Well, it seems that the author did not consult climate researchers:
As Dyson is one of the deniers mentioned:
Really, virtually all the deniers mentioned already had their complaints debunked or explained.
(However the author deserve some kudos for not shying away from using the “deniers” term)
I would agree, if there were significant ‘theory’ or ‘proof’ to determine that global warming even exists.
How long does the earth tend cold? How long does it tend warm?
When was the last ice age? Billions of years ago you say? What would stop the warming to continue for as long?
Global warming might be a problem. We might be able to do something about it.
And then again, we might not.
Doing something or nothing in the future regarding the effects does not change the past evidence or the science.
So that book, written by someone with no scientific credentials talking to a handful of scientists is somehow more convincing than the statements by nearly every major scientific organization on the planet?
And, by the way, I would be very skeptical of people who make the claim that they used to believe in AGW until they started to investigate it, unless they can provide real evidence of their past belief. Even Sen. James Inhofe has made this claim. Strangely, I have not seen any documentary evidence demonstrating these past beliefs.
Here is something showing the shoddiness of Lawrence Solomon’s work, in which he so seriously misrepresented the views of a scientist that the scientist issued a statement about it.
Even the link you gave criticizes the means and methods.
If global warming exists, what is the cause? Multiple sources. How many do we have a direct control over? How big is our carbon footprint? How much impact does that have?
For the empirical data provided, how long was the course of “study”? If it isn’t billions of years you have failed to support anything.
About the only thing that study shows is that over some arbitrary period, the earth was warmer during one period than another.
This does not equate to ‘Global Warming’
Is it possible that AGW is just the latest doomsday cult?
One thing I’ve noticed is that they want limits on CO2 output on the US and Europe even though, by their own models, it won’t do any good. The CO2 from China and India, which won’t be reduced, will render the whole thing useless.
A few years ago, Al Gore (Saint Al Gore, I suppose as this seems more and more like a religion every day) said we had 10 years left. I felt relieved…at that point (10 years from his proclamation) we can stop talking about this stuff as it will be too late to do anything.
The sinners in CO2 are the West. (3rd worlders get an exemption as they aren’t white). The saints and prophets are the seers who are using limited data and theories to forecast doom. The apostates are the deniers who (according to one enviro) “should be put in camps”. No, that’s not a religion or anything.
There’s something in the human psyche which says “we have sinned and must be punished”. AGW are just priests taking advantage of this trait. That’s why they limit their punishment to the West…people in the 3rd world aren’t buying it.
Is it possible that denial of AGW is simply the latest unscientific response to a clear scientific consensus when that science raises issues that conflict with some powerful folk’s economic self-interests as well as many folk’s political views? (Other examples being evolution, the scientific evidence in regards to smoking and health problems, …)
There is plenty of talk about China and India’s future emissions. In fact, that was one of the major subjects of discussion when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited China. However, these countries have made it quite clear that they don’t think it fair if the countries who have produced most of the cumulative CO2 in the atmosphere up to this point suddenly start demanding that they cut their emissions without taking a leadership role in doing it ourselves. And, as an issue of basic fairness, I think these nations make a reasonable point (although clearly they are also going to have to start contributing to the emissions reductions).
Nobody has ever said that we have 10 years until disaster but rather that we have rather estimated the time that we have to start to “turn the ship around” with the knowledge that a major restructuring of the use of energy in our society won’t happen overnight. Once a power plant is built, it can have a lifespan of 50 years. There is also a lot of inertia built into the climate system itself, mainly because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
We have scientific organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences that have served us well in separating real science from pseudo-scientific nonsense. And, these societies are telling us that AGW is a real problem and that much of the arguments raised by those in opposition are pseudo-scientific nonsense. (There are some real scientific sources of uncertainty but none that have led the major scientific organizations to conclude that we can just ignore the problem.)
I wonder that myself. Not so much the “Planet heating up” thing, but the “We’re all doomed unless you give all your money to tree huggers immediately!” aspect of it.
I’d rather see the money being spent of AGW campaigning spent on space exploration, myself, but this probably isn’t the right place to be saying that.
Oddly enough I say the same thing. *
Oh, did you forget that many probes sent to space are also investigating the earth and its climate?
Provided that the future evidence from satellites and other sources does not show a degradation of the environment due to global warming, I see no reason to follow any draconian measures. Practical and pragmatic reasons tell me that some future warming is inevitable, but to prevent any catastrophic levels of it the often mentioned target of not going over 2 degrees Celsius by the end of the century is doable IMHO.