Buy used:
$33.96
Delivery Thursday, July 18
Or fastest delivery Tuesday, July 9. Order within 11 hrs 7 mins
Used: Very Good | Details
Condition: Used: Very Good
Comment: Nice clean copy with no highlighting or writing. We take pride in our accurate descriptions. Satisfaction Guaranteed.
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Added to

Sorry, there was a problem.

There was an error retrieving your Wish Lists. Please try again.

Sorry, there was a problem.

List unavailable.
Other sellers on Amazon
Kindle app logo image

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.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the authors

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) Paperback – June 1, 2009

4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars 39 ratings

This 880-page rebuttal of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), three years in the making, was released in June 2009 by The Heartland Institute. Coauthored and edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., and Craig Idso, Ph.D. and produced with contributions and reviews by an international coalition of scientists, it provides an independent examination of the evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change in the published, peer-reviewed literature examined without bias and selectivity. It includes many research papers ignored by the IPCC plus additional scientific results that became available after the IPCC deadline of May 2006.

Chapter 1 describes the limitations of the IPCC s attempt to forecast future climate with computer models. The IPCC violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its projections of little use to policymakers.

Chapter 2 describes feedback factors that reduce the earth s sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2. Scientific studies suggest the model-derived temperature sensitivity of the earth for a doubling of the pre-industrial CO2 level is much lower than the IPCC s estimate.

Chapter 3 reviews empirical data on past temperatures. We find no support for the IPCC s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.

Chapter 4 reviews observational data on glacier melting, sea ice area, variation in precipitation, and sea level rise. We find no evidence of trends that could be attributed to the supposedly anthropogenic global warming of the twentieth century.

Chapter 5 summarizes the research of a growing number of scientists who say variations in solar activity, not greenhouse gases, are the true driver of climate change. We describe the evidence of a solar-climate.

Chapter 6 investigates and debunks the widespread fears that global warming might cause more extreme weather. The IPCC claims global warming will cause (or already is causing) more droughts, floods, hurricanes, storms, storm surges, heat waves, and wildfires. We find little or no support in the peer-reviewed literature for these predictions and considerable evidence to support an opposite prediction: That weather would be less extreme in a warmer world.

Chapter 7 examines the biological effects of rising CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures. This is the largely unreported side of the global warming debate, perhaps because it is unequivocally good news. Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests. It is a boon to the world s forests and prairies, as well as to farmers and ranchers and the growing populations of the developing world.

Chapter 8 examines the IPCC s claim that CO2-induced increases in air temperature will cause unprecedented plant and animal extinctions, both on land and in the world s oceans. We find there little real-world evidence in support of such claims and an abundance of counter evidence that suggests ecosystem biodiversity will increase in a warmer and CO2-enriched world.

Chapter 9 challenges the IPCC s claim that CO2-induced global warming is harmful to human health. The IPCC blames high-temperature events for increasing the number of cardiovascular-related deaths, enhancing respiratory problems, and fueling a more rapid and widespread distribution of deadly infectious diseases, such as malaria, dengue and yellow fever. The peer-reviewed scientific literature reveals that further global warming would likely do just the opposite and actually reduce the number of lives lost to extreme thermal conditions.

Editorial Reviews

Review

A massively compelling document ... Climate Change Reconsidered is a summary of the climate science that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won t give you. It offers the results from hundreds of peer-reviewed studies in top science journals.... Don t accept massive energy taxes until you ve reviewed it. --Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute

After reading Climate Change Reconsidered, one is left wondering how such a poorly supported scientific theory could have such political traction. For those that want to get to the bottom of this subject, the present work is one of the most accessible expositions of climate change. I recommend it without reservation. --Brice Bosnich Ph.D., The University of Chicago (retired)

An extraordinary achievement ... Climate Change Reconsidered is a tour de force. It takes on all the alleged evidences of catastrophic, manmade global warming and demonstrates, patiently and clearly, why they fail to support the conclusion. --E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

About the Author

Dr. S. Fred Singer is one of the most distinguished scientists in the U.S. In the 1960s, he established and served as the first director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, now part of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and earned a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for his technical leadership. In the 1980s, Singer served for five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee for Oceans and Atmosphere (NACOA) and became more directly involved in global environmental issues. Since retiring from the University of Virginia and from his last federal position as chief scientist of the Department of Transportation, Singer founded and directed the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project.

Dr. Craig D. Idso is founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. He received his Ph.D. in geography from Arizona State University, where he studied as one of a small group of University Graduate Scholars. He was a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University and has lectured in Meteorology at Arizona State University. Dr. Idso has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban CO2 concentrations.

Product details

  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ The Heartland Insitute (June 1, 2009)
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • Paperback ‏ : ‎ 880 pages
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1934791288
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1934791288
  • Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 4.4 pounds
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars 39 ratings

About the authors

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.

