Mad, bad and dangerous to readSuperstorm Sandy is Exhibit A in the prosecution’s case against man the architect of climate change
Long-range forecast for weather heretic Steve Goreham and his new book: initial gales of derisive mainstream media laughter followed by the sounds of silence.
Carbon questioners tend to get scant objective attention in the press. Too much economic and political capital is riding on the man-as-weather-manipulator market.
Still, for anyone not entirely convinced that the science is settled when it comes to humanity’s impact on the vagaries of Earth’s climate, The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism (New Lenox Books) is worth a read.
Businesses appreciating the need to realize the value to Canada’s economy of developing energy and other resources while caretaking the country’s environment should also have a look at it.
Goreham’s previous book on the subject, Climatism! Science, Common Sense and the 21st Century’s Hottest Topic, was discussed in an earlier Public Offerings instalment (“Instability on the climate change front” – issue 1080; July 6-12, 2010).
Then as now, the engineer, speaker and Climate Science Coalition executive director pours cold water on that hot planetary topic – or at least on the claims that increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and man’s part in that increase are irreversibly changing the weather. He also questions the degree to which carbon dioxide influences the greenhouse effect and contributes to temperature changes.
Dangerous stuff indeed.
This time around Climatism’s author says he’s aiming for a wider audience for his rebuttal to prevailing man-made climate change dogma.
Time will tell whether he’ll be successful with the repackaged research, whose cover features a trio of polar bears driving a sports car, but he appears to be having a good time trying.
Climatism questioned the numbers and science, or the lack thereof, behind climate-change policies that have the potential to derail economies and inflict energy impoverishment on households across the Western world. It likely earned Goreham few friends.
Excerpts from Mad, Mad, Mad such as the following will likewise eliminate him from more Christmas lists:
“The idea that a small increase in a trace gas in our atmosphere can cause snowstorms in New York, heat waves in Europe and polar bear extinction doesn’t hold up after a closer look at the science.”
Many will disagree with Goreham’s conclusions, but they’re based on numbers and science rather than rhetoric, so should be considered on that level.
The science-is-settled sect doesn’t do much considering of such challenges to orthodoxy, and that’s counterproductive to finding practical solutions to the complications posed by the Earth’s changing climate.
Bloomberg Weekly’s recent “It’s global warming, stupid” cover story is a good example of global warming hysteria.
The “stupid” in this case is apparently anyone who still harbours doubts about how man’s activities might be influencing the weather.
Superstorm Sandy is Exhibit A in the prosecution’s case against man the architect of climate change. But finding the connection between carbon dioxide increases and Sandy or any other violent storm remains elusive because, as Goreham points out, there isn’t any data to support claims that CO2 affects ferocity or frequency of such weather events. And because, in too many minds, the science really is settled.
That closed-book approach to the issue bodes ill for making informed choices on everything from Enbridge’s Northern Gateway pipeline to replacing the incandescent light bulbs in your home with compact fluorescent alternatives.
With every major energy or industrial undertaking in this province now having to factor in climate change regulations, assorted government levies and knee-jerk opposition from global warming converts, it would be far more beneficial for the economy and the environment if decisions about instituting such hurdles to prosperity were based on science rather than mob mentality politics.
Building a green economy is a noble initiative, but you can’t build a green economy if you don’t have any economy at all.