New skeptic book published
[h/t to Adam] AMAZON'S BOOK DESCRIPTION: Global Warming-Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers: A Geoscientist looks at the Science of Climate Change, brings a unique geological perspective to this politically charged issue, a perspective that has been ignored far too long. Written by a father-son team of geoscientist and attorney, it is the concise guide to the global warming controversy that has been long needed. As a university professor and research geologist for thirty years, Dr. Robinson knows that geological science is essential for placing the global warming controversy in proper prospective.
One cannot hope to understand how humans might be causing climate change without an understanding of the magnitude and speed natural processed are capable of when it comes to climate change. Earth history is the only yardstick we have to determine whether recent climate change is unusual or not. Yet, inexplicably, a vast repository of geologic data has been ignored in this contentious issue. Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers was written to correct this oversight.
This book has been years in the making. It follows the outline Dr. Robinson used successfully for many years in college classes taken by large numbers of students. Using an easy-to-understand question and answer format, the fourteen chapters of the book cover systematically all the major scientific issues of global warming. With more than three hundred references to peer-reviewed science journal articles and numerous illustrations, it shows how the scientific underpinnings of the global warming theory are actually weak and uncertain.
Dr. Robinson is the author of numerous scientific articles in national and international journals. His background in teaching a wide variety of geology courses has shown him how to present difficult scientific concepts in a way that is understandable and interesting to non-scientists. He has chaired sessions at scientific conferences, led seminars for science teachers, served as the head at two different college geology departments and was interviewed on a television network.
His co-author and son, an attorney experienced in argumentative rhetoric, has helped him hone in on the erroneously based assumptions underlying activists' arguments. He has also served as a sounding board for areas where the writing, intended for a general audience, needed to be less technical. Together, this unique father-son team present a well thought out and fully documented discussion of the global warming theory without impugning anyone's sincerity, motives or personal integrity. Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics and Deniers covers the science of global warming, but unlike many other books, not the politics.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work. Emails not shown.
Use your Gravatar username and email address to show your custom avatar. Want your own avatar? Sign up here.
If you post an image, please upload to a photo-sharing service like ImageShack or TinyPic and use the link they provide you. Do NOT link directly to the photo's source unless you have permission.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to Admin' link. If you find your post gone, it is because you violated the TOS above or it was in reply to a deleted comment.
Comments
The geologic perspective doesn't need to include "modern human beings" if the geologic perspective recognizes that the natural changes are far in excess of any human contributions. Or that human contributions are just minor noise in comparison.
Go blow smoke somewhere else John. Unless you can provide more than quaint little warmist talking points what good are you? It is you that are little more than an intellectual exercise, unfortunately not a very interesting one.
I spent years as a geology student before taking my first climatology class. Geologists have a better grasp of Earth history, including climates, than most climatologists. As geology students we had to learn what kind of environments produce what kind of rocks, and we are speaking of a multi-billion year span of climate changes. Climatlogists mainly study static climate maps, which is amusing to geologists.
The earth sciences field with the highest degree of skepticism is the field of geology, and for good reason, they have the most extensive background on paleo climates, and know our current climate is yawn inspiringly average.
I rest comfortably in the knowledge that all warmists will ultimately be unmasked as the fools that they are, mother nature is not a warmist and will not follow their wishes or agenda. Study the geologic record, it is all there.
You ask for proof. I can give you none. I can provide you with evidence, but you already know the evidence. In light of that evidence, you choose to do what? Continue the behavior of the past few hundred years? JP
tan·trum[/b
]n.
A fit of bad temper. Also called regionally hissy2, hissy fit.
Children do this when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar. He is just mad that we discovered what a fraud Gleick really is.
I mean it must really suck when your go to guy on ethics and AGW is an untrustworthy lying bastard who makes sh*t up. And then we see what an utter and obvious fool he is, leaving an unmistakable cookie crumb trail from the jar!
