I’ve been tardy in reviewing a number of books people have sent to me. Especially this one. So I’m happy to say that William Gray reviews the book Climatism! by Steve Goreham while busy with other things down under. – Anthony
======================================
This is a wonderful, extremely factual, and very timely book on the new ‘ism’ that has sprung forth in recent decades and is now stalking the world (as communism, totalitarianism, religious-isms of the past) namely
CLIMATISM – the irrational belief in human induced climate degradation and the need for world government.
Goreham exposes the political chicanery behind this movement and how the generation of electricity from renewable energy sources will be much more expensive than
electricity from fossil fuels. The book contains many informative figures and tables.
Goreham does a masterful job in portraying the coming global problems we
will have if we let this Climatism disease continue to fester and grow.
This book should be a must read for all those concerned about the development of world government and the globe’s economic future. No one should read or see any of Al Gore’s books or movies without also having to read this book as a realistic antidote.
William M. Gray
Professor Emeritus
Department of Atmospheric Science
Colorado State University
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
As polls seem to be showing that belief in the impending danger multiple global warming catastrophes is still strong among those traditionally suspicious ‘big business’ and ‘big money,’ I think the real measure of the effectiveness of an anti-AGW crisis book is the degree that it will be popular with those on the left. I make this statement as a general comment, as I have no idea how Steve Goreham’s book meets this criteria.
Climatism by Steve Goreham; Current Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #6,671 in Books, rated 4.5 out of 5.
Gail Combs says:
June 15, 2010 at 8:13 am
Kate says:
June 15, 2010 at 11:01 am
Thank you both!
I have moved on now from capitalism/corporatism.
Made my own world called it “Joe’s World”. A place I can rant and rave to my hearts desire. Give me a shake when something exciting happens, eh?
The fundamental concepts of government should be based on the sciences metaphysics, epistemology and ethics … The three essential underpinnings of a rational politics (science of government). There are two main traditions in Western philososophy and they were both well represented at the time of Plato & Aristotle. The former leads to Marxism (and all its related ‘isms’and it is the dominate tradition in modern universities. Look no further than philosophy depts at universities for the past ~50+ years to explain the current popularity among intellectuals for world gov’t. I am a fan of the later tradition . Yeah.
John
I have the book. It gives due weight to the oceanic cycles on pages 70-78, citing primarily Akasofu. But I agree that its main explanation, unfortunately, is on solar forcing.
Nevertheless, the major part of the book, which makes it so valuable, is its even-toned, deadly criticism of alarmist science, disaster-predictions, and mitigation-prescriptions.
We could have had a V-8… guess its now a few hundred years too late for that.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative?wasRedirected=true
Fox News should have a WUWT program so the world can get a look at the other sides of the AGW debate. Many don’t even know that there is a substantial other side.
They could replace Huckabee with it, wouldn’t bother me.
Great post…
Aren’t ocean cycles the result of solar eventually? Or presence/lack of something reducing solar, like stratosphere reaching volcano plumes and the cloud cover dirty eruptions assist with producing?
I’ve tried to tease a solar cycle/eruptions connection, Robert, but can’t. Ocean cycles though seem to cold phase after groups of larger eruptions and warm phase on lack. Will look at it some more, after some fishing trips though.
Roger Knights says: June 15, 2010 at 6:52 pm
“I have the book. It gives due weight to the
oceanic cycles on pages 70-78, citing primarily Akasofu.
Thanks a lot for your information, I will try to get hold of the full text. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, demonstrates convincingly that the discussed warming has presumably little if anything to do with CO2, in his paper “Two Natural Components of the Recent Climate Change: (1) The Recovery from the Little Ice Age; (2) The Multi-decadal Oscillation “ , saying that global temperature increase seems to have started in 1800–1850, and that 150~200-year-long linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change, with a positive trend from 1910 to 1940, and a negative from 1940 to 1975.
The first event was primarily the early Arctic warming from winter 1918/19 to winter 1939/40 (more at: http://www.arctic-heats-up.com/ ) and the global cooling from 1940 to mid 1970s, which started with three record cold winters in Europe (more at: http://climate-ocean.com/ ). Unfortunately Akasofu misses the important aspect that the early temperature rise started exactly in winter 1918/19 and at Spitsbergen, where warm water enters the Arctic Ocean, which also marked the end of WWI, and that the cooling commenced simultaneously with WWII since September 1939. In both cases the seas and oceans spaces in Northern Europe had been under severe stress by naval war activities. The changes 1919 & 1940 could well have been push-started by human activities, showing that the oceans matter most, and that seeking the “mechanism” in natural variability, the sun, or ocean cycles, will delay a better understanding of the oceans an seas.
No. No I will not accept the concurrent end of WWI/start of WWII with those changes: The 66 year short term cycle goes back before the 1900’s, and is continuing now through a peak period. There is not enough energy in ships to affect even the local tide in a local harbor.
Are we at the top of the combined 800 year Roman Warm Period, Dark Ages, Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age, Modern Warming Period plus the latest 66 year solar cycle? Or do we have one more 66 year short cycle to go?
“Trust us. We know what’s good for you. ”
(Central Bureau for Truth and Good Government.)
RACookPE1978 says: June 16, 2010 at 4:58 am
___(1) No. No I will not accept the concurrent end of WWI/start of WWII with those changes: ….
___(2) There is not enough energy in ships to affect even the local tide in a local harbor.
Reply to (1) : Any convincing explanation of the climatic shifts at the end of the 1910s and the early 1940s is most welcome, non is sufficiently explained yet. NO, NO is bringing the issue not any further. Here is a corresponding poster concerning the Arctic warming presented at the AGU Meeting in Dec. 2010; http://www.arctic-warming.com/poster.pdf (1MB), or see here: http://www.arctic-warming.com
Reply (2) None of the points mentioned has anything to do with the two climatic shifts, which is about churning the sea-surface layer to a considerable depth, (particularly sufficient in autumn in Northern Europe’s seas), or may transfer colder deep water to the surface (Atlantic and Pacific), and/or is changing the salinity structure. Here are corresponding abstracts and posters concerning Europe 1939-42 and the Pacific 1942-45: http://www.oceanclimate.de/ displayed at PACON 2010 in Hilo.
The naval war thesis is thoroughly explained in the reference here and mentioned in the pervious comment, but good arguments are welcome.
Sounds good! However, I think Gorham himself is perhaps overly alarmist in his introduction:
Given the votes in the House on Cap’n Trade, and in the Senate on the EPA ruling, more like 51-55% of US politicans are Climatists.
RE: Hu McCulloch says: (June 16, 2010 at 8:43 am) “Given the votes in the House on Cap’n Trade, and in the Senate on the EPA ruling, more like 51-55% of US politicans are Climatists.”
Perhaps some of them find that re-electionism trumps Climatism… I am still not so sure that one Saturday morning’s news will not contain a small item saying the U.S. Senate, in a late night surprise special session, had finally passed the ‘Waxman Markey Clean Energy Management Act’ as part of a complicated deal worked out with the White House.
Oh, but the Senate vote was ostensibly only about whether the EPA should in effect be allowed to be making policy on this issue rather than Congress. As for the House vote, few of the opponents of Cap and Trade would have said (publicly) that they disbelieved in global warming; they mostly said (I don’t remember exactly though) that it wasn’t the time to do this (in a recession), or that it would cost too much, or that some other means should be used, etc.