Customer Reviews


31 Reviews
5 star:
 (22)
4 star:
 (1)
3 star:    (0)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (8)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


66 of 83 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Climate Change Reconsidered
There is a famous exchange between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson near the beginning of Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Scandal in Bohemia."

"You see, but you do not observe," the great detective tells his friend. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."...
Published on June 6, 2009 by William Mellberg

versus
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The Kindle Edition I bought is UNreadable
DO NOT buy the Kindle edition until it is re-issued after the copy readers have cleaned it up and it has been re-typed and re-issued.

The Introduction reads like this: if sentences were spaghetti, the 'sketti has been briefly put thru a blender (there are some long pieces left) and thrown on some sheets of paper, photographed, and assembled with whaterver...
Published 4 months ago by Donald Janes


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

66 of 83 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Climate Change Reconsidered, June 6, 2009
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
There is a famous exchange between Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson near the beginning of Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Scandal in Bohemia."

"You see, but you do not observe," the great detective tells his friend. "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

I was reminded of that Sherlockian insight while reading CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED. Unlike so many of today's climate experts (both the self-annointed ones and the genuine academicians), authors Fred Singer and Craig Idso (real scientists) have built this book on a solid foundation of scientific data. Holmes would have commended them! And unlike so many other recent books about climate change, this in-depth tome is strictly non-fiction. It is free of politically correct theories and full of historical facts (some might call them "inconvenient truths"). It is a book which all open-minded and clear-thinking individuals should read and consider before accepting the so-called `consensus' view about anthropogenic (man-made) global warming.

As an aside, this year (2009) marks the 400th anniversary of telescopic astronomy. I am reminded that when Galileo started to observe the solar system through his early telescopes, the `consensus' view placed our Earth at the center of the Cosmos. Galileo's heliocentric (Sun-centered) view was politically incorrect for which he suffered, but scientifically accurate for which he is remembered. It was based on facts, not theology (or ideology).

As a lifelong amateur astronomer (my parents gave me a telescope for my 11th birthday in 1963), I was especially interested in Chapter 5 and its focus on the relationship between climate change and variations in solar activity. I've observed those variations with my own eyes during the course of four, 11-year sunspot cycles. Moreover, I first learned about the historical and fossil records linking sunspot cycles to climate change in my Astronomy 101 class at the University of Illinois more than 35 years ago. Of course, that was before the present age when climate science became emotionally (and financially) bonded to political science.

Like Galileo, Singer and Idso base their ideas on scientific observations and historical facts, including sunspot records that go back to Galileo's time. CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED lays out all sorts of scientific observations and historical facts -- from changes in glaciers and sea levels to temperature and precipitation records. All of the various factors which contribute to Earth's climate are carefully examined, as are many of the extremes (hot and cold, wet and dry) which have been observed throughout history and in the fossil record. Climate change is clearly a natural phenomenon that occurs regardless of human activity. Given the climate changes in Earth's more recent past (geologically speaking), one wonders how today's global warming advocates can explain yesterday's temperature extremes (the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, for example) when industrialization and automobiles were non-existent?

CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED begins with a look at computer climate models and their deficiencies and shortcomings in forecasting future climate patterns. It ends with a look at the effects of climate change on human health and food production. The authors also address the economic impact of climate change. If, in fact, human activity has little or no effect on Earth's climate (compared to natural factors such as solar activity), the cost of countering anthropogenic global warming could be staggering in terms of tax dollars -- and a total waste in terms of results. As the authors state in their Preface, "We hope the present study will help bring reason and balance back into the debate over climate change, and by doing so perhaps save the peoples of the world from the burden of paying for wasteful, unnecessary energy and environmental policies."

In 1997, I wrote a book called MOON MISSIONS which offered an overview of the Apollo Program, as well as a layperson's explanation of what scientists learned as a result of our exploration of the Moon. In it, I noted that prior to the Space Age, we knew very little about the Moon and the planets. A wall seemed to separate astronomy from the earth sciences. As a result, our connection to the rest of the Solar System wasn't always generally understood or fully appreciated. The Moon missions radically changed this perspective. We came to recognize "the influence that extraterrestrial events have had on our own environment." Sadly, some scientists seem to have forgotten that lesson -- a lesson that has been expanded through our observations of climate change on other planets where human activity has zero influence.

