Climate Change Reality Check: Basic Facts that Quickly Prove the Climate Change Crusade is Wrong and Dangerous
a book by Calvin Fray
(our site's book review)
Calvin Fray honestly attempts to set all the scientists straight about science—but inevitably falls on his face
Start of the Amazon blurb HERE.The Amazon blurb says that In all of the debate and discussion about climate change, why hasn’t anyone explained the science in plain and simple terms clear enough to understand--once and for all?
“Great [analysis]. Just the right amount of science. Common sense and rational.” -- Wayne R.
The greenhouse effect is always quoted—but that is a METAPHOR. What is the fundamental physical process that drives it? And how exactly does human activity play such a powerful role with it? How did we go from worrying about global warming to climate change…to carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions?
“Wonderful book! Best I’ve ever read on any debate. Real science that can be replicated = reality.” – Scott D.
Fray is wrong: The greenhouse effect will eventually do us in if we don't wise up
Are there gases more powerful and influential in the greenhouse effect than CO2? Yes, by a lot! As you will learn in this book… Why aren’t we spending more time, money, and attention focusing on those? Smart people want to get to the point of a problem and solve it as quickly, inexpensively, and effortlessly as possible. They know about the Pareto Principle, and you will too after you read this book. It is also called the 80/20 rule. What happens when we apply that principle to the global climate change “consensus”?
“Thank You! I always thought the numbers were small, but I never took the time to do the math.” -- Mike S.
Fray is wrong: The dystopian scenario we all fear is a given if put our heads in the sand and hope for the best
Fray is wrong: Climate change will not go away if we put our heads in the sand
There are many books that are long, technical, and—frankly, irrelevant—on the topic of climate change. Here are the most important questions that nobody has bothered to answer in straightforward, simple and short language, until now:
- What are basic facts about our planet’s atmosphere? And what do they tell us about the fundamental physics of climate change?
- What are the basic physics and assumptions behind the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis or belief? Are they valid?
- What element or compound is the single greatest factor in temperature control in our atmosphere? Hint—it isn’t carbon dioxide. How does carbon dioxide compare with this other chemical?
“Brilliant, what a refreshing approach.” -- Christopher K.
Fray says rising sea levels aren't much of an issue—tell that to this fellow, who used to own his own desert island paradise; he stll does, but it seems to have shrunk
Before we spend more time, money, and emotional energy on the presumed EFFECTS and CONSEQUENCES of global warming and climate change (things like rising temperatures, rising sea levels, etc., etc.), shouldn’t we all have a BASIC UNDERSTANDING of the FUNDAMENTAL PROCESSES AND PHYSICS of our planet’s atmosphere?
If you have any questions, or doubts about that, this book is for you.
“Very good. I am a geophysicist.” -- Ben B.
Even better, you’ll learn (or re-learn) a very simple and indisputable fact about our atmosphere that makes the entire controversy look ridiculous. Use this information as a test (or a bet) the next time you talk with someone on the “other side” of the climate change debate.
“A very useful contribution to bringing sanity and reason back to the analysis of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).” – Tom P.
Fray is wrong: Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise
The climate change threat is consuming more of our precious time, energy, and resources. So is the debate about what to do about it. Don’t allow yourself to be a part of the problem—get this book so that you can be a part of the solution! If you are convinced that AGW is the biggest threat facing our planet, this book has facts and arguments you need to consider. The author honestly invites you to challenge the assumptions and disprove the conclusions. What will your response be when you hear others state the indisputable and basic facts presented in this book?
“Great [publication]. Thanks for the effort, it [is] simplified enough that most should understand.” -- Owen B.
End of the Amazon blurb HERE.
This tome of 28 pages seems to have been written by someone in a hurry. He was in way too big of a hurry to research the subject he was addressing, so he fails to deliver anything useful. He says he has a Master's degree in engineering but there is extremely clear evidence that he doesn't understand systems science. Using simple logic on simple elements in a complex system to try to understand how the system works is not something an engineer would ever do, as this approach is wrong and silly. Now a person who tried to get a Master's degree in engineering but failed because his mind just couldn't seem to grasp how systems work so he flunked—that is what we seem to be dealing with. A frustrated student of engineering who kept trying to solve complex things in simplistic ways. Eventually he got so frustrated he decided that he could solve tough problems like climate change by use of intuition instead of science.
Fray seems to us to be a frustrated student of engineering who kept trying to solve complex things in simplistic ways, eventually getting so frustrated he decided that he could solve tough problems like climate change by use of intuition instead of science
Every single one of his main points is scientifically incorrect. Unless his "Master's degree in engineering" came from Pig Hollow in Nairobi, Kenya, there is no way anyone would ever issue this fellow any kind of a science diploma. He simply misunderstands what science is, how it works, and what kind of mind is required to do good modern science. Fray is no scientist of any kind—hence the evasiveness about his background. Ecological environmental climatological science has some simple aspects, but Fray is trying to use 5th grade logic to solve the most difficult aspects of it. Fray shows a bit of talent in the area of satire, but little in the area of science. Perhaps he should be a standup comedian.
