|
Browse categories
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 Customer Reviews
Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.
Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.
First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?
Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.
It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.
A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.
The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.
Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.
Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?
He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.
The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.
On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.
Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.
He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.
In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.
We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.
Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.
Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.
Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.
First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?
Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.
It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.
A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.
The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.
Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.
Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?
He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.
The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.
On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.
Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.
He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.
In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.
We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.
Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.
Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.
Come on..., 28 Oct 2008
For crying out loud, why don't we all open our mouths and swallow whatever rot the 'IPCC' feed us. There are so many flaws with this book that can only be seen as propoganda aimed at people who cannot think for themselves. Yes, global warming is almost certainly occurring but it has been blown out of all proportion and all to benefit propositions made by the government. (Carbon taxes to name but one, however that's a whole different kettle of fish.) Look at the End-Permian extinction. An approximated rise in temperature of 5 degrees Celcius is believed to have wiped out the vast majority of terrestrial and marine life. Do you really think this took a century?! Evidence pointing to the Permo-Triassic extinction has been locked away in stratigraphy - the thickness of which is substantianly more than could be deposited in a century! Think between 100,000 to 300,000 years worth.
So come on Mark Lynas, 6 degrees celcius in a century is hugely arrogant because we are so insignificant regarding global surface processes. If you were to look at recent scientific papers, you might be surprised to find that climatologists and geologists predict a 0.8 degree rise in temperature over the next century.
File this one under fantasy.
This book could save your life, 06 Oct 2008
This is the best book on the subject I have ever read and I feel it should be mandatory for all school children over 12 years old. I have been following the global warming debate for over 20 years now (both as an environmentalist and former journalist) from its early days when there were a few very worried scientists getting trashed by the politicians to protect big business, to now when we have thousands of very worried leading scientists and terrified experts of the highest calibre getting trashed by politicians to protect big business. This book is vital and I only wish it could have appeared ten years ago when we still had a chance of making a real difference. The science that Lynas reviews is the best available to us and he communicates difficult subject matter very clearly and with real skill. For such a dry subject (no pun intended) the book is actually quite gripping but it doesn't fall into the easy trap of trivialising or sensationalising the raw data. Let's face it, these are terrifying enough on their own. Read it, it could save your life.
Lynas paints a possible apocalyptic future for us all , 01 Oct 2008
Mark Lynas had spent months in libraries reading and taking notes about future global weather changes from scientific journals and from his studies he has put together this book.
The book explains to the reader what would happen to the planet if it were to get six degrees hotter over the next 100 years.
Each chapter explains what would happen to world as it got 1 degree hotter.
Chapter 1 explains what would happen if the planet got one degree hotter and chapter 6 finishes by explaining what would happen if the planet got six degrees hotter.
This book is not easy to digest as it paints a very apocalyptic future for us humans should climate change not be halted.
In the final chapter Mark explains how we can prevent this scenario ever happening.
A very different book from Al Gore's inconvient truth in a sense that this book looks at what could happen rather than what is happening now.
If the subject global warming interests you than this book is well worth a read and will give you a great insight in future life on earth if we fail to act now.
'business as usual' .... I don't think so., 22 Jul 2008
no politition could read this book and stay in office with 'business as usual' without being in total denial. not sensational in it's presentation, but leaves little to the imagination. Surely we've had it, haven't we? Don't leave too much money to your children - it will be of little use.
BAFFLED, 17 Jun 2008
One thing baffles me about this book by an evangelical warmista - and I wish Lynas would answer. He has not addressed one simple proven fact... that in the last 10 years the globe has been cooling quite markedly at a time when carbon emissions have never been higher. How does he square this with his alarmist views ? The fact is that a very great many reputable scientists the world over question whether anything we do has any effect on our climate - though clearly we pollute our environment and destroy the habitat for other creatures; but that is a different issue. The globe has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled, for many billions of years and our climate has changed and will continue to change regardless of these tiny specks called humans.
Global warming was until around 2,000, since when the globe has been cooling. Will it warm up again ? Who knows ? There are only computer projections and we know those cannot not even get the long range weather forecast right for the British Isles
|
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.
Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.
First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?
Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.
It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.
A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.
The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.
Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.
Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?
He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.
The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.
On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.
Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.
He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.
In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.
We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.
Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.
Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.
Come on..., 28 Oct 2008
For crying out loud, why don't we all open our mouths and swallow whatever rot the 'IPCC' feed us. There are so many flaws with this book that can only be seen as propoganda aimed at people who cannot think for themselves. Yes, global warming is almost certainly occurring but it has been blown out of all proportion and all to benefit propositions made by the government. (Carbon taxes to name but one, however that's a whole different kettle of fish.) Look at the End-Permian extinction. An approximated rise in temperature of 5 degrees Celcius is believed to have wiped out the vast majority of terrestrial and marine life. Do you really think this took a century?! Evidence pointing to the Permo-Triassic extinction has been locked away in stratigraphy - the thickness of which is substantianly more than could be deposited in a century! Think between 100,000 to 300,000 years worth.
So come on Mark Lynas, 6 degrees celcius in a century is hugely arrogant because we are so insignificant regarding global surface processes. If you were to look at recent scientific papers, you might be surprised to find that climatologists and geologists predict a 0.8 degree rise in temperature over the next century.
File this one under fantasy.
This book could save your life, 06 Oct 2008
This is the best book on the subject I have ever read and I feel it should be mandatory for all school children over 12 years old. I have been following the global warming debate for over 20 years now (both as an environmentalist and former journalist) from its early days when there were a few very worried scientists getting trashed by the politicians to protect big business, to now when we have thousands of very worried leading scientists and terrified experts of the highest calibre getting trashed by politicians to protect big business. This book is vital and I only wish it could have appeared ten years ago when we still had a chance of making a real difference. The science that Lynas reviews is the best available to us and he communicates difficult subject matter very clearly and with real skill. For such a dry subject (no pun intended) the book is actually quite gripping but it doesn't fall into the easy trap of trivialising or sensationalising the raw data. Let's face it, these are terrifying enough on their own. Read it, it could save your life.
