What do you think?
Rate this book
Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years
Singer and Avery present in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and why we can't stop it anyway.
276 pages, Paperback
First published September 11, 2006
15 people are currently reading
225 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
November 9, 2007
Absolutely fascinating. A very convincing case for the 1500-year climate cycle theory. Every paragraph is pockmarked with annotations from peer-reviewed journals, and everything they say seems to check out with what little science I know and what I could look up.
If the authors are right, then the scare of man-made global warming is a sham, cooked up (so to speak) to get funding. They systematically go through every argument environmentalists have and annihilate it, then demonstrate how almost every piece of evidence supports the 1500-year view. This is not just some hastily-written paper; any advocate of man-made global warming will have to take this book into account and attempt to refute what is presented here if they wish to be taken seriously.
The style is, for what it's worth, a bit insulting for people with a leftist bent to read. The authors are clearly frustrated with the current political attitudes of environmentalism, and wish we would all just get over ourselves so we can focus on the real problems heading our way in the coming years. At one point, almost directly in the middle of the book, is the subtitle "Convinced Yet?" It's almost humourous every time the authors call environmentalists "panic-mongers," "radicals," and Luddites.
There are pages and pages of resources to check, mountains of data that supports this theory. Any reader of this is going to be skeptical of environmentalist claims for quite some time.
If the authors are right, then the scare of man-made global warming is a sham, cooked up (so to speak) to get funding. They systematically go through every argument environmentalists have and annihilate it, then demonstrate how almost every piece of evidence supports the 1500-year view. This is not just some hastily-written paper; any advocate of man-made global warming will have to take this book into account and attempt to refute what is presented here if they wish to be taken seriously.
The style is, for what it's worth, a bit insulting for people with a leftist bent to read. The authors are clearly frustrated with the current political attitudes of environmentalism, and wish we would all just get over ourselves so we can focus on the real problems heading our way in the coming years. At one point, almost directly in the middle of the book, is the subtitle "Convinced Yet?" It's almost humourous every time the authors call environmentalists "panic-mongers," "radicals," and Luddites.
There are pages and pages of resources to check, mountains of data that supports this theory. Any reader of this is going to be skeptical of environmentalist claims for quite some time.
March 21, 2011
A really thorogh analysis of the "skeptic" point of view on this subject. Warning: SUPER scientific in nature. Pretty boring, honestly, but if you're looking for a place with FACTS that are supported by SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, this is the place.
August 30, 2019
Irresponsible and cognitively challenged
My main problem with Singer and Avery begins with the first paragraph of Chapter One. Since this paragraph sums up their position perfectly, let me quote it:
"The Earth is warming but physical evidence from around the world tells us that human-emitted CO2 (carbon dioxide) has played only a minor role in it. Instead, the mild warming seems to be part of a natural 1,500-year climate cycle...that goes back at least one million years." (p. 1)
This is correct, but disingenuous. Their "has played only a minor role" says nothing about the future and ignores the greater role that unchecked carbon emissions into the atmosphere are likely to play. And "seems to be part of a natural [unstoppable!] cycle" is irresponsible since "seems" is not good enough when the stakes are so high. Furthermore, the authors seem not to realize it, but, by their own admission, we are, with our fossil fuel carbon additions to the natural cycle, pushing the planet into unknown territory that may very well be dangerous. Add human activities to the cycle and the cycle may no longer cycle. Instead it may turn into a runaway greenhouse effect leading to (in the worse case scenario) sterilization of the planet as happened on Venus.
