The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change (ISBN 1840468157)

Parsimony, Elegance & Empircism: This Book is Compelling:
The work, The Chilling Stars: the New Theory of Climate Change, by Henrik Svensmark is a remarkable book that offers a compelling theory and explanation of climate change-- backed by a tremendous array of empirical findings that both explain recent climate changes, as well as climate events in Earth's distant past. Svensmark's theory is elegant and parsimonious--that is, it is a simple idea that explains a lot of natural phenomenon. It is also consistent with current experimental evidence, and will likely achieve greater explanatory power in 2010 as a large-scale experiment is run to further test the theory. The book is well-written, and provides detailed responses to the major criticisms that have been leveled against this cosmoclimatology-based theory of climate change (i.e. climate change that is affected and primarily caused by elements from the cosmos--the sun, the amount and timing of high energy cosmic rays, our solar system's location in space, etc.) -- responses that are both dispassionate and compelling. As such, the book avoids judging competing theories (such as the computer model based greenhouse gas theories), and avoids the overly politicized and personal destructive rhetoric used by much of the "consensus" based theorists. As an academic, I've spent many years interested in, and studying the history and philosophy of science. I find the current debate about the causes of climate change to be particularly interesting because it illustrates a couple of key points about science the general public is typically unaware of: (1) progress in science is messy, and can often be political-- as rival factions compete for influence; (2) most often, major breakthroughs in a given field come from a person or persons outside of the mainstream of that field; (3) the very essence of scientific discourse and process, and that which differentiates it from politics, is that consensus is irrelevant in the face of stubborn facts that do not fit the prevailing theory. Svensmark and his team have waged an uphill battle, over many years, to even be able to get access to the resources to test their theory. To date, experimental and empirical evidence supports the cosmoclimatological mechanisms that they argue drive climate change, and have driven climate change for millions and millions of years. Their theory is consistent with, and explains the major "Earth snowball events" when the earth was nearly 100% covered in snow. It explains the more recent "middle-ages mini Ice Age", and other major climate events in Earth's history. Overall, the mechanism that Svensmark believes explains climate change appears much more robust and powerful than the prevailing "consensus" computer-based models, in which key observational data is, in fact, inconsistent and even contradictory with those models. If Svensmark and his team are correct, we could receive further validation of his theory in a couple of years when major high-energy particle studies are completed. In the meantime, it appears to me that the most likely place that we will learn about our current and future climate is from those dedicated scientists who study our sun and cosmos, and those climate scientists whose minds are disciplined enough to entertain competing theories and who are bothered by the tremendous amount of evidence that does not fit the current "consensus" models. In the meantime, global politics will be global politics, and we will all be better off, if, in time, we let scientists be scientists and let the scientific process work-- which means we allow "the stubborn facts" that might undermine a theory, any theory, emerge and help us understand the truth.

Fascinating and thought provoking:
My first reaction was, "Why hasn't any of this been in the mainstrem media?" Nigel Calder's efforts to explain very difficult concepts are impressive. The chapter on Cosmic Rays is alone worth the price of the book. Calder should be writing textbooks. That being said, this book is not for casual reading. It requires thoughtful reading and sometimes re-reading to get it. One disappointment, and the reason I rated it 4 stars, is that the authors seem to be guiding the reader to a particular conclusion. Anyone willing to make the effort necessary to understand it should be trusted to reach their own conclusion. In addition to cosmic rays and their effect on Earth temperatures, there is a great deal of information on ice drilling and the wealth of ancient climate data stored in layers of ice in Greenland and the Antarctic. Much of that information contradicts what is often heard in the media and political speeches. Again, why hasn't this been in the mainstream news? My otherwise favorite radio network, NPR, speaks of "concensus" among "scientists" and labels anyone who doesn't buy climate change concensus as a flat-earther. Genuine scientists don't reach concensus on much of anything except maybe gravity, and this book is one more bit of evidence that there is no concensus among real scientists on global warming. While I am not qualified to judge the validity of Svesmark's theory, the arguments are compelling. Svensmark will eventually be either proven or disproven by his peers and the weather! If you like scientifically stimulating, thought provoking reading, and are willing to put some effort into understanding it, you should read The Chilling Stars. It is a fresh alternative to the junk science in the media. On the other hand, if your scientific information comes from supermarket tabloids and Geraldo, you wouldn't like this book. The first edition was printed in 2007, and a second edition in Spring of 2008. With the recent 1 degree average temperature drop over 12 months, many potential readers are still shivering from the coldest winter on record, and may not need to read this book to be convinced that the alarmist "concensus" is flawed.

