Product Description

Customer Reviews (32)

The Great Global Warming Blunder
This book should be read by all of those who think that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing global warming.It is a rational review of the current science of why and how the climate changes. It shows that natural changes in the climate are not caused by humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere but by Nature itself.

Spencer takes another crack
The book is wonderfully short, only 162 pages.It would have been much shorter if the author had left out all the whining about people who agree with the mainstream scientific view.But the whining is the reason for the high ratings from his fellow skeptics, and I suppose that without it Encounter Books, a non-profit that specializes in right-wing polemics, wouldn't have published it.

Spencer promises to prove that the mainstream view is wrong, but he doesn't deliver.Instead, he offers a hypothesis.It could be, he says, that a particular weather system, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (not the much stronger El Niño/Southern Oscillation) is a random self-energizing force that drives the climate of the whole planet.To support the hypothesis he shows that carefully tweaking the model parameters allows a near fit to measured temperatures.Even a non-specialist like myself can see the error in logic.If the PDO is a response to whatever is driving the climate, then obviously it would have some relationship to global temperatures.To infer that the PDO is driving the climate is to have the very confusion between cause and effect he attributes to mainstream scientists.To postulate that a random self-energizing force dominates over a clear and powerful known driving force requires that we ignore the overwhelming evidence that greenhouse gases overcame solar activity and aerosol pollution as the main driving force in the last thirty to forty years.

In his earlier book, Spencer displayed a loathing for political views that differed from his in all aspects of public policy, not just environmental concerns.I'm pleased to report that careful editing has minimized the animus in this one to mere complaining.The rest of the writing is downright affable.So I think two stars is appropriate.

The Empiricist View
I especially appreciated Dr. Spencer's excellent presentation of the empiricist viewpoint on the climate change debate, approaching the subject from the point-of-view of the measurements.This is a complex subject and I applaud his effort to bring it to a non-technical audience. He keeps the focus on the most representative data set - temperatures and radiation measurements from polar-orbiting satellites.Through both analysis and a simple model calculation he demonstrates the role water vapor plays as both a forcing and feedback agent in climate change.Yet, he does not minimize the complexity of the climate issue, (The cover illustration is very descriptive of our current understanding.).

Nevertheless, the book has short comings, thus the 4 star rating.In my opinion the text is excessively verbose and redundant, spending too much time criticizing the IPCC report.The reader would be better served by a more through discussion of the important climatic cycles and the feedback processes.This said, "Blunders..." is an improvement over Dr. Spencer's first book, "Climate Confusion", in that it makes a strong case for natural forcing and it contains references and endnotes. (I am not really convinced Mother Nature fooled the modelers,they need positive feedbacks to get the desired results.)

"Blunders..." presents the climate change problem, in all its complexity, from the viewpoint of the measured data base, giving water vapor due consideration.It should be on the reading list for all those in graduate programs of "Environmental Management" (Well, at least Ch, 4-6 and the Summary and Conclusion).I am reminded at this point of the answer given by the prominent climatologist, Henry van Loon, to a question concerning AGW, "Climate changes on all time scales, because a particular change happens on our watch doesn't necessarily mean we are responsible."

A Moses in need of an Aaron
The content is excellent, and it convincingly argues that the measurements going into the calibration of IPCC models are deeply flawed. This is a quick read for someone with the required quantitative literacy. It loses two stars for lack of accessibility to the general public.

Outstanding reading!A must read regarding climate change!
This book really openned my eyes on the truth about "man made" global warming!I consider it a must read for all who want to learn the truth about "man made" climate change!Excellent book!!! ... Read more

Product Description

The award-winning book is now revised and expanded.

In 2001 an international panel of distinguished climate scientists announced that the world was warming at a rate without precedent during at least the last ten millennia, and that warming was caused by the buildup of greenhouse gases from human activity. The story of how scientists reached that conclusion—by way of unexpected twists and turns—was the story Spencer Weart told in The Discovery of Global Warming. Now he brings his award-winning account up to date, revised throughout to reflect the latest science and with a new conclusion that shows how the scientific consensus caught fire among the general world public, and how a new understanding of the human meaning of climate change spurred individuals and governments to action.

Customer Reviews (29)

Please, when are you delivering on my puschase?
I am yet to receive this book - after more than a month of paying for it.

Stellar summary of planetary science
A very enjoyable and lightly-written history of the inception of a new science, this little book deserves to be widely read. Climatology went from non-existence as a field prior to the 19th Century, to a central scientific mystery of what caused the Ice Ages, to a controversial speculation about the effects of anthropogenic emissions in the 1950s and 1960s and finally to a fully-fledged science cross-discipline with a battery of satellites and supercomputers at its disposal by the 1990s. And an urgent message which is somehow still not penetrating in some quarters.

Weart manages to bring across the chaotic brilliance of scientists advancing by fits and starts into a virgin field of knowledge. Historians and philosophers of science have tried to characterise this process and never entirely managed to do so. It is very hard to pin down just what makes science Science. Falsifiability, paradigms and consensus, and the rejection of Method have all been tried and all found their critics. Perhaps this is inevitable, as science by its very nature attacks fields where no-one yet knows what will be found or how to do so. What one can do, however, is to write an account of the persons and ideas and track their development through time, which Weart does with engaging clarity. What I found perhaps a little lacking was a feel for the combative and often eccentric personalities of those who do science, but if you want to follow the events and the growth of an idea, Weart is definitely your man. I went through the book in double-quick time.

That the atmosphere has a warming effect worth studying has been clear since the 1820s, when Fourier noticed that Earth is far warmer than its black-body temperature for this distance from the Sun. By the end of the Century, Arrhenius had calculated that we also would be contributing to this effect with our fossil-carbon emissions. It took nearly another century, however, for the science to acquire enough understanding to turn this into a body of theory backed up by a consilience of evidence and a solid consensus. A variety of convictions stood in the way, such as a fashion for some decades of seeing everything in the atmosphere as self-regulating. The central pursuit for quite some time was to explain the advent of the Ice Ages, and simply to understand how the atmosphere worked. The creeping understanding that the Ice Ages involve a sudden switch from one metastable state to another initiated by extremely subtle changes and governed by feedbacks, and its unpleasant implications for our mid-term future as an industrial society, came by degrees and introduced a feeling of increasing urgency fairly late in the day.

Some considerable personal heroism was involved in this pursuit, as it led scientists onto high glaciers and the ice shields of the Poles, and onto the high seas. One researcher had to embed his ice-axe in the ground through the floor of his tent to avoid being blown from the mountain, while the Russians at Vostok sat isolated for months at a time, living off vodka, pioneering ice-drilling techniques to extract cores kilometres long. Back at the coding coal-face, from the 1950s exploding computer capacity led a different breed of pioneer to model first a column of air and water vapour, then a volume, then an atmosphere and ocean together and finally immense models incorporating cloud formation, ocean currents, albedo and scores of other factors. By the 1990s these had become sufficiently robust that faulty data on prehistoric sea temperatures from the CLIMAP oceanography project could not be reproduced: The models could no longer lie. It was the CLIMAP reconstruction which proved to be false.

Today we can look back on a field which built itself up from nothing and constructed international, interdisciplinary institutions and an entire methodology and warned humanity of an urgent threat. We see a science born, and scientists, moreover, stepping up to do their duty to humanity. Yet despite decades of warnings and a rock-solid scientific triumph behind them, entrenched denial has taken root. Theories that are born in the 19th Century seem to be cursed with the burden of forever battling 19th Century social values. This is not the place to discuss what lies outside the science, as Weart only comes to the phenomenon of denial at the very end, and has more to say about what can really be done. And it is time to do something. But it is also time to reflect on how we came to this understanding. This Weart does for us.

Clearly written and enthusiastic, this book is a pleasure to read. A useful time-line is included after the main text, highlighting the primary events.

Good Book, But Don't Look for any Balance
First of all, I'd like to say that none of my comments are personal. I've exchanged a few e-mails with Dr. Weart and I found him an alert, polite and patient fellow. I think he's dead wrong, that's all. That does not prevent this book from being a good and interesting one. I'm giving it four stars--that's a good review.
To summarize my complaint, I think the title is misleading. It would be more accurate if it was called "The Invention, out of Thin Air, of the Idea of Human-Caused Global Warming". Regardless, if you want to study the genesis of the science of anthropogenic global warming (and I do, though I think the idea is an oxymoron), this book is a great overview.
This book buys completely into the theme that CO2 contributes something measurable to our climate, for which there is no evidence whatsoever. If you are looking for a storyline in chaotic data (like tea leaves or an arrangement of tarot cards), then you will find it. That's part of what it means to be human. If you want to think analytically, you have to separate your preconceived bias from your observation and theory. I will confess one of my biases...I don't think lefty activists are capable of this kind of thinking.
Dr. Weart gives no credit to skepticism of the human-caused global warming theme. As a semi-random example, on page 141 he says: "In 1980 Congress had asked the [National] Academy [of Sciences] to carry out a comprehensive study on the impacts of rising CO2." This paper, Changing Climate, Report of the Carbon Dioxide Assessment Committee, is an important, seminal element in the global warming canon.
The chairman of this committee was a legendary physicist: William Nierenberg. Are Dr. Nierenberg's later contrarian thoughts and opinions relevant to Dr. Weart's book? Sure, it's impossible to include every detail and follow every train of thought, but check this out...

For the remainder of his life Bill [William A. Nierenberg] actively battled what he felt was exaggerated concern over the role of CO2 in climate change.
- NAS Biographical Memoirs, Volume 85

All three of us knew William Nierenberg intimately. If the authors had called him a man whose later work in the field made him a skeptic about some aspects of the climate change debate, that would have been easy to substantiate, and we would not have disagreed.
- A critique of Oreskes et al. 2008 Nicolas Nierenberg, Walter Tschinkel and Victoria Tschinkel

It's as if, when the conclusion supports the human-caused global warming theme, the information is important and gets mentioned. However, when the chairman of the report disagrees later, it's irrelevant and not worth mentioning. That's a form of selection bias which is prevalent in climate change science.

My point is...we have instrumental climate data and proxies to study and argue over. For any dataset, correlations are cheap and easy, while root causes are incredibly difficult. For noisy data, there will be various interpretations that are equally valid (or equally invalid, ha). The fact that there are thoughtful and legitimate contrary opinions to the human-caused global warming theory is given no credence in this book. Don't even bother trying to find balance or respect for contrary arguments. However, that does not detract from the value of this book. If you want to know how the climate change cabal came to the conclusions they reached, this is an excellent treatise and I recommend it without reservation.

Excellent Synthesis of the History of Global Climate Change Science
A centrally important study in the vital center is Spencer Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming," first published in 2004 but updated in 2008. This masterful synthesis seeks to understand the manner in which scientists came to a consensus on global warming theory, and relates the internal conflicts plaguing the research community and the role government entities such as NASA and NOAA have played in fostering research and analysis. Weart finds this a messy process, as all science is, in which researchers undertake investigations that lead in unproductive directions, insist on theories that prove incorrect, argue among themselves over points small and great, and allow egos and identities to intrude into the scientific process.

Notwithstanding such difficulties, the process moved forward and the result was a resulting portrait of vast, chaotic weather systems that over time yielded an understanding of climate chance on Earth. He author insists that through concerted efforts over more than 150 years scientists came to a consensus that a number of human interventions, including the burning of carbon fuels and the use of aerosols, have created the current situation and some among them have been clamoring for a public policy response since the 1980s.

This only came about because of a long process of incremental research rather than through dramatic discovery. Weart quotes one climate scientist involved in this process as characterizing climate science as a "capricious beast" and "we were poking it with a sharp stick" (p. 141). It was much harder to understand and more wily than they first realized. He also pursues the standard historian objecting of seeking "to help the reader understand our predicament by explaining how we got here," rather than seeking to mobilize readers to a specific position (p. viii).

While not seeking to enter the political process, Weart reflected in his work the consensus of the scientific community seeking to understand this phenomenon. This is a superb study of the history of scientific inquiry and understanding written by an outstanding historian in a highly engaging style.

The First Global Warming Book You Should Read
This is the first book one should read if new to the subject of climate change (global warming). Spencer R. Weart, director of the Center for the History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics, takes the reader on a journey that begins as a scientific detective story about what caused the ice ages and ends up being the story of how scientists realized that humans were influencing climate more than nature.

Excerpt from review by Andrew C. Revkin, New York Times Sunday Book Review, 10/5/2003:

"Debate persists over the extent of human-driven warming and what to do about it. But recognition that in a short span our species has nudged the thermostat of the planet remains a momentous, and sobering, finding. "The Discovery of Global Warming" describes the intellectual journey toward that conclusion, with all of its false starts, flawed hypotheses, inventiveness and persistent uncertainties. It reveals the effort as one of the great exercises in collective sleuthing, with pivotal insights provided by experts in fields as varied as glaciology, physics and even plankton paleontology." ... Read more

Product Description
This latest installment in the P.I.G. series provides a provocative, entertaining, and well-documented expose of some of the most shamelessly politicized pseudo-science we are likely to see in our relatively cool lifetimes. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (285)

Horner
So, I found one these book by Horner in a Barnes and Noble and opened a couple pages to view the material. Not surprising, these few pages were filled with accusations and misleading arguments. I took the book to the front desk and demanded to know why they would sell such a book. The attendant apologized and said, "because it sells". He also added that he feels bad for the people who buy these books. I think we can all thank Glen Beck for that...

Honestly, how much was Horner paid to put this on the shelf?

Glen Beck on the environment
Let me preface this with the fact that I'm a conservative who wants to understand both sides of the climate change issue. In the early chapters of the book, the author makes it clear that he considers the green movement to be a communist plot (1950 all over again.) He laments that the environmentalists have raised nearly $2B to support their cause (as opposed to the poor energy companies who haven't had a forum to express their views?) Pollution is only a local problem (what about the plastic garbage islands floating in the Pacific?) That our planet isn't starving, with 6 billion people, obesity is an epidemic (I'm sure there are several billion hungry people in the world who would disagree with that.) The general theme - if these lazy poor people would just get off their butts and get wealthy, the world would be a cleaner place. I agree that some of the "facts" presented by environmentalists are suspect and was hoping this book would help me identify some of those inaccuracies. But, frankly, with statements such as those that I've listed above, how can I take anything else in this book seriously?Sorry I bought it.

