PDA

View Full Version : Climatism! by Steve Goreham




hotbrownsauce
12-18-2010, 11:50 PM
Climatism! is a wonderful book that helps put all of the Global Warming myths into perspective. All of this is built on top of great detail from data, figures, and common sense.

If you want a Global Warming book that knocks it out of the park then this is the book for you. I'm half way through it and I can say it has been very beneficial to me.

http://www.amazon.com/Climatism-Science-Common-Centurys-Hottest/dp/0982499639

On a side note I was very surprised this book wasn't mentioned once on the forums. (I used the search feature a few moments ago with 0 hits)

reillym
12-21-2010, 03:15 PM
97% of all scientists is the entire world supports Climate Change.

Every single organization of scientists supports Climate Change.

I have nothing else to say. The many problems with politics and corruption should not cloud one's view of a very real problem.

hotbrownsauce
12-30-2010, 05:23 PM
97% of all scientists is the entire world supports Climate Change.

Every single organization of scientists supports Climate Change.

I have nothing else to say. The many problems with politics and corruption should not cloud one's view of a very real problem.

I don't disagree there is Climate Change. I agree with the Author Steve Goreham on debating what's causing it, and should we be worried and if so how worried? The book does not dismiss Global Warming as a lie.

dannno
12-30-2010, 05:57 PM
97% of all scientists is the entire world supports Climate Change.

Every single organization of scientists supports Climate Change.


Of course the climate is changing. A scientist who doesn't think that shouldn't be called a scientist.




I have nothing else to say. The many problems with politics and corruption should not cloud one's view of a very real problem.

How is climate change a problem? The climate is and has always changed. In fact, we just went through a mini-ice age that peaked in the late 1700s. We are now coming out of that ice age, and are still below average median global temperature. That explains why temperatures are rising, because we are coming out of a mini-ice age.

The fact that you think we have a "problem" when CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past, temperatures have been MUCH higher in the last 1000 years, makes me suspect of what you think is a "problem".

reillym
01-01-2011, 05:06 PM
Of course the climate is changing. A scientist who doesn't think that shouldn't be called a scientist.

How is climate change a problem? The climate is and has always changed. In fact, we just went through a mini-ice age that peaked in the late 1700s. We are now coming out of that ice age, and are still below average median global temperature. That explains why temperatures are rising, because we are coming out of a mini-ice age.

The fact that you think we have a "problem" when CO2 levels have been many times higher in the past, temperatures have been MUCH higher in the last 1000 years, makes me suspect of what you think is a "problem".



It's not me who "thinks" there is a problem. As I said, 97% of all scientists disagree with what you just said. They have evidence, and you are no scientist. To trust politicians like Palin and Beck rather than trained scientists is silly.

The ice age thing is a myth, by the way.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645-climate-myths-we-are-simply-recovering-from-the-little-ice-age.html


If the solution was as simple as "there was a little ice age, no problem!" then why would 97% of scientists still disagree with you? Just for shits and giggles? Are they all conspiring against us in a plot to make us by hybrids and plant trees and hug dolphins?

Give me a break.

hotbrownsauce
01-18-2011, 11:38 PM
Check out Climatism! by Steve Goreham. I think it cost me about 30$ at Barnes and Noble. He uses scientific data and analysis to move the debate forward to what is really causing it, and what the effects will be with what I believe is a sensible look instead of running around like our pants are on fire. He talks about the IPCC and how that got started and how all this global warming fear mongering came to be among other things. The important part of the debate is asking how credible the data showing human made global warming is, and how credible the future global warming disaster predictions are. (He knocks it out of the park giving readers what I believe is a great down to earth view of global warming.)

Bruno
01-19-2011, 12:24 AM
It's not me who "thinks" there is a problem. As I said, 97% of all scientists disagree with what you just said. They have evidence, and you are no scientist. To trust politicians like Palin and Beck rather than trained scientists is silly.

The ice age thing is a myth, by the way.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11645-climate-myths-we-are-simply-recovering-from-the-little-ice-age.html


If the solution was as simple as "there was a little ice age, no problem!" then why would 97% of scientists still disagree with you? Just for shits and giggles? Are they all conspiring against us in a plot to make us by hybrids and plant trees and hug dolphins?

Give me a break.

