|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming |
|
|
|
 |
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming
List Price: $36.95
Our Price: $30.17
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
Manufacturer: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Author: Patrick J. Michaels
Binding: Paperback
Publication Date: 2005-12-28
Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Label: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Number Of Pages: 304
Features:
|
|
Editorial Review:
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming convincingly demonstrates the remarkable differences between what we commonly read about global warming and what is really happening. Nine chapters describe major problems with computer simulations of future climate that are the basis for wrenching policies being proposed by world leaders. Anyone who reads this book will come away with a new appreciation of the complexity of the climate issue and will question the need for expensive policies that are likely to have little or no detectable effect on the planet's temperature. Published in cooperation with the George C. Marshall Institute.
Cached date: AWS Called=true
You may also be interested in these products:
These categories may also be of interest to you:
Customer Reviews
Average Customer Rating: 
A question about the cover.  2008-07-29
I love the cover of the book. I'm trying to find the illustration that they used. I wrote the publisher but the artwork is not credited and they don't know where it's from either.
If anyone knows the title of the artwork and where I can find it, please leave a note in the comments link below.
Thanks...
"Denier"? 2008-07-13
A comment on the reviewers here. When I see the word "denier" used as in "Global Warming Denier" it tells me everything I need to know about the person. They are ignorant of scientific method and the difference between hypothosis, theory and fact. And that is a shame, because people like them have been manipulated in the name of one "Great Cause" or another for all of history. (The Crusades, Eugenics, Prohibition - they all worked out so well.)
There is a need in humans to feel guilt about that which they do. A belief in a devine power (a god) handled this need for millenia. Since god has fallen out of favor with the masses, some new form of mythos was needed. The sane concern for clean water and air has morphed into a new religion. Like all religions, it needs leaders who live as they like while chastising their followers to live austerly (and send them money and gifts to pay for their guilt). It needs masses who feel guilty about (fill in the blank) and seek forgiveness from (fill in the blank). They receive it by donating money to the cause and giving up things that make them happy. In past religions it was slaughtering a sheep or giving a daughter to the temple, more recently it was giving up sex, drugs or alcohol. In the new religion of "Global Warming"....oh wait..."Climate Change", the congregation gives up big cars and houses or they salve their guilt by buying solor-powered patio lights and sending money to Green Peace. If they fly in private jets they save face and buy forgiveness by donating money to plant trees - CO2 offset or sin tax - take your pick. (Nevermind that when the tree dies the decomposition makes CO2 net gain zero - those science facts conflict with doctrine so ignore them). Pope Al Gore the First sits at the top of the hierachy taking up collections to the tune of over 100 million dollars while his followers carefully select the science they believe in order to be consistent with their religion and berate the unbelievers. To question doctrine is to be branded a "denier".
The earth cools for ten solid years? Ignore Occam's Razor. Explain it away with convoluted facts strung together to suit doctrine. All facts must fit into doctrine. Mars warms because of solar activity? It flies in the face of doctrine so pretend (even though it denies scientific method) that what happens on one planet can not happen on another. The ice record shows that CO2 increases AFTER a warming period? Just slide the chart over a little bit to make it fit doctrine. There. Now CO2 is a cause and not an effect. Doctrine is fulfilled. All is well.
I'm all in favor of freedom of religion. If you need it to feel good about yourself please worship in the fashion you choose. But science thrives on constantly questioning, testing and evaluating observations. If you create a religion based on loosely strung together observations, label it "science" and then expect no one to question it, your ignorance of science and history is sorely lacking. The louder you scream at the people questioning your doctrine, the more you prove our point about it being - at best - poor science and at worst - just another religious fad. Good luck with that.
The book? A little dry in places. Says little I have not already heard. Maybe it'll get through to some people on the fence, most likely it's preaching to the choir. Hope it sells a million copies. Maybe then I won't have to use stupid florescent lights in my home in order to satisfy someone else' religious beliefs.
BTW. I drive a Civic Hybrid and a Cadillac. The Caddy because I like a nice car and I am totally guilt free. The Hybrid because even if Global Warming is not real, the economic effects of it are. You won't be seeing $3/gal gas again so remember to thank the people who stopped us from drilling for 30 years in the name of their god/godess.
Psuedo-science funded by the oil industry  2008-07-09
Let's see, should we believe the 95% of climate scientists and the IPCC reports on global warming? Or should we believe a man who has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from oil and energy companies?
Source:
Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that "Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests."
Wake up people--global warming naysayers paid by oil companies are hardly credible sources of information.
If thousands of astronomers from around the world said that an asteroid would hit Earth in 30 years, would you believe them? Or would you believe a handful of pseudo-astronomers (paid for by special interests) who claim otherwise?
Shattered Consensus  2008-04-13
The book is way to technical. I need to read it but it is boring as hell. Most of the text is spent on minutia about obscure details. Buy something else. This book bits
Knocks but does not shatter the global warming consensus 2008-02-26
This book is a collection of essays by global warming skeptics. It's pretty much the same old rhetoric that the global warming deniers repeat as often as anyone will listen. As usual, they downplay the green house gas effect on climate change and suggest unproven alternative theories like solar variation. The introduction by Michaels goes over the supposed problems with the consensus. They claim there are misleading statements in the IPCC report. They also knock Mann's "Hockey Stick" graph as being misleading and incorrect but again they only offer their opinion. They dedicate a significant part of the book to undermining Mann's work and playing-up the Hockey Stick routine for full-effect. They also focus on the observational differentials in surface temperatures compared to atmospheric temperatures. There is also considerable time spent on the notion that increases in global temperature have an only a minor effect on weather (Tell that to the people of the gulf coast and south Asia.)
Most of these arguments have already been refuted by several prominent climate scientists. They might gain a following among those who already deny anthropogenic global warming. This book is sure to please them.
They reach the conclusion that there is still much work to be done to fully understand climate change and that policy makers should avoid making hasty decisions that could result in economic problems.
I agree there is still much work to be done to fully understand our changing climate. I strongly disagree with the idea that we shouldn't take preventive measures to reduce the impact of global warming. Not all actions to reduce CO2 emissions will necessarily have a negative impact on the economy. To the contrary, the renewable energy industry could see explosive growth. There is also something to be gained from reducing our dependence on fossil fuels for energy production.
For those of us who really care about the environment and the future of our civilization, this book will have little or no impact on our views of climate change. The only thing it might shatter is the record for the time a book goes to press to the time it goes into the recycling bin. It is a boorish read filled with flawed logic.
|
|
|
|
copyright www.Monitor-Data.com
|
|
In association with
Amazon.com
|
