Vegetarian Books
Bookmark the site !
Select Country
UK Vegetarians
US Vegetarians
DE Vegetarier
FR Végétariens
page 1 of 1
Rating: 
- Useful study of the Green campaign
Dr Roy Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama and was formerly a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA.
He says that we should ask - how much of global warming is the result of natural processes? Every scientist-sceptic believes that global warming is a fact, but it is not a fact that is manmade: scientists just do not know how much warming is due to natural climate change.
He explains why global warming is unlikely to be a serious threat. The atmospheric CO2 concentration was 320 parts per million in 1960 and 380 in 2005. The rise was one extra molecule for every 100,000 molecules of air, every five years.
He advises that we should also ask - how much will any `Green' proposal cost? Cutting CO2 would cut the benefits of industry, production, technology and energy use. Isn't Gore just another US billionaire telling the rest of us to stay poor?
The Kyoto Agreement encourages firms to move to developing countries, which have fewer environmental controls, so the firms can pollute more. Kyoto shifts, not cuts, pollution.
Kyoto is also causing the destruction of old-growth forests - which do not soak up carbon - because some third world governments cut them down and replace them with plantations that do soak up carbon. Kyoto has also made countries turn farm land over to growing biofuels like ethanol, which are very water-intensive, taking water from crops and people.
The world has enough coal reserves for 1,000 years or more. We should be building nuclear power stations like France, 75% of whose electricity is nuclear. So we don't need `alternative energy resources' - the hope of some new non-fossil fuel - which anyway is about as likely as some new alternative range of food.
Spencer points out that alarmism can be lethal, for example the ban on DDT has killed millions of Africans. Restoring residual spraying of African homes with DDT would save a million lives a year, but the EU threatens to impose trade sanctions on any country that does so.
Rating:
- He's the one trying to create confusion
It's not difficult to discern University of Alabama meteorologist Roy W. Spencer's bias. He writes forthrightly on page 5, "I believe that the only rights that the natural world has are those conferred upon it by humans."
This sort of God-like arrogance characterizes much of what he writes. He ridicules science and beats up on the usual right wing bogeymen, Al Gore, actors, Hollywood, etc. What he doesn't mention here is that he had a conversion a few years ago when he rejected biological evolution in favor of Intelligent Design. While it could be argued that the author of a book on climate need not mention that he is a creationist, it does give the reader pause to realize that Spencer not only is a global warming denier, he is also in that very tiny minority of scientists that deny biological evolution. Well, actually Spencer admits to being a global warming "skeptic," not an out and out denier.
He has also admitted giving talks funded by Big Oil (see page 6), and he is the same Roy Spencer who along with John Christy in 1992 reported that the lower troposphere had cooled over the preceding thirteen years, more or less refuting global warming. However those finding have been refuted in three separate studies, and Professor Christy has admitted that his results were incorrect and that the atmosphere has warmed. (I am paraphrasing from George Monbiot's book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning" (2007). Monbiot gives the references for the studies that refute Spencer and Christy in footnotes on page 223.)
What I was looking for here was Spencer's admission that he had misread or misinterpreted the data. I didn't find it.
His philosophy as a "scientist" can perhaps be summed up by what he writes on page 10: "...it is not a question of whether bias exists--for we are all biased. It is a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with." This reminds me of the idea that my God is better than your God in that a preconceived bias based on notions that have nothing to do with scientific inquiry are what is important in reaching a conclusion about what is true and what isn't. It's really just a faith-based approach to reality.
Here's an example of how Spencer presents his case against "global warming hysteria": "And while you may believe that the all-time record high temperatures in the United States were set in the last ten years or so, the truth is that the decade with the largest number of all-time state record high temperatures was the 1930s." (p. 13) He doesn't mention the salient point that the new records top the old ones. What he writes is similar to saying that more records (in an earlier time: pick the decade) were set in (you name it: basketball scoring, computer processor speed, rainfall, etc.) than during the last ten years, which is hardly surprising since it gets harder and harder to set records as the bar is raised higher and higher.
This sort of sophistry (or sly of hand) is what one would expect on say the Rush Limbaugh Show or Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, just slipshod BS to feed to the faithful. Note too that it's no longer "global warming is not true." Even the Bush administration now concedes that the planet is getting warmer. Instead it's global warming "hysteria"; in other words, Spencer is making a value judgment that we are overreacting.
The very title of Chapter 2 "Science Isn't Truth" is another example of Spencer's tricky presentation. While it is true that science does not lead to--nor pretend to--absolute truth the way the God of Intelligent Designer does, science is our best tool for increasing our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. Its track record dwarfs all other approaches to truth. Woe is the culture or nation that tries to replace science with "authority" or some other measure of truth.
As an example of the ridicule of scientists mentioned above, there's this from page 14: "A number of scientists, apparently frustrated historians, have created a discipline called 'paleoclimatology.' This is where scientists look at tree rings or ice core layers and magically divine the historical temperature record." Well, they don't "magically divine" anything. They use that evidence to make valuable estimate of past weather patterns.