Standard Talking points
Firstly, I have not read the book in it's entirety, but read key sections covering material I am familiar with. On those sections, at best,it failed to be substantive or well thought out, at worst, it was blatantly misleading.

Take for instance where it highlights that only about 3% of CO2 emissions are directly anthropic and then insinuates that this fact makes emissions controls irelevant. Absurd.

I would only recommend this to a denier that wants to pretend to be informed.

I would reccommend Nature's "The real holes in Climate Science" as a place to start for those who actually want to become informed.

Excellent Source of Information
This book is great!
Are you tired of hearing one year that "no snow in winter" is a sign of global warming, and then a couple of years later hear that "to much snow in winter" is *also* a sign of global warming?
If you are tired of listening or reading the misinformation about global warming (now, conveniently renamed "climate change"), then this book is a must read.
The author does a great job at presenting valid arguments to debunk the theories of global warming.

Debunking Persistent Global Warming Myths
Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher Horner has written the best gift you could ever buy for your open-minded friends who enjoy a good read. No reasonable individual could read this very enjoyable book without becoming fully cognizant of the greatest scam ever perpetrated on the citizens of this planet.

Horner combines an unusually clear, concise, and humorous writing style with the keen eye and analytical mind of a scientist, enabling him to tell a comprehensive and persuasive story of how mankind is being fooled by an army of political socialists, anti-capitalist economists, and environmental zealots.


Excuse for Bigger Government

Horner tells us, "Global warming hysteria is truly the environmentalist's dream come true. It is the perfect storm of demons and perils, and the ideal scare campaign for those who would establish global governance."

He's right. Horner shows how, following the spectacular fall of communism, ecology offered liberal-minded people what they longed for: a safe, rational, and peaceful excuse for remaking society and developing a stronger central state. Environmentalism became the anti-freedom vehicle of choice, drawing cash and adoration from leftists in business, Hollywood, media, social elites, and the government. Environmental activism today is one of America's biggest industries. No longer is David fighting Goliath; David now is the Goliath.

Most pollution issues are local, however, and thus the effects of policies regarding them are relatively confined. Global warming possesses no such weakness--it can link alleged problems in Ohio to those in Paris, thereby demanding global solutions and bypassing sovereignty and democratic practices.

That's how environmental activists get away with telling us worldwide deindustrialization is critical if we are to live with declining energy consumption.

We are daily told of an alleged "consensus" on the issue--a concept actually foreign to science--and global warming alarmists want to put disbelievers on trial. They want to control our lifestyles without anyone being allowed to question their cause. This book will give you the details about the issue and convey the debate they want to hide from you.


'People Are Pollution'

Horner shows how the demands placed on business extend from the broadest business decisions to the smallest minutiae, while the green groups operate in a world free from accountability.

Their senior leadership, despite all evidence to the contrary, deeply believes human economic activity is enormously destructive to our planet. Horner observes, "It is important not to glaze over the green antipathy toward people. In the eyes of an environmentalist, people are pollution."

That is why you must read and distribute this book. Those who consider themselves "environmental activists" sincerely believe human development and prosperity hurt the environment in general and the climate in particular. Busy people relying on superficial, breathless media stories about these issues can hardly help succumbing to this view.

Fortunately, with books such as this, their education and experience will enable them to understand that wealthier is indeed both healthier and cleaner.

Despite this correlation between wealth, health, and a clean environment, the greens worship from afar the primitive lifestyle, while those mired in such poverty would do anything to escape it.


Science Under Attack

Nowhere is Horner more brilliant than in convincing the reader of the odious concept of consensus taking root regarding climate science, where alarmists and the rest of the global warming industry assail scientists and other experts with ad hominem campaigns to discredit them.

History, Horner reminds us, is "full of efforts to stifle innovation by reference to unchallengeable authority of consensus." Galileo and Copernicus come quickly to mind.

Science requires observation--not just selectively pointing to compliant glaciers or to computer models whose outcomes are directly dictated by the assumptions behind them. Science requires the testing of hypotheses. In other words, science is skepticism; it is the practice of holding out a hypothesis for others to challenge. Real scientists welcome that challenge.


Science Bringing Optimism

Horner repeatedly shows the amusing sides of global warming alarmism, but he also points out with great gravity the alarmists' desire to use government and law at every level to restrict our freedoms and raise our cost of living with obvious and significant human consequences, all of which are ignored by the prophets of doom. Despite the short-term profits envisioned by the green enablers, we all stand to lose big from their policies.

As the curtain descends on the remnants of scientific inquiry, while governments seek to expand their power further, and while businesses move to profit from people's gullibility, Horner remains optimistic.

"The future does not have to be like the recent past," Horner concludes. "Simply opening the debate and holding it in the open air moves the ball from the alarmists' court--no time for questions, we must act now--to the skeptics' court."

Horner explains how to do that: "Exercise your rights, ... indeed your duties of inquiry and speech, and demand that the future remain free, and full of energy."

MIT atmospheric scientist Richard Lindzen, in praising this book, said, "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and on the basis of gross exaggeration of highly uncertain computer projections combining implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a rollback of the industrial age."

Through both the laughter and tears provoked by this book, it can arm a large army to fight our way back to sanity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Jay Lehr ([..]) is science director of The Heartland Institute.

... Read more

Product Description
John Houghton's market-leading textbook is now in full color and includes the latest IPCC findings, making it the definitive guide to climate change. Written for students across a wide range of disciplines, its simple, logical flow of ideas gives an invaluable grounding in the science and impacts of climate change and highlights the need for action on global warming. Is there evidence for climate changing due to human activities? How do we account for recent extremes of weather and climate? Can global electricity provision and transport ever be carbon free? Written by a leading figure at the forefront of action to confront humanity's most serious environmental problem, this undergraduate textbook comprehensively explores these and other issues, allowing students to think through the problem, assess the data and draw conclusions on the action that should be taken, by governments, by industry and by each and every one of us. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (13)

Beneath the scientific pretense, woefully little evidence proving the theory
As readers of my reviews know, I am skeptical about the theory that civilization is in danger because CO2 emissions are causing catastrophic levels of global warming.Of the books that I have read, the skeptical books are of higher quality than the pro-global warming books.For some time, I have been looking for a solid statement of the science that supports the Al Gore theory.

At first, this book looked like it provided the science that Gore does not.John Houghton is a qualified scientist, and he knows this field.The book is filled with cool charts, graphs and photos.It contains a great deal of information.It is grounded in the scientific literature.

Despite this, however, this book is not science.It is a "briefing" in the sense that lawyers use the word "briefs."It is a sustained argument for one point of view. It never takes the other side seriously.It is an advocacy piece.

Let us be clear what the argument is about.No one disputes that a lot of CO2 is going into the air.No one disputes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.The questions are: (1) is the globe, in fact, warming; and (2) if so, is this warming caused by CO2?

Beneath all of the charts, graphs and photos, Houghton has two pieces of evidence, and two pieces of evidence only, for the Al Gore theory.First, global temperature rose from 1970 to 2000.Second, scientists have constructed computer models which suggest that, if CO2 levels keep rising, the globe will get warmer.That is it; that is ALL the evidence that Houghton has.

The rise in temperature from 1970 to 2000 is suggestive, but, in itself, proves little.Temperature fell from 1940 to 1970.Temperature has stayed about the same since 2000.In short, the trend lines are all over the place.There is, it is true, a long-term rise in temperature since the 19th century, but given that the 19th century was the end of a cooling period -- called the "Little Ice Age" -- one would expect temperature to rise since then.

As for the computer models, Houghton makes no effort to prove that they work.Instead, he simply asserts that they work.He says, "I am a big deal scientist.I say the models work.Accept it."

This is an appeal to authority.This is not an appeal to reason.Here is what an appeal to reason would look like.If someone like Houghton seriously wanted to persuade a non-believer of the accuracy of the computer models, he would give us examples of the models working.For example, take one of the models, as it exists today.Feed into it raw data from the 1980s.See if it is able to predict the weather of the 1990s.The advantage of this approach is that, since we know what happened in the 1990s, such an approach tests whether the model actually works or not. If the model can accurately "predict" the past, then the model has some credibility

There are other ways to show that the models work.Houghton uses none of them.I assume that, if he had any arguments like these, he would use them.He is, after all, an advocate.I trust him to find all of the arguments for his position.If he has nothing to show that the models work, except pounding on his chest and telling us to believe them, then I assume there is no evidence that the models work.

Global Warming
Product was exactly how it was described, in great condition with little to no marks on the inside. thanks!

Propaganda disguised as science
You have to admire a writer like this, who can tidy up all the assumptions in global warming so they disappear in the 'facts'. Who needs to question such an authority!? I mean, if you disagree with Mr. Houghton (we don't use titles of nobility in this country, fyi), well, you are obviously just a dense neanderthal!

So instead of really examining whether humans are causing significant global warming, let's just assume it, and then hype the issues that follow. These self-righteous government 'scientists' love to play the part of savior, but never disclose how much money they are making while selling their snake-oil from the government. But oh, if you are debating them, they will quickly sneer against you if you are actually living off of money provided by the free market.

The book may be just fine for learning what kind of problems occur when global warming occurs, but it might as well be a book about what kind of problems might occur if a big meteor hits Earth, or aliens attack, and it is just about that relevant. This book is great pabulum for the sheeple.

Yes, It Really Is A Good Complete Briefing on Global Warming
The title of the book "Global Warming - The Complete Briefing" is aptly named, as it is an excellent briefing, or primer, on the subject of global warming.The book avoids the politics of global warming, which can grow tiresome to those of us who actually work in the climate change field. Instead, the book focuses on the basic science behind global warming, and is a very balanced, non-partisan approach to causes, effects, uncertainties, and potential impacts.

The reading level of the book is college level science, similar to a beginning or intermediate level physical science or meteorology class. If you are looking for an over-all guide to the science of global warming, this is a great book. If you are looking for a less academic, more popular-culture point of view on global warming, look into "Hell and High Water - Global Warming - The Solution and the Politics and What We Should Do" by Joseph Romm for an eminently enjoyable, easily readable guide to some of political and cultural aspects of global warming.

Excellent resource if you want to know the facts on global warming and climate change
I have just gotten half way through this book but am already finding it an excellent source of background information on global warming and climate change.It has a lot of technical information but is written at a level that most people can understand.I'm using it to prepare for a community education class I'll be teaching and finding it most helpful with facts on the science behind global warming.I recommend this book to anyone that wants to delve into the reasons behind what you're hearing in the news.The author is an internationally recognized expert and obviously knows what he's taking about.The book it written in a well balanced way pointing out the uncertainties and sticking to the facts.I'm looking forward to completing the rest of the book this week. ... Read more

Product Description
Former Vice President Al Gore's New York Times #1 bestselling book is a daring call to action, exposing the shocking reality of how humankind has aided in the destruction of our planet and the future we face if we do not take action to stop global warming. Now, Viking has adapted this book for the most important audience of all: today's youth, who have no choice but to confront this climate crisis head-on.

Dramatic full-color photos, illustrations, and graphs combine with Gore's effective and clear writing to explain global warming in very real terms: what it is, what causes it, and what will happen if we continue to ignore it. An Inconvenient Truth will change the way young people understand global warming and hopefully inspire them to help change the course of history. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (39)

A Convenient Scam
I purchased this book in an attempt to find out more about global warming and the associated global climate change.Having heard so much about the book and video, I felt that the work might be worth reviewing. I was saddly disappointed!Mr. Gore's book is a sham, nothing more than a 7th grade reading level, or lower, picture book with sound bite captions.There is no scientific information, only cleaverly manipulated photos and catchy personal opinions and catch-phrases.If this is what earned Mr. Gore his Nobel Prize, then that too is a sham.Any thinking person would see right through this book...there is nothing of value in the book and no real information.If this is considered a definitive work on the global warming, then the the state of science is saddley misdirected.

wrong order
This product it's wrong. I wonna reback you and order other. What can i do?

What a waste.
I thought I was buying a book with information supporting Global Warming.Instead I got a brochure of PowerPoint slides which contained little or no information and, what little there was, had obvious errors.My grandson told me not to waste my money and I wish I had listened.

Convenient dishonesty
Al Gore is using scare tactics to further his own interests, while pouring CO2 into the atmosphere with his lavish lifestyle. Concurrently, he is telling the rest of the world to clean up their act.Some of the photos are good even though the captions are misleading.

Junk Science
What can one say when a book contains no evidence to back up his claims, nor is it scientific. However one does get an education as to why the global warming scare. It's called $$$$$$$ and ideology. When you have those two things together then rationale is not significant and is actually an enemy to one's purported lunacy.

Don't throw the book out though, I find it useful for my cat box. ... Read more

Product Description
Irreverent and entertaining, DOWN TO EARTH is filled with fact about global warming and its disastrous consequences, loads of photos and illustrations, as well as suggestions for how kids can help combat global warming in their homes, schools, and communities. Engagingly designed, DOWN TO EARTH will educate and empower, leaving readers with the knowledge they need to understand this problem and a sense of hope to inspire them into action. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (38)

very pleased with vendor and book
book arrived well within promised time and in perfect condition. Great book to explain a complex subject to kids (and adults)

To make your kid an eco-activist nagger
This is a kid's version of a typicalglobal warming hysteria book.

If you do not believe in it (or even know there is another side), you probably will not want this for your kid.

Even if you believe in the IPCC type worries, you should be aware this has a section designed to encourage the kids to nag you about reducing your carbon footprint. Some parents who agree there is a problem still may not want this book just to avoid the nagging.

