[FREE] 15 eBooks on Climate Change from The National Academies Press

Related Stores

nap.edu

• lukeloop on 25/02/2014 - 22:40 Comment score below threshold.
  • 

    KiLLUMiN4Ti on 25/02/2014 - 23:02

    -1

    Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it. ;-)

  • 

    mycosys on 26/02/2014 - 11:36

    Guessing you did a whole lot of research on that "isnt even true" thing - consisting mostly of covering your ears and going "LALALALALALALA I DONT WANT TO HEAR" and then maybe even trying to even find someone who would tell you what you wanted to hear, no matter how dodgy they were.
    There is ZERO doubt - the earth IS warming, at unprecedented rates, at a time in the solar activity cycle in which it should be cooling. There is no credible discussion even on whether humans have caused it, we have. The only doubt is whether it will be seriously disastrous or utterly catastrophic.
    But even if 97% of climate scientists isnt good enough for you - and if 97 of 100 doctors said something would kill you would you go with the reputable 97% or the 3% that were mostly employed by its producer - even if that isnt good enough, isnt it better to reduce our emissions just in case 97% of climate scientists ARE right?
    What possible good is there in ignoring the possibility they are right?
    It is well past time we got over this argument and started putting safe, efficient gen 3 and 4 nuclear power online as fast as possible to replace old inefficient, polluting and less safe earlier reactors and fossil fuels and supplemented them with as much wind and solar thermal as we can muster.

    • 

      lukeloop on 26/02/2014 - 20:04

      More heat causes more evaporation and evaporation has a cooling effect. p.s you got baited bad

      • 

        mycosys on 26/02/2014 - 21:34

        -1

        not in a closed evaporation cycle like the atmosphere it doesnt, its balanced out by more condensation, and although the cloudcover will have a reflective effect it works both ways - they also keep heat in under them

        ps - not worried - better than let the tripe of "Anti NWO Warrior" and his nutters rulle the thread.

• 

  The Magic Pudding on 25/02/2014 - 22:49

  +7

  There's not even one book covering the alien involvement or the commie/green conspiracy.

• 

  KiLLUMiN4Ti on 25/02/2014 - 22:56

  -6

  sigh here we go again….read up sheeple —> http://guardianlv.com/2014/02/global-warming-a-get-rich-quic…
  In times of universal deceit telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act- Neg away ;-)

  • 

    gilbarc on 25/02/2014 - 23:01

    +2

    Someone help me, I honestly can't tell whether or not this is sarcasm.

    • 

      KiLLUMiN4Ti on 25/02/2014 - 23:04

      XD for real simple one.

      • 

        gilbarc on 25/02/2014 - 23:15

        That… didn't really clear things up.

        This thread is clearly going to be a mess, so I'm going to just give it a miss. And I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume it was sarcasm.

      • 

        KiLLUMiN4Ti on 25/02/2014 - 23:23

        -1

        Nice argument- really (there's your sarcasm) ;-)
        Anything with some actual substance next time would be great- night :-)

      • 

        johnn on 25/02/2014 - 23:27

        +1

        Refer to below

  • 

    Tycn on 25/02/2014 - 23:15

    +1

    Biggest hoax since the moon landing, as this highly credible source will tell you.

    • 

      KiLLUMiN4Ti on 25/02/2014 - 23:28

      Facts are facts- jest all you want.
      Follow the money….some of its yours ;-)

      • 

        Namarrgon on 28/02/2014 - 13:28

        I prefer my facts peer-reviewed, thanks. And when I follow the money, most of it leads to Big Oil…

  • 

    johnn on 25/02/2014 - 23:22

    +2

    Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. This article clears up everything. Especially the last line of the text

    Satire by Ben Gaul

    • 

      gilbarc on 25/02/2014 - 23:41

      Thank you, you've restored my faith in humanity.

      • 

        KiLLUMiN4Ti on 25/02/2014 - 23:58

        -2

        lol Ignorance is bliss ;-)

    • 

      KiLLUMiN4Ti on 26/02/2014 - 00:29

      -1

      clear enough johnn?

• 

  Grok on 25/02/2014 - 22:58

  -1

  Not a bargain, always free to download

  • 

    CyberGenesys on 25/02/2014 - 23:12

    +4

    Agreed, plus my local library has fiction books I can borrow for free anyway.

  • 

    grababargain on 25/02/2014 - 23:47

    -2

    Books listed are free to download. There are books only for sale and not available for download.

  • 

    RockyRaccoon on 26/02/2014 - 04:33

    -6

    Why wasnt the whole site listed as books for free rather than just the climate change ones?

    eg
    Proceedings of a Workshop on Deterring Cyberattacks:
    Informing Strategies and Developing Options for U.S. Policy (2010)

    http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12997

    Or is this just a way of trolling for the obvious reactions from both sides of the political spectrum.

