Rating: Summary: APOCALYPSE........NOT! Review: This book deserves to be read by EVERYONE who professes a true interest in the Global Warming Hypothesis. Yes, that's right, that currently popular THEORY which has been so generally and uncritically accepted that most any contradiction of its dogmas is automatically branded environmental apostasy and corporate sell-out! These two gentlemen have provided us with a welcome antidote to the low-level hysteria usually associated with the currently fashionable model of global climate change, its unctuous hand-wringing and DISASTER-batory self-righteousness. I only wish they had spent more time with detailing a perspective of the interglacial period we now occupy, particularly of modern science's inadequate understanding of glacial periodicity and the shorter variations of climate that have interspersed those warming and cooling cycles. Contemporary thought is ALWAYS far too blind to anything but the narrow parameters of, at most, two or three generations worth of change. Real scientific progress requires such rigor: empirical objectivity, free of bias and prejudgement. The Satanic Gases contributes in its own small way towards that better progress. No, it does not have all the answers, nor is it simply intended as a debunk of "mainstream" consensus. What you will find here are some alternative explanations to many of the half-truths being fobbed off by the mass media as geophysical and atmospheric fact. A most excellent and worthwhile place to start, if you care at all for the truth.
Rating: Summary: IPCC gets off easy in this book Review: This book is a fairly good review of the politics and "science" of global warming, but the author lets the IPCC off too easily. First of all, "consensus" is a political concept and not a scientific concept. Use of this word shows the IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific organization. The emphasis on consensus comes from the political left and may have been invented by Stalin. How do leftist organizations reach a consensus? A leftist organization only invites those who it knows will agree with its position and excludes those who disagree. As far as scientific evidence goes, only ideas supportive of the paradigm ever mentioned, particularly in higher level documents such as executive summaries. The IPCC says this exclusion is made so policy makers won't be confused, but what is really happening is that all dissent is being suppressed. That is why the satellite observations never got mentioned in IPCC reports and why other contrary evidence never reaches the policy makers. The authors make some of these points, but they could have been far more emphatic.
Rating: Summary: IPCC gets off easy in this book Review: This book is a fairly good review of the politics and "science" of global warming, but the author lets the IPCC off too easily. First of all, "consensus" is a political concept and not a scientific concept. Use of this word shows the IPCC is a political organization and not a scientific organization. The emphasis on consensus comes from the political left and may have been invented by Stalin. How do leftist organizations reach a consensus? A leftist organization only invites those who it knows will agree with its position and excludes those who disagree. As far as scientific evidence goes, only ideas supportive of the paradigm ever mentioned, particularly in higher level documents such as executive summaries. The IPCC says this exclusion is made so policy makers won't be confused, but what is really happening is that all dissent is being suppressed. That is why the satellite observations never got mentioned in IPCC reports and why other contrary evidence never reaches the policy makers. The authors make some of these points, but they could have been far more emphatic.
Rating: Summary: Just the Facts Ma'am... Review: This book takes a sane view of a politically charged issue. They present facts and rely on logic instead of attempting to prey upon our natural fear of the uncertain future which has always been with mankind (i.e. a couple of centuries back European screamed "Doom" to the heavens when they realized they were running out of wood to burn...then they discovered coal). The people that trash this book don't seem to get past what has become the white-hot screaming mantra of the human-hating eco-freaks, which is "The messenger is an evil liar bought by evil Big Business". (To these descendants of the 1960's hippies, all business is "Big" and therefore evil. I've never heard them refer to "small business".) Fine, the authors are lying bastards not fit to touch the sap-stained unshod foot of a tree-sitter, but you still need to refute the facts with equal an opposite facts. (i.e. why is it a lot cooler than was predicted those many years ago? If that was wrong, what else is wrong?) So stop attacking the messenger, argue with facts and you may win followers. I was an original supporter of Green Peace years ago. The climate models of doom put forth back then have never materialized. Instead of logically reassessing their positions, many "scientists" (who are riding the Global Warming Gravy Train) appear to hang onto their dogma of eco-doom - despite all facts to the contrary - with the unwavering belief that would make a 11th century monk proud. For those searching to give meaning to their life in this fast-paced world, otherwise intelligent people have chosen to worship at the modern-day alter of Mother Earth. The problem with treating science like religion is that anyone that disagrees is a heretic that must be burned at the stake. Science is about adding data and changing theories to match the new data. For centuries humankind believed an 10 oz ball would fall 10 times faster than a 1 oz ball; But new data proved otherwise so we revised the theory and eventually came up something we use daily - modern physics. Religion is about accepting on faith that which cannot be proven. The eco-fear data being used to terrify our children is 35 year out of date and new data is selectively chosen and massaged to try to cram it into the context of those old models. This book presents new data with an open context. Which one sounds like real science?
