Little balanced

It's shocking to see how little balanced and professional, this book. The target group is obviously readers who do not understand what in the matter and therefore can be easily taken by surprise. It starts in the introduction to Part 1. The authors claim can not think of that there is an almost unanimous consensus in the field of climate science. This is of course pure nonsense, and at this point you would have the book then can put away in principle as a bad buy easy again. I then still something leafed through - and it is unfortunately perk so on. The authors appear to be staunch supporters of the now disproved hockey stick curve. They claim the world's climate would have remained fairly stable over the past 10,000 years. Again, this is of course nonsense. The authors themselves perform a page later, the terms "Medieval warm period" and "Little Ice Age" a. They cite tree rings as important climate proxies, which, however, hardly anyone dares currently really on the way (see, for example Climategate).

Imploringly write a on page 13 Walker & Sir King to the reader that there would be no room in the question whether the current temperature rise (which no longer exists the way for 10 years, since the temperatures have reached a plateau) alone due to the people would be. This does not correspond to the facts.

On page 22 next then CO2 nor methane and CFCs are marketed as greenhouse gases into play. Unfortunately, the authors fail to mention that the concentrations of these two substances is no longer just increase also for 10 years. In addition, they lead the reader astray when they lead the CO2 increase in the Pleistocene interglacials as the cause of the temperature rise during these phases. Here they confuse cause and effect. Rather, the CO2 is at these times outgassed from the world's oceans, as warmer water can hold less CO2. Here would like also the unresolved problem of CO2 climate sensitivity can be mentioned. Unfortunately, science still knows not how many degrees warming a doubling of CO2 really brings, as the major water vapor feedback process is still almost misunderstood.

In Chapter 2 the sun is thankfully brought into play and also described the promising Svensmark-reinforcing process. Unfortunately, this possibility is rejected on flimsy grounds quickly because they do not fit into the concept. But neither the solar activity has declined dramatically since 1970 (but remained in the past 30 years on a high plateau stable), nor is the correlation collapsed between cosmic rays and temperature evolution (if one deducts El Nino and volcanic events times), as the authors wrongly claim. Even the alleged CO2 fingerprint of a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere is a by no means as clear as alleged. If the Svensmark mechanism of deep tropospheric clouds control over the solar activity is correct, this process would produce the same atmospheric "fingerprint".

Then cite climate models as "final proof" for CO2 Previously shaft, is already really weird, especially standing on the same side, that these models are anything but perfect and ultimately back almost anything and can wegmodellieren what is needed. Also the increase in atmospheric water vapor content (p 36) is initially not prove the validity of the CO2 concept. Of course, CO2-independent temperature increases (eg solar caused) effect this.

At this point, you can put the book really confidently aside, because everything else is based in principle on this shaky foundation on.