No wonder that after hundreds of billions of dollars of propaganda, the warmist ranks continue to thin. The warmists are incompetent boobs! They cannot even commit petty theft! How could one expect any solid science out of such an undisciplined ragtag bunch of aging crooked hippies!
tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2012/01/26/more-evidence-that-current-warming-is-not-unusual/
The Chicago-based free market Heartland Institute has called in the FBI and threatened other legal action against a global warming proponent who has admitted stealing emails from the institute in a bid to embarrass and discredit the group’s questioning of climate change.
Heartland officials tell Washington Secrets that they have been in talks with the FBI over the case against prominent global warming proponent Peter Gleick, co-founder of the respected Pacific Institute. Heartland is getting ready to reveal their probe of the affair, which they hope the FBI will act on.
washingtonexaminer.com/politics/washington-secrets/2012/02/fbi-called-over-climate-change-mole/305161
Why is it that only warmists are being investigated the FBI? Why is it that only warmists commit ID theft, wire theft, forgery and libel?
If the science is sooo very strong, why are they constantly altering facts in order to convince us they are right?
Why have they abandoned the scientific method?
Why do they ignore the Sun?
Why do they deny NV?
Answer: They have an agenda, and it has nothing to do with science or saving the planet.
You just can never trust Gleickhy AlWarmist Punt!
You're argument seems to rest on many assumptions that you cannot directly prove. Science is married to evidence, not statements, predictions, beliefs, 'if's', maybe's, could be's, etc.
I can understand (and rightly so) that many people want to live in a greener and cleaner world and would like to reduce our dependency on fossil-fuels, etc, but this does not excuse promoting bogus theories to advance political, social and economic agendas.
John, are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong? Sceptics have nothing to lose on any scientific issue because it is within the nature of scientific discourse to always QUESTION!
It is precisely when you adopt a stance on any given issue - that you commit yourself to a sort of 'belief system' which constantly requires you to back up that 'belief system'. Instead of remaining intellectually honest and truly questioning every single aspect of an issue - you learn to dismiss alternative ideas in due course and that by definition - IS RELIGION?
Leigh, you can find the peer-reviewed literature on the pace of anthropogenic CO2 increase in the atmosphere just as easily as I. And you are quite correct that the "precise" pace cannot be deduced from proxy paleo records. But we have strong evidence from multiple independent sources that the current changes humans are making to our atmosphere, lands and oceans are happening at a rate unknown in at least the last 650,000 years or so.
I am absolutely open to the idea that I could be wrong. In fact, there's a statistical likelihood of about 5% that I AM wrong. How about you Leigh? Is there a likelihood that the hypothesis of AGW could be true? If the answer is yes, do you think we should due anything about that possibility? JP
Our climate is stunningly average.
Period.
There is to date not a single peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variabilty aas rthe cause of recent or any climate changes.
This is why Dr Peter Gleick, out of utter desperation, commited ID theft, wire fraud, forgery and libel. Because the alarmists simply do not have any science to back this ridiculous assertion of AGW.
Find a new hobby.
I did not ask for peer reviewed papers of NV, I asked for refutation of NV, that is how Occams Razor works. First you go after the most likely answer, if that does not prove true, then you move on to less likely scenarios. You do not leap over the obvious choice in favor of your agenda.
To assert that there is a new driver of climate, you must first remove the old driver NV, as a possibilty. That is pure logic.
I do not call Ghostbusters for a poltergeist in my kitcehn that sounds eerily like my icemaker, until I rule out the icemaker.
Capiche?
"I did not ask for peer reviewed papers of NV..."
Huh? JP
What about the Ghostbusters? Would you call them first for a noise in your kitchen that sounds exactly like your icemaker? Or would you make sure it isn't just the ice maker, and then jump to ridiculous conclusions?
Too tough a question for you?
Dodgeball anyone?
Dodgeball anyone?
JP really wants to call Ghostbusters first!
