[.ca] The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming (ISBN 1882577922)

Making Sense of Scientific Mumbo-Jumbo:
I was curious about global warming. This book answered many of my questions and I'll re-read it and buy a couple of copies for my friends. Other than my small complaints that I wish it had expanded more and discussed in greater detail on historical evidence of climate change (such as archaeological evidence of ice ages and warm periods like when dinosaurs populated the planet) and focused more on the Sun's impact on the temperature of the Earth, it was an excellent book. I am now searching for more data about the effects on weather from natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires, which were only discussed briefly in this book but increased my curiosity. I found the explanation of how global climate models are designed to be the most educational part of the book. I appreciated the point that the weatherman on the local news has a very hard time predicting the temperature twenty-four hours or a week from now. That puts a prediction on what it will be like 100 years from now into a better perspective. The discussion on El Nino effects was interesting as was the exposure of some scientists tendencies to select data that best fit into the theory du jour to make their conclusions more dramatic. Although the authors didn't say it, an intentional omission of data or evidence seems the same as a lie to me. I wasn't upset about global warming, I live near Phoenix, what difference does it make if its goes from an average high of 110 to 113 one hundred years from now? But now I am upset about global warming because it seems like a big scam and some very good intentioned people are being seriously fooled. The book is not a light read. I found I could only take a couple of chapters at a time and it wasn't something to read with the TV on or other potential distractions. I read most of it on a stratosphere warming, transcontinental jetliner when South Carolina was being frozen like never before in December 2002. This is an important book to read, if you don't know many facts about the topic, you'll get 'em.

Focuses on minutiae not the big picture:
Firstly, let me say I did enjoy this book. I am a huge skeptic of the Kyoto Protocol but not only because of the reasons outlined in this book! Geologic history indicates that the world has been warming up more or less since the glaciers retreated 10,000 years ago. The geologic record over the last 500 million years would also suggest that we are in a 'cold period' and there is no time where the earth has a static temperature - it gets hotter and colder over the centuries and eons and in the past, it has generally been hotter. Stating that the temperature in 1900 was 'average' and then getting angry with ourselves when the world rises above or below this 'average' is very short-sighted... This book dissects a lot of the myths and contadictions that have sprung up over the last decade concerning global warming and its impact - higher deaths, more extreme weather conditions, decreased crop yields, excessively rising sea levels etc. It also briefly discusses the impact of government intervention to try and slow down global warming (e.g. the disintegrating Kyoto Protocol). However, I was a bit disappointed that the authors didn't step back from the microscopic analysis of papers to paint in the 'big picture' and allow the reader to gain a more coherant overview of why there are many skeptical scientists out there! In fact, from the evidence presented in this book, I am greatly reassured that global warming, despite its name, is clearly not a global phenomenon which is going to have much impact on any country except the US... The authors focus on small and large descrepencies in papers that have been released over the last 2-3 decades - largely by the US - and comments made by ignorant but influential people - also from the US. Well, thats fine - thats what has created the hysteria over global warming in the first place. But, surely the name 'global warming' implies it should have a global impact?! By the final chapters of the book, this over-emphasis on dissecting the smaller details make one feel too much emphasis has been placed on discreding models and little on the reasons why any scientists felt they ought to question the models to begin with. But, there is a lot of evidence beyond the dissection of small scale climate modelling which could be reassuring - and more interesting - to explain why anyone would want to put global warming in perspective in the first place! I also felt the book could have been better fleshed out by touching on why we are in this predicament of depending on fossil fuel in the first place. However, as the authors correctly note, where we will be in terms of technology and use of power in 100 years time is at this time, completly unknown. We could all be tapping into quantum energy for all I know! In the end, one can only be reassured (and not by the authors) we are burning through 440 million years of the Earth generating fossil fuels for us in a few short centuries - we will be forced to examine alternative and comparative sources of energy sometime in the next 100 years if not sooner. In the end, this book is a dry but interesting critique of all the climate modelling and posturing made by the US government in an attempt to rally the world behind a cause. It is very scientific, but arguments are developed logically and explained in a clear fashion that anyone wanting to gain a more balanced point of view about the hysteria surrounding global warming, will be satisfied with this book.

Watch out:
I'd like to ask anyone who is not concerned about global warming to read the accounts of the last meltdown under Noah in the old testament, or in the Bhagavad Gita or any other ancient religious work (which all started as oral history). Archeologists agree that around 10,000 years ago sea levels rose 400 to 600 feet and probably very suddenly. Noah is just the oral history of that event. Most scientists are unfamiliar with catastrophe theory (a very simple theory which describes that in nature events happen very precipitously). Nature is much like the stock market with sudden unpredictable spurts. Ice is a good conductor of heat and has a high latent heat capacity and thus a whole ice sheet (eg Antarctica) must heat up before it melts (very suddenly). Ice has some other interesting properties that make it unpredictable. As we do not understand what caused the last meltdown, anyone who thinks they can reassure us categorically about the next one is dangerous indeeed.

Politics, not science:
What a great way to sell books! Tell the people what they want to hear. Do not mistake this book for a dispassionate science book. This is a political book, masquerading as science. If you read this and you find yourself agreeing and feeling strongly, ask yourself why. The answer is probably that you are looking for a rationalization what you already believe. This is science like prostitution is love. It may be a feel-good facsimile, but it isn't the real thing. And turning to politically motivated science cheapens the politics as well as the science. I think the most breathtaking aspect of this work is the colossal hypocrisy employed here. Micheals and Balling decry the distortions of the left-wing environmentalist nutballs and play up the limitations of environmental science while using the same tactics. If the premise of this book is accurate, that science is used by idealogues to distort the truth and promote their political philosophy, well, what can we make of this book? Does the politics lead or the science? I would suggest that you look into the history of the authors to determine whether they are capable of non-political dispassionate scientific inquiry. I have looked, and guess what? It isn't love, its prostitution.

Convincing but misleading and dangerous:
The main point of the book is that Global Warming is not something to be concerned about. Both authors have impressive credentials, but you should know that they are on the payroll of anti-environmentalist groups, including Kuwaiti government sources (The Carbon Wars, p. 262). The authors admit that the world climate is warming, just not at the rate that many of the environmentalist and computer models predict. They claim that computer models are inadequate and at the same time claim that the temperature will continue to increase at a linear rate for the next century. On what basis is this assumption made if computer models are inadequate? Well, they actually use the computer models to support this linearity assumption. They predict that the average Earth temperature will warm by roughly 1 degree Celsius by the year 2100. This, it must be assumed from their book, will continue into the following century. No doubt they are banking on the fact that most people do not care what happens to Earth after 100 years. The two authors agree that we are changing the world climate and that it is getting warmer. They just don't think we should be concerned about it. In fact, they list a number of benefits. The authors make the argument that we cannot possibly predict accurately more than 50 years, and since in 50 years the world, in their opinion, will still be safe for mankind, why bother changing anything now? They do not address the danger of runaway Global Warming, which many scientists believe is a possibility. Given that our computer models are still inadequate, are we willing to risk it? If you care about the future of the Earth then do not let this book be your sole source of information on Global Warming because I do not think the authors of The Satanic Gases care.