Product Description
Is the weather truly getting worse? When it comes to global warming, dire predictions seem to be all we see or hear. Climatologists Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling Jr. explain why the news and information we receive about global warming have become so apocalyptic. The science itself has become increasingly biased, with warnings of extreme consequences from global warming becoming the norm. That bias is then communicated through the media, who focus on only extreme predictions. The authors compellingly illuminate the other side of the story, the science we aren't being told. This body of work details how the impact of global warming is far less severe than is generally believed and far from catastrophic.

CUSTOMER REVIEWS (Average Customer Rating: 4.0 based on 21 reviews)

A reasoned approach by J. Friel (Furlong, PA USA)

5 Stars
November 03, 2009
This book differs from others in this field in that it addresses why scientists, politicians, and the press move to extremes. The authors cover the science, but they introduce relevant data to support their arguments as they make them. Consequently, it is hard to go back and find specific information; e.g., sea level rise, CO2 vs. solar effects, etc. I found their treatment of bias by scientists to be well reasoned and informative. Reasons for bias in the press are more obvious. The title describes the "atmosphere" in today's debate on climate change and addresses an area not covered by purely scientific books or by those arguing a point of view. Their conclusion is that the Earth is warming, partly due to anthropogenic effects, but the magnitude is not great, and the consequences are not dire.

Outstanding research and facts for serious thinkers... by L. Group (Michigan)

4 Stars
October 23, 2009
I found myself quite conflicted on what to believe about the whole global warming issue even though it seems apparent that most, if not all of the "noise" about global warming is just the latest chapter in the guilt laden "the sky is falling" liberal philosophy on life. Because I prefer to gather factual data on issues before jumping to conclusions, I decided check out this book. It was a home run in providing relevant data and research. I did however find it a bit difficult to share the information with others without having to actually have the charts and data readily available. An excellent writing on the subject....yet not easy to share in a conversation.

Climate of Extremes by Clifford Benson (Snohomish, WA)

4 Stars
August 31, 2009
An excellent peer level challenge of the catastrophic predictions of global warming without the denial of global warming.

A great sequel to "Meltdown" by Gaetan Lion

5 Stars
July 21, 2009
Michaels revisits and updates Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. The authors explain why you never get the straight scoop about global warming. They refer to Robert Rosenthal "file drawer problem." For any given research area you get only to see the 5% of the studies that support the current view, and you don't get to see the 95% that do not support it. They also mention Edward Wegman in "Controversy in Global Warming" who indicated that any paper promoting the global warming theory will be reviewed very leniently by peers meanwhile one debunking it will be reviewed most critically. To improve the quality of peer review, they propose that scientific articles submitted for review be released on the Internet so that any scientist could comment on it. Instead, such articles are reviewed by familiar and supportive peers. Near the end of the book, the authors study the global warming bias by reviewing 116 papers published in Science and Nature in 2006. The authors indicate that the scientific community thought so far that existing models did not underestimate global warming. This suggests going forward there would be a 50/50 chance that new findings indicate that global warming is either better or worst than we thought. Instead, the authors uncovered only 10 papers (less than 9% of the 116) that suggested that global warming was moderating. All others suggested global warming was worst than thought. The authors also refer to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions first published in 1962. Kuhn states that scientific research supports contemporary paradigms. And, scientific work tries either to explain anomalies or to show that anomalous data are wrong. The authors suggests Kuhn's framework perfectly anticipated the behavior of the scientific community in their supporting the anthropogenic global warming paradigm. First, this community found a weak argument (CFCs) to explain out the cooling of temperatures during the mid of the 20th century. And second, it revised the data numerous times in an attempt to entirely get rid off the embarrassing mid century cooling all together. Now, you can't even trust the data. Temperature data series have been adjusted 6 times in just the past few years. They were to factor the urban island effect and the related effect of agriculture, deforestation, and zoning changes. They all lead to artificially raising recent temperatures. So, adjusting the time series should have lowered recent temperature levels. Instead, they lowered earlier temperatures. As a result, instead of the adjustments showing a reduction in global warming, they show an acceleration. Thus, you get more warming from the same data series! The ones who don't go along with the global warming paradigm pay dearly for it. A bunch of State climatologists (Delaware, Virginia where Michaels the co-author got fired, Oregon, Washington) have either been fired or censored by Government officials for disclosing data and analysis that does not support the global warming paradigm. The ones who promote this global warming paradigm are often deified. Al Gore received a Nobel Prize for his work and an Oscar award for An Inconvenient Truth. Meanwhile, the authors state that all Al Gore did was developing an apocalyptic vision disconnected from the science. Al Gore projected mean expected temperature increase of 6 degree Celsius only matched by the IPCC very worst case scenario. He also projected sea level rise of 20 to 40 feet vs 8.5 to 18.5 inches for IPCC most likely outcome. The authors also debunk numerous other exaggerations from Al Gore and followers. Long term temperature records indicate that Greenland had been warmer for several millennia than currently, and it did not shed its ice. The ice cover in Antarctica is extremely stable. Its ongoing minimal ice loss translates into a sea level rise of only 1 inch per century. The retreat of glacier on Kilimanjaro are related to a drop in moisture that far precedes the rise in CO2 concentration during the 20th century. Looking at multi-century record, fire frequency for the last 500 years has been the result of natural ocean climate cycles, and not global warming. Heat-related mortality declined as cities get warmer (graph pg. 179). Heat related mortality rates decreased by 75% for 28 American cities between the 1960s and 1990s (graph pg. 182). They also confirm that impact of CO2 on temperature rise is logarithmic. This greatly moderates the gravity of CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Also, contrary to global warming advocates wheat and corn yields have risen very rapidly in tandem with temperature increases since 1950. They also refer to Steve McIntyre debunking the hockey stick increase in temperature by simply looking at a long term average in temperature vs just averages over the past 78 years (graph pg. 218). For more on this specific issue read the second chapter in Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. Models are still really poor at factoring cloudiness, rainfall, humidity levels. Additionally, they all project CO2 concentration that accelerates far beyond current trend way into the future. As a result, those models are highly inaccurate and exaggerate temperature increase. But, they still support the global warming paradigm. The IPCC mindset is that ten different models can't be all wrong; But, if they suffer from the same flaws and bias, they can [be all wrong]. Government policy response has so far been ineffective. Such is the case of the U.S. subsidies supporting the production of ethanol that will actually increase greenhouse emission, is highly energy inefficient, and cause substantial food inflation due to displacing a substantial portion of U.S. corn production. Meanwhile, the Kyoto Protocol has achieved little. All the member countries have failed their CO2 reduction targets by wild margins. In the end, the Kyoto Protocol just allowed the member countries to blame the non member ones. But, when you look at actual carbon emission performance over the relevant time period the difference between the two groups is ambivalent.