The books has all of the usual statements abut global warming and leaves out the other side, emphasizing the negative. There is a statement abut increased poison ivy and hay fever but they somehow fail to mention that increased carbon dioxide has been shown repeatedly in green house experiments and open field experiments to promote growth of virtually all plants. For instance, an open field experiment (pumping the gas into a small forest plot)showed increased tree growth, with an incidental observation that the poison ivy also grew more. This book mentions the poison ivy, but fails to note the major result, which was the increased tree growth.If most plants growth more, there probably will be more pollen and hence more hay fever, but it also means food crops gow much better and less starvation, but there is no mention of this.

Increased heat deaths if the globe if warmer are likely (especially if in an effort to prevent warming energy prices have been raised so fewer can afford air conditioning,but there is no mention of the well established fact that death rates increase every winter (flu season) and warmer winters would reduce these, and by far more than any summer increase in deaths.

This book is full of conclusions not based on scientific measurements
The error in the graph on page 18 has already been mentioned by several other reviewers. The book is full of erroneous conclusions with no basis in true scientific data. For example, it is a scientific fact that the oceans are cooling, not warming as claimed. This is from data gathered from actual scientific measurements instead of the flawed computer climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC), a primary source for the authors. This is part of the grand plan to invent a global crisis that will lead to a world government body that will have the right and power to redistribute wealth (via taxes and fees on CO2 emissions) from wealthy developed countries to developing countries. This plan will come to fruition when Obama signs the Climate Change Treaty in Copenhagen this December.

As fake as the rest of them.
I don't take anything serious coming from someone who openly admits she owns two homes, one on each coast, and regularly flies her private jet back and forth.Now she wants to capitalize on the myth of global warming?Typical global warming activist.They want you to change YOUR lifestyle, but they're really not interested in changing theirs.Plus, none of these people actually care about the earth.If anything, they only care about their own personal clean environment.They don't want to be inconvenienced.

And there you have it - the fundamental argument is "this is just fact, no matter what the facts say".
A prior review states: "I also can't help noticing what feels like a coordinated attack based on a single technical error, as if that discredited the FUNDAMENTAL SCIENCE behind this book's premise, WHICH NO SERIOUS SCIENTISTS DOUBTS." (Caps added for emphasis.)The global-warming koolaid drinkers will just keep repeating the mantra that "man-made global warming is a proven fact" over and over again, and referring to the hundreds of highly-credentialed experts in the field who disagree with that fundamental premise as something OTHER THAN "serious scientists".

I'm all in favor of being good stewards of our earth, but this kind of unsupported (and unsupportable) attack on the vast volume of evidence that isn't in lock-step with the agenda of the global warming theorists is pure propaganda.A scientifically legitimate book would consider both sides of the argument. ... Read more

Product Description
Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible style, this important book examines the processes of climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.

Examining the greenhouse effect, the carbon cycle, and what the future may hold for global climate, this text draws on a wide range of disciplines, and summarizes not only scientific evidence, but also economic and policy issues, related to global warming. A companion web site at (http://understandingtheforecast.org) provides access to interactive computer models of the physics and chemistry behind the global warming forecast, which can be used to support suggested student projects included at the end of each chapter. Solutions and artwork from the book are available to instructors at www.blackwellpublishing.com/archer.

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast provides an essential introduction to this vital issue for both students and general readers, with or without a science background. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Excellent Primer
Based on a general undergrad course taught by author, this modest book is a very nice introduction to climate science and global warming.Following the arguments requires only a high school level knowledge of chemistry and algebra (knowledge that seems to be lacking in the Oklahoma Congressional delegation).Archer covers the basic features of the earth's energy budget, relevant physics and geochemistry, simplified modeling, and evidence for anthropogenic warming.The exposition is excellent with good use of figures, simple equations, and a direct writing style.As befits a textbook-style book, each chapter concludes with some exercises, useful references, and links to useful data and models.Given Archer's skill as a pedagogue, I would like to see some more discussion of economic models and mitigation strategies, which are really now the major issues.

First rate introduction to the science behind global warming
Brief, lucid, comprehensive, and objective. Covers an amazing amount of material in a short space. Brevity, however, is occasionally a flaw. For many of the topics, I found myself wishing there was more detail. Although everything is fully explained, readers having some basic science knowledge will find this book easier to follow. There is one serious flaw, there is a large number of typographical errors (some figures are badly scrambled).and a few of the illustrations are badly flawed. Find the list errata in the author's website.

Needs some repair.
You will need to visit understandingtheforecast.org right away, to download the errata. There are 32 errors listed in the errata, as of 17 December 2008.Four figures need to be replaced, though one is an update to reflect the 2007 IPCC report.Unfortunately, the replacement figures are not the same size as those in the book.You cannot merely paste them over; you will need to tape them as a flap, so that you can still read the caption.You will likely find more typos in the book than those listed in the errata.Depending on how valuable your time is, you may effectively double the price of the book.

In addition to the typos, there are some serious errors in the book.The author is a geochemist.The opening chapter on the greenhouse effect, "The layer model", is incorrect for anything but epsilon=1 (epsilon being the emissivity).A term for radiation from the surface is missing entirely from the last equation on page 25.That term would have a factor of (1-epsilon).Fortunately, the solutions listed in Table 3.1 are for epsilon=1, but that is not stated explicitly in the text.Furthermore, there is confusion about the use of the same symbol, epsilon, for both the emissivity of the atmosphereand the surface.You can repair Chapter 3 (or ignore it) by referringto the Wikipedia for "Idealized greenhouse model".

A minor error appears on 157,in regards to the storm surge associated with a hurricane. We read "These are caused by the low atmospheric pressure inside a hurricane lifting up the sea surface".An elementary hydrostatic calculation reveals the a 100 millibar pressure deficit would lift the ocean surface by merely one meter.Storm surges associated with hurricanes are cause by the wind. See the Wikipedia for "Storm Surge".

On page 89: "If we were to precipitate the CO2 into a snowfall of dry ice ... 7cm of snow on the ground." The correct answer is 4 mm. In Figure 9.2: the label should be Gton C/TW yr.

Some of the presentation of the greenhouse effect is outstanding.Chapter 4, and particularly the figures of the spectra at the top of the atmosphere, give a wonderful graphic presentation of radiative forcing and its logarithmic dependence on carbon dioxide concentration. The equilibrium warming that would result from the radiative forcing is again shown with recourse to a spectra.These spectra for the warmed atmosphere provide a excellent starting point for a discussion of the feedbacks (assuming the discussants understand the spectra), which make the forecast uncertain.

The book really shines in the presentation of the chemistry, the carbon cycle and energy policy.

With a little repair by the reader, the book is turned into a five star book.

Basic mechanisms demystified
There are some annoying typographical errors in this book, otherwise I would give
it five stars --- visit the book's website for a list of errata.

Plenty of books tell you about global warming, but this book really does
dymystify the nuts and bolts of how climate scientists know what they
say they know. The book says it is based on a course for non-scientists and
it shows --- the explanations are clearly honed from experience of explaining
scientific concepts to non-scientists. It is always difficult for scientists
in any field to convey the depth of knowledge which has accumulated over
a long period of time to people coming from other disciplines, but this book
does a pretty good job.

Excellent undergrad-level description of the climate
The climate books by Flannery, Kolbert, etc. tend to be anecdotal, with qualitative descriptions of how the climate works.While I think those books are valuable, what's been missing is a more technical description of the physics of the climate system that's accessible to people who aren't physics majors.This book is it.It serves as a bridge between the fully qualitative books and highly technical textbooks requiring calculus.There is some math in it, so math-phobes might approach it with caution.I think the book would be especially useful to scientists or grad students who want to know something about the climate problem, but don't want to invest a lot of time in reading dense textbooks or journal articles.I'm going to have my incoming grad students who did not major in atmospheric sciences read it in order to educate themselves quickly about the climate. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

A fine educational tool for young student environmental activists
"A Kids' Guide to Climate Change and Global Warming" is a recent workbook for kids in grade 6 and up in the How To Take Action! series. It contains a global warming map, carbon footprints explanation, water audits, youth summits, alternative energies, cool foods, green comics and much more to empower kids to take action to reduce or end global warming. Providing step by step suggestions for effective activities, "A Kids' Guide to Climate Change and global Warming" is a fine educational tool for young student environmental activists.
... Read more

Product Description
In this New York Times bestseller, authors Singer and Avery present the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with natural physical records, the authors argue that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (198)

Singer's organization SEPP receives funding through oil companies, such as ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Unocal.
Before you read this book do some simple research on the authors. You will find that they both have conflicts of interest and receive substantial funding by those who like to see climate action defeated. Would you trust a judge that was ruling on a case against a company where he had significant stock in?? I think not...

In 1990, Singer set up the Scientific & Environmental Protection Project (SEPP) to argue against preventive measures against global warming. After the 1991 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, the Earth Summit, Singer started writing and speaking out frequently to cast doubt on the science.

When SEPP began, it was affiliated to the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, a think tank run by the Unification Church. A 1990 article for the Cato Institute identifies Singer as the director of the science and environmental policy project at the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy, on leave from the University of Virginia.

Singer has since cut ties with the Washington Institute, and receives funding through consultancy work and grants from foundations and oil companies, such as ARCO, ExxonMobil, Shell, and Unocal. Singer has said his financial relationships do not influence his research. Scheuering writes that his conclusions concur with the economic interests of the companies who pay him, in that the companies want to see a reduction in environmental regulation.

In August 2007 Newsweek reported that in April 1998 a dozen people from what it called "the denial machine" met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. The meeting included Singer's group, the George C. Marshall Institute, and ExxonMobil. Newsweek said that, according to an eight-page memo that was leaked, the meeting proposed a $5-million campaign to convince the public that the science of global warming was controversial and uncertain. The plan was leaked to the press and never implemented.

A Great, Essential Read
Well written, fully documented, a vast array of references from referred journals!Makes an overwhelming case for the 1,500 year cycle that ties climate change into the ice ages as well as the lesser known climatic swings of historic times, from the Romans to the American colonial period.Evidence varies from ice drilling cores from Greenland and Antarical to borings into ancient oceanic sediments, as well as an array of data from archeology, history and other sciences not normally related to paleoclimatic research.

There can be little doubt about the basic 1,500-year warming cycle, imbedded within the larger cycles such as the the sun cycles accounting for the glacial periods.

An interesting conclusion is the assertion that a little global warming will be good for us and benefit global humanity greatly.Given this conclusion, the relatively minor variations attributed by global warming sensationalists to greenhouse gases virtually irrelavant and of little interest, even if they are accurate - which is highly doubtful.

A fresh dose of objective science in an arena where political posturing and special interests are so deeply entrenched in scientific institutions, academia, corporate interests likely to benefit from GW panic in massive governmental grants, liberal media outlets and Hollywood.Its nice to hear from a scientific community that doesn't have to cower at the threat their scientific emails might be made pubic.

Orin C. Patton, BA, MS, PhD

S. Fred Singer?
This is the same S. Fred Singer that was under contract from Philip Morris to deny that tobacco and second hand smoke didn't cause cancer.

Excellent discussion
Fred Singer presents a cogent argument that describes the actual data of global warming and its relation to past history.He successfully looks beyond the distortions of the IPCC report and provides insight into the actual science, not jury rigged models.As a physicist, I enjoyed his repeated recitation of global warming as a natural phenomenon, replete with references to real work, rather than interest group hyperbole.

Careful Review of Science Refutes Global Warming Myths
With their new book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery skewer all the misinformation that has been used for so long in an attempt to convince society that mankind is the root cause of all global climate change.

The book is truly amazing! It meticulously supports, with hundreds of detailed, published references, the clear facts and conclusions that the Earth's climate has been traveling a well-defined rollercoaster path of temperature change for at least 900,000 years.

Everyone reading this review should buy two copies of the book, keeping one in plain view at their home or office while sending one to a friend or government official who may be called upon to make a decision regarding CO2 emissions into our atmosphere.


An Inconvenient Antidote

In almost a point-by-point refutation of Al Gore's unsupportable rant that "the debate is over; man is warming the Earth," Singer and Avery explain technically but lucidly why nearly every cherry-picked fact in Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth" is contradicted by science, which weighs heavily in favor of a very different truth: Man is in fact all but irrelevant to global climate, as the sun and its accompanying solar system rule.

Anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming has been the scare du jour of the collectivist environmental movement, socialist countries, and academic money launderers for nearly a decade now. Unlike the past Y2K scare, ozone elimination, and avian flu, efforts to combat global warming will have long-term, serious, negative impacts on the citizens of the world, whose quality of life, especially in the poorest nations, will be disastrously worsened.

It will not be possible to read Unstoppable Global Warming without being convinced a sham is being perpetrated on society. Even a 30-minute perusal of the text will impress the average unbrainwashed person that despite Gore's beautiful pictures of heaving ice flows in both his movie and book, man is not the culprit behind climate change. Singer and Avery's well-chosen book title alone should give the thinking person pause.


Data in Ice Cores

In the opening chapter, "Is Humanity Losing the Global Warming Debate?" Singer and Avery explain how the ratio of two isotopes of oxygen allows us to date the age in which air bubbles were trapped in ice, and that with almost a million years of ice cores we can readily tell that periodic warming of the Earth has occurred persistently almost every 1,500 years.

That obviously does not square with efforts to get us to reduce our use of cars, air conditioners, and fertilizer in order to reduce carbon in our atmosphere. Technological advances have increased our life expectancy by 30 years during the past century, but now we are being asked to give much of it up and return to organic farming, which was able to support only 1.5 billion people 100 years ago.

If we gave up high-yield farming, as many global warming alarmists desire, we would need to clear all the world's forests to sustain our current food demands, and thus eliminate about half of the world's wildlife.

This brings up a key question: Do environmental zealots really care about the environment, or do they simply hate people? Singer and Avery make it clear: "Humanity and wildlife may both be losing the debate."