Unless his "Master's degree in engineering" came from Pig Hollow in Nairobi, Kenya, there is no way anyone would ever issue this fellow any kind of a science diploma
The evidence shows Fray wanted to be a hero of the right-wing climate denialists (as one can see by his subtitle: Basic Facts that Quickly Prove the Climate Change Crusade is Wrong and Dangerous), so he figured that an unscientific 28-page booklet dressed up to look like science would fool everyone (including himself?). As Fray says, "there are many books that are long, technical, and—frankly, irrelevant—on the topic of climate change." What he means by irrelevant is that he was unable to grasp the systems science in the complex problems they discussed, so he dismissed the complexities and preferred to examine all these issues is simplistic terms he could understand. Boiling the complex down to the simple is like saying people who do terrorism are bad so they need to stop being bad and start being good. This could easily come from a 4-year-old's mouth. But using the same level of logic in a science booklet is simply inappropriate.
The good news is that Fray's passion and spirit are commendable—he really seems like he wants to help. We cannot avoid the obvious conclusion: Fray could help real climate scientists with P.R., website maintenance, communications, etc. The first requirement, however, would be Fray being tutored on the subject until he is able to let go of the many misunderstandings he has accumulated over time. Instead of going head to head against climate science experts, he needs to work with them.
Al Gore, Nobel Peace Prize winner, Academy Award winner, is the type of fellow Fray needs to work with—he is the world's top spokesman for global warming avoidance
Aristarchus of Samos and Copernicus correctly believed the Earth rotates around the Sun, but Plato, Aristotle And Ptolemy incorrectly thought the Earth was the center of the solar system. Copernicus, 14 centuries later, used a telescope and proved Copernicus and Aristarchus right and the other men wrong. Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton later confirmed this idea as a fact. (Source: Who Discovered The Earth Moves Around The Sun?, Peter Christoforou, Astronomy Trek)
In prehistoric times, it was obvious to humans that the Sun and stars circled the Earth. This was incorrect, but the idea worked until science in the Renaissance proved it wrong. It seemed "intuitive" that the Sun goes around the Earth—from anywhere on Earth, the Sun appears to revolve around Earth once per day. But this was simplistic and reductionistic. One has to use tools (telescopes) and experiments and science to show that the Earth revolves around the Sun once per year and only the Moon circles Earth (along with lots of man-made satellites and junk).
Suppose you became very attached to the idea that the Sun goes around the Earth? Admittedly it IS very "intuitive." You could make speeches about it, write blogs and books and do the talk show circuit. But it would not alter the facts.
De revolutionibus orbium coelestium is the book that launched the Copernican revolution; Aristarchus of Samos and Copernicus correctly believed the Earth rotates around the Sun
The prototypical example of denying science in favor of intuitive theories is the earth being flat: anyone can see it is flat by looking outdoors; it's flat, says our intuitive theories
The prototypical example of denying science in favor of intuitive theories and that underscores the point, is the earth being flat. Anyone can see it is flat by looking outdoors. It's flat, says our intuitive theories. But only locally—which is all we can really view. On a larger scale, it is a sphere, as our astronauts confirmed with snapshots from orbiters. The term flat-Earther is often used in a derogatory sense to mean anyone who holds ridiculously antiquated views. Interestingly, most scholars in the Middle Ages, including those read by Christopher Columbus, correctly maintained that the Earth was spherical. (Modern Flat Earthers, like other science-denying groups, are motivated by a paranoid distrust of established experts—like Fray.)
The flat Earth model is an archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk. Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography. Aristotle provided evidence for the spherical shape of the Earth on empirical grounds by around 330 BC. Knowledge of the spherical Earth gradually began to spread beyond the Hellenistic world from then on. Theories espoused by modern flat Earth societies are commonly labeled pseudoscience. (Source: Flat Earth)
The Flammarion engraving of 1888 depicts a traveler who arrives at the edge of a flat Earth and sticks his head through the firmament
In Scienceblind: Why Our Intuitive Theories About the World Are So Often Wrong, cognitive and developmental psychologist Andrew Shtulman shows that the root of our misconceptions lies in the theories about the world we develop as children. They're not only wrong, they close our minds to ideas inconsistent with them, making us unable to learn science later in life. A relatively tiny bit of CO2 shouldn't have dramatic effects. But it does. The Earth's atmosphere is 78 percent nitrogen, 21 percent oxygen and 1 percent other gases, including about 0.04 percent carbon dioxide.
