Rating: 
Summary: Bush, Kyoto, and This Book
Review: I have searched high and low to find President Bush's basis for his "scientific" disavowal of the Kyoto treaty on global warming...and everywhere I look through the news stories leads me back to this book.If not this, where else? I haven't found the argument that global warming is real, yet maybe unimportant elsewhere. I haven't found the argument that Kyoto is irrelevant to global warming--with real numbers--elsewhere. Everyone else either seems to say "global warming isn't real" (losing the argument) or "global warming is terrible (losing the argument as to why no nation of consequence--including Germany, England or Japan--has ratified that treaty). I noticed this in a recent news story. But where oh where does Bush's argument come from? I think it's this book, which has become a classic on global warming. Both my conservative and enviro friends seem pretty aware of it and the authors and accord its arguments a lot of respect. In "The Nation" last month there was an exchange between the authors and a critic which most of my friends agree was surprisingly favorable to the writers. I don't know if I agree. But I found Satanic Gases very readable (though I tend to suspect anything from the publisher--Cato Institute) and, if, as I guess, this is the book that Bush and Cheney are looking at, I've got to give it five stars.
Rating:
Summary: Bush, Kyoto, and This Book
Review: I have searched high and low to find President Bush's basis for his "scientific" disavowal of the Kyoto treaty on global warming...and everywhere I look through the news stories leads me back to this book. If not this, where else? I haven't found the argument that global warming is real, yet maybe unimportant elsewhere. I haven't found the argument that Kyoto is irrelevant to global warming--with real numbers--elsewhere. Everyone else either seems to say "global warming isn't real" (losing the argument) or "global warming is terrible (losing the argument as to why no nation of consequence--including Germany, England or Japan--has ratified that treaty). I noticed this in a recent news story. But where oh where does Bush's argument come from? I think it's this book, which has become a classic on global warming. Both my conservative and enviro friends seem pretty aware of it and the authors and accord its arguments a lot of respect. In "The Nation" last month there was an exchange between the authors and a critic which most of my friends agree was surprisingly favorable to the writers. I don't know if I agree. But I found Satanic Gases very readable (though I tend to suspect anything from the publisher--Cato Institute) and, if, as I guess, this is the book that Bush and Cheney are looking at, I've got to give it five stars.
Rating:
Summary: Making Sense of Scientific Mumbo-Jumbo
Review: I was curious about global warming. This book answered many of my questions and I'll re-read it and buy a couple of copies for my friends. Other than my small complaints that I wish it had expanded more and discussed in greater detail on historical evidence of climate change (such as archaeological evidence of ice ages and warm periods like when dinosaurs populated the planet) and focused more on the Sun's impact on the temperature of the Earth, it was an excellent book. I am now searching for more data about the effects on weather from natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires, which were only discussed briefly in this book but increased my curiosity. I found the explanation of how global climate models are designed to be the most educational part of the book. I appreciated the point that the weatherman on the local news has a very hard time predicting the temperature twenty-four hours or a week from now. That puts a prediction on what it will be like 100 years from now into a better perspective. The discussion on El Nino effects was interesting as was the exposure of some scientists tendencies to select data that best fit into the theory du jour to make their conclusions more dramatic. Although the authors didn't say it, an intentional omission of data or evidence seems the same as a lie to me. I wasn't upset about global warming, I live near Phoenix, what difference does it make if its goes from an average high of 110 to 113 one hundred years from now? But now I am upset about global warming because it seems like a big scam and some very good intentioned people are being seriously fooled. The book is not a light read. I found I could only take a couple of chapters at a time and it wasn't something to read with the TV on or other potential distractions. I read most of it on a stratosphere warming, transcontinental jetliner when South Carolina was being frozen like never before in December 2002.
This is an important book to read, if you don't know many facts about the topic, you'll get 'em.
Rating: 
Summary: Watch out
Review: I'd like to ask anyone who is not concerned about global warming to read the accounts of the last meltdown under Noah in the old testament, or in the Bhagavad Gita or any other ancient religious work (which all started as oral history). Archeologists agree that around 10,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 to 600 feet and probably very suddenly. Noah is just the oral history of that event. Most scientists are unfamiliar with catastrophe theory (a very simple theory which describes that in nature events happen very precipitously). Nature is much like the stock market with sudden unpredictable spurts.
Ice is a good conductor of heat and has a high latent heat capacity and thus a whole ice sheet (eg Antarctica) must heat up before it melts (very suddenly). Ice has some other interesting properties that make it unpredictable. As we do not understand what caused the last meltdown, anyone who thinks they can reassure us categorically about the next one is dangerous indeeed.
Rating:
Summary: Left and Right agree here
Review: Last week, Rush Limbaugh went on for an hour or so singing the praises of this book and its author. Normally I don't listen to Rush (find him boring) but I also read things like The Nation and I find that some big people on the left--like Christopher Hitchens--are converging on the notion that there is a a big rat lurking in the global warming story, namely that the issue is overblown and both the extreme left and right (i.e. Hitchens and Rush) seem to agree that the policies will cause economic harm for little accomplishment. So I decided too take a looksee at this book. BTW Amazon did have a great price! I was pleasantly surprised. It was actually fun to read and taught me a lot about the ancillary mysteries, such as tornadoes, jet streams etc that I have been curious about, but all backgrounded against the global warming issue and "how" science gets done. The bottom line really does seem well-argued. The issue is way overblown by both scientists and the press and--something I did not know--VERY little can be done anyway, even if we tried, and it was Clinton and Gore'scientists, not some right-wing nuts, that showed this. Just for they hey of it, I checked sales figures seen as this book isn't exactly advertised (despite the funny title). It looks like it's amazons best seller ( I searched under "global warming"), despite being nearly two years old. After I read it I think I know why. I learned a lot and it was fun and it was nice to understand why the political extremes seem to be getting together on this one. I also picked up a lot of fun trivia like how many people get killed by cold air and that winds in hurricanes are going down, not up, according to the UN. I intend to use these for upcoming Christmas party bets. Maybe that cute little enviro-femme will go out with me. A cool book.
