Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.
Other Sellers on Amazon
Climate of Extremes: Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know Hardcover – January 16, 2009
Customers who bought this item also bought
What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?
From Publishers Weekly
Michaels (The Satanic Gases) and Balling (The Heated Debate) claim that, although global warming is real, it does not herald a climate crisis and that human beings cannot significantly alter the temperature trajectory of the planet. They present detailed evidence that climate data is inaccurate, the fear that permafrost will release huge amounts of the greenhouse gas methane is unfounded and that horror stories about an imminent collapse of Greenland's ice simply aren't borne out by the fact that it was warmer there for decades in the early 20th century, and for millennia after the end of the last ice age. The authors make persuasive arguments and climate crisis skeptics will applaud the book's message. Other readers may wonder why governments would, as Michaels and Balling suggest, have a stake in manufacturing a crisis, and think that the book's credibility is undermined by the authors' tendency to mix sarcasm with facts and figures (Earth's temperature is doubtlessly warmer than it was 100 years ago. Get over it) and clear frustration with their minority status in the global warming debate. (Jan.)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
This book's title refers to the current scientific environment, which Michaels and Balling view as biased toward alarmism with respect to climate change issues. The authors recognize that anthropogenic global warming is a reality, but criticize mainstream climate science through a review of peer-reviewed literature (CHOICE)
In Climate of Extremes, two distinguished climatologists analyze the media's message about various alleged doomsday scenarios resulting from global warming-with particular attention to observational data. In each case, they demonstrate that potentially negative effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have been exaggerated or even fabricated, whereas any positive effects have been ignored. An informed citizenry is essential for wise national decisions in a democracy. Climate of Extremes provides important and honest information about climate change that is hard to find elsewhere. (Will Harper, Professor of Physics and Former Chairman of the University Research Board, Princeton University Former Director, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy)
Michaels and Balling have provided a treasure trove of the latest global warming science that you won't hear about through the media and reveal the absurdity of the claim that the science of man-made global warming is settled. (Roy W. Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, University of Alabama-Huntsville Recipient, NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific)
You don't have to be a skeptic to be curious about how solid the alleged global warming consensus really is. This book will open your eyes, if you are open to evidence and arguments. (Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores University, United Kingdom)
Author interviews, book reviews, editors picks, and more. Read it now
Top customer reviews
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Near the end of the book, the authors study the global warming bias by reviewing 116 papers published in Science and Nature in 2006. The authors indicate that the scientific community thought so far that existing models did not underestimate global warming. This suggests going forward there would be a 50/50 chance that new findings indicate that global warming is either better or worst than we thought. Instead, the authors uncovered only 10 papers (less than 9% of the 116) that suggested that global warming was moderating. All others suggested global warming was worst than thought.
The authors also refer to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions first published in 1962. Kuhn states that scientific research supports contemporary paradigms. And, scientific work tries either to explain anomalies or to show that anomalous data are wrong. The authors suggests Kuhn's framework perfectly anticipated the behavior of the scientific community in their supporting the anthropogenic global warming paradigm. First, this community found a weak argument (CFCs) to explain out the cooling of temperatures during the mid of the 20th century. And second, it revised the data numerous times in an attempt to entirely get rid off the embarrassing mid century cooling all together.
Now, you can't even trust the data. Temperature data series have been adjusted 6 times in just the past few years. They were to factor the urban island effect and the related effect of agriculture, deforestation, and zoning changes. They all lead to artificially raising recent temperatures. So, adjusting the time series should have lowered recent temperature levels. Instead, they lowered earlier temperatures. As a result, instead of the adjustments showing a reduction in global warming, they show an acceleration. Thus, you get more warming from the same data series!
The ones who don't go along with the global warming paradigm pay dearly for it. A bunch of State climatologists (Delaware, Virginia where Michaels the co-author got fired, Oregon, Washington) have either been fired or censored by Government officials for disclosing data and analysis that does not support the global warming paradigm.
