Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

Semi-insider view of Climate Wars
Although I read a lot about our Climate Wars, there is much in this book that I did not know.The author (Fred Pearce) is a UK reporter who talks directly with all sides of the debate and for that I will call him a semi-insider.He provides the time-sensitive context of many of the more celebrated emails extracted from Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University at East Anglia (UEA). For instance the "hide the decline" and "Mann's Nature trick" private email from Phil Jones (given in mid 1999 but released to the public in Nov 2009) was said by Sen Jim Inhofe in Dec 2009 to demonstrate that "the science [behind global warming] has been pretty much debunked" and "the science has been rigged".Let's explore that statement.For years the CRU has put out plots of the measured "instrumental" (aka thermometers) temperature data showing an approx 0.8C temperature increase since pre-industrial times mostly in two upturn periods 1910-1940, 1977-1998, other periods being essentially flat. It is the most fundamental evidence for global warming and the same data has been analyzed with similar results by NASA's GISS.Now according to Inhofe this data had really declined, the CRU knew that, and the "hide the decline" amounts to proof that they knew that but were fabricating data to say otherwise. But the context makes it clear that the "hide the deline" phrase was related to the Paleoclimatic data of over 1000+ years based on proxies, and not the instrumental temperature measurement starting globally in ~1850.The paleoclimatic researchers acknowledge "divergence" later than 1961 or 1981 (depending on the data set) in tree ring reconstructions which does not show consistent trends - temperatures from some trees went high, while others went down. Yet for the years 1850-1960, the tree ring data matches the temperature anomalies of the "instrumental record" quite well.So following Michael Mann's "hockey stick" article published by Nature magazine in 1998, the inconsistent paleoclimatic data (post 1961 or 1981) was replaced by an overlay of the "instrumental record" to display all the available (and reliable) data on one plot - this was "Mann's Nature's trick" which is not an attempt to deceive but an attempt to display all the relevant data on one plot.Jones was not "hiding the decline" in the instrumental data; instead he was hiding some of the latter unreliable Paleoclimatic data that they did not understand.This procedure was clearly pointed in Jones's text accompanying the plots as it was in Mann's papers earlier. No intent to "hide" anything and no "trick" was played. The "trick" referred to a data display choice and was shorthand in the context of private email between Jones and other climate researchers.Jones would have explained it more if he knew it was going to be a public text approx 10 years afterwards.And if by chance the Paleoclimatic data were totally debunked, global warming itself would remain as established fact by other data sources (instrumental record showing highest rates of heating since 1977 than ever recorded in the ice core data, satellite temperature records, sea level rise records, ocean heat records, etc).Boy that was detailed for a book review, but necessary to give the true context.

But one would be totally wrong, if one thought Pearce was merely a defender of the Climate Mainstream Scientists and a detractor of the Climate Skeptics. He starts out in chapter 1 by saying there are "no heroes" here - fault can be found in virtually all the players. Wrt the Mainstream, he comes down hard on Michael Mann (too sure of himself and verbose), Phil Jones (too eager to refuse release of data to the skeptics' FOI request), Rajendra Pachauri (too defensive about IPCC reports that actually had several mistakes in it among it's thousands of assertions), Kevin Trenberth (too quick to claim hurricane frequency was due to global warming); and not so hard on Tom Wigley (ex- CRU boss), Keith Briffa (tree ring researcher at CRU), and Stephen Schneider (Stanford U).Wrt the skeptics side, he comes down hard on Pat Michaels, Fred Seitz, Anthony Watts, Ross McKitrict, Bennie Peiser, Jim Inhofe, Myron Ebell (for being ideologically motivated and too adamant in scientific fields they did not understand fully);and not so hard on Steven McIntyre (data sleuth), Dick Lindzen (hurricane researcher from MIT), John Christy (climatologist from UAH). He discusses all the pointed technical discussions concerning the Hockey Stick, CRU email wording/context, GlacierGate, Yamal tree ring data, number of stations in the temperature data, and the accounting for Urban Heat Island effects.You will find plenty of "red meat" about CRU and Manistream Scientist "tribalism", lack of williingness to release data, and sloppiness in the caretake of data. You will also find plenty of details of who funds the many skeptics orgainzation (and a few who hide their funding),and the outlandish PR coming from that side (e.g calling GW a "hoax", with data maliciously "manipulated", the earth is actually cooling).As such both sides could use this book selectively to badmouth the other side.

But in the end, Pearce believes that the Mainstream Scientist position is the correct one as he stated in the first paragraph of the final chapter (I'd like to quote it but not sure that I should copyright-wise).Pearce just believes the details have to be cleaned up in a very public/transparent/thorough way. I agree.

After reading this, I feel a thorough reconstruction of all the available "original" data needs to be done by truly independent people doing the heavy analysis with all "sides" as watchdogs/guides all working together (may be too much to ask for). None of the three CRU email investigative teams have had the time or charter to do so. This will in all likelihood prove out the mainstream position of man-caused global warming and the need to control greenhouse gases. But nontheless the interested public needs and deserves convincing (if such is possible).I also would demand a opening up of the global warming skeptic organizations' email files/data(if they have any) to similiar scrutiny as the CRU has received, all in the interest of truth.

The book is well written (a few Britainisms) and reads like a detective story. I recommend it highly to interested parties. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

BUY IT!! It's an amazing resource. We CAN stop global warming!!
This is a superb reference book about the Climate.
Its section on climate science is easy to read, with clear explanations to all your questions, and websites for additional information.
Most of the book is stories about people helping the Earth. Pick a page or two, whatever your interest - art, radio, architecture, gardening, recycling, aviation, forests, solar energy, politics, building, school etc etc,and read about what other people are doing. You will find weblinks to people and organizations that are reducing carbon emissions. Learn what they tried, how they succeeded,and what else can be done.
"Many of us can visualize a peaceful, sustainable climate-friendly world, but it's not happening as fast as it needs to. Something more is needed. We need a movement that unites people all over the world."
Be a part of the solution. Buy this book for yourself and for everyone you know.
Thank you for caring.


... Read more

Product Description
Revisiting the most important topic of our time.

The rapid warming of the Earth's climate has been a concern for decades. Though many of us understand that temperatures will-on average-rise, the science and the resulting social, economic, and political implications of such a change are far-reaching and complex. This new edition has been completely overhauled, synthesizing the latest information into an easy-to-read reference that provides a fair assessment of climate change, its costs, and even its short-term benefits.
? Covers the newest science and issues surrounding global warming
? Written by a seasoned science/nature journalist
... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

A Review from Someone who has NOT read the book
I feel silly writing a review of a book I have not read, but I read the other reviews which were completely bogus, which tried to give the impression that there is still controversy about global warming among the world's scientists, and that global warming is some left-wing conspiracy this book promotes.

Here is a simple experiment to see who is telling the truth.Go to your local library and ask to see some peer-reviewed technical magazines on global warming.The language will probably be way over your head, but you can categorise the abstracts as either:

1. presuming global warming as a fact

2. debunking global warming

3. you can't tell.

I predict you won't find a single scientific article debunking it.

"Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it."
~ Naomi Oreskes, 2004-12-26, science historian
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26065-2004Dec25.html

A Good Starting Point
This book is a good introductory text for those who want to know more about the complex topic of climate change and "global warming".The book is easy to read and educational for those starting out in their examination of the field, though further reading on this topic will show that some of the core premises of the book are more contentious than the author seems to think.

A list of further readings is provided, though there are no sources listed for the arguments made by the aurthor, which can make it difficult for those who want to do their own fact-checking or to canvass alternative opinions.However, a whole (short) chapter is devoted to arguments against the impact of man and is consequences on the environment.

Unfortunately, like many modern texts on climate and the environment, the author seems wedded to the concept of biocentrality and "steady-state" systems, with no examination of the merits or pitfalls of such a position.

Still, overall, this book provides a good introduction to the general concepts and arguments around man's impact on global climate.

Some decent basic information but clearly biased.
This book has some good basic information but the author
isn't really interested in having anyone read views that
don't buy everything the leftist NGOs or the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations)
say (he states panelists are all "climatologists" which isn't true).He also states 100 Nobel Prize winners see global warming as a big problem caused by the "wealthy few." But most of these "winners" are not climate scientists and the Nobel Committee is very leftist oriented. In fact, the wealthier nations have the improving environments while poorer, socialist and communist nations (such as Zimbabwe) are usually worsening. His references for further reading don't include even one
so-called "skeptic" about global warming but includes Paul Ehrlich whose predictions have often been wrong. In the text, he briefly discusses Bjorn Lomborg with the clear implication he ISN'T an "environmentalist" which I doubt is true.He then doesn't bother to list Lomborg in the Index nor does he list the book as one to read though it has been widely praised.In his list of "Concerned Organizations," he lists every leftwing NGO but not one from those who have questioned the standard orthodoxy such as Cato or the American Enterprise Institute.

