 |
||||||
| Home >> Book Reviews >> An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It | ||||||
 |
An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It Review
An Inconvenient Truth—Gore’s groundbreaking, battle cry of a follow-up to the bestselling Earth in the Balance—is being published to tie in with a documentary film of the same name. Both the book and film were inspired by a series of multimedia presentations on global warming that Gore created and delivers to groups around the world. With this book, Gore, who is one of our environmental heroes—and a leading expert—brings together leading-edge research from top scientists around the world; photographs, charts, and other illustrations; and personal anecdotes and observations to document the fast pace and wide scope of global warming. He presents, with alarming clarity and conclusiveness—and with humor, too—that the fact of global warming is not in question and that its consequences for the world we live in will be disastrous if left unchecked. This riveting new book—written in an accessible, entertaining style—will open the eyes of even the most skeptical. User Submitted An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It ReviewsDecember 14, 2008 An Inconvenient Truth, or calculating deception? Inconvenient truth, or calculating deception? As a scientist, the book's points -- though fascinating -- echo as insincere. Well-established steps comprise the scientific method: (1) Pose a question, (2) Do research, (3) Construct a theory, (4) Test theory by experiment, (5) Analyze data, (6) Draw conclusions, and (7) Communicate the results among peers, inviting critical review. Completing publication review, qualified reviewers among the scientific community develop a broad consensus position. Peers can repeat tests independently to verify their results and assess central conclusions. These reinforce proposed theories, refute ideas, or even draw completely new directions and conclusions. While methods vary somewhat, observation, theory, test, analysis, conclusions and critical review (and acceptance) represent the scientific method, carefully documenting theory development for critical review and acceptance. Mr. Gore claims he based his conclusions on science, yet he rejects the scientific method. Though presenting his conclusions as if they were derived by science, he categorically rejects questioning his analyses or conclusions by science peers. In short, he rejects the scientific method's duty to critically review his work. He argues moral obligation to support his conclusions, precluding objective review by the same scientific processes from which he claims to have derived his work. Presenting his consequences as his facts, he categorically rejects testing their outcome with scientific method hypotheses. Should we be surprised then, when Mr. Gore says that anyone who doubts this must be morally corrupt? This places the scientist in an ethical dilemma. Should he accept Mr. Gore's premise and conclusions -- "when you know all the facts" -- or his moral obligation, and follow science, entertaining unbiased possibility of other conclusions? Scientific theories are transitory. For the true scientist, an open mind comes foremost, for science holds no absolute truths. Since first expounding scientific pursuit of phenomena, truth and the facts, Alhazen sought intellect, integrity and scientific value over all else. Yet, Mr. Gore presents those who would doubt his conclusions as morally flawed -- and even worse. And why? Because the consequences of an error may be so grave. So, Mr. Gore demands we scientists follow him blindly, regardless of scientific processes, facts or conclusions. Blindly he will guide us, regardless of the cost to science, our integrity or society as a whole. Regardless of our scientific qualifications, cultural legacy or history. Science holds no morality, except perhaps the integrity of scientific pursuit itself. If as we were taught, we follow that scientific method, questioning Mr. Gore's methods or conclusions, then according to him we are morally corrupt. Yet to do otherwise compromises our professional ethics. So why does he say that? Because, we could be wrong, while he might be right. So on that basis, he need not prove his case, nor may we present ours. He discounts scientific methods and ideas to the bottom of his heap. But following our profession, training and ethics, questioning the facts presented, we are morally corrupt. Sadly, one cannot fight religion with reason, and we cannot contest his illogic. Had they ever read Mr. Gore's literal text, many scientists would dismiss his unscientific ideas like many others. Unfortunately, most have not, and as a result, some even endorse it (the National Academies of Science, for example). Mr. Gore even shared a Nobel Prize. What else can we say? But isn't it ironic, the only truth that's inconvenient here is that he's successfully -- and profitably -- sold his message as if it were science! J. K. August, PE, BA, BS, ME (science) September 30, 2008 Hyperventilation Hyperventilation over a non problem. Not a scholarly or unbiased look at the issue. Fails to provide any evidence of how global warming may prevent cold weather related deaths and improve agricultural production. This book describes a sham scary scenario as a pretext for controlling our lives. July 28, 2008 This is a book that every American should read! Although i was well aware of global warming, the scientific evidence and the real statistics of the global warming from this book definitely raised my awareness even more. I mainly bought this book because i am very interested from saving the earth from the global warming. This book is informative and contains many pictures that reveal impact of the global warming in the world. This book is worth of every penny and worth of time to read it. July 15, 2008 An emotion-driven, picture book, with no footnotes As close to everyone knows, this is Al Gore's book which allegedly proves that, because of mankind's increased carbon emissions, therefore the global climate is warming and therefore we will suffer from a wide variety of catastrophic problems unless we act to reverse the situation. Gore actually argues in this book that, unless we radically decrease CO2 emissions, the oceans will rise 20 feet, most of Florida and New York City will be drowned -- he provides very real looking computer-generated maps of these predictions -- there will be many more hurricanes and, in general, the world as we know it will come to an end. It is possible that Gore's basic thesis is correct. Our climate might be warming from CO2 emissions. There is no way to assess the value of his thesis from this book, however. This is a beautifully illustrated picture book. It is filled with gorgeous photographs. It has very little text. On the few occasions when Gore actually puts more than 50 words in a row it is generally to tell some heart-wrenching anecdote such as why the near-death of his son made him passionate about global warming. The book has no footnotes, and no connected argument. It is, to be blunt about, a coffee-table book, not