Customer Review

53 of 60 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars against the tide, April 16, 2011
This review is from: Climate Coup: Global Warmings Invasion of Our Government and Our Lives (Hardcover)
Much of the content of this book will be familiar to those most likely to read this book. The proposition that peer review is biased and unreliable should come as no surprise. The sections on the widening gap between the predictions of alarmists and statistics on actual climactic conditions are worthwhile, but unsurprising. This book does an excellent job of explaining the facts concerning economic costs of environmentalist regulation. One of the strengths of this book is that it clarifies the pervasive nature of environmentalism. Stricter enforcement of enviro-regulations by the Obama Administration will most certainly limit further progress in living standards in industrialized nations, and lack of global economic progress could have disastrous consequences for relatively poor nations.

The idea that environmentalism fits with the unconstitutional trend of empowering the presidency is correct, but one that has little reach beyond those already critical of anthropogenic global warming movement. The fact of the matter is that committed environmentalists have no respect for the Constitution, and most other people have come to accept unconstitutional governance in America. This is an important problem, but I don't think this book will do much directly to solve it. Attitudes concerning law need to change. The aforementioned sections that debunk alarmism may help take the wind out of the sails of this anti-constitutional environmentalist movement, but I don't expect concern over the constitution itself to mount any time soon.

The last chapter is the most important. K-12 environmental indoctrination is dangerous. I had already gained the impression that children are being taught to believe particular things about warming, rather than to think critically about its causes. While it is true that environmentalism is taking over our government and our lives, this is because environmentalist beliefs are taking over "our minds". The simple solution to this problem is to promote critical thinking and tolerance, but this is easier said than done. My guess is that too few people will read this book (at the margin of beliefs), but the authors of its chapters deserve credit for trying to improve public understanding of these issues.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments

Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 31 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 19, 2011 10:02:40 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2011 10:08:05 AM PDT
JG says:
I'm not sure what your position here is. Is your problem with the science behind climate change or the way that the Executive branch, through the EPA, acts to enforce environmental standards?

If you don't agree with the science behind climate change then I would ask what about it specifically do you find flawed? Any bias in the peer review process pales in comparison to the bias of studies financed and conducted by industries with a vested interest in minimizing the threat posed by climate change. The peer review process is the only way to keep venal hacks from spreading disinformation to the public.

I don't see what is unconstitutional about states like California passing tougher environmental laws than their neighbors. Also, if the EPA exercising its mandate is unconstitutional then by that standard any exercise of authority by any bureau of the Executive branch is unconstitutional.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2011 6:48:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 19, 2011 6:49:26 PM PDT
My problems with anthropogenic global warming (APGW) are

A) modern C02 emmisions took off in Sept 1939 (start of WW2), yet temps fell from 1945 to 1978, and most of global warming was in the 1850-1940 period anyway- this data does not support the APGW theory. Some claim that the 45-78 data is biased downward, but raising those temps just makes the 1890s warming less significant...

B) There was warning during the 1980s, but it petered out in the 1990s- there were El-Nino warm periods in 1998, 2006, and 2009, but each of these warmings was offset by a subsequent decline, so there is no significant warming trend in nearly 20 years- thats not just my opinion, Phil Jones at the CRU center agrees...

C) Willie Soon at Harvard and Roy Spencer at UAH have alternative theories involving solar and cloud activity, respectively.

D) I know more about the data than the theory, but my limited knowlege of the theory is that the direct affect of c02 is proven to be real, but also very small. Computer models of c02 driven warming assume the existence of positive feedback mechanisms, whereby c02 interacts with other gases- and this feedback theory unproven to the point of being speculative.

The claim the anthropogenic warming theory is "settled science" is utterly nonsensical. Climate systems are extroidinarly complex and scientists are still figuring out how these systems work. There is no settled science here, just competing hypotheses, and the APGW theory has less empirical support than the green crowd thinks.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 19, 2011 7:22:48 PM PDT
JG says:
A) Global temperatures started their upwards march earlier than 1939. The steep increase began at the beginning of the century and continued through the present. While there was a temporary decrease and flattening out after the war the upward march continued and intensifed after the 1970s. My point being that the pattern of increasing temperatures becomes clear when you look at the pattern over the long haul.

B) Temperature increases over the past century have taken place in a saw-tooth pattern. Periods of increases followed by years of decreases. You can't look at a brief 10 year period like the 1990's and conclude that the decrease in temperature contradicts the larger pattern of temperature increases that have been rising upwards for the past century. The trend in global temperatures has been following an upward trajectory despite brief periods of cooling or stabilization.

