60 of 86 people found the following review helpful
A palpable hit.,
This review is from: Watermelons: How Environmentalists are Killing the Planet, Destroying the Economy and Stealing Your Children's Future (Paperback)A very well written and insightful book about the dangers of blindly conforming to a spurious consensus in matters concerning science and it's process.
Pointing out the absurdity of employing the fallacy of simple enumeration when it comes to judging the worth of a hypothesis that hasn't yet risen to the status of a theory is a worthwhile public service.
It is worth noting that Ian Keith Shaw's deceit in failing to acknowledge Nurse's complete ignorance concerning one of the fundamentals in this area, ignorance which was compounded by Dr Bindschadler and the failure of the BBC's supposedly professional editing process is typical of those with an axe to grind. I should add that least Dr Bindschadler had the integrity to acquire a DT account so that he could visit the authors blog and make an apology, something Paul Nurse has manifestly failed to do.
Further I would point out that Martin Lack's somewhat whimsical habit of denigrating books he has not actually read is infamous on Amazon and has led to much well deserved derision.
Irrespective of all that I would suggest you read the book for yourself and make up your own mind. After all being sceptical and educating yourself is not something to be ashamed of but rather something to be encouraged.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 18 Feb 2012 13:30:15 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Feb 2012 13:30:30 GMT
I have only ever once admitted to reviewing a book I have not written and no-one has yet demonstrated that my understanding of that book's message was in any way flawed. Have you not heard of Kindle either?
Posted on 28 Feb 2012 10:51:44 GMT
Malcolm Parkin says:
Global Warming is an industry, not the pusuit of science. Wherever there is funding and a living to be made, beware of what is said by anybody, particularly a scientist or a pseudo-scientist.
Who cares anyway. It is a controversial theory that matters not a whit.
The world stands on the brink of many more real and immediate threats that better deserve attention.
But these don't attract funding of course, so they are ignored.
Mankind will have destroyed itself long before Global Warming has any effect, if indeed it is ever going to.
In reply to an earlier post on 28 Feb 2012 11:48:00 GMT
Last edited by the author on 28 Feb 2012 11:49:16 GMT
Malcolm, you are so far down the conspiracy theory rabbit-hole, I am surprised you can even see the keyboard to type properly.
People may attack me for reviewing a book I had not read (v1) but, no-one has yet demonstrated that the arguments I put forward do not specifically address and rebut those contained in either version of the book. Therefore, using the "you have not read the book" argument against me is a complete waste of time. Moreover, it is just a facile means of avoiding having to accept that your entire "environmentalism is a socialist conspiracy" paradigm is a complete delusion.
We face many environmental problems as a consequence of there being too many people living on the planet (more than the ecosystems that support all life can sustainably support), which is likely to lead to wars over dwindling access to life's essentials such as water, but, anthropogenic climate disruption is without question the most serious because it threatens the livelihoods and lives of billions - and it will hit the poorest and least culpable first.
Therefore, with all due respect, you could not be more wrong if you had stated that you think black is white.
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 10:45:01 BDT
You really do need to read the book then.
You say: "We face many environmental problems as a consequence of there being too many people living on the planet (more than the ecosystems that support all life can sustainably support)". Where the hell does THAT come from? Sounds real scary. Can you back it up with some evidence? Any evidence?
You have made Delingpole's point beautifully for him...
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 13:17:28 BDT
With all due respect, flamenco, the evidence for this assertion is all around you. Anthropogenic climate disruption is a a consequence of their being more people on the planet than the global ecosystem can cope with.
Think about it! Things worked fine when there were only 1 billion humans on the planet cutting down trees and burning them to keep themselves warm and/or farm the land. With 7 billion people, things are no longer working so well; and they will only get worse if everyone starts behaving like we do in the West (and they are perfectly right to aspire to doing so) - We must all become much more energy efficient and environmentally responsible.
Humanity on Earth today (burning fossil fuels and cutting down the rainforests and burning them too) is in a similar predicament to the crew of Apollo 13 (except we have deliberately broken the CO2 scrubbers) - We need to get off fossil fuels ASAP; or else we really will "steal our children's future".