The ones who promote this global warming paradigm are often deified. Al Gore received a Nobel Prize for his work and an Oscar award for An Inconvenient Truth. Meanwhile, the authors state that all Al Gore did was developing an apocalyptic vision disconnected from the science. Al Gore projected mean expected temperature increase of 6 degree Celsius only matched by the IPCC very worst case scenario. He also projected sea level rise of 20 to 40 feet vs 8.5 to 18.5 inches for IPCC most likely outcome.
The authors also debunk numerous other exaggerations from Al Gore and followers. Long term temperature records indicate that Greenland had been warmer for several millennia than currently, and it did not shed its ice. The ice cover in Antarctica is extremely stable. Its ongoing minimal ice loss translates into a sea level rise of only 1 inch per century. The retreat of glacier on Kilimanjaro are related to a drop in moisture that far precedes the rise in CO2 concentration during the 20th century. Looking at multi-century record, fire frequency for the last 500 years has been the result of natural ocean climate cycles, and not global warming. Heat-related mortality declined as cities get warmer (graph pg. 179). Heat related mortality rates decreased by 75% for 28 American cities between the 1960s and 1990s (graph pg. 182). They also confirm that impact of CO2 on temperature rise is logarithmic. This greatly moderates the gravity of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Also, contrary to global warming advocates wheat and corn yields have risen very rapidly in tandem with temperature increases since 1950. They also refer to Steve McIntyre debunking the hockey stick increase in temperature by simply looking at a long term average in temperature vs just averages over the past 78 years (graph pg. 218). For more on this specific issue read the second chapter in Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming.
Models are still really poor at factoring cloudiness, rainfall, humidity levels. Additionally, they all project CO2 concentration that accelerates far beyond current trend way into the future. As a result, those models are highly inaccurate and exaggerate temperature increase. But, they still support the global warming paradigm. The IPCC mindset is that ten different models can't be all wrong; But, if they suffer from the same flaws and bias, they can [be all wrong].
Government policy response has so far been ineffective. Such is the case of the U.S. subsidies supporting the production of ethanol that will actually increase greenhouse emission, is highly energy inefficient, and cause substantial food inflation due to displacing a substantial portion of U.S. corn production. Meanwhile, the Kyoto Protocol has achieved little. All the member countries have failed their CO2 reduction targets by wild margins. In the end, the Kyoto Protocol just allowed the member countries to blame the non member ones. But, when you look at actual carbon emission performance over the relevant time period the difference between the two groups is ambivalent.
The writers have the credentials to tackle the subject and do it well. I'm reminded of the book "Silent Spring" (Ehrlich is still a tenured professor last I checked) that warned of global freezing in the early 1970s and influence the tail end of the hippie generation.
When it comes to verbal explanation of the man-made Armageddon through global warming hoax, I would send those who cannot read graphs to YouTube and listen to a brief lecture by Christopher Monckton, Prime Minister Marager Thatcher's science advisor, who debunks the false science well. And to think that exposure of the hoax through the publication of e-mails from the University of East Anglia came out after this book--what a shame.
Nonetheless, the case for climate cycles is irrefutable, and man's contribution to them is negligible. No, Mr. Glover, the "failure" of Copenhagen did not lead to the earthquake in Haiti.
If I ever hear Dennis Franz (the most believable cop I know of on film or TV) ever utters such gibberish I may have to seriously consider Hari Kari.
But, until that time comes, even with my Ph.D. in hand, I recommend this book to anyone interested in the TRUTH, which the scientific method helps us distinguish from fallacy, but a search for which is never entirely over. I write this after the election of Senator Brown in Massachusetts, so I don't have to rail against the insanity of Cap and Trade at the moment. The bumper sticker I have seen one of my neighbors put on his or her auto that they paid for their Carbon Dioxide emissions in advance, makes my laugh and cry. Where would the American breadbasket, that feeds the world, be without Carbon Dioxide. Thanks to the NEA, do the young "skulls full of mush" that Limbaugh refers to not even know basic physiology and plant physiology?
May God help us when scientific dialogue is completely silenced by the supporters of State decrees about the outcome of informed debate.
The title describes the "atmosphere" in today's debate on climate change and addresses an area not covered by purely scientific books or by those arguing a point of view. Their conclusion is that the Earth is warming, partly due to anthropogenic effects, but the magnitude is not great, and the consequences are not dire.