138 of 166 people found the following review helpful
Sanity at last....,
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.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 14 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Mar 24, 2008 8:53:00 PM PDT
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 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.
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
James Safranek says:
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
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
James Safranek says:
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
Kevin Ray Pearson says:
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
Here is some real science for a change. Something Spencers book is almost entirely devoid of.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2008 5:09:04 AM PDT
Read some REAL science for a change since even with your alleged education you are too stupid to recognize: