What do you think?
Rate this book
The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming
Climatologist extraordinaire Patrick J. Michaels says it is.
- GenresScience
224 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 2000
34 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 of 1 review
March 28, 2024
AN EXPANSION OF THEIR EARLIER BOOKS CRITIQUING ‘GLOBAL WARMING’ IDEAS
Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Robert C. Balling, Jr. is a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
The Preface to this 2000 book explains, “In 1991 Patrick Michaels wrote ‘Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming,’ and Robert Balling wrote ‘The Heated Debate’---both in response to the developing distortion of scientific reality by the political processes and the media that cover it… Because global warming and the Kyoto Protocol are likely to be important subjects in the 2000 election, now is an appropriate juncture at which to investigate the scientific developments that have emerged in the eight years between manuscripts.”
The authors explain in the Overview, “These 10 chapters form a large and internally consistent body of evidence against the prevailing view of climate gloom and doom. Each of us has summarized them into portable lectures that are as amusing to the local Rotary Club as they are to the American Meteorological Society---yet strangely disheartening to those who would have us believe that climate change portends the end of the world as we know it… it is correct to surmise that a larger number of people have a different and, we think, not so consistent point of view.” (Pg. 4)
They observe, “The environmental community is fond of labeling us and our friends as a ‘small band of scientific skeptics’ (usually numbering around 10). But the scientific ‘mainstream’---the 70 or so other bona fide climatologists in the IPCC—is at best an only slightly larger ‘band.’ A more accurate description of us would be that we are ‘mainstream skeptics’…” (Pg. 17)
They acknowledge, “One thing concerning global warming about which there is no debate is the notion that human activity has augmented the earth’s natural greenhouse effect. The magnitude of this change, coupled with a deficit of predicted warming, is what fuels the core of the argument that global warming is an overblown issue.” (Pg. 30)
They note, “About 15 percent of the current greenhouse enhancement results from chlorofluorocarbons, refrigerants whose man manufacture is being phased out as a result of their role in depleting stratospheric ozone … It is a pretty sure thing that CFCs are involved in removal of some stratospheric ozone, but the scientific community’s fear-mongering about ozone depletion and increased cancer-causing radiation led to a major embarrassment…” (Pg. 33)
They ask, “What… are GCMs [General Circulation Models] good for? In their original conception, they were designed to explore the complicated atmospheric dynamics that determine our ever-changing climate. They were not intended, in their initial incarnations, to serve as vehicles to chart global environmental and economic policy. Instead, they are ‘what if?’ research and teaching tools, and as such they have been informative.” (Pg. 61)
They did an analysis of a study, and “We were surprised when Nature published our result, given its editorial stance on global warming. But we learned a bit about the political leanings of those who run that prestigious journal. Nature … will not publish anything that has appeared previously… Our analysis showing the ‘rest of the story’ was completed on July 5… one day after the Santer story appeared… We were in a hurry because the Geneva Conference began on July 8. Michaels took a brief one-page write-up including the chart to Geneva and placed it on the literature table in the back of the conference. It was this document that got Under Secretary of State Timothy Wirth so mad when he spoke to the conference…” (Pg. 97-98)
They explain, “That the warming of the last third of the 20th century looks an awful lot like a straight line, coupled with the models’ finding that, once warming starts, it maintains a constant slope, give us the forecast for the 21st century. If we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the exponentially increasing rates that characterize the last third of the 20th century, we will warm up 10 times the recent Decadal warmings…” (Pg. 107)
They state, “As with so many other areas in the global warming debate, there is considerable evidence arguing against the prediction of increased drought in the central United States. Here we find a classic problem: voluminous literature predicting an increase in drought conditions as the greenhouse gas concentration increases; and yet, during the past century… a trend away from drought and toward more moist conditions in the North American interior.” (Pg. 124) Later, they add, “The drought story ends on a very positive note, at least for those of us not involved in scaring people with greenhouse predictions. The long-term trends in soil moisture conditions appear to be toward increased moisture and less drought. The models of gloom and doom, and their proponents, were wrong.” (Pg. 133)
They contend, “Global warming fear-mongers love hurricanes because they provide free advertising. If they can somehow ensconce in the public consciousness the belief that global warming will make hurricanes worse, or more frequent, or both, they have won a powerfully emotional point.” (Pg. 140)’