So, if you are interested in reading both sides of this issue,
here some suggestions for starters:

BOOKS: "The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol," David Victor, Stanford University, published by the Council on Foreign Relations."The Satanic Gases" and "Meltdown"(2004), Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, Univ. of Virginia."The Environmental Case for Nuclear Power," Robert C. Morris."The Heated Debate," Dr. Robert C. Balling (also co-authored "Satanic Gases")."Ecoscam" and "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths," Ronald Bailey. "Why Geography Matters" by Harm de Blij, noted geographer. "The Life and Death of Planet Earth" by Ward and Brownlee, Univ. of Washington. "Frozen Earth" by Douglas McDougall, U.C.-San Diego. "Hoodwinking the Nation" by Julian Simon and Lomborg's book which is simply amazing ("The Skeptical Environmentalist").

WEBSITES: www.sepp.org; www.worldclimatereport.com; www.techcentralstation.com/environment; www.envirotruth.org; www.lomborg.com; www.cato.org; Michael Crichton's website.There are many more but these are a good start.


... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (5)

The BEST children's book on this subject
Winston of Churchill is a beautifully written, beautifully illustrated book.And aside from other children's books on similar subject matter, this is the ONLY one with a combination of an important message, a real plot with dramatic structure, and a sense of humor.The children's classic about saving the environment is The Lorax.But unlike The Lorax, this book offers a more laughs and a greater sense of hope.My children kept asking to have it read over and over again, and they have now memorized it.I hope you and your children get to know it, too!

Incredible!
What a timely and relevant book for children's understanding about Global Warming.It has become the "go to" book for the issues that concern our environment and the impact we have on our world.

Well written book!
This book is about a serious subject, but is written in a very child appropriate fashion.It's a great read-aloud for rich discussion about how each of us can make a difference.A nice blend of facts and fiction.Cute illustrations!

Thoughtful and motivational picturebook.
Winston of Churchill: One Bear's Battle Against Global Warming is a charming children's picutrebook that addresses a serious modern social issue. Winston the polar bear of Churchill, Canada has observed that the earth is getting warmer due to human-generated pollution, and wants to mobilize his fellow bears to do something about it. "Burning gasoline in cars makes carbon dioxide. Methane gas comes from rotting garbage in landfills. Digging for oil an natural gas and mining coal lets out a gas called nitrous oxide. Too much of these gases is no good. But green plants turn carbon dioxide into oxygen, which is very good. People need to burn less gas, make less garbage, and plant more trees." However, Winston's wife notices that Winston himself contributes to global warming - by smoking a big, burning, smelly cigar! "'How can you convince people to stop doing what they're doing unless you can show that every little bit helps?' His wife glared at him. 'No cigar or I'm not going.'" Winston learns that the most persuasive way to advocate change is to change himself, and gives up his cigar to help convince humans to improve their world, in this thoughtful and motivational picturebook.

A perfect children's picture book
This beautifully illustrated children's book coveys a serious message with great good humor and a sense of fun. Its hard not to fall in love with the stogie-smoking Winston as he rallies his polar bear troops to fight global warming. And to sympathize with Mrs. Winston as she wages her own war against cigar smoking. Preschool and early school age children will learn not only about the major environmental threat of our times, but will be introduced to a famous historical figure who, like his namesake Winston of Churchill, rallied his fellow citizens to fight an impending disaster. No young child in your life would be disappointed to receive this lovely book as a gift. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

A good start to learn about global warming
I'm 11 and Im confident that my generation will end up having to find a way to begin changing the direction of apathy and neglect relating to our one and only home that we share - Planet Earth.This book helps begin to interest kids into the responsibility that we must step up to.New jobs, new vision, new attitudes etc are necessary. I like the examples and suggestions the book provides and mostly the concept that it continuously suggest that we must begin working on it today. ... Read more

Product Description

Global warming’s hidden agenda: a global socialist government 

The worldwide effort to combat manmade global warming is history’s most far-reaching hoax. In The Global-Warming Deception, Grant R. Jeffrey documents the orchestrated campaign of political pressure, flawed science, and falsified data—all designed to sell an environmental lie and bring the West to its knees.

United Nations agencies use the threat of rising ocean levels, crop failure, expanding deserts, and the extinction of species to convince western nations to surrender their sovereignty. As these developments play out, we see the globalists consolidating their power.

In The Global-Warming Deception, you will find proof that:

Your liberty is at stake. Now is the time to learn all you can about the socialist-Marxist elite that is advancing the false threat of global warming—the most deadly deception in history.

Product Description
This book tells the story of the global warming challenge, the possible dramatic change to the Earth's Climate, and some of the things we all can do to meet it, such as altenative means of generating electricity. This book is for an elementary school audience. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Interesting facts without hysteria
It is refreshing to see science and engineering presented to children with the aim of interesting children in science and engineering, rather than trying to get them to adopt some particular point of view.This book is not at all a "scare story" about global warming, but instead is something much more interesting and much more valuable: an explanation that children can understand about what happens (good and bad) when we burn fuel, and attempts to engage their interest in the fact that science and engineering are the only real path to understanding and improvement.

An inconvenient fraud
While I will agree that the earth may be warming slightly, it is part of the ever changing planet on which we live.I don't believe for one minute that any change is due to humans and emmissions.It is fine for kids to want to explore new and better alternatives to help us in the future, but please stop making it sound like the planet will be ending soon.

Excellent Resourse for Science Teachers
As a parent of a 14 year old, I feel this book would be a wonderful addition to the library of a Junior High School level science class.This book is very informative and would definately spark young minds to take action and would also be an excellent resourse to suggest science projects.Children these days are definately in tune with these global issues and this book provided some answers and suggestions on how we can help the state of our planet.

Great for kids
A great book for children. Clearly illustrates the science of global warming in a way that is easy for children to understand. A Clean Sky shows children what is happening to our planet and gives many positive solutions to solving this growing issue. Highly Recommended!

A Better Understanding of What We Can All do About Global Warming
My 11-year old daughter is discussing global warming in school and what we can do about it as individuals, a family and as a school.I was amazed to read about the kinds of things that are being done, including this whole idea about generating electricity using hydrogren and then capturing carbon dioxide.This makes so much sense, I don't understand why we aren't doing this everywhere. Thank you for your book, which was very informative and helpful -- for both me and my daughter.I think we both better understand about using hydrogen, capturing carbon dioxide and what we can all do about global warming. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (6)

Failed attempt to rubbish Bjorn Lomborg
This book is a failed attempt to rubbish Bjorn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool it!

In Chapter One Friel proves, unsurprisingly, that Lomborg is not part of the `consensus that projected unprecedented warming with potentially catastrophic consequences if green house emissions were not significantly reduced'.

Chapter Two looks at the numbers of polar bears. Lomborg claimed that their numbers have risen, from 5,000 in the 1960s to 25,000 today.Friel cites a 2001 report by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature Polar Bear Specialist Group that there are between 21,500 and 25,000. Then he berates Lomborg for writing of a `stable' bear population when the report said `stationary'.

Al Gore said, "polar bears have been drowning in significant numbers." Friel seems to think that the Center for Biological Diversity's 2008 report proves this true when it wrote, "polar bears are at risk of drowning in large numbers" and "polar bear drowning events are expected". But that is not the same as saying that they are currently `drowning in significant numbers'.

Friel often misreads Lomborg. For example, Lomborg wrote, "Some of the largest colonies contain more than twenty thousand pairs [of Emperor penguins] each, several of which may be increasing." Friel writes, "penguin colonies in one of the areas (and not `several', as Lomborg wrote) `may be increasing'". But Lomborg's `several' referred to colonies not to areas.

Lomborg cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 estimate that sea levels will rise about a foot by 2100: Friel calls Lomborg's statement `narrowly accurate' and `not wholly inaccurate'. Yet Friel then tries to justify Gore's 20-feet rise estimate as `a not entirely hypothetical possibility'. Again, Friel quotes reports saying that sea levels could rise by five feet by 2100, without assessing how likely this is.

Friel quotes a 2002 conference of the American Geophysical Union, "The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades." He can't see that this wrecks the case for `unprecedented warming'. (If these levels were seen decades ago, they are not unprecedented.) Nor can they be a `record', yet The New York Times headlined the conference, `Arctic Ice is Melting at Record Levels, Scientists Say' (8 December 2002). This is the kind of exaggeration that Lomborg criticises.

Other examples include a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences which concluded that climate change is `largely irreversible' for the next 1000 years, and James Hansen writing, "If the present overshoot of this target CO2 [of 350 ppm] is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects."

Again, the Worldwatch Institute said that we will have to end `the emission of carbon dioxide by 2050 to avoid catastrophic disruption to the world's climate'. The Independent's Michael McCarthy reported, "Lord Stern said new research done in the past two or three years had made it clear there were `severe risks' if global temperature rose by the predicted 4C to 7C by 2100. Agriculture would be destroyed and life would be impossible over much of the planet, the former World Bank chief economist said."

But the IPCC said in 2007, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1 to 30C, but above this it is projected to decrease." Yet Friel concludes, "It is also fair to say that Lomborg's prognosis that `we will be able to feed the world ever better' because of global warming was not supported by either Lomborg's own sources or the 2007 IPCC assessment of the issue."

The IPCC also said in 2007, "Abrupt climate changes, such as the collapse of the West Antarctica Ice Sheet, the rapid loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet or large-scale changes of ocean circulation systems, are not considered likely to occur in the 21st century, based on currently available model results."