Among its other achievements, CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED helps to re-establish the connection between Earth's environment and extraterrestrial influences, including cosmic rays. Of course, the authors also discuss the effects of terrestrial factors such as CO2 levels, cloud cover and rainfall. Their scholarly analysis brings some much-needed realism (and good old-fashioned common sense) to the climate change debate. Highly informative, CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED ought to be required reading for scientists, journalists, policymakers, teachers and students. It is an eye-opening read for everyone else (concerned citizens, taxpayers, etc.). In short ... this book is highly recommended!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


43 of 56 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars NIPCC well written so easy to read, June 6, 2009
By 
Tom Harris (Ottawa, Canada) - See all my reviews
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
What I like most about the book, in comparison with the various IPCC tomes, is the ease with which one can get a quick overview of contemporary research in many different climate-science fields. While, in the IPCC case, I always had to find myself a quiet room and several hours to figure out what they were really saying, in the NIPCC case, I find it easy to read whenever I want. It is especially impressive to see the way in which the NIPCC have summarized findings in the beginning sections of the book in a way that will be quick and easy for media to grab quotes from (in fact, I challenge open-minded journalists to do that), while, at the same time, going into details, with many prominent peer-reviewed scientific references, on each of the main topics in the following chapters. Besides being a good summary of the massive controversy behind the scenes in the climate science research community about the causes of the past century's modest warming, "Climate Change Reconsidered" could make a good text book for university (and advanced senior high school classes) climate change courses as well since they do a easily understood and accurate review of the related basic science at the beginning of each of the topic-specific chapters.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


41 of 55 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Tony Lupo, June 5, 2009
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
The NIPCC report, "Climate Change Reconsidered", is not just an attempt to refute the IPCC, but a volume that fills in the gaps left by the IPCC fourth assessemt report (FAR). With it's emphasis on natural variability as a cause for the recent climate changes, it is a must have for serious climate scientists who should not just rely on the IPCC FAR alone to get the full picture of our current state of knowledge (and what is not known) about climate and climate change. Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso have done a thorough job in providing climate science with this volume and should be commended for their effort.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


34 of 46 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Tell Your Congressman to Read This, June 5, 2009
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
This is a magnificent rebuttal of the "party line" IPCC/Gore/Alarmist outcry that contends the Earth is threatened with disaster due to man's carbon dioxide emission. The scientists who gave of their time and energy to pull together the studies and data are acting in the finest tradition of belief in scientific integrity. They effectively shoot the alarmist banner full of great big holes, with real facts, data and analytical buckshot. This book will likely be the definitive work for the next several years on the science of climate change and its distortions.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


29 of 39 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An extraordinary achievement, June 8, 2009
By 
E. Calvin Beisner (Pembroke Pines, FL USA) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
I've been waiting for this book for twenty years. It was a long wait, but I'm not disappointed.

CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED is a tour de force. It takes on all the alleged evidences of catastrophic, manmade global warming and demonstrates, patiently and clearly, why they fail to support the conclusion. Its 2 authors and 35 contributors are outstanding scientists with unassailable credentials--a fact that, unfortunately, won't stop movement alarmists from their customary ad hominem attacks. The book is chock full of excellent data, analysis, and argumentation, sophisticated enough to meet the demands of any expert, yet clearly enough written to be accessible to laymen.

The Executive Summary states the main conclusions, in explicit contrast to those of the UN IPCC, briefly and clearly. Each chapter begins and ends with a helpful introduction and conclusion, making it easy for readers to see the big picture even while still offering massive amounts of data and explanation. Its documentation is voluminous, more current and more broad than that of the IPCC.

As an interdisciplinary scholar, I particularly appreciated the able integration of the principles, tools, and methods of many disciplines. As a scientifically literate layman who has read nearly 30 books on climate change science, including large parts of the IPCC's assessment reports, I found CLIMATE CHANGE RECONSIDERED far and away the most helpful publication in the field to date. It deserves careful attention particularly from policy makers and from environmental advocates, no matter their present opinions on the questions debated.

And for those who want to just write it off by attacking its authors, it's time to engage the real arguments for a change. The time for personal attack is over.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


32 of 44 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Finally, A Truthful Report, June 8, 2009
By 
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
I have been involved in climate change science since 1988 and by 1992 I realized there was very little science to back up the claims of anthropogenic global warming. Ironically, there is even less today. The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change NIPCC) has hit a home run on the current science on global warming. Unlike the political United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes's 2007 report, the NIPCC report cites peer reviewed science that refutes the anthropogenic theory. Some of it is forensic-like evidence that shows that the "fingerprint" of the actual climate over the past 50 years or so does not match that of greehouse warming that is the basis of all computer models.