Rating: Summary: A fun way to obtain some truth! Review: This book upsets most of what we read in the papers about the disastrous effects of climate change. What Michaels and Balling have to say somehow doesn't make headlines or political hay. They just put forth sound, scientific arguments that are straightforward and common-sense. But never fear: the science is presented in a way that is easy to understand and very entertaining. The authors poke some fun at the pseudo-science antics of those whose livelihoods are dependent on climate change hysteria. WARNING: If you love political grandstanding and baseless hype, this book may cause some discomfort!
Rating: Summary: The Truth Shall Set Us Free! Review: This should be required reading for people on all sides of the climate change issue. Professors Michaels and Balling make it easy to understand the science behind the environmental rhetoric, and the news is all good! The media neglected to tell us that what climate change really means is warming in winter over Siberia, a longer growing season worldwide, and higher crop yields than ever. But Michaels and Balling explain how the climate models work--which is to say, they don't. And they show what the actual, factual, observed data tell us. I was surprised to learn the comforting truth about our climate and what we have/haven't done to it. Turns out past millennia were warmer all on their own! We all need to know such things--especially when our lifestyle and livelihoods hang in the balance. In this election year, we must train a careful eye on threats to both. (Especially when the VP wants to hike gas prices up to pay for our supposed overindulgences of the past). No one should go to the polls before reading this important, exhaustively researched book.
Rating: Summary: Finally some plain talk instead of sound bites. Review: This was a welcome book for someone who was confused about by all the political gas and Malthusian rants surrounding this somewhat new "issue." Climatology is a field in its infancy and to date all I had been able to read that was credible science (most notably in Science magazine) was quite frankly too technical and weighted down by mathematics to connect with the layman. This book, by people who actually study the Earth's climate, is actually written at a level most of us can understand if we concentrate and with a little flair for humor to boot. If you go into it with an open mind you'll find it very thought provoking.
Rating: Summary: Timely book Review: Throughout history the vision of apocalyptic crisis continues to attract the multitude. As good as this book is about the science of "global warming", the part I liked the best talks about the social mechanisms and political incentives that continually imagine and inflate crisis far beyond their true import. The subject has been well treated before in the classic: "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles MacKay and in Julian Simon's: "The Ultimate Resource" Remember the Luddites, Malthus, or the club of Rome (which predicted mass starvation for the 1980's), "global cooling", and innumerable other crises. Unsophisticated crackpots schedule the end of the world within their lifetimes, so their folly is revealed on that day. It takes real "sophistication" and political motivation (what better example than the UN) to select a menace so difficult to disprove and so far in the future, that we can finally punish those evil greedy capitalists. Meanwhile, Popocatapetl just erupted in Mexico and spewed forth probably more pollutants in one day than all of humanity can manage in 6 months.
Rating: Summary: Politics, not science Review: What a great way to sell books! Tell the people what they want to hear. Do not mistake this book for a dispassionate science book. This is a political book, masquerading as science. If you read this and you find yourself agreeing and feeling strongly, ask yourself why. The answer is probably that you are looking for a rationalization what you already believe. This is science like prostitution is love. It may be a feel-good facsimile, but it isn't the real thing. And turning to politically motivated science cheapens the politics as well as the science. I think the most breathtaking aspect of this work is the colossal hypocrisy employed here. Micheals and Balling decry the distortions of the left-wing environmentalist nutballs and play up the limitations of environmental science while using the same tactics. If the premise of this book is accurate, that science is used by idealogues to distort the truth and promote their political philosophy, well, what can we make of this book? Does the politics lead or the science? I would suggest that you look into the history of the authors to determine whether they are capable of non-political dispassionate scientific inquiry. I have looked, and guess what? It isn't love, its prostitution.
|