Take into consideration who the author is ...
The author, Howard Friel, should not be seen as an individual who approaches this subject with no bias, no political framework which might, might color his approach.With a quick Google search, I see that Mr. Friel was a research assistant to Edward Herman, who colloborated with Noam Chomsky - heard of him?These are people with very strong opinions.I'm not saying this makes Mr. Friel defacto wrong about his positions, of course not, just that be wary if you think he's a neutral source.And if I'm wrong, then I shouldn't have trusted [...]!This is an interesting debate, though, and I wish there was a Tim Russert - type author who would take it on.

Excellent.
The above one-starred review is misleading and false.The author of this book, Friel,traces Lomborg's mis-appropriations, diversions, non-sequitirs, and bald-faced lies through a myriad of references, not just IPCC reports.

These sources include:
ACIA Reports (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment)
British Antarctic Survey
Center for Biological Diversity
WHO
FAO
Earth Policy Institute
The Ebi Report
UNESCO
Foreign Affairs (Journal)
Global Environmental Outlook Report
Hadley Center Reports
IFPRI
IUCN
New Scientist
New York Times
US News and World Report
NASA ESSDS
NASA Goddard Institute
Science
Scientific American

plus dozens more.A well-researched book on a very poorly-researched one.But Friel makes very clear that Lomborg is much more than simply ill-informed.His selective and actively-misleading use of references was meant solely to deceive.Shame on Cambridge UP for publishing that garbage, even if it was their social sciences review division.

A field guide to falsification
Anyone who ever thought that Lomborg had anything useful to contribute to the debate about the state of the planet must read this book!

Its author provides a detailed page-by-page account of how Lomborg studiously overlooks all the key facts that do not fit his preconceptions, falsifies what the peer-review literature states, and fabricates material to his ends.No wonder the Danish Committee of Scientific Misconduct called him "dishonest."This is the book to show how Lomorg did it.Yes, it's an account of a sordid few years, but in detailing how Lomborg and his ilk produce this nonsense, there is no better guide. As a journalist who specializes in investigations -- and not a scientist with an axe to grind -- Howard Friel is the very best person to write this debunking.

Nothing New
I saw this book in Barnes & Noble and hesitantly bought and read it.If you are looking for scientific reasons as to why Lomborg is wrong and the IPCC is right, go search somewhere else.All this guy does is rewrite what so many have done before him.How this guy can criticize Lomborg and claim he is trustworthy is beyond me.This guy has NO scientific credentials whatsoever.Here's an example of the journalism-type investigating this guy did in regards to Lomborg's book: he has a chapter that criticizes Lomborg's claim that warming will not be catastrophic.His proof?He cites about 1.5 - 2 pages of predictions the IPCC made in it's last report.This guy apparently doesn't understand science or statistics or modeling in general, much less a topic as scientifically complex as climate.The book is boring beyond description and does nothing but nitpick through Lomborg's book in order to do a horrible job of showing how wrong he is and how right the IPCC and company are.This is another pathetic attempt by someone who has no business writing such a book to make a name for himself.There are already plenty of books out there whose authors claim they are right because they agree with the IPCC and the models, etc.Unforunately, these people don't understand that an argument from authority doesn't make their science right - especially for events that haven't occurred and which are being predicted by models that need a huge amount of refinement and additional physical processes!!This is the type of book that will make a lot of people falsley believe they are now amateur experts on global warming.But, if the author wants to make a name for himself, he surely knows how to do that! ... Read more

Product Description
Booker focuses his attention on the mother of all environmental scares: global warming. This original book considers one of the most extraordinary scientific and political stories of our time: how in the 1980s a handful of scientists came to believe that mankind faced catastrophe from runaway global warming, and how today this has persuaded politicians to land us with what promises to be the biggest bill in history. Christopher Booker interweaves the science of global warming with that of its growing political consequences, showing how just when the politicians are threatening to change our Western way of life beyond recognition, the scientific evidence behind the global warming theory is being challenged like never before. The book exposes the myth that the global warming theory is supported by a 'consensus of the world's top climate scientists'. It shows how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is run by a small group of 'global warming' zealots, who have repeatedly rigged evidence to support their theory. But the politicians, pushed by the media, have so fallen for its propaganda that, short of dramatic change, our Western world now faces an unprecedented disaster. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (20)

One sided but with a few legitimate points
I should first lay out my bias: I believe that climate change/global warming is partially caused by humans. I disagree with a lot of what Booker says. (Example: contra Booker there is a consensus--according to the Wall Street Journal and other sources climate scientists overwhelmingly believe global warming is caused by CO2 emissions). Nevertheless,I still recommend reading the book. Booker does a good job of presenting his side, and he does make some stinging critiques of scientists like Michael Mann who fudged the data. (Go to the index and look up hockey stick).I would love to see a debate between Booker and Al Gore.

Good news on Global Warming!
This books documents the history of the global climate as a major public policy issue beginning with concerns about global cooling in the 70's and continuing on to the political concensus that the science is settled. Note this is a political and not a scientific concensus! The good news is that global warming is not a major problem and we do not need to commit mega dollars on carbon dioxide reduction. However, this good news about global warming does not reduce the need for better engergy efficiency and environmental responsibility as the world population continues to grow rapidly.

A Conspiracy Theory Among Global Change Scientists Asserted, but Not Proven
Perhaps the most systematic historically-focused book on the right of the historical debate over global climate change is Christopher Booker's "The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with `Climate Change' Turning Out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History?" published in 2009. Taking as a given that climate change is neither the result of human action nor that it is as devastating as the wide majority of scientists have asserted, Booker offers an historical account of how scientists came to believe that global warming as a result of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions had brought the Earth to this point in time.

Booker questions the catastrophic nature of this global climate change, and draws a stark portrait of conspiracy among scientists to foist questionable scientific evidence on governments that are seeking to respond, some with radical changes in policies that will severely affect the status quo. The book offers an outline of the history of climate change since the 1970s that calls into question every piece of evidence offered by scientists, including that from space-based remote sensing satellites.

As journalist Philip Ball commented in "The Observer" (London, UK), November 15, 2009, "The Real Global Warming Disaster" offers "just about every criticism ever made of the majority scientific view that global warming, most probably caused by human activity, is under way" without offering any countervailing evidence despite its abundance. I agree.

Truthseeker
You'd think this would be a dry read, but it reads like a novel.I wish every world citizen could read this book.The author documents his sources at the end of each chapter so you can verify what you are being told if you so desire.He presents the facts in great detail and leaves little doubt what is really going on with global warming.What has been going on in the scientific community is nothing short of unbelievable.It will change the way you evaluate things scientists say, particularly if the subject has political ties.I've recommended this book to many friends and relatives.You NEED to read this book!I couldn't put it down.Normally it takes me six months to read a book, but I read this one in a week.The time to read it is now, before the world wastes trillions of dollars on the wrong technologies.

Long, But Good Read - Worth It
This book is a long read, but well worth it. It is very well written and very readable.It is meticulously researched.Christopher Booker is not a scientist, and makes no claims of such.Rather he is a last surviving example of a nearly extinct species in today's media world: he is an INVESTIGATIVE journalist.He digs very deep - well beyond the superficial, sensationalist hype that masquerades as "news" in much of today's shallow media.He takes no one's word for anything - pro or con.He takes the news of the day then researches it - where did it come from?Who said it, and what is their authority?What and where is their evidence?Is the evidence compelling?Who disagrees with them, and WHY?Based on WHAT?Can they demonstrate in a practical way why their viewpoint and evidence should be considered credible?What motivations might these various players have for their viewpoint - pro or con?He also recognizes the difference between science and politics.Consensus is an appropriate tool in the political arena. It has no credible place in science.Credible science depends on the discovery of what actually is and is not in the world and universe. And it must be backed up by a rigorous process of verification that allows one scientist to take the inarguable facts and analyze them with the known and proven scientific methods and arrive at substantially the same conclusion of the first scientist who makes the original claim of discovery.

Credible scientists are doubters.Unless they can prove a hypothesis to themselves, they remain in doubt until such time as they can prove the hypothesis - even when said hypothesis is their own. In fact as I learned in my days as an engineer analyzing manufacturing and quality problems with statistical analysis, you must use the techniques of experimental design.Your first step is to develop a likely hypothesis based on your observations and all facts known to you at the time.The second step is to design an experiment.And you do not design the experiment to prove your hypothesis, but rather to DISPROVE your hypothesis.After you have made exhaustive attempts to disprove your hypothesis with everything you know and every thing you can learn from working with others who are also investigating the problem and you still fail to disprove your hypothesis, you then accept it with a defined degree of confidence (expressed as a percentage) based on your experimental design and the amount of data you have analyzed.

Mr. Booker uses a similar mindset in his investigation of the science behind the global warming hoopla.The inescapable conclusion is that for every ounce of science there seems to have been a pound of sensationalism, theatrics and drama since the original theories of anthropogenic global warming emerged in the early 1980's. And this has lead many perhaps well meaning but completely technically illiterate people to propose some of the most outrageous, even comical yet highly destructive "solutions" to the perceived problem imaginable.In some cases these solutions have been akin to chopping one's arm off to prevent possible infection from a sliver in the pinkie finger.Additionally, as is always the case in such far reaching situations, there have been the swarms of parasitic opportunists swimming like hungry sharks around the masses of disinformation, confusion and ignorance looking for opportunities to "cash in" on what appears to be the most sensational scare in all of mankind's history.The result has been billions of dollars spent to discover that the fox in the hen house was only the neighbor's Chihuahua or less.