Messrs. Singer and Avery do a good job of making it clear that the 1,500-year cycle is a reality (other sources I've read agree) while arguing that the Kyoto treaty is flawed, our global climate models are not to be trusted, and, at any rate, warm weather is better than cold. They write "The warming phase of the 1,500 climate cycle will bring moderate changes in global temperatures" no worse for "most of the world's inhabitants" than currently exist for people living in the American South and Southwest." And if things really get bad, as happened with "the Mayans: people may have to move." (p. 232)
It doesn't sound like our authors are worried about themselves, their children or grandchildren being so inconvenienced, especially when you read what follows: "These days, that's not so hard, especially with government emergency assistance payments. The people who aren't hit by extreme prolonged drought are rich enough to help those who are, as in the Hurricane Katrina disaster..." (pp. 232-233)
Well, if it isn't the return of noblesse oblige! However this does ring a little insincere when you consider the cost of feeding and relocating hundreds of millions of people from places like Africa, Bangladesh, India, and elsewhere where climate change may require that Messrs. Singer and Avery and their corporate sponsors pony up trillions of dollars in aid, which, of course is not going to happen. Maybe they would like to have all those people from Bangladesh whose country will go under water transported to the sidewalks of their neighborhood.
The plain fact of the matter is, when all the talking is done, Singer and Avery are confident about one thing: global warming isn't their problem since (a) most of the suffering will take place in far off lands, and (b) they won't be here when it kicks in anyway, and if that isn't good enough, c) there's little to nothing they can or care do about it.
Their morality aside, I think it would be more responsible to get to work now on implementing ways to cut our atmospheric pollution to zero, since in the long run, that is our best insurance against dire consequences. Our children and grandchildren will not have to give up their standard of living. They can still drive powerful cars and waste energy in other ways; they will just have to pay more for it. That is the reality of what is to come. The danger of doing nothing now, which is what the Bush administration and the fossil fuel industry advocate, is that the day may come when we really can do nothing. If humanity in the aggregate assumes the irresponsible and blind behavior advocated by the authors, perhaps we will get what we deserve. Humans have despoiled the planet since they were human, and until recent times this was no problem because we could always move on to somewhere else and the planet would heal itself. That may no longer be possible.
Here are some other books on this subject that I have read. The first one is similar in tone and attitude to Unstoppable Global Warming. The other two present the position, more or less, of mainstream science, and I might add, responsible planetary citizenship.
Bailey, Ronald, ed. Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (2002)
Pearce, Fred With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change (2007)
Romm, Joseph. Hell and High Water: The Solution and the Politics--and What We Should Do (2006)
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
My main problem with Singer and Avery begins with the first paragraph of Chapter One. Since this paragraph sums up their position perfectly, let me quote it:
"The Earth is warming but physical evidence from around the world tells us that human-emitted CO2 (carbon dioxide) has played only a minor role in it. Instead, the mild warming seems to be part of a natural 1,500-year climate cycle...that goes back at least one million years." (p. 1)
This is correct, but disingenuous. Their "has played only a minor role" says nothing about the future and ignores the greater role that unchecked carbon emissions into the atmosphere are likely to play. And "seems to be part of a natural [unstoppable!] cycle" is irresponsible since "seems" is not good enough when the stakes are so high. Furthermore, the authors seem not to realize it, but, by their own admission, we are, with our fossil fuel carbon additions to the natural cycle, pushing the planet into unknown territory that may very well be dangerous. Add human activities to the cycle and the cycle may no longer cycle. Instead it may turn into a runaway greenhouse effect leading to (in the worse case scenario) sterilization of the planet as happened on Venus.
Messrs. Singer and Avery do a good job of making it clear that the 1,500-year cycle is a reality (other sources I've read agree) while arguing that the Kyoto treaty is flawed, our global climate models are not to be trusted, and, at any rate, warm weather is better than cold. They write "The warming phase of the 1,500 climate cycle will bring moderate changes in global temperatures" no worse for "most of the world's inhabitants" than currently exist for people living in the American South and Southwest." And if things really get bad, as happened with "the Mayans: people may have to move." (p. 232)
It doesn't sound like our authors are worried about themselves, their children or grandchildren being so inconvenienced, especially when you read what follows: "These days, that's not so hard, especially with government emergency assistance payments. The people who aren't hit by extreme prolonged drought are rich enough to help those who are, as in the Hurricane Katrina disaster..." (pp. 232-233)
Well, if it isn't the return of noblesse oblige! However this does ring a little insincere when you consider the cost of feeding and relocating hundreds of millions of people from places like Africa, Bangladesh, India, and elsewhere where climate change may require that Messrs. Singer and Avery and their corporate sponsors pony up trillions of dollars in aid, which, of course is not going to happen. Maybe they would like to have all those people from Bangladesh whose country will go under water transported to the sidewalks of their neighborhood.
