[Closed] Anti Global warming books - recommendations?

as a vegan I find that highly offensive I am off for a spliff to calm down and chant on a lay line to an ill defined druidh deity and hope it will appease your bad kharma by the burning of the correct incense.

I forgive you brother peace out 8)

I'm with tazzy on this one. Enjoyed an impromtu display earlier by an F18 Hornet playing around after his RIAT display at Fairford, burning up huge amounts of irreplaceable hydrocarbons, for which I thank the pilot, and if it wasn't for the cost of the ticket I'd be there tomorrow watching lots of aircraft doing the same and enjoying every second of it. Off down the pub now to consume some carbohydrates. Enjoy your debate, chaps, nighty night.

The thing is, and this is where many seem to be coming unstuck from the very outset (poor quality schooling no doubt), I asked for books on the subject.

Thereafter you get the most opinionated members of the congregation chipping in with their prized opinions with no more backup than the England defence:

plenty of swivel eyed zealots with dubious theories. real good science - missing

In a round-about way we did manage to unearth some material; shame we had to summount such opinionated zealots on the way!

chipping in with their prized opinions with no more backup than the England defence:

The irony of having my schooling questioned by a believer in god and denier of global warming is trully priceless.

Being called a zealot by a religous person who bases their world view on FAITH rather than EVIDENCE is even better.
Unlike you if you want to disuade us have you thought about presenting some data and evidence to change our mind as , unlike you, we base our judgement on things KNOWN and demonstratable rather than FAITH.....data is far more powerful than your petty insults
IRONY 10/10

It's a strange old topic, it seems to polarise opinion and yet no one actually knows for definite what's going on.
Based on the data from the limited information available is is most likely that man is contributing/accelerating global climatic change against the model that's been built. The problem is that as soon as a statistical confidence in test data is turned into "all scientists agree 100% in the whole world" in the popular press it stops any rational debate and it becomes an exercise in polemic which brings no benefit.

Tazzy there is no such thing as a fact or a proof in science only data the suggest or supports [or not] a position Some people doubt evolution some people doubt the big bang, some people even doubt gravity and Einstein. There is debate about how many dimensions there are and we cannot combine quantum and non quantum mechanics. We have yet to find the Higgs - Boson and we had evoloutionary theory without a mechanism [DNA] for a while. In science nothing is really certain it either has evidence to support it or it does not but doubt is always there. Clearly with man made global warming it is either true or false - everyone knows this but we can never say with 100% certaintity which it is. We need to look at the data and see what it says and what explanation best fits the data. Which account is most probable.
With this approach the vast majority of world scientist[nothing has universal agreement remember] have concluded that it is very likely that mans activity has greated a warming effect.
Dont confuse what an ignorant journalist writes and what a scientist says I doubt very much you will find a scientist saying it is 100% true - certainly not in a publication - etc as you suggest..you seem to be forgetting that it is the journalist who are known for oversimplify and misrepresent facts rather than scientists- see daily mail and cancer or any tabloid paper. Any published scientific paper is peer reviewed and referenced ...this is a far higher standard than the musings of Clarkson and other journalist.
I do agree them media presentation is poor, the general understanding of science is poor [ sometimes even by scientists] but the evidence still supports the conclusion that man made global warming is the far more probable explantion of what we are observing.
If you wish to convine people otherwise you must explain why an alternative account better fits the observed data rather than just say it is wrong. This is where it is very difficult to have a coherent scientific account of what is occuring and people just say it is a natural cycle which implies that man burning fossil fuels [ stored carbon - a known greenhouse gas] is somehow natural and will have no effect. Prima facie this is a rather weak starting point.
You can think the world is flat, creationism is how we got here and that England are the best team in the world unfortunately there is little evidence to support any of these views and there is little evidence to counter anthropogenic climate change.
Unfortunately the data matters very little to one side and is all we have to the other.

junkyard- you seem to think that I have an issue with climate change science, I don't.
I do have an issue with the poor reporting of science in the popular press and the fact that joe public will often take what some bloke told them on the news as gospel and never look any further into it.