On page 39 Spencer creates some cartoon dialogue to further his ridicule:
"Scientist: Honey, I'm home!
Spouse: Hi, dear. Did you discover anything exciting today?
Scientist: Oh, yeah! I found that the tsetse fly actually does a little dance before mating! I can't wait to tell everyone at our next international conference!
Spouse: That nice, dear."
This is the sort of distorted view of science that one would expect from a creationist, not a real meteorologist.
Chapter 6 is Spencer's take on economics. He reprises a lot of what one might find in an undergraduate course taught by a conservative economist. Spencer's point is that it is poor economics to take measures against global warming. Why spend money now to help prevent something that we do not entirely understand the consequences of? But this ignores the potential costs down the road--a kind of "let the future take care of itself" mentality that underlies so much conservative economic thought. It also ignores the essence of what it is to be human, which is the use of knowledge and insight to improve our prospects for the future.
But more than anything, a head in the sand attitude toward global warming is dangerous since the worst case scenario suggests a balmy summer day on Venus, and even lesser consequences may bring about enormous suffering to hundreds of millions of people. We owe it not only to ourselves but to our children and grandchildren to stop the denial and obfuscation and work toward understanding global warming and how it is changing this planet.
Rating: - Excellent debunking of global warming hysteria
Spencer is a research meteorologist who has testified before American government committees giving the skeptic's view of global warming. His book approaches the subject in a humorous vein, but his treatment is a highly skilled rapier thrust into the heart of the warmists' flawed arguments. He treats the scientific, economic, political and moral facets of the issue in a rational and reasoned way, and with a writing style that makes the book a joy to read. You'll finish the book being much more worried by the consequences of letting the warmists take control than by the distant possibility that there is any substance to the climate scare stories. Highly recommended for anyone with a desire to see a bit of balance in the climate change arena.
Rating: - Climate Confusion?
Don't be put off by the title, this is an interesting and thought provoking book written by an open, sceptical but trained scientific mind. The author's acceptance of the differences of opinion in the scientific community regarding the degree of human attribution to the perceived threat of global warming/climate change precludes him from giving the reader direct answers to the fundamental questions, but rather he provides them with much of the material to get the answers, or make valued judgements for themselves. This is done with humour and is intellectually insightful, but without presumption of any kind I would say. All in all, a thoroughly good read and one that successfully pricks the bubble of the many preposterous predictions we see promulgated by the media on the subject, but, somewhat worryingly, not challenged by the many informed individuals who know better but prefer to remain silent. Recommended without reservation.
- Useful study of the Green campaign Dr Roy Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama and was formerly a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA.
He says that we should ask - how much of global warming is the result of natural processes? Every scientist-sceptic believes that global warming is a fact, but it is not a fact that is manmade: scientists just do not know how much warming is due to natural climate change.
He explains why global warming is unlikely to be a serious threat. The atmospheric CO2 concentration was 320 parts per million in 1960 and 380 in 2005. The rise was one extra molecule for every 100,000 molecules of air, every five years.
He advises that we should also ask - how much will any `Green' proposal cost? Cutting CO2 would cut the benefits of industry, production, technology and energy use. Isn't Gore just another US billionaire telling the rest of us to stay poor?
The Kyoto Agreement encourages firms to move to developing countries, which have fewer environmental controls, so the firms can pollute more. Kyoto shifts, not cuts, pollution.
Kyoto is also causing the destruction of old-growth forests - which do not soak up carbon - because some third world governments cut them down and replace them with plantations that do soak up carbon. Kyoto has also made countries turn farm land over to growing biofuels like ethanol, which are very water-intensive, taking water from crops and people.
The world has enough coal reserves for 1,000 years or more. We should be building nuclear power stations like France, 75% of whose electricity is nuclear. So we don't need `alternative energy resources' - the hope of some new non-fossil fuel - which anyway is about as likely as some new alternative range of food.
Spencer points out that alarmism can be lethal, for example the ban on DDT has killed millions of Africans. Restoring residual spraying of African homes with DDT would save a million lives a year, but the EU threatens to impose trade sanctions on any country that does so.
Rating:
- He's the one trying to create confusionIt's not difficult to discern University of Alabama meteorologist Roy W. Spencer's bias. He writes forthrightly on page 5, "I believe that the only rights that the natural world has are those conferred upon it by humans."
This sort of God-like arrogance characterizes much of what he writes. He ridicules science and beats up on the usual right wing bogeymen, Al Gore, actors, Hollywood, etc. What he doesn't mention here is that he had a conversion a few years ago when he rejected biological evolution in favor of Intelligent Design. While it could be argued that the author of a book on climate need not mention that he is a creationist, it does give the reader pause to realize that Spencer not only is a global warming denier, he is also in that very tiny minority of scientists that deny biological evolution. Well, actually Spencer admits to being a global warming "skeptic," not an out and out denier.