Climate Cycles

Singer and Avery document the exhaustive data search they performed to confirm conclusively the existence of a 1,500-year warming cycle. They grappled with the 100,000-year elliptical cycle of the Earth's orbit, the 41,000-year axial tilt cycle of the Earth, and the 23,000-year precessing or wobble cycle.

In addition to those cycles, they thoroughly document the most influential cycle of all: the 1,500-year solar cycle that drives most of the Earth's climate cycle.

The authors shatter the greenhouse gas theory, making it clear humanity's modest addition to the atmosphere's small amount of carbon dioxide does not add up to a significant alteration in temperature.

In obliterating the Kyoto Protocol as a construct to change anything, the authors uncover a suppressed report from the federal government of Canada, which concluded that country's expenditure of $500 million to reduce greenhouse gases was "largely wasted, producing neither a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions nor the development of new, cleaner technologies."


Scaremongering Exposed

With merciless precision and incontrovertible scientific proof, Singer and Avery show mankind need not fear there will be sea level surges, devastating floods, the mass extinction of species, famine, drought, barren soil, more frequent and fierce storms, death by warming, and then an eventual sharp turn to killer cold.

One of my favorite chapters focuses on common sense regarding the extinction of species. The authors explain that most of the world's animal species evolved 600 million years ago, so we know most of today's species have successfully dealt with ice ages and global warming periods that have sent temperatures much higher and much lower than today's temperatures.


Ulterior Motives Unmasked

Singer and Avery unveil the best imaginable view of global warming alarmists' true objectives when they explain that what the Greens want is "to end or severely restrict the use of fossil fuels."

Famous fear-monger Paul Ehrlich saw civilization self-destructing as a result of having too many rich people using too many resources. Following his lead, global warming alarmists want solar and wind energy because they are erratic and expensive, and they want organic farming because reducing yields by half will achieve a radical reduction in our capacity to populate the Earth.


Warming Benefits the Biosphere

In addition to disassembling the absurd scenarios of the anti-human zealots, the authors calmly present the logical lessons from history that provide so much cause for optimism. A case in point:

"Human food production historically has prospered during global warmings. ... Warming climates provide more of the things plants love: sunlight, rainfall, and longer growing seasons. During warmings there are less of the things plants hate: late spring frosts and early fall frosts that shorten the growing seasons, and hail storms that destroy fields of crops," Singer and Avery observe.

"Human food production today depends far more on farming technology than on modest climate changes," the authors note. "We are no more doomed to famine by the Modern Warming than we are doomed to malaria in the era of pesticides and window screens. In fact, the food abundance the world has increasingly enjoyed since the eighteenth century is primarily due to scientific and technological advances."


Dramatic Weather Events

Along the same lines, Singer and Avery look at history and confirm that the frequency and severity of hurricanes, droughts, thunderstorms, hail, and tornadoes have not increased in recent years.

They point out, for example, that John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, in testimony before Congress, "noted that the most significant droughts in the Southwestern United States occurred more than four hundred years ago, before 1600. He stated that before 1850, America's Great Plains were called 'the Great American Desert,' and experts at the time said the region couldn't be farmed. Weather just seems unusual and dangerous these days, said Christy, because of the increased media coverage of major storms."


Computer Model Flaws

The authors explain a subject few of us really understand--the global warming computer models that are used to scare the public on a daily basis. They are properly called Global Circulation Models, or GCMs, and they are the megastars of today's climate and environmental research.

Unstoppable Global Warming is worth owning if just for chapter 11, which explains the limitations of GCMs quite clearly for folks without a deep scientific background.

Here is a sample:

"The GCMs are three-dimensional computer models that attempt to pull together and project into the future all major causes of climate change--jet streams in the upper atmosphere; deep ocean currents; solar radiation reflected back to space by ice sheets and glaciers; changes in vegetation; naturally changing greenhouse gas levels; eddies in the ocean that transfer heat laterally; number, type, and altitude of clouds in the skies; variations in radiant energy coming from the sun; plus hundreds of other factors."

Singer and Avery explain in meticulous detail why these efforts are instructive on a pure research level but foolish as a guide for any precise decision-making, especially given how the models have failed to reproduce today's climate accurately when inputting real-world data.

From cover to cover, Unstoppable Global Warming is truly elegant reading--so much so that I cannot wait to read it again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jay Lehr, Ph.D. (lehr@heartland.org) is science director for The Heartland Institute.

... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (2)

A Short Easy Read
This was an interesting, and easy to read small book that highlights some of the issues surrounding Gullible Warming and why there is no problem.

The Title Says it All
In one of the more delightful innovations in book publishing, Encounter books is now presenting a series of "broadsides," pamphlets with the look and feel of 18th century political tracts but addressing modern issues.As someone who spent a considerable portion of his life reading 18th century tracts, I appreciate the effort.Eighteenth century title pages differ from modern ones in that they tend to lay out the contents of the whole book, and this Encounter piece is no different.Prominent research scientist and climate expert Roy Spencer essentially divides this book into two parts; one dealing with the bad policy of climate "science" and the other dealing with the "science" itself.

Spencer rightly, in my mind, devotes more time to the policy side of the debate.The "science" portion has already been pretty much completely discredited by the release of the East Anglia CRU emails and code.Nonetheless, Spencer does sift through some of the "conclusions" found in the IPCC reports for lay readers who may still think that these documents actually are mere summaries of the current research.He notes (correctly) that the editors of the IPCC reports are for the most part politicians, bureaucrats and a few activist scientists who tend to "extrapolate well beyond what the science can actually support."(p.19)He also dissects the claim that carbon dioxide is the only "known" source of the recent warming by noting that, for the most part, other solutions to warming and cooling episodes simply have not been studied, most notably cloud cover. In part, this is due to the lack of resources, until recently, to make such a study.The bottom line is that the science is far more equivocable than most politicans imply when they discuss the need to control climate change.

And it is the solutions these politicians support that truly merits critical attention. Spencer examines both the cap and trade proposals and the carbon tax proposal and finds each wanting, though he correctly notes that the former is far more destructive to the economy than the latter.He brings up a point seldom recognized by those who pretend we can legislate technological advances into existance.One of the first things that companies cut when they face difficult economic times is research and development.So carbon caps, far from promoting technological change, will likely hinder it.And of course in some areas, significant change is unlikely in any event.Solar power tries to capture the diffuse energy from the sun, as opposed to using the concentrated solar energy found in fossil fuels.But solar energy as such simply cannot provide the power we need.Nuclear power can, but here the problem is government regulations, not free markets, that are hindering the development of a relatively carbon free power source.The Obama administration is doing little to change this situation.

In the final analysis, this little book does what any broadside should do.It summarizes the issues quickly and accurately for a lay audience.Those who want to learn more about the subject should look to Spencer's more detailed book, Climate Confusion but in this pamphlet you will find far more useful information than you are likely to get in a year's worth of articles in the NY or LA Times.A very worthwhile read. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (112)

Sensible outlook
The writer presented his easy-to-understand comments on a complex topic without launching an attack on everyone who is concerned about warming of the planet and possible consequences. This book would be instructive, but gut-wrenching, reading for anyone who is 100% behind proposals to stop man-made global warming no matter what the effects on our economy.

MUST READ!!
Climate Confusion is a great book that will bring you back to the basics of the Global Warming phenomenon.

A real climatologist, not a former next president of the United States, takes you on a fact finding tour of science versus politics. Roy Spencer points out how economics plays a vital role in our decisions if in fact global warming is man-made but also provides plenty of evidence that there is simply proof that man has done this.

All it takes is a quick review of the constituents of the atmosphere and you find that H2O, not CO2, is the biggest contributor of global warming and this book goes to great length to show that science does not yet understand the H2O component enough to make any kind of interpretation on the impact of man.

My favorite quotes from the book relate the economics of Climate Change and the environment:

"But as long as the supposed "rights" of nature supersede the rights of the people to use the natural resources that they require to thrive, the United States will never approach energy independence."

"poverty in poor countries is not from a lack of natural resources" & "the biggest impediment to wealth building within a nation is governmental interference and control over people's lives"

A great book on a global fraud
I have studied the global warming / climate change issue for several years. This book is the best discussion on the warming that has taken place and how it fits in geologic time.

Funded by Exxon and the Heartland institute
This work of fiction has no place in the Science category.The author is funded through the Heartland Institute, an organization dedicated to defending Big Oil and sowing confusion about global warming for the sake of corporate profits.Time after time the author has been exposed as a charlatan and a mouthpiece for the oil industry.

Stay far, far away from garbage like this.

More disinformation masquerading as "balanced" science
Here is what the "most helpful favorable view" said: "He [Spencer]is clearly no biased partisan"

This subject is so manipulated and driven by ideology that Spencer, simply by acknowledging something that is basic science -- of course our activities affect climate -- is suddenly "no biased partisan."

The greatest threat to mankind is not climate change (mass warfare is probably a greater threat anyway in the big picture in terms of what it can do), but rampant ignorance.Spencer, someone with some knowledge on the subject who is to anyone who is both intimately familiar with the topic AND objective and can dissociate the politics from the science, is an ideologue.That is contributing to our ignorance on this topic.

I glanced through this, and it's the same Roy Spencer as most everywhere else. Making assumptions, postulating them as fact. Omitting key details.And presenting small facets of the actual relevance and issue, erroneously, as if it defines the whole.

On his rather disinformative website -- where he does exactly the same as described while of course, similarly mixing in just enough science -- Spencer made the grandiloquent case as to why climate change is "exaggerated" (despite the fact that we keep on burning fossil fuels at rapid pace, are not sufficiently adjusting methane output, and deforestation continues.)

His key basis was to attack computerized climate models. Which of course, even though they have been more accurate than not (sometimes by quite a bit) overall, are easy to poke many holes in. It does not mean they are worthless, or tell the real story (or even can tell the real story.)

And this attack upon how climate models are flawed was his key point, from which he was able to assert that climate change concern is overwrought."Since," as he put it:

"Computerized climate models are the main source of concern over manmade global warming."

They are the most popular. They are the easiest to grab a hold of. The most tangible, in some ways, since obviously something that is based in physics, geology and biology and concerns future effects, is otherwise abstract. But they are not the main source of concern. (Or "cause," which is the context Spencer used here, as his basis against the issue itself.) Anyone who writes that they are the main source or cause of concern, let alone uses it as the key basis for his case against climate change, either does not really understand the issue, or is an ideologue.

Spencer is one of the two. Take your pick.

Questions to Spencer pointing out, incidentally, that models are not the main cause for concern but a way for us to at least try and put a tangible handle on more specific (and often limiting) parameters, have never been answered by him, as they might upset his neat little over-simplistic and highly misleading take on the issue; a take which supports a predetermined view.This is something, despite constant protestation and assertions to the contrary, that is driving much of the analysis of the "work" and assertions on this issue today. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (71)

Follow the money
If you've thought that the media coverage about global warming- excuse me, "climate change"- has been weird for the last two decades, you're not alone.The author shows that we weren't watching a scientific debate but rather a coordinated public relations campaign.The author should know- he is the president of a successful public relations firm in Canada.

Why wasn't this a scientific debate?Because, as Hoggan explains in his first chapter, there is no debate and there hasn't been for at least 20 years.All articles printed in peer-reviewed journals and all scientists whose expertise is in climate study agree.The earth is warming, human activities are contributing to that warming and, perhaps most importantly, humans can alter those activities to reverse or stop some of the damage.

It is that last point that has indirectly led to the confusion that has played out in the popular media for so long.If we change our behavior, the parties that will be most impacted are the corporations who produce oil, coal and other fossil energy products.Indeed, ExxonMobil has been shown to be one of the biggest contributors to the "think tanks" and "grassroots" organizations that have worked to sow doubt about global warming.Coal companies are close behind.Many of the tactics that are used to discredit the scientific understanding and exploit the minimal factor of uncertainty (more about when than if) were pioneered by tobacco companies in the decades before.

The author worries that we're going to be outraged by what he writes, but at some points you just laugh, especially after you've read about the seventh or eighth "climate expert" who is shown to be anything but.While I admire anyone who can get a Ph.D. in any field, I must agree that someone whose degree is in sociology or classics isn't as qualified to critique climate research as someone whose degree is in, well, climatology or atmospheric physics.

That's funny.What isn't funny are the lies- excuse me, exaggerations- frequently used by the debunkers or deniers.I suppose it's one thing to cherry pick facts and drastically misconstrue someone's position, but it's another thing to essentially forge signatures or trick someone into participating in the making of a video or the authorship of a paper.

As much as we can be justifiably disgusted by these tactics, let's not let the mainstream media off the hook for their role.Media outlets should be open to "balancing" viewpoints when they are talking about matters that are based on opinion or somewhat unknown.Most things might fall into that: politics, economic policy (most agree that's an educated guess) and restaurant, movie and book reviews.But when we're talking about facts (documented historical finding, the law and agreed upon scientific facts), no, they do not have an obligation to host a debate on the matter.Simply claiming that everyone has the right to exercise their free speech doesn't excuse them from publishing something that is factually incorrect, such as the infamous George Will op-ed in 2009 in the Washington Post.

The author made his case very well, but the first few chapters stumbled.His transition from the tobacco company tactics to the climate deniers was a little jarring- how did we get there?- but it otherwise flowed pretty well.However, citing Wikipedia not once but twice just made me shake my head- I had to take off a star for that.

Still, a good history of why and how- everyone should read this.

Great! (But terrifying)
This book is great if you are interested in the topic. Even being in the field, this had a ton of new information I had no idea about previously. The book clearly shows how it is an incredibly organized mission to discredit the science. I particularly recommend Chapter 16 as a nice overview of information and the state of the public image of global warming. I only wish they had put one of the more reputable quotes on the front cover . . . (no offense Leo). Maybe not a page turner for your average reader, but definitely a worthwhile book!

Excellent book!
"Climate Coverup" is a wonderful piece of work, exposing an incredible effort to undermine years of scientific research and fool the public.It is written in a clear, concise style and makes and irrefutable argument.

