Skeptics and Deniers: The Conclusion (Part II)

Part of the previous blog post: 

This post is Part I of the conclusion to Skeptics and Deniers, a series of analyses on the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. I'm sorry about the delay in publishing this post :( I really wanted to give a more in-depth review of the book, and the writing became too long to be a single post. That's why I divided it into two parts! Please understand that it took longer to explain my judgments, inferences and opinions in greater detail for a comprehensive review. 

* For those of you who haven't been following these posts, here is a little background information:  the book's  authors assert that Global Warming is simply part of a succession of changes in the Earth's system; there is only weak evidence that Global Warming is anthropogenic; Global Warming might actually be beneficial; we do not have to make an effort to curb CO2 levels, because they aren't responsible for Global Warming.  If you wish to see my analyses posted over the past several months, please check out the previous blog posts: on the Earth and the Sun; the weaknesses of the Greenhouse Theory; Rising Sea Levels; Mass Extinction Part I, and Mass Extinction Part II. 

We've finally reached the end of the book. Looking back at the previous posts of this series, I see so many topics and sub-topics that the authors explored to explain their views. Methods of scientific research, inferences made from statistics, connections between health and climate change, possible misconceptions of the public, the role of politics in influencing mass media, the evolution of foreign policies and protocols, etc. Along with this, the authors present a rather detailed overview of the history of climate change that took place on our Earth. I deeply appreciated this part of the book, in that it gave me a chance to truly reflect on my own views, knowledge and ways of accepting new findings and research.

I also became aware of the limited scope of my understanding of our world. Frequently, when the authors stated the flaws and inaccuracy in research that presented ideas I saw as "facts" e.g., 'Global Warming causes extinction of many species', I couldn't decide which side to lean towards. Should I stick with what I've internalized throughout my entire education so far? Or would it be ignorant to dismiss these new ideas as absurd? The main reason for my indecisiveness was my lack of knowledge of the scientific, social, and political spheres of our world. 

This leads me to another question: how confident are the authors in their own beliefs and ideas? While I was thankful for the aforementioned experience I received from this book, I was puzzled, bewildered, astonished, even incredulous at the way they laid out their information. I cannot possibly list all, but there were so many generalizations, exaggerations, manipulations of words that were used to support their views. A seemingly innocuous sentence such as 'People choose land with higher productivity for agriculture, which inhabits less species, leaving our the rest of the world's land to nature.' At first glance, this single sentence doesn't seem out of the ordinary. However, when looked at just a little more carefully, it is outright wrong. It almost makes it seem as though we only use land for agriculture. We use land left over from agriculture for so many other purposes, such as shelter, transportation, goods production, etc. When sentences like this are scattered around the book, a quick reader would gain the misleading impression that we humans aren't powerful enough to impose great changes in our environment.Why would the authors write such sentences? It certainly helps their opinion that humans aren't really causing so much change on our planet (ex. not causing Global Warming, not driving wild species to extinction). With this realization that I began to see the book as somewhat manipulative. Along with this lingering idea, it was when I noticed other aspects of the book that I began to doubt the credibility of the authors.

I hope I have given you at least a glance at climate skepticism. I realize that I may have been partial to my own beliefs at certain points; I know, however, that I put a lot of effort into presenting an objective view and leaving some points to be interpreted by the readers of my blog. Whatever view an individual has, it is always helpful to be aware of the entire spectrum of viewpoints, as well as the logic and evidence behind them. This may be the only way we can become more certain that decisions we make in our endeavors are not illogical or unfounded but reasonable and substantiated. I hope you have enjoyed this series of blog posts and will begin to explore more on how our planet really works. I will do the same when I go to college and explore to address the questions that I have.

Thank you for supporting me, and I will see you in March!

Skeptics and Deniers: The Conclusion (Part I)

This post is Part I of the conclusion to Skeptics and Deniers, a series of analyses on the book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery. I'm sorry about the delay in publishing this post :( I really wanted to give a more in-depth review of the book, and the writing became too long to be a single post. That's why I divided it into two parts! Please understand that it took longer to explain my judgments, inferences and opinions in greater detail for a comprehensive commentary. 

*I added pictures of some pages in the book. As I mentioned before, I had to do with a Korean translation of the book that I found in the library. So don't be surprised when you see just Korean letters! I put them up for the Korean followers of my blog :) 

* For those of you who haven't been following these posts, here is a little background information:  the book's  authors assert that Global Warming is simply part of a succession of changes in the Earth's system; there is only weak evidence that Global Warming is anthropogenic; Global Warming might actually be beneficial; we do not have to make an effort to curb CO2 levels, because they aren't responsible for Global Warming.  If you wish to see my analyses posted over the past several months, please check out the previous blog posts: on the Earth and the Sun; the weaknesses of the Greenhouse Theory; rising sea levels; Mass Extinction Part I, and Mass Extinction Part II. 

My blog posts have been mostly covering the earlier part of the book, up to the relationship between Global Warming and Mass Extinction in Chapter 6. The following are some of the points that the authors make throughout the rest of the book, not just in the final chapter :) I also added my comments for some of them. Again, please remember that the words highlighted in pink are those of the authors.

Chapter 7

aaa: During the Medieval Warm Period, the population of Europe grew by 50%. It can be inferred that there was much greater food production during that time. Wealth of food brought prosperity to the cities, transportation and construction.

Chapter 10

aaa: Global Warming does not bring about greater frequency or strength of droughts, hurricanes, storms and tornadoes. For example, WASA (Waves and Storms in the North Atlantic) found there was no evidence warmer climates in 1900 - 2000 resulted in more storms or hurricanes. 

Chapter 14

aaa: There is strong evidence that abnormally low temperatures bring about greater casualties than abnormally high temperatures. Besides, the growing popularity of air conditioning will make illnesses and deaths from heat less likely. (According to a research in the early 1980s, the number of deaths during abnormally hot climates was 41% less in households with air conditioning than those without it.) Additionally, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases can become much worse in cold climates. 

    : I understand that the authors are trying to emphasize how warmer temperatures aren't the worst. Colder temperatures can be worse in many ways. But is the comparison between the hot and cold really appropriate in this book? All abnormal climate phenomena can be disastrous. We're trying to figure out the best way to handle the changes in climate that are occurring in the present moment in time. Does it really matter whether the current climate is not as catastrophic as another?

Chapter 15

aaa: The rich do not necessarily have to reduce their levels of consumption. They tend to have fewer children, need less land, reduce levels of environmental pollution that result from industrialization, plant many more trees, provide most of the funding for nature conservation. Wealthy nations are taking a positive role towards environmental conservation, not that of destroying the Earth. People of the ancient ages didn't 'live in harmony' as we believe them to have been; they actually damaged nature because members of their tribes always exceeded the absolute limit of their resources. Supporters of the Green Revolution, a central idea of which is that developed nations must reduce their consumption, should consider the way such a 'simpler lifestyle' would influence life span and quality of life.

      : Such unconventional ideas and generalizations are pretty common in the book. Still, I was taken aback at the way the authors presented their ideas. What do they mean by "need less land"? Is this logic formed on the basis of "less people, less land"? What about the amount of food they require per person and the spacious homes they inhabit, both of which need land? Even if they themselves physically take up less space, much land is required to provide the products and resources that they consume. Simply emphasizing the wealthy's potential in helping nature conservation isn't really appropriate here when we're dealing with statistics like the following: USA, less than 5% of the world's population, took up 18% of the world total primary energy consumption in 2012 (US Energy Information Administration). 

    : Hypercars that run on hydrogen (see the Wikipedia page on Hypercars here)are claimed by some (which include the famous Jeremy Rifkin, author of Entropy) as a sustainable means of transportation. They also assert that 96% of the time during which the cars are parked can be used to produce electricity by connecting to the national electricity network. However, the cars' ability to actually produce energy on the distributed energy production network isn't feasible. Furthermore, it is highly inefficient. This is the "illusion of the hydrogen economy".

*Chapter 16 (The Last Chapter)

      : We should implement measures to curb CO2 levels only when the following is proved and verified:

1) Greenhouse gases contribute much more to higher temperatures than the natural cycles of change in the Earth's climate

2) Global Warming causes great harm to human welfare and ecosystems

3) Reasonable human activity accelerates Global Warming

aaa: For every argument, some researchers provide evidence for one side while others provide for the other. This book support those who say Global Warming isn't caused by human activity. This would also be the side that says we don't have to change our practices and lifestyles since there isn't sufficient evidence to prove that we should. I'm not sure this is the wise direction to take. What if it's too late to take measures when all evidence begin to point towards the other side? 

