Product Description
Are the often alarming claims about global warming based on science and justified by the facts? Is the human race really facing a major crisis due to emissions from fossil fuels? Would the proposed Climate Treaty solve a real environmental threat or would it create worldwide economic and social harm? S. Fred Singer is a distinguished astrophysicist who has taken a hard, scientific look at the evidence. In this new book, Dr. Singer explores the inaccuracies in his… More >>
There is little to argue about on this issue when the simple facts already exist. Millions of scientists across the world run hundreds of thousands of tests to examine the man’s effect on global warming. Most of this collection is unnecessary, however, as the idea behind man-made global warming is simple enough for anyone to understand. The carbon cycle is the process required for attaining a safe equilibrium inside any water-based planet’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide is a natural heating agent which is periodically absorbed into water (the ocean) and later released back into the air. A certain amount of carbon dioxide should exist in both mediums, however this amount must remain relitivly undisturbed for an equilibium to exist. If humans constantly pour carbon dioxide into the air from burning fossil fuels, then the equilibrium will shut down, with the water absorbing as much carbon dioxide as possible and the air being overloaded, heating things up quite a bit. Many scientists believe this is what happened to Venus, a planet with an atmosphere overloaded with carbon dioxide.
Rating: 1 / 5
I don’t believe in global warming, based on my own studies on climate and pollution over the past 30 years. But this guy Singer is a complete joker.
He completely misses the point and addresses issues which no proponent of global warming has ever raised. He tackles dumb subjects, and ignores the very complexity of the issue which he claims to discuss. An example: Singer talks about the earth getting warmer, and says being warm will help poor people, as less fuel will be needed to keep people cosy. RUBBISH. The issue is not about the CLIMATE getting WARMER, its about climates everywhere CHANGING in either direction. Climate change proponents claim that cold places may get colder, warm places wramer, or anything in between – their arguement is that nobody knows and the risks need to be managed. Yet Singer has completely ignored the science and the political arguements – he claims to have studied them, but he’s either a crap student or he’s lying.
I can come to no other conclusion except that this prat has decided to write a book to make money and make a name for himself, and he risks destroying the hard work which other climate scientists are doing to disprove the climate change theory. What a complete loser. It makes me furious.
Rating: 1 / 5
Fred Singer has previously worked for tobacco companies fighting and argued that there’s no evidence that smoking is bad for your health; he then argued that there was no evidence that ozone was being depleted. Now he argues that there’s no evidence that the globe is warming. With credentials like those, you know what you’re going to get: mostly misleading scientific arguments, served with a side of outright fabrication, and a sauce of unsupportable value judgments.
If you hate the environment, then you should buy this book — you’ll love it. But if you want FACTS, look elsewhere.
Rating: 1 / 5
While Singer’s book may provide some useful information about the global warming debate, it’s overshadowed by shoddy organization and a weak writing style. The repetition of the same key information makes it appear as if Singer has ample evidence for his claim; however, his three major points appear in the foreword. Don’t waste your time reading the whole book!
Rating: 1 / 5
Singer presents a solid case that global warming is a very complicated and poorly understood phenomenon. Like others he agrees that the industrial age has brought with it an increase in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. He asks the question “why has this not led to a discernible warming?” He suggests competing anthropogenic influences might mitigate the effects of an enhanced greenhouse effect.
The problem with Singer’s argument is that his theory is just as poorly understood as the GCMs (Global Circulation Models). There is inadequate discussion of what happens if the delicate balance is upset.
His argument seems to be that until we know more, (The timescales are such that a few years wait should not lead to castrophy.), we should error on the side of economic growth. Most environmental economists would suggest that until we know more we should error on the side of very limited economic growth, since there is a direct link between economic growth and environmental impact.
For one, I would prefer to error on the side of future habitability until we know more. We have mortgaged the future of our children and grand- chiildren too many times. Financial wealth is useless if we can’t live on the planet.
Rating: 4 / 5