Anti Global warming books – recommendations?

Are there some digestable books that are worth reading that counter the Global Warming mindset that sems to have a grip on the media?

Isn't global warming a 90s phrase?
Just look at any neocon us website – they'll point you in the right direction.

plenty of swivel eyed zealots with dubious theories.

real good science – missing

You mean you want to read something to reinforce your confidence in a belief that you've already made your mind up about?

(And yes, I know the left are just as bad at this)

As yet, no one has answered my original question.

If anyone has any reading recommendations, and not just their own take or political bias or interpretation on what it is I've actually asked, any book titles would be most welcomed.

I would imagine the lack of suggestions is because there aren't any credible books on "countering the Global Warming mindset that seems to have a grip on the media".

Unspeak by Steven Poole: you might find the 'Climate Change' section in chapter 3 ('Nature') worth a read. It's a very good book that also covers some other favourite themes of debate on here. It will probably change the way you see all of them.

Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg makes for interesting reading.

Since you probably won't bother to read the book, here's a flavour of Poole's work[/url].

Mayer Hilman – How We Can Save The Planet. A little dated now – less than 10 years old though. Well worth a read…

jimmyshand – Member
Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg makes for interesting reading.

lol

There's not really many good books out there which provide good scientific basis for or against global warming. Just hypotheses from both camps.

what do you mean by 'counter'?

are you looking for something sciency that prooves CO2/methane aren't greenhouse gases?

or something that approaches the subject with a level head, avoiding any doomsday indulgence (we all like a good disaster movie)?

'X is happening, Y will happen, we'll end up doing Z about it, life will carry on'

if you're looking for the latter, i can recommend 'the meaning of the 21st century' by James Martin.

in summary: 'we're facing a few problems that we really need to sort out, we've already made a good start so there's no need to lose any sleep over it. but it's important to keep doing a bit more, come back in 100 years and everything should be peachy'

(luckily, CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases, we wouldn't be here if they weren't, but they're so good at absorbing infrared that even only small amounts have a big effect, there isn't much to argue about, but i'm sure someone will try…)

And stop buying books. They're very environmentally unfriendly to make.

Just look at any neocon us website – they'll point you in the right direction.

That's a little unfair. George Bush was undoubtedly a neocon, and yet despite his, and many in his administration, having a background in the petroleum industry, he fully accepted the need to tackle climate change caused by human activity :

President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiatives

It takes a special kind of idiot to see all the evidence and yet still pretend climate change isn't occurring. Even George Bush wasn't that stupid.

.

……that counter the Global Warming mindset that seems to have a grip on the media?

Using the term "Global Warming" not only reveals a mindset, but as it's a term which has fallen out of favour in the media, that the OP really isn't paying very much attention to what is 'gripping the media'.

Here you are …….. get all the books, stickers, and the tee shirts here :

http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=global%20warming%20hoax&hl=en&ned=uk&tab=nf

Have you thought about facts and data rather than a polemic?IPCC report

The report was produced by 620 authors and editors from 40 countries, and reviewed by more than 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I,[8] which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007.

On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:[5]

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Footnote 6 on page 3 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment", are over 90% and 66% respectively.

You will struggle to find a scientific book as the science is unequivocal [except to non scientists who get confused about proof and facts] and pretty much up there with evolution for convergent data to support warming.
Some right wing ex tory publishes regularily on this but I forget his name and he is not a scientist and the quality of the "research" is poor.

Ernie – thanks for the info, but you too are sliding into the same mire that tarnished the first few replies.

The question stems from Clarkson's Sunday Times article from 2006, now published in his "Driven to Distraction" book where he talks about the Bjorn Lomborg book, "The Sceptical Environmentalist".

That is what prompted the original thread as I wondered what else was out in print that countered or at least provided a counter point to the idea that we're causing the premature demise to the Planet (or how ever you’d like to phrase it).

Thanks for the ideas thus far.

Ernie – thanks for the info, but you too are sliding into the same mire that tarnished the first few replies.

Does it matter what I think ? I provided you with a source where you can secure the reading material, the tee shirts, and the bumper stickers.

So you can now comfortably join all those who believe that the whole issue is just an international conspiracy by governments across the world, to force people to pay more taxes or not have fun or whatever other bizarre explanation they can dream up.

We have all fallen into the mire of not being daft and getting our facts about science from people other than Clarkson and other right wing polemicists.

Indeed

You won't find any decent science that agues against man made climate change as that is what all the evidence points to.

TJ – I love your conviction that you are so right!