Rating: 
Summary: Read this and quit worrying
Review: Michaels and Balling offer a refreshing alternative to the alarmist screaming that comes from some over the issue of global warming. Through comprehensive analysis of the data and theory behind the issue, the authors find that climate change from industrial activity won't be the dramatic planet threat many think. They acknowledge that carbon dioxide levels in the atmophere are increasing. However, they think global temperature will only increase 1.3 decrees Celsius by 2100. They do not think ocean levels will rise enough or fast enough to endanger people. Their findings also allow them to believe that storms may actually decrease in intensity and increased carbon dioxide may encourage plant life. The Satanic Gases is a fine bit of science presented in a persuasive manner.
Rating: 
Summary: industry propaganda
Review: Micheals and Patrick are among the leading skepitics of global warming in the international scientific community. And they are being paid well by the fossil fuel industry for their skepticism. Michaels has recieved substantial funding from the German Coal Mining Association and Western Fuels. Balling has recieved funding from the British Coal Corporation, German Coal Mining Association, and the Kuwait Foundation among others. The vast majority of their research is not peer-reviewed and the conflict of interest should be obvious. It's amazing how a hand-full of industry sponsored skeptics can marginalize the expertise of the 2,500 international climate experts that comprise the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Rating:
Summary: Facts not Rhetoric
Review: The cleverly titled "Satanic Gases" is a remarkably interesting book. Those of us who follow the greenhouse issue have been peppered with hot rhetoric and ad hominem attacks on the motives and the credibility of the authors. For example, see Ross Gelbspan's book, which makes the preposterous argument that these two authors have somehow convinced the entire nation that global warming isn't a threat, while the 2,500 scientists can't counter them. But what comes out of The Satanic Gases is far different than boilerplate rhetoric--from either side. It is very highly referenced (so much for the argument that the critics don't publish), comes with the endorsment of the past presdients of the National Academy of Science, the American Physical Society, the past director of the U.S. Geological Survey, and the past director of the Board of Agriculture of the National Research Council. The argument made has considerable internal consistency--read it for yourself and compare it to others and you may come to the same conclusion. But, moreover, Michaels and Balling provide a neat explanation as to WHY the issue has been overemphasized that breaks new intellectual ground and seems difficult to refute. In addition, the book is surprisingly evenhanded (considering the opposing rhetoric) taking on misconsceptions about this issue whether they are from the right or the left. That's what makes this book different, and is why you should read it. I've read Stevens and Gelbspan and Gore's new edition (Satanic Gases is currently outselling all of them) and they just aren't as interesting, amusing, factual, or intellectually challenging. This book is a sleeper that is going to have a lot of staying power.
Rating: 
Summary: Convincing but misleading and dangerous
Review: The main point of the book is that Global Warming is not something to be concerned about. Both authors have impressive credentials, but you should know that they are on the payroll of anti-environmentalist groups, including Kuwaiti government sources (The Carbon Wars, p. 262). The authors admit that the world climate is warming, just not at the rate that many of the environmentalist and computer models predict. They claim that computer models are inadequate and at the same time claim that the temperature will continue to increase at a linear rate for the next century. On what basis is this assumption made if computer models are inadequate? Well, they actually use the computer models to support this linearity assumption. They predict that the average Earth temperature will warm by roughly 1 degree Celsius by the year 2100. This, it must be assumed from their book, will continue into the following century. No doubt they are banking on the fact that most people do not care what happens to Earth after 100 years. The two authors agree that we are changing the world climate and that it is getting warmer. They just don't think we should be concerned about it. In fact, they list a number of benefits. The authors make the argument that we cannot possibly predict accurately more than 50 years, and since in 50 years the world, in their opinion, will still be safe for mankind, why bother changing anything now? They do not address the danger of runaway Global Warming, which many scientists believe is a possibility. Given that our computer models are still inadequate, are we willing to risk it? If you care about the future of the Earth then do not let this book be your sole source of information on Global Warming because I do not think the authors of The Satanic Gases care.
Rating:
Summary: Convincing but misleading and dangerous
Review: The main point of the book is that Global Warming is not something to be concerned about. Both authors have impressive credentials, but you should know that they are on the payroll of anti-environmentalist groups, including Kuwaiti government sources (The Carbon Wars, p. 262). The authors admit that the world climate is warming, just not at the rate that many of the environmentalist and computer models predict. They claim that computer models are inadequate and at the same time claim that the temperature will continue to increase at a linear rate for the next century. On what basis is this assumption made if computer models are inadequate? Well, they actually use the computer models to support this linearity assumption. They predict that the average Earth temperature will warm by roughly 1 degree Celsius by the year 2100. This, it must be assumed from their book, will continue into the following century. No doubt they are banking on the fact that most people do not care what happens to Earth after 100 years. The two authors agree that we are changing the world climate and that it is getting warmer. They just don't think we should be concerned about it. In fact, they list a number of benefits. The authors make the argument that we cannot possibly predict accurately more than 50 years, and since in 50 years the world, in their opinion, will still be safe for mankind, why bother changing anything now? They do not address the danger of runaway Global Warming, which many scientists believe is a possibility. Given that our computer models are still inadequate, are we willing to risk it? If you care about the future of the Earth then do not let this book be your sole source of information on Global Warming because I do not think the authors of The Satanic Gases care.
| 