The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, "facts" refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as "It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.

The word "fact" has several meanings, which can be very confusing. In popular useage it can mean either "observation," "theory," or "truth." As an example of each, one can say, "it is a fact that every time I have dropped this ball, it fell to the ground." That is what has been observed so far, and the word "fact" can be replaced with "observation." One can also say, "it is a fact that every time I have dropped this ball, gravity pulled it to the ground." Even though this statement appears very similar to the first, "gravity" really refers to a theory proposed to explain why the ball is observed to fall. Finally, if one so thoroughly believes that the theory of gravity is really "true," he could replace "a fact" with "true," which would take the meaning beyond science into the realm of his personal convictions.

there are an awful lot of "facts and truths" quoted on both sides of the argument 😕

In very simple terms there are a few facts, man is releasing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gases, Climate measurements suggest global average temps are rising.

It doesn't take a huge leap to connect these facts. The problems begin when we try and look for alternatives. Climate science is not a discipline with answers to everything, there are a lot of questions about the past and as a result now.

But imo worrying about climate change is pointless, i would worry more about resource depletion. We can not keep on using resources the way we are for many more decades before we hit a crunch. As for those who think we can come through it without anything to worry about, i would argue differently. There have been many civilisations who exploited there way to their own destruction. Why should we be any different?

[img] [/img]

In answer to the OP, Nigel Lawson's book helps develop the debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Appeal_to_Reason:_A_Cool_Look_at_Global_Warming

tazzymtb - Member

....the popular press it stops any rational debate ......

I do have an issue with the poor reporting of science in the popular press and the fact that joe public will often take what some bloke told them on the news as gospel and never look any further into it.

Why do you keep banging on about the "popular press" tazzy ?

It is precisely the popular press which keeps drip feeding bollox to joe public that "Climate Change" is just a hoax and international conspiracy by governments to tax people more. Just a couple of examples ......

The Daily Mail :

[url= http://www.****/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html ]The devastating book which debunks climate change[/url]

Quote : [i]"We shall be paying this through soaring 'green taxes' on everything......."[/i]

The Sun :

[url= http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/mysun/2896598/No-green-light-for-eco-issues.html ]Do climate claims have you worried?[/url]

Quote : [i]"For goodness sake, hasn't anyone learnt yet what lying, thieving, cheating charlatans this government are and their capability to use any means necessary to extort more taxes out of us plebs, even if it means lying through their teeth?[/i]

And : [i]"The whole 'hoax' is just an international conspiracy to shake the pockets of the rich nations and give to the poor ones so they can waste it"[/i]

And of course Ti29er claims that this thread and the question he's raised stems from a Jeremy Clarkson article published in a newspaper.

You're not too hot on "facts" ........are you tazzy ?

Ti29er - Member

The thing is, and this is where many seem to be coming unstuck from the very outset (poor quality schooling no doubt), I asked for books on the subject.

Thereafter you get the most opinionated members of the congregation chipping in with their prized opinions with no more backup than the England defence

You sound surprise Ti29er.

And yet I don't expect for a minute that you are.

If I posted a thread asking whether anyone knew of any good books concerning how the world was created in 6 days, I would fully expect amongst other things, to get a fair amount of stick.

So don't come all this, 'I'm shocked by your responses' bollox

tazzy I didnt think you had a problem it is clear what you think - once I run it via my sarcasm filter- my opening sentence does make it sound like I am lecturing you ..sorry not my intention FACT 😉 - just trying to explain that science cannot have truth or 100% fact over an issue like this which is what the man in the street wants and where there is debate deniers use it as "proof" that global warning is wrong.

OP excellent news now you have a creationist scientist and an ex tory chancellor and journalist with an arts degree in PPE to choose for your scientific information ...tough call that one

OP some links cited here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Non-committal_statements
Please note re Scientific Institutions that

With the release of the revised statement[95] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[

junkyard I completely agree with you.