They assert, “With the exception of the UKMO [United Kingdom Meteorological] model, which runs counter to other forecasts, both projections and reality indicate that the number and intensity of storms decrease as the greenhouse effect is enhanced. This is little basis… for seeing a rise in the frequency or intensity of midlatitude storms as symptomatic of a global warming response. Global warming may very well produce the exact opposite.” (Pg. 150) Later, they add, “changing the greenhouse effect should produce a weakened jet stream that supports fewer cyclones and should warm the coldest air masses… The greenhouse effect should be decreasing midlatitude snowstorms, something that simply has not been observed in any systematic fashion.” (Pg. 155)
They report, “all indications are that few humans will be directly impacted by rising sea levels---whatever their cause. A possible exception? Residents of low-lying island nations. But they are already dealing with sea-level rise… to better protect their most important shorelines from the effect of storms and waves, regardless of global warming…” (Pg. 163)
They argue, “The very technology that enhances the greenhouse effect---the production of electricity---is what saves out lives in the heat of summer…Of course, we can avoid the risk of power failure by installing new generation capacity. Yet every time a new power plant is proposed, someone squawks ‘global warming.’ When lack of power causes an outage, that well-intended protest becomes a lethal weapon.” (Pg. 175-176)
They note, “rising atmospheric CO2 levels are a net benefit to agriculture… Yields continue to increase, primarily as a result of technology, but undoubtedly elevated atmospheric CO2 levels have helped as well.” (Pg. 185)
They state, “Taxpayers have doled out around $8 billion in global climate change research money in the last four years… These billions of dollars buy a tremendous amount of research because … academic labor is in large supply and the wages are low… This army of thousands… desperately wants academic positions that can lead to tenure… The chance that a finishing graduate student in climatology owes… his newfound job, to federal global climate change funding is very high… During this process, the up-and-comer must pay obeisance to older, more established figures in his field … manuscripts contending that global warming may not be all it is feared to be … are more difficult to publish… in the short run, money buys paradigms, and paradigms drive policy.” (Pg. 195-197)
They conclude, “Despite the claims that there are but a few ‘skeptics’ promoting the views expressed in [this book], there is a slew of studies that made it into the refereed literature despite their defiance of the gloom-and-doom paradigm… Society cannot afford to wait for the prevailing paradigm to change if it is to avoid making tragic policy blunders such as the Kyoto Protocol… Replacing federal dominance to broaden the bias base sounds simple and logical…” (Pg. 211-213)
This book will appeal to those looking for critiques of global warming and environmentalist positions.
Patrick J. Michaels is a senior fellow in the Center for Energy and Environment at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Robert C. Balling, Jr. is a professor of geography at Arizona State University.
The Preface to this 2000 book explains, “In 1991 Patrick Michaels wrote ‘Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming,’ and Robert Balling wrote ‘The Heated Debate’---both in response to the developing distortion of scientific reality by the political processes and the media that cover it… Because global warming and the Kyoto Protocol are likely to be important subjects in the 2000 election, now is an appropriate juncture at which to investigate the scientific developments that have emerged in the eight years between manuscripts.”
The authors explain in the Overview, “These 10 chapters form a large and internally consistent body of evidence against the prevailing view of climate gloom and doom. Each of us has summarized them into portable lectures that are as amusing to the local Rotary Club as they are to the American Meteorological Society---yet strangely disheartening to those who would have us believe that climate change portends the end of the world as we know it… it is correct to surmise that a larger number of people have a different and, we think, not so consistent point of view.” (Pg. 4)
They observe, “The environmental community is fond of labeling us and our friends as a ‘small band of scientific skeptics’ (usually numbering around 10). But the scientific ‘mainstream’---the 70 or so other bona fide climatologists in the IPCC—is at best an only slightly larger ‘band.’ A more accurate description of us would be that we are ‘mainstream skeptics’…” (Pg. 17)
They acknowledge, “One thing concerning global warming about which there is no debate is the notion that human activity has augmented the earth’s natural greenhouse effect. The magnitude of this change, coupled with a deficit of predicted warming, is what fuels the core of the argument that global warming is an overblown issue.” (Pg. 30)
They note, “About 15 percent of the current greenhouse enhancement results from chlorofluorocarbons, refrigerants whose man manufacture is being phased out as a result of their role in depleting stratospheric ozone … It is a pretty sure thing that CFCs are involved in removal of some stratospheric ozone, but the scientific community’s fear-mongering about ozone depletion and increased cancer-causing radiation led to a major embarrassment…” (Pg. 33)