Lynas paints a possible apocalyptic future for us all , 01 Oct 2008
Mark Lynas had spent months in libraries reading and taking notes about future global weather changes from scientific journals and from his studies he has put together this book.
The book explains to the reader what would happen to the planet if it were to get six degrees hotter over the next 100 years.
Each chapter explains what would happen to world as it got 1 degree hotter.
Chapter 1 explains what would happen if the planet got one degree hotter and chapter 6 finishes by explaining what would happen if the planet got six degrees hotter.
This book is not easy to digest as it paints a very apocalyptic future for us humans should climate change not be halted.
In the final chapter Mark explains how we can prevent this scenario ever happening.
A very different book from Al Gore's inconvient truth in a sense that this book looks at what could happen rather than what is happening now.
If the subject global warming interests you than this book is well worth a read and will give you a great insight in future life on earth if we fail to act now.
'business as usual' .... I don't think so., 22 Jul 2008
no politition could read this book and stay in office with 'business as usual' without being in total denial. not sensational in it's presentation, but leaves little to the imagination. Surely we've had it, haven't we? Don't leave too much money to your children - it will be of little use.
BAFFLED, 17 Jun 2008
One thing baffles me about this book by an evangelical warmista - and I wish Lynas would answer. He has not addressed one simple proven fact... that in the last 10 years the globe has been cooling quite markedly at a time when carbon emissions have never been higher. How does he square this with his alarmist views ? The fact is that a very great many reputable scientists the world over question whether anything we do has any effect on our climate - though clearly we pollute our environment and destroy the habitat for other creatures; but that is a different issue. The globe has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled, for many billions of years and our climate has changed and will continue to change regardless of these tiny specks called humans.
Global warming was until around 2,000, since when the globe has been cooling. Will it warm up again ? Who knows ? There are only computer projections and we know those cannot not even get the long range weather forecast right for the British Isles
Arranging carts and horses, 30 Jul 2007
For many years, as fossil plants emerged from the rocks, it was believed that these records reflected changes in climate. Plants, it was assumed, had to adapt to variations in weather and other conditions. According to Beerling, plant life was instead the major prompter of climate change. The balance of atmospheric gases was determined by the micro-organisms floating in the seas. The ability to absorb carbon dioxide, coupled with the use of sunlight to convert that into nutrients gives plants the power to shift gas quantities. During the early days, plants exhaled oxygen. It was poison to most organisms, but those capable of using it began the drive leading to today's life. In this useful survey of all the forces forming today's world, Beerling traces how plants "changed Earth's history". Following his thesis requires the reader's close attention, since the organisation of the material is necessarily loose - not fixed chronology nor subject. The many topics to cover cannot be neatly niched.
To the author, the biggest mystery lies in the long delay between plants colonising the land and the formation of the first leaves. Leaf structure reflects how the plant is using energy. That, in turn, becomes a signal of how the atmosphere is composed at any given time. This knowledge was assembled over many years through the work of many researchers. Beerling traces the building of data resources and how the information was interpreted. Images of leaves and stems, analysis of the rock chemistry, field observations and laboratory experiments all contributed to the picture of plant evolution. Numerous surprises emerged, sometimes leading scholars to doubt the data and even their methodology. Looking at the life of plants down the ages is, as he puts it, looking "Through a glass darkly". Pervading his presentation is what the implications are for what is occurring in today's atmosphere - on which our life and those of our children, depends.
Beerling deems investigations into ancient atmospheres a form of "breathalyser", such as the police apply to suspected impaired drivers. In this case, however, it's not alcohol fumes that are measured, but carbon dioxide. Other gases are also sought, but they don't often leave sufficient clues. The information must be derived indirectly. Again, it's the plant's leaves that are used as the pointers to how ancient atmospheres fluctuated. Underlying the variations is the mighty force of plate tectonics. The shifting of land masses and changes in surface configuration leads plants to shift their survival strategies. Acting far more rapidly than creeping continents, the ability of plants to accelerate or impair rock weathering shifts the presence of gas quantities. Carbon dioxide quantities have varied markedly, leading to most of the world's history being warm times. Only recently - in geologic terms - has the planet experienced a cool era, which led to the "ice age" that scoured the Northern Hemisphere with massive glaciers.
As with so much in science, the revelation that plants drive climate instead of passively responding to it has produced at least as many questions as answers. There are anomalous circumstances that must be unravelled. The knowledge gained has led to the formation of "Earth system analysis" techniques using various forms of computer modelling. Many details, however, remain to be worked out. Atmostpheric studies are particularly impaired by lack of knowledge of cloud formation and distribution. Carbon itself, both as a greenhouse gas and as a component of plant growth, remains enigmatic. Beerling traces the selectivity of plants in choosing which carbon isotope will be utilised. That choice has impact on which plants will become dominant in a given area, which also has implications for the animal life living from them. There are no simple nor ready answers to what plants have meant in tracing life's development. Yet, as he emphasises frequently, these are questions that must be addressed further, and that, soon. Understanding our atmosphere is essential to our future. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
A really exciting read, 28 May 2007
There are not many science books that can be described as exciting, but this one certainly is. With a superbly clean writing style, Beerling reveals the extraordinary story of plant evolution and plants' subsequent enormous impact on life on our planet.
It's something I had never given much thought to; most of my books about the ancient earth focus on dinosaurs. But my entire perception of the Earth and its history has been changed, along with my understanding of plants.
Beerling combines botany, geo-chemistry and a host of other potentially daunting subjects in easily-digested prose. The book is made even better thanks to the equally extraordinary stories of the discoveries behind the science. We are introduced to a pantheon of remarkable people (though they were not always appreciated as such at the time) through neat little insights and unexpected anecdotes.