Even as the authors mentioned in various points of the book, we still do not have a complete picture of how our planet works. Trends and cycles in our Earth's system is very complex; it includes the 1,500-year cycles that the authors love, it also involves the Greenhouse Effect that they dismiss. Can we be absolutely certain which evidence is stronger than the other, and which findings are the ones to implement in our policies and practices? In my humble opinion, we should at least try not to accelerate the activities that could be damaging our environment. I also believe we should be able to make some sacrifices - even if the logic behind them isn't absolute - because they could make all the difference to our posterity. Choosing to take no action would be irresponsible when some of the evidence, regardless of their imperfections, says we shouldn't. 

      : Although we cannot prevent damage from global climate change throughout the entire globe, we can develop the technologies to minimize its influence on our society. For example, we can provide enough food through mass production and send such resources to regions that need them. 

     : This idea is valid only when this is certain: we ourselves do not exacerbate global climate change. If it is found that we do accelerate Global Warming, what the authors suggest would be attempting to clear up after the catastrophe instead of actively making an effort to prevent it. Can we really afford to simply prepare for the scenario that could be averted in the first place?

Next blogpost: The Conclusion Part II!

Skeptics and Deniers: Global Warming and Mass Extinction - continued

Last post of the Skeptics and Deniers series was on Global Warming and Mass Extinction. This blog post will be its continuation, discussing the various factors that threaten wildlife.

The writers list four 'confirmed' factors:
1. Asteroid Collisions
2. Hunting
3. Agriculture
4. Introduced Species

Since the writers do not believe that Global Warming endangers wildlife, they give the factors that are not directly related to the current climate change. It provides an outline of the threats throughout time, giving a  glimpse of the  complex relationships between a species and the environment and also among species. 

There was an interesting piece of information linked to factor #3: although humans have taken over one third of the world's land for agricultural purposes, the land suited for farming is likely to to have been providing habitat for a small number of species. However, I have to take issue with what the book says soon afterwards: that because we choose land with high productivity for farming (more suited for agriculture), we leave out the rest of the world's land (on which more species live) to "nature". Are the writers implying that humans take control of land just for farming and do not use the rest for other purposes? If there is a reason for this misrepresentation, perhaps the writers are trying to give the impression that we do not impose that great an influence on the environment. It certainly wouldn't be a hindrance to the writers' opinion that human activity cannot have such a big impact as to cause an anthropogenic climate change...

Factor #4 was another point that I gave more thought to. It states that the development of transportation unintentionally brought new species to foreign land. Ships, cars, and planes meant the introduction of species to distant regions around the world. The book explained that the competition between the native and foreign species was inevitable, causing some to become close to extinction. I wondered whether this conflicted with ideas presented further in the chapter. Giving examples of various species - the Northern Pika, birds of the eastern region of the United States, etc. - the writers offer the following idea: as a reaction to the changes in climate around the world, many species' original habitats may become unsuitable; however, the animals are "strong" and have an "inherent ability to adapt"; thus, the range of their habitat will simply shift, causing no definite harm to their survival. The writers explain that mentioned species have shown to survive moving to different regions and that others will do the same. And yet, what is so different about this situation that the various species survive in this case, and do not in the first scenario - the introduction of species by human transportation? Competition between species exists in both, does it not? Is it due to the number of animals being shifted? Is it about how long it takes to make the shift? Please tell me what you think in the comments below! 

The final post of this series will be posted soon~!

Skeptics and Deniers: Global Warming and Mass Extinction

The impacts of global warming on species outlined by the World Wildlife Fund:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/problems/impacts/species/

Polar bears, sea turtles, clownfish, flamingos. These are only a few of the species that are known to be "threatened by climate change" and "endangered by global warming". We're aware that human activity has been contributing to global warming, driving many towards extinction. But what if someone told us that we're not, in fact, responsible for this? 

Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, in Chapter 6 of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, present the view that there is no proof animals become extinct due to rise in temperatures. As they support the idea that the current temperature trend is not anthropogenic, they state that we're not bringing about extinction of various organisms, at least not through warmer climates. They add that the development in certain technologies is the key to the protection of wildlife. They also criticize the sensationalist ways of some politicians and environmentalists in building their support for their work. This blog post will be exploring some of their ideas as part of the on-going Skeptics and Deniers series.


