Geen Kindle-apparaat vereist. Download een van de gratis Kindle-apps om Kindle-boeken te lezen op je smartphone, tablet en computer.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

Als je de gratis app wilt ontvangen, moet je je mobiele telefoonnummer invoeren.

Kindle-prijs: EUR 8,95
inclusief btw

Deze aanbiedingen worden op dit artikel toegepast:

Sommige promoties kunnen worden gecombineerd; anderen komen niet in aanmerking om te worden gecombineerd met andere aanbiedingen. Voor meer informatie, zie de voorwaarden die zijn gekoppeld aan deze promoties.

Leveren op je Kindle of een ander apparaat

Leveren op je Kindle of een ander apparaat

Climate Change: The Facts (English Edition) van [Abbot, Dr John, James Delingpole, Dr Robert M. Carter ~ Rupert Darwall ~, Donna Laframboise, Dr Christopher Essex ~ Dr Stewart W. Franks ~ Dr Kesten C. Green ~, Dr Richard S. Lindzen, Nigel Lawson ~ Bernard Lewin ~, Dr Patrick J. Michaels ~ Dr Alan Moran, Dr Jennifer Marohasy ~ Dr Ross McKitrick ~, Nova, Jo, Dr Willie Soon, Dr Garth W. Paltridge ~ Dr Ian Plimer ~, Steyn, Mark, Watts, Anthony, Andrew Bolt, Dr J. Scott Armstrong]
Kindle-app advertentie

Climate Change: The Facts (English Edition) Kindle-editie

Alle indelingen en edities bekijken Andere indelingen en edities verbergen
Nieuw vanaf Tweedehands vanaf
Kindle, 11 jan 2015
"Probeer het later opnieuw"
EUR 8,95

Lengte: 336 pagina's Verbeterd lettertype: Ingeschakeld Bladeren: Ingeschakeld
Taal: Engels

Geef ons feedback
Klik hier om een korte enquête in te vullen. Jouw mening is heel belangrijk voor ons. Feedback geven.



Stockade Books and The Institute of Public Affairs are proud to publish Climate Change: The Facts, featuring 22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. Climate Change: The Facts features the world’s leading experts and commentators on climate change. Highlights of Climate Change: The Facts include:

Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.

Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called ‘sceptics’. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.

Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing ‘Ship of Fools’ expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don’t know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.


  • Editie: Kindle-editie
  • Bestandsgrootte: 3119 KB
  • Printlengte: 336 pagina's
  • Uitgever: Stockade Books (11 januari 2015)
  • Verkocht door: Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Taal: Engels
  • ASIN: B00S5L5Y0W
  • Tekst-naar-spraak: Ingeschakeld
  • X-Ray:
  • Schermlezer: Ondersteund
  • Verbeterd lettertype: Ingeschakeld
  • Gemiddelde klantenbeoordeling: Schrijf als eerste een recensie over dit item
  • Plaats op Amazon-bestsellerlijst: #26.626 Betaald in Kindle Store (Top 100 betaald in Kindle Store bekijken)
click to open popover


Er staan nog geen klantenrecensies op de Nederlandse site.
5 sterren
4 sterren
3 sterren
2 sterren
1 ster