You will never see plants in the same light again and you don't need to be a scientist to grasp the vast majority of the concepts. It's thoroughly engrossing and if you want to know more, the book is superbly referenced, too. Very highly recommended.
fascinating science, 05 Mar 2007
Very enjoyable read. Fascinating science intertwined with a writing style that is easy to understand. Beerling does not overwhelm the reader with scientific jargon. Each chapter tells a little story about how plants have been involved in the role of the evolving planet over the last 400 million years.
The stories are fascinating. For example I had no idea that Marie Stopes the women's rights campaigner was a keen Paleobotanist and that Scott of the Antartic was involved in the collection of fossil plants. I particularly enjoyed the story of the giant insects. Could we be heading for some sort of variation on this theme in this day and age of global warming?
Also book seems rather good value for money for a hardback.
Definately recommended.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.
Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.
First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?
Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.
It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.
A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.
The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.
Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.
Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?
He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.
The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.
On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.
Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.
He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.
In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.
We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.
Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.
Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.
Come on..., 28 Oct 2008
For crying out loud, why don't we all open our mouths and swallow whatever rot the 'IPCC' feed us. There are so many flaws with this book that can only be seen as propoganda aimed at people who cannot think for themselves. Yes, global warming is almost certainly occurring but it has been blown out of all proportion and all to benefit propositions made by the government. (Carbon taxes to name but one, however that's a whole different kettle of fish.) Look at the End-Permian extinction. An approximated rise in temperature of 5 degrees Celcius is believed to have wiped out the vast majority of terrestrial and marine life. Do you really think this took a century?! Evidence pointing to the Permo-Triassic extinction has been locked away in stratigraphy - the thickness of which is substantianly more than could be deposited in a century! Think between 100,000 to 300,000 years worth.
So come on Mark Lynas, 6 degrees celcius in a century is hugely arrogant because we are so insignificant regarding global surface processes. If you were to look at recent scientific papers, you might be surprised to find that climatologists and geologists predict a 0.8 degree rise in temperature over the next century.
File this one under fantasy.
This book could save your life, 06 Oct 2008
This is the best book on the subject I have ever read and I feel it should be mandatory for all school children over 12 years old. I have been following the global warming debate for over 20 years now (both as an environmentalist and former journalist) from its early days when there were a few very worried scientists getting trashed by the politicians to protect big business, to now when we have thousands of very worried leading scientists and terrified experts of the highest calibre getting trashed by politicians to protect big business. This book is vital and I only wish it could have appeared ten years ago when we still had a chance of making a real difference. The science that Lynas reviews is the best available to us and he communicates difficult subject matter very clearly and with real skill. For such a dry subject (no pun intended) the book is actually quite gripping but it doesn't fall into the easy trap of trivialising or sensationalising the raw data. Let's face it, these are terrifying enough on their own. Read it, it could save your life.
Lynas paints a possible apocalyptic future for us all , 01 Oct 2008
Mark Lynas had spent months in libraries reading and taking notes about future global weather changes from scientific journals and from his studies he has put together this book.
The book explains to the reader what would happen to the planet if it were to get six degrees hotter over the next 100 years.
Each chapter explains what would happen to world as it got 1 degree hotter.
Chapter 1 explains what would happen if the planet got one degree hotter and chapter 6 finishes by explaining what would happen if the planet got six degrees hotter.
This book is not easy to digest as it paints a very apocalyptic future for us humans should climate change not be halted.
In the final chapter Mark explains how we can prevent this scenario ever happening.
A very different book from Al Gore's inconvient truth in a sense that this book looks at what could happen rather than what is happening now.
If the subject global warming interests you than this book is well worth a read and will give you a great insight in future life on earth if we fail to act now.
'business as usual' .... I don't think so., 22 Jul 2008
no politition could read this book and stay in office with 'business as usual' without being in total denial. not sensational in it's presentation, but leaves little to the imagination. Surely we've had it, haven't we? Don't leave too much money to your children - it will be of little use.
BAFFLED, 17 Jun 2008
One thing baffles me about this book by an evangelical warmista - and I wish Lynas would answer. He has not addressed one simple proven fact... that in the last 10 years the globe has been cooling quite markedly at a time when carbon emissions have never been higher. How does he square this with his alarmist views ? The fact is that a very great many reputable scientists the world over question whether anything we do has any effect on our climate - though clearly we pollute our environment and destroy the habitat for other creatures; but that is a different issue. The globe has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled, for many billions of years and our climate has changed and will continue to change regardless of these tiny specks called humans.
Global warming was until around 2,000, since when the globe has been cooling. Will it warm up again ? Who knows ? There are only computer projections and we know those cannot not even get the long range weather forecast right for the British Isles
Arranging carts and horses, 30 Jul 2007
For many years, as fossil plants emerged from the rocks, it was believed that these records reflected changes in climate. Plants, it was assumed, had to adapt to variations in weather and other conditions. According to Beerling, plant life was instead the major prompter of climate change. The balance of atmospheric gases was determined by the micro-organisms floating in the seas. The ability to absorb carbon dioxide, coupled with the use of sunlight to convert that into nutrients gives plants the power to shift gas quantities. During the early days, plants exhaled oxygen. It was poison to most organisms, but those capable of using it began the drive leading to today's life. In this useful survey of all the forces forming today's world, Beerling traces how plants "changed Earth's history". Following his thesis requires the reader's close attention, since the organisation of the material is necessarily loose - not fixed chronology nor subject. The many topics to cover cannot be neatly niched.
To the author, the biggest mystery lies in the long delay between plants colonising the land and the formation of the first leaves. Leaf structure reflects how the plant is using energy. That, in turn, becomes a signal of how the atmosphere is composed at any given time. This knowledge was assembled over many years through the work of many researchers. Beerling traces the building of data resources and how the information was interpreted. Images of leaves and stems, analysis of the rock chemistry, field observations and laboratory experiments all contributed to the picture of plant evolution. Numerous surprises emerged, sometimes leading scholars to doubt the data and even their methodology. Looking at the life of plants down the ages is, as he puts it, looking "Through a glass darkly". Pervading his presentation is what the implications are for what is occurring in today's atmosphere - on which our life and those of our children, depends.
