181 internautes sur 256 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
The book gets off to rather an unfortunate start on the cover with the absurd contention that thousands of scientists working independently over decades, publishing countless papers in peer reviewed journals, have somehow managed to coordinate, or at least are complicit in constructing and perpetuating a "hoax". The enormity of that accusation is staggering in its implications and the lack of understanding of science and the scientific process and more importantly perhaps, the scientific community. However, one can reasonably assume that it is intentional and is basically intended to misinform. mislead, and support a political agenda rather than contribute to the global warming discussion. The problem I see with this type of book--and the potential harm it does--is that many readers don't have the background and/or have not done enough reading to really understand the science being discussed and, therefore, cannot assess its validity. Much of what the author says about climate science is simply incorrect and easily verified as such. Probably the reason that this book has such a pronounced bimodal distribution of reviews (i.e. either 1 star or 5 stars) is that readers are equally divided among those with and without some science education. The author's discussion of regulation and government policy is where his real expertise lies and worthy of reading & considering. That really is a key point about global climate change--what steps should, or should not be taken by governments. Even in this discussion, there are several (better) books available that provide some objective analysis of costs and efficacy of various proposals, rather than political campaigning for a particular agenda. I did not purchase the book, I read it at the bookstore as I cannot support funding this type of book which I see as impediment, rather than a help to the lay persons understanding of climate science and global warming. To me, one of the interesting things about this and other similar books is that the basic concept of global warming/climate change is easy for anyone to understand, whereas the underlying science is much more complex. Therefore, authors such as Inhofe can easily mislead readers who have only the most rudimentary understanding of the science, or the basic idea, without having to really defend his science points in rigorous way.
39 internautes sur 60 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
I think there are 3 basic reasons (if true) why one wouldn't fall for the "hoax":
1. High carbon in the atmosphere has no/little impact on the environment.
2. Even if high carbon has an impact, it is mostly naturally occurring, and thus we need to evolve to survive in the changing conditions.
3. Even if high carbon has an impact, and it's mostly man-made, the economic impact would be way to great (and potentially lead to unintended consequences), and thus we need to evolve.
This book kind of skims the surface of some of those points, but doesn't really delve deeply into any of them. Instead focuses more on political rhetoric, such as aligning one side with Olberman, Maddow, or some liberal politician like Al Gore or Barbara Boxer while aligning his side with conservative heroes. He spends quite a bit of time making sure that he is recognized as the one-person truth teller against an incredible wall of religious zealots.
Not a terrible book, but I'd say the most significant part is his focus on "climategate". The rest is pretty high level.
At one point he quotes one of Crichton's novels for several paragraphs, and even includes a chapter in the appendix. I just don't know if quoting a work of fiction as extensively as he has is very compelling. I think his best chapter relates to the significant thinkers and scientist who have backed away from some of the disaster-scenarios envisioned by the IPCC.
I would like for the book to be more straight forward and linear. Give a postion and lay out the evidence for the postion. Going on for half a chapter about his daughter's igloo on Capitol Hill seems unnecessary postioning for example. The book has encouraged me to read more on the subject, but hasn't satisfied my appetite for the subject very much.
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Format Kindle
Cap and trade, more taxes, bigger more controlling government and the un agenda 21 to gain control. Global warming is a ploy!
182 internautes sur 281 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
- Publié sur Amazon.com
Format: Format Kindle
I read the reviews before buying this book and I must admit all those 1 star reviews almost prevented me from reading it. What a mistake that would have been. This is an excellent, well researched book. If you want a great introduction to the book before you buy it google Senator Inhofe's July 28th 2003 speech in the Senate. As for the reviews.....I recommend only paying attention to the one's whose authors actually bought the book. Probably a good idea for all books.
13 internautes sur 21 ont trouvé ce commentaire utile
Brian H. Fiedler
- Publié sur Amazon.com
A Professor of Meteorology in the great state of Oklahoma will hereby go on record with a review of Senator Inhofe's book. This book could have been been titled: "How a prognosis of catastrophic global warming plays out in Congress". That is what the bulk of the book is about. The "hoax" refers to the claims of "catastrophic" and the proposed mitigation strategies, not "global warming".
There is very little criticism in the book about the mainstream of global warming science: a doubling of carbon dioxide produces at most 4 watts per square meter of radiative forcing, which is relieved by about a one degree Celsius rise in surface air temperature. Positive feedbacks could produce a larger increase, and so on. The "conspiracy" here is simply refers to a consortium of groups advocating the threat of "catastrophic global warming" in alliance with a renewable energy lobby.
