Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition | 
 enlarge | Authors: S. Fred Singer, Dennis T. Avery
Publisher: Rowman Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Category: Book
List Price: $19.95
Buy Used: $5.98
You Save: $13.97 (70%)
New (42) Used (35) Collectible (1) from $5.98
Rating:  174 reviews
Sales Rank: 19102
Media: Paperback
Edition: Upd Exp
Pages: 264
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.8
Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 5.8 x 0.8
ISBN: 0742551245
Dewey Decimal Number: 551.6
EAN: 9780742551244
ASIN: 0742551245
Publication Date: January 25, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
Condition: Paperback, with DVD, in VERY GOOD condition. Updated and expanded--2008. NO WRITING OR HIGHLIGHTING. DVD is open but appears to be in VERY GOOD condition.
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
In this New York Times bestseller, authors Singer and Avery present the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with natural physical records, the authors argue that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 169 more reviews...
 An Alternate Explanation for Climate Change January 6, 2009
Norman Strojny (western desert of Utah)
"Unstoppable Global Warming" gives an alternate explanation for climate change. If the book was a bit more honest, I would have rated it better. However, the book is not very convincing about the effects or lack of effects of CO2. This is a shame. One of the embarassments of "global warming" is that CO2 levels are climbing rapidly but the temperature rise curve does NOT show a correlation to the rapid rise in CO2 levels. br / br /However, there is good science available on the effects of the sunspot cycle on climate. This book does present that case with worthwhile data. However, I noted that some of the graphs may not be completely true representations of factual scientific data. br / br /A second source of doubt about "global warming" is that the alarmists graphs of global temperatures do not seem to show the warming and cooling that has been historically recorded. The "little ice age' is particularly ignored by "warmists". br / br /My own thought after reading this book is that the notions here should be given more credence by any one who believes in "Climate Change". And, these ideas need to be factored into the equation, when deciding what to do about "Climate Change". br / br /I would suggest that there is a serious strategic need for the USA to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As a part of that effort, I see no reason why we should not encourage exploitation of energy sources that would have a lighter impact on the environment than oil and coal. Also, I think that encouragement of fuel efficiency is a good thing. br / br /I think that this book is worthwhile and deserves to be read. However, I am not enthusiastic about the author's politics.
 skepticism does not equal denial January 2, 2009
Nor Olegnad (Rochester, NY)
For those on the "left" to continually thwart debate to forward a mostly political and economic agenda is shamefully anti-science. Hooray for the courage of the authors to stand up to the alarmists.
 What a waste of a good tree December 10, 2008
jtw (southern CA)
3 out of 11 found this review helpful
I always tell my ethics classes to study both (or all) sides of an issue. Try to reserve judgment until you have done your homework. As a 'believer', I wanted to learn (again) what those who suggest things aren't really that bad were saying now. If this is the strongest argument that climate change is not something that requires immediate attention and serious change, then Gore and McKibben have, for all practical purposes, no real competition (save for the energy companies propaganda).
just the UN-politically correct truth November 17, 2008
Janet Allen Vandermeulen (Newburyport, Massachusetts)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I needed some rationality to counter the one-sided, "it's all your fault" propaganda my child was constantly receiving in school, and this book is the answer. (For her, I bought "The Sky is NOT Falling", another great book.) Read this book and make up your own mind....but if you have even the slightest gut feeling that you are being "had" by the Al Gore crowd...or if you have lived long enough to remember "global cooling" doomsday scenarios back in the '70's, I would highly recommend this book. Is "global climate change" happening? Sure. Is it man's fault? Not so much. Could we be doing better things with our time/effort/energy to improve the world's biggest problems? Absolutely.
Excellent study of the real cause of the current warming November 13, 2008
William Podmore (London United Kingdom)
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
Fred Singer, Research Professor at George Mason University in Virginia, and Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute in New York, have written a thorough account of the causes of global warming. Their work is backed by a lengthy list of references from refereed and peer-reviewed science journals. br / br /They show that over the past million years the earth has been through 600 cycles of warming caused by regular changes in the sun's radiance. Each cycle lasts about 1,500 years and the temperature varies from 20C above the mean to 20C below it. The sun's radiance has increased by 0.050C per decade for the last 25 years and we are about 150 years into a moderate warming cycle. br / br /This is the only explanation for the modern warming that is backed by physical evidence, from ice cores, fossilised pollen, core stalagmites and seabed sediments. br / br /They demolish Michael Mann's famous hockey-stick graph - used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and by US billionaire Al Gore in his movie. This graph purported to show that the 20th century was uniquely hot. But two experienced statisticians, Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, studied Mann's data and concluded that they did not produce the claimed results due to "collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects." br / br /The early 15th-century warming was hotter than the 20th-century warming, refuting the claim that the 20th century's record CO2 emissions caused unprecedented global warming. Antarctic ice cores show a strong correlation between temperature changes and CO2 levels, but CO2 levels rise about 800 years after temperatures rise. So temperature changes cause CO2 changes not vice versa. br / br /Greens promote baseless fears, for example, "the oceans will rise by a metre by 2010." No, the most likely rise is ten centimetres, according to the International Union of Quaternary Research's Sea Level Commission. Al Gore wrote in 1992, "global warming is expected to push temperatures up much more rapidly in the polar regions." No, the Antarctic has been cooling since 1966; temperatures at both poles are lower than they were in 1930. br / br /"A million species will be lost." No, there will be more species because higher CO2 concentrations help plants, and therefore other species, to accept higher temperatures without harm. "There will be more frequent and fiercer storms." No, a warmer climate is more stable and has fewer storms. "Millions will die from warming." No, fewer people die from excess heat than from excess cold. "Warming will reduce crops." No, it encourages growth in food crops, as do warming's increased rainfall (2% up in the 20th century) and increased CO2. br / br /Solar and wind power is between four to ten times as dear as fossil-fuel and nuclear power. Shifting to `renewables' would mean converting hundreds of millions of acres of forest and wilderness to wind farms, solar panel arrays and biofuel crops. But since global warming is not dangerous and is not manmade, we don't need to cut our use of indispensable fossil fuels. br / br /
|
|
|
