Back to Business Best Books of the Month Valentine's Day Shop Learn more nav_sap_SWP_6M_fly_beacon St Lucia Bose SoundTouch 130 Amazon Fire TV Stick Subscribe & Save Valentine's Day Cards Find the Best Purina Pro Plan for Your Pet Amazon Gift Card Offer chiraq chiraq chiraq  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 Kindle Voyage Prime Exclusive Savings in Video Games Shop Now SnS
Customer Review

10 of 13 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Not up to advance billing., March 6, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: Suck It Up: How capturing carbon from the air can help solve the climate crisis (Kindle Single) (Kindle Edition)
Before I commit to a purchase of anything on Amazon, I read the publishers notes, sample the customer reviews and order a sample. The only reason this offering made the cut was that the sample was miniscule--woefully small. I should have known.

This--global warming and proposed solutions--has been an interest of mine for some time. I have looked into it enough to tell you that VIRTUALLY ALL THIS AUTHOR COVERED COULD HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED IN ONE (maybe two) internet searches. This is a survey book, and not a very good one. First, I have a question? This is a really short work. Is it a Kindle Single? It's called a Kindle e-book. Whichever, it means that Amazon's editorial standards are below sub-par and caveat emptor!

Specific Criticisms:

1. The book was obviously a "once-over-lightly" survey of readily available literature. The author dropped a lot of names, and I imagine his telephone bill would reflect some effort at reaching these people, but the material he got from them was already public domain. There was no evidence of hard-core digging. No names from struggling projects that had attracted no public attention or adequate funding. It was a simple survey of a couple internet searches.

2. It wasn't very well organized. It summoned up a cause in the last thousand words, but the support was at best, tepid. There was really no story here. The author read off a list of people and companies, talked about what they were doing, and moved on. He offered some judgements (mostly of others) about the viability of their projects. He did get into one second level problem; the idea that engineered solutions to temperature change could allow politicians to ignore the more permanent and serious problem of Co2 saturation in the atmosphere and acidification of the oceans, but again, there was no passion.

3. It was perfectly unedited. In his acknowledgements he thanks a group of named people for helping with the manuscript while graciously taking the blame for remaining errors. Marc, this work is loaded with errors. No one read or reviewed it--even you! Too many of the mistakes are glaring choices of the wrong connecting word, the extra word added that just doesn't fit in the sentence, the obvious word missing that the author thought but failed to type. The errors made were those of an experienced author ON A FIRST DRAFT. As such, they are inexcuseable. The further you get into the manuscript, the more there are. It is equally inexcuseable of AMAZON in its role as publisher, to pass on such scribbling as finished product and charge for it.

In short, it is my firm belief that the author had a couple of empty days (he is a long-standing, professional author) and passed off this terrible offering to us for a few bucks! Get it yourself off the internet. There they will have charts, graphs and pictures. NOT RECOMMENDED!
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 2 customers

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-5 of 5 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 6, 2012 8:56:15 AM PST
Marc Gunther says:
This reviewer is entitled to his opinion, but trust me, a whole lot more than Internet searches went into this ebook, which was selected as a Kindle Single and is intended to be read in about an hour. I visited David Keith in Calgary, Ken Caldeira in Palo Alto, Ned David in San Francisco and Peter Eisenberger in Elk, CA. "Suck It Up" has been given favorable notices by respected technology and environmental journalists including Martin LaMonica of CNET and Jeff Goodell, author of his own excellent full-length book on engineering.

In reply to an earlier post on Sep 24, 2012 3:37:25 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Sep 24, 2012 3:47:35 PM PDT
Amazon User says:
Mark,

As a layperson and citizen, I would like to know:

1. The moral and ethical justification of regional particulate dispersion via aircraft without sufficient human health and environmental studies?

2. Why ongoing geoengineering projects, especially conducted regionally, are not transparent? It seems to me that citizens have the right to know when an area is being targeted, the type of particulate, for how long, the primary objective, the risks and the benefits, and how one opts out of being exposed? etc...It is incredulous to me that local weathermen continue to insist that the white hazing over of a previously clear, bright blue sky (obviously caused by aircraft particulate dispersion) is due to simple jet contrails. Why the bullshit? If this were a credible solution to a serious problem, why not educate the public? Why not have the public debate? Why the secrecy and overt lies?

3. Climatologists can't even predict untampered weather with any reliability. If research needs to be done, why not conduct it over the Mojave desert? If researchers can consistently cool desert temps and increase rainfall amounts without destroying the ecosystem, that seems to be a much safer and saner approach than just willy nilly spraying over agricultural land, lakes and waterways, major urban centers and other potentially high risk regions.

Posted on Nov 24, 2012 9:51:32 PM PST
Aryeh says:
After reading this book, I virulently disagree this review. This book is well worth the price.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 9:56:44 PM PST
Aryeh says:
It seems clear to me by your questions that you have not read the book and have no idea what the author was attempting to explain or advocate. Air carbon capture technology does not involve dispersing particulates such as sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Indeed, that is precisely the point. The idea is to extract carbon from the air irrespective of its source.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 24, 2012 9:58:36 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 24, 2012 10:02:32 PM PST]
‹ Previous 1 Next ›