Ernie- I dont need no stinking facts, I rely on my faith that the world was created by beaded chap who bears a passing resemblance to charlton heston, who made the world in 6 days (created the internet and porn and spent sunday knocking one out)will save all the righteous people on leave you lot of heathens to a fate worse than jeremy kyle.

Tazzy can not take any subject on silly track seriously, ever, FACT!! 😀

Climate science is a very primitive science. We know some things, but we don’t know most of the needed facts. Today, this system can only be evaluated empirically because it is not yet understood and as such conclusive evidence is not there. There is still a long long way to go before we know how or if are influencing the planet.

As said further up the post, the main thing we should be concentrating on is the use of the earths natural resources, something we can make a difference about.

Might be some nutters, sorry, I mean climate change denial-ists for you to follow up [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anti-global-warming-books-recommendations/page/2 ]here[/url]

Go to Amazon, search for The Sceptical Environmentalist and, LO! a list of 'people wot bought this also bought this' will appear - happy shopping...

I do have an issue with the poor reporting of science in the popular press and the fact that joe public will often take what some bloke told them on the news as gospel and never look any further into it.

So do I. My issue is with the media's obsession with balance. You will not find a credible scientist who believes that climate change has nothing to do with humans. However, the media will always try to find someone to give the other opinion. Fortunately, said other opinion is becoming quite hard to come by these days, thanks mostly to good education.

As someone who is actively researching carbon sequestration, I have a fair amount of contact with people who work in some of the 'positive feedback' areas such as when permafrost melts, releasing methane, raising the temperature, causing more permafrost to melt, releasing more methane etc. There is no question that climate change is happenining, or indeed that it is man made. The questions are how much, and are we too late to stop it.

If you think the costs of trying to reduce emissions are harsh, the state the global economy could be in when most of the world's cities are under water (or being defended from rising waters) should make you wince a bit too. That's just financial cost, never mind the massive humanitarian impacts.

Personally I think we're pissing in the wind trying to stop an already catastrophic sea level rise. The ethical question is this: The worst will probably happen not during our lives, but the lives of our children. Do they deserve the mess we're leaving them? At least we could start trying to clear up!

FWIW, there's an increasing body of evidence linking the start of cultivation of rice ca. 5000 bp to preventing the last 'scheduled' ice age. That's 'just' methane from flooding a few paddy fields and turning the soil anoxic. Surely that's childs' play compared to what we've been releasing to the atmosphere over the last 250 years...

There are some interesting articles by Freeman Dyson out there on Climate change and the reliability of the models used to predict it.

I agree that the models aren't perfect but in their absence there's little else we can do apart from wait and see how our global and largely irreversible experiment goes!

rather than waste it worrying about stuff I can do bugger all to change

Understanding FAIL.

Michael Crichton - State of Fear - It is a fiction book but contains good references which you can follow up on.

......Climate change and the reliability of the models used to predict it.

........there's little else we can do apart from wait and see......

There is no need to "predict" it..........climate change is happening right [i]now[/i]. And it has been occurring for many decades.

Obviously what the global climate will be like in 20, 40, or 60 years time is uncertain, but there is no doubt at all that significant climate change has occurred, and is currently taking place right now.

but there is no doubt at all that significant climate change has occurred, and is currently taking place right now.

and has occured since well before mankind

I am not aware of significant climate change occurring over a period of decades before mankind ...... have you got any proof ?

EDIT : Except of of course, when an asteroid hit the Earth and the resulting climate change wiped out more than half of the planet's species.

I was referring to a much longer time scale than decades - geological time. Hence my caveat about rate of change being the issue and not "climate change" as such. So no - no proof of climate change over period of decades prior to mankind. I can offer up the KT extinction but that is hardly undisputed.

EDIT - Beat me to it 😀

I suggest that you read the IPCC reports. As I recall, they're very much opposed to global warming. 😉

very good! have a point. 🙂

Ti29er: forgive me, did you ever get the chance to further explain your opening post?

what's the stuff you're after? - 'here's why climate change is nonsense' - or - 'here's why it's all a bit boring really'

?

i read a paper about a year ago that intentionally ignored any human influences on climate, and set out to investigate natural causes of climate change and evaluate the influence they impose, i'll try and dig it out.