My hat is off to the authors of the report. To stand up to the demonization they will certainly receive from proponents of anthropogenic warming shows their commitment to the truth whatever the cost.

Michael Coffman, Ph.D.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


34 of 48 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Refuting the chicken littles, June 5, 2009
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
An excellent scientific review of thousands of papers and new scientific data, that refute the alarmist mantra.
A must read for government officials who are about to spend billions of our dollars on the junk science of al gore and his gang of chicken littles. Easily readable and relentlessly documented. It utterly refutes the 2007 ipcc report.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


20 of 29 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Every High School Science Teacher should read/use this!, June 9, 2009
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
I'm so tired of my children (and eveyone elses!) being made to drink the global warming kool-aid! This should be required reading for every High School Science teacher. Easy to understand, and very useable by home schooling parents and those of us working in the field to stop the global warming nonsense before it ruins our country.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


24 of 35 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars An Inconvenient Truth?, June 11, 2009
By 
Ronald A. Wells (University of California, Berkeley, retired) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   
This review is from: Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) (Paperback)
This massive 868 page volume is the technical response of the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) to the 3-volume report, "Climate Change 2007" issued by the United Nations-sponsored IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), or as some may prefer to think of the books: the opening salvos between the Armies of Enlightenment and the Armies of Darkness, respectively.

At the outset, let me note that the paperback volume carries a hefty price that only libraries, academic departments, scientific organizations, businesses, governmental agencies, and Congressional offices can really afford--all of whom should possess a copy for many future references. However, in order to facilitate as wide a distribution of the material as possible, the book is available online from the Heartland Institute (nipccreport dot org) in sections (or as the complete book) as PDF files without cost. Every educated person should read this book because it shows just how complex is the topic of global warming, now euphemistically referred to as "climate change".

Reading the book is an education in itself because it covers practically all aspects of Earth Sciences imaginable, from earthworms to butterflies; from coral reefs to glaciers; from polar bears to human populations and health effects; from agriculture and food production to species extinction; as well as meteorology and weather forecasting; global climate change computer models and the effects of radiation, clouds and precipitation on the input parameters, and the effects on the results of feedback factors from carbonyl sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, nitrous oxide, methane, and various aerosols, to list but a few subject areas. Moreover, every section and sub-section of the book is copiously referenced with articles peer-reviewed in well-established scientific journals. Some of these articles were written by the contributors to the chapters themselves. Most of them, however, were written by hundreds of other specialists in the various fields of study. The contributing authors of "Climate Change Reconsidered" are Ph.D. scholars from 16 countries.

While the book itself is quite informative, it is also instructive to compare the motivations, mandates, agendas, and associations of the members of the IPCC and the NIPCC to understand why two scientific organizations have reached diametrically opposed conclusions about global warming and its effects on the Earth. They cannot both be correct, nor is it likely that some middle road interpretation is the better explanation. Brief histories of both organizations are given in the Preface.

All key personnel and principal authors of the IPCC were appointed by various member governments of the United Nations. The organization is therefore a political rather than a scientific body. Nearly all of the IPCC scientists are subsidized by government contracts which fund both their research and also their IPCC activities. They have focused exclusively on the activist agenda of trying to establish evidence that would support human-induced carbon dioxide emissions as a main cause of climate change, a.k.a. putting the cart before the horse. Their publications, including the summaries written especially for policy makers, are subject to approval by their various government supervisors. Real scientific reports, of course, are not researched and peer-reviewed in this manner.

The NIPCC was organized in 2003 by the Science & Environment Policy Project (SEPP), founded in 1990 by Fred Singer, as an independent team to analyze the many controversies and misapplications of science being created by global warming advocates. As a result of the early drafts and publication of the IPCC's "Climate Change 2007" volumes, this analysis team changed its name to NIPCC and took on the task of evaluating the results of the IPCC report. The personnel and scientific members of the NIPCC have contributed their time freely and have received no remuneration, grant or contribution for producing their book, with the exception of the lead author, Craig Idso, who has stated he received a small foundation grant for the hours he spent in helping prepare the final report. The NIPCC has no governmental connections and supports no candidate for public office.

An interesting point that underscores which group gets heavy subsidies is to compare the cost to the public of the books. Based on Amazon pricing and paging, the 3-volume IPCC report is being sold for about 8 cents per page. The NIPCC report, about 18 cents per page!

