Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming
Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming convincingly demonstrates the remarkable differences between what we commonly read about global warming and what is really happening. Nine chapters describe major problems with computer simulations of future climate that are the basis for wrenching policies being proposed by world leaders. Anyone who reads this book will come away with a new appreciation of the complexity of the climate issue and will question the need for expensive policies that are likely to have little or no detectable effect on the planet’s temperature.
Customer Review: religion of enviromentalism challenged
any book that challenges to apriori assumptions of the enviromentalist religious dogma of man made global warming is needed. Al Gore and his celebrity loving, psuedo scientific friends need to be mocked for their hypocrisy and stupidity
Customer Review: Another Denialist “Classic”
This book gets some “greenie” points because it recycles…it recycles what are, by now, tired and well-worn denialist homilies. They are the denialist equivalent of “we’re fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them here”, or “the insurgency is in its last throes”. That the compiler of this compendium of the careworn is an oil company shill doesn’t help matters, doesn’t improve his credibility exactly, but this would still be a completely transparent hack job, even if his motives were as seemingly as pure as the proverbial, driven (and melting snow)…In response to this kind of charge of bias, denialists always kvetch, “well, you can’t get funded for research if you don’t join the groupthink of global warming, so that’s the only place they can get funding. Wannnhhh”. Did it ever occur to them that maybe it’s simply that those who control grants know that that’s a worthless avenue that’s destined to be completely fruitless? Would they have there be NO standards for handing out grants?
Anyway, to take just one completely muddled, wrongheaded and misleading example of the “facts” this tome sets forth…The Mann Study and the famous “hockey stick” graph it generated, supposedly debunked by the two Canadians (one a petroleum geologist, the other an economist, just to establish their bona fides). For starters, keep in mind that that was just one study, one speck of evidence in a veritable mountain of evidence supporting global warming. The two Canucks objected to it on the grounds of alleged statistical assumptions that they claimed rendered the conclusions it reached to be in error. The supposed correction published by Nature, the infamous corregendum, corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). There have been, incidentally, numerous reconstruction studies conducted by various parties, all reaching the same conclusions, all with graphs demonstrating the same hockey stick configuration, though in some cases not as completely uniform and straight.
The study by the two Canadians was, by the way, rejected by Nature magazine and was never published by them. Though they tried to make the excuse that they had been rejected for publication due to limited space in the magazine, the simple, verifiable truth is that it was for editorial reasons.
As is typical of the denialist “literature”, which really does always seem to have an oil company connection, by the way, they know just enough to be dangerous. They tell just enough of the “facts” to raise doubts without following them through to their all too inevitable conclusion.
