Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Follow the author
OK
A Climate for Change: Global Warming Facts for Faith-Based Decisions Paperback – Bargain Price, March 21, 2011
- Print length224 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherFaithWords
- Publication dateMarch 21, 2011
- Dimensions5.25 x 0.75 x 8.25 inches
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Editorial Reviews
Review
About the Author
Andrew Farley is pastor of Lubbock Bible Church. He served as a professor of Applied Linguistics at University of Notre Dame for five years and is now a tenured professor at Texas Tech University. In addition to more than a dozen journal articles, Andrew has also authored a book and coauthored two textbooks, two workbooks, and two multimedia publications with McGraw-Hill.
Product details
- ASIN : B00AK2TIRY
- Publisher : FaithWords; Reprint edition (March 21, 2011)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 224 pages
- Item Weight : 6.4 ounces
- Dimensions : 5.25 x 0.75 x 8.25 inches
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Katharine is an atmospheric scientist who studies what climate change means to us here and now, and how our choices will determine our future.
She is the chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy and a distinguished professor at Texas Tech University; she also serves as climate ambassador for the World Evangelical Alliance.
Katharine has been named one of TIME's 100 Most Influential People, Foreign Policy’s 100 Leading Global Thinkers, Fortune's World's Greatest Leaders and Working Mother’s 50 Most Influential Moms. She is a United Nations Champion of the Earth and hosts the PBS Digital YouTube series, Global Weirding and is a founding member of Science Moms.
Follow @KHayhoe on Twitter for frequent updates on the latest climate change science, and https://www.facebook.com/katharine.hayhoe for more in-depth discussions.
Customer reviews
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
Learn more how customers reviews work on Amazon-
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Dr. Katharine Hayhoe is a climate science professor at Texas Tech University and served on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. These credentials merit her expertise in the field of climate change. Dr. Andrew Farley is a linguist professor at Texas Tech University and pastor of a local evangelical church. His thoughts on Christianity, and our responsibility for the earth and its inhabitants, bring a special focus that no other books on climate change currently offer.
I highly suggest buying this book for the conservative Christian in your family who can't seem to move past the political undertones of climate change. It presents the basic science behind our changing climate and debunks some commonly used arguments against human induced climate change (for example: "Don't scientists disagree whether climate change is currently happening and whether it is being caused and/or exacerbated by human actions?"-NO!)
If you are a fence sitter on the topic of global warming, you'd better read this book. I'm certainly glad I did.
While I was purchasing this book for the NCSE, I decided to also buy a Kindle version for myself, to see what the authors' take on climate change is.
It starts off well, with an evocative description of the effects climate change are having on the Inuit. I was a little bemused that it actually even mentions the question whether the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, or whether God just created it 10,000 years ago to look old (with also the current ice age apparently lasting 3 million years, including 50 or so glaciations and 50 or so interglacial periods-including the current one we are living in) and the constant quotation of Scripture to justify their views.
I give it 3 stars; worth reading, but not worth reading again. It's a bit better than Ian Plimer's "Heaven and Earth", which I gave 2 stars (which in my rating system means that I found it difficult to finish), because it was badly written and grossly inaccurate in the science (see my review of it for examples; I initially was highlighting all the errors in it until the memory on my iPad for highlights gave out less than a third of the way into the book, and the Kindle App kept on crashing).
At least "A Climate for Change" doesn't have the same number of science errors (but only because it's actually 'science light'). Not that it isn't capable of making mistakes; for example, "As coral grows, it absorbs one of two kinds of oxygen, standard or deuterium, from the seawater". Actually, deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen, with one neutron in addition to its one proton. I know what they meant to write; with warming corals take up more Oxygen 18 (with 2 extra neutrons) than the standard Oxygen 16, because with a warming sea, more of the lighter water with O16 evaporates, leaving more of the heavier water with O18 (that's the way heavy water with deuterium was made; slowly heating and evaporating much of a very large volume of ordinary water to leave more concentrated D2O behind).