The plain fact of the matter is, when all the talking is done, Singer and Avery are confident about one thing: global warming isn't their problem since (a) most of the suffering will take place in far off lands, and (b) they won't be here when it kicks in anyway, and if that isn't good enough, c) there's little to nothing they can or care do about it.
Their morality aside, I think it would be more responsible to get to work now on implementing ways to cut our atmospheric pollution to zero, since in the long run, that is our best insurance against dire consequences. Our children and grandchildren will not have to give up their standard of living. They can still drive powerful cars and waste energy in other ways; they will just have to pay more for it. That is the reality of what is to come. The danger of doing nothing now, which is what the Bush administration and the fossil fuel industry advocate, is that the day may come when we really can do nothing. If humanity in the aggregate assumes the irresponsible and blind behavior advocated by the authors, perhaps we will get what we deserve. Humans have despoiled the planet since they were human, and until recent times this was no problem because we could always move on to somewhere else and the planet would heal itself. That may no longer be possible.
Here are some other books on this subject that I have read. The first one is similar in tone and attitude to Unstoppable Global Warming. The other two present the position, more or less, of mainstream science, and I might add, responsible planetary citizenship.
Bailey, Ronald, ed. Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (2002)
Pearce, Fred With Speed and Violence: Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change (2007)
Romm, Joseph. Hell and High Water: The Solution and the Politics--and What We Should Do (2006)
--Dennis Littrell, author of “The World Is Not as We Think It Is”
March 2, 2020
Initial brief review:
I have a ton of background in this subject, having invested a few thousand hours.
I highly recommend this book.
* Clear communication.
* Fact based with references.
* Does not shy away from controversy.
* Identifies key areas where many have misled.
* Presents the best info on what actually drives climate.
I have a ton of background in this subject, having invested a few thousand hours.
I highly recommend this book.
* Clear communication.
* Fact based with references.
* Does not shy away from controversy.
* Identifies key areas where many have misled.
* Presents the best info on what actually drives climate.
October 6, 2011
Fascinating, but a hard red due to so many statistics. Makes a strong case that we do not know the impact of man on the weather and that most of what we see is an ongoing historical pattern. The key message seems to be, hom much pain should we suffer trying to change when we don't know our impact, or should the money be spent trying to cope with the inevitable instead.
September 22, 2019
This is a must read if you want to understand the climate and how it works. So much of what you think you know about the climate is wrong, exaggerated, and not scientifically accurate. The authors quote hundreds of studies and scientists that support their claim that global warming is not man made and occurs every 1500 years or so on its own. They provide lots of evidence and provide a good timeline of the climate going back 4.5 billion years ago.
Climate is linked to the sun. Warming is good for wildlife, agriculture, human health and disease, and provides better weather. No threat from CO2 or greenhouse gases, which is a lagging indicator of 400-800 years. There's fraud and deceit in selling man-made global warming. Scientists are looking for grant money, IPCC has lied and proffers false evidence to keep the hoax going. Global climate models can't be trusted. Computers are faulty. Satellites do better. Sea levels won't rise much, islands won't sink, species aren't becoming extinct. More people died from governments like Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and wartime Africa. Better off with improved farming technology, conservation tillage, modern transportation. It's better to import resources and commodities than going to war for them. Biofuels, corn ethanol, etc., are ineffective. The Kyoto Protocol won't work. Alternate energy is still too costly and unreliable.
The book is heavily fact driven and should be required reading for high schools and colleges. So much of what is being taught about the climate is false. The mainstream media lies and creates hysteria which is bad for everyone, but the folks hoping to make millions from the lies. The book is so informative and spot on. Thank you!