Have there actually been any cases of extinction?

In 2004, the international journal Nature published an article: Extinction Risk from Climate Change. It warned that global warming, caused by human activity, would wipe out approximately one million species of flora and fauna in the next half-century. Climate models predicted rapid changes in the ecosystem and ecological processes; the shifts in the Survival Envelope would lead to the elimination of many species. This article reflected the difficulty for most species to adapt or move habitat in time during the abrupt changes in the environment. The book, however, claims that this is contradictory to findings in other research.

Citing research in other scientific journals and literature, the book says that most of the world's animals formed the current physical forms in the Cambrian period, which was part of the Paleozoic era. The writers use this as a reason why it would be reasonable to assume that these animals, which survived more extreme climate cycles and conditions throughout all this time, would be able to survive the current climate change. They say that this intrinsic ability to adapt and evolve in new conditions is why we do not have to worry about extinction.

Here's a question. Have there been any recent instances of extinction due to the rise in temperatures? The writers' answer is "none". Some researchers anticipate the extinction of 20% of the world's wildlife species in the next forty years, which will likely show a 0.8°C increase. After this piece of information, the writers inform us that the last 150 years, which showed 0.6°C increase, resulted in no extinction of any species due to the rise in temperatures. 

When I read this part, something  sprang up to my mind. We cannot treat the change - rise in temperature - as itself alone. For example, if it was the increase in CO2 levels that brought about a warmer climate, we need to take Ocean Acidification into consideration. So, when the writers said that the rise in temperatures threatened no species towards extinction, I wondered: "How did they figure out the influences of just one factor - a warmer climate?"  I do assume that the researchers and writers would have studied all the influences and conditions before reaching their conclusion. Still, when I read a sentence later in the chapter - that no evidence that global warming kills coral reefs means the two are "not related in any way" - made me doubt whether the book was accurate, unbiased, and scientific. 

I'll be continuing my comments on Global Warming and Mass Extinction in the next post! Cheers :)

Skeptics and Deniers: "The Failure of the Greenhouse Theory"

In Chapter 3, authors Fred Singer and Denis Avery of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years explain why they believe the "Greenhouse Theory" is flawed. Here, they use a particular format that they adapt throughout the entire book: directly quoting those who spread "rumors" about the Greenhouse Gas Effect (Part A) and then those who refute it (Part B). I will state the reasons that they outlined and analyze the information and statements that they gave. 

* I read the Korean translation of this book. I won't be quoting often, but when I do, please be aware that the words that I selected may not be the same as those used in the book.  

1. Are Polar Bears in Danger?

Part A: www.worldwildlife.org/climate/index.cfm, 2004
According to the World Wildlife Fund, we must reduce emissions of gases from burning fossil fuels in order to stop Global Warming. It articulates that slight changes in the increases of Earth's temperature may pose a huge threat to wild animals like polar bears. 
  
Johan Olsson in "The Effects of Global Warming", 12 January 1996
According to Olsson, most of the electricity that we use is produced by burning coal. We must begin by trying to save electricity through efforts such as improving the efficiency of air conditioners or heaters.

Part B: John Tierney, "The Good News Bears," New York Times, 6 August 2005
He says that numerous newspaper articles profess Global Warming will melt the icebergs of polar regions, possibly causing the extinction of polar bears before the 22nd century. He adds that there has actually been a recent increase in the number of polar bears spotted by inhabitants of the Resolute Bay. In Canada, for example, where most of the world's Ursus maritimus live, the number increased by at least 20 percent during the ten years up to 1996. Right after providing this piece of information, there is a single sentence that mentions that a major reason for this change may be the ban on hunting polar bears. This is followed by another sentence: in the 1930s, the North Pole was as warm as 1996; before 1930s, the temperature was even higher than 1996. 

