Cheap The Satanic Gases (Book) (Patrick J. Michaels, Robert C. Balling) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of The Satanic Gases

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.

---

Left and Right agree here
Last week, Rush Limbaugh went on for an hour or so singing the praises of this book and its author. Normally I don't listen to Rush (find him boring) but I also read things like The Nation and I find that some big people on the left--like Christopher Hitchens--are converging on the notion that there is a a big rat lurking in the global warming story, namely that the issue is overblown and both the extreme left and right (i.e. Hitchens and Rush) seem to agree that the policies will cause economic harm for little accomplishment.

So I decided too take a looksee at this book. BTW Amazon did have a great price! I was pleasantly surprised. It was actually fun to read and taught me a lot about the ancillary mysteries, such as tornadoes, jet streams etc that I have been curious about, but all backgrounded against the global warming issue and "how" science gets done.

The bottom line really does seem well-argued. The issue is way overblown by both scientists and the press and--something I did not know--VERY little can be done anyway, even if we tried, and it was Clinton and Gore'scientists, not some right-wing nuts, that showed this.

Just for they hey of it, I checked sales figures seen as this book isn't exactly advertised (despite the funny title). It looks like it's amazons best seller ( I searched under "global warming"), despite being nearly two years old. After I read it I think I know why. I learned a lot and it was fun and it was nice to understand why the political extremes seem to be getting together on this one. I also picked up a lot of fun trivia like how many people get killed by cold air and that winds in hurricanes are going down, not up, according to the UN. I intend to use these for upcoming Christmas party bets. Maybe that cute little enviro-femme will go out with me.

A cool book.

---

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.