|
Like a good teacher, he repeated his main points in each chapter, which was OK (my poor memory can use all the reinforcement it can get), but then he concluded with a Summary (Chapter 10), repeating every major point that he had previously made, instead of a Conclusion. I am highly skeptical of the science behind global warming (and, I might add, the scientific basis for our attempts to reduce ozone pollution). Now, it certainly was an easy read and the chapter organization was by-and-large well thought out. I participated in 2 different federally-funded research projects dealing with the effects of weather on particulate air pollution. I gave Climate Confusion (CC) 4 stars.
I co-authored 2 papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Spencer has a very conversational style - you almost feel like you are in his classroom and he is a pretty cool teacher. I know something about this subject from the inside. In both case, science has been badly compromised by politics. I thought that was too much repetition and frankly, kind of a weird way to structure the book. I won't repeat his argument here, you can buy the book and read it for yourself (or borrow it and read that Summary I was just complaining about).Note: I am not currently a scientist, but as an undergrad and graduate student I was heavily involved in environmental research.
I would have given it 5 stars based upon its content and ideas, but I thought the execution of this book left a little to be desired. But at times that style gets him in trouble, because he gets a little too familiar, violating that boundary that exists between writer and audience (I think he even addressed a question at one point to "you"). For 5 years, I studied meteorology, climatology, and air pollution. I'll deal with CC's literary value first. Aside from that though, the progression of topics through each of the 10 chapters was very logical and well thought out.In terms of the content and argument, this was a great book, exposing the Global Warming "con" for what it is. On the plus side, he uses a lot of humor and that worked pretty well for me.Again, I want to emphasize I enjoyed the reading experience, but these were some of the things that irritated me.
I'm not a fast reader and finished the 191-page book in about one week. Spencer gets a little "preachy" at times, and I felt I was being scolded instead of being educated.
If climate change is a myth, where is the ice going. I'm not a geologist, but I can see with my own eyes glaciers are smaller than they were even a decade ago. Just answer that one question please. I came to this page when I clicked on a link in my g-mail, "Climate Change Muths Exposed by NASA Climatologist"Muths.Then I find that the "most helpful" review is from the author himself, who, surprise surprise, rated his own work five stars.I won't be wasting my time or money on this one.I just got back from Peru. I've been to Alaska.
If you wanted a completely non-biased book, go read a book with the title "Global Warming: Completely Unbiased" or "Global Warming: Raw and Uncut".I enjoyed the book for what it was, an informal discussion on global warming and why some scientists may have the data wrong. Whether your an environmental determinist or a cultural determinist, I think this book will at least provoke some questions involving current climate change theories. This book does lack in citations, there's no questioning that. And as far as his "creationists" views are concerned, I believe he kept those to a minimum. But I don't think that this book was ever intended to be a text book arguement. The title alone says it all, it says this book is going to be biased and here's why I believe what I believe.
The only way they can get funding is by `towing the party line', basically if your results are different from what is expected then you are less likely to see your funding continue.Spencer explains that the earth's climate system is far to complex for any computer model, he states that if climate models can't even predict the weather for next week then how can we trust the predictions for decades in advance. The only thing that depresses me more than reading such a book, is having to write one."Well he is true to his word here, I just wished that this was made clear in the Editorial Review, because I WAS after such dry facts. Spencer divulges all the dirty little trade secrets that they would rather you not know about. Spencer clearly focuses the book on philosophical and egalitarian concerns, he spends a proportion of the book reminding us of the hypocrisy of promoting environmentalism/carbon reduction, while enjoying the benefits of the polluting society that we are condemning.
The author makes it clear from the start that he isn't a global warming denier, he believes that the globe is warming, but that the global warming phenomenon that we see in the media today is hyper-sensationalized. Put simply, there are still many things about the climate that we don't know about.I found this book quite entertaining to read, the author brings up many points that are rarely discussed and really need to be addressed. He explains that most climate scientists have an inherent bias that is the result of their funding. His main denial is that the warming that we are experiencing is not anthropogenic, or at least that there is no evidence that it is.
He also vehemently condemns those environmentalists who naively try and restrict the carbon emissions of the poorest nations who are attempting to escape poverty when these countries are only implementing the same economic principles of industrial growth that all other prosperous western nations take for granted.If you imagined scientists and their climate models as having halos hovering above there heads, then this book will firmly remove them. Though this book doesn't contain the scientific evidence that is contrary to global warming, I would still recommend reading this book, it has a lot to offer.4 stars Spencer points out to the reader that this book is meant to make a break from most other climate change material, he make the comment that "if you don't want another boring list of dry scientific facts, then you have come to the right place. But despite this distinct lack of scientific evidence, I still found this book insightful and entertaining.
Spencer concludes that obviously man kind is contributing to our environment however he hesitates to say that man-kind is the cause of global warming. By no means make a conclusive decision on climate change based off of reading one book (if you did, then Silent Spring would've convince you with false logic long ago).
the other side does not dispute that the planet is getting warmer over time.Spencer and others like him have challenged the notion proving that the planet has been warming since the mid-1800's when the planet was at its coolest point in over 1500 years. Just know this - there is another side to the debate.
Roy Spencer, an extremly credible climate scientist and formerly of NASA offers up an alternative approach (and a welcome approach) to James Hansen's doomsday scenario. This book is filled with facts, cited sources and his own climate satellite based climate temperature readings.
Climate change is a constant and many credible scientists within the mainstream and outside of the mainstream have been pushing to prove that our impact on the whole on the climate is extremely small."Man-made CO2 equivalent to linoleum on first floor of 100 story building"-Meteorologist Joseph D'Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and former chairman of the American Meteorological Society's (AMS) Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.Climate Confusion is one among many great reads that challenge the status quo. Dr.
Most of the book shows the dangers of mixing politics with science and what happens when the two inevidably collide.
|