a scientific book. I appreciate that Gore's defenders will disagree. After all, the pictures show facts don't they? We can see, from the pictures, that there is less ice on Mt. Kilamanjero. We can see that many glaciers have retreated in the last century. We can even see the photos showing how much of Florida would be submerged, if the sea rose 20 feet, which it would, if all of the ice in Greenland melted. Yes, the pictures give isolated facts. But science is not done with pictures, because one can always take a few facts out of context to prove anything. You do not do science with a few photos. You do science with hard data, taken from as many sources as possible. You do science by looking at the whole picture, or as much as you can. You also do science by seriously addressing critics and alternative theories. I am sorry, Al, but this book is much closer to a rock video than it is to a scientific argument. It relies on pictures, emotions and wild claims. That does not prove that it is wrong. You can not , however, rationally assess the truth or falsity of the statements with Gore's presentation. Al thinks we are stupid. He does not think we will read through serious science. He thinks we need lots of pictures or we just won't get it. May 21, 2008 Eco Fraud 31,000 U.S. scientests have signed a petition refuting the claims that mankind is causing global warming and many scientests are now saying we are about to enter a period of global cooling due to changes in our sun. A British court found over 30 of Gore's claims in his movie to be false. Al Gore's home uses more energy in one month than the average home owner uses in one year and the zinc mine that was on his property was once listed by an environmental group as the most toxic mine site in America and Gore wants to reopen it. Are these the actions of a man truely concerned about the environment? Do a little searching to find out about Gore's financial interests in promoting global warming, other than his film and books, and you will find what I believe to be his true motivation. While we do need to be better stewards of our planet the rush to stop climate change is harming millions around the world and will harm hundreds of millions more if we continue on this course. Gore and his followers say warmer temperatures will produce crop failures that will lead to starvation for millions but in our rush to develop cleaner burning bio fuels we are currently leaving millions of people around the world without enough food to eat. The move to develop bio fuels is also causing a huge price increase in foods which will harm the poorest among us. The amount of corn required to produce 25 gallons of ethanol is enough food to feed an adult for one year and that is one years worth of food someone will have to go without. When you rush into something based on emotion instead of facts you often take the wrong course and that is what I see happening with the issue of global warming. True science has shown us the earth has been warming for thousands of years, the earth has been much warmer in the past then it is currently, and the only thing normal about climate change is it's always changing. As once scientest has said, a never changing climate would be abnormal. May 21, 2008 Interesting but not complete I purchased this book despite my skepticism on human caused global warming. I figure i need to know both sides of the argument before I formulate an opinion. There were some great points made in the book and despite my belief that global warming is not entirely human caused, there are a lot of things where I said "ya, why not? Wouldn't hurt to reduce this or that." I did have a problem with Al's failure to show both sides of the coin when he pointed out statistics and used charts. One chart he used pointed out recent increases of this or that, but didn't comment on the historical increases that were shown on the same chart. I also felt like the charts and graphs were misleading in many ways. Often they used visual tips and tricks to draw the eye to the points they wanted to make while 'hiding' the counter arguments. Although I was probably especially sensitive to this as I just read a book on the visual presentation of data. If you are interested in global warming, even if you are a conservative that is against it, I believe you need to read this book. It would be naive to argue against it if you haven't read it. May 13, 2008 junk science After forcing myself to read Al's tirade, the conclusion is obvious: An Inconvenient Truth is nothing more than a loose morph of Paul Erhlich's The Population Bomb, but with one caveat. Paul Erhlich was (and continues to be) the simple village idiot, happily distracted by butterflies, thinking that what might be true for winged objects of his research is true for homo sapiens, after the application of a strong Malthusian filter. Every one of his predictions were wrong. Enough said. Al, however, is different in one important respect: he is the consummate capitalist and entirely distinterested in peer reviewed scientific literature. When he departed the office of Vice President, his net worth was about $2M. In 2008, that number is approaching $100M. He doubled his money almost six times in eight years. Not many are able to lay claim to that return on investment. And how did he do it? By peddling enough junk science and apocalyptic rhetoric that would choke a blue whale. And raking in more $$$ from his carbon credit front companies. Nowhere in the book will you read how Al has worked out the causal mechanism) of global warming that caused rapid continental deglaciation about 10-14 thousand years ago, long before modern humans walked the Earth. In fairness to Al, I wouldn't expect that of him: the causative agents remains to this day poorly understood. But not a single word about Quaternary climate appears in this book. Al is betting most people will not bother read the Geological Society of America Special Paper #270: The Last Interglacial-Glacial Transition in North America. Good odds, I'd say. Even so, I hear Al replaced the incandescent bulbs in his multi-thousand square foot mansion with the energy-saving florescent variety. Good for you Al: thanks for leading the way and saving the planet! May 11, 2008 The Prince of Darkness did it again... Another junk science piece of garbage and a political stunt (that unfortunately worked with the Nobel Committee). May 5, 2008 Book Inconvenient Truth Should be read very carefully by ALL AMERICANS! Save this earth, it could be so easy April 22, 2008 They got the inconvient part right I read through this book so I could make an argument paper for global climate change. I had already seen the film, which I was disappointed with, but I still wanted some good stats. Just like the film, the book had poor arguments. Most of the arguments could have been easily refuted by any educated skeptic. For more An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It reviews click here.
|
|||||
 |
|
|
||||
| Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Advertising | Contact Us | ||||||
| ©2005 Book Savers, All rights reserved. | ||||||
and Preschoolers