    This is a bargain site not a politics site.

    Like samR says its always free and lets play with arguments in the right place, eg most of the comments here are not about bargains, they are about the science.

    • 

      grababargain on 26/02/2014 - 05:29

      Didn't you notice that the Go to Deal URL link points to all collections in the site? Climate change is listed as the first collection, had a number of interesting free downloadable books and is the reason for this deal. You can start a new deal just for the site if you so wish?

      • 

        RockyRaccoon on 26/02/2014 - 07:23

        -2

        So what you are saying is that you want to push the climate change opinion rather than the free books.

        Just like your little comments in the text rather than sharing the bargain.

        Your previous very well received and appreciated, post on NASA books, just kept things basic and had no political aspects. Straight factual listings of what bargains were available, this time - no

        Avoid the political comment, and keep to the basics of a bargain, far more suitable to this site.

        Edit the political comments out of your post, leave the titles, and individual book links, and I will be happy to remove my negative vote

      • 

        mycosys on 26/02/2014 - 12:06

        -1

        Climate change isnt politics, it is plain science. Calling it politics is as deluded as calling evolution or gravity politics.
        Sure some people would like to play politics and lie to you about it - but the science is hard and indisputable, and has been for decades. There is NO room for doubt - humankind IS warming the planet through its actions.

• 

  johnn on 25/02/2014 - 23:09

  +3

  Rather sad that the ones who definitely won't read these are the ones who need to read them the most.

  Most deniers are more right that they think though- don't believe what they masses tell you, rather do the research yourself. Which they clearly have not done

  • 

    KiLLUMiN4Ti on 25/02/2014 - 23:53

    -5

    Most deniers are more right that they think though- don't believe what they masses tell you, rather do the research yourself. Which they clearly have not done

    1. I'm guessing you meant "Most deniers are more right than they think though- don't believe what they masses tell you, rather do the research yourself".
       So if most deniers do not believe in man made global warming and they are more right than they think ALSO the masses are telling us that man made global warming is a proven fact, isn't this statement from you confirming the belief that man made global warming is bs?? Please enlighten me.

    2. "Which they clearly have not done"
       One would have to be the epitome of ignorance if he/she did not weigh both sides of an argument. You assume without any real knowledge of what we have or haven't done to back up your statement. Please correct me if I'm wrong and you actually have done multiple surveys of thousands of global warming sceptics to reach this conclusion.

    Have a great night johnn :-)

    • 

      johnn on 26/02/2014 - 01:08

      -1

      Point 1

      Thanks for picking up on my typographical error- although as you were able to correct it quite easily then the meaning of what I wrote was not lost (and it seems like some others who read it understood it fine too). I obviously do not lay claims to be a literary proprietor, but what I hope is that when I write people are able to derive my clear intentions- and in the end, is that not enough? Because isn't writing (or typing in this case) a form of explaining your thoughts? So if the message is ultimately understood, does error in the process matter? (A note to all of you grammar-nazis out there)

      isn't this statement from you confirming the belief that man made global warming is bs?? Please enlighten me.

      Come on now, you know clearly what I meant. Don't try to twist my words- I'm not writing on the internet to play games. I would rather discuss the issue at hand, than discuss the intricacies of my writing style.

      If you are honestly confused, then this is what I meant- deniers are correct in their statement of "don't follow mass-produced ideas, do your own research", but that does not make them correct in what they purport to be their research.

      One would have to be the epitome of ignorance if he/she did not weigh both sides of an argument

      Ohh man, I don't think it is stretching the bounds of what is reasonable to assume that quite a few people do NOT weigh up both sides of an argument. If they did, we would have A LOT less problems and arguments in this world, climate-change or otherwise.

      Please correct me if I'm wrong and you actually have done multiple surveys of thousands of global warming sceptics to reach this conclusion.

      Ahh you have caught me out- I have indeed not done my many time-consuming surveys of these skeptics [funnily enough my major [back in the oldd uni days] required conducting many intensive surveys, so it's not something I'd like to relive anytime soon :)] All I base my comments on are the various comments throughout this deal from deniers, all of whom (bar YOU- many props to you for backing up your beliefs with actual sources. seriously) make claims without sourcing any reliable material to back up their beliefs.

      ANDDD, if you'd like some sources to back up my beliefs, I'm afraid I have a head start. A 15 article head start in fact. From this very deal :)

      • 

        RockyRaccoon on 26/02/2014 - 04:41

        +1

        Its a bargain site, keep the politics out of the discussion my friend. Already people miss the point here. The way this site operates, that voting down a comment starts to hide comments , then it hides not just the comment but also the replies. So it not only "censors" the comment but also any responses.

        Not the best for running political discussion, because the site isnt designed for that.

