Great Read | Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and...

The view of a respectable contrarian | Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided ... | Roy Spencer

books:


	• Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided ... Roy Spencer Encounter Books, 2008 - 184 pages average customer review:based on 76 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

A logical rebuttal against "Global Warming"

Roy Spencer (a real Rocket Scientist formerly with NASA) provides clear and logical reasoning why we should not blindly accept the mainstream argument for "Global Warming". We homeschool and found it difficult to acquire any literature that gave a balanced, logical approach to the global warming arguments, especially at our "Public" Library. Anyone with an ounce of skepticism on this subject should read this book. Anyone without any skepticism on this subject is beyond hope.

Great Read

Very good book. He discusses a serious subject with knowledge and humor. He gives a brief overview of the science behind the global warming debate. He points out gaps in our knowledge, especially how little we understand moisture in the atmosphere (amount of water, cloud formation, amount of precipitation). But the global warming debate is rarely about science (proponents argue that the science is settled). Consequently, the emphasis of this book is on policy: economics, politics, environmental religion, media coverage, and bad "solutions". Finally, he points out that climate scientists are human, too. When talking to the media, they tend to downplay their assumptions and uncertainties, and they present conclusions with confidence that is unwarranted by the science. It's a quick and entertaining read. And it gives balance to the one-sided global warming story we read in the media.

for more information click here

The view of a respectable contrarian

As I have been trying to learn about climate change, I was interested to see several points of view. Spencer's book is a good example of the contrarian view from an expert in the field.

From my understanding so far, the reason that man-made climate change is hard to grasp by the general public is that the signal for it is, at present, comparable to the size of natural fluctuations. Therefore it requires an analysis within the context of physics models to see if it exists. The models are also important for predicting the future climate. The models contain a number of effects like solar activity, sulfur emissions, volcanic activity, CO2, etc. There is an important graph in the IPCC 2007 report (I'm referring to fig 8.1 in "Climate Change 2007, the Physical Science Basis") which shows how all the available models agree well with the data, but this result is not described in Spencer's book. Maybe he simply doesn't believe it.

Spencer says the models leave out things which are not fully understood, such as a possible water-vapor feedback. Spencer asserts that the model-builders are biased and try to conform to each other. I find this hard to believe, but then I wouldn't know. The IPCC 2007 report lists the uncertainties with it's findings. My understanding is that not all the issues are completely settled, but that's why it's scientific research: the answers are not obvious.

To amplify his points, Spencer is sarcastic and often disrespectful, and he complains about environmental extremism. He's right that we should avoid hysteria, but I think he misrepresents how science works. Science is a process for finding the truth. On some rare occasions, erroneous "group-think" may occur, but a wrong hypothesis is always proven wrong eventually.

I cannot recommend the IPCC 2007 report, as it is too long and detailed; however, a nice short book for the general public which explains the findings is "The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change" by A. Dessler and E. Parson. Overall I found it to be a much more balanced presentation, including explanations of the uncertainties such as those Spencer mentions.

for more information click here

Excellent statement of opposition, needs more sources

Dr. Spencer makes a logical, unemotional case refuting the "fact" of manmade global warming. One of his conclusions, with which a logical person must agree, is that we simply cannot say for certain that the warming is man-caused. The data clearly point in no certain direction, and the variables are far too complex to confidently say "XXX is the cause". We do not yet have the technology to model the extremely complex atmospheric interactions accurately enough to pinpoint the cause of a one or two degree temperature shift, or to accurately predict such a change.

One concern Dr. Spencer raises, and one I share, is that the issue has moved from the scientific to the political arena, and putting our trust in politicians to do much other than to pander for personal political advantage is foolhardy at best, and potentially destructive to our economy and standard of living. The recent politically driven (by both parties) subsidies for ethanol that has caused food prices to go through the roof should give pause to anyone who believes otherwise.

To those who say "we cannot afford to be wrong", Dr. Spencer correctly states that Al Gore's Chicken Little "crisis" has been largely generated to provide increased funding for researchers and flashy headlines for the media. Given that we are in the midst of a seven-year COOLING trend causes the "crisis" notion to deflate like a balloon full of holes.

Overall, Dr. Spencer's train of thought is easy to follow, and the conclusions he draws are valid, and the book is thought-provoking. As one who becomes involved in the discussion with friends and coworkers, I would have preferred more source information in order to add substance to the logic I try to provide in my arguments.

for more information click here