The book also is a serious slap in the face to the so called "news media" that has had access to the same information that Booker had, and they have had that access all along had they bothered to make even a modicum of effort to look.But they apparently did not want to do their job. Maybe they instead saw a better opportunity for themselves in fanning the flames of ignorant hysteria, fear and superstition.In the end, the "news media" should be the biggest loser of all in this despicable chapter of human history. They have well earned it, and are still working hard at earning it. (That is, if you can consider taking dictation from the shady operatives and opportunists as hard work.)
... Read more

Product Description
Global warming skeptics often fall back on the argument that the scientific case for global warming is all model predictions, nothing but simulation; they warn us that we need to wait for real data, "sound science." In A Vast Machine Paul Edwards has news for these skeptics: without models, there are no data. Today, no collection of signals or observations—even from satellites, which can "see" the whole planet with a single instrument—becomes global in time and space without passing through a series of data models. Everything we know about the world's climate we know through models. Edwards offers an engaging and innovative history of how scientists learned to understand the atmosphere—to measure it, trace its past, and model its future.

Edwards argues that all our knowledge about climate change comes from three kinds of computer models: simulation models of weather and climate; reanalysis models, which recreate climate history from historical weather data; and data models, used to combine and adjust measurements from many different sources. Meteorology creates knowledge through an infrastructure (weather stations and other data platforms) that covers the whole world, making global data. This infrastructure generates information so vast in quantity and so diverse in quality and form that it can be understood only by computer analysis—making data global. Edwards describes the science behind the scientific consensus on climate change, arguing that over the years data and models have converged to create a stable, reliable, and trustworthy basis for establishing the reality of global warming. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

meteorologist
A VAST MACHINE is an excellent historical review of meteorology/climatology.However, mathematical treatment of fluid dynamics is very complex. The advent of computers has greatly enhanced weather prediction and analysis, but even today in meteorology five to six days forecasts are at best are only eighty to eighty five percent accurate. Forecasting years ahead, as in climatology are, in my estimation, only educated guesses. We simply don't have a comprehensive enough data base, in climatology, for dependable forecast analysis even with computer models. Although Mr.Edwards presents his case admirably, I am not convinced we are ready to forecast climate with any degree of accuracy now or in the foreseeable future.

Sounds like a reasonable book to me
I have only read chapter one of the book so far (so I gave it a neutral rating), but I was struck by a comment Jerry Matchett made: "... but does claim that computer model output constitutes data!" Considering that lots of climactic and metereological data goes into the models, it seems pretty reasonable to think that the model data coming out has some possible validity and reliability.

As far as language goes, I found chapter one to be very accessible. Check the author's website for more info about the book.

Understand the Roots of Our Understanding
Understanding how we know about climate, and even what it means to know about climate and climate change, is essential if we are to have an informed debate. This is far and away the best book I have read on the infrastructure behind our knowledge of climate change, how that infrastructure developed, and how the infrastructure shapes our understanding.

The story begins in the 1600s as systematic collection of weather data began (at least in the modern period, other cultures such as the Chinese have older records and it would be interesting to unearth these, although the data normalization issues would be extreme). It picks up speed in the 19th C with global trade and then the telegraph. The more data collected, and the more data is exchanged, the more important it becomes to normalize data for comparison. Normalization requires some form of data model, a theory that makes the data meaningful. Indeed, this is Edwards point, all data about weather and climate only becomes meaningful in the context of a model (this is of course generally true).

Work accelerated during WW2 and then exploded in the 50s and 60s as computers became more available. The role played by John Von Neumann in this is fascinating, as is the nugget that his second wife Klara Von Neumann taught early weather scientists how to program (there is a whole hidden history of the role of woman in developing computer programming that needs to be written - or if you know of one please add it to the comments of this review or tweet it to me @StevenForth).

Edwards also introduces some useful concepts such as Data Friction and Computational Friction. I think my company can apply these in its own work, so for me this has been a very practical text.

Modern models of climate are complex and are growing more so. They have to be to integrate data from multiple sources. One of the main lines of evidence for climate change is that data from many different sources are converging to suggest that climate change is a real and accelerating phenomena. One can meaningfully ask if this convergence is an artifact of the models, although this appears unlikely given the diversity of the data and models. But Edwards shows that it is idiotic to claim that the data and the models can be meaningfully separated. This is true in all science and not just climate science. A theory is a model to normalize and integrate data and to uncover and make meaningful relations between disparate data. That these models are now expressed numerically in computations, rather than as differential equations or sentences in a human language or drawings is one of the major shifts of the information age. It will be interesting to dig deeper into the formal relations between these diffferent modeling languages.

Save your money
This book seems little different than the rantings of a Monday morning,arriving late, college professor, suffering from a hangover, who forgot his lecture notes and even his place in the course syllabus, who decides to talk over the heads of his students about anything in general and nothing in particular because he does not know that they will appreciate the difference.

An example, "I intend the notion of knowledge infrastructure to signal parallels with other infrastructures, such as those of communication, transport, and energy distribution. Yet this is no mere analogy or metaphor.It is a precise, literal description of the sociotechnical supports that invariably undergird facts and well-accepted theories."

Imagine 439 pages of this drivel!

He does not realistically appraise evidence regarding "human caused global warming" but does claim that computer model output constitutes data! How MIT could publish this is beyond me! ... Read more

Product Description
When the weather changes daily, how do we really know that Earth's climate is changing? Here is the science behind the headlines - evidence from flowers, butterflies, birds, frogs, trees, glaciers and much more, gathered by scientists from all over the world, sometimes with assistance from young "citizen-scientists." And here is what young people, and their families and teachers, can do to learn about climate change and take action. Climate change is a critical and timely topic of deep concern, here told in an age-appropriate manner, with clarity and hope. Kids can make a difference!

This book combines the talents of two uniquely qualified authors: Lynne Cherry, the leading children's environmental writer/illustrator and author of The Great Kapok Tree, and Gary Braasch, award-winning photojournalist and author of Earth Under Fire: How Global Warming is Changing the World. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (9)

read the book and decide for yourself
)."Global warming" and "climate change" are terms related to a subject that has been in the news quite a bit lately.After a brief discussion of "What is Science?" with an explanation of hypotheses, theories, facts, and belief, authors Lynne Cherry and Gary Braasch present evidence from birds, flowers, butterflies, tropical rain forests, trees rings, boreal forests, the tundra, the North and South Poles, glaciers, the ocean, coastlines, carbon dioxide measurements, mud layers, and ice cores, gathered by scientists all over the world, sometimes with assistance from young "citizen scientists," regarding our changing climate.Subsequent sections present what can be done to learn about climate change and to take action to make a difference.
In doing some background research for this book review, I found that there really is no argument regarding the evidence so ably presented in How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate.The facts are there for all to see.It is hard to deny that our climate is somewhat warmer right now than it has been at various times in the past.The debate rages over the interpretation of the evidence.Many scientists believe that our current climate change is the result of human activity and must be reversed by taking steps to lower our "carbon footprints."Other equally qualified, reputable, and serious scientists are convinced that the present "global warming" is simply part of a natural cycle of earth's meteorological patterns and there is really not much that we can do to alter it.Whatever one's opinion of global warming is, the book does raise some important questions, so each person can read it and decide for himself.

This book is an AAAS top pick for 2008
b.elsewhere,

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), publisher of the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Science, strongly disagrees with your opinion.The AAAS just released its list of top science books for children and teens, and this book was on it.
See http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-12/aaft-aat120508.php

A book that's good enough for the AAAS is good enough for any kid interested in science.I'm ordering this one for my niece.

Global Warming for Kids
This is a great book for kids, especially, but for adults as well; I read it and enjoyed it and learned some things I didn't know about our changing climate. It is loaded with facts and information about climate change and global warming. The tightly written text is accompanied by a host of beautiful, glossy photographs as well as numerous charts and graphs. Science terms are both italicized and well defined in the text.

The book is set up in four sections. "Section one: Where We Find Clues About Climate Change" shows how data has been collected and research is being done about the changes in bird, butterfly and penguin populations as well as the changing tundra and landscapes in different parts of the world. "Section two: Fitting the Clues Together" tells how the facts and data collected in Section One are used to create models and computer programs showing changes that have already occurred and modeling and predicting what other changes will take place if the trend in global warming continues. "Section Three: What Scientists and You can Do" lists a whole array of things that can be done to reduce our "climate (carbon) footprint". "Section Four: Resources" gives all the resources used in the book and tells where readers can go for more information.

A Teacher's Guide is available from the publisher for teachers who would like to use this book in their classrooms. I believe this book would make an excellent classroom resource. There's lots of information about student groups worldwide that are helping scientists with their data collections.

There are so many good things to say about this book I hate to even mention the bad ones. But, alas, almost every book seems to have at least one thing about it that could be improved; this book has three. Let's not call them bad things, though; let's just say there are a couple of things I would do to improve the book.

First, I would correct the typo on page 39. (See if you can find it!). Then, I would add a glossary to the end of the book. There are a lot of science terms that are used throughout the book that are both italicized and defined in the text, keeping the text flowing and the narrative going. But, I think a glossary would be an added bonus for both students and teachers. If you want to find the meaning of a term, say tree cookies, you could leaf through the pages until you came to it on page 22; but, wouldn't it be easier to just go to a glossary at the back of the book and find the term listed there? Just a thought. . .