One of the best chapters in the NIPCC report is Chapter 3 on temperature records, both paleohistoric and more recent direct observations. The paleoclimatic data going back millions of years were a keystone of the IPCC reports, which claimed that in it was evidence that higher concentrations of CO2 were responsible for higher global temperatures. On the other hand, the NIPCC chapter cites numerous studies indicating that such increases in global CO2 concentrations either showed no significant changes during global temperature increases, or that CO2 concentrations lagged behind such increases by thousands of years. Sometimes there were even anti-correlations between the two.

For more recent times, the IPCC used the notorious "hockey stick" graph to demonstrate that the Earth experienced unusually higher temperatures in the 20th century. The hockey stick graph plots temperature changes vs. years from 1000 A.D. to 1980. Over most of this period, the changes fluctuate close to zero, and then suddenly there is a dramatic increase from about 1910. The profile of the graph resembles a "J" lying on its side with the small hook pointing upwards at the end; hence, the name "hockey stick". The inference according to the compilers of the chart is that the temperature increases are anthropogenic in origin, i.e., due to human activity. This graph was featured in an (in)famous documentary called "An Inconvenient Truth".

However, independent statistics experts analyzed the original hockey stick data and found "...collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects." These researchers corrected and updated the data and in a re-plot found no dramatic rise in temperature in the 20th century, and that warming in the early 15th century exceeded any warming of the 20th century! Curiously, the original authors of the hockey stick graph admitted these errors in a "Science" magazine article, but further claimed that "...none of these errors affect our previously published results". Is this "cargo cult" science, or what?

The advocacy of global warming adherents is troubling to me. I am reminded of those Frankenstein films of the 1930s in which the villagers have surrounded the castle with torches shouting "burn the monster". The "monster" in this case being those scientists patiently examining observations with a strict scientific methodology, reaching sounder conclusions than the villagers, who are those researchers with an agenda, or adhere to governmental dictates, and perform hurried, sloppy science.

I am also bothered by the fact that activists continue to use the terminology, "global warming consensus", and the related phrase "mainstream scientific opinion", when in fact there is no such common agreement and numbers belie "mainstream scientific opinion". The public seems to be little aware of the fact that more than 31,000 Americans with University degrees in science, engineering, or related disciplines, including more than 9,000 holding Ph.D.'s, have signed a petition against global warming as a result of increased CO2 caused by human activity. Signatures are still being gathered by the Global Warming Petition Project (petitionproject dot org) although in terms of Ph.D.'s alone, the number is already 15 times greater than those connected with the IPCC! These numbers certainly dispel the notion that there is a "global warming consensus" which is "mainstream scientific opinion".

The reports of the NIPCC and of the IPCC are very important reading for the public. The latter volumes, sponsored by a U.N. mandate, could form the basis of intractable policies which serve to undermine the global economies far worse than the stimulus package recently passed by the present U.S. congress in which most members did not read its contents! The former, an independent assessment of the claims of the latter, appears to be based on sound interpretations of solid scientific observations. One doctor is telling us that we have cancer and there is no hope (unless we kill ourselves to stop it). The other doctor has a second opinion which says maybe the symptoms are being misinterpreted; maybe we should pay more attention to actual observations and alternative explanations based on sound principles.

"Climate Change Reconsidered" is must reading. It is your second opinion. Will you accept the National Health doctors' diagnosis, or will you listen to the opinions of numerous international, independent doctors?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars The Kindle Edition I bought is UNreadable, March 1, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
DO NOT buy the Kindle edition until it is re-issued after the copy readers have cleaned it up and it has been re-typed and re-issued.

The Introduction reads like this: if sentences were spaghetti, the 'sketti has been briefly put thru a blender (there are some long pieces left) and thrown on some sheets of paper, photographed, and assembled with whaterver printing process would work with a Kindle ebook, and sold.

Paragraphs are not apparent. Some sentence fragments are in superscript type. Many "sentences" are fragments from ?. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to put the pieces together- especially given that the material seems to quite technical,and maybe? criptic.

I managed to read (NOT comprend) some distance into the first Technical? chapter. It seems slightly less scrambled, but still unreadable.

My qualifications to make these criticisms include that I have a Masters and ABD degrees in a technical Natural Resources field, and am very interested in the subject.

Please Fix it!! And withdraw it from sale until it is!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 2 3 4 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
$123.00 $116.85
In Stock
Add to cart Add to wishlist
Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.