Reddit reviews Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition
We found 2 Reddit comments about Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Here he compares the CO2 alarmism to believing in magic:
>I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.
And here he describes the global warming movement as a "cult".
>“As with any cult, once the mythology of the cult begins falling apart, instead of saying, oh, we were wrong, they get more and more fanatical. I think that’s what’s happening here. Think about it,” he said. “You’ve led an unpleasant life, you haven’t led a very virtuous life, but now you’re told, you get absolution if you watch your carbon footprint. It’s salvation!”
If you read the other comments here you will see that I said that oceans will absorb more CO2, that a greater number of clouds will reflect more heat back into space, and that a greater number of plants will process more CO2. I agree with Lindzen. Where do you think I formed my opinions from? It was from books like this, which reference Lindzen and others, and from Lindzen himself. Lindzen is a leader in this field.
GET A GRIP SON!
That's the easiest to digest 12 pages of viewable data I have available from either side of the arguement. I should have linked directly to the paper, not the host. Its literally the first thing that pops up on google when you type, "environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide."
If you are having some trouble with insomnia, I encourage you to read "Unstoppable Global Warming" by Singer and Avery. I subsist on a diet of data and beer and I couldn't get more than 70% of the way through.