They ask, “What… are GCMs [General Circulation Models] good for? In their original conception, they were designed to explore the complicated atmospheric dynamics that determine our ever-changing climate. They were not intended, in their initial incarnations, to serve as vehicles to chart global environmental and economic policy. Instead, they are ‘what if?’ research and teaching tools, and as such they have been informative.” (Pg. 61)
They did an analysis of a study, and “We were surprised when Nature published our result, given its editorial stance on global warming. But we learned a bit about the political leanings of those who run that prestigious journal. Nature … will not publish anything that has appeared previously… Our analysis showing the ‘rest of the story’ was completed on July 5… one day after the Santer story appeared… We were in a hurry because the Geneva Conference began on July 8. Michaels took a brief one-page write-up including the chart to Geneva and placed it on the literature table in the back of the conference. It was this document that got Under Secretary of State Timothy Wirth so mad when he spoke to the conference…” (Pg. 97-98)
They explain, “That the warming of the last third of the 20th century looks an awful lot like a straight line, coupled with the models’ finding that, once warming starts, it maintains a constant slope, give us the forecast for the 21st century. If we continue to emit greenhouse gases at the exponentially increasing rates that characterize the last third of the 20th century, we will warm up 10 times the recent Decadal warmings…” (Pg. 107)
They state, “As with so many other areas in the global warming debate, there is considerable evidence arguing against the prediction of increased drought in the central United States. Here we find a classic problem: voluminous literature predicting an increase in drought conditions as the greenhouse gas concentration increases; and yet, during the past century… a trend away from drought and toward more moist conditions in the North American interior.” (Pg. 124) Later, they add, “The drought story ends on a very positive note, at least for those of us not involved in scaring people with greenhouse predictions. The long-term trends in soil moisture conditions appear to be toward increased moisture and less drought. The models of gloom and doom, and their proponents, were wrong.” (Pg. 133)
They contend, “Global warming fear-mongers love hurricanes because they provide free advertising. If they can somehow ensconce in the public consciousness the belief that global warming will make hurricanes worse, or more frequent, or both, they have won a powerfully emotional point.” (Pg. 140)’
They assert, “With the exception of the UKMO [United Kingdom Meteorological] model, which runs counter to other forecasts, both projections and reality indicate that the number and intensity of storms decrease as the greenhouse effect is enhanced. This is little basis… for seeing a rise in the frequency or intensity of midlatitude storms as symptomatic of a global warming response. Global warming may very well produce the exact opposite.” (Pg. 150) Later, they add, “changing the greenhouse effect should produce a weakened jet stream that supports fewer cyclones and should warm the coldest air masses… The greenhouse effect should be decreasing midlatitude snowstorms, something that simply has not been observed in any systematic fashion.” (Pg. 155)
They report, “all indications are that few humans will be directly impacted by rising sea levels---whatever their cause. A possible exception? Residents of low-lying island nations. But they are already dealing with sea-level rise… to better protect their most important shorelines from the effect of storms and waves, regardless of global warming…” (Pg. 163)
They argue, “The very technology that enhances the greenhouse effect---the production of electricity---is what saves out lives in the heat of summer…Of course, we can avoid the risk of power failure by installing new generation capacity. Yet every time a new power plant is proposed, someone squawks ‘global warming.’ When lack of power causes an outage, that well-intended protest becomes a lethal weapon.” (Pg. 175-176)
They note, “rising atmospheric CO2 levels are a net benefit to agriculture… Yields continue to increase, primarily as a result of technology, but undoubtedly elevated atmospheric CO2 levels have helped as well.” (Pg. 185)
They state, “Taxpayers have doled out around $8 billion in global climate change research money in the last four years… These billions of dollars buy a tremendous amount of research because … academic labor is in large supply and the wages are low… This army of thousands… desperately wants academic positions that can lead to tenure… The chance that a finishing graduate student in climatology owes… his newfound job, to federal global climate change funding is very high… During this process, the up-and-comer must pay obeisance to older, more established figures in his field … manuscripts contending that global warming may not be all it is feared to be … are more difficult to publish… in the short run, money buys paradigms, and paradigms drive policy.” (Pg. 195-197)
They conclude, “Despite the claims that there are but a few ‘skeptics’ promoting the views expressed in [this book], there is a slew of studies that made it into the refereed literature despite their defiance of the gloom-and-doom paradigm… Society cannot afford to wait for the prevailing paradigm to change if it is to avoid making tragic policy blunders such as the Kyoto Protocol… Replacing federal dominance to broaden the bias base sounds simple and logical…” (Pg. 211-213)
This book will appeal to those looking for critiques of global warming and environmentalist positions.
Displaying 1 of 1 review