Meest waardevolle klantenrecensies op (bèta) (er kunnen recensies van Early Reviewer Rewards-programma bij zitten) 4.5 van 5 sterren 527 recensies
33 van 36 mensen vonden de volgende recensie nuttig
5.0 van 5 sterren Excellent Book 15 februari 2017
door J. D. W, - Gepubliceerd op
Geverifieerde aankoop
This book puts the whole climate change controversy into perspective. If you are an adherent of the religion of man-made climate change, this book will probably not be convincing. You may even view it as heresy. But if you are open to honest scientific principles, it will confirm what you already know. Man does not have enough information to justify the current climate change hysteria. Man does not currently have the knowledge or comprehension to accurately interpret what little information they have. Noone in the movement has make an even marginally accurate predictive model. Stated another way, all the models are wrong. The arguments for man made climate change are weak enough to give anyone with a brain pause. This book is a reminder that there is no such thing as “settled” science. The word “settled” is antithetical to the scientific ethos. In science, real science, noting is ever settled. This book does not deny anything, but it does an excellent job of pointing out the flaws and weaknesses of the global change hysteria.
419 van 459 mensen vonden de volgende recensie nuttig
5.0 van 5 sterren Easy to read book with the citations and details demanded by the scientifically literate. 17 april 2015
door jaymez - Gepubliceerd op
As I read this book I highlighted points I wanted to specifically check, researched them and did not find any significant errors. I am a stickler for accuracy and know the subject area quite well. I would like to congratulate Alan Moran on putting together a wonderful book. All our politicians should read this. I have had a deep interest in the area ever since I saw Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Before then I was a believer, concerned about Global Warming and went along to the Perth première of Al Gore's movie. But that is when I really started to question the whole thing. As an economist specialising in econometrics, I saw that Gore committed every statistical sin in the book including the way he used graphs and the scales and periods chosen. What threw me most was the absence of the MWP on the Hockey Stick - which was his big sales pitch. So I went away and did some reading and had even more questions.

Since then I have kept closely informed on the subject. It is with this hyper-critical background I thought I would mention a couple of points in the book which I think are in error.

1. This first is minor, but has a big impact from a visual perspective. In Anthony Watts' section, Chapter 20 page 265 Figure 1. The first two dates on the bottom axis read 1987 and 1996 instead of I assume 1887 and 1896. If someone is just skimming the book they will see that graph and think it is over such a relatively short period from 1986 it is not that relevant. But it has a huge impact when they can see it is 130 years! It would be nice to fix that.

2. Re Ian Plimer - I am troubled by a couple of sections in his Chapter 1 which may need correction.

Under point ii) page 12 Plimer writes:

Only 1 molecule of every 85,000 in the atmosphere is CO2 of human origin,..... He goes on, We are asked to believe that the 32 molecules of CO2 of natural origin in every 85,000 molecules play no part in driving climate change.

Now this is a pretty convincing statement only if people believe it and I don't believe the average person would be able to work out where it came from and he provides no citation for it.

Even with my above average knowledge I can't work it out entirely.

E.G. He is saying that 33 out of every 85,000 atmospheric molecules are CO2. That represents 0.0388% or 388 parts per million of CO2. So I can understand that bit, though it isn't quite up to date with 399.83 pmm from last week here:

But where does he get that only 1 out of 33 molecules of CO2 are of human origin?

I have indeed read that only 3% of all annual CO2 emissions into the atmosphere are of human origin. And 3% of 33 molecules is 1 molecule. But the argument is that it is the 3% of annual emissions which the natural carbon cycle can't deal with and therefore accumulates in the atmosphere. So that total atmospheric CO2 has gone from 280ppm at pre-industrial levels to 400ppm now. with the additional 120ppm being attributable to humans.

I know it doesn't work like that. For starters the greater the CO2 the greater the fertilisation and greening of the planet. The warmer the atmosphere (naturally or otherwise) should lead to a de-gassing of the oceans. So there are lots of natural feedbacks which would change the amount of CO2 emitted and sunk. I just think that Plimer has left it too simplistic and therefore too open to criticism. It looks like he has made the same mistake that Anthony Watts, Hocket Schtick and others made, misinterpreting a paper indicating approx 3% of annual flux is human caused, to mean total background CO2. See:

If Plimer has something to clarify this, it should be included.

2. On that same page 12 (he repeats this again on page 13 talking about tipping points) Plimer claims: "....CO2 was far higher than at present and, with the first two great ice ages, up to a thousand times higher than the current atmospheric CO2 content." Again there is no citation.

To be honest I assumed this was a typo when I first read it and thought perhaps he meant to write that it had been over 1,000 ppm in the past, A thousand times more is about 400,000 ppm, or 40% of the atmosphere.

