2 of 12 people found the following review helpful
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: The Inconvenient Skeptic: The Comprehensive Guide to the Earth's Climate (Kindle Edition)
In trying to understand both sides of the global warming discussion I purchased this book after reading the reviews. To say it was a disappointment would be a gross understatement. It was factually erroneous in ways that were so easy to easy to check that I'm surprised they made it to print. On that basis this book does little to support the view that global warming is some sort of conspiracy and calls the authors credibility into question.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 30 Apr 2013, 18:11:49 BST
Mr. G. J. Burns says:
I wonder if Karl would oblige us with details of the key facts that were mis-represented?
Posted on 7 Jun 2013, 19:28:12 BST
Like GJ I would love toee details of the factual errors. John Kehr himself more or less solicits comment or correction. Karl should tell us what he has in mind. If he doesn't we will simply write him off as a troll who knows nothing but doesn;t like the message and wants to undermine it.
Posted on 28 Aug 2013, 21:22:17 BST
Last edited by the author on 28 Aug 2013, 21:23:22 BST
What facts were erroneous ?
"On that basis this book does little to support the view that global warming is some sort of conspiracy and calls the authors credibility into question." I did not read that the author was trying to prove some conspiracy theory, it was his own reading of evidence and assessment of AGW theory from an engineers point of view. That comment probably says more about this reviewer and his bias. Unfortunately 'Troll' reviews of books that disagree with AGW are now common currency of their propaganda war.
B.T.W The author is an engineer ! you know, one of those characters who earn their living from designing and actually making something work, unlike climate scientists whose only product are predictions that do not come true.
In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2015, 18:09:02 BST
Last edited by the author on 15 Jul 2015, 18:13:53 BST
Telling that Karl is unwilling (or unable?) to give any example of the errors he claims to have found.
Posted on 6 Mar 2016, 16:29:14 GMT
[Deleted by Amazon on 8 Mar 2016, 05:33:50 GMT]
In reply to an earlier post on 19 May 2017, 11:33:58 BST
Indeed! Since the datasets he uses come from the same sources as those used (or said to be used) by what eventually sort of ends up in IPCC reports etc, it is difficult to see where the errors could be. The book is very well annotated regarding sources.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›