You won't find any decent science

I’ll let the World know you have spoken out on this subject.

Ernie – you've slipped even further into the mire than I at first supposed.
You have taken a perfectly benign & innocent question, warped it one way and with some conviction and loaded phrases you would have others believe almost by inference that I wish to join their number or am consolidating my own stance on this issue – a quantum leap of supposition if ever there was one (don't fret though as you're not alone in drawing conclusions on little or no evidence!).

Read junkyards post – Its not my conclusions. The science clearly only points one way. YOu will not find any decent evidence the other way at all

why not disprove TJ 's claim with some science [rather than a pithy put down]and some evidence ?

have a look here

Satellite and Climate Model Evidence Against Substantial Manmade Climate Change (supercedes “Has the Climate Sensitivity Holy Grail Been Found?”)

you would have others believe almost by inference that I wish to join their number or am consolidating my own stance on this issue – a quantum leap of supposition if ever there was one

I'm just providing you with a source for books on the "global warming hoax". Now of you want to wait a while before getting the tee shirt and bumper sticker, then that's absolutely fine of course. I was only trying to be helpful me ol'fruit – don't have a go at me.

BTW, how long do you think it'll take before you make your mind up ? ……..since apparently "the question stems from Clarkson's Sunday Times article from 2006"

I'm not sure that it's an issue which should be left on the back burner for a few decades.

I'm not sure that it's an issue which should be left on the back burner for a few decades.

I wouldn't worry about it. We're either so far feckered that a couple of decades will make no difference and the human race is doomed! (not a bad thing really, at least the planet will recover nicely and some new species will take over that won't spoil the party for everyone in an amazingly short time)

or

It's all bunch of tree hugging hippy crap and we'll all be fine.

To be honest over population and food/water shortages will do for us well before we get too hot.

have a look here

Apparently the author Roy Spencer, not only believes that climate change isn't man-made, but that God created all the species and evolution never occurred.

"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution" Roy Spencer

What's your theory on evolution Ti29er ?

just because he's a mad god botherer does not invalidate his research on the satalite data.

It's a bit like accusing you of being a skirt wearing fruit and therefore any thing you've ever said or done has validity
(no idea what you do in your personal life, but it's as good an example as any)

not that I agree with him particularly, but all sides of an argument need to examined properly as the truth normally sits somewhere between the two camps of zealots

It's a bit like accusing you of …….

I'm not accusing him of anything.

I am simply pointing out what his opinion is in the Science V Creation debate.

Which I think is quite relevant ………….don't you ?

not really, if someone was a hindu for example , would that invalidate their scientific research because they believe in a multitude of gods?

(surely in your argument, belief in any god is unscientific as it contradicts the scientific paradigm)

Dr Spencer thinks you can model the climate using a 4th order polynomial. why did no-one say it was that easy? – who needs supercomputers…?

he's an idiot.

I bet a lot of climatologists believe the Gaia theory which is as equally nutty as creationisim. Should we ignore them as well?

If someone believes creationism has a better scientific basis than evolution then I think it is right to question their judgement in any field

James Lovelock's 'The Revenge of Gaia' is a good read. It certainly counters the media's global warming mindset, but maybe not in the direction you're looking for.

they would argue the same about us though TJ as we are bunch of heathens who need to be burned at the stake. Who's right?

there's only one way to settle it

You committed the heresy of questioning climate science which just doesn't do.

You'll be lucky if you get off with being burned at the stake.

…would that invalidate their scientific research….

Who said anything about 'invalidating his scientific research' ?

I would have thought however, his conclusion that there is insufficient scientific proof of evolution and more evidence that God created all species, is highly relevant.

As it suggests that he's see scientific issues from a very different perspective to most other people.

And I think it is rather useful to know that – don't you ?

burning would liberate CO2 and other combustion products. Pyrolysis with suitable and sufficient abatement technology in a couple of scrubber towers would be a far more suitable and eco demise. Particularly if the steam generated is then used to power a couple of alternative treatment technology plants such as Tempico Rotoclaves for the treatment of clinical waste so that it can be recycled as well rather than go to landfill. 😀

And I think it is rather useful to know that – don't you ?

No, as I couldn't care less about climate change either for or against. Life's far too short to worry about such silliness. I just enjoy the short lifespan I have rather than waste it worrying about stuff I can do bugger all to change 😀

Considering we are discussing this using evil computers made from a non renewable resource with electricity made from burning dinosaurs It's all be a bit silly anyway. 😉