Even if you don't believe in global warming, you should appreciate the beautiful photos and the rich text of this fact-filled book. I give it 4 stars.

A little balance, please
Very nice composition, art work and presentation.A beautiful book.

Unfortunately, herein is a lot of valid science that is irrelevant to the central thesis.Yes, climate change is probably real.Yes, humanity is contributing to the concentration of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere.However, together these observations do not scientifically demonstrate that humanity is destroying the earth and must retrogress civilization or die.In fact, there are other potentially valid explanations and possible outcomes.

I wish all the kids subjected to this stuff had the insight to parse it properly.Without that, charting when the leaves turn, or when birds migrate, could make many young minds paranoid.

(real name withheld to avoid the inevitable "Denier" flaming)

Science, Service, Global Warming
One of the worst things about reading global warming books is that feeling of helplessness that sets in as statistic is added to statistic. Now, at last, Lynne Cherry has produced a well illustrated text that tells us how we can help by observing and documenting changes in the world around us. There are no grand claims, no easy solutions, but the hope that as we know more about what is happening, the better we will know what to do. At the back of the book, Cherry lists where we can submit our observations. As one who works in community service, I am impressed at how this book takes education into the real world. I have given it to our 5th grade faculty for service learning.

How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate is highly recommended. ... Read more

Product Description

"The Sky's Not Falling: Why It's OK To Chill About Global Warming" is for parents sick of seeing their kids indoctrinated by has-been politicians and Hollywood stars. Unlike books written by would-be celebrities without any scientific or economics background, "The Sky's Not Falling" is everything a book about the environment written for kids should be: fact-filled, apolitical, fun and optimistic about the future of our magnificent, ever-changing planet.

Customer Reviews (49)

A "Hot Failure"
This book is terrible and utterly false! Global warming will affect everyone in a negative way.There is no way we can "just live with it" without all suffering serious consequences.You are trying to brainwash the minds of young children.This is what will really happen. 1. The world will heat up. 2. Because of this icebergs will melt, flooding coastal towns.3. Because of this polar bears, seals, and penguins will die.I don't know how you got this book published but I certainly won't be reading it or recommending it to anyone I know!

A book for people who live in bubbles
I read this book because i wanted to hear a different opinion about global warming.After i finished reading it i realized that it was just another case of a human saying ''We didn`t do it,so we don`t have to fix it.'' Although the author was right,global warming is a natural process, she forgets to mention that humans are making the process go much faster.I was also not surprised when i heard that the author was funded by exxon and is not actually a climatolagist. I would not recomend this book to anyone because it supports inaction in a time when it is far better to be safe than sorry.

Buy it
Go right on and buy it. Now buy every other book you can find that is designed to discuss politics and current issues with children. Then sit them down and have them watch the news.

How do you feel when you think or talk about political issues? Frustrated? Angry? Indignant? Hopeless?

Congratulations, you've just dumped your adult miseries onto your child.

just food for thought
I was taking a look at this book, and then the reviews. Like one I read on another site, I wonder if most of the negative reviewers even read the books. I skimmed through it and one of the biggest points I noticed. Was not to truly attack global warming. But how people deal with environmental issues. And she is right. We, as a collective, look to the government to solve the problem. She is against this. And I can tell you one reason why she is right.

Rewind about 100 years ago. Something we take very much for granted now was just being invented; something that would truly change the world, something that was believed to be so physically impossible, that is wasn't even given a patent for several years. Even though the government was funding one engineer to invent the very same machine.

With virtually unlimited resources, this well know engineer, worked for sometime to invent this machine, and at his grand test... Failed, miserably. After that, is was thought to be impossible...yet... two relatively young, bicycle repairmen of all things, went to a little known place in north Carolina... and did the impossible. They flew... no government funding. No army of engineers and work me, Just two men with a dream, and determination.

What this book is suggesting, is we need to teach our children, how to learn. How you look and see things for them selves. And to use their own minds creatively. And that is how problems will be solved, the global warming basis is purely and easy way of doing this. Since all we hear is, with some exaggeration, "the sky is falling" but when you look deep into the science. Much of what is said. Doesn't work, and the rest. Is open for interpretation. Thinking for your self, Is the only solution.

And life's a bowl of (pesticide-ridden) cherries
While it's always important to examine all sides of an issue, overall this book scares the daylights out of me. It encourages children to ignore the obvious signs of our planet's distress. And THEY, even more than their parents will be the ones to suffer for the neglect.Even GWB is beginning to talk about the consequences of such ignorance. Don't be swayed by this false science that, as it turns out, was paid for by Exxon, who had this book published. ... Read more

Product Description
In this groundbreaking, global analysis of the relationship between climate change and human health, Hans Baer and Merrill Singer inventory and critically analyze the diversity of significant and sometimes devastating health implications of global warming. Using a range of theoretical tools from anthropology, medicine, and environmental sciences, they present ecosyndemics as a new paradigm for understanding the relationship between environmental change and disease. They also go beyond the traditional concept of disease to examine changes in subsistence and settlement patters, land-use, and lifeways, throwing the sociopolitical and economic dimensions of climate change into stark relief. Revealing the systemic structures of inequality underlying global warming, they also issue a call to action, arguing that fundamental changes in the world system are essential to the mitigation of an array of emerging health crises link to anthropogenic climate and environmental change. ... Read more

Product Description
Global warming: it's one of the hottest scientific and political issues of today. And yet we've all found ourselves asking . . .

- It's freezing outside--where's global warming now?
- Climate is always changing--how do we know this isn't just a cycle?
- Why should Christians care about global warming when we know the world won't end that way?

For all the talk about climate change, there's still a great deal of debate about what it all means, especially among Christians. A CLIMATE FOR CHANGE offers straightforward answers to these questions, without the spin. This book untangles the complex science and tackles many long-held misconceptions about global warming. Authored by a climate scientist and a pastor, A CLIMATE FOR CHANGE boldly explores the role our Christian faith can play in guiding our opinions on this important global issue. (2009) ... Read more

Customer Reviews (18)

An Informative Book about Climate Change
Climate change is happening at the earth's core. It's warming lakes and there are changes in the weather. The thing that stuck out to me is that weather is different than what is happening. Yes there are record colds but it's how much the seasons are changing that is being effected. They use charts, graphs, and other facts. They even debunk the myths that people like Al Gore are trying to prove. They take real life examples and show how things have changed around the world.

It's not about politics. It's about the science of things. Looking back at temperature changes for hundreds of years. I was blown away by the detailed record keeping over the centuries. They wanted the straight facts not all the hot air that is blowing around about this topic. They laid it all out, what causes were happening both by nature and by man. We're causing the most problems.

The main problem with most of it is that it is expensive to change how we live. Yes, recycling does help but that is only one thing that can be done. Yet we are creatures of comfort. I loved the honesty of the authors that laid it all out for you. They even admitted that they didn't agree on everything. Statements throughout the book just made my eyes open even more. I may not understand it all. I am still learning but definitely want to read more on the subject.

The final thing that it left me with is something that I have always felt. I want to take care of the Earth that we do have. Yes there will be a new heaven and a new earth as it is stated in the Bible. I am concerned about what we have now.I also liked the fact that they gave you other sources to understand more of what is happening to our Earth. This is one book that will stick with me for a long time.

If you like Elmer Gantry, you'll luv this "book."
I applaud the energy of the authors and I really hate to rain on the parade but I have to do my best Paul Revere impression on this toxic book.If the system allowed, I would give it a zero rating.

I found this little "gem" in our church library this morning bearing the label "new" and have spent the last two hours reading it.That was about 90 minutes more than this work deserves.I would like to think that the authors mean well, but I also wonder whether or not they have simply sought out and found their niche for making money off a trusting Christian community just as the Elmer Gantry types learned to do 70 years ago.It may not be all their fault because the Christian community in the past 25 years has embraced the commercialization of the faith, and maybe that's standard operating procedure in their environment.But if so, this is a perfect example of why it is a very bad idea and cheapens the faith.

I will be blunt.This volume, in my opinion, is an intellectual, scientific and theological travesty--even if they are correct on the science, and in that I remain a sceptic due to the total lack of credibility of the science community. I am distressed that it found its way into our church library and that anyone would hold him or herself out as a Christian and publish such a lacking epistle intentionally to the Christian community.The authors would do well to read and study Alexander Pope's Essay on Criticism, you know, that one with the line "a little learning is a dangerous thing."

Science has entered a period where it has become two ugly things at once: the grand Inquisitor where Truth is no longer its objective (money and conformity to the thinking of the money source have taken over as the goal) and where it has prostituted itself towards that objective.The search for Truth, Academic integrity and Academic freedom are relics of the past.It is all about money, and you do what it takes.And so, we start with what seems to be a bit of puffery in credentials.A little Google looking leads to the discovery that "Dr." Hayhoe is not a doctor of philosophy at all.Once you know that little fact, you then realize the unusual description of Hayhoe as a "climate scientist" with no mention of earned degrees. The book never states that she has a doctorate but the clear inference is there, and even some prior reviewers (and many news stories) have assumed such. According to Hayhoe's bio, she has a BA in physics and astronomy from University of Toronto and a masters degree in climate science studies from University of Illinois, no doctorate, and her position at Texas Tech is a "research associate professor", not the expert.The book itself has a bibliography of 38 pages, with a high percentage being web articles, and cites to only two of her own works, one a web-site URL on page 185 which appears to be a short report about climate in Chicago but the report is no longer available, the other on page 189, seemingly a similar report about California that looks to be five pages long. Hayhoe does get a lot of publicity but it does not seem she is in the category of a renowned leading expert.