In my opinion, Part B is highly misleading. Without reading carefully, one can gain the impression that Global Warming may not be affecting the population increase/decrease of polar bears. Although it includes the idea that the apparent rise in polar bear numbers may be due to prohibiting the bear hunting, it only fleetingly mentions it in just one sentence. Without a proper connection, there is a comparison of the temperature between the 1930s and 1990s. Instead of simply stating that the polar bear population increased largely due to the banned hunting (which is what I think it is), the added information in the conclusion brings about the idea that the alleged cooler climate have increased the number of polar bears. Moreover, it does not state by how many degrees the climate was warmer in the 1930s. Is it by 1°C? Or 0.4°C? Without this specific information, can the readers see a definite relation with the temperature decrease? 


2. Are Icebergs Melting? 

Part A: The Nansen Environment and Remote Sensing Center, University of Bergen, March 1995
The effects of Global Warming will appear first in the melting of icebergs in the North Pole. The warming of the atmosphere will result in changes of ocean circulation, reduction the volume of ice on land, etc.

Al Gore, Earth in the Balance (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1992), 22~23
The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is still rising, along with the Earth's temperature. Icebergs in the polar regions influence the weather of the entire planet; when they melt, a major calamity will definitely strike.

BBC News, "Rapid Antarctic Warming Puzzle", 6 September 2001
According to British scientists, part of the South Pole is warming much faster than other regions on Earth. They believe that this warming phenomenon is the strongest in at least the past 2000 years. Researchers say that 75% of ice cores show an increase in temperature over the past 50 years. The rapid warming has melted seven Ice Shelves over the same period.

Part B: "Antarctica: To Melt or Not to Melt?" Competitive Enterprise Institute, Cooler Heads Project 5, no. 3 (7 February 2001)
According to the Year 2000 'Journal of Climatology' Issue 13, icebergs in the South Pole are showing changes that are opposite to climate model predictions - their surface area is actually increasing. Warming and cooling of approximately 5 degrees can change the iceberg volume by 1~1.5%.

"For Land's Sake," <www.worldclimatereport.com> (17 March 2004), Geophysical Research Letters 31: 105204, doi:10.1029/2003GL019024.
Some researchers say that the information released by IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is highly inaccurate. The materials do not include the data on decades of slight cooling in the South Pole.  

When I read this part, I was reminded of another book that I read: 'Weather Science' by Gerhard Staguhn, published in 2012. (Again, I read the translated version I found in the library) I read in chapter 14 that the warming occurs much slower in the South Pole than the North Pole or Greenland due to its great surface area. However, there have been observations of significant changes. The ice of the South Pole are continuously moving out to the oceans. Icebergs on the coastal line are breaking off and flowing across the water. According to satellite data, the volume of ice in the southern pole has been decreasing by 150 cubic meters every year. 

How should we compare the information provided in Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years with others (ex. another book like 'Weather Science')? How can we, as readers, evaluate the reliability of the sources? For now, all I can say is that I have been led not to accept seemingly objective pieces of data - such as increase in volume, temperature, etc. right away. Additionally, when I read about the increase in surface area of ice in Part B, I realized this did not necessarily mean ice was actually increasing. When ice melts, breaks off and floats away, its surface area may increase, but not the volume when it begins to melt further.

Edited: The next 'Skeptics and Deniers' blog post will be about the book's views on rising sea levels.

Skeptics and Deniers: Let's Talk Global Warming

First of all, I'm terribly sorry for such a late post. A lot of things are happening lately and I was just caught in the midst of a storm of deadlines, assessments, etc. I can truthfully say, though, that this post took a long time to write. Climate skepticism is one big issue, so quite a lot of research and thought went to this post. 

As written on the previous post, this series is going to be about the book written by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery: Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years which was published in 2006. Over 16 chapters, the authors argue that the current rise in global temperature is not due to greenhouse gases (GHGs) from human activity but part of natural cycles in the Earth's climate. Instead of trying to reduce gas emissions, they say, we should prepare for the effects that follow. 

Honestly, I began reading with a little doubt - how far could anyone challenge something that persists and prevails in education systems, political conversations, and scientific research? Climate skepticism wasn't a concept that I was greatly familiar with; as a firm believer in the influence of human activity on global warming, I decided to read this book to see what the other side was thinking about.