Beerling deems investigations into ancient atmospheres a form of "breathalyser", such as the police apply to suspected impaired drivers. In this case, however, it's not alcohol fumes that are measured, but carbon dioxide. Other gases are also sought, but they don't often leave sufficient clues. The information must be derived indirectly. Again, it's the plant's leaves that are used as the pointers to how ancient atmospheres fluctuated. Underlying the variations is the mighty force of plate tectonics. The shifting of land masses and changes in surface configuration leads plants to shift their survival strategies. Acting far more rapidly than creeping continents, the ability of plants to accelerate or impair rock weathering shifts the presence of gas quantities. Carbon dioxide quantities have varied markedly, leading to most of the world's history being warm times. Only recently - in geologic terms - has the planet experienced a cool era, which led to the "ice age" that scoured the Northern Hemisphere with massive glaciers.
As with so much in science, the revelation that plants drive climate instead of passively responding to it has produced at least as many questions as answers. There are anomalous circumstances that must be unravelled. The knowledge gained has led to the formation of "Earth system analysis" techniques using various forms of computer modelling. Many details, however, remain to be worked out. Atmostpheric studies are particularly impaired by lack of knowledge of cloud formation and distribution. Carbon itself, both as a greenhouse gas and as a component of plant growth, remains enigmatic. Beerling traces the selectivity of plants in choosing which carbon isotope will be utilised. That choice has impact on which plants will become dominant in a given area, which also has implications for the animal life living from them. There are no simple nor ready answers to what plants have meant in tracing life's development. Yet, as he emphasises frequently, these are questions that must be addressed further, and that, soon. Understanding our atmosphere is essential to our future. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
A really exciting read, 28 May 2007
There are not many science books that can be described as exciting, but this one certainly is. With a superbly clean writing style, Beerling reveals the extraordinary story of plant evolution and plants' subsequent enormous impact on life on our planet.
It's something I had never given much thought to; most of my books about the ancient earth focus on dinosaurs. But my entire perception of the Earth and its history has been changed, along with my understanding of plants.
Beerling combines botany, geo-chemistry and a host of other potentially daunting subjects in easily-digested prose. The book is made even better thanks to the equally extraordinary stories of the discoveries behind the science. We are introduced to a pantheon of remarkable people (though they were not always appreciated as such at the time) through neat little insights and unexpected anecdotes.
You will never see plants in the same light again and you don't need to be a scientist to grasp the vast majority of the concepts. It's thoroughly engrossing and if you want to know more, the book is superbly referenced, too. Very highly recommended.
fascinating science, 05 Mar 2007
Very enjoyable read. Fascinating science intertwined with a writing style that is easy to understand. Beerling does not overwhelm the reader with scientific jargon. Each chapter tells a little story about how plants have been involved in the role of the evolving planet over the last 400 million years.
The stories are fascinating. For example I had no idea that Marie Stopes the women's rights campaigner was a keen Paleobotanist and that Scott of the Antartic was involved in the collection of fossil plants. I particularly enjoyed the story of the giant insects. Could we be heading for some sort of variation on this theme in this day and age of global warming?
Also book seems rather good value for money for a hardback.
Definately recommended.
Global warming - without the spin, 14 Aug 2008
Everything you need to know about the challenges of climate change without the spin.
There is a veritable overload of information on the topic of global warming that makes it difficult to get to grips with what to do and how to deal with it on a personal level.
This highly informative book sets out to inform the reader of the issues, how to prepare for the inevitable changes and then follows up with solutions in these areas: technological, political, personal and local.
The subject is a serious one but as Walker writes - don't despair, although it's a hard one it's not intractable. She suggests that we look inside our circle of influence, start small and soon your circle will expand... but at no point become "greener than thou".
It's a jungle of a topic but this book makes the big issues that bit clearer.
Calm, balanced, and reasonable., 30 Jul 2008
With impeccable scientific credentials, the authors calmly and carefully explain the agreements and disagreements among climate scientists and the international politics that surrounds the issue. Emphasising technological adaptation, they argue that we can meet the challenge of climate change without making and drastic lifestyle changes and with only very minor financial cost: we just need to change the way we generate energy, and consume it more efficiently. They also make recommendations for personal action, ranging from buying the right light-bulbs to pressurising politicians and businessmen into adopting the right policies.
Among the current crop of climate change books, this is a refreshingly reasonable and responsible read.
The ideal introduction, 21 Apr 2008
I've never read as much about global warming as I felt I should, put off by the obvious partisanship - pro or con - of almost everything in the press and recoiling from the green bandwagon that has become a fashion accessory. And then there was the problem of where to start... that same partisanship problem once again.
Now I have the answer: this book. As a clear, intelligent and, above all, measured introduction to global warning I doubt it can be bettered. It runs through the science, looks at the politics, discusses the technology and tries to be contructive about the way forward. My only criticism is that at times I was left wanting to know more - but that is to praise the authors's restraint knowing they were writing an introductory guide.
I picked up this book wanting something clear and unbiased that would help me organise my thoughts on global warming. That's exactly what I got.
Excellent introduction to a complex field, 31 Mar 2008
I considered myself moderately well informed on the global warming (GW), having browsed websites, new scientist and wikipedia. I learnt a lot from this book, partly about the science, but mostly from the fascinating coverage of the political issues around GW.
It is also useful in knowing how to respond to the sceptic's points.
Overall it is a highly readable and nicely detailed (not too much to get bogged down in) account of all the surrounding issues. It is not a scare story... and does not over indulge in lurid alarmist doomsaying.
A lucid account of climate change science and politics, 10 Mar 2008
Generally excellent. The only real criticism I'd make of this book is that the authors are sometimes too blunt in their opinions. They say that "human activity is to blame for the rise in temperature over recent decades", and anyone who denies this is essentially a fool or an oil shill. This is unfair: lots of perfectly bright people have been misinformed, and believe there's more uncertainty than there is - you don't need to be a fool to be duped.
