Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
 | Average Customer Rating: Recommend Supported by in-depth scientific evidence, Singer and Avery present the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and why we can't stop it anyway. Product details and pricing info |
|---|
172 Customer Reviews Posted
- just the UN-politically correct truth
- I needed some rationality to counter the one-sided, "it's all your fault" propaganda my child was constantly receiving in school, and this book is the answer. (For her, I bought "The Sky is NOT Falling", another great book.) Read this book and make up your own mind....but if you have even the slightest gut feeling that you are being "had" by the Al Gore crowd...or if you have lived long enough to remember "global cooling" doomsday scenarios back in the '70's, I would highly recommend this book. Is "global climate change" happening? Sure. Is it man's fault? Not so much. Could we be doing better things with our time/effort/energy to improve the world's biggest problems? Absolutely.
- 2008-11-17, 1 of 1 people found this review helpful, Rated:
- Excellent study of the real cause of the current warming
- Fred Singer, Research Professor at George Mason University in Virginia, and Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in New York, have written a thorough account of the causes of global warming. Their work is backed by a lengthy list of references from refereed and peer-reviewed science journals.
They show that over the past million years the earth has been through 600 cycles of warming caused by regular changes in the sun's radiance. Each cycle lasts about 1,500 years and the temperature varies from 20C above the mean to 20C below it. The sun's radiance has increased by 0.050C per decade for the last 25 years and we are about 150 years into a moderate warming cycle.
This is the only explanation for the modern warming that is backed by physical evidence, from ice cores, fossilised pollen, core stalagmites and seabed sediments.
They demolish Michael Mann's famous hockey-stick graph - used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by US billionaire Al Gore in his movie. This graph purported to show that the 20th century was uniquely hot. But two experienced statisticians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, studied Mann's data and concluded that they did not produce the claimed results due to "collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects."
The early 15th-century warming was hotter than the 20th-century warming, refuting the claim that the 20th century's record CO2 emissions caused unprecedented global warming. Antarctic ice cores show a strong correlation between temperature changes and CO2 levels, but CO2 levels rise about 800 years after temperatures rise. So temperature changes cause CO2 changes not vice versa.
Greens promote baseless fears, for example, "the oceans will rise by a metre by 2010." No, the most likely rise is ten centimetres, according to the International Union of Quaternary Research's Sea Level Commission. Al Gore wrote in 1992, "global warming is expected to push temperatures up much more rapidly in the polar regions." No, the Antarctic has been cooling since 1966; temperatures at both poles are lower than they were in 1930.
"A million species will be lost." No, there will be more species because higher CO2 concentrations help plants, and therefore other species, to accept higher temperatures without harm. "There will be more frequent and fiercer storms." No, a warmer climate is more stable and has fewer storms. "Millions will die from warming." No, fewer people die from excess heat than from excess cold. "Warming will reduce crops." No, it encourages growth in food crops, as do warming's increased rainfall (2% up in the 20th century) and increased CO2.
Solar and wind power is between four to ten times as dear as fossil-fuel and nuclear power. Shifting to `renewables' would mean converting hundreds of millions of acres of forest and wilderness to wind farms, solar panel arrays and biofuel crops. But since global warming is not dangerous and is not manmade, we don't need to cut our use of indispensable fossil fuels. - 2008-11-13, 1 of 1 people found this review helpful, Rated:
- By god he has gone and done it again!!!!
- I was "lucky" enough to receive a free copy of this book when it was sent to my organization by The Heartland Institute. Of course, since it came from a group that I had never heard about I did a little research and found out that the nonprofit Heartland Institute, which receives funding from individuals, foundations, and corporations, has been linked to the tobacco industry (incidentally they deny the detriments of 2nd hand smoke), and funding from Exxon. Aha!
Heartland has prompted criticism by employing executives from such corporations as ExxonMobil, General Motors, and Philip Morris on its board of directors and in its public relations department. The institute has accepted more than US$500,000.00 in funds from Exxon and more than US$200,000.00 from Philip Morris.
I then read through the Dedication, Foreword, Preface, and Prologue, which all spend a great portion of their space attacking Anthropogenic Warming. Instead of presenting the facts and easing into their argument, or letting the reader draw their own conclusions, they blatantly let you know where they stand from the start.
This book was really starting to sound like more Conservative brainwashing so I then did some research on Fred Singer. This from Wikipedia:
A 2007 Newsweek cover story on climate change denial reported that: "In April 1998 a dozen people from the denial machine -- including the Marshall Institute, Fred Singer's group and Exxon -- met at the American Petroleum Institute's Washington headquarters. They proposed a $5 million campaign, according to a leaked eight-page memo, to convince the public that the science of global warming is riddled with controversy and uncertainty." The plan was reportedly aimed at "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. According to Newsweek, the plan was leaked to the press and therefore was never implemented.
In 2007, the nonprofit advocacy group Union of Concerned Scientists called Singer a "climate contrarian."
If you really want an argument on global warming being caused by the sun do a little research on Henrik Svensmark. If you are in to reading biased science then I'm sure you'll enjoy this book. - 2008-10-10, 1 of 4 people found this review helpful, Rated:
- bunk
- I am a solar physicist, who has also studied climate change, and atmospheric dynamics. I do not find such books to be anything more than bunk. The author is a well known bunk writer. If you wish to believe in the tooth fairy, you will like this book. Otherwise, read less uplifting books, such as an "inconvenient truth", or the technical writings of the GISS (goddard institute for space science) group (without governmental whitewash), or the NAS (national academy of science ) reports on global change.
Although a natural variability (from the Sun) exists, they totally support the view that the current variability is associated with manmade greenhouse warming.. - 2008-09-03, 5 of 20 people found this review helpful, Rated:
- G;obal WArming
- I cannot yet rate this, but since I must give a rating, will give it a 5 as I do believe I will find I agree with the materials presented. I have had no time to even scan it.
- 2008-08-14, 2 of 14 people found this review helpful, Rated:
