Product Description
Most scientists agree that temperatures near the surface of the Earth appear to be increasing, but there is controversy about what this warming might mean. This volume explores the controversy.

Is it a potentially catastrophic event caused by humans, or simply a natural and harmless fluctuation such as Earth has seen before? Should governments take steps, including those described by the Kyoto Protocols, to slow down Global Warming -- and would these steps be effective? (20020801)

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 3.5 based on 3 reviews)

Fortunately, the debate is far from over

The unspoken premise of the book, that there are only two sides to the global warming issue, tends to oversimplify the issue. But for pete's sake, it really is a good idea to have a vigorous discussion, oversimplified or not. The book absorbs easily, and is short in length. Mostly the articles ("Viewpoints") are arranged with very opposing positions set back-to-back, and this certainly will get you thinking.

Keep in mind that the publication date is 2006, therefore much more has been learned about this topic in the last 1-1/2 years. Much of the argumentation will sound very black-and-white as you read. Two of the articles sound like just plain arguing, though, and might be bypassed with little loss: Viewpoints number 3 and number 4 of chapter 2, which squabble about SUVs being evil vs. fine. All the rest of the articles are worth the time. Especially interesting are Viewpoints number 5 and number 6 of chapter 2, which are NOT opposing thoughts, but rather opine that the sun or the Earth's core radiation are the cause of the current climate warming (respectively). Then check out an article by none other than Senator John McCain! In Viewpoint number 4 of chapter 3, the good senator strongly proposes safe nuclear energy as an excellent solution to a warming climate. This, way ahead of his announced presidential run.

After polishing off this very readable book, please do at least glance through the "Further Discussion," pp 192-3. Your English and social studies teachers will be very proud!

April 15, 2008

The bad thing about these types of books is...

to actually be able to decipher what is true in them, you need to already have read several books (in which case, why are you now reading this book?). This doesn't mean this book is bad -- it's not. It stays out of the argument and only provides the argument, doing it's best to be unbiased. In doing so, it inevitably created a book where the contributors contradict eachother since there is no real referee. If there was a referee, this book would not be unbiased. Okay, with that in mind, I see three types of people who may be interested in reading this book.

Type I: I'm uncertain about the debate and looking for knowledge. I may have some background, but I cannot tell what is fact and what is not yet when arguments on the topic arise.

Type II: I'm looking for opposing viewpoints for research, but not to find out "truth" (for example, a school research project).

Type III: I've read a lot of information about global warming already and I'm mostly aware of the issues for and against. I understand to a pretty good degree how the debate has developed in the last few years, both scientifically and politically.

To Types I & II:
This book cannot (should not) stand alone in your research, but it is a good starting point. If it does stand alone, then you'll be even more confused about what is legitimate and what isn't than when you started -- if you do this, you will know the arguments but cannot say what is fact and what isn't. Look carefully at arguments/motives. To give this topic a fair reading, you will need to commit a good amount of time to other research. You will also need to take the approach of Type III after you get a good information base. (You could actually skip to the Type III approach immediately, but then you cannot stand up to arguments once you've made up your mind.)

To Type III:
You may benefit by instead looking for answers to your specific questions and analysing the people behind the arguments rather than reading this book, which will afford nothing significantly new or profound insight into what is true. Do research by looking especially for people who work against their own interest and see what side they've come out on. (If a solar company executive says global warming is a fluke, you should probably take their opinion carefully since they are working against their interest. Likewise, if an oil company executive says global warming is real, then that lends them strong credibility since they are acting against their financial interest.) If you complete this type III approach and have a good knowledge base, I think you'll come out on the "correct side" (from my point of view).

If you complete "Type III" and also read the book, you will probably spot some false claims and be wishing you could let everyone who reads this book know about them (but you cannot without sounding biased, which is why I refuse to say which side I'm on... :) ).

I know I cannot really justify my disappointed about this book (I'm disappointed that it doesn't comment on what's true and what isn't), since otherwise it would just be labeled as another piece of propaganda and end up being wasted paper. If you intend to read this book, just keep in mind it is like reading articles by politicians -- what they say makes some sense, but are the basic arguments true to begin with? There are lies and poor logic scattered in this book, but sadly you won't find out who is lying or who is using bad logic without doing serious analysis. Don't look to this book to settle things, but look to it as a source of viewpoints only to start from. You probably won't really settle your opinion until you look at how people are responding for/against their interests on this topic.
August 23, 2006

The Debate is Over!

U.S. opposition to the Kyoto Protocol has been consistent since President Bush panned it in 2001. One problem, in many Americans' eyes, is that it does not demand developing nations reduce greenhouse emissions - it seemed fairer to drafters to ask nations like the U.S. and Canada who consume large amounts of energy for luxuries, to cut back their consumption first. However, the biggest problem was the initial credibility of those claiming global warming was a serious problem.

Now, however, increased data and discussion has essentially resolved the issue in favor of those raising the alarm. Thus, reading "Global Warming" is like reading a mystery while knowing all the while how it turns out.

Normally a good thing to present both sides of an issue; however, debates today too often involve special interests that slant or even lie about data. There is considerable evidence that this has repeatedly occurred regarding the topic of global warming. Those making such false claims then take advantage of "fairness," especially when that does not offer a means of assessing the credibility of opposing claims. "Global Warming" does not do this.

Bottom Line: Cut your reading time in half and only read the chapters concerned about global warming.
June 03, 2006

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

Illegal Immigration (Opposing Viewpoints)
by Margaret Haerens

The Death Penalty (Opposing Viewpoints Series)
by Diane Andrews Henningfeld

An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It
by Al Gore

Patterns for College Writing: A Rhetorical Reader and Guide
by Laurie G. Kirszner, Stephen R. Mandell

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition
by S. Fred Singer, Dennis T. Avery