What you need to realise is this: Denial is not a river in Egypt.
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 14:39:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jun 2012 14:46:23 BDT
With all due respect, Martin, that's tosh. More people than the planet's ecosystem can cope with??? Uh??
Things worked fine when people were cutting down trees to keep warm... and now things are not fine? Uhh???? The lifestyle followed during the middle ages was preferable to the one we all enjoy now?
We have not broken any carbon scrubbers. There are still plenty of trees chomping away on the <0.04% of the earth's atmosphere that is CO2.
This hysterical shrieking that the sky is caving in and we're all to blame is well... just hysterical shrieking.
Try getting out of that river then, rolling your sleeves up and getting on with life.
And from one of your links: We explore prospects for transformative change in three critical areas of sustainable development: achieving a sustainable population size and securing vital natural capital, both in part through reducing inequity, and strengthening the societal leadership of academia.
Societal leadership of academia??? Is that putting the boffins in charge of us idiots? So Mann and Schmidt and Hansen et al get to decide what we all do next??? And you think this is a good idea??
You're making Delingpole's case for him. Again.
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 15:25:35 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jun 2012 15:27:17 BDT
You are equally hysterical; and far from falsifying any of my logical criticism of Dellingpole's simplistic arguments, you have merely repeated the fallacious argument that my criticisms cannot be valid because I may not have actually read the book. Exactly where is my description of the book's arguments inaccurate?
The fact that CO2 only constitutes 0.04% of the atmosphere is utterly irrelevant; and your attempt to imply that it is relevant is highly suggestive of scientific illiteracy on your part. What is relevant is that, since the industrial revolution, human activity has caused a 40% rise in CO2 concentration; to a level it has not been for 15 to 20 million years. If you had the faintest possible grasp of palaeoclimatology you would realise that such an artificial change in CO2 will inevitably cause an artificial change in temperature for the same reason that natural changes in temperature have caused natural changes in CO2 throughout Earth history: Because that is how imbalances between incoming and outgoing radiation (heat) are eliminated.
To be taken seriously, those who deny the reality of the scientific consensus on this must come up with a workable alternative explanation for the climate change that has already happened (volcanoes and sunspots cannot do this). If you can do this, and achieve what ideologically-blind and prejudiced scientists such as Pat Michaels, Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen have failed to achieve, your Nobel Prize for Physics is guaranteed.
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 16:41:52 BDT
So 15 million years ago, co2 concentrations were higher than now. What caused that? (Hint - it wasn't humans)
So this excessive CO2 is causing us in uk to have a Mediterranean climate? Uh????
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 17:24:56 BDT
15 to 20 million years ago things were very different (whereas life on Earth is adapted to the way things are now). Current (human-induced) change is happening 1000 times faster than any previous natural changes in the Earth's climate, which is why ecologists are already warning of mass extinctions of species due to habitat loss and ocean acidification. For example, have a look at Peter Sale's Our Dying Planet: An Ecologist's View of the Crisis We Face
Increasing frequency of extreme weather of all kinds (wet, dry, hot and cold) is an inevitable consequence of warming oceans and an increase in average moisture content of the atmosphere. So I think you had better get used to it. Oh, and for the record, increasing cloud cover on Venus did not stop the runaway greenhouse effect caused by all the other gases in its atmosphere from taking hold and making it uninhabitable.
Like I said: Denial is not a river in Egypt.
In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 17:53:59 BDT
"Increasing frequency of extreme weather of all kinds (wet, dry, hot and cold) is an inevitable consequence of warming oceans..."
Only it was not long ago we were being told it was extreme warmth that was going to kill us all (as in "children won't know what snow is..."). The quick edit to include hot AND cold, dry AND wet is because the predicted heat never happened. The glaciers are not going to be melted by 2035, in fact the imminent catastrophe is staying hidden in the cupboard.
Oh and didn't the Roman vineyards produce plenty of wine? In southern Brttannia? Yes they did. Climate change is a fact of life. It has always changed and so has human society. Humans are not a blot on the landscape. We're perfectly capable of looking after ourselves.