He has also admitted giving talks funded by Big Oil (see page 6), and he is the same Roy Spencer who along with John Christy in 1992 reported that the lower troposphere had cooled over the preceding thirteen years, more or less refuting global warming. However those finding have been refuted in three separate studies, and Professor Christy has admitted that his results were incorrect and that the atmosphere has warmed. (I am paraphrasing from George Monbiot's book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning" (2007). Monbiot gives the references for the studies that refute Spencer and Christy in footnotes on page 223.)
What I was looking for here was Spencer's admission that he had misread or misinterpreted the data. I didn't find it.
His philosophy as a "scientist" can perhaps be summed up by what he writes on page 10: "...it is not a question of whether bias exists--for we are all biased. It is a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with." This reminds me of the idea that my God is better than your God in that a preconceived bias based on notions that have nothing to do with scientific inquiry are what is important in reaching a conclusion about what is true and what isn't. It's really just a faith-based approach to reality.
Here's an example of how Spencer presents his case against "global warming hysteria": "And while you may believe that the all-time record high temperatures in the United States were set in the last ten years or so, the truth is that the decade with the largest number of all-time state record high temperatures was the 1930s." (p. 13) He doesn't mention the salient point that the new records top the old ones. What he writes is similar to saying that more records (in an earlier time: pick the decade) were set in (you name it: basketball scoring, computer processor speed, rainfall, etc.) than during the last ten years, which is hardly surprising since it gets harder and harder to set records as the bar is raised higher and higher.
This sort of sophistry (or sly of hand) is what one would expect on say the Rush Limbaugh Show or Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, just slipshod BS to feed to the faithful. Note too that it's no longer "global warming is not true." Even the Bush administration now concedes that the planet is getting warmer. Instead it's global warming "hysteria"; in other words, Spencer is making a value judgment that we are overreacting.
The very title of Chapter 2 "Science Isn't Truth" is another example of Spencer's tricky presentation. While it is true that science does not lead to--nor pretend to--absolute truth the way the God of Intelligent Designer does, science is our best tool for increasing our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. Its track record dwarfs all other approaches to truth. Woe is the culture or nation that tries to replace science with "authority" or some other measure of truth.
As an example of the ridicule of scientists mentioned above, there's this from page 14: "A number of scientists, apparently frustrated historians, have created a discipline called 'paleoclimatology.' This is where scientists look at tree rings or ice core layers and magically divine the historical temperature record." Well, they don't "magically divine" anything. They use that evidence to make valuable estimate of past weather patterns.
On page 39 Spencer creates some cartoon dialogue to further his ridicule:
"Scientist: Honey, I'm home!
Spouse: Hi, dear. Did you discover anything exciting today?
Scientist: Oh, yeah! I found that the tsetse fly actually does a little dance before mating! I can't wait to tell everyone at our next international conference!
Spouse: That nice, dear."
This is the sort of distorted view of science that one would expect from a creationist, not a real meteorologist.
Chapter 6 is Spencer's take on economics. He reprises a lot of what one might find in an undergraduate course taught by a conservative economist. Spencer's point is that it is poor economics to take measures against global warming. Why spend money now to help prevent something that we do not entirely understand the consequences of? But this ignores the potential costs down the road--a kind of "let the future take care of itself" mentality that underlies so much conservative economic thought. It also ignores the essence of what it is to be human, which is the use of knowledge and insight to improve our prospects for the future.
But more than anything, a head in the sand attitude toward global warming is dangerous since the worst case scenario suggests a balmy summer day on Venus, and even lesser consequences may bring about enormous suffering to hundreds of millions of people. We owe it not only to ourselves but to our children and grandchildren to stop the denial and obfuscation and work toward understanding global warming and how it is changing this planet.
Rating:
- Excellent debunking of global warming hysteriaSpencer is a research meteorologist who has testified before American government committees giving the skeptic's view of global warming. His book approaches the subject in a humorous vein, but his treatment is a highly skilled rapier thrust into the heart of the warmists' flawed arguments. He treats the scientific, economic, political and moral facets of the issue in a rational and reasoned way, and with a writing style that makes the book a joy to read. You'll finish the book being much more worried by the consequences of letting the warmists take control than by the distant possibility that there is any substance to the climate scare stories. Highly recommended for anyone with a desire to see a bit of balance in the climate change arena.
Rating:
- Climate Confusion?Don't be put off by the title, this is an interesting and thought provoking book written by an open, sceptical but trained scientific mind. The author's acceptance of the differences of opinion in the scientific community regarding the degree of human attribution to the perceived threat of global warming/climate change precludes him from giving the reader direct answers to the fundamental questions, but rather he provides them with much of the material to get the answers, or make valued judgements for themselves. This is done with humour and is intellectually insightful, but without presumption of any kind I would say. All in all, a thoroughly good read and one that successfully pricks the bubble of the many preposterous predictions we see promulgated by the media on the subject, but, somewhat worryingly, not challenged by the many informed individuals who know better but prefer to remain silent. Recommended without reservation.