You can't really believe 97% of all scientists believe in global warming, let alone AGW.

swirling_vortex
01-21-2011, 09:04 AM
97% of all scientists is the entire world supports Climate Change.

Every single organization of scientists supports Climate Change.

I have nothing else to say. The many problems with politics and corruption should not cloud one's view of a very real problem.
97% of what organization? The IPCC? The whole scientific body? Penn & Teller did an episode about environmental hysteria and one of the things that they found was a lot of the "scientists" that supported global warming at the IPCC were people like government employees and assistants. It's especially a problem when you see people counted as scientists when all they've done is just run a climate model on their computer.

One easy way to disprove man-made global warming is to look at the data. What people like Al Gore do to make their case is that they only show you a very limited snapshot in time from 1960. Look at the whole thing, there are two important factors:

http://www.john-daly.com/danetemp.gif

First, if CO2 drives global warming, then why did global temperatures fall from the 1940s to the 1970s? This was one of the primary reasons why "scientists" were calling for an ice age back then.

The other part is that the solar cycles seem to strongly correspond with temperature. Considering that the Sun is such a large part of creating our climate, I don't know why so many "scientists" are willing to discredit the Sun so quickly. Perhaps it's because you can't tax the sun...yet.

reillym
01-24-2011, 11:47 AM
97% of what organization? The IPCC? The whole scientific body? Penn & Teller did an episode about environmental hysteria and one of the things that they found was a lot of the "scientists" that supported global warming at the IPCC were people like government employees and assistants. It's especially a problem when you see people counted as scientists when all they've done is just run a climate model on their computer.

One easy way to disprove man-made global warming is to look at the data. What people like Al Gore do to make their case is that they only show you a very limited snapshot in time from 1960. Look at the whole thing, there are two important factors:

http://www.john-daly.com/danetemp.gif

First, if CO2 drives global warming, then why did global temperatures fall from the 1940s to the 1970s? This was one of the primary reasons why "scientists" were calling for an ice age back then.

The other part is that the solar cycles seem to strongly correspond with temperature. Considering that the Sun is such a large part of creating our climate, I don't know why so many "scientists" are willing to discredit the Sun so quickly. Perhaps it's because you can't tax the sun...yet.

The Ice age thing was a minority problem. No where near the amount of consensus we have now.

A drop in temperature != non-existance of climate change.

If the problem was solved by using a simple graph, like you are trying to say it is, then most scientists wouldn't disagree with you. But they do. And they aren't *all* cronies or "let's tax coal" hippies. It's unrealistic to think that, therefore logic dictates we side with the research. I agree that there are political problems to this (Al Gore is a terrible person) but something is changing and humans are polluting. Pushing politics aside is the hardest part of it, I think.

Is it going to be a global apocalypse? Probably not. Yeah, there are some on the left that think that. They are pushing an agenda. But the same people are deny the whole thing are pushing an agenda too. Finding a sane middle ground is what we have to do.

Bruno
01-24-2011, 11:56 AM
You can't really believe 97% of all scientists believe in global warming, let alone AGW.

Still unanswered

swirling_vortex
01-24-2011, 03:08 PM
The Ice age thing was a minority problem. No where near the amount of consensus we have now.

A drop in temperature != non-existance of climate change.
Therefore, a rise in temperature shouldn't validate climate change either. But that doesn't make any sense because if you throw away temperature, then you really don't have anything to measure with. My point was that the pickup in industrial activity doesn't correspond to what is being shown. If industrial output is to blame, then you should see an exponentially rising curve, not one loaded with peaks and valleys.

If the problem was solved by using a simple graph, like you are trying to say it is, then most scientists wouldn't disagree with you. But they do. And they aren't *all* cronies or "let's tax coal" hippies. It's unrealistic to think that, therefore logic dictates we side with the research. I agree that there are political problems to this (Al Gore is a terrible person)
Again, the problem is that the advocates are using a simple graph. They're taking the low-point in the 1960s and using that as evidence. Don't tell me they're not because I've seen it enough times in news articles.

Even if there is a problem, the solution ultimately turns to government, which is basically a "let's tax all fossil fuels" mindset. If there are any global warming believers that support market solutions, I've yet to hear anything from the IPCC.

but something is changing and humans are polluting. Pushing politics aside is the hardest part of it, I think.
So you're not sure then? Don't condemn our entire market economy based on what you feel is happening.