C) The presence of a small numer of doubters does not constitute a credible challenge to the larger consensus among the scientific community that climate change from human activities is real. And yes, when the majority of the scienific establishment such as the US National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science issue statements acknowledging the validity of research supporting climate change that does count as a consensus among the scientific community.

D) I don't know what your definition of "small" is in terms of the impact of CO2 emissions on global temperatures but keep in mind that the heat retention properties of CO2 rise as the total percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere rises. What you dismiss as small today will only increase as the total amount of CO2 increases over time.

Your closing statement about global warming being something other than settled science is misleading. The serious debate today as about the severity of the problem (will temperatures rise a little or a lot?) rather than about whether or not there is a problem.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 4:03:07 AM PDT
"Global temperatures started their upwards march earlier than 1939"

Hmmmm, my post said that it began in the 1850s, and this does not support APGW... This is simple easy stuff, so I thought!

" I don't know what your definition of "small" is"

its not my definition, I have read stuff that differetiates between direct and feedback affects. Climate models postive forcing mainly through the unproven latter- not my models and I dont know the details, I look mainly at the data...

"You can't look at a brief 10 year period like the 1990's "

1945-1978 cooling= 33 years

early 1990s to present= about 20 years fluctuating temps with a flatline average....

warming during 1980s= slightly over 10 years

This stuff was explicit in my last post. If you cant figure out such simple numbers, then there is no point in further discussion.

"Your closing statement about global warming being something other than settled science is misleading"

No, I wrote that the APGW theory of warming is not settled science. Mistating my position is more than a logical fallacy (the strawman fallacy), it is a slimey tactic.

"when the majority of the scienific establishment"

http://www.oism.org/pproject/
http://www.petitionproject.org/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/2053842/Scientists-sign-petition-denying-man-made-global-warming.html

Bottom line is that solar actvity has fallen off and clouds have increased- right at the time that the trend of higher temps ended- the average past twenty years IS a flatline. This does not support the c02/apgw theory. Scientific opinion has shifted because recent advances in the analysis of data and theory have weakened the case for apgw caused warming.

Lets see, you have exhibited inability to follow simple math and timelines, either deliberatly used or stumbled into the strawman fallacy (and argument by authority), and are relying in part on on linear extrapolations... I will stick with data, logic, and skepticism, you can be a true believer, if you want.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 8:26:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 20, 2011 8:46:13 AM PDT
JG says:
I'm not getting into a feces throwing contest with you over semantics. Instead, I will point out the fact that the climate change deniers that you put forward to deny that climate change is "settled science" have connections to industries or political groups that have a vested interest in denying climate change. They are not independent, objective scholars but hired guns who should not be taken seriously.

Frederick Seitz (deceased) of the Petition Project - Was affiliated with the George Marshall Institute, which has long been funded by Exxon-Mobil and other oil industry players. By the way, before Seitz got into the business of denying climate change was hired as a consultant for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco where he produced papers questioning the harmful effects of cigarette smoking on human health. The man made his living selling his academic credentials to the highest bidder and should not be trusted by anyone.

OISM Petition of 30,000 so-called scientists: That petition of scientists who deny climate change is also a fraud. Those "scientists" are actually a collection of academics mostly without any training in the subject of climate science. Included in his list of "scientists" were people whose only scientific credentials were having bachelors degrees in fields such as mathematics, engineering and biology, fields of study that offer no training or expertise on the subject of climate science. Had this survey of "scientists" been conducted in good faith it would have limited the sample to people who actually were qualified to give an informed opinion. Had this survey been limited to scientists who specialize in the field of climate science this petition would never have landed a single signature. Also, his petition failed to mention how many of the people they mailed surveys who declined signing the petition. If 1% of those surveyed sign a petition and you refuse to disclose that 99% refused to sign it, is there really a lack of consensus?

If you really doubt that climate change is not "settled science" then instead of referencing flawed studies by eccentric figures with questionable motives I invite you to see what real scientists with expertise in climate science have to say about their consensus:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change/mtg_200702/aaas_climate_statement.pdf
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-11-12/

I can see from your postings here that your views on science and politics are every bit as hyper-partisan as your views on economics. Perhaps your background in economics has equipped you with the vocabulary to conceal the weakness of those ideas behind a shroud of jargon but the more I read your views on other subjects the more clear it is that you value political ideology over academic honesty.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 11:33:38 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 20, 2011 11:53:39 AM PDT
I never denied that climate change is settled science, the climate has changed- but the causes of this change are a matter of legitimate debate. I have pointed to evidence that climate change is caused by multiple factors, by solar activity, cloud activity, oceanic activity, and also by c02, including manmade c02 (I left out volcanic activity, but obviously are not interested in such facts).

You have misrepresented what I have written here repeatedly, and this is the sort of exchange that has left me with contempt with for most of the political left.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 12:06:46 PM PDT
JG says:
"The claim the anthropogenic warming theory is 'settled science' is utterly nonsensical.....There is no settled science here, just competing hypotheses" - your quote from above

Those are not the words of someone debating the finer details of climate change but rather the broad strokes of someone trying to debunk the entire concept of human caused global warming.

But just to give you the benefit of the doubt I'll allow you to hide behind semantics and say I believe you when you really said you don't doubt that climate change is happening, just the extent of human involvement. I would then ask you why do you continue to doubt the official statements issued by professional scientific associations while accepting the ideas of academic outliers who have obvious conflicts of interests that undermine the integrity of their work? Earlier you were throwing around the work of noted hacks like Frederick Seitz and the OISM petition as your argument against human caused global warming, then when I exposed both examples for the frauds that they are you go silent. These are not the omissions of an objective mind but of an ideologue looking to score points.

I haven't misreprented anything you've said. I've merely pointed out the holes in your argument, which you're now choosing to ignore.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 3:21:30 PM PDT
I don't have time to answer (or re-answer) every point you make (or repeat), but here is one last try...

Scientists have doubts and are considering alternative theories of climate change:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

Volanic activity affects global temps, scientists have measured this effect and seem to have a good idea as to its magnitude.

Solar activity has direct and indirect effects global temps, scientists are figuring this out still.

Clouds and ocean currents definately affect global temps, scientists have made big strides in understanding this recently.

Greenhouse gasses clearly matter. Some of the them are manmade. One of them is c02. Some of c02 is manmade. The relative importance of anthropogenic or manmade warming due to emisions of c02 and other greenhouse gases has not been firmly established, especially where pre 1940 warming is concerned. There are multiple factors at work in what is in fact an increadibly complex climate system. You can believe that temps are a simple and proven function of industrial c02 emissions if you want, the evidence contradicts this simple-minded proposition.

Both sides say the other is biased due to money or ideology. Both sides argue about who is a real scientist, and which organziation or petition is "authoritative". None of that changes the statistical data, which indicates that multiple factors affect global temps.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 20, 2011 4:30:29 PM PDT
Nice job MacKenzie.
Temps rose from 1880 to 1940, before that we were in what was termed "the little ice age". Then as you correctly state temps were completely flat by all accounts from 1940 through 1978. Land based temps show temps rising from 1977 to the peak of the 1998 El Nino, they have been flat since.
http://bit.ly/dZHBoS
But the warming from 1977 to 1997 is "tricky", because satellite temps measured by UAH and RSS show no warming(or very very little) from 1977 to 1997, while the land based CRU and GISS do.
http://bit.ly/fCm3qY
Both temps data set agree there was a jump in 1998, and it has not flattened out since.
As MacKenzie points out man-made CO2 didn't really get going until 1940, when it increased dramatically, yet no warming occurred by any account for over 35 years.
http://www.mongabay.com/images/2006/graphs/co2_global_1750-2000.jpg
The IPCC (the "scientists") also don't attribute the 1880-1940 warming to humans, although the slope of the increase was no different than the land-based temps showed from 1977-1998.
Also, was pointed out, much of the theory is based on amplification from water vapor, and that theory is completely speculative, completely.
The water vapor graphs don't even show a recent rise in water vapor.
http://www.climate4you.com/index.htm
Another point. To say that big oil etc is corrupting science is completely ridiculous. JG how did you get to work today? How do you heat your house? What powered your electricity today? Big oil has absolutely nothing to worry about that green energy would somehow replace fossil fuels. It is a completely ridiculous proposition. Go buy an electric car today, they are For Sale.

Posted on Apr 20, 2011 4:34:50 PM PDT
Another point to consider with the dramatic rise in CO2 from 1940-1977. All scientists and physicists agree that the CO2 warming effect gets saturated. Meaning the more there is, the less potential greenhouse effect(if any) reduces. The enormous mid century rise in CO2 should have produced some warming, instead we got warning of another ice age. The temp rise has been negligible to this world by all parameters, there is nothing to worry about, there are not climate problems, except that people are getting employed by climate change in a 1,000 different ways and then some are getting very, very rich off it. All the while we continue to use oil and fossil fuel, and we will continue to use it, no matter what. To think that we can somehow "get off fossil fuel" is completely preposterous. Certainly we would have this wonderful Amazon. We would be poor, poor, poor.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 Next ›

Review Details