(1 big volcano = Xdegrees, orbital variation = Ydegrees, el nino etc. = Zdegrees, etc.)

I was referring to a much longer time scale than decades - geological time. Hence my caveat about rate of change being the issue and not "climate change" as such.

[img] [/img]

Yes, as stated there have been numerous times in the history of our planet where we have seen high levels of CO2 accompanied by global temperature rises. The question is whether the additional CO2 being pumped into the environment is having an additional effect.

I had a look on Amazon and found [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-Bollocks-Stanley-Feldman/dp/1844547183/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279571568&sr=1-5 ]this[/url]. I'm guessing it's the sort of objective, unbiased analysis you're looking for. I don't know whether the author's credentials in the area are as impressive as Clarkson's, but then I suffered from the sort of 'poor quality schooling' that's tragically all too common outside the centre of academic excellence that is Whatford (sic.)

The question is whether the additional CO2 being pumped into the environment is having an additional effect.

* The currentlevels of C02 are outside the levels shown in your graph [380 ppm]as BP is actually 1950, The last increase of C02 ppm in this order[since 1950] took 5000 years this has taken 60 years leaving us with at least an 800,000 year high currently.
I have extended the graph up to the present date with current levels of C02 and temperature as I am sure you would not want to be accused of using selective data. Given this could you explain why you are uncertain about what is/will happen?

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

Ti29er - just wondering what counts as a good book? Seriously, working your way along Waterstones' shelves, how would you decide upon a credible source? I'm guessing Gillian McKeith wouldn't suffice, [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/18/ben-goldacre-gillian-mckeith-twitter ]even though she's got a PhD dontyouknow[/url], but how do you decide between Stanley Feldman and Stanley Kubrick and Henry Morton Stanley when you want to know about titanium alloys?

Climate change is happening science has shown that and it is linked to so called greenhouse gases. Granted you could correlate it with lots of things but greenhouse type gases seems like a fair bet, but you could also pick global population.

The reason they don't called it global warming anymore is simple, people assume therefore that the weather will get hotter, not true. For the UK chances its just as likely that we end up encased in ice, becuase the gulf stream may stop, it has already slowed.

I am sure you would not want to be accused of using selective data.

As proven before you can use selective data to prove anything you want to. What makes you think that selectively looking at the last 400 years is better than the last 500,000? In the grand schemes of this planet 400 years is a blink of the eye.

Given this could you explain why you are uncertain about what is/will happen?

I am not certain about anything. I didn't say that. Just like you can not be certain about what could/couldn't happen.

Anyway, i don't think we should get into the debate again, i think after several hundred responses last time we agreed to disagree. 😉

To answer the original question. "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" looks worth a read if you are one of those who feel that evidence-based policy-making is better than policy-based evidence-making.

I suggest that all the global warming hype risks ignoring the larger problem: how to conserve fossil fuels, and how to provide heat, light and power to homes and businesses once the fossil fuels run out. An excellent book on this subject is "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air". The author does seem to be a global warming believer, but he only spends one chapter on it. All energy supply options are considered, from wind to nuclear, in various combinations, along with strategies for reducing energy use where it's practical to do so. Not as dry as it sounds.

I suggest that all the global warming hype risks ignoring the larger problem: how to conserve fossil fuels, and how to provide heat, light and power to homes and businesses once the fossil fuels run out.

Agreed - although the only answer that will work is fewer people...

not sure hype is the correct word to describe global warming but certainly there are a number of large issues about to befall mankind ...all of which were in our power to avoid had we made better choices.

An excellent book on this subject is "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air". [u]The author does seem to be a global warming believer[/u], but he only spends one chapter on it.

Well, he is a Cambridge physics prof.

bloomin heck is this still going ?

Apparently so tazzy.

Which means you still have an opportunity to say something 8)

Or wasn't that why you were asking ? 😕