A major accomplishment for Climate Science:
I read this book and it was like a breath of fresh air. I became interested on Global Warming prior to Kyoto. I have a science education and spent my working career solving technical problems, but I had no exposure, or knowledge of Climate science before Kyoto made me become interested. I looked for reliable scientific information about Global Warming. It was surprisingly difficult to find. Virtually all publications had a clear agenda, for, or against. Nobody appeared to try to present an objective picture. Facts that did not fit in, were either ignored or treated like "enemy propaganda". And of course, opponent's motives and integrity were continually questioned. Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder's book was a welcome change from the "ideological warfare" of the Global Warming debate. Svensmark actually did scientific work to respond to criticism of his theory and most of the time he was successful. Considering the complexity of his theory, the opposition from the establishment and the minuscule budget he was able to line up, he achieved a tremendous amount in creating an alternative to the climate theory based on greenhouse gas emission only. Did he prove his theory? Probably not at this point. A lot more work needs to be done and he clearly does not have the resources to do it all alone. However, his theory is very plausible and even if it does not fully explain all the variations of the climate, hopefully will stimulate scientists to explore the Sun-Climate connection further. Even more importantly, I would like to see - although I am not too hopeful - that it brings more scientific integrity and civility into the climate debate. If you are interested in climate science and look for book not just to give support to your view, but to broaden your understanding, then you must read this book

Disciples of Al Gore Will Ban This Book:
The Chilling Stars will embarrass the committee that awarded Al Gore the Nobel Prize. Here is hard science, not pseudoscience. If this were four centuries ago Al Gore would declare a "consensus" that the Earth is the center of the universe. Henrik Svensmark would play the part of Galileo. Challenging the majority is often met with censure and ridicule but that is how science advances. Fortunately, the Pope isn't Urban VIII, threatening to burn Svensmark at the stake for heresy.

Good synopsis of an alternate theory:
This book presents the theory that cosmic rays can cause the production of low clouds which can, in turn, affect climate. Good evidence is presented in support of the ideas, both in the form of experiments run by the co-author of the book, and summaries of data collected by other scientists. The author of the book also does a good job of anticipating questions that might crop up. Along the way, there are some interesting explanations of things like orbital tracks of the solar system through the galaxy, and previous warming and cooling trends on the planet. Finally, this theory isn't presented as an all-or-nothing choice. The possibility of greenhouse gases also contributing to climate change is admitted. In spite of the fact that this is an interesting book about the effects of cosmic rays, I have a number of concerns. First of all, this is basically a re-hashing of an old argument about extra-terrestrial factors being responsible for global warming. Many scientists and writers who work on greenhouse-based global warming claim that such factors are not enough to account for the amount of warming we are seeing. This is an issue that scientists will have to work out as most laypeople do not have the wherewithall to decide the issue. Second, this book seems to be in disagreement with some of the facts about historical events such as mass extinctions and previous warming spells as they are described by Peter Ward in his book, Under A Green Sky. Finally, the authors repeatedly complain about being marginalized by the global warming powers that be. While some of that is understandable, an excessive amount can become a red flag for me. This book is engaging and worth reading. The authors give the impression that more experiments and data should be becoming available soon, so I would suspect that if they are on to something, we should hear about it in the near future.