More:
********************************EXCERPT****************************************
I don't think so, December 23, 2009
Seems more like a work of fiction. It's nothing more than an adult version of "Chicken Little". Never seems to mention that natural carbon emissions from geologic processes introduce more carbon into the atmosphere than human activity. Maybe we should get a supply of very large corks and start plugging volcanoes. Also glosses over the fact the planet has been much hotter in the past and prefers to intimate that this is the fastest warming cycle in millions of years. Well people global warming has happened before and unless my knowledge of history is incomplete the dinosaurs weren't driving SUVs and burning coal to power their big screen TVs and air conditioners.
More:
*****************************EXCERPTS*********************************************
Nothing new or revealing, December 10, 2009
While Hansen may have good intentions behind this book, there is nothing that conclusively shows his alarmist viewpoint is correct - not even close. There's nothing wrong with being independent and he shows this aspect of his political and scientific beliefs very well. But he seems to think that holding such "independent" views and widely and openly criticizing everything from Obama's cap and trade plan to the IPCC to numerical models somehow makes him right (which he claims is the case as he bases his climate sensitivities, etc. on proxy data). He is in his upper 60's and has a lot of experience - unfortunately his political experience overwhelms his scientific experience/arguments.
Hansen rehashes all kinds of climate change science in everyday, easy to understand language. Unfortunately, this 'laymens' approach is not representative of reality, in which easy, clear cut evidence is sorted through to obtain what is obviously the right conclusion. He contradicts himself as well - although he seems to realize it and includes all kinds of if's, and's, or's, and but's. One example: he says we do not know enough about the climate forcings over the past millenium to accurately estimate climate sensitivities. However, he claims enough is known about the climate and the forcings present 20,000 years ago when the northern U.S. was under a kilometer of ice. So, in a huge exercise in extrapolation and conjecture (that we know enough about the climate 20,000 years ago), he calculates climate sensitivies based on the differences between average climate forcings of today and 20,000 years ago. Call me a skeptic, a denier, a contrarian, etc. if you wish, but that is not empirical science - even if it is a heroic attempt at it. He also says that models are terrible, but then claims the climate of the past decade was 'predicted.' Did I miss something here?
Finally, this book is more of an autobiography of his attempts to warn the U.S. government of the impending disaster than a scientific treatise on why his scientific methods are correct and therefore, why his predictions are correct (also, he uses the term contrarian constantly in his defense and talks a great deal about the climate his grandchildren will have to live with - that is very sweet, but comes across as propaganda to those who are looking for science). As a graduate student in meteorology, I found this book to be useless in my attempt to understand who's right and wrong (and why) in the current debate. I gave it two stars, but for my purposes, it failed to provide. If you are a 'laymen', I hope you take the time to research many of his claims, methods, conclusions, etc. You will find that the scientific community does not and has not placed Hansen's research above others, nor does it share Hansen's criticisms of computer models, politics, and scientific method (about which Hansen's criticisms are accurate - the problem is that his methods and conclusions are no better!)