Overall, 'A Rough Guide to Climate Change' gives a clearer (and more thorough) overview of the science, but Hot Topic is more up-to-date and has greater detail about the potential solutions and political obstacles. (I'd also highly recommend Andrew Dessler's more technical 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change'.)
Finally, it's worth noting what a tireless job David King has done in promoting awareness of climate change. History is likely to regard him very highly.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.
Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.
First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?
Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.
It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.
A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.
The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.
Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.
Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?
He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.
The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.
On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.
Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.
He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.
In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.
We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.
Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.
Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.
Come on..., 28 Oct 2008
For crying out loud, why don't we all open our mouths and swallow whatever rot the 'IPCC' feed us. There are so many flaws with this book that can only be seen as propoganda aimed at people who cannot think for themselves. Yes, global warming is almost certainly occurring but it has been blown out of all proportion and all to benefit propositions made by the government. (Carbon taxes to name but one, however that's a whole different kettle of fish.) Look at the End-Permian extinction. An approximated rise in temperature of 5 degrees Celcius is believed to have wiped out the vast majority of terrestrial and marine life. Do you really think this took a century?! Evidence pointing to the Permo-Triassic extinction has been locked away in stratigraphy - the thickness of which is substantianly more than could be deposited in a century! Think between 100,000 to 300,000 years worth.
So come on Mark Lynas, 6 degrees celcius in a century is hugely arrogant because we are so insignificant regarding global surface processes. If you were to look at recent scientific papers, you might be surprised to find that climatologists and geologists predict a 0.8 degree rise in temperature over the next century.
File this one under fantasy.
This book could save your life, 06 Oct 2008
This is the best book on the subject I have ever read and I feel it should be mandatory for all school children over 12 years old. I have been following the global warming debate for over 20 years now (both as an environmentalist and former journalist) from its early days when there were a few very worried scientists getting trashed by the politicians to protect big business, to now when we have thousands of very worried leading scientists and terrified experts of the highest calibre getting trashed by politicians to protect big business. This book is vital and I only wish it could have appeared ten years ago when we still had a chance of making a real difference. The science that Lynas reviews is the best available to us and he communicates difficult subject matter very clearly and with real skill. For such a dry subject (no pun intended) the book is actually quite gripping but it doesn't fall into the easy trap of trivialising or sensationalising the raw data. Let's face it, these are terrifying enough on their own. Read it, it could save your life.
Lynas paints a possible apocalyptic future for us all , 01 Oct 2008
Mark Lynas had spent months in libraries reading and taking notes about future global weather changes from scientific journals and from his studies he has put together this book.
The book explains to the reader what would happen to the planet if it were to get six degrees hotter over the next 100 years.
Each chapter explains what would happen to world as it got 1 degree hotter.
Chapter 1 explains what would happen if the planet got one degree hotter and chapter 6 finishes by explaining what would happen if the planet got six degrees hotter.
This book is not easy to digest as it paints a very apocalyptic future for us humans should climate change not be halted.
In the final chapter Mark explains how we can prevent this scenario ever happening.
A very different book from Al Gore's inconvient truth in a sense that this book looks at what could happen rather than what is happening now.
If the subject global warming interests you than this book is well worth a read and will give you a great insight in future life on earth if we fail to act now.
'business as usual' .... I don't think so., 22 Jul 2008
no politition could read this book and stay in office with 'business as usual' without being in total denial. not sensational in it's presentation, but leaves little to the imagination. Surely we've had it, haven't we? Don't leave too much money to your children - it will be of little use.
BAFFLED, 17 Jun 2008
One thing baffles me about this book by an evangelical warmista - and I wish Lynas would answer. He has not addressed one simple proven fact... that in the last 10 years the globe has been cooling quite markedly at a time when carbon emissions have never been higher. How does he square this with his alarmist views ? The fact is that a very great many reputable scientists the world over question whether anything we do has any effect on our climate - though clearly we pollute our environment and destroy the habitat for other creatures; but that is a different issue. The globe has warmed and cooled, warmed and cooled, for many billions of years and our climate has changed and will continue to change regardless of these tiny specks called humans.
Global warming was until around 2,000, since when the globe has been cooling. Will it warm up again ? Who knows ? There are only computer projections and we know those cannot not even get the long range weather forecast right for the British Isles
Arranging carts and horses, 30 Jul 2007
For many years, as fossil plants emerged from the rocks, it was believed that these records reflected changes in climate. Plants, it was assumed, had to adapt to variations in weather and other conditions. According to Beerling, plant life was instead the major prompter of climate change. The balance of atmospheric gases was determined by the micro-organisms floating in the seas. The ability to absorb carbon dioxide, coupled with the use of sunlight to convert that into nutrients gives plants the power to shift gas quantities. During the early days, plants exhaled oxygen. It was poison to most organisms, but those capable of using it began the drive leading to today's life. In this useful survey of all the forces forming today's world, Beerling traces how plants "changed Earth's history". Following his thesis requires the reader's close attention, since the organisation of the material is necessarily loose - not fixed chronology nor subject. The many topics to cover cannot be neatly niched.
To the author, the biggest mystery lies in the long delay between plants colonising the land and the formation of the first leaves. Leaf structure reflects how the plant is using energy. That, in turn, becomes a signal of how the atmosphere is composed at any given time. This knowledge was assembled over many years through the work of many researchers. Beerling traces the building of data resources and how the information was interpreted. Images of leaves and stems, analysis of the rock chemistry, field observations and laboratory experiments all contributed to the picture of plant evolution. Numerous surprises emerged, sometimes leading scholars to doubt the data and even their methodology. Looking at the life of plants down the ages is, as he puts it, looking "Through a glass darkly". Pervading his presentation is what the implications are for what is occurring in today's atmosphere - on which our life and those of our children, depends.