        Go to the forms, where saving the world discussions will probably have more effect…

        Oh and my vote isnt for or against climate change, it's for or against the bargain, which it clearly isnt as its always free and the guidelines here at ozbargain says its not a "bargain"

      • 

        Tal_Shiar on 26/02/2014 - 05:27

        since when were freebies not bargains?

      • 

        RockyRaccoon on 26/02/2014 - 07:30

        Exactly - so why not list all the freebies rather than just the politically inspired ones also why put the emotional claptrap as well in the title.

        Then look at most of the comments here, nothing to do with bargains or the books, just the politics.

        This is a friendly place to share bargains, rather than start controversy and dispute among members.

        Hell if we want climate change reform, we shouldnt be chasing bargains at all, all that unnecessary consumption just wasting the planets resources, its just hypocritical.

        It's just like someone listing free bibles/korans, and telling us the world is going to end if we dont convert

• 

  bargained on 25/02/2014 - 23:09

  Aaarrrrgggghhhhh!!!!!
  (Not a valid reason for negging the deal so I won't)

• 

  ThisJustin on 25/02/2014 - 23:34

  +2

  I love that people with exactly zero per cent knowledge about the subject of climate tell the rest of us that climate change is a sham. It takes a unique kind of arrogance to dismiss the science of a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

  But (profanity) science, what has it ever done for us?

  • 

    KiLLUMiN4Ti on 26/02/2014 - 00:09

    -5

    Did you study Meteorology Justin?

    Quoted from Forbes.com
    "Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause, a newly released study reveals. The survey results comprise the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist….While these survey results should have a seismic impact in the global warming debate, they shouldn’t come as a surprise. The evidence of a sharp scientific disagreement in the global warming debate has been building for years.

    Please, read on- this may shock you —-> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-lates…

    They MUST be wrong ;-)

    • 

      odysseus on 26/02/2014 - 00:50

      So a majority clearly believe that it's primarily man-made, and you think that makes them dubious? Strange twist there.

      Reporting on the actual number who support your apparent position, only 5% in that survey believe that climate change is mostly natural. Huge vote of support for your camp there.

    • 

      johnn on 26/02/2014 - 01:20

      +3

      Ahhh where do I start?

      First of all, the author of that article is a well-known climate change skeptic. In fact, if you look through all of his previous articles they have all been very critical of climate change believers and the idea of climate change. So it's not hard to believe that he would make another article trying to debase climate change (and he is very well entitled to I must add).

      HOWEVER, given this it is not a stretch to believe that he would manipulate data and statistics to back up his very clear beliefs. In fact, it isn't a stretch at all- it's quite obvious!

      He claims

      Just 52 percent of survey respondents answered Yes: Mostly human.

      (when asked whether global warming is happening and what is the cause)

      So yeah, he's all on the ball here. BUT, what he quite obviously fails at is explaining clearly what the other 48 percent believe.

      He goes on to say

      The other 48 percent either questioned whether global warming is happening or would not ascribe human activity as the primary cause.

      Really?

      The other possible answers from that survey are as follows:

      *Yes: Equally human and natural
      *Yes: Mostly natural
      *Yes: Insufficient evidence [to determine cause]
      *Yes: Don’t know cause
      *Don’t know if global warming is happening
      *Global warming is not happening

      Hmmm, so that's quite a few different answers left to go that still support the belief that YES global warming is still happening right? But we don't know what percentage truly represents those scientists who answered the last 'Global warming is not happening', which is the belief that deniers and the author holds. I mean how can we- we don't have access to the material which he has clearly cited in the article! (And I will cite here on page 30)

      If you check this, you will find that a whopping FOUR PERCENT of scientist respondents believed that Global warming is not happening. Sounds a lot different to 48 percent hey.

      ALSO, I'll just leave this here (quoted from cited survey- their discussion about the results)

      Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman(2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth & Lichter 2012, Bray 2010)

    • 

      ThisJustin on 26/02/2014 - 01:21

      Too bad meteorology and climatology aren't the same thing.

      The consensus is clear, whether people like it or not. I don't study climate so I defer to those who do to inform me.

      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

      You're free to believe whatever you want, and you can cherry pick all the info you want to support your position, but that isn't exactly objective and impartial, is it?

      • 

        RockyRaccoon on 26/02/2014 - 04:52

        -2

        You're free to believe whatever you want, and you can cherry pick all the info you want to support your position, but that isn't exactly objective and impartial, is it?

        Sorry I cant resist… and its not taking any side here - as I said above my vote for this bargain is based on bargains…

        But all quotes for or against can be classified as "cherry picking"

        And as for the "arrogance" others above claim, again who defines this. HutA can always declare HutB as arrogant, while HutB can always declare HutA as arrogant.

