Not highly reliable. I have found some errors. Also, to some degree this is right-wing political campaigning. But it is useful for references to the rest of the literature on climate history. No bibliography section.

Before reading this book I had already found in my studies of economic history some evidence of a 1000 year climate cycle. This book gives more support to the 1000 year concept than the 1500 year. (Numbers are rough estimates.) ( )

It has been more than a few years since I read this book, therefore, I can't review with specifics; rather I am recalling an impression Unstoppable Global Warming made on me. An impact upon me which I am reminded of every time I see this on my shelf.

Writing that this science book read like a novel would be a gross overstatement. Perhaps I was interested in the subject matter, yet the authorship had to be somewhat captivating since I would top out at about two books in as many years back then. I read this book all the way through in a few months. As has become a pseudo politically correct term, this book was "accessible" to me in the sparing use of scientific language. Likewise, as little as it resembled a thriller, it wholly is a technical and science book.

The point I gathered is earth has a cyclical pattern of climate; ever changing in a near equal time frame. While it isn't totally autonomous of flora and fauna residing on the planet, the atmosphere has waxed-and-waned for its entire existence.

Messrs. Avery and Singer work to illustrate a pattern that is oft overlooked - ignored or purposely obfuscated - in global climate changes which happen over fifteen centuries. Hysterical claims are made that the earth has never warmed so fast; changes are besought as so imminent we are on the verge of irreversibility, any time to scrutinize such allegations are minimized. What is overlooked is state-of-the-art contemporary technology is compared to carbon dating, medieval written accounts and record from burgeoning instrumentation ability.

Philosophy aside, those who disagree with their contentions are unlike to be persuaded in the first place, it was an easy book to read. ( )

There used to be farms on Greenland -- just about 1000 years ago, well within the historical record. That's why they called it 'Green'-land. Now, of course, Greenland is too cold, but the ruins of the towns (and the bones of the doomed settlers) are still there.

So, um, how did that work? Well, until just recently, anyone with even a passing acquaintance with the historical climate record knew that 1000 years ago was the height of the Medieval Warm Period, when the Earth's climate was balmy and forgiving, making possible the exploration and even settlement of formerly inhospitable climes such as Greenland. Unfortunately, however, this era of prosperity was terminated by the Little Ice Age, which dropped the world's temperatures severely. Again, did you ever wonder why those Breugel paintings (completed at the depths of the LIA in the 16th century) show people skating on rivers in what is now the low countries, and where the current climate is much milder?

We commoners may innocently wonder about such obvious evidence, but our betters at the IPCC and the environmentalist NGOs would rather we not trouble our little minds with these trivialities, and instead just take them at their word when they say the world's temperatures were steady for thousands of years, until the recent, abrupt, likely-catastrophic carbon-fueled uptick. Didn't you see their 'Hockey-stick' graph, the one that graced the cover of the IPCC's report in 2001, and that featured so prominently in Al Gore's slideshows? Don't you know that we're all doomed unless you (but not Al, of course) slash your carbon emissions by adopting a severely reduced standard of living?

Okay, enough ranting. I find it hard to restrain myself when the gargantuan swindle that is the climate change industry comes up. Fortunately, cooler heads such as Fred Singer and Dennis Avery have assembled meticulously-researched, clearly-presented, truly convincing evidence that Global Warming, Climate Change -- whatever you want to call it -- is a farce. Not only do they document the clear and sometimes abrupt swings in the historical climate record, they propose a powerful theory to explain it, i.e. a 1,500-year cycle based on the most obvious variable in the Earth's temperature: the energy we receive from the Sun. Their hypothesis is far more parsimonious and elegant than the fairy tale models the IPCC reports are based upon, and it's explained beautifully here with clear illustrations and frequent citations from real (read unpoliticized) climate research.

Singer and Avery also deal briefly with some of the sociopolitical and economic aspects and implications of climate changes, and again their observations -- especially on the futility of wasting billions and even trillions of dollars, and wrecking thousands of square miles of land, on shamefully inefficient 'alternative' energy technologies -- are sane and convincing.

This book is now a few years old, and although events in the climate change arena -- i.e. the humiliation of the UK's Climate Research Unit and other climate researchers in the Climategate email controversy, and the revelation of numerous laughable errors in the recent IPCC report -- have passed it by, it's still an extremely valuable read, since Singer and Avery do not need to appeal to these events to discredit the climate change movement. They just use the evidence.

I'll close this review with a longish quotation from the book's conclusion; it encapsulates magnificently what 'climate change' is really all about:

[The environmental movement] is dedicated to making our society feel guilty about its wealth and materialism, and to using the powerful levers of government to force us to adopt lifestyles it thinks are best.

Most mainstream journalists have long since committed themselves to the environmental cause. It appeals to their sense of superiority, and it gives them an unending source of scary news for front pages and TV sound bites.

...

The climate research community has become massively dependent on billions of dollars per year in government research grants generated by the global warming campaign.

...

If the public were suddenly convinced of the natural, moderate 1,500-year cycle, there would be a crushing impact on donations and grants to environmental advocacy groups and on the reputations of the journalists who wrote the global warming scare stories, along with professional starvation for many university departments, government laboratories, and whole divisions of NASA and EPA.

And that's what it's all about: power and money. Keep that in mind today as you read the latest scare story about climate change on the BBC or the New York Times. ( )

An Alternative Theory ( )

Have you ever read a scientific book that totally impressed you with the depth and breadth of its research, citing hundreds of unassailable sources to back up every point made? Are you open enough to logical thought that such a work can convince you it speaks truth?

Do you believe in "discernible human influence on climate," also called "Global Warming," also called "if we don't reduce the standard of living of the richest countries on Earth, everybody's going to die?"

If you answered "yes" to all three questions, you have yet to read Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. I was on the fence, and as a result of the evidence presented in this book, I'm completely convinced that the truth and the hype are diametric opposites. (For the record, the "correct answers to the questions are: 1. it doesn't matter; 2. YES; and 3. GET REAL!)

The politics and errors that indurated the myth that industrialized nations can and will cause unprecedented ecological disasters because we're making the planet warmer are exposed and discounted, one by one, using extremely well researched facts. The result is laid out in a fashion that will convince anyone with an IQ higher than a box of greenhouse gases that the Kyoto Protocol is dangerous to the First World, irrelevant to the Third World, and possibly fatal to the economy of the United States.

What first grabbed my attention was

"The author of the [United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)] science chapter, a U.S. government employee, publicly admitted making the scientifically indefensible 'back room' changes [that they've found a 'human fingerprint' in the current global warming]. He was under pressure from top U.S. government officials to do so." citation: Frederick Seitz, former president, National Academy of Sciences, 'A Major Deception on Global Warming,' Wall Street Journal, 12 June 1996, editorial page. S Fred Singer, 'Climate Policy from Rio to Kyoto: A Political Issue for 200 and Beyond'(Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 2000),19.

Read the book. Use your brain. Make some noise. ( )