Fray's logic of "that should be no big deal" is intuitive, but proven absolutely incorrect. Shtulman's book clearly shows how someone like Fray could end up writing a book like Climate Change Reality Check: Basic Facts that Quickly Prove the Climate Change Crusade is Wrong and Dangerous, which places nearly religious faith in his intuition and rejects or even ridicules real science. In the era of fake news, post-truth, and alternative facts our young feel they can no longer be sure of science from experts who've studied this stuff for a lifetime. The G.O.P. and Trump are undermining science and truth at every turn. Fray's sincere booklet is a symptom of this undermining.
A new crop of corporatocracy-inspired books will avoid real science and use intuition, astrology, witchcraft, Ouiji boards to try to make real scientists look foolish—look out, here come the Astrologers!
The corporations want to be able to pollute water and air without restrictions or barriers or consequences or regulations, so they've paid (lobbied) Republicans to look the other way and dump regulations and oversight. Is Fray just the advance guard's point man for a deluge of pseudoscience tomes that dismiss real science as the mutterings of academic busybodies with too much time on their hands? Said books will avoid real science and use intuition, astrology, witchcraft, Ouiji boards to try to make real scientists look foolish, and—with Republicans cheering them on—will proceed to make utter fools of themselves as casualties of the corporatocracy's mammoth PR campaign to undermine truth and science in the name of endless, infinite greed.
Republicans are cheering the fake scientists on—who will proceed to make utter fools of themselves as casualties of the corporatocracy's mammoth PR campaign to undermine truth and science in the name of endless, infinite greed
It isn't Fray's fault that he's gotten himself led down the garden path with a tsunami of misinformation thanks to corporatocracy greed. He didn't understand how so many supposedly adult humans could all take the low road and deluge him with lies and propaganda. So he responded to this misinformation with a passionate and sincere attempt to correct the wrong path so many Americans were on. Not only the corporatocracy is to blame. The media colluded with the lies and propaganda, putting these in front of the audience in equal proportion to the truth and science and honest facts being disseminated by the science community and their spokespeople. There was a time decades ago when reporters had such things as honor and integrity—remember Walter Cronkite?
There was a time decades ago when reporters had such things as honor and integrity—remember Walter Cronkite?
Read Scientific American's If carbon dioxide makes up only a minute portion of the atmosphere, how can global warming be traced to it? And how can such a tiny amount of change produce such large effects?. You will see how global warming can be traced to it and how such a tiny amount of change can produce such large effects. Global warming is real and proven thanks to our increasing the relatively small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning the vast stores of carbon trapped inside of the fossil fuels that power our modern lives.
Global warming is real and proven thanks to our increasing the relatively small amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by burning the vast stores of carbon trapped inside of the fossil fuels
In the 1960s, the global growth rate of atmospheric carbon dioxide was roughly 0.6 ± 0.1 ppm per year. Over the past decade, however, the growth rate has been closer to 2.3 ppm per year. The annual rate of increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 60 years is about 100 times faster than previous natural increases, such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age 11,000-17,000 years ago.
Why carbon dioxide matters: Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas: a gas that absorbs heat. Warmed by sunlight, Earth’s land and ocean surfaces continuously radiate thermal infrared energy (heat). Unlike oxygen or nitrogen (which make up most of our atmosphere), greenhouse gases absorb that heat and release it gradually over time, like bricks in a fireplace after the fire goes out. Without this natural greenhouse effect, Earth’s average annual temperature would be below freezing instead of close to 60°F. But increases in greenhouse gases have tipped the Earth's energy budget out of balance, trapping additional heat and raising Earth's average temperature.
Carbon dioxide is the most important of Earth’s long-lived greenhouse gases. It absorbs less heat per molecule than the greenhouse gases methane or nitrous oxide, but it’s more abundant and it stays in the atmosphere much longer. And while carbon dioxide is less abundant and less powerful than water vapor on a molecule per molecule basis, it absorbs wavelengths of thermal energy that water vapor does not, which means it adds to the greenhouse effect in a unique way. Increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide are responsible for about two-thirds of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise. (Source: Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Rebecca Lindsey, Climate)
(Source: Environmental Protection Agency)
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted through human activities. In 2011, CO2 accounted for about 84% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities. Carbon dioxide is naturally present in the atmosphere as part of the Earth's carbon cycle (the natural circulation of carbon among the atmosphere, oceans, soil, plants, and animals). Human activities are altering the carbon cycle—both by adding more CO2 to the atmosphere and by influencing the ability of natural sinks, like forests, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. While CO2 emissions come from a variety of natural sources, human-related emissions are responsible for the increase that has occurred in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. The main human activity that emits CO2 is the combustion of fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, and oil) for energy and transportation, although certain industrial processes and land-use changes also emit CO2. (Source: Greenhouse Gases)
Further, scientists at Oregon State University predict that global warming could cause massive fires in up to 90 percent of North America in the next 50 years. The fires would inject huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, compounding the greenhouse problem.