There in fact are many real PhD climatologists around the world who would disagree with most of the "science" she claims to describe, but you would never know from the volume that any such real scientists even exist, except perhaps in her repetitively opaque (but less than scientific) argument that "some would deny....but...."I do not find that to be an acceptable way to dismiss the opposition--at least have the guts to put a name to your Goliath and then take your best shot, but don't put the burden on the reader to say "Well, what about Prof So-And-So who thinks you're nuts."

In that regard, Hayhoe claims over and over that the data is known and settled, yet the fact is that many of her scientific comrades were caught last year with their hands in the proverbial cookie jar of destroying and hiding data upon which their hypotheses rest, over a period of many years, claiming at the time that no back up data was preserved.Is Hayhoe claiming that she has a spare copy of the missing data?I doubt it, but she makes her claims nonetheless.

Overall, as a description of the science and the issues, this book is exceedingly misleading as a supposedly fair presentation of the facts and issues.I found it incredible and sorely deficient that not one footnote is found in the entire book. The reader is at a loss to evaluate the claims other than by faith--they look so nice in their pictures, so it must be true--or at best the reader can go to the bibliography and guess what was relied upon.As for the issue of cause even in a period of warming, exceedingly simplistic discussion is provided considering that well respected real climatologists disagree strongly with the premise.

The sophistication of writing and argument is not of high standard. Example:she starts with the anecdotal tear-jerker of the story of the Eskimo village of Kivalina. Fast forward to pages 19-20 and figure 7 re the Medieval Warming Period and what does she do but dismiss this rather dramatic climate period that first allowed colonization and when ended drove the Vikings out of Greenland and Labrador as a mere anecdotal event "only relevant to one particular region of the globe." I kid you not.

A few more obvious examples of the deficiency of the science arguments:

Hayhoe hides what would be the most easily understood evidence of the actual temperatures at relevant periods--her graphs and charts never use actual temperatures. And, at page 145-146 she actually glosses over the very substantial risk of poisoning little children from the mercury contamination of the pretzel fluorescent bulbs that are to be used to replace the incandescent ones, arguing that the risk is no more than found in a mercury thermometer.Most homes have no mercury thermometer at all any more since technology has made them obsolete, but they have dozens of light bulbs. Perhaps she just doesn't realize that in essence she is saying that the sacrifice of a few kids a year is a price she is willing to pay to get rid of the tradional light bulb.She also cites, at page 84, to hurricane Katrina in her discussion of enhanced storm strengths--this is totally irresponsible, and I don't get it.Katrina was a Cat 3 storm that took aim at a state with an unqualified governor and a more unqualified mayor.QED.

The authors also should have disclosed in the book the degree, if any, to which Hayhoe profits from the "scientific" views she espouses in this volume, both in her Texas Tech position and her private company (perhaps being paid to write papers that support the views of the grant issuers) considering from the description of her position at the university that her main endeavors relate to spreading the world according to Al Gore.The adage to Follow The Money applies.The question is rightfully asked.If the funding for her job comes from those who are content with and expect her to actively advocate her views, then the readers are entitled to know that.

I was particularly offended by Hayhoe's Canadian whack at "stupid" Americans.She is a Canadian transplant, as am I, and I spotted her Canadianism on page 56 where she lectures the reader on the difference between weather and climate. To understand the slight, you need to know that there is a goodly sized segment of Canadians who will belittle Americans at any and every opportunity. She tells the same apocryphal story I heard 30 years ago of the dumb Americans who arrive in Canada in July with snow skis strapped to their cars, but in all my many years in Canada I never saw or spoke to any Canadian who actually saw such happen, and I don't believe it for a nanosecond. Canadians have told this story for so long that they mayactually begin to believe it, and so it is possible that she believes it--but I don't and so, to me, on this alone her credibility grade goes to zero.

As for theological orthodoxy in caring for the down trodden, the book (I assume unintentionally, and out of ignorance) comes up woefully short as well.The authors seem content to relegate much of the world to perpetual poverty and misery for such is the inevitable result of the "solutions" of the environmental movement that they espouse.Likewise, they have no problem with the inherently racist policies of the movement pertaining to oil drilling--it's fine where the brown peoples live, but not good for the USA, page 153.Not very Christian.

I consider myself an avid environmentalist. I start with picking up the trash along our road. I would do many things differently if I held the power but they would be done with eyes open and with demand of integrity in the scientific community, and I would not play upon the goodwill of my Christian brethren.

All in all, I cringe at the thought that many church libraries will perpetuate this work that I think should be relegated to the ash heap.

Intellegent Data for Anyone
I've been interested in the climate change argument I've been digesting both sides of the debate for quite some time, and the authors provide a fresh perspective in this work. While a faith-based perspective is at the forefront of the book, it is really based on solid logic and scientific arguments that transcend much of the mainstream news. I believe it is a must-read for anyone wanting to see evidence of climate change from a balanced perspective.

Very clear, easily read, excellent documentation
A Climate for Change is a clearly written, engaging read, with a straightforward presentation of the facts behind today's concerns about global warming and the "positive feedback loops" that are exacerbating the effects of human actions.Written from the perspective of thoughtful Christians, the book challenges all to reflect on what would be loving Christian responses to the impacts of global warming, which will fall most heavily on those least able to move or adapt to its changes.The science data presented is very clear.There are colorful inserts that clearly depict the changing trends the world is experiencing.While respectful of the different responses that people of conviction may make, the authors suggest that, individually, we each will make choices, and those choices will have consequences.They encourage truly keeping God at our center, and choosing to do that which will honor God and best respect God's handiwork.

Very good book!
Book was very informative. Was surprised at the amount of scientific evidence mixed with spiritual uplifting in clearing the air on global warming! ... Read more

Product Description
Significant climate change as a consequence of human pollution of the atmosphere looks increasingly likely. Some change is already occurring but quite what magnitude of change will occur and what it will bring to different parts of the world remains unknown. Meanwhile, despite the catastrophic forecasts of the dangers that a warming world poses to human and other species, the consumer society of the North continues in its energy hungry path, and the peoples of the South continue to bear the cost.In the face of this uncertain yet impending crisis, does it make sense to speak of a moral response? Michael Northcott argues not only that it does, but that it is essential if we are to avoid further environmental disaster.
... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

The Most Complete
This book is the most complete analysis of not only global warming, but the lack of morals involved in the creation of situations that are causing the planet to heat.I've read a lot of literature on the subject of global warming andRev. Northcott covers all of the sub-topics. This is an excellent book and certainly, clergy of all stripes, as well as environmentalists,should be particularly interested in the contents.

A lie, taken to the nth degree
Sparse evidence of anthropogenic global warming is wielded like a bludgeon in an attempt to bend human behavior into a mold more to the author's liking.

Alarmists and self-loathers alike, rejoice! Your book is here.

A pick for both spirituality and social issues collections.
A MORAL CLIMATE: THE ETHICS OF GLOBAL WARMING offers a challenging, different look at global warming trends from a spiritual and ethical perspective, and comes from a leading international ethicist who has written other definitive works on the topic of Christian ethics and environmental thinking. From the failings in dominant economic models to the politics of oil around the world and religious perspectives and insights, this blend of Christian thought and social issues is a pick for both spirituality and social issues collections. ... Read more

Product Description
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been issuing the essential facts and figures on climate change for nearly two decades. But the hundreds of pages of scientific evidence quoted for accuracy by the media and scientists alike, remain inscrutable to the general public who may still question the validity of climate change.

Esteemed climate scientists Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump, have partnered with DK Publishing to present Dire Predictions-an important book in this time of global need. Dire Predictions presents the information documented by the IPCC in an illustrated, visually-stunning, and undeniably powerful way to the lay reader. The scientific findings that provide validity to the implications of climate change are presented in clear-cut graphic elements, striking images, and understandable analogies. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

Climate Change Illustrated
This is a comprehensive, attractive summary of the recent IPCC report on climate change by recognized authorities in the field.If you accept global warming, as I do, you'll find the book excellent; if you deny climate change you'll hate it because the case for change is so clearly and forcefully presented.

Excellent introductory and/or reference book
Excellent book for those interested in getting the facts and science of climate change. It is actually a summary of the 3000+ pages of the IPCC AR4 2007 reports. All the aspects are covered efficiently: physical basis, paleoclimatology, climate models, impacts, projections and GHG emission scenarios, adaptation and mitigation measures. The authors have done a wonderful job in making complex, interdisciplinary science understandable to anybody. Recommended to those wishing to have a quick guide to climate change without scientific compromise.
On the aesthetics side: this book is very nicely done. Text easy to read, nice pictures, well-chosen relevant and easy-to-grasp figures and charts, everything is done so the reader enjoys reading the book. Its structure is so that each set of two pages is independent on the previous ones. That means that you can browse through the book and pick up any random page to read! Cross-references are numerous.
A reference for the layman.