Customer reviews

4.6 out of 5 stars
4.6 out of 5
39 global ratings

Top reviews from the United States

Reviewed in the United States on April 6, 2011
This compendium of technical summaries of climate topics is encyclopedic, richly referenced to the scientific literature, and extremely timely. It is organized in the same fashion as the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which allows for easy comparison of the two divergent views of climate data, climate science, and implications for the future.

Yes, it is a technical document, but most sections are quite readable by anyone with enough science background to appreciate the debate over hypothesis testing, fact-checking, and uncertainty. It is far more readable than the IPCC 4AR, which is rife with oblique statements, specialist jargon, and self-importance.

Considering the gravity of the financial implications of various proposed "climate-fix" policies, this book is the essential "second opinion" everyone needs before deciding IF there is a problem and WHAT is sensible action.
6 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on June 5, 2009
This is a magnificent rebuttal of the "party line" IPCC/Gore/Alarmist outcry that contends the Earth is threatened with disaster due to man's carbon dioxide emission. The scientists who gave of their time and energy to pull together the studies and data are acting in the finest tradition of belief in scientific integrity. They effectively shoot the alarmist banner full of great big holes, with real facts, data and analytical buckshot. This book will likely be the definitive work for the next several years on the science of climate change and its distortions.
31 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on February 5, 2010
Beyond all of the controversy, so-called "agreed-to science",politics, financially-driven scams, internatioal intrigue and power plays, and outright
massive fraud, and dire forecasts on future catastrophe for mankind,---all relating to Climate Change and man-made climate warmig---this compilation
of peer-reviewed papers by eminent climatology and physical scientists on the real state of science on climate change reveal all of the flawed and
recently discovered distortions and conspiracies on the subject. For example, man-made ( anthropologenic) CO2 actually has exceedingly little
effect on climate .
5 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on November 8, 2009
This compendium arms one with all the up-to-date information needed to show, unequivocally, that global warming and cooling are natural, solar-driven processes that occur over millenial time scales, independent of human activity. Omissions, inaccuracies and distortions in the IPCC reports are catalogued and refuted. This is an excellent resource for anyone seeking to explore and understand the science behind the natural climate cycles that the planet experiences.
7 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on March 1, 2014
DO NOT buy the Kindle edition until it is re-issued after the copy readers have cleaned it up and it has been re-typed and re-issued.

The Introduction reads like this: if sentences were spaghetti, the 'sketti has been briefly put thru a blender (there are some long pieces left) and thrown on some sheets of paper, photographed, and assembled with whaterver printing process would work with a Kindle ebook, and sold.

Paragraphs are not apparent. Some sentence fragments are in superscript type. Many "sentences" are fragments from ?. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to put the pieces together- especially given that the material seems to quite technical,and maybe? criptic.

I managed to read (NOT comprend) some distance into the first Technical? chapter. It seems slightly less scrambled, but still unreadable.

My qualifications to make these criticisms include that I have a Masters and ABD degrees in a technical Natural Resources field, and am very interested in the subject.

Please Fix it!! And withdraw it from sale until it is!
One person found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on December 15, 2013
This is a must read for anyone who is interested in the climate change debate.

It strikes me again and again how a sort of (mainly one-directional) apartheid reigns over the climate debate: those who support the IPCC thesis believe that there is a near universal consensus among scientists on this topic, that those who don't are either mentally impaired (just spot the ad hominems about the intelligence of the other side in such a debate - for instance "gullible", "the unaware and the naive"; and it is often a give-away sign to use "denier") or in the pay of "big oil". Whilst I am sure there is tunnel thinking in the other direction too, it is sufficient to have a look at the most popular blogs in both camps to quickly see one major difference: Antony Watts of WUWT lists both sceptical as well as blogs in the IPCC camp on his page and both with their links. However, take Climate Progress's website and you'd be forgiven to think that no sceptic websites exist at all. Tellingly, not one of the people below who rated the NIPCC report with only 1 star have "Amazon verified purchase" as a tag with their review. This suggests they never actually bought (unless they bought it from Heartland, which I doubt) nor have they read the book. Their comments in general suggest the same.

It is my belief however that on such an important question, one ought to have read both sides of the argument.

On the one hand that means at least the IPCC reports, as they appear every few years (at least the Summary for Policymakers): they clearly summarize in a readable format the current state of arguments in favour of the Anthropological Global Warming thesis. Also helpful to read is the Stern Report. (Unfortunately for Amazon, both these documents are available for free online...)

If one wants to read just two documents about the other side of the debate by clever people who are not in the pay of big oil I would read both Climate Change Reconsidered and The Sceptical Environmentalist (by Lomborg).

Climate Change Reconsidered follows a similar structure as the IPCC reports and is quite readable for lay people. It divides the debate in a number of separate issues and lists the current science on the topic from the NIPCC (sceptical) point of view.

Make no mistake: there is as much bias in the NIPCC publications as there is in those of the IPCC (the mandate of which is solely to study the human impact of climate, not any other impact), but in a debate, anyone who hasn't read both sides should first do so IMO.
12 people found this helpful
Report