Beerling deems investigations into ancient atmospheres a form of "breathalyser", such as the police apply to suspected impaired drivers. In this case, however, it's not alcohol fumes that are measured, but carbon dioxide. Other gases are also sought, but they don't often leave sufficient clues. The information must be derived indirectly. Again, it's the plant's leaves that are used as the pointers to how ancient atmospheres fluctuated. Underlying the variations is the mighty force of plate tectonics. The shifting of land masses and changes in surface configuration leads plants to shift their survival strategies. Acting far more rapidly than creeping continents, the ability of plants to accelerate or impair rock weathering shifts the presence of gas quantities. Carbon dioxide quantities have varied markedly, leading to most of the world's history being warm times. Only recently - in geologic terms - has the planet experienced a cool era, which led to the "ice age" that scoured the Northern Hemisphere with massive glaciers.
As with so much in science, the revelation that plants drive climate instead of passively responding to it has produced at least as many questions as answers. There are anomalous circumstances that must be unravelled. The knowledge gained has led to the formation of "Earth system analysis" techniques using various forms of computer modelling. Many details, however, remain to be worked out. Atmostpheric studies are particularly impaired by lack of knowledge of cloud formation and distribution. Carbon itself, both as a greenhouse gas and as a component of plant growth, remains enigmatic. Beerling traces the selectivity of plants in choosing which carbon isotope will be utilised. That choice has impact on which plants will become dominant in a given area, which also has implications for the animal life living from them. There are no simple nor ready answers to what plants have meant in tracing life's development. Yet, as he emphasises frequently, these are questions that must be addressed further, and that, soon. Understanding our atmosphere is essential to our future. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
A really exciting read, 28 May 2007
There are not many science books that can be described as exciting, but this one certainly is. With a superbly clean writing style, Beerling reveals the extraordinary story of plant evolution and plants' subsequent enormous impact on life on our planet.
It's something I had never given much thought to; most of my books about the ancient earth focus on dinosaurs. But my entire perception of the Earth and its history has been changed, along with my understanding of plants.
Beerling combines botany, geo-chemistry and a host of other potentially daunting subjects in easily-digested prose. The book is made even better thanks to the equally extraordinary stories of the discoveries behind the science. We are introduced to a pantheon of remarkable people (though they were not always appreciated as such at the time) through neat little insights and unexpected anecdotes.
You will never see plants in the same light again and you don't need to be a scientist to grasp the vast majority of the concepts. It's thoroughly engrossing and if you want to know more, the book is superbly referenced, too. Very highly recommended.
fascinating science, 05 Mar 2007
Very enjoyable read. Fascinating science intertwined with a writing style that is easy to understand. Beerling does not overwhelm the reader with scientific jargon. Each chapter tells a little story about how plants have been involved in the role of the evolving planet over the last 400 million years.
The stories are fascinating. For example I had no idea that Marie Stopes the women's rights campaigner was a keen Paleobotanist and that Scott of the Antartic was involved in the collection of fossil plants. I particularly enjoyed the story of the giant insects. Could we be heading for some sort of variation on this theme in this day and age of global warming?
Also book seems rather good value for money for a hardback.
Definately recommended.
Global warming - without the spin, 14 Aug 2008
Everything you need to know about the challenges of climate change without the spin.
There is a veritable overload of information on the topic of global warming that makes it difficult to get to grips with what to do and how to deal with it on a personal level.
This highly informative book sets out to inform the reader of the issues, how to prepare for the inevitable changes and then follows up with solutions in these areas: technological, political, personal and local.
The subject is a serious one but as Walker writes - don't despair, although it's a hard one it's not intractable. She suggests that we look inside our circle of influence, start small and soon your circle will expand... but at no point become "greener than thou".
It's a jungle of a topic but this book makes the big issues that bit clearer.
Calm, balanced, and reasonable., 30 Jul 2008
With impeccable scientific credentials, the authors calmly and carefully explain the agreements and disagreements among climate scientists and the international politics that surrounds the issue. Emphasising technological adaptation, they argue that we can meet the challenge of climate change without making and drastic lifestyle changes and with only very minor financial cost: we just need to change the way we generate energy, and consume it more efficiently. They also make recommendations for personal action, ranging from buying the right light-bulbs to pressurising politicians and businessmen into adopting the right policies.
Among the current crop of climate change books, this is a refreshingly reasonable and responsible read.
The ideal introduction, 21 Apr 2008
I've never read as much about global warming as I felt I should, put off by the obvious partisanship - pro or con - of almost everything in the press and recoiling from the green bandwagon that has become a fashion accessory. And then there was the problem of where to start... that same partisanship problem once again.
Now I have the answer: this book. As a clear, intelligent and, above all, measured introduction to global warning I doubt it can be bettered. It runs through the science, looks at the politics, discusses the technology and tries to be contructive about the way forward. My only criticism is that at times I was left wanting to know more - but that is to praise the authors's restraint knowing they were writing an introductory guide.
I picked up this book wanting something clear and unbiased that would help me organise my thoughts on global warming. That's exactly what I got.
Excellent introduction to a complex field, 31 Mar 2008
I considered myself moderately well informed on the global warming (GW), having browsed websites, new scientist and wikipedia. I learnt a lot from this book, partly about the science, but mostly from the fascinating coverage of the political issues around GW.
It is also useful in knowing how to respond to the sceptic's points.
Overall it is a highly readable and nicely detailed (not too much to get bogged down in) account of all the surrounding issues. It is not a scare story... and does not over indulge in lurid alarmist doomsaying.
A lucid account of climate change science and politics, 10 Mar 2008
Generally excellent. The only real criticism I'd make of this book is that the authors are sometimes too blunt in their opinions. They say that "human activity is to blame for the rise in temperature over recent decades", and anyone who denies this is essentially a fool or an oil shill. This is unfair: lots of perfectly bright people have been misinformed, and believe there's more uncertainty than there is - you don't need to be a fool to be duped.
Overall, 'A Rough Guide to Climate Change' gives a clearer (and more thorough) overview of the science, but Hot Topic is more up-to-date and has greater detail about the potential solutions and political obstacles. (I'd also highly recommend Andrew Dessler's more technical 'The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change'.)