Climate is linked to the sun. Warming is good for wildlife, agriculture, human health and disease, and provides better weather. No threat from CO2 or greenhouse gases, which is a lagging indicator of 400-800 years. There's fraud and deceit in selling man-made global warming. Scientists are looking for grant money, IPCC has lied and proffers false evidence to keep the hoax going. Global climate models can't be trusted. Computers are faulty. Satellites do better. Sea levels won't rise much, islands won't sink, species aren't becoming extinct. More people died from governments like Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and wartime Africa. Better off with improved farming technology, conservation tillage, modern transportation. It's better to import resources and commodities than going to war for them. Biofuels, corn ethanol, etc., are ineffective. The Kyoto Protocol won't work. Alternate energy is still too costly and unreliable.
The book is heavily fact driven and should be required reading for high schools and colleges. So much of what is being taught about the climate is false. The mainstream media lies and creates hysteria which is bad for everyone, but the folks hoping to make millions from the lies. The book is so informative and spot on. Thank you!
September 17, 2023
Even though this book was published in 2007, the points it makes about the CO2 crisis are telling. The authors present the newly identified 1,500-year global warming natural cycle with evidence going back many cycles. The constant media drumbeat about the terrible loaming disasters is not based in science at all. The environmental community must have a pending disaster to secure funding for research into climate issues. The idea that the climate change we see now is man-made doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Extreme claims garner attention, build media ratings and generate donations and grants but are not based in science and do not have the support of many climate experts. Since the book was published the strident calls for action now have continued to increase. Political response to this "crisis" has led to poor decision-making that goes against experience and common sense. Topic by topic, the authors dismantle the case for the pending change environmental disaster. Thoughtfully presented with ample research and references, this is a must read. The book has received considerable criticism from those with the most to lose--the supporters of extreme actions to reduce CO2 emissions.
Read
May 23, 2024Presenting changes in solar radiation- a 1500-year cycle in particular- as the primary driver in climate change, concluding today's warming to be almost entirely due to natural (unstoppable) causes, Dr. Singer and Mr. Avery call attention to the many flaws and misrepresentations in the data supporting the carbon/global warming scenario, as well as the broad scope of political and economic motivations that underlie its acceptance within and across many national boundaries.
September 23, 2017
Interesting, going through this a second time
December 4, 2016
Controversial, but clear, and not dogmatic.
Singer and Avery, do not deny climate change, but argue that global warming is a trend in a 1,500 year cycle (as shown by ice-cores, stalagmite records and other proofs of landslide/ drought-wet period climactic changes in islands off Africa, in different studies). Thus they focus on more than the post industrial period.
They also present counter-arguments to the more dire consquences to climate change that are often presented.
1) Sea level rise threatens coastal regions. (Sea levels have always risen, often by 7 inches per century)
2)More than a million species will go extinct in the next century. (Alarmist, they claim and present counter examples about survival through similar fluctuations).
3)Hunger and Famine. They argue more cold temperate lands will become warmer and more agriculturally productice (this prediction actually is the least controversial. European agriculture has benefited)
4)There will be more storms and worse storms. The statistics of tail events is always a contentious topic. They say (in 2007) that this is not the case.
5)Global Warming will trigger abrupt global cooling. No, they say, this time around there isnt enough ice
6)Human death toll will rise because of heat, disease and insects. I am not sure if this is a straw man. They correctly argue that it is mosquito screens, insecticides that wiped out disease from mosquitoes. They also argue that cold weather causes more diseases than warm weather.
7) Coral reefs and Oyster beds have disappeared from the Eastern seaboard of the US. Coral reefs will die out with global warming. Not so, say the authors. They explain the dymanics and the science of coral reefs which have lived through millions of years of cyclical climate.
They further go on to talk about the Kyoto treaty, a particularly egregious case of published science, and about alternatives to coal.
