Customer Reviews
Excellent study of the real cause of the current warming - By: William Podmore, 13 Nov 2008 
Fred Singer, Research Professor at George Mason Universityin Virginia, & Dennis Avery, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institutein 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 & peer-reviewed science journals.
They show that over the past million years the earth has been through 600 cycles of warming caused by regular changesin the sun's radiance. Each cycle lasts about 1,500 years & 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 & we are about 150 years into a moderate warming cycle.
This is the only explanation for the modern warming that is backed by physical evidence, from ice cores, fossilised pollen, core stalagmites & seabed sediments.
They demolish Michael Mann's famous hockey-stick graph - used by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change & by US billionaire Al Gorein his movie. This graph purported to show that the 20th century was uniquely hot. But two experienced statisticians, Stephen McIntyre & Ross McKitrick, studied Mann's data & 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 & other quality control defects."
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 & CO2 levels, but CO2 levels rise about 800 years after temperatures rise. So temperature changes cause CO2 changes not vice versa.
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 wrotein 1992, "global warming is expected to push temperatures up much more rapidlyin the polar regions." No, the Antarctic has been cooling since 1966; temperatures at both poles are lower than they werein 1930.
"A million species will be lost." No, there will be more species because higher CO2 concentrations help plants, & therefore other species, to accept higher temperatures without harm. "There will be more frequent & fiercer storms." No, a warmer climate is more stable & 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 growthin food crops, as do warming's increased rainfall (2% upin the 20th century) & increased CO2.
Solar & wind power is between four to ten times as dear as fossil-fuel & nuclear power. Shifting to `renewables' would mean converting hundreds of millions of acres of forest & wilderness to wind farms, solar panel arrays & biofuel crops. But since global warming is not dangerous & is not manmade, we don't need to cut our use of indispensable fossil fuels.
Very controversial - will have environmentalists spitting - By: M. McManus, 19 Oct 2008 This book has two central assumptions, namely, that global warming is happening, but that this is not causedin any way by human activity. Secondly, the authors argue that global warming is not such a bad thing, because a slightly warmer planet is actually better. From old people saving money on heating bills to rare animals being able to extend their normal range thanks to hotter weather, global warming is not such a bad thing.
The authors argue that there have been a number of occassions throughout history when the temperature of the planet has risen & fallen. To prove this, they cite two sources. The first is the recordsin tree rings & the ice core. The second is the writings of ancient civilizations, which described sudden changesin the climate, without necessarily knowing it. He mentions how the Vikings on Greenland noted a sudden dropin cold, which ultimately led to the end of their settlement there as ice bergs made the sea lanes impassable.
The book also makes an incendiary claim. That green charities, pressure groups & researchers are claiming humans cause global warming for two reasons. Firstly, because there is so much money availablein terms of donations from the public if the public can be alarmed enough. Secondly, because government research grants are now so large that many scientists keep their reservations about what is really behind climate change to themselves so as to keep the funding rolling in.
I met the author whilst working at the European Parliament, & found his book to be extremely well written, & the man himself to be very pleasant & a great speaker. This book is strongly recommended.
No-punches pulled refutation of man-made global warming theory - By: Mr. Nicholas J Robertson, 06 May 2008 
Singer & Avery suggest that there should be no binding constraints on human emissions of greenhouse gases until three things can be demonstrated:
1. That greenhouse gases are certain to raise global temperatures significantly higher than they rose during previous natural climate warming cycles;
2. That such a warming would severely harm human welfare & nature;
3. That rational human actions could actually forestall whatever warming may occur.
In short, they do not think that the "global warming alarmists", including the IPCC, have been able to meet any of these requirements.
Singer & Avery pull no punchesin this book of four parts. The first describes the discovery of the 1,500-year (or, strictly, 1,470 year +/- 500 year) cycle of warming & cooling & the evidence for it both from historical sources & scientific investigation - temperature proxies such as tree rings, marine deposits, habitation patterns, ice cores & sea levels, even stalagmites & fossilised pollen. Temperatures are not yet as warm as they have beenin the relatively recent past - long before man was having any significant impact on the atmosphere - when mankind seemed to be thriving. In the second, they rubbish the evidence that human activity, &in particular the production of CO2, is causing any temperature change; they are particularly scornful of computer modelling & the political re-writing of the various IPCC reports. In the third section, they attack what they see as groundless fears about the effects of warming - the sort of thing that Al Gore put into "An Inconvenient Truth". The fourth section concludes by saying that Kyoto is pointless whichever way you look at it, unless you are Putin, looking to be able to sell billions of dollars worth carbon credits (based on Russia's 1990 industrial economy) but not now necessary to Russia or European leaders hoping to restrain the US's faster growing economy.
The 1,470 year temperature cycle was discovered by Willi Dansgaard & Hans Oeschger, & the research independently validated by Claude Lorius, based on ice-core researchin the 1980s & 1990s. D, O & L did not explain a causal link more sophisticated than that it was due to the sun, & Singer & Avery credit Henrik Svensmark with identifying the link between solar activity, cosmic rays & cloud formation (as explainedin Svensmark's "The Chilling Stars"). This solar cycle is thought to be caused by a combination of two previously identified solar cycles: the 87-year Gleissberg cycle & the 210-year DeVries-Suess cycle, but the theory does not get much more sophisticated than that. In short, there does not yet seem to be a theoretical explanation as to why the sun triggers a 1,470 year cycle, nor why it should be +/- 500 years (which does seem quite a lot to a layman like me), but the cycle is based on a great deal of consistent, & planet-wide, empirical evidence. Singer & Avery cite many sources to show that the Roman & Medieval Warmings & the Dark Ages & C16 - C18 "little " ice ages were planet-wide.