        National interest depends on what nation you are from. God was on the side of the East AND the West depending on where you live.

        Channel 7 declares paying for Miss Corby's story freedom of the press and a need to know, Channel 9 says it's not.

        Who defines impartiality?

      • 

        ThisJustin on 26/02/2014 - 09:05

        -1

        Impartiality is actually pretty easy to achieve: you don't start with a conclusion and work backwards trying to find evidence that proves your belief while ignoring evidence which contradicts it. Pretending you don't know what impartiality is and how best to determine what is true and false is dishonest.

        Looking at one survey of people whose opinion of climate change is largely irrelevant is cherry picking. Quoting scientists who study this for a living who have evidence to corroborate their position is not.

      • 

        CyberGenesys on 26/02/2014 - 09:26

        Quoting scientists who study this for a living who have evidence to corroborate their position is not.

        The real issue is the evidence is often not impartial.

      • 

        RockyRaccoon on 26/02/2014 - 11:39

        you don't start with a conclusion and work backward

        Which hut are you talking about . Hut A or Hut B

      • 

        Namarrgon on 28/02/2014 - 14:00

        -1

        The closest we have to impartial information is peer-reviewed papers from scientists working in that field. We've always accepted their findings in every other field (barring any new data to the contrary), and a scientific opinion has always held much more weight than an opinion from anyone outside the field.

        However, any individual or organisation, even an expert with years of experience, is still subject to bias to some degree. The only way to minimise that is to compare the conclusions of a large number of qualified experts, in a way that is checked carefully for correctness: a peer-reviewed survey of all published papers in the field. Ideally, multiple peer-reviewed surveys, to be sure.

        Luckily, there have been a number of those, all with similar conclusions. Plus of course the most comprehensive surveys of them all, the IPCC Reports. And they all agree, with a high degree of confidence: climate change is here, and we're responsible.

        If you still won't accept the studied conclusions of most of the experts in the field, then either a) you think you're God's own gift to science and all those thousands of climatologists and scientific organisations are utterly incompetent, or b) you're simply denying all the evidence and preferring to believe that all those scientists are engaged in a massive global conspiracy to defraud the whole world and risk their own careers just to extend their grants a little longer. Which is it?

  • 

    CyberGenesys on 26/02/2014 - 01:04

    I love that people with exactly zero per cent knowledge about other peoples knowledge tell the rest of us that those people have zero percent knowledge. It takes a unique kind of arrogance to dismiss other people as ignorants based on something you know absolutely nothing about :P

    • 

      ThisJustin on 26/02/2014 - 01:08

      -1

      It's highly unlikely that people who study climate seriously go onto bargain sites/forums to defend their dissent against the overwhelming consensus in their field.

      So unlikely that I am confident that I can safely call bullshit on no-nothings without the fear of contradicting someone with specialised training or insight.

• 

  johnn on 26/02/2014 - 01:26

  -1

  Also, I must add as a brief side note, I think in discussions like this I don't like people's comments getting down-voted and obscured. I like to think people on Ozbargain are informed and intelligent enough to read both sides, and make their own views accordingly :)

• 

  [Deactivated] on 26/02/2014 - 05:19

  -6

  Always free, and why does the deal only highlight bargains of political nature?

  • 

    Tal_Shiar on 26/02/2014 - 05:29

    look at the domain and look at the title …. mind blown

    • 

      [Deactivated] on 26/02/2014 - 05:37

      I don't really understand the OPs need to only link the climate change ones, link all the books available. This is a bargain site not politics discussion site. Please do not turn ozbargain into /r/Australia, its unreadable due to all the political spam.

• 

  Entropy Reseller on 26/02/2014 - 06:25

  +3

  For all of you who need real evidence, just turn to my church. Anthropomorphic climate change is not as complicated as many would have you believe. This irrefutable proof will clear up the debate.

  Ramen brothers and sisters.

  • 

    mycosys on 26/02/2014 - 11:10

    May you be touched by his noodly appendages

  • 

    pumpkinspice on 26/02/2014 - 15:03

    +1

    This is the most relevant comment thus far.
    Ramen.

• 

  dissin on 26/02/2014 - 09:27

  Interesting during the last Obama election campaign…..not a single word on climate change. After he was elected again, suddenly they need a carbon tax. Now Kerry is spurting on about it like doomsday.

  They need money and new industries to stay on top

• 

  UFO on 26/02/2014 - 09:40

  All these deniers listening to propaganda, instead of of actual scientific results…. I feel sorry for you.

  When the VAST MAJORITY of internationally renowned scientists say the exact same thing, it's probably best to heed their advice until its proved otherwise.

  Listening to the vocal minority who are simply out to make a quick buck spewing contentious rubbish with no sound scientific backing at all just because they've published a book, will do your children and their children no favours at all.

  It's embarrassing really.