Sure we can argue that at a time in the earth's past about 4.3bn years ago the atmospheric CO2 content might have been as high as 85%,, I can even find references that during the Phanerozoic period where CO2 averaged 100,000ppm - 150,000ppm and reached maxima even greater than that, it was close to it's optimum to start photosynthesis. But it is hard for Plimer to argue that at any time when the Earth was habitable, was the atmospheric content a thousand times higher than it is today. So I really think this would benefit from clarification/correction.

The whole thing would make a lot more sense if Plimer had meant to write 1,000 ppm, not a thousand times more!

I just think it is a pity that these queries occur in the first chapter of a very good book which I have read in detail and apart from the other typo mentioned have difficulty faulting. Of course these issues pale into insignificance compared to the wild claims and disproven projections of the climate alarmist camp.

Overall the book is an excellent, educational and worthwhile read of the highest order. It benefits greatly from having a combination of highly qualified scientists to knowledgeable popular writers on the subject. It is an east scientific text to read, but with hundreds of references and citations it provides the proofs and detail which us geeks demand from such a book.
45 van 50 mensen vonden de volgende recensie nuttig
4.0 van 5 sterren A good start for those genuinely interested in climate science 19 maart 2016
door Dr. Lee D. Carlson - Gepubliceerd op
Geverifieerde aankoop
For those interested in an alternative view on climate change and its asserted man-made causes this book will be a good start, even though at times it engages in the same kind of vituperation that is characteristic of those individuals who support the doctrine of climate change, and rally behind it with unequaled enthusiasm. Indeed, the exchange of harsh words on both sides of the “aisle” of climate change reminds one of the shouting matches that took place in the “debate” on AC and DC power that took place early in the twentieth century. The dialog in the AC/DC power “debate” was unpalatable from both a social and scientific point of view, and served no useful purpose in arriving at an eventual decision. It seems at times that the “debate” over climate change is competing for the chance to be one that is marked with an overabundance of ridicule and rage.

There are a lot of gems in this book from the standpoint of the reviewer who is just beginning to examine the scientific evidence both for and against man-made (anthropogenic) climate change. Each one of these however needs to be critically examined along with the supporting references that are quoted in the book. As such one should not expect a book of this length to contain the evidence that supports the claims that are made between its covers. Readers therefore who want to understand the arguments against (and for) anthropogenic climate change, and like the reviewer have a strong scientific background in areas not dealing with, both serving as a foundation for climate science, can expect to spend a considerable amount of time in obtaining this understanding.

There are no short-cuts in scientific understanding, and unfortunately there are those on both sides of the “debate” that do not even have even a rudimentary understanding of the fundamentals of physics or data analysis. How to deal with uncertainties in measurement data and how to deal with errors in simulation models are just two examples, and both of these are actively discussed in the book. An understanding of these fundamentals is absolutely crucial if one is to make claims on the role of humans in climate change or global warming.

It is fair to say that climate change is now political doctrine, and like most doctrines permits no deviation from its policies and edicts. It eschews (and fears) critical thinking, and puts emphasis on marketing and propaganda, rather than on experimentation and facts derived from careful analysis. For those with a sincere desire for the raw, naked truth behind climate change, and climate science in general, this book will hopefully be one of many others that will assist in fostering a healthy skepticism about the subject.
5 van 5 mensen vonden de volgende recensie nuttig
4.0 van 5 sterren Justified skepticism 29 januari 2017
door John Long - Gepubliceerd op
Geverifieerde aankoop
This is a good broad brush of what has happened in this arena. Obviously, this is from a skeptic's point of view, but it shows why there is plenty of room for doubt. It is dense in some places, but it is necessary if you want to truly understand this topic. Worth your time investment.
8 van 9 mensen vonden de volgende recensie nuttig
door James R - Gepubliceerd op
Geverifieerde aankoop
It is difficult to find any discussion of the triviality of mankind's effect on climate but this book is outstanding in telling the truth about climate change and how little effect man's activities have on climate. The large number of authors each write about the subject of his expertise in the field of climate change. In addition to discussions of the technical aspects of climate change there are discussions of the reasons for the "global warming hoax" and the economic costs of the proposed futile efforts to change the climate.