculous. Barton has done journalism a major disservice today, in my opinion, not just in relation to me but in relation to a number of other people he has defamed.”
“Barton has admitted to me that he has not read Air Con, but claimed he was entitled to take a swipe at me on the basis of Gareth Renowden’s review at Hot-Topic. If he wants to rely on Renowden as the ‘true facts’ in support of his opinion in court, good luck to him,” said Wishart, who added that he may widen the lawsuit to include Renowden as well.
If suing for defamation helps in selling more books, cause quite honestly that is the only ratio can see in such an action, than great! We need to hear the other side of the story as well.
As the replies to the media release show: this whole climate change thingy has nothing to do with science and facts anymore and all with beliefs and emotional attachments. So, bad reviews were to be expected where this whole climate change thing is turned into a “you’re either for us or against us” kind of debate. And by the way there is no room for skeptics, doubters or agnostics, they are considered as “against us as well.
People need to read books like this. The presentation – including some of the responses to this media release on tbr.cc – are brought from a flawed perspective.
The debate is not about whether or not climate change is a reality: it has been a reality ever since well before there were humans. The debate should be about whether or not we are dealing with man made or anthropogenic climate change. I prefer not to speak about global warming as it is debated even whether or not the earth IS actually warming or cooling down.
It is important to make this distinction, which is so cleverly hidden in the media and debates, because it is exactly this ANTHROPOGENIC factor that lies at the basis of whether or not we taxes, targets and ETS’s (or even global governance) are a justifiable approach to this matter. It is exactly this anthropogenic factor that lies at the heart of the SCIENTIFIC debate.
It is different for the “common sense” political arena of course because there climate change, as long as we are brainwashed right, will be the greatest cash cow one could imagine. Although not confirmed, this is exactly why people like Nicolson of Federated Farmers, are pissed of with what is happening. What we see is targets, taxes relating to emission trading schemes that could very well cripple businesses without any guarantee that the measures will actually contribute to tackling the issue.
WHAT WILL WE ACTUALLY BE PAYING FOR?
I will probably be categorized as a DENIER but at the same time: I do not deny that climate change is happening. It is and it always has been. What I have doubts about is whether it is all about whether we are actually causing it. That still would not be a problem but it does for me if with this doubt I am forced in schemes that are all about OUR CO2 emissions without any certainty that that is actually the factor we should be focusing on. And even that would not be a problem were it not that, despite an (allegedly more) economically realistic target we will still end up paying for potential non-solutions.
I concur with Nicolson of Federated Farmers: climate change is real and money should be spend on science, research and looking for solutions as to how to cope with what will be coming, whether it is global warming or global cooling (Yes both positions are advocated).
But most of all let’s make sure where there is a debate that it is not screwed by misrepresentations and sensorship by media and politicians.
We should have learned from the anti-smacking debate. It is utter bs to polarize between you are either FOR smacking or AGAINST, that is not what the referendum is about, that is about whether the smack should be something that COULD be part of the parental toolbox (if and when a parent chooses to), or unacceptable and a criminal offense (leaving out other options) and by now whether or not it is working.
It’s no that different with the climate change thingy. You are/will be governed and paying on the basis that climate change is anthropogenic yet that is not at all clear. Are you willing to part over your money to a potentially lost cause? Just because Greenpeace starlets say it makes common sense and because politicians say the same? Look at the arguments for targets and taxes, it has nothing to do with saving the planet and all with everyone else does it therefore so should we. It is all about brand and image. Could it be that both the media and politics are not telling us the full story?
Let’s all try to consider what the complete picture is and make sure that we know where we are putting our hard earned cash and freedom of choice. And don’t get me wrong, I am all for preserving this incredible planet called Earth. What I am not prepared to do though is putting my money in financial/political schemes that will not contribute anything to dealing with the (in my view inevitable) climate change. I’d rather put my money on preparing for the change that at least until it is convincingly proven that climate change is actually man made, anthropogenic, caused by OUR emissions and that therefore my ’emissions tax investment’ is actually contributing to a solution.
Perhaps it is time for another referendum on taxes and targets: because, moral obligation, brand and “green an clean image” quite honestly does not convince me.