The takeaway from the book is not to believe that this conservative argument against man-made climate change is entirely correct, but to give it some attention so that we can look at the available evidence, the nature of the models, the extrapolation (hockey stick temperature science).
Just the other day I saw a Nature publication showing a few sigma trend upward from the mean in post industrial temperatures at a P value of 0.1, for North arctic, and the oceans and the continents. To explain the deviation in terms of climate models however is a more difficult task.
Even as EPA and governments and international agencies ameliorate emissions and seek green and sustainable energy and also prevent destabilizing climate or weather to the extent we can, we need to better understand the risks.
The authors are a) a professor at George Mason University and b) a fellow of the Hudson Institute
Singer and Avery, do not deny climate change, but argue that global warming is a trend in a 1,500 year cycle (as shown by ice-cores, stalagmite records and other proofs of landslide/ drought-wet period climactic changes in islands off Africa, in different studies). Thus they focus on more than the post industrial period.
They also present counter-arguments to the more dire consquences to climate change that are often presented.
1) Sea level rise threatens coastal regions. (Sea levels have always risen, often by 7 inches per century)
2)More than a million species will go extinct in the next century. (Alarmist, they claim and present counter examples about survival through similar fluctuations).
3)Hunger and Famine. They argue more cold temperate lands will become warmer and more agriculturally productice (this prediction actually is the least controversial. European agriculture has benefited)
4)There will be more storms and worse storms. The statistics of tail events is always a contentious topic. They say (in 2007) that this is not the case.
5)Global Warming will trigger abrupt global cooling. No, they say, this time around there isnt enough ice
6)Human death toll will rise because of heat, disease and insects. I am not sure if this is a straw man. They correctly argue that it is mosquito screens, insecticides that wiped out disease from mosquitoes. They also argue that cold weather causes more diseases than warm weather.
7) Coral reefs and Oyster beds have disappeared from the Eastern seaboard of the US. Coral reefs will die out with global warming. Not so, say the authors. They explain the dymanics and the science of coral reefs which have lived through millions of years of cyclical climate.
They further go on to talk about the Kyoto treaty, a particularly egregious case of published science, and about alternatives to coal.
The takeaway from the book is not to believe that this conservative argument against man-made climate change is entirely correct, but to give it some attention so that we can look at the available evidence, the nature of the models, the extrapolation (hockey stick temperature science).
Just the other day I saw a Nature publication showing a few sigma trend upward from the mean in post industrial temperatures at a P value of 0.1, for North arctic, and the oceans and the continents. To explain the deviation in terms of climate models however is a more difficult task.
Even as EPA and governments and international agencies ameliorate emissions and seek green and sustainable energy and also prevent destabilizing climate or weather to the extent we can, we need to better understand the risks.
The authors are a) a professor at George Mason University and b) a fellow of the Hudson Institute
September 2, 2020
If you wonder if the current global warming is a natural event or the result of carbon released by man, this is an excellent book. It explains how global warming and cooling has been going on for millenniums. The first four chapters can be a bit dry as it goes over the details of how their research was conducted around the world examining tree rings, doing polar borings into ice cores, solar ray evaluations glaciers and other research methods. It is interesting that they did this research all over the world to determine what the weather was like from 1000's of years before Christ, through the 20th century. That was then applied to determine the danger of carbon and also the impact of reducing carbon on the environment as it is critical to the growth of plants. And how that reduction could impact crops needed for food, but also for maintaining and growing forests. From Chapter 5 to the end it becomes a much quicker read as they apply the technical scientific information they have gathered to the current views on carbon. I recommend this for anyone that wonders if cutting carbon is really necessary and if man can really control the forces of nature. Excellent book, that should be core reading for high school students.
January 5, 2010
OK I thought, interesting theory and it seems to make sense. Lots of citations to back up the claims. By the concluding chapter however the author(s)had drifted off into making ridiculous claims that completely undermine the rest of the book.