With a widely held perception that the alliance is engaged in altruistic activity, many would object to the word "conspiracy" but might concede a pejorative no worse than "occasionally misguided". Case in point: on page 80 of Al Gore's book "Our Choice" there is a pie chart with a big title on the top "Global Wind Energy Production" and a smaller, accurate title on the bottom "Total installed wind-power capacity". Does the IPCC care to distance itself from its co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize for this factor of four deception? (Blunder? Are you going to tell me the proof-readers didn't catch it? ) Is it okay to publish contradictions to basic principles of settled science and engineering, if the intent is to move the debate in a virtuous direction? Does it matter that the American people would only get ¼ of the power they thought they paid for with their wind energy subsidies?
Such misrepresentations matter to Senator Inhofe. He opts for stronger pejoratives. He understands his trillions and his gigawatts and the virtues of accurate arithmetic. Many climate scientists do not understand energy technology and investment, apparently by choice. For example, they show no public remorse about their discretionary intercontinental jet travel, but will publicly excoriate the energy companies that supplied the fuel for their jet. Whether hypocrisy or naivete, this attitude doesn't sit well with Senator Inhofe (me too). Senator Inhofe is a holistic thinker. Expensive federal programs that are being used for public demonstrations of innocence, for scoring victories in the culture wars, don't appeal to him. He knows he will be held accountable for the human welfare of his constituents. Senator Inhofe can forecast the consequences of a vote for the largest regressive tax increase in history (which would be true for any cap and trade legislation that would have a substantive effect). Most of his congressional colleagues are also capable of similar holistic thinking: they know they can be for "cap and trade" only because they know it won't pass. When passage looks possible, his congressional colleagues apparently are compelled to consider the true cost and effect, and enough defections occur to keep the bill from passing. Or they start suggesting exemptions to make the cap and trade system just an expensive, pointless boondoggle.
Senator Inhofe presents a personal history of his involvement with the issues of the Discharge Petition, cap and trade, EPA regulation of carbon dioxide, and congressional earmarks. That history forms the bulk of the book. Though I like to think of myself as fairly knowledgeable about climate science, I was chagrined by my ignorance of these civics issues. Senator Inhofe gave me quite a civics lesson. He presents his analysis with detailed references. For example:
"It is very likely that the D.C. Circuit will overturn it and force EPA to grapple with the regulatory nightmare of its own creation. If the tailoring rule is thrown out - and almost everything is regulated by the EPA including farms, churches, coffee shops and restaurants - what will be the economic impacts? According to the EPA's own documents, PSD permits cost an average of $125,120 and impose a burden of 866 hours on the applicant. In addition, the nation's largest employers, such as refineries, electric utilities, and industrial manufacturing facilities, and industrial manufacturing facilities, will be forced to install (currently undefined) best available control technology (BACT) at their plants to reduce CO2. EPA has also admitted that if the tailoring rule does not hold up in court, they have to hire 230,000 new employees and spend and additional $21 billion to implement their greenhouse gas regime."
Okay, the law is the law. The law that declared carbon dioxide a pollutant is also the law that tells the EPA what it is supposed to do. Implementing a carbon tax is not within the enabling legislation of the EPA. The facts about the expensive EPA permit system were news to me. Those who were cheering that the EPA took over the job of Congress may need to think again.
In his summaries of legislative history, Senator Inhofe naturally presents himself as a good guy. But before I would risk my social standing in academia as a Professor of Meteorology and commit the sin of appearing to admire Senator Inhofe, I thought it would be prudent to verify his presentation of events. Rather than go to the sources cited in his book, I decided to take a short cut and read the plentiful 1-star reviews here. Certainly Senator Inhofe's many enemies would be gleefully refuting any legal or historical distortions found in the book. I was shocked by the vituperation. No civics lessons to be found.
I remind the reader that the United Kingdom has proceeded a bit further with its green politics than the USA. Big decisions with big tax dollars (pounds sterling) were imminent, and so a reality check was in order. Professor David MacKay, FRS, author of Sustainable Energy -- Without the Hot Air has been appointed chief scientific adviser to the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The European cap and trade system also suffered from Enron-style corruption. Voices like Senator Inhofe's will be more more welcomed in the USA in future years, if global warming recycles into a prominent issue again. Global warming is a serious issue, as far as this reviewer is concerned.
The appendices in the book can be neglected. The climategate emails are better understood in the annotated book Climategate. If you want to spend time with the emails, read the book Climategate. By the way, I disagree with Senator Inhofe's claim that "climategate=vindication", just as I would disagree that the malfeasance by Enron vindicates that socialism is superior to capitalism. Likewise, the excerpts from Michael Crichton's novel State of Fear, though a landmark novel in having an extensive non-fiction reference list, detract a bit from the seriousness of Senator Inhofe's book. But you get these appendices virtually for free in the modestly-priced kindle edition, the price of two gallons of gasoline.