Lacking focus
I was very excited about reading Climate Cover-Up and the book started off with the powerful, if not particularly surprising argument that the battle over global warming was one more of public relations than of truth or science. It turns out that the author has been a professional in this field for most of his working life. This turned out, initially, to be a strength of the book, but ultimately became its undoing. What should have been the primary theme of the book, global climate change, slowly morphed into a lengthy and ultimately, boring analysis of public relations often delving into the complex histories around the efforts around the long public debate about cigarettes and how they ought to be marketed in the US. Moreover, while global climate change is an international problem, the author tended to focus on Canadian sources which made the book feel parochial and added to the sense that this was really not the book I was look for. Climate Cover Up is not a failure. How these issues are addressed by public relations firms is an important part of understanding the how the problem gets processed in our socio-political world, but most of was both predictable and, finally, less than exciting or revealing reading.
Eric is the author of: Liberation from the Lie: Cutting the Roots of Fear Once and for All

Quite a preach to the choir
Throughout the book Mr Hoggan presents plenty of well-documented cases of cover-ups, wrong-doings by "deniers" and "junk scientists" under the payroll of big industry, the naughty Bush Administration, and other more subtle "saboteurs" responsible for the "bogus"global warming controversy. The book is very comprehensive but almost no new material is presented as most of it has already been available in the web for some time. Mr. Hoggan strongly believes that there is consensus among scientists and no scientific controversy, the only controversy is artificially created by the denial industry, as he called it, and climate change is undeniable and catastrophic. Truly a preach to the choir!

The author is so dogmatic regarding the science and policies regarding climate change, that he leaves no room for any middle ground position, lukewarmers, or even healthy skepticism: you are either a good guy or a bad guy, you either accept the science or you are a contrarian.In the real world however, the fact is that there are plenty of positions between these two extremes. Not surprisingly Hoggan attacks in the book several individuals with no connections to big oil, big energy or the Bush administration, such as reputable scientists Freeman Dyson and Richard Lindzen, independent and healthy skeptic Stephen McIntyre, the self-declared environmentalist Bjon Lomborg, and the late Michael Crichton.I was surprised he did not attack Nigel Lawson, as his book makes quite a few non no-sense criticisms to the economics of climate change (seeAn Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming).

Why? Because these are the worst kind of enemies to the cause, as each of these individuals dared to raise a couple of good questions or painful issues, or the worst sin, tried to verify the results of peer-reviewed papers (such as the famous Hockey Stick) or questioned the economics of climate change mitigation.According to Hoggan if you do not have a Ph.D. in climate science or related fields, and published peer-reviewed papers on the field, you should keep your mouth shut. Throughout the book Mr. Hoggan, from the high moral ground the righteousness of his cause entitles him, uses well-known tactics to prevent any serious debate, so these individuals are subject to ad hominem attacks, guilt by association or age, and as he recommends to the readers, always looks first for the credentials and motive, in particular, the economic interest of those dissenting, never mind the merits of their arguments.As so many other advocates and interest groups do today, Mr Hoggan is dominated by emotion, dogmatism, and intolerance of dissent, and not even once he engages the actual merits of the arguments. Don't you know healthy skepticism is required for science to progress? A good cause is no justification for censoring the scientific debate.

Of course that anyone with a background in science or engineeringwith good common sense can make some uncomfortable questions, these people are more than qualified to ask questions about the methods of science, and anyone with experience in computer simulation surely wonders about climate simulation and particularly the calibration "fudge" factors, as Freeman Dyson calls them. Didn't we learn anything with failure of the infallible financial risk models developed by the best minds and mathematicians of the planet? And regarding climate mitigation, of course that those with a background with economics are qualified to ask uncomfortable questions too. And regarding writer Michael Crichton, most of his science fiction work is based on distrust and misuse of science and technology, and State of Fear is no exception. Crichton raised a quite valid criticism and made objective recommendations in the author's afterword of that novel.

Even the not so innocent Lawrence Solomon in his book The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, raises some valid issues. Chapter 8 presents criticism by Freeman Dyson and Antonino Zichichi, questioning the confidence and validity of climate simulation forecasts, particularly regarding the use of parametrization or "fudge factors". Also look for Hendrik Tennekes arguments regarding the lack of falsifiability from Popper's philosophical point of view.

And as for McIntyre the Climategate scandal demonstrated that he was right in the money (see details in the book Climategate: The Crutape Letters (Volume 1)). The unethical and non scientific behavior of the two renown climate scientists involved in this scandal more than justify to conduct climate research in the way that Crichton suggested, following the strict protocols used in medical and pharmaceutical research.However, neither this scandal, nor the small big errors in the fourth IPPC report mean that climate science is a fraud as extremist deniers have asserted, indeed it point us to the urgent need of more transparency and accountability by the climate science establishment.

Because this issue is so contentious, I recommend you to read "The Economist" piece on the March 20-26 edition entitled "The clouds of unknowing. This is a very balanced view of the realities and limitations of climate science, and the problem with exaggerations, there is plenty of grey in between, lukewarm indeed, and alarmism is not helpful. In order to understand why this debate has become so polarized and irrational, and a really insightful discussion about the sociological reasons of the controversy I recommend Mike Hulme's Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity, and he is a renown climate scientist just in case you were doubting his credentials. For a book in the same line of thinking but written for the laymen do not miss Climate of Uncertainty, quite a balanced view of the debate and a bold criticism both sides of the controversy and their attempts do manipulate us toward their political agenda.

And finally, regarding any kind of scientific controversy or dubious claims, read Lies, Damned Lies, and Science: How to Sort through the Noise around Global Warming, the Latest Health Claims, and Other Scientific Controversies, quite a primer to explore for your own controversial scientific claims in an objective matter.

PS: for those who think my review was too harsh, please read the Hartwell Paper published in May 2010 (available for free in pdf format in the web, just google). In this publication Hulme and another 13 academics and energy advocates argued that the Kyoto Protocol has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years, and therefore, after the Copenhagen fiasco, Kyoto has crashed. They argued that this failure opens an opportunity to set climate policy free from Kyoto and they propose a controversial and piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy which will be more pluralistic and much more effective than the policies based on Kyoto. They also are quite honest about the uncertainties and limitation of climate science, not precisely what Mr. Hoggan wants you believe in his book and proving that there is indeed a quite spacious middle ground. Do not miss it. ... Read more

Product Description

A non-heated discussion on global warming and climate change

Interested in getting to the core of the reasons for the Earth's changing climate? Want an accurate reading on the science behind global warming? Here's your gauge! This easy-to-follow guide offers a temperate view of this hot topic.

Global Warming & Climate Change Demystified starts by looking at scientific data gathered from weather instruments, satellite telemetry, ice cores, and coral sections that reveal how the Earth's temperature is changing. The book goes on to examine the causes of climate change, including both natural processes and human-generated greenhouse gases. Finally, the consequences of global warming are discussed and a wide variety of viable solutions that can be implemented by individuals as well as society as a whole are presented. Complete with end-of-chapter quizzes and a final review to test your knowledge, this book will teach you the fundamentals of global warming and climate change in an unbiased and thorough manner.

This fast and easy guide offers:

• A thorough review of scientific data
• Details on the evidence of global warming worldwide
• Information on the origin and impact of greenhouse gases
• Explanations of alternatives to carbon-based energy sources
• Suggestions for local and global solutions

Simple enough for a beginner, but challenging enough for an advanced student, Global Warming & Climate Change Demystified is your shortcut to understanding this important and timely issue.

Customer Reviews (2)

The most factual and understandable book on global warming.
Many books written on the topic of global warming and climate change. However, this one stands out as being especially helpful in understanding this complex issue that I think has confused a lot of people. For one thing it lays out the science in a clear and understandable way. It can be read by someone who does not have a strong scientific backgroud or interest. But it can also gives a reader enough detail to go beyond the simple assertions of fact found in other books and articles. The book is honest and direct with the facts. It does not over-dramatize the problem as some other books have done. It retails a lot of crediblity by stating but not overstating the scientific data that has been gathered in recent years. The reader is given the opportunity to respond to the issue without being beaten over the head with a political agenda. The case for global warming caused by humans burning fossil fuels however is made clear to the reader. Its effects in terms of impact on the planet are also spelled out in convincing detail. What I like best is the section on solutions. This is not a lets-be-green for a day feel good book. The solutions go well beyond just screwing in more efficient light bulbs or everyone doing their part. Specific changes to how we generate energy and transport people are spelled out. Coal will be a dominant and unavoidable source of electric power for the next several decades. This book provides a very practical and realistic insight into what needs to be done to reduce the impact of coal on climate while searching for longer term renewable sources of power. I also like the fact that this book is up to date in that it includes the most recent results from the IPCC and the Bali confernece held this year. There are several good books coming out on the subject of climate change (and some not so good ones), but I think this one should be on everyone's list.

Awesome book!
This book was very informative, especially for people who don't fully understand science. Full of great examples and pictures! Highly highly recommended! ... Read more

Product Description

Bjorn Lomborg argues that many of the elaborate and staggeringly expensive actions now being considered to meet the challenges of global warming ultimately will have little impact on the world’s temperature. He suggests that rather than focusing on ineffective solutions that will cost us trillions of dollars over the coming decades, we should be looking for smarter, more cost-effective approaches (such as massively increasing our commitment to green energy R&D) that will allow us to deal not only with climate change but also with other pressing global concerns, such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. And he considers why and how this debate has fostered an atmosphere in which dissenters are immediately demonized.

Amazon.com Review
Amazon.com Guest Reviewer: Michael Crichton
In his many science-themed bestsellers--including The Andromeda Strain, Jurassic Park, Prey, and most recently, Next--Michael Crichton has covered everything from genetically engineered dinosaurs to time travel to nantechnology run amok. Having cast his own views on the dangers and hysteria surrounding global warming with State of Fear, he turns his pen toward the often controversial Bjørn Lomborg and his latest book, Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming.

---

Bjørn Lomborg is the best-informed and most humane advocate for environmental change in the world today. In contrast to other figures that promote a single issue while ignoring others, Lomborg views the globe as a whole, studies all the problems we face, ranks them, and determines how best, and in what order, we should address them.His first book, The Skeptical Environmentalist, established the importance of a fact-based approach.With later books, Global Crises, Global Solutions and How to Spend $50 Billion to Make the World a Better Place, this mild-mannered Danish statistician has steadily gained new converts.Not surprisingly, Time Magazine named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.

Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming will further enhance Lomborg’s reputation for global analysis and thoughtful response. For anyone who wants an overview of the global warming debate from an objective source, this brief text is a perfect place to start.Lomborg is only interested in real problems, and he has no patience with media fear-mongering; he begins by dispatching the myth of the endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing.Lomborg considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased five fold since the 1960s.

Lomborg then works his way through the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it.Lomborg believes firmly in climate change--despite his critics, he's no denier--but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him again and again to a different view.He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, and the cost of addressing it, and concludes that "we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem.That is a bad deal."

In some of the most disturbing chapters, Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate.Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.

In the end, Lomborg’s concerns embrace the planet.He contrasts our concern for climate with other concerns such as HIV/AIDS, malnutrition, and providing clean water to the world.In the end, his ability to put climate in a global perspective is perhaps the book’s greatest value. Lomborg and Cool It are our best guides to our shared environmental future.

--Michael Crichton

(photo credit: Jonathan Exley)

---

... Read more

Customer Reviews (134)

An Excellent, Logical Viewpoint that Isn't Voiced Often Enough
This is one of the few books that I think everyone should read. Global warming has become such an incredibly irrational issue, and this book brings a rational, objective voice to the debate. Basically, this book is meant to cool everyone's temper on the issue (hence the name "Cool It"), and provide logical solutions to the problem.

Lomborg's main argument is the following: global warming is caused at least partially by humans, but dealing with it by means of extreme CO2 cuts it not a viable solution. Instead, he argues that using our world's resources to solve other world problems, such as disease and poverty, will have an incredibly larger benefit to the world in the long-term, and will in turn put us in a better position to deal with a world that is slightly warmer than it is now. He argues that we should continue making our technology more environmentally-friendly, but that suddenly making all technology have no environmental impact (as some environmentalists want) is completely unreasonable. In addition, Lomborg argues that the effects of global warming will not be nearly as apocalyptic as most media sources would have us believe, and hence completely preventing the slight temperature increases that it will bring is not necessary.

Lomborg supports his position with a tremendous amount of evidence, cost-benefit analyses, and references. To give an idea of how much his argument is supported, this book has 164 pages of actual content, and there are approximately 450 citations and 400 references. Of course I can't browse through all of them to see how valid they are, but of the few dozen that I checked they seemed quite reliable. However, there are some claims that I found somewhat hard to believe, such as what is predicted by the various models of climate and human condition that Lomborg references. For example, Lomborg claims that humans will be richer in general over the coming century, which I find somewhat believable, but I find it hard to believe the precise numbers that he gives from the models of the worldwide economy that he references.

As I mentioned, I recommend this book to EVERYONE. You might not believe all the claims made in the book, but it definitely provides an excellent viewpoint on the subject. The book is short enough to be accessible to almost anyone, yet it doesn't miss any important aspect of the issue.

Hardly Sceptical
I finally got around to reading this book, several years after its hey day. Of course, with topical books one often wants to read 9or reread) them several years after their time has passed to see how they hold up. In the case of this book, then answer is not well.

Mr. Lomborg likes to present himself as a reasonable sceptic who tends towards support for the environment. In his first project/book, Global Crises / Global ollutions, he proposed an interesting and sometimes useful approach to ordering how we attack the many thorny problems that we face (there are fundamental flaws in his approach there, in that it discounts the deep connections of the problems, but at least it sparked some good dialog). That was a valuable contribution.

Close reading of his more recent books, The Sceptical Environmentalist and Cool It show a less attractive side to his thought. Mr. Lomborg does not seem to be an environmentalist or an ecologist by an useful definition. Nowhere in either book does he demonstrate even a basic understanding or current ecology or resilience. Nor does he come to grips with the natture of modeling and climate science. Instead he patches together misquotes from other writers (usually not populists such as Al Gore) and then selectively quotes the literature (usually the sceondary literature) in an attempt to suggest that key climate change issues are either irrelevant or exagerated.

There are three main problems with Mr. Lomborg's approach:

1. He picks apart straw men. If you go back an read the books he is criticizing he frequently misquotes them.

2. He is selective and inaccurate in how he uses source material (see the book The Lomborg Deception for details, or even better, pick one of his references and trace it back yourself).

3. He is over reliant on projections and does not seem to understand the difference between projections and scenarios. When dealing with phase shifts in natural or economic systems, basing decisions on projections is almost certain to constrain exploration of alternatives and blind one to what is really happening. This leads Mr. Lomborg to many errors. He underestimates the chances of 'black swan' phenomena and over estimates the likely economic costs of adaptation. There are many books available on scenario thinking and it is increasingly being applied to questions on how to think about climate change.

Note 1: I do not believe that 'the science is settled' in regard to climate change. Indeed, I am suspicious of the notion of 'science' being 'settled'. (Read Thomas Kuhn on this.) But I believe it is foolish to base policy on statistical and economic methods that are known to fail in situations where the base structure are shifting, and that it is just plain dumb to pretend we know what the scope of climate change will be or what policies or technologies we need to apply. We need to be open to explore different possibilities. In Cool It, Mr. Lomborg is attempting to shut down discussion, not open it up. He plays fast and loose with the data and is lazy in his research and thinking. I hope his next book will be better (and I will read it).

Note 2: I generally only give one star reviews if I think I writer has (i) written something worthwhile in the past or (ii) may write something worthwhile in the future. If a book is just poor I don't usually make the effort to review it.

Informative and Sensible
The "Global Warming" (or as it is now known "Climate Change") has become a major source of fascination, political friction, and scientific inquiry. There hardly passes a week without some major new doom-and-gloom headline warning us that we are about to destroy the Earth and everything that is on it. And yet most of us, true believers and skeptics alike, still live in fairly normal that doesn't seem to have any of the dramatic changes that the radical environmentalists have been warning us about. Meanwhile some major big issues are dominating our news reports, and equally big ones are dominating policy summits and top-level conferences. It turns out that most of these pressing issues are much easier to tackle, and the amount of money necessary for their solutions is much smaller than the enormous amounts that are constantly being requested of us to sacrifice in order to prevent the climate catastrophe. This, in a nutshell, is the gist of this short book by the famous environmental skeptic Bjorn Lomborg. In it he makes many concessions to the most dire climate change scenarios, and argues that even under those extreme conditions the health of the planet Earth would not be all that bad, and assuming the present rates of economic growth most countries would be more than capable of handling all the eventualities. Meanwhile we can concentrate many of our resources for the purpose of handling many more pressing problems that beset the World today.

One of the more interesting tidbits of information in this book is the fact that over the past century and a half the World oceans have already risen by the amount that even the most dire climate scenarios are predicting for the upcoming century. And yet we don't feel like we have witnessed a major catastrophe, and it is very likely that our descendents will be even more capable of handling the future rises of the sea levels.

Author Now Dis-Owns This Book and Reverses Decision
It's true!Bjorn just released a statement that global warming is a "challenge humanity must confront."

He is now urging the governments of the world to spend billions of dollars annually to fight the planet's slide into a disaterously hotter (and higher energy) climate situation.

He was not ever in the camp that said global warming didn't exist, or that it wasn't influenced by man.His reversal is that of the dire urgency of the situation.He used to preach that there were many other world problems that were much more worthy of attention.Now, after so much scientific data has been gathered, he has changed his tune drastically.Global warming is a problem worthy of urgent and significant attention after all.

Almost all that's left in the anti-global-warming camp are a handful of PR firms with scientists from disrelated fields on payroll to issue statements that cast doubt on the hard evidence that now exists.I believe these 'scientists' have suborned their scientific truths to their particular political patronization.

Two stars for this book.Five stars for Bjorn's about face.Let's see if he can undo some of the damage he has done after his decade of vocal denouncements.

Decent enough
As Lomborg says, there has been a breakdown in our sense of proportion regarding climate change.People treat global warming as absolutely the most pressing problem, whose solutions must be implemented before anything else (poverty, hunger, disease) can be addressed.Lomborg disagrees, believing that the most pressing goals should be to improve conditions for humans AND the environment.

Check out Lomborg's themes on pages 8-9 of the book.If you aren't with him there, then the book is basically meaningless to you.His points:

1) Global warming is real and manmade.
2) The consequences of global warming are wildly exaggerated in the media.
3) We need to tackle simple, smart solutions to global warming, not focus on cutting carbon emissions.
4) MANY other issues are more important than global warming.
5) The quality of life for the people on this planet should be the real goal of those who want to do good.

If these points strike you as heretical, then spare yourself the stretch of new ideas.

Personally, I don't go with him on point one -- I think there is plenty of room to question the man-made-ness of global climate change.

I go even further --
A) if the climate IS warming, is that necessarily bad? -- Lomborg does cover that point
B) how do we pinpoint an "ideal" global temperature -- who decides? And on what criteria?
C) The greatest force for improving human lives is the spread of free market economies.How do we unleash that force worldwide?

This book was written in 2007, before "hide the decline" shredded the credibility of the environmental doomsayers, and before "peer reviewed" became a punchline.

Lomborg develops his themes well, gives us a decent notes section and a good index, and produces a clear, well-written, concrete book.It's refreshing that not every environmentalist is a catastrophically pessimistic loather of mankind. ... Read more

Product Description
Global warming is arguably the most critical and controversial issue facing the world in the twenty-first century, one that will affect every living creature on the planet. It is also an extraordinarily complex problem, which everyone needs to understand as clearly and completely as possible. This Very Short Introduction provides a concise and accessible explanation of the key aspects of global warming. Mark Maslin discusses how and why changes are occurring, sets current warming trends in the context of past climate change, examines the predicted impact of global warming, as well as the political controversies of recent years and the many proposed solutions. Fully updated for 2008, this compelling account offers the best current scientific understanding of global warming, describing recent developments in US policy and the UK Climate Change Bill, where we now stand with the Kyoto Protocol, and the latest findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Maslin also includes a chapter on local solutions, reflecting the now widely held view that, to mitigate any impending disaster, governments as well as individuals must to act together. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (9)

Everything but the kitchen sink
I'll start this review by an admission: I am a global warming skeptic. To be a skeptic does not mean that I am unwilling to be persuaded by good arguments and well presented facts. To the contrary, as a scientist I am trained to be skeptical all the time and yet be willing to go out of my way to see all sides to a reasonable argument and if proven wrong to accept what the arguments establish. With that attitude in mind I have approached this little book as well: so far I have not been persuaded with most arguments on behalf of global warming proponents, and the recent spate of scandals that revealed some big holes in their arguments has only reinforced my skepticism. Nonetheless, I wanted to see what the experts in the field have to say about global warming, and I figured out this book would be as good of a starting point as they come. And if this is indeed a definitive introduction to the subject, then I am afraid that my previous skepticism will remain largely intact.

The very opening of the book is extremely unpromising. The author in no uncertain terms says in the preface what Global Warming in his opinion is all about: redistribution of wealth and resources from the wealthy western industrial powers to the underdeveloped third world countries. I have never seen as a tendentious opening of a book about what really should be a scientific topic. It puts most of the scientific consideration herein in question.

It takes 40 pages before we even get to the science behind global warming, which is almost a quarter of the entire book. This part of the book is actually the most interesting and certainly worth reading. It presents some interesting science behind climate and how it has changed over time. It describes the state-of-the art measuring and theoretical work that is ongoing in the field of climatology. Any science buff out there will certainly appreciate these chapters. Even so, there are several sleights of hand that had been utilized to skip over some more contentious topics. For instance, the evidence that in the past increase of CO2 in the atmosphere preceded the increases of global temperature is anything but watertight. And speaking of water, it is also well known that water vapor is the single most potent greenhouse gas, and yet it is hardly mentioned in this book. At the few places where it is mentioned it is dismissed by saying that the effects of the increased water vapor in the atmosphere are "poorly understood." This in itself raises a red flag in my eyes.

There are a few other sentences that trouble me to say the least:

In discussing satellite date the author says "The final problem with satellite data is that 20 years is just too short a time period to find a temperature trend with any confidence." And yet, throughout this book 20 year (and shorter) trends have been used as definitive proofs of certain aspects of global warming.

In dismissing the critics' suggestion that a lot of global warming predictions are very imprecise, the author suggests that we don't expect much precision from other walks of life, like from predicting which horse will win the race or which football team will win the match. I personally cannot imagine any serious scientist who would be willing to dismiss criticism of their work by comparing it to horse races or football matches.

The worst parts of the book are the ones that deal with social, political and economic issues. The author is completely out of his depth when it comes to these topics. In fact, many of his statements about economic considerations make me wonder if he even understands such elementary concepts as supply and demand, or if he does if he really cares about them and considers them relevant.

As some other reviewers have remarked, this book is not likely to win over the skeptics. And if there is any merit to the direst predictions of the global warming researchers, that is a crying shame to say the least. If the sky really is about to fall, it would serve us all to have a measured, succinct and to the point book that presents all the best science and evidence without devolving in all sorts of tangential directions.

An advanced and complete introduction to global warming
This book deserves much pride for putting so much good, varied and accurate information in so few pages. This edition has been updated in 2009.
The author covers several aspects of the global warming theory and of its political, social and economic implications. The scientific part of the book is of a quite high level (I am thinking about the ocean circulation perturbations that would follow a melting of either Greenland or the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. I had to read this part a couple of times to grasp it). That's maybe a problem in that this book is not really a "short introduction" but rather an "advanced introduction" to global warming. I would recommend another book to start with, for example Mann's Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming for those who do not know much about the field.
This book is however an excellent further reading. I like a lot the short history of global warming that starts the book, the parts about the disinformation campaigns orchestrated by fossil fuel lobbies and the Republicans in the 1990's and when G.W. Bush was at the White House. This puts the "skeptics" movement into the right perspective. I have also enjoyed a lot the Chapter about "surprises" (tipping points), although as mentioned above this part is sometimes too advanced for the book to pretend to be a "short introduction".
The author provides many references and does a great job of objectivity by acknowledging the limitations of our current knowledge of the climate system. He answers specifically to some classical "skeptics" thesis, which might help clarify some extremely outdated (but still repeated today) critics.
I have skipped the last chapters about solutions to global warming because I find them too much "classical". These parts are nice browsing through if you have never read about these aspects previously.
A very nice book that is perfectly suited as a second reading to the global warming issue, full of precious information and references for further reading.

Super knowledge related to climate change.
This is the International Year of Biodiversity:2010.Having said
that, what about the UK Climate Change and the recent developments of other Countries' Policies?

A very short introduction to a very long problem potentially.

The UK Climate Impacts Programme (UKCIP) website is suggested.

Where does the buck stop; does it with governmental power and
authority? To a large extent, but what about ever so many people
all around the planet.

"The European Union has maintained a coordinated position on
climate change, usually speaking through its presidency."

In this book the author offers the latest word in advanced sustainable development implementation.

Mark Maslin has written a very important book.

I strongly recommend this book.

Dag Stomberg
St. Andrews, Scotland

Good intro to global warming; unlikely to convince skeptics
As a novice to almost all of the issues surrounding the global warming debate, I found this book to be an informative read. The primary purpose of the book is to introduce many issues surrounding the warming of the planet, not simply the issue of the causal link between Co2 emissions and temperature change. Chapters center around issues such as the history of the debate surrounding the warming of the planet, future projections of our climate, possible surprises to the climate (e.g., adjustments in deep-ocean circulation), and political solutions to the problems created by global warming. As a result of this multifarious approach, the skeptic will not find much to assuage his doubts on the subject.

Maslin explains that the prevalence of the global warming theory was engendered by a sharp upsurge in the global annual mean temperature, what is referred to as the "hockey stick" because charts of recent temperature trends resemble a hockey stick. Yet the theory of human induced climate change was first propounded in the late 19th century but was dismissed because other factors were believed to be the source of climate adjustments. Such vacillation from climatologists over the years surely contributes to some of the skepticism regarding climate change, and their promotion of global cooling in the 70s doesn't help their case. But Maslin believes that the short period of cooling which gave rise to the theory can be explained under the broader theory of global warming, explaining the cooling as a product of "the decadal influence of the sunspot cycle and that pollutants, such as sulphur dioxide aerosols, cooled the industrial regions of the globe" (29-30). Skeptics also purport that the correlation between Co2 and temperature is one in which rises of Co2 _precede_ a temperature rise. Maslin responds to this by referring to the work of Sir Shackleton, whose study of the last four glacial-intergalacial cycles exhibited Co2 spikes prior to increases in temperature. (I should note that this is of course an instance in which Maslin responds to skeptics, but these are unlikely to fully persuade skeptics because of the lack of specificity.)

Maslin references the IPCC report on the future impact of climate change. They project that sea levels will rise approximately 18-59cm and that the temperature will rise 1.8-4 degrees Celsius by 2100. This is the area in which there are the most uncertainties. For instance, climatologists are unaware of how much galactic cosmic rays and clouds will effect the development of the climate, a point acceded by Maslin. Maslin also discusses what he calls "suprises" that global warming could present. Gas hydrates, a greenhouse gas 21 times as strong as Co2, which are stored below the world's oceans and permafrost could be released as a result of the heating of these latter entities. Other examples are reviewed including the potential for a transformation of the Amazon into a Savannah environment.

This is a good book on the topic. It covers a lot of information in a small amount of space. But this may be a source of one of the problems I had with the book: too much convoluted material for an introduction. At times the book's perpetual references to geological and scientific terminology and theory can be overwhelming for someone without a background in the field. A reduction of the issues covered, in favor of further explanation of those covered, may have made for a better introduction. Furthermore, the charts and diagrams in the book are sometimes extraordinarily difficult to understand in their present context; surely, he could have done a better job with these. Also, Maslin didn't dive into the issue of Co2/temperature link as much as I would've liked him to. Others have complained about the inanity of the last chapter--his vision of a zero-carbon world. The complaints, I believe, are justified, but the chapter is only 6 pages, so don't avoid the book on account of this!

A comprehensive introduction to the issues surrounding global warming
If you are looking for a brief, but thorough survey of the issues surrounding, this should do ya.Maslin covers the wide range of concepts touching the subject in a clear, if sometimes technical, manner.As he demonstrates, while the fact of global warming is beyond dispute, there are a host of issues about which there is uncertainty.Maslin presents each of these issues, states clearly what the arguments for and against are, and clarifies what scientists need to know to understand it with greater precision.Ocean currents, the capacity of forests to absorb greenhouse gases, the political difficulties surrounding doing something to forestall serious environmental catastrophe -- all of these are dealt with fairly and honestly.

Maslin is clearly worried about the prognosis for planet earth.He presents a range of either possible or probable scenarios if some kind of global and organized cooperation between nations is not undertaken to deal with global warming.He cites scientific and economic studies showing that as much of 20% of the global GDP going towards the effects of global warming by the end of the 21st century (as opposed to 1%-2% now) if something is not done to counter the effects of global warming.

The only part of the book that I disliked was the closing section, which presented a fantasy of the green city of the future.It isn't merely that the picture presented seems unlikely, it was written in a sappy prose style that reminds me of some of the simplistic social service cartoons that were made in the 1950s.In Maslin's defense, he took that section from another scholar, which he plainly admits.The book would have been stronger without it.

Apart from that one section I found this to be an accessible, if sometimes technical, introduction to what is the dominant issue of our age. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (83)

Deniers or affirmers?
The title of this book is misleading. On pages 45 and 46, the author writes that none of his growing cast of deniers were deniers. More specifically, he says that they were affirmers in general, deniers in particular. In other words, the scientists agreed that global warming was taking place but did not agree with particular aspects of the forecasted results. One would not expect an author presenting a balancedperspective on the global warming debate to describe affirmers as deniers, and his doing so raises doubts about this book.

Critics of this book are misinformed
Lawrence Solomon has written an excellent book.Most of the aspects of global warming are covered here.The critical reviews here try to refute the statements of four of the total of 34 deniers found in the book, by presenting other alleged quotes, but with no specific references for those quotes.


What the critics fail to realize is that there are different kinds of deniers of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).Most deniers fall into these categories:

1.A believer in AGW, but one who denies that the effects on the planet will be catastrophic.
2.A believer in AGW, but one who believes that it to be a minor contributor to global temperature rise. He believes warming is caused by something else, perhaps the sun.
3.One who denies AGW, and who believes the warming is totally due to other causes.
4.One who denies the magnitude of the global temperature increase.
5.One who denies that there is any warming occuring, other than that of natural climate change cycles of warming and cooling.

Solomon's book introduces us to the full spectrum of deniers listed above.There is only one scientist, Sami Solanki, who has stated that Solomon misrepresented his position on greenhouse gases as the primary cause of global warming, but not in the book.He complained of Lawerence's article in the National Post.The quotes attributed to him in "The Deniers", where he talks of the sun as being a contributor to global warming, are substantiated in the references.I suspect Solanki, as many scientists have done, may have made statements at different times based on their latest understanding, statements which may or may not agree with one another.No other scientists mentioned in the book have publicly disputed Solomon's characterization of their views.

All in all, a fascinating book by a journalist and an environmentalist, who was not a denier himself when he started his investigation.This book contributes greatly to the debate, because the credentials of the deniers profiled lend credence to the various positions of the growing numbers of scientists who are starting to express publicly their skepticism of AGW and its effects, if any.

Al Gore goofs again
The author by examining the positions of numerous scientists concludes that Al Gore and company are deceiving the public regarding climate change in their statments that the science is settled. Al Gore and company also act in a deceptivly political manner, disregarding any scientific findings that disagree with their predetermined position.

First class science.
A showcase against the IPCC and very informative. I often googled the mentioned persons to see if other information contradict the book. But that is definitely not the case.

Judge for yourself
Solomon builds a good case.

He lays out the specifics -- each scientist is working on the global climate change science, and knows his own corner of that science the best.And so each is prepared to say that there is no need for alarm in his particular aspect of global climate change research.

Taken as a whole, it's a thought-provoking book.

I like that it is a reasonable book -- no strident tone, no demands for action.

Read it for yourself and you be the judge. ... Read more

Product Description
Do you believe that man s use of hydrocarbon fuels like coal, oil and gasoline is causing global temperatures to rise, and that this man-made global warming will have catastrophic consequences on our world and mankind? Yes or No If you said, Yes, you are among a sizable majority of people who believe that man-made global warming is real. In fact, to this day, 75 percent of the population continues to believe that man-made global warming is THE MOST SIGNIFICANT ISSUE THE WORLD FACES. The problem is that you and the rest of those who believe in man-made global warming are WRONG! There is irrefutable scientific evidence that global temperatures are NOT; rising (in fact, temperatures have dropped slightly since 1998), that man is NOT affecting climate change, and that all of the implausible and overheated projections of environmental disaster are completely FALSE. Yet, the hoax persists. WHY? The reason is a severe lack of RELATIONAL INTELLIGENCE among the public as to the truth about man-made global warming and the devious agenda behind legislation to fight climate change. A lack of RELATIONAL INTELLIGENCE is an inability to connect the dots and people continue to cling to their myopic beliefs about man-made global warming, despite the recent exposure of Climategate and other similar scandals proving how pseudo-scientists with the blessing and support of both the government and the media have been manipulating data to keep the hoax of man-made global warming alive. This book presents the most up-to-date and concise summary of the science, economics and politics behind the man-made global warming hoax with only one goal to give people the opportunity to THINK better about this issue. Only with enhanced RELATIONAL INTELLIGENCEcan the government be prevented from FLEECING AMERICAN TAXPAYERS OUT OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF ADDITIONAL TAXES AND FEES. OPT NOT TO READ THIS BOOK AT YOUR OWN PERIL... AND THE PERIL OF OUR NATION'S FUTURE. Relational Intelligence is a register trademark of Richard C. Huseman, Ph.D. ... Read more

Product Description
From the author of the New York Times bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) comes Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics? Or that environmental alarmists have knowingly promoted false and exaggerated data on global warming? Or that in the Left's efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with "treason"?

Shocking, frank, and illuminating, Chris Horner's Red Hot Lies explodes as manymyths as Al Gore promotes. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (60)

A Scathing Expose
These days it's hard to open a newspaper, turn on the TV or browse the internet news sources without coming across another doom-and-gloom story about Global Warming. And then there are all the fictionalized treatments of the subject that create a positive feedback loop with other sources of information, all having the ultimate effect of fueling the general paranoia about the imminent end of the World lest we repent and throw the global economy over the cliff and revert to pre-industrial mode of existence.

And yet, there are those lonely few who dare to raise their voices and question this alarmist mindset. One of the more prominent skeptics is Christopher Horner, the author of immensely popular The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism). In this latest book he provides a barrage of evidence suggesting that no, the extent of the problem if it even exists is not nearly as dire as it's being claimed, the few dissenting voices in the media and the scientific community are continuously being pressured to change their mind or else, the hysteria and the viciousness of the environmental lobby is appalling, and the consensus of the scientific community on many key findings is overinflated by orders of magnitude.

The book provides an incredible list of sources and references for further study and checking of the facts and claims from both sides of the debate. This alone makes it a valuable resource, and anyone who is genuinely interested in finding out if the critics' claims have any merit should definitely consult this book. The style of writing is mostly polemical and journalistic, but this works rather well for this kind of book. Those of us who have been raising questions about the validity of the assumptions behind the Global warming hysteria will find an invaluable ally in Horner.

Since the book came out there have been a spate of very public scandals involving several of the most prominent climate research/advocacy groups, including the University of East Anglia and the famed UN Panel. In the light of these it has become apparent that Horner's claims about the extent of the environmentalists' collusion and conspiracy in promoting bad data and bad science have been vindicated. Even the mainstream media is unable to ignore this side of the story any longer.

As a scientist I have been saddened and troubled by the way that legitimate science has been hijacked for political purposes. One of the trademarks of good science is the willingness to engage opposing viewpoints, and not dismiss them with disdain and with cheap ad-hominem attacks. Hopefully with more books like this one we can go back to discussing event the most controversial topics with cool heads.

A paranoid mess
This book is written by a man with so many unresolved issues he has allowed he boyish rebeliousness and insecurity transcend into modern science.A complete fabrication, waste of time, and quite concerning display of mental instability at its worst.

A lawyer for his client.
Mr. Horner is a lawyer by trade and an employee of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The CEI exists to promote short-term business interests at the sacrifice of every other human value, including long-term survival. Everything he says they pay for. It's best to assume that every word he writes is a lie, including "and" and "the".

Excellent read
The author does a fine job pointing out the misplaced focus of media and global warming alarmists.The idea that the earth warms and cools is not a scientific surprise.But it seems the media ever looking for a big story to sell air time, a group of politicians looking to raise tax revenue and garner more control over the people have become complicit in the deception of catastrophic global warming caused almost completely by man's CO2 emissions. Regardless of the scientific research that shows periods of global cooling with high carbon dioxide levels or scientists who have falsified temperature records to collect government grants to study man made global warming, the media and politicians forge ahead with their plans hoping no one will notice.Now's the time for the public to educate itself.This book provides a nice summary of challenges to the man made global warming theory from which a discussion can begin.

Exploding watermelons cause global panic
Until a week ago, this book could have been (and was) dismissed as "denial."The "scientific truth," we were told, lay in the hands of "peer-reviewed climate science."

Oops.

(That may be the biggest "oops" in the history of science.)

Climategate is upon us.The world has suddenly been handed hard evidence that the whole theory of AGW is not "science as usual," but a tidy bit of grantsmanship gone horribly wrong.The early emphasis of Climategate sleuths was on the e-mails; as a programmer, I was even more horrified by the details provided about the data and the illegible Fortran (!) code used to "produce results" in East Anglia.

"Watermelons," by the way, are reds masquerading as greens.

Christopher Horner deserves a Nobel Prize for being one of the very few to size up and report on this global fraud.I don't have any hope that he'll get one, because the current scandal seems destined to upset a whole boatload of apple-carts, including comfy European (and American) statists, Al Gore (obviously), and (can I say this?) the entire ruling class of the Western World.

Christoper Horner was definitely ahead of the 7 o'clock news with this story.He still is.But the "common people" --- who are not Hollywood stars, and who don't get invited to White House State Dinners --- have awakened.Climategate is not going away, and neither is this book.

By the way, "Official Washington" still does not admit that there is such a thing as Climategate.There are trillions of dollars at stake, folks --- YOUR dollars. ... Read more

Product Description

Earth's climate has always varied, but it is now changing more rapidly than at any other time in recent centuries. The climate is very complex, and many factors play important roles in determining how it changes.

Customer Reviews (4)

Wonderful!!!
My daughter and I both love this book. It answered so many questions for us in a very easy to understand read. We have many of Seymour Simon books. My daughter adores his books and so do many of her friends. This book Global Warming helped my 10 year old to finally understand climate change and what this means to the future of this planet.

The Facts about Global Warming for Kids
Wow! This is an amazing information book because it tells the facts about climate change in a straightforward manner with magnificent, telling photos as support. Once again Seymour Simon takes a complex subject and writes about it in language that children can understand without diluting the science.Simon provides an understandable explanation of global warming followed by evidence of its effects. At the conclusion he adds a page telling what nations and governments can do to slow down climate change along with another page on what families can do. A glossary, index, and websites for more information round out this fine book.

This amazing book gives the young reader a close look at climate change and the reasons behind this startling phenomenon!
It is very easy to see changes in the weather.Perhaps you've noticed that rain and overcast skies can quickly change to sunny ones in the course of an afternoon.Climate change, however, is much more subtle and difficult to spot as "climate is the average weather over a period of years."Our climate has begun to change and the average temperature is beginning to rise. The term "global warming" has been coined to describe some of the changes in our climate.If you think about a greenhouse, you realize that the glass will allow sun to enter, but "keeps warm air from escaping."If you think of earth as a type of greenhouse, the effect is similar.

Environmental changes are not totally the result of human folly, but if we examine our behavior, or lack of it, we must acknowledge our responsibility.One very interesting fact since weather records have been kept is that "nineteen of the twenty hottest years ever have happened since 1980."In this book you will learn about the greenhouse effect, how the Arctic is revealing the effects of global warming, the startling erosion of the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the impact global warming has on animals, the alarming disappearance of glaciers in Alaska and Montana, the effect of ocean levels as temperatures rise, and many more interesting facts.The reader will also learn what everyone from the individual to the entire nations can do to help slow this process.

This amazing book gives the young reader a close look at climate change and the reasons behind this startling phenomenon.The text is very well written and researched, thereby making it an easy task for students to understand global warming without becoming overly alarmist.The photographs were well chosen and give the book an additional voice.The book is not overly technical, but will assist the young reader draw his or her own conclusions with its general overview.This type of book can provide an excellent stepping stone to a school report.In the back of the book is an index, a glossary and additional website resources to explore.

All about global warming
Reviewed by Evan Weldon (age 7) for Reader Views (03/10)

"Global Warming" by Seymour Simon talks about what global warming is, what causes it, and what can happen because of it.There might be a giant snowstorm today but that doesn't mean global warming isn't happening.Global warming is a very gradual warming trend over a really long time.Global warming happens because carbon dioxide and other pollutants collect in the atmosphere and don't let heat escape.