For example they claim that the rolling blackouts in California in 2001 were caused by cutbacks in building new capacity that were mandated as a result of environmental opposition. So apparently those poor folks at Enron took the fall for nefarious environmentalists. Next they state that the genocide in Rwanda was fueled by tribal competition for resources. Finally the authors say that the true agenda of the Green movement is "about shutting down the world's leading economies and imposing on the world's populations-both rich and poor-a lifestyle they would not freely accept".
Oops, can you say loonie?
For example they claim that the rolling blackouts in California in 2001 were caused by cutbacks in building new capacity that were mandated as a result of environmental opposition. So apparently those poor folks at Enron took the fall for nefarious environmentalists. Next they state that the genocide in Rwanda was fueled by tribal competition for resources. Finally the authors say that the true agenda of the Green movement is "about shutting down the world's leading economies and imposing on the world's populations-both rich and poor-a lifestyle they would not freely accept".
Oops, can you say loonie?
December 20, 2007
I picked this book up after hearing a review on a local radio station. It is very interesting so far. It's whole goal is to show that there is a ~1500 year cycle of global warming and cooling. It goes against the current fear tactics of the "global warming" group. My personal belief is that God is ultimately in control of this earth and that we are to take care of this earth to the best of our abilities. However, even if we all "go green", there would still be a global warming trend ultimately out of our control.
February 20, 2008
I have read this one a few times now....it is not a lightweight read, and is filled with pretty serious scientific arguments....and if you are a member of the "Church of AGW"...beware! Singer takes on the theory and will shake the faith of any hardcore believer in "Man-made" global warming.
You have been warned.
You have been warned.
April 9, 2008
A great compendium of the numerous scientific studies by numerous researchers from numerous countries which demonstrate that global warming, and cooling for that matter, have nothing to do with human activity.
It's especially interesting to read about the effects of the Little Ice Age on human history.
It's especially interesting to read about the effects of the Little Ice Age on human history.
August 11, 2009
Confirmed my suspicions of how morally bankrupt the Global Warming movement is. Also how politically motivated they are. Be sensible and always ask how much something will cost. And if the people who advocate these steps are willing to live with out modern conveniences now. If they are not willing, why should I pay attention to their ranting!
March 21, 2008
I liked this book. It presents a different view of the global warming issue, i.e., that it isn't a result of the activities of mankind. In other words, it is a natural cyclical phenomenon. The book is based upon a lot of science and research that i find compelling.
June 28, 2008
Very helpful in my global warming studies. I appreciated the references and the more balanced approach. Also, one of the authors was the adviser of a fellow Probe-ite when he was at George Mason, so it comes with a recommendation.
June 16, 2011
A great eye-opener on global warming. Claims there is a cyclic pattern to climate rather than continuous warming and cites various sources in evidence. Worth a read nomatter which side of the great divide you are.
November 28, 2007
Read my review on my Book Blog!
February 27, 2008
The truth about global warming.
June 12, 2008
Buku tentang global warming yang isinya bisa bikin ngeri...dilengkapi juga dengan data2 fisika...jadi gak sembarangan...
September 27, 2008
Whatever you believe about Global Warming, this is a great scientific look at the facts written by "skeptics". Please don't just go along with the Al Gore band-wagon, read this too!
January 3, 2009
not finished yet.
January 4, 2009
Excellent refutation of manmade global warming theory
February 25, 2009
Another must read for anyone that wants a better picture of the global warming myth.
January 2, 2019
Discusses the multiple naturally occurring cycles in climate and the evidence which has convinced these authors that climate change is naturally driven, not anthropogenic.
July 9, 2010
A nice, important book with lots of data suggesting that global warming is a cyclical phenomenon. Worth reading if only to get the other side of things that is too often missed entirely.
July 8, 2011
A scientific book about global warming; complete with notes, glossary of terms, and the credentials and backgrounds of the authors.
April 17, 2013
Singer discusses sun cycles and the overwhelming effect they have on our climate. Presents data that makes it hard to believe that recent industrialization is to blame for shifts in climate.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews