Customer Review

138 of 166 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Sanity at last...., March 24, 2008
This review is from: Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor (Hardcover)
Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor by Roy Spencer is a breath of fresh wind. Written by a highly qualified NASA scientist, Climate Confusion examines the current evidence about global warming and the debate surrounding it.

Well written for a mass audience and expertly researched and documented, Climate Confusion should be read by all sides of the climate debate. One thing that everyone should note is that their is not massive agreement among the scientific community about global warming. Spencers book is but one voice among many that cries out that we are all being fed a bill of goods by the doom and gloom crowd. He is to congratulated on work well done.

Peace to all.
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


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 24, 2008 8:53:00 PM PDT
J. White says:
Rush Limbaughs website is pormoting the book as of 3/24. That explains the influx of technically incompetent reviews and comment postings.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2008 5:19:40 AM PDT
Robert Busko says:
And your credentials are?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 25, 2008 8:17:20 PM PDT
J. White says:
MSEE and PHD Physics.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 26, 2008 5:25:13 AM PDT
Robert Busko says:
I thought so. You, with your education, should know that the connection between man and global warming is tenuous at best. Certainly there are scientists, about evenly divided by the way, on both sides of this argument that make strong points. While I lack the PhD I do have two masters. I for one believe that some of the warming is related to luminosity issues of the sun. There is some research on this point.

Finally, we've been in a warming trend that started long before man was technologically active. In fact, the warming trend has been going on for 10,000 years with minor cooling and warming cycles with in that upward slope. Surely there are other factors to consider other than carbon emissions by humans.

Peace

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2008 10:44:13 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2008 10:51:05 AM PDT
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere over thousands of years of glacials and interglacials has remained fairly steady (for both low and high atmospheric C levels). We're approaching C levels on this planet never before present since the Eocene. That's because of our collective C output (the majority opinion).
The bottom line questions are:
Do you advocate decreasing anthropogenic C levels, or is it 'full steam ahead'?
More: How would 700 ppm C impact the planet? Do you want your grandkids to find out?

Play time in the sandbox is over.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2008 9:08:44 PM PDT
Observer says:
James:
I assume, therefore, that you are in favour of replacing fossil fuelled power plants with nuclear?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 1, 2008 9:42:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 1, 2008 2:19:32 PM PDT
You bet. Lovelock's recent book Revenge of Gaia convinced me that even with all of the imperfections of nuclear, a complete mix of energy alternatives is crucial. Imagine a U.S. with nuclear supplying 30-40% of our supply rather than 15%.
See my review of THE ATLAS OF CLIMATE CHANGE for more.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 15, 2008 11:21:40 AM PDT
J. White.

I have a M.S. in Electrical Engineering as well, and although I never completed any dissertation, I have completed my course work for the PhD, in Electrical Engineering (at Georgia Tech nonetheless). I have no recollection of ever having any coursework that was even remotely related to meteorology or climatology. Furthermore, the Physics classes that I have along the way were related to electricity, magnetism, optics and quantum mechanics all of which are still unrelated. Your "credentials" are not relevant to the discussion.

You might be able to flash these acronyms among liberals and pass yourself off as an expert, but it won't work with me, because I have been there and I DO know what they represent and what they DON'T represent.

However, if it makes you feel any better, I did have a Freshman level chemistry class where the Professor talked about flouro-carbons from aerosols and their effect on the ozone layer. The professor pointed out that the so-called flouro-carbons are molecularly heavier than the atmosphere, and so flouro-carbons that are released by aerosols at ground level, would be too heavy to float into the upper atmosphere and would have no effect on the ozone layer because they would never reach the ozone layer to create the chemical reaction that supposedly destroys the ozone layer.

Posted on Apr 16, 2008 5:07:56 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2008 5:08:08 AM PDT
J. White says:
Here is some real science for a change. Something Spencers book is almost entirely devoid of.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2008 5:09:04 AM PDT
J. White says:
Read some REAL science for a change since even with your alleged education you are too stupid to recognize:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080402100001.htm
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer

Robert Busko
(VINE VOICE)    (TOP 1000 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

Location: North Carolina

Top Reviewer Ranking: 945