Books Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor
Books and Publications Average Rating:

Rating: - Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the
This is a well written, well researched, rational answer to the radical global warming enthusiasts who have for the most part avoided addressing the complexity of climate control and feedback systems that make it very difficult to predict the weather 10 days from now let alone in 50 or 100 years. A must read for science teachers and especially policy makers.

---

Rating: - A major dissappointment if you are looking for objective information
I bought this book looking for an accurate, scientifically based review of global warming from someone who is not in favor of it. As an MD, MS (Physical Chemistry), PhD (Biochemistry), and former University Professor who has relied on the National Institutes of Health for funding, I have the ability to understand the science, and am not ignorant of what he speaks. First of all, there is almost no data in the book, only opinions. Secondly, it clearly has a political agenda much more than a scientific agenda. It diverges into Intelligent Design, Control of the world by the UN, etc., and paints a frequently inaccurate picture. By no means does he stick to Climatology. While he does have some valid points worth thinking about, you basically have to be an expert to figure out which ones these are. He mocks the scientific system, and while some of his points are true, his approach is a little like mocking the US Postal Service because it is not perfect. However, the great majority of your mail gets to you everyday with relatively few errors. He makes it sound like the US scientific system should be dismantled. Remember as well, that this is not just the American system working on this problem.
There are some issues in science that take a while to work out. For instance, one of the classics was the battle between Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer shortly after WWII regarding whether the "H-Bomb" was theoretically possible. In this case, you had probably ten of the smartest people on the planet who couldn't agree for years, although in the end, the scientific process came through, and obviously, the "H-bomb" was possible. I would hate to have had to take sides on that one half way through.
The scientific process is at work on global warming, and while I don't think the answer is clear, the great bulk of the evidence supports, rather than denies, the truth of global warming.
What I was hoping for with this book was an objective treatment of the topic by someone with expertise in the area.
What I think has happened here is that Dr. Spencer has used his position and titles as a springboard for his political views, not his scientific expertise. Unfortunately, for the lay person, this probably looks like a good book, but only if you believe all of his statements because of his titles. Unfortunately, Global Warming is so complex that unless you have a deep scientific background, you really cannot analyze it yourself, but must rely on the opinions of others. Even those of us with the background to understand the science can read about it for days and still not come to a conclusion. I wouldn't place too much weight on this book at the present time. Are there "low quality" books that are "Pro-Global Warming"? Absolutely. There is definitely some "silly science" supporting global warming. They just prove the point that when politics get involved in science, it's usually bad for the science. Therefore I will continue my search for books against global warming that actually are based on science. Not enough room to cover all the details here, but this was a major dissappointment, and I hope that not too many people will use it to define their thinking regarding global warming.

---

Rating: - Well founded challenger of global warming and evolution
Dr. Spencer is an award-winning scientist. He uses his intelligence to challenge a number of widely accepted scientific theories, including global warming and evolution.

From Wikipedia:

Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

---

Rating: - Good Science Is Impossible Once Politics Takes Hold
James Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA, where the author of this book also worked in climate science, famously told a Congressional committee that global warming skeptics should be charged with crimes against humanity. I know nothing about the legal merits of such a charge, but it's clear that Dr. Hansen has much too much emotional investment in a particular viewpoint to ever be capable of doing unbiased science in the field. Good science is impossible where emotions rule. Perhaps Dr. Hansen had Dr. Spenser specifically in mind when he made that statement, and one can only imagine the cross agency resentments that must of boiled along for years, Dr. Hansen screaming incessantly about global warming to whatever reporters would listen and Dr. Spenser calmly dismissing it as a crisis problem, not nearly as bad as Hansen was saying according to Spenser's satellite data. The whole specter of two senior scientists in a field in the same agency charged with doing essentially the same thing -- measuring global temperatures --who held very different views of a key question ought to put a stake right through the heart of the idea that there is any scientific consensus on global warming.

Dr. Spenser does a good job of explaining how politics and human nature work to produce and sustain global warming hysteria. I would have preferred that he spend some time taking the government controlled system of research funding to task for its role in creating this monster. Far from just providing scientists with a meal ticket, this hysteria threatens to destroy our economic well being with oppressive environmental regulation. Perhaps it's time that the environmentalist bureaucracy is charged with crimes against humanity for attempting to appropriate resources needed to address real problems in effective ways. The NASA bureaucracy wants to take over the whole world, it would seem, or at least share it with the UN climate agency.

In any case, as one might surmise, the book spends considerable time where the action really is -- not in science but in politics. The science is not difficult to summarize briefly: we just don't know about future climate and we have no reliable way to predict it. What's harder to explain is how this state of affairs translates to the political situation we find ourselves in, and Spenser does a fine job of explaining that in a tone of detached bemusement, reassuring us that this is the fellow unbiased enough to give us the straight scoop.