Game, Set, Match
This book could easily be titled, "A Guide to Help Climate Skeptics Understand Why They are Wrong."It's written, not in a dull, didactic, "here are the facts," manner, but more as a presentation of the arguments in which the standard questions from the other side are addressed as major section headings, such as, "Couldn't the increase in carbon dioxide be the result of natural cycles?."

Pretty much the bottom line conclusion of the book is presented in large, bold font near the end of first section where the authors say that if we don't do something to change our ways, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level will exceed "anything experienced on earth for over 50 million years."Could the stakes be laid out any more clearly?

The tables need to be turned on the climate skeptics -- it's time for the burden of proof to be placed upon their shoulders -- as in, you folks need to prove to us that it's possible to alter the atmosphere so significantly and NOT have something undesirable happen.

The structure of the book is very simple and powerful.In five nicely color-coded sections they lay out the basics of the problem, what the science predicts will happen, and how to avoid or cope with it.The style of writing is efficient, direct, to the point, and periodically snappy, such as asking, "Is it time to sell that beach house?"

The overall look of the book is almost as VISUAL as a slide show. This is a book that is perfect for undergraduates, the general public, and pretty much everyone willing to put their trust in science rather than politics.

Incomplete Work...
This book is a scantily clad picture of our earth and what may or may not be happening to it.Instead of at least paying a minimal tribute to its opponents (currently 31,000+ scientists strong) it delves into global warming as if it were a truth akin to the most fundamentalist of bible, islam, or torah theorists.It fails to mention what some of the opponents of global warming addresses....namely the cooling of our climate, the expanding of our artic ice caps, and the cooling temperatures of our world at its core, which is a much more definitive measurement than that of the crust or air above the crust.

This book is one-sided, unscientific, and no better than blatant dogma.I guess in the days of climate change scares, dogma is merely short for dog-manure.

Excellent science primer
Dire Predictions offers an excellent primer on climate change science and potential means for reducing emissions. The authors address the basics of climate science with informative text and graphs that are simple, intuitive and straight-forward. This is a great book to pass on friends and relatives who would benefit from information about climate science from scientists.

I work with climate scientists and it is often difficult to translate climate science to the public. The authors of Dire Predictions have made an excellent go at it. ... Read more

Product Description
Although the world's climate has undergone many cyclical changes, the phrase 'climate change' has taken on a sinister meaning, implying catastrophe for humanity, ecology and the environment. We are told that we are responsible for this threat, and that we should act immediately to prevent it. But the apparent scientific consensus over the causes and effects of climate change is not what it appears. "Chill" is a critical survey of the subject by a committed environmentalist and scientist. Based on extensive research, it reveals a disturbing collusion of interests responsible for creating a distorted understanding of changes in global climate. Scientific institutions, basing their work on critically flawed computer simulations and models, have gained influence and funding. In return they have allowed themselves to be directed by the needs of politicians and lobbyists for simple answers, slogans and targets. The resulting policy - a 60 percent reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 - would have a huge, almost unimaginable, impact upon landscape, community and biodiversity.On the basis of his studies of satellite data, cloud cover, ocean and solar cycles, Peter Taylor concludes that the main driver of recent global warming has been an unprecedented combination of natural events. His investigations indicate that the current threat facing humanity is a period of cooling, as the cycle turns, comparable in severity to the Little Ice Age of 1400-1700 AD. The risks of such cooling are potentially greater than global warming and on a more immediate time scale, with the possibility of failing harvests leaving hundreds of millions vulnerable to famine. Drawing on his experience of energy policy and sustainability, Taylor suggests practical steps that should be taken now. He urges a shift away from mistaken policies that attempt to avert inevitable natural changes, to an adaptation to a climate that may turn significantly cooler. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

Stimulating study of climate change

Ecologist and scientist Peter Taylor has written an extraordinary book on climate change. It is also full of stimulating thoughts on energy, land use, biodiversity, housing, food production, migration, etc.

The warm years 1980-2005 followed the cool years 1950-80, in a natural cycle. He contends that these unusually warm years gave rise to the theory of unstoppable global warming.

He notes, "Most of the sea-level rise to date (and all other environmental effects laid at the door of `global warming', such as the retreat of glaciers and calving ice shelves), can be accounted for by the rebound from the Little Ice Age. Indeed, the trend in sea-level rise from 1800 has been consistent, and in the last ten years, as the oceans have cooled, that trend has levelled off."

He studies satellite data, cloud cover, and ocean and solar cycles. Satellite data, particularly since 2005, has told us much that is new about the climate. Solar magnetic cycles drive cloud changes, which drive ocean temperatures. More sunlight means less cloud, warming the oceans. Cloud cover decreased 1980-2000. The consequent sunlight rise of 6 watts per square metre lifted temperatures by 0.60C, far more than the 0.8 watt rise due to carbon dioxide.

Cloud cover increased again after 2000, reducing sunlight by 2 watts per square metre. 2007 saw a sharp fall in the global surface temperature. The solar cycles are in decline, so we are more likely to face cooling.

The Arctic has heatwaves every 70 years; the previous one was in 1920-40. Another, in 2000-07, caused rapid ice loss there. But the record 2007 summer ice-melt was not repeated in 2008 (ice cover rose 30 per cent in October 2008, compared to 2007). 2007 saw record ice extent in Antarctica, in the poles' usual see-saw.

Taylor opposes our present market-driven energy policy. He proposes, "I make the startling conclusion that now is not the time to expand renewable energy supplies. A precautionary, no-regrets strategy would put all available funding into reducing consumer demand, better housing regulations and design, urban and industrial planning, heat distribution, small-scale CHP [Combined Heat and Power], micro-CHP in homes, and PV [photovoltaic] roofing."

He notes, "If all new housing were built to Scandinavian standards of energy efficiency, making use of passive solar technology, heat pumps, micro-CHP and PVroofs - there could be a net supply rather than demand from the growth in that sector."

He writes, "cities need to study the Cuban example of an economy that had to manage without cheap fossil fuel and fertilizer and yet developed effective educational and health programmes and an efficient organic agriculture." He urges us to promote cooperation and community, not competition.

Chill: A necessary expose
Taylor's central thesis is that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) process stifles informed dissent in favor of a false unanimity on global warming intended to support political and economic action. He supports this view by lucidly outlining the climate science evidence on which there is no consensus.

In his review of Taylor's book, Alister MacIntosh suggests we ignore Taylor's views because they contravene scientific consensus.On the contrary, Taylor chronicles and exemplifies the absence of consensus among climate scientists.This is as it should be in any scientific discipline, particularly one as immature as climate science.A healthy scientific process absolutely thrives on dissenting evidence to arrive at ever-better (i.e. more predictive) hypotheses.That is how a scientific discipline grows and eventually matures.

MacIntosh proposes Taylor is an unquallified messenger we should ignore in favor of an "authority" like the IPCC.Had science followed MacIntosh's advice historically, the earth would still be flat, the center of the universe, and devoid of evolution.Science based on authority, as MacIntosh implicitly advocates, is dogma; science based on evaluation of all relevant evidence, as Taylor urges explicitly and by example, is the essence of the scientific method.

Why are global warming believers like MacIntosh and many "greens" so fearful of dissenting viewpoints?I helped author the Kyoto Protocol yet treasure Taylor's carefully marshaled and reasoned evidence precisely because it provides the opportunity for advancing climate science. If there is an effective rejoinder to Taylor's contrarian climate views, the views of the greens will be correspondingly strengthened; and if not, Taylor gives the opening to modify positions to better reflect the evidence.Isn't that the aim?

If global warming is real and anthropogenic, global action is certainly justified, and that will be supported when genuine consensus emerges.In the meantime, stifling dissent, ignoring contrary evidence, and attacking the messenger, reflect the absence of consensus and cannot lead to effective and enduring change.Scientific dissent is to be treasured precisely because it is the foundation of paradigm shifts essential to effective and lasting political action.

Disclosure: Taylor is an old and dear friend.Precisely for that reason, however, I know him well, respect his astonishing breadth, and honor his eclectic process. Irrespective of your position on climate change, we should all thank Taylor for his courage, time and the intellectual effort he has invested to help us all toward a more informed position.Read this important book and decide for yourself.

Yes, but what are Taylor's credentials?
This book is well written, it raises important questions about climate science, and I very much agree with most of the author's conclusions about the need to focus primarily on building human resilience to face the future. As such it would be churlish, just because I am going to question his standpoint, not to give it 4 stars. Let me also say that I do have a lot of respect for this writer's writing on wild land and wildlife - for example, his book Beyond Conservation: A Wildland Strategy.

My problem is with how Taylor arrives at his thesis. It is the same problem that I have with climate change contrarians in general - the question of epistemology - namely, what we think it is that we know, and how we think we know it. Much of what Taylor says in this book is an attack on mainstream scientific epistemology. But what of his epistemology?