After a couple of hours of reading, I could see why it had caused such a sensation.  It quoted 'Greenhouse Warming Advocates" and "alarmists" and then directly refuted the details. This was a truly effective way to get the readers to question everything they had learned through primary and secondary education, newspapers and presentations. I began to realize that there may have been imperfections and flaws in the explanations for human impact on global warming. However, I noticed some serious errors and flaws in the book as well. Here's an example of a point that I found to be misguided or unfounded:

- What the book says: The rise in temperature caused by human industrial activity is insignificant. There has only been a few degrees increase. 
  What I noticed/realized: Nowhere in the book is ocean acidification mentioned. A huge bulk  - 25%, according to Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory - of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere is dissolved in oceans and other water bodies like rivers and lakes. The reaction with water forms carbonic acid which eventually gives a bicarbonate ion and hydrogen ion, increasing the water's acidity. This is a reason why the actual number of degrees increase in temperature has not been increasing as much...although this may change when the threshold for the maximum carbon dioxide for absorption is reached.

As you can see, there are some aspects of the story in the book that I cannot agree with. Throughout the series of these blog posts, I will give a glimpse of what the book says, as well as my own opinions and questions that I had while reading this book. 

Now, I will talk briefly about the relationship between the Earth and the Sun, a point that the authors make early in the book. Remember, the opinion in this book is that big alterations in our climate are not due to human activity but through inherent cycles of change that the Earth goes through anyway. It will give you a hint as to how they set out their story, as well as the science that is important to know in understanding how the Earth's climate system works. 

One crucial "linkage" between the Earth's climate and the changes in the sun is cosmic rays. Under normal conditions, the sun emits a "solar wind" that shields our planet from cosmic rays that "bombard the rest of the universe". When the sun is weak, more cosmic rays reach the Earth's atmosphere. Here is a direct quote from the book: "... more of the cosmic rays get through to the Earth's atmosphere. There, they ionize air molecules and create cloud nuclei. These nuclei then produce low, wet clouds that reflect solar radiation back into outer space. This cools the Earth."

We must consider another aspect which, of course, concerns the ozone layer in our stratosphere. According to climate models mentioned in the book (Ah, climate models! Another matter that has to be discussed, maybe in the next post), "a 0.1 percent change in the sun's radiation could cause a 2 percent change in the Earth's ozone radiation, affecting atmospheric heat and circulation." When the sun is in a more active state, there is an increase in the ultraviolet rays reaching the Earth. Below is a diagram of how ultraviolet rays break oxygen molecules, some of which turn into ozone. 

Image from Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Derivative work by Smartse

What do you guys think? Do you think factors such as the sun's cycles of change give enough reasons for believing that we aren't really responsible for global warming? Why do you think our teachers, politicians and non-governmental organizations tell us otherwise? Why are some people so adamant on denying our impact on the Earth's system? 

If you would like to share your ideas, please post comments below! 

Next post will be on the authors' reasons why the "Greenhouse Theory fails". 

Read part of the book here: 

http://www.reasontofreedom.com/unstoppable_global_warming_by_s_fred_singer_and_dennis_t_avery.html

Reading "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years"

Recently, I was strolling through the library aisles when I came across "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. From the cover, I could immediately see that the book was about how mankind isn't responsible for "global warming" - or, the recent surges in global temperature. In fact, according to the book, the climate change phenomena are a result of 1,500-year climate cycles that the Earth has been going through for 4.5 billion years.

The book expresses its doubts about the Greenhouse Effect - the absorption of solar radiation by greenhouse gases such as CO2 and N2O; the emission of GHGs from human activity cannot have an effect as large as a global temperature surge. The writers of this book assert that instead of trying to cut down on the production of such gases, we should try to develop the adequate technologies and other measures to prepare for the changes in climate for the years to come - inevitable, because that is how the Earth's system has always been, going through repetitive circuits of warm periods and little ice ages. 

* Anyone who's been following my blog will know that what I believe in doesn't agree with what the book says. I've talked extensively about global warming, greenhouse gases and climate change, all from a point of view that is quite the opposite of that of the book. But in the last few years, I've met people who share the book's ideas - surprisingly not a very small number. Investigating what the book says is a way of figuring out what they believe in and clarifying or reinforcing my own knowledge.

For the next few months, I'll be posting about my reading of this book, with picture and weather posts in between. I hope it will interest you as much as it did to me; after all, global news are often scattered with articles about climate change, and in order to interpret them in the most accurate or balanced way, we should be armed with the appropriate knowledge. 

Cheers :)