Now where is that Violin again?
It seems to me that the whole issue relating to anthropogenic global warming solely boils down to one question: Are current temperatures within the range of natural variability or outside of it?
As for being open to the possibility that I am wrong, isn't there always a possibility either way! Unlike Gator, I do not possess an understanding of Geology and past climates and how they relate to the present. In addition, I am not scientifically trained in anyway, shape or form and therefore am not in a position to make a valid comment with respect to the issue of climate change.
To my knowledge, Science is defined as the 'state of knowing'. In other words, it is concerned with facts, not opinions.
I do not dispute the fact that mankind emits vast quantities of C02 into the atmosphere and theoretically this should lead to some warming. However, what evidence effectively demonstrates the link between anthropogenic emissions of C02 and the catastrophic predictions of future global warming made by various bodies, such as the IPCC?
How can predictions constitute 'evidence'? If Science is defined as the 'state of knowing' - then by what measure does a 'prediction' hold value?
Australian Geologist Ian Plimer once stated that 'Science does not acknowledge the precautionary principle'. Science is married to evidence - PERIOD!
I like your opening question. The answer is "outside". JP
We have had five major ice ages that are known to have occurred in the history of earth's evolution. How come these ice ages disappeared before man invented the infernal combustion engine? What caused the ice to retreat?
Industrialisation was obviously not a factor nor the burning of fossil-fuels from various sources and yet these ice ages - far colder than today - all disappeared!
It seems to me that the NATURAL RATE of WARMING must have been pretty impressive in order for the ice to retreat in each of these major ice ages.
Therefore, how can the current rate of global warming be 'UNPRECEDENTED' when we have never experienced anything as cold or as long-lasting as an ice age in our lifetimes, but yet they have come and gone so frequently in the past?
How can the 'RATE' be unusual compared to the geological past which seems to tell a very different story?
'In defense of Milankovitch' by Gerard Roe published in 'Geophysical Research Letters' (2006)
earthweb.ess.washington.edu/roe/GerardWeb/Publications_files/Roe_Milankovitch_GRL06.pdf
- 'Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present and Future' by Willie Soon published in 'Physical Geography' (2007)
www.naturals.ukpc.net/TR/Hansen/Soon07-Nov8-PGEO-28n02_097-125-Soon.pdf
- CO2, Temperatures, and Ice Ages (Frank Lasner)
icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
- Nearly Half a Million Years of Climate and Co2 (CO2 Science)
www.co2science.org/articles/V2/N12/C1.php
- Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Interglacial Warmth (Video, Co2 Science)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z685n4RMx6Y
JP I don't agree, there really isn't much support for the co2 theory in the links.
From the first paper
"Furthermore,variations in atmospheric CO2 appear to lag the rate of change of global ice volume. This implies only a secondary
role for CO2 – variations in which produce a weaker radiative forcing than the orbitally-induced changes in summertime insolation – in driving changes in global ice volume."
"In other words,variations in melting precede variations in CO2. Thus, the relatively small amplitude of the CO2 radiative forcing and the absence of a lead over dV/dt both suggest that CO2 variations play a relatively weak role in driving changes inglobal ice volume compared to insolation variations."
"a review of the recent literature fails to confirm quantitatively that carbon dioxide (CO2) radiative forcing was the prime mover in the changes in temperature, ice-sheet volume and related climatic variables in the glacial and interglacial episodes of the past 650,000 years"
"the popular notion of CO2 and CH4 radiative forcing as the predominant amplifier of glacial-interglcaial phase transitions cannot be confirmed"
And the third link clearly provided strong evidence against the co2 amplification theory. See it's not just the increase in co2 which lagged the temperature increase, but the decrease that lagged behind it as well. The temperature dropped despite several hundred years of increasing co2 at maximum warming effect.
And I strongly recommend watching the co2 science video. It explains very clearly why the amplification theory is not supported by real world data of co2.
RSS feed for comments to this post