Approachable and Understandable by J. Myers (Auburn, WA USA)

5 Stars
July 21, 2009
Dr. Michaels is a true scientist who has become frustrated by the politicization of his science. This is an excellent and approachable survey of the complexities of climate science and how politics have had such a powerful impact in damaging that science.

SIMILAR PRODUCTS

	A Primer on CO2 and Climate, 2nd Edition by Howard C. Hayden (Author) Much of the world is poised to take very drastic steps to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the hope that doing so will keep the world from becoming overheated. Indeed, some alarmists call for an 80% reduction in burning of fossil fuels (from which the world gets 85% of its energy) by 2050. But does CO2 really control climate? Perhaps we should look at the facts before committing to CO2 reduction policies that would surely be devastating. Hayden's Primer is based on the notion...
	Global Warming False Alarm: The Bad Science Behind the United Nations' Assertion that Man-made CO2 Causes Global Warming by Ralph B. Alexander (Author) Have you ever wondered why so many people believe recent climate change is almost entirely the result of human activity, even when there's plenty of evidence to the contrary? It's because the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says so. This compact, readable book pulls apart the flawed science behind the IPCC's assertion that man-made CO2 is causing global warming. Author Ralph Alexander exposes the IPCC's deceptive manipulation of climate data, the roadblocks for...
	Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed by Christopher C. Horner (Author) From the author of the New York Times bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) comes Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics? Or that environmental alarmists have knowingly promoted false and exaggerated data on global warming? Or that in the Left's efforts to suppress free speech (and...
	Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Control Your Life and What You Can Do to Stop Them by Steven Milloy (Author) Everywhere you look, everything is going green. But soon, this trendy green lifestyle wont be voluntaryit will be mandatory. Milloy shows how the government will soon have you under its green thumb.
	Air Con: The Seriously Inconvenient Truth About Global Warming by Ian Wishart (Author) What you are about to read is the most up to date and easy to read assessment of the global warming debate, and arguably one of the most important general books you ll read this year. That s because proposed new carbon cuts to be finalised in December this year are expected to cost each household more than $3,000 in new taxes and fees every year! This is your money don t you want to know whether they re telling you the truth? Regardless of whether you currently believe global warming is caused...