Taylor's bottom line is that "Man-made global warming is exactly what it says on the label - a fabrication! It is an illusion borne of a particular way of looking at the world" (p. 360). His Amazon product description surmises that "investigations indicate that the current threat facing humanity is a period of cooling, as the cycle turns, comparable in severity to the Little Ice Age of 1400-1700 AD." On this basis, confusing weather with climate, he told the Daily Express (6 Jan 2010), to which he is a "climate scientist" or "analyst", that the current hard winter in the UK is a harbinger of things to come.

My question is, "Who is Peter Taylor to tell us such things?" Climate science is of a complexity that demands an interdisciplinary team approach of experts who have proven themselves through rigorous peer review. Peer review means that your stuff can stand up to scrutiny with the best corresponding minds around. That is what good science does and what science culminates in the consensus of expert panels such as those behind reports of the IPCC, the Royal Society, the Hadley Centre and the UK Met Office.

I have noticed with all climate change contrarians that their arguments seem superficially persuasive ... but usually only until matched to the other side of the story. For example, Taylor's view on the role that he thinks is played by solar cycles is ostensibly persuasive. But enquire what the UK Met Office thinks of this theory, and its web site last year dismissed it as "Myth No. 1". So, if we are non-climate-change scientists, to whom do we listen? To such likes as Taylor, or to experts with an acclaimed and current credibly published track record in the field?

It would be different if Taylor was drawing most of his material from panels that represent scientific consensus. But most climate change contrarians are not so doing. There are, of course, some contrarian panels, but so far not with anything like the same credibility as mainstream scientific institutions.

Taylor reveals where he is coming from in his approach to science in an autobiographical self-published book, Shiva's Rainbow (2006) (also reviewed by this reviewer). Much of it concerns his belief that he could augment his campaigning work by occult means. He concludes that plutonium might change the world positively because of the homeopathic effects of its astrological properties. I have also reviewed it on this site giving chapter and verse. A key passage is where he says of his time with Greenpeace:

"In truth, in the scientific realms in which I worked, and gained by now, some standing, I was an imposter. I am not a scientist. Apart from my brief survey of tree-hole communities when I successfully correlated insect larvae diversity with circumference and aspect of the hole to the sun, which, in any case, had been done many times before, I have never `done' science. In my work I have relied certainly upon an understanding of scientific theory and a memory for facts and relationships, and upon an instinct for the hidden and not yet known, but fundamentally I have been a linguist and an actor. My scientific degrees were linguistic exercises in critical review. My performances on television, in public inquiries, on tribunals and commissions, those of an extremely well-briefed lawyer, the ultimate actor. Which is not to say there is no dedication to truth" (pp. 146-7).

One example from Chill that shows how easy it can be to fall into pseudoscience is his approach to what he sees as global cooling. There is nothing surprising in the theory that the Earth is slowly heading towards another "little ice age". What is surprising is that Taylor advances his version of the thesis without making reference to the peer-reviewed work by William F. Ruddiman, for example, in his book, Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate (Princeton University Press, 2005, and I see he has another one out this month).

Ruddiman is a distinguished palaeoclimatologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia. He writes: "As I see it, nature would have cooled the Earth's climate, but our ancestors kept it warm by discovering agriculture..." This is because agriculture, and now industrialization, raise the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. He goes on to say that some people might see this as grounds for complacency about present-day climate change, but "others might counter that if so few humans with relatively primitive technologies were able to alter the course of climate so significantly, then we have reason to be concerned about the current rise of greenhouse gases to unparalleled concentrations at unprecedented rates ("How did Humans first alter Global Climate", Scientific American, 292:3, March 2005, 46-53).

Taylor published "Chill" not from a publishing house with a relevant scientific reputation but from, Clairview. This grew out of the Rudolph Steiner movement and its backlist includes books cognate with Taylor's concern with such notions as "psychic espionage". A recent article, presenting the appearance of being a scientific paper, was published by him in the New Age journal, Caduceus, alongside material on 2012 Hopi prophesies. Is that a problem? Not if there's also the peer-reviewed publishing to back it up, but where is it in Taylor's case in the highly scientific field of climate change?

Post Copenhagen a lot of people have decided to cancel climate change. It is an inconvenient truth, better relegated to the dustbin of untruths. Taylor cut his teeth on toxic dumping issues. "Chill", read in the context of "Shiva's Rainbow", arguably serves to keep open the dumpsite of denial.

a balanced view
Having read many of the Documents for "Policy Makers" from the IPCC it is refreshing to get an insight into the "Working Papers", which present a much more scientific view of the climate situation - that there are those who disagree with it just being CO2 that is causing warming and cooling. That is: the "concesus" talked about in the press is not what it is in the IPCC Working Groups.

Peter Taylor has good qualifications for his work; this is not an "easy read" but an depth probe into the latest research.

It should be read by all Policy Makers - and especially those directly involved with making decisions about the future.

Rob Pattison
MA Oxon, PGCE Cantab.

A DefinitiveReport on AGW Science
Peter Taylor has written two books in one - the first on the science and the second on the politics of changing Global Climate. I found his coverage of the science, the first 'Book', to be definitive - comprehensive, well considered, well written, readableand well supported by references to published papers.He leaves little ground for confidence in the IPCC's conclusions.

In the second 'Book' on the political activities of the various protagonists - the scientific establishment, governments both national and regional, NGO's and the media his background in the environmental movement rather dominates and is given afreer rein.He castigates the lot of them. It is a very interesting read, saved from a rant by his putting forward a suggested and considered way through the chaos.

Altogether a book I certainly recommend to anyone wanting to know more about the science behind climate change and/or concerned about the current path AGW proponents are taking. ... Read more

Product Description
This title features graphic expeditions. Explore history without the confine of time or distance. Dr. Isabel Solo is an archaeologist and world explorer with the skills to go wherever and whenever she needs to research history, solve a mystery or rescue colleagues in trouble. Readers join Izzy on her journeys and gain knowledge about historical places, eras and cultures on the way. ... Read more

Product Description
Those now notorious intercepted emails documenting leading scientists conspiring to squelch global-warming skeptics and falsifying data proved exactly what Brian Sussman has been saying for years.Climategate is intended for anyone who has ever expressed skepticism about the clamorous environmentalist claims that the Earth is in peril because of mankind's appetite for carbon-based fuels.By tracing the origins of the current climate scare, Sussman guides the reader from the diabolical minds of Marx and Engles in the 1800s, to the global governance machinations of the United Nations today. Climategate is a call to action, warning Americans that their future is being undermined by a phony pseudo-science aimed at altering and dominating every aspect of life in the United States and the world. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (44)

Weak on Science, Lots of Ideology
As a physicist who has been long been interested in the climate change question I was delighted to hear that there was a book that presenting the contrary position.I seek to be open minded and receptive to the dissenting side of important issues, especially when well documented.

When I found "Climategate" on the shelf of the local bookstore I began to peruse it, looking at the table of contents and the index.Surprisingly the latter had no mention of Planck or Boltzmann whose theory of heat radiation is fundamental to any argument about the earth's thermal equilibrium.Neither did the word thermodynamics appear, nor did any of several other key scientific terms indispensable to a serious argument on the topic.

Thumbing through the book I saw no quantitative data tables, equations, nor rigorously derived graphs. What I did find is the preposterous claim that climate change is all a great Marxist conspiracy which somehow brought together thousands of otherwise reputable scientists from a hundred diverse (and even unfriendly) countries, all plotting to deceive the world.

I put the book back on the shelf and saved my money for something useful.

It is possible that I missed something, but a subsequent literature search on the author revealed no academic credentials in atmospheric science or meteorology, other than his being a TV weather announcer. This does not in itself make one a "meteorologist."

Could be better.
The book gives many arguments against the current global warming hysteria.
It is not an academic treatment of the material, and is more suited to the
layperson reader. It would be better if it was not quite as "preachy" and
referred to religion less. Often, the author gets on a soapbox.

Excellent and comprehensive.
I found Mr. Sussman's book to be excellent and comprehensive, answers all your questions.I passed the book along to my sister, she had me order two more for friends.

Sussman's "Climategate" is a must-read
In Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam, award winning meteorologist Brian Sussman tackles the issue of man-caused global warming.

Sussman questions the science, the "consensus," and the motives, both financial and ideological, of the politicians, scientists and opinion leaders who seek massive changes in how we all live so as to save the world from global warming.

On the scientific front, Sussman attacks from several directions, pointing out large flaws in not only the climate models, but also the way temperatures have been collected (many monitoring stations have been encroached by urbanization, thus rendering their temperature records useless).

Regarding scientific "consensus," Sussman helpfully reminds non-scientists that consensus has no purpose in science, which is only concerned with fact, not opinion. For instance, the Italian physicist Galileo promulgated theories that were contrary to the "consensus" of the day.He was right and all of his critics were wrong.

Lastly, Sussman demolishes the promoters of global warming, from Al Gore on down the line, detailing how they stand to personally profit from government intervention in the global energy markets.He also carefully documents how many proponents of significant government interference in the use of energy are simple disciples of big government using global warming as their latest tool to force Americans to relinquish their liberty.

Reviewer: Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman. He served as a Special Assistant for Foreign Affairs in the Department of Defense from 1986 to 1988, is a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, and is the co-author of "China Attacks."

Clear, readable, good citations
Sussman reminds us of what the scientific method really is, and then lays out how poorly it's been followed by those promoting AGW.This is a well-written, logical, and surprisingly readable book given the subject matter. ... Read more