Global warming can cause big floods to happen, polar bears to not be able to get food, and coral reefs to die.Rising oceans could cause millions of people to have to move.

The book gives lots of ideas of things people can do to slow global warming.People can walk and use bikes instead of driving cars.People can plant trees and use efficient light bulbs.People can use renewable energy from wind or the sun.

Like most Seymour Simon books, there are lots of good pictures.My favorite photos were the ones of polar bears, coral reefs, trees in autumn, and butterflies.In general the photos in this book weren't as exciting as those in some of his other books, but they were still pretty good.

I would recommend "Global Warming" by Seymour Simon to people who are interested in global warming and who want to try and slow global warming.It will help kids be able to explain global warming better.

... Read more

Product Description
Climate, sea level, and ice sheets have always changed, and the changes observed today are less than those of the past. Climate changes are cyclical and are driven by the Earth's position in the galaxy, the sun, wobbles in the Earth's orbit, ocean currents, and plate tectonics. In previous times, atmospheric carbon dioxide was far higher than at present but did not drive climate change. No runaway greenhouse effect or acid oceans occurred during times of excessively high carbon dioxide. During past glaciations, carbon dioxide was higher than it is today. The non-scientific popular political view is that humans change climate. Do we have reason for concern about possible human-induced climate change?

This book's 504 pages and over 2,300 references to peer-reviewed scientific literature and other authoritative sources engagingly synthesize what we know about the sun, earth, ice, water, and air. Importantly, in a parallel to his 1994 book challengingcreation science, Telling Lies for God, Ian Plimer describes Al Gore's book and movie An Inconvenient Truth as long on scientific misrepresentations. Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists, he writes, who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (114)

This really is a dreadful book.
Ian Plimer has done something that I thought was impossible; got so many science facts wrong in such little space.

Did you know that:

The Sun is a pulsar?The sole reference is a 1977 paper of 2 pages in Nature entitled "Is the Sun a pulsar?"Well, is it?What has been written since then?

"The transition from a global ice age to global warming at about 250 Ma" (million years ago) "was characterised by huge rises (to 2000 ppmv) and falls (to 280 ppmv) in the amount of atmospheric CO2.During this time plant and animal life thrived".250 million years ago was the time of the end of Permian mass extinction, the greatest mass extinction known.

The non-avian dinosaurs weren't done in by the asteroid off Mexico 65 million years ago?Actually, there is a respectable minority scientific opinion that the Deccan traps super-volcano in India had a major role, and that the Mexican meteorite was just the coup de grace.But it is a minority opinion, although one that still gets respect, as being one that can be argued.

And Ian Pilmer makes many, many more mistakes of this nature.

In the chapter on the Earth, Plimer has a section entitled "Milanokovitch wobble theory wobbles".He concludes;"Climate is related to Milankovitch cycle wobbles-we just don't know how".Actually, it would have been more accurate to have written "Climate is related to Milankovitch cycle wobbles-Ian Plimer just doesn't know how".

Actually, I suspect that he knows it perfectly, but wants to buttress his argument that it's solely the variable energy output of the Sun that drives climate variation, using apparent climate change on Mars, Jupiter and Pluto.If he admits Milankovitch cycles as being significant, it raises the question whether other planetary bodies also have something similar to Milankovitch cycles.If so, then Ian Plimer would need to give reasons why he doubts this possibility.Mars for example tilts through 90 degrees on its axis frequently and abruptly.Pluto, before it stopped being a planet, used to be the 8th planet from the Sun because its orbit is so eccentric.

Milankovitch cycles are actually very simple:

There's a 100,000 year cycle of orbital eccentricity; the orbit goes from being more circular to being more eccentric with greater difference between perihelion (the closest distance and strong heating) and aphelion (furthest distance and less heating).
There's a 41,000 year cycle of axial tilt from 24.5 to 21.5 degrees.When the angle of tilt is greater, more heat is received at the poles in Summer, because the Solar rays are striking the Earth more vertically.
There's a 21,000 year cycle of precession (the wobble, currently Polaris is the polestar, 1n 11,000 years, the axis of Earth's rotation will be pointed directly at Vega).Precession doesn't directly affect climate (in-spite of what Plimer says).It just affects the timing of Summer;currently the Summer solstice in the Northern Hemisphere is in June.In 11,000 years it will be in December, and if the orbit and tilt is much the same, precession indirectly will affect climate because the Northern hemisphere Summer will be hotter (currently perihelion is in January) and shorter (Kepler's laws of planetary orbit).

Ian Plimer has come up with a marvellous howler;"In about 9,000 years, perihelion will occur in the Northern Hemisphere and aphelion in the Southern Hemisphere, the reverse of today".I think I know what he was trying to say, but what he has written is that the Northern and Southern Hemispheres are separated by the difference in distance between perihelion and aphelion, currently about 5,000,000 kilometres (I knew that flying from America to Australia takes a long time, but I didn't know that it was that far ...)

In another part he writes;"Furthermore, although the increased ice and snow"(in an ice age)"would reflect reflect more energy back into space the increased amount of land exposed"(in the continental shelves)"would result in less reflection of energy back into space from the enlarged land masses".This is actually a monumental fail;the albedo of oceans is the minimum (that's the reason why oceans warm the climate-the Sun's rays penetrate water and heat it at depth.Land has a greater albedo and reflects more light.Exposing more land will also increase not lessen reflection of energy into space and increase cooling.

And he makes many similar errors throughout the book.

To save your time reading it, in summary, Plimer argues that in the past, the climate has been hotter or colder.The carbon dioxide levels have been higher or lower, and often increasing carbon dioxide levels follow rather than precede global warming.Computer climate models are inaccurate.

Actually, I wouldn't disagree with any of these assertions.

I also agree with his statement that to understand the present and future, you have to understand the past, and it's my understanding of the past that worries me about the future.

We are currently in an ice age which has existed for around 3 million years, in an interglacial which has lasted for at least 10,000 years.The previous 3 or 4 interglacials lasted only 1-2,000 years, before abruptly diving back into glacial periods (and that's one of the lessons I take from the past; climate is chaotic non-linear with a lot of abrupt changes, what I'd call 'tipping points').The current interglacial is different in that it has lasted much longer and has been very kind to humans, Little Ice Age here and there notwithstanding, in that the human population has increased from a few million to almost 7 billion.William Ruddiman in "Plows, Plagues and Petroleum" (an authority cited several times in Plimer's book) has argued that the present interglacial is different because humans wrested control of climate from nature 8,000 years ago with agriculture and land clearing, and the past 200 years of the Industrial Age is only different in degree not nature.

I agree the IPCC is primarily a political body.I agree that scientists shouldn't play politics;they should just report the facts and indicate the uncertainties (and there are a lot of uncertainties) and leave it to the politicians to set policy (that's what they are paid to do, to decide on courses of action when the facts are not definitely known; consider George W Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq on the basis of "weapons of mass destruction".

A useful principle to apply to difficult problems such as global warming is to ask; are there any other reasons for action?

The reason usually given for action is that climate change will be disastrous for humans.I personally agree with this;the present global climate is very benign, and any change is much more likely to be a deterioration rather than an improvement.

Mitigation (decarbonising the economy) is going to be very difficult and expensive, but it's going to have to be done eventually, because fossil fuels are finite (even coal is going to run out in 200 years), and global energy needs will only increase because the growing world population and the desire of people in the developing world to improve their living standards (currently 1.5 billion people don't even have access to electricity).If we are going to have to mitigate, now is the time to do it, while we still have (relatively) cheap energy.

Adaptation may be even more difficult.With 7 billion humans, mass-migration will be impossible, our crops are selected to be suited to the present climate and genetic engineering may not succeed, and many of the countries most threatened by climate change have nuclear weapons, and know where we are ...

Another thing (in conclusion) I didn't like about Ian Plimer's book was the insulting tone he adopted throughout, even when not necessary and only in an attempt to get cheap laughs;one example is when he writes;"In 2008, a somewhat naive and enthusiastic Englishman almost perished trying to paddle a kayak to the North Pole to highlight the effects of human induced global warming.He could only paddle to 960 km from the Pole.In 1893, Nansen was able to Kayak to 800 km from the North Pole.The pathetic Pythonesque paddle was to prove global warming had reduced the extent of sea ice.It demonstrated the exact opposite".

Well, actually no.Not only is it snide but it's also not factual.

In a stunt (and I'd describe it as a stunt), Lewis Gordon Pugh attempted to paddle 1200 km from Svalbard accompanied by a ship, on which he was going to sleep (doesn't sound particularly dangerous to me), but it was abandoned after 135 km because wind had blown pack ice south making it impossible for the ship to find a path through the ice (I have been on a ship in that area, and I tell you, you don't want to get caught in the ice, because you may be there for days or weeks).The reference to Nansen is about the very famous 'Fram' expedition, when Nansen wanted to see if he could reach the North Pole by lodging his ship the 'Fram' in the polar ice north of Siberia and emerging north of Svalbard (that's the direction the ice takes).When it became apparent that he'd misjudged the entry point and that they were going to miss the North Pole, he and a companion took a sled and kayak to attempt to trek across the icecap to the Pole (the kayak was necessary, because once they left the ship, they'd never be able to find it again).They were kayaking 800 km AWAY from the Pole not TO the Pole (the alternative to failure would have been death, the possibility of death is ALWAYS a very powerful motivating force to make you do things that you would otherwise avoid; also they were real men back in the 19th century ...).

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science
Is a well constructed and writen book with scientifical support. It is a brave text that is based on real information. It is an independent and honest vision of the Climate change and of the global warming without complexes or concessions opportunists. Well writtenand with an accessible language to all the public . Many authors as this are needed to finish with the current unreasonableness at the momentinterpreting the change of the climate with a base of real information and that have been twisted by other investigators but that the author treats with honesty and clarity.

Full of errors
Warning: do not believe anything you read in this book without checking it out. I had heard that this was a well-researched book with tons of footnotes by a respected scientist, but to say I was extremely disappointed with the quality of the work is an understatement. It is very biased and full of claims that are not true. Even the charts and graphs are misleading and full of mistakes or distortions. For example, he claims or infers that climate scientists say things that they don't say (such as "CO2 is pollution"). He also claims that there is "little or no geological, archaeological and historical input into discussions about climate change." The reality is that an entire sub-field (paleoclimatology) is devoted to these things. In fact, their work indicates the world will probably warm faster than the models do. When he makes claims that contradict what the climate scientists are saying, he usually doesn't back them up, either with footnotes or with logic.

Many of the mistakes are so basic and so huge that I can only conclude that Plimer is deliberately trying to mislead people. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people will never take the time to check up on what he writes, and they will probably just accept his conclusions as truth. This book is often touted as the best scientific retort to the climate scientists. If so, there is no question which side is correct and is really trying to discover the truth.

I will give one example of the horrible quality of the scientific work, but the book is full of things like this. The very first graph, Figure 1, says that it "shows the hypothesis that human emissions of CO2 create global warming is invalid." Even if the graph didn't have huge problems, it would not prove that at all. It would only show that the temperature did not rise as quickly as the IPCC predicted over a short period of time. But I have looked at graphs of recent temperature before, and something didn't look right: he shows the temperature dropping sharply the last year he covers. Another thing I noticed was that even though the graph shows relative temperature (not absolute), you can't tell where the baseline is. The baseline is the comparison point, where the temperature change is zero, and all of the lines should meet at this point. Any scientist knows that when you are comparing relative temperatures, you need to show the baseline. As I investigated more, I realized why he didn't show it.

As usual when he made important claims, he did not say where he got the data. But I knew that B1, A1B, and A2 were scenarios the IPCC used in its predictions, and it was not too difficult to find the official data by searching on the web for the IPCC reports, then searching inside those PDFs. The baseline was clearly shown. I also knew that HadCRUT stood for Hadley CRU Temperature, and it was easy to find that data on the web too (search for "Global Temperature Record" "Climatic Research Unit", click on the "Comma-Separated Values" link, if you want the raw data). First of all, as I suspected, the temperature did not drop nearly as much in 2008 as it shows on Plimer's graph. His graph shows the Hadley numbers dropping 0.33 degrees, when they really only dropped 0.077 degrees. In other words, he multiplied the change by more than 4 times! (The next year the temperature went up 0.113 degrees.)

Others have caught this error too (if you search the web, you can find long list of errors that others have found in this book). But I don't know if anyone else caught an even worse problem. The reason he didn't say what the baseline was is that he used different baselines for the temperature and the IPCC predictions! He shifted the temperature down 0.15 degrees compared to the predictions in order to make it look like the predictions were off. If you think these distortions are minor, then try plotting the graph using the same baseline and the real temperature change for 2008. You'll see that the predictions match the temperature very well. In fact the temperature has risen slightly FASTER than the predictions. An accurate graph would show exactly the opposite of what Plimer says his graph shows.

If Plimer cared about the truth, or if he was a good scientist, he never would have published a book like this, and he certainly would have published corrections to at least some of the hundreds of errors and distortions that people have found. If anyone can find this let me know, but I've searched very hard and have found nothing. I can only conclude that Plimer is not trying to educate people, that he has an agenda and is trying to sway public opinion by publishing propaganda (or his "beliefs") and pretending that it is science. If he did this deliberately, that is dishonest. If not, he is incompetent. Either way, why would you want to read this book?

Great Book
I liked this book a great deal despite it's sometimes technical aspects. It showed how simplistic, ideological and political the IPCC is when it comes to science. I have read alot about Michael Mann's and hockey stick chart and it's good to know there are many serious scientists out there diligently working away.

"Consensus" Clobbered by Pugnacious Aussie
What I did not like:

1)Too disjointed in parts; could have been boiled down a bit in places.
2)Occassional assertions that while editorially entertaining are not fully substantiated by the data.

What I did like:

1)Excellent and comprehensive deconstruction of the premises of anthropogenic global warming from the perspective of a variety of physical sciences.
2)Insistence on the scientific method - and his scathing dressing down of those who push "the science is settled" line. ... Read more