Supported by in-depth scientific evidence, Singer and Avery present the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and why we can't stop it anyway.
|Publisher:||Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.|
|Sold by:||Barnes & Noble|
|File size:||969 KB|
About the Author
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Fred Singer, Research Professor at George Mason University in Virginia, and Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in New York, have written a thorough account of the causes of global warming. Their work is backed by a lengthy list of references from refereed and peer-reviewed science journals.
They show that over the past million years the earth has been through 600 cycles of warming caused by regular changes in the sun¿s radiance. Each cycle lasts about 1,500 years and the temperature varies from 20C above the mean to 20C below it. The sun¿s radiance has increased by 0.050C per decade for the last 25 years and we are about 150 years into a moderate warming cycle.
This is the only explanation for the modern warming that is backed by physical evidence, from ice cores, fossilised pollen, core stalagmites and seabed sediments.
They demolish Michael Mann¿s famous hockey-stick graph ¿ used by the UN¿s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by US billionaire Al Gore in his movie. This graph purported to show that the 20th century was uniquely hot. But two experienced statisticians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, studied Mann¿s data and concluded that they did not produce the claimed results due to ¿collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.¿
The early 15th-century warming was hotter than the 20th-century warming, refuting the claim that the 20th century¿s record CO2 emissions caused unprecedented global warming. Antarctic ice cores show a strong correlation between temperature changes and CO2 levels, but CO2 levels rise about 800 years after temperatures rise. So temperature changes cause CO2 changes not vice versa.
Greens promote baseless fears, for example, ¿the oceans will rise by a metre by 2010.¿ No, the most likely rise is ten centimetres, according to the International Union of Quaternary Research¿s Sea Level Commission. Al Gore wrote in 1992, ¿global warming is expected to push temperatures up much more rapidly in the polar regions.¿ No, the Antarctic has been cooling since 1966; temperatures at both poles are lower than they were in 1930.
¿A million species will be lost.¿ No, there will be more species because higher CO2 concentrations help plants, and therefore other species, to accept higher temperatures without harm. ¿There will be more frequent and fiercer storms.¿ No, a warmer climate is more stable and has fewer storms. ¿Millions will die from warming.¿ No, fewer people die from excess heat than from excess cold. ¿Warming will reduce crops.¿ No, it encourages growth in food crops, as do warming¿s increased rainfall (2% up in the 20th century) and increased CO2.
Solar and wind power is between four to ten times as dear as fossil-fuel and nuclear power. Shifting to `renewables¿ would mean converting hundreds of millions of acres of forest and wilderness to wind farms, solar panel arrays and biofuel crops. But since global warming is not dangerous and is not manmade, we don¿t need to cut our use of indispensable fossil fuels.
Because there is so much riding on the global response to climate change, I wanted to seek out any science-based info that would present a counter argument to the view that rising levels of carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming for the Planet. This book presents a fairly compelling case which indicates that other natural factors, like the Sun, for example, may be a much stronger driver of climate that human produced emissions of carbon dioxide. The implications of creating a whole new energy source within 10-20 years are immense and will cause unprecedented levels of economic turmoil if that course of action is taken. If on the other hand, our impact on current warming is relatively minor in comparison to the natural forces that have governed the climate for millions of years, then surely we would be infinitely better off enacting adaptation strategies as a response to climate changes and converting to other sources of energy over a longer time scale. There are certainly thoughtful people on both sides of this issue and I'm not ready to dismiss altogether the possibility that humanity is indeed having a significant impact on the climate system--however, I'm also not going to dismiss scientific evidence that appears to indicate that our industrial activities play a much lesser role in the climate equation. 'Unstoppable Global Warming' presents much in the way of physical evidence to support its conclusions and left me with the feeling that the science is decidedly not yet settled on this crucial issue, as many would have us believe.
This is a great book! It gives amazing insight on why Global Waeming is not a thing and the Earth is not heating up because of humans. I used it for my project and it was great everyone was in awe of how wrong they were!