Singer & Avery suggest that it would be prudent to consider that mankind is contributing to the (slightly) warming Earth, but that the vast majority of the relatively mild (but greatly overstated) warming is being caused by solar events completely outwith man's ability to control. This may be just as well, as they are highly sceptical about the practical effectiveness of many so-called alternative energies - although they do not go into detail about the practical problems to the extent, for example, that Booker & North doin "Scared to Death". Even nuclear fission, they think, would only be of temporary help, &in the long term, when fossil fuels run out or we are choose to stop using them, we had better hope that we have cracked nuclear fusion. This, ironically, is the same conclusion reached by James Lovelock of the Gaia theory!
This book is at its bestin its detailed statement of factsin support of there being significant natural climate variation, &in pointing out the weaknessesin some of the data presented by global warming alarmists. (Some of the facts, based on historical interpretation, would probably be rejected by scientists as insufficiently quantifiable, but they seemed worthy of conclusion, to me,in support of quantifiable data.) Otherwise, I have to admit, I was a little disappointed by it, because I seemed to have read many of their argumentsin greater detail elsewhere: Svensmark on the solar/galactic effect, Bjorn Lomborg on the economic consequences of an over-reaction, Booker & North on the limitations of alternative energies as they currently exist, Patrick Michaels on the reasons why scientists find themselves acting, unscientifically, to support a developing "paradigm".
This book is, nevertheless, 260 tightly-argued pages demonstrating that there is no "global warming consensus" that man made global warming is out of control. If, for example, you are alarmed by the arguments of the "consensus" & wish to explore some of the arguments of the "sceptics" then you could do a lot worse than starting here.
Refreshing climate change arguement - By: Arctic, 02 Jan 2008 This is a well written book, full of facts that the author lists using verified evidence, both physical from all corners of the world to historical records. Singer uses the current political driven climate change comments - then one by one uses verified facts to show the actual state of the planet.
Not having any backgroundin science, but just an ordinary person who for a number of years had to study weather patterns due to my job, I have never subscribed to the political driven climate change 'religion' we are now all being asked (without question) to accept (and pay higher taxes on!); it is refreshing to see a book showing facts - real verfiable facts (a thing politics seems to omit with it's scare mongering money self esteeem driven politicians!)
Singer argues, & shows proof of past warmingsin the last 2000 yearsin particualr & further backin history. The Roman Warming period ( 2000 years ago) Singer shows with verfiable facts that Greenland was over 5 degrees hotter than today (HOWEVER....the ice cap remained - polar bearsin the artic didn't die out & sea levels didn't inundated the planet!) The same occurred during the medieval period. All this (and more) can be foundin this book &in numerous other publications & websites..........all who use physical evidence to prove such facts.
The warm cold, warm cold cycles Singer advocates are all backed up by physical evidence, but whether he is 100% right, well we weren't therein times gone past but he argues it well & very convincingly. He also shows thatin the past C02 has been a lot higher, astronomically higher than todays levels.....even before man appeared (why are we getting the blame then?)
He argues well the politically driven IPCC public reports which have been now causing a lot of controversyin the USA.........and he is not the first to say this by a long way.
I'm suprisedin today's politically driven world that he was allowed to publish a book that blows apart this modern religion being forced up on us, but he has & it's an excellent read.
Well done, an excellent read & it really does make you open your eyes to what actually is warming the planet..........and every planetin the solar system at the same time, at the same rate.
For those who will no doubt feel a heart attack coming on at my coments, just remember that the same political bodies of so called 'experts' were telling us thatin the early 1970's we were most certainlyin the grip of an ice age........they were wrong then.
Singer uses a lot of evidence from the Arctic whichin the summer of 2007 made world headlines due to the amount of shrinkage.....it was terrible, the bears will die, the world will drown etc etc (dribble). Why then did the same people not report that the ice coveragein Dec 07 had grown to the greatest on record since satellite imagery beganin 1970??
The man made global warming robots are very good at scare tactics...which Singer exposes the use of this deceptive tactic well. (Tell 'em a bit, but leave other parts & and wow! Explosive headlines!) But the bigger picture.......well, that doesn't fit the new religion......does it?
Amazing .. - By: Wilkinson J.W., 09 Dec 2007 
There is a cycle & every scientific on earth know that. The problem is that humans are dirupting this cycle. What are the proof? Well, samples of the atmosphere frozen into the south & north pole giving us, so far, only 600 millions years of climate history.. And it has always been the same, going up & down at the same time & reached the same minimum & maximum.
However,in the last centuries we have disrupted this cycle & just made it worse. Humans are able to adapt but not that quickly & not for changes that will be harsher than the extremes of the last 600 millions years. Nobody wants to stop climate changes but everybody should try to attenuate the negative effect we have on it
Now you can try to help or you can read books funded by the CEI... (EXXON & others) but remember that, so far, no scientifics on earth has ever backed up their theories... Who wil you chose to believe? Your government (all of them: right or left) or researchers that will not benefit of the outcomes of their research if they are wrong?