Is it going to be a global apocalypse? Probably not. Yeah, there are some on the left that think that. They are pushing an agenda. But the same people are deny the whole thing are pushing an agenda too. Finding a sane middle ground is what we have to do.
Well, when you have a side that says, "the debate is over", then you have a problem from the start. The foundation for good science is that the ideas can withstand skepticism and adapt as new data and theories are developed. We are not seeing that at all. It largely has been a with-us-or-against-us mentality and it's not until recently that the backlash started to develop against that. So there really doesn't need to be a middle ground, it just has to be correct.

reillym
01-31-2011, 12:17 AM
Therefore, a rise in temperature shouldn't validate climate change either. But that doesn't make any sense because if you throw away temperature, then you really don't have anything to measure with. My point was that the pickup in industrial activity doesn't correspond to what is being shown. If industrial output is to blame, then you should see an exponentially rising curve, not one loaded with peaks and valleys.

Again, the problem is that the advocates are using a simple graph. They're taking the low-point in the 1960s and using that as evidence. Don't tell me they're not because I've seen it enough times in news articles.

Even if there is a problem, the solution ultimately turns to government, which is basically a "let's tax all fossil fuels" mindset. If there are any global warming believers that support market solutions, I've yet to hear anything from the IPCC.

So you're not sure then? Don't condemn our entire market economy based on what you feel is happening.

Well, when you have a side that says, "the debate is over", then you have a problem from the start. The foundation for good science is that the ideas can withstand skepticism and adapt as new data and theories are developed. We are not seeing that at all. It largely has been a with-us-or-against-us mentality and it's not until recently that the backlash started to develop against that. So there really doesn't need to be a middle ground, it just has to be correct.

I never, ever said that a rise in temperature is the ONLY validation of climate change. Please re-read. Science doesn't work that way. Try again.

I never condemned our entire market economy. Ever. Please try again. You are putting words in my mouth and failing to debate in a rational manner.

The debate is over. That doesn't mean there are not new ideas or data. Again, that's how science works. Is the theory of gravity still being debated? No. But we still don't know *everything* about it. That's how science works. Again. Science.

The scientists are not using simple graphs to prove a point. News articles != scientific research. Media people are stupid. Politicians are stupid. Scientists are not and are held accountable, more often than not, of their mistakes.

Fox McCloud
01-31-2011, 12:53 AM
Is the theory of gravity still being debated? No. But we still don't know *everything* about it. That's how science works. Again. Science.

The existence of gravity isn't debated, no, but no one has a 100% for sure idea what the cause of gravity is, at this point.


Scientists are not and are held accountable, more often than not, of their mistakes.

Considering how politicized science has become in recent decades, not to mention that's where the vast bulk of "basic research" funding comes from, you're not going to get 100% unbiased science; if X, Y, and Z tends support political agenda A, B, or C, it will get more funding...where was if it is against A, B, or C, there's more of a chance it won't....which is dangerous, as it can create an "echo tank" where it may be a very long time before the general truth of things comes out. Furthermore, mistakes can persist/once accepted truths can persist a very long time--take the distance of stars; turn out there's a chance we may have been mismeasuring the distance to stars, galaxies, etc for decades: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2011/01/objects-in-the-telescope-may-be-.html

science is a great methodology for discovery and elimination of errors, falsities, and faulty data, but by its very nature, its limited to "today"--what's "fact" today, may not be tomorrow, due to new evidence. Heck, even if the evidence is accurate, the data is good, and everything fits, it can still be rejected--look at Keynesianism; it is generally accepted as fact by just about everyone....but, it's been thoroughly discredited, smashed, and debunked by the likes of some neo-classicals, and especially Austrians.

I, myself, personally, will tend to be even more skeptical of global warming "consensus", considering that 55% of scientists are democrats, 32% independent, and only 6% are conservative. Breaking it down into different classifications 52% of scientists are liberal, 35% are moderates, and 9% are conservative. Given how closely climate change is typically tied to government mandates/power/etc, I will generally be wary of conclusions that trend towards these areas.

source: http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1276/science-survey

incidentally enough, the number of scientists who believe that global warming is caused by man is listed as being 84%; 13 points less than the 97% number you cited.