Finally, it's worth noting what a tireless job David King has done in promoting awareness of climate change. History is likely to regard him very highly.
An Inconvenient Turth: The local emergency of Gore's political career and what we can do to help him rejuvinate it!, 09 Oct 2008
If you were hoping for a hard-hitting book on the science of climate change, think again. It is more a book of Gore's political views poorly portrayed in what can only be described as a childrens picture book, segregated by tales of Gore's personal anecdotes and childhood memories in order to detach from the truth of the issue at hand and to sympathise with a has-been politician. Gore's apocolyptic vision is widley known to be a false representation of the dangers of climate change by scientists and climatologists alike, and even the IPCC that he loves to qoute so much fail to credit his views on 20 foot sea level rises, unprecendented storms and newstrains of diseases. The only truth I found in the whole book was that CO2 (only one of many 'greenhouse gasses' of which water vapour makes the vast majority) does exacerbate global warming, albeit there is a large grey area between what is human induced climate change and what is a natural occurance. The truth of the issue is that man-made climate change is an open debate, one of rather 'cloudy' science that is still in its infancy. If you want distorted facts, misnformed statistics and mitigated morals, either to support your naiive views on climate change or just for an exhilirating piece of American fiction, this is the book for you!
Picture book, 12 Sep 2008
I cannot believe that there is a "Young adult" version of this book. For crying out load what is this one then?
I thought the film was poor, but the book, although it follows the film precisely, adds nothing at all to the debate or issue. A huge disappointment and I feel thoroughly conned.
I want to read serious pro material. I believe in understanding an issue. This fails to deliver real scientific facts, only media hysteria and if's and maybe's again.
Dreadful rot.
Mind blowing!, 08 Sep 2008
Everybody should watch this. I'm a bit of a cynic at times but I was amazed at the effort put into this film and its effect on me. Certainly all schools should show this (or the younger age version) to their children. Nobody can be an ostrich anymore. This film is dynamite!
Al Gore (and associates) deserve all the money they make from this outstanding film report. What a pity he didn't make president and we have had to put up with the worse ever idiot president of the USA, Bush the Buffoon. But hey, even worse is on the horizon. McCain and an incredibly ludicrous woman called Palin, who believes the earth was created just six thousand years ago and Noah saved all the animals of the planet, and she doesn't believe in global warming. God help us - whatever God that is you support!
If this book don't wake people up, nothing will , 02 Jul 2008
Al gore has done what many in World goverments are afaird to do and admit that Global Warming is actually happening and he is spot on when he says it's an Inconvenient Truth to many poliltians and companies.
This book might not go into to as much depth as some readers would like but i think Al Gore was attempting to reach out to everyone by not filling the book with lots of scientific jargon.
The photo's and their are many in this book, show what is happening to our world and no amount of written information can change what them photo's are proving, the world as we know it is changing.
If amazes me that people still think global warming is just a myth when their is so many books out their including this one that prove it's not.
This book is a intresting and compelling read and offers a distrubing insight into what awaits us if we fail to protect our only home, Planet Earth.
Politics makes its own facts, 28 Oct 2007
Not convincing. Hard not to come away with the feeling of a politicians sweaty handshake. I felt bamboozled.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Customer Reviews
Just what it says on the tin, 16 Sep 2008
This is a wonderful book. As the title suggests, it is cool, reasonable, and patient, looking carefully at all the evidence and coming to conclusions which it is hard to disagree with.
Like other reviewers, I find it hard to take excerpts from the book because I would have to quote the whole thing! However, perhaps I may try to help anyone who is wondering whether to read it. One way to look at the global warming/climate change debate is to ask oneself three questions.
First, is the world getting warmer?
Second, is human activity, and specifically CO2, a major cause?
And third, does it matter? Will there be harmful consequences? And if so, what should we do about them?
Much of the angry debate between believers and sceptics rages round the first two points. Lawson surveys the evidence on both, and comes to a conclusion. But what makes this book so powerful is its focus on the third question: whether a warmer world is one that will harm people, animals, plants, and our descendants. The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) argues that it will. Lawson disagrees. He takes us through the IPCC scenarios, and their range of predictions relating to five potential impacts of a warmer world: on water, ecosystems, food, coasts, and health. In each case he demonstrates, with evidence, that a warmer world will either be neutral or even beneficial. What makes this evidence particularly persuasive is that much of it is drawn from the IPCC's own 4th report (2007)!.
It would be wrong to think of this book as complacent, a kind of 'I'm all right, Jack, pull up the ladder'. As Lawson points out, the single major cause of ill-health and death in the world is poverty, and if we take the standpoint of human welfare, the surest way to benefit humans is to lift them out of poverty. Lawson sees many serious problems facing the world, and many things that urgently need putting right. The view of this compelling and convincing book is that global warming isn't one of them.
A call for solid science to replace the hype and hysteria, 14 Sep 2008
A well written and thought provoking book that attempts to speak above the hysterical din that dominates the subject.
The author calls for a considered approach and appeals to organisations to address the issues we face in a sensible and practical way.
Lawson knows best apparently, 23 Aug 2008
The combined wisdom of the world's leading climate change scientists is clearly no match for Nigel Lawson. He alone is clear sighted enough to see these clever people are all wrong. Stop worrying you people on coastlands and islands as you watch the tide rising. Stop fussing about those droughts Africa and Australia! Trust Nigel, everything will be well because...er because he says so.
Thought-provoking contribution, 19 Aug 2008
In this thought-provoking book, Nigel Lawson asks key questions about global warming. Is the world warming and if so, why? How much warmer will it get? What will be the consequences? What can and should we do about it? What is the most cost-effective way to tackle it?