It also makes other errors. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists hasn't changed their position on anthropogenic climate change, as the authors claim they did in 2008. After noting that extreme weather conditions can't be used to support the idea of climate change, they then proceed to do that. Katrina was disastrous because the levees were structurally unsound, wetlands surrounding New Orleans had disappeared removing the buffer to storms and building had occurred in the wrong places. The disastrous bush-fires in Victoria Australia in 2009 were largely due to the neglect of basic preventative control burns in preceding years (Australian trees drop a lot of branches throughout the year, leaving a lot of highly combustible ground tinder, which eventually will have to catch fire, either in a controlled burn in the cooler seasons, or at the height of a hot Summer), and also due to people building in dangerous, but very scenic, bush settings.
I find it very annoying that debate on climate change has become very polarised, with almost religious fervour demonstrated on both sides.
I wish we could all come to some sort of agreement as to what is known about climate, what is speculative and what is just wrong.
My list of facts would include:
Climate is very complex. There are many influences, including solar output, slight orbital changes of the Earth (the Milankovitch cycles), the distribution of the continents with tectonic plate movement, aerosols in the atmosphere from volcanos and industry, changes in cloud cover and changes in albedo of the Earth (including carbon soot darkening snow and ice increasing absorption of heat). And changes in greenhouse gases. Some are cooling. Some are warming.
The Earth has been both hotter and colder in the past, at various times. The causes for climate change then might not be the same for all, and not the same as now. The past only provides information as to how quickly climate can change.
Computer climate models are likely to be inaccurate in predicting the future. Actually, all they do is make projections, based on assumptions as to how we are going to act in the future, giving ball park estimates to give some idea as to what might possibly happen. There's no certainty.
I find it distressing that climate change skeptics don't apply the same skepticism to their own arguments. I have often heard it claimed that increasing cloud cover as a result of any climate warming will largely negate the warming (it begs the question as to what the effect reduced sunlight will have on our agricultural crops).
My take on climate change is; 1. Do we have enough evidence to justify taking action? 2. If not, are there any other reasons for taking action?
My personal worry is actually resource depletion. There currently are no large untapped reserves of oil available. Present reserves of oil might last another 50 years. There might be large reserves under the Arctic Ocean, but there is no current technology to exploit them (unless warming is much larger than expected, there will always be sea ice in the Arctic, and pack ice driven by wind and current against ocean oil rigs will be like the irresistible force coming up against the immovable-by us-object). Energy shortages will only increase; there are currently 1.5 billion people who currently without any electricity. If nothing else, justice demands that they should get at least some minimum amount of the abundant energy we currently enjoy.
Of course we need the right plan, which I concede will be very difficult.
Making biofuels from crops grown on valuable farm land is a very bad idea (particularly since there is minimal if any net gain of energy).
I also think carbon sequestration in coal fired power plants is a bad idea too, although I think coal should be phased out. The term 'clean coal' is an oxymoron. As the authors point out, coal contains trace amounts of heavy metals, but because so much coal is burned, the trace amounts become significant. Fluorescent light globes, because they reduce the energy required, reduce mercury pollution generated from the coal (and LCD lights would be even more effective) outweighing any possible exposure from the mercury in the bulbs (which anyway are sealed). A coal powered plant generates more radioactive pollution than a similarly sized nuclear plant, due to the trace amounts of radioactive metals in coal.
Everything should be on the table; including nuclear (unfortunately Clinton/Gore canned development of the 4th generation nuclear reactor in 1994; it promised to be able to use the waste from the current 2nd generation reactors and solve the waste problem to manageable proportions. Whether it would have been viable is unknown).
So we need alternate energy sources, energy efficiency and energy conservation. We need to live more intelligently and sustainably, and be happy with what we have. We are going to have to make some adjustments anyway; inevitably the price of oil will increase, so we will need to mitigate (decarbonise the economy) for economic if not global warming reasons.




