|
|
 |
An Inconvenient Truth
List Price:
Our Price:
Click here for variations on size and color. This item may also be out of stock or only available as used or new through a 3rd party reseller. Click here for more details.
Availability:
Manufacturer: Rodale Books
Author: Al Gore
Binding: Paperback
Publication Date: 2006
Publisher: Rodale Books
Label: Rodale Books
Number Of Pages: 336
Features:
|
|
Editorial Review:
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: 
Gore's "truth" is more like Propaganda  2009-01-06
"An Inconvenient Truth" The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It" is more like Propaganda. I do give Al's book two stars, probably more than it deserves, because the data do seem to show a slight warming in Earth's average annual temperature. However, I checked the real, revised, corrected, data. The rise seems to be over the last thirty years or so and is derived mostly from satellite data, not from direct temperature measurement at the Earth's surface. When we go further back, we no longer have direct satellite data and the data do not show a rise that is statistically significant in the face of the vast noise. Worse, data from 2006-1008 seem to show some cooling or a leveling off. Still worse, real scientists are saying that any temperature rise was, more likely, due to sun storm activity than to man's activities.
Meanwhile, Gore rants a lot and gives little real data and very little idea of where his data comes from and few references of any sort. Even some of his initial supporters seem to now say that he goes too far.
If you must read this, go ahead, it is a simple read. And, there are plenty of pretty, but missleading photos and graphs and claims.
BUT -- Please! Read a bunch of other books and sources on all sides of this matter. Why? Well, the Democratic Party wants to spend a trillion dollars or more of your money to 'prevent' global warming. So, after you read a bunch more sources of information, will you want to part with $3000 in taxes to fight a questionable problem? And that is besides the huge amounts of money you will have to pay to buy new cars, insulate houses, and etc. About 9 months of $3->$4 per gallon gas helped bring a rescession on. What will $5 a gallon taxes on gas bring about.
Using ethanol in gas (gasahol) got a few million children to starving these past two years. How many deaths by starvation do we allow to get a tiny amount of savings on CO2. By the way, gasahol is why you are paying 10% to 25% more for food in 2008 than you did in 2005. So, are we making a difference? Will all this sacrifice actually help? Or, just make Mr. Gore richer? So far, I think the answer is that Mr. Gore is getting richer. Check it out yourself. But, read a bunch of stuff on both sides!
An Inconvenient Truth, or calculating deception?  2008-12-14
Inconvenient truth, or calculating deception?
As a scientist, the book's points -- though fascinating -- echo as insincere. Well-established steps comprise the scientific method: (1) Pose a question, (2) Do research, (3) Construct a theory, (4) Test theory by experiment, (5) Analyze data, (6) Draw conclusions, and (7) Communicate the results among peers, inviting critical review. Completing publication review, qualified reviewers among the scientific community develop a broad consensus position. Peers can repeat tests independently to verify their results and assess central conclusions. These reinforce proposed theories, refute ideas, or even draw completely new directions and conclusions. While methods vary somewhat, observation, theory, test, analysis, conclusions and critical review (and acceptance) represent the scientific method, carefully documenting theory development for critical review and acceptance.
Mr. Gore claims he based his conclusions on science, yet he rejects the scientific method. Though presenting his conclusions as if they were derived by science, he categorically rejects questioning his analyses or conclusions by science peers. In short, he rejects the scientific method's duty to critically review his work. He argues moral obligation to support his conclusions, precluding objective review by the same scientific processes from which he claims to have derived his work. Presenting his consequences as his facts, he categorically rejects testing their outcome with scientific method hypotheses. Should we be surprised then, when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this must be morally corrupt?
This places the scientist in an ethical dilemma. Should he accept Mr. Gore's premise and conclusions -- "when you know all the facts" -- or his moral obligation, and follow science, entertaining unbiased possibility of other conclusions? Scientific theories are transitory. For the true scientist, an open mind comes foremost, for science holds no absolute truths. Since first expounding scientific pursuit of phenomena, truth and the facts, Alhazen sought intellect, integrity and scientific value over all else. Yet, Mr. Gore presents those who would doubt his conclusions as morally flawed -- and even worse. And why? Because the consequences of an error may be so grave. So, Mr. Gore demands we scientists follow him blindly, regardless of scientific processes, facts or conclusions. Blindly he will guide us, regardless of the cost to science, our integrity or society as a whole. Regardless of our scientific qualifications, cultural legacy or history.
Science holds no morality, except perhaps the integrity of scientific pursuit itself. If as we were taught, we follow that scientific method, questioning Mr. Gore's methods or conclusions, then according to him we are morally corrupt. Yet to do otherwise compromises our professional ethics. So why does he say that? Because, we could be wrong, while he might be right. So on that basis, he need not prove his case, nor may we present ours. He discounts scientific methods and ideas to the bottom of his heap. But following our profession, training and ethics, questioning the facts presented, we are morally corrupt.
Sadly, one cannot fight religion with reason, and we cannot contest his illogic. Had they ever read Mr. Gore's literal text, many scientists would dismiss his unscientific ideas like many others. Unfortunately, most have not, and as a result, some even endorse it (the National Academies of Science, for example). Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize. What else can we say? But isn't it ironic, the only truth that's inconvenient here is that he's successfully -- and profitably -- sold his message as if it were science!
J. K. August, PE, BA, BS, ME (science)
Hyperventilation 2008-09-30
Hyperventilation over a non problem. Not a scholarly or unbiased look at the issue. Fails to provide any evidence of how global warming may prevent cold weather related deaths and improve agricultural production. This book describes a sham scary scenario as a pretext for controlling our lives.
This is a book that every American should read!  2008-07-28
Although i was well aware of global warming, the scientific evidence and the real statistics of the global warming from this book definitely raised my awareness even more. I mainly bought this book because i am very interested from saving the earth from the global warming. This book is informative and contains many pictures that reveal impact of the global warming in the world. This book is worth of every penny and worth of time to read it.
An emotion-driven, picture book, with no footnotes 2008-07-15
As close to everyone knows, this is Al Gore's book which allegedly proves that, because of mankind's increased carbon emissions, therefore the global climate is warming and therefore we will suffer from a wide variety of catastrophic problems unless we act to reverse the situation. Gore actually argues in this book that, unless we radically decrease CO2 emissions, the oceans will rise 20 feet, most of Florida and New York City will be drowned -- he provides very real looking computer-generated maps of these predictions -- there will be many more hurricanes and, in general, the world as we know it will come to an end.
It is possible that Gore's basic thesis is correct. Our climate might be warming from CO2 emissions. There is no way to assess the value of his thesis from this book, however. This is a beautifully illustrated picture book. It is filled with gorgeous photographs. It has very little text. On the few occasions when Gore actually puts more than 50 words in a row it is generally to tell some heart-wrenching anecdote such as why the near-death of his son made him passionate about global warming. The book has no footnotes, and no connected argument. It is, to be blunt about, a coffee-table book, not a scientific book.
I appreciate that Gore's defenders will disagree. After all, the pictures show facts don't they? We can see, from the pictures, that there is less ice on Mt. Kilamanjero. We can see that many glaciers have retreated in the last century. We can even see the photos showing how much of Florida would be submerged, if the sea rose 20 feet, which it would, if all of the ice in Greenland melted.
Yes, the pictures give isolated facts. But science is not done with pictures, because one can always take a few facts out of context to prove anything. You do not do science with a few photos. You do science with hard data, taken from as many sources as possible. You do science by looking at the whole picture, or as much as you can. You also do science by seriously addressing critics and alternative theories. I am sorry, Al, but this book is much closer to a rock video than it is to a scientific argument. It relies on pictures, emotions and wild claims. That does not prove that it is wrong. You can not , however, rationally assess the truth or falsity of the statements with Gore's presentation.
Al thinks we are stupid. He does not think we will read through serious science. He thinks we need lots of pictures or we just won't get it.
|
|
|
|
copyright www.Monitor-Data.com
|
|
In association with
Amazon.com
|