He looks at the temperature record. Surprisingly, temperatures have not risen since 2001, even though global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever. There was a 0.7oC rise over the last century while the CO2 in the atmosphere rose by 30%, largely caused by industrialisation driven by the rapid worldwide growth of carbon-based energy consumption (burning coal, oil and gas). Some, possibly most, of the warming is due to this growth of CO2 emissions and so of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2007 report predicted a sea-level rise of between 18 and 59 centimetres by 2100. (Its 1990 report predicted a 3.67 metre rise.) The IPCC predicted a 1.8o-4oC temperature rise by 2100, a mean of less than 3oC. (At 3oC, it says, "Globally, the potential for food production is projected to increase.") 3oC is 0.03oC a year, compared to 1975-2000's 0.02oC a year.
The IPCC says the one `virtually certain' impact of global warming is `reduced human mortality from decreased cold exposure'. A 2003 Department of Health study confirmed this, predicting a decrease in cold-related mortality of 20,000 and an increase in heat-related mortality of 2,000 by the 2050s.
On the IPCC's worst case scenario, of 1% growth a year in the developed countries and 2.3% in the developing countries, global warming could cost us 5% of world GDP by 2100. This would make developed countries' GDP 2.6 times today's rather than 2.7 and developing countries' GDP 8.5 times today's rather than 9.5.
Lawson argues that we should drop the precautionary principle because it is wrong to take decisions on the basis of worst-case possibilities: probabilities, not possibilities, should be our guide.
He looks at the prospects of some specific disasters. He notes that Antarctic ice-sheets are growing, that the IPCC's 2007 report said that an `abrupt transition' of the Gulf Stream is `very unlikely' and that the World Meteorological Organization said of climate change's effects on hurricanes, "no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
The EU's Emissions Trading Scheme has increased profits for selected emitters and not cut emissions. Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism has done no better. The EU promotes growing biofuels, yet the Chinese government has suspended the production of the biofuel ethanol because it has raised food prices.
The Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform said that meeting the EU's agreed target of 20% of energy from renewables by 2020 would raise our electricity costs by £18-22 billion a year.
In June 2007 Merkel and Blair tried to get the G8 to agree to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. The rest rejected the idea. Six months later, Britain and Germany lost again when they proposed a mandatory global emissions cut of 25-40% by 2020.
We could control the world's temperature by severely limiting carbon dioxide emissions through raising prices of carbon-based energy, to make non-carbon-based energy more competitive. But this would force our energy-intensive industries out to China and other countries. (Although China's, and India's, emissions per head are still far less than the West's.) 1990s Russia showed that the only way to meet the Kyoto targets is to destroy your industries.
Lawson argues for an across-the-board carbon tax, even if it forces our remaining energy-intensive industries abroad, and for ending subsidies to all carbon-based energy. Instead, we need to keep our industries, se we need new carbon-based power stations and new gas storage facilities, which the market has not provided and will not provide.
Deluded amateur challenges the science, 12 Aug 2008
Lawson flies in the face of scientific consensus with no solid basis for his position. An unhelpful book.
Come on..., 28 Oct 2008
For crying out loud, why don't we all open our mouths and swallow whatever rot the 'IPCC' feed us. There are so many flaws with this book that can only be seen as propoganda aimed at people who cannot think for themselves. Yes, global warming is almost certainly occurring but it has been blown out of all proportion and all to benefit propositions made by the government. (Carbon taxes to name but one, however that's a whole different kettle of fish.) Look at the End-Permian extinction. An approximated rise in temperature of 5 degrees Celcius is believed to have wiped out the vast majority of terrestrial and marine life. Do you really think this took a century?! Evidence pointing to the Permo-Triassic extinction has been locked away in stratigraphy - the thickness of which is substantianly more than could be deposited in a century! Think between 100,000 to 300,000 years worth.
So come on Mark Lynas, 6 degrees celcius in a century is hugely arrogant because we are so insignificant regarding global surface processes. If you were to look at recent scientific papers, you might be surprised to find that climatologists and geologists predict a 0.8 degree rise in temperature over the next century.
File this one under fantasy.
This book could save your life, 06 Oct 2008
This is the best book on the subject I have ever read and I feel it should be mandatory for all school children over 12 years old. I have been following the global warming debate for over 20 years now (both as an environmentalist and former journalist) from its early days when there were a few very worried scientists getting trashed by the politicians to protect big business, to now when we have thousands of very worried leading scientists and terrified experts of the highest calibre getting trashed by politicians to protect big business. This book is vital and I only wish it could have appeared ten years ago when we still had a chance of making a real difference. The science that Lynas reviews is the best available to us and he communicates difficult subject matter very clearly and with real skill. For such a dry subject (no pun intended) the book is actually quite gripping but it doesn't fall into the easy trap of trivialising or sensationalising the raw data. Let's face it, these are terrifying enough on their own. Read it, it could save your life.
Lynas paints a possible apocalyptic future for us all , 01 Oct 2008
Mark Lynas had spent months in libraries reading and taking notes about future global weather changes from scientific journals and from his studies he has put together this book.
The book explains to the reader what would happen to the planet if it were to get six degrees hotter over the next 100 years.
Each chapter explains what would happen to world as it got 1 degree hotter.
Chapter 1 explains what would happen if the planet got one degree hotter and chapter 6 finishes by explaining what would happen if the planet got six degrees hotter.
This book is not easy to digest as it paints a very apocalyptic future for us humans should climate change not be halted.
In the final chapter Mark explains how we can prevent this scenario ever happening.
A very different book from Al Gore's inconvient truth in a sense that this book looks at what could happen rather than what is happening now.
If the subject global warming interests you than this book is well worth a read and will give you a great insight in future life on earth if we fail to act now.
'business as usual' .... I don't think so., 22 Jul 2008
no politition could read this book and stay in office with 'business as usual' without being in total denial. not sensational in it's presentation, but leaves little to the imagination. Surely we've had it, haven't we? Don't leave too much money to your children - it will be of little use.
BAFFLED, 17 Jun 2008
One thing baffles me about this book by an evangelical warmista - and I wish Lynas would answer. He has not addressed one simple proven fact... that in the last 10 years the globe has been cooling quite markedly at a time when carbon emissions have never been higher. | | |