Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com

Average Customer Rating:

Lawyer Looks at Climate "Science"

Customer Rating:

In agreement with Donald B. Siano's review of 23 Feb 04, I felt that this book was written as a rant against the use of coal, much of it warranted, but not all. It was also in lawyer style in that one-sided views were the norm, with little attempt at balance. However, it is easy to read, has 14 photos, some of which will make you sick, and is well-referenced, but by the page # method. The ultimate motive was promulgation of the dogma that carbon dioxide (CO2) from human efforts causes global warming, called by others the greatest scientific hoax ever, and denied by >32,000 scientists (www.petitionproject.org). A history of the discovery and use of coal was given including mining injuries, rickets from coal smoke blotting out sunlight, deaths from black lung, asthma, TB, and exposure to both CO2 and CO. Invention of the steam engine as a power source for pumping out mines in the UK was accompanied by steam injuries. The factory system made possible on a huge scale by steam engines was highlighted for its transition in the UK then elsewhere to slums, 12-hour shifts for the lucky children, with greatly shortened lives compared with farming. An improvement in the USA was use of comparatively smokeless anthracite, said to make less smoke than wood; but the toxicity of wood smoke was minimized. The large scale of mining led to formation of labor unions, and this was noted for violent strike breaking with murders. Modern use of coal to make electric power, even with pollution control, is said to emit too much sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulates, mercury, arsenic and other toxins; this is true. While the production of coal gas for illumination was noted, the coal tar industry's products other than military explosives received little attention, such as dyes and drugs and moth balls. Author Freese's wish to eliminate coal plants because of these and harmless CO2 emissions is not accompanied by any choices of steady, safe power sources. China's old and modern use of coal is addressed with its problems. No advantage to the factory system or cheap power for all of us is admitted. In common with other climate alarmists, Freese has problems with technology and science. In trying to explain the workings of Watt's steam engine with condenser, there was no explanation of how power was obtained (p62). It is hard to believe that the British Navy, not noted to be 1000 ships strong at the time of the Napoleonic Wars, was dependent on the existence of the coal-carrying merchant fleet (85). Minimizing the pollution from burning wood is sad (p108). At least the danger of sparks and cinders was noted (p123). From p145: "When nature squeezes coal, it makes graphite." So how are diamonds formed in nature? Like many writers, Freese confuses an element with its compounds. On p168 she calls brimstone or sulfur the coal contaminant that forms SO2, when it is sulfur compounds that are impractical to remove before burning. Next she does not explain how it forms acid rain. On p171 "...tiny sulfate particles..." get attention even though there is no such particle, sulfate being an ion like ammonium ion with no possibility of existing alone. On p171: "Smog is mainly ozone..." is a decisive error, because the orange haze is due to NO2 and much irritation to peroxyacetyl nitrate (Helvetica Chimica Acta 2007;65(2):504-520). Then: "--a gas we have too little of up in the stratosphere where it shields us from radiation..." She does not say how much more would be enough, or that much more would prevent UVB from letting us make our vitamin D. Power plant emissions (meaning coal) were said to cause 30,000 deaths per year, presumably in the USA (not clear on p175). "It's exceedingly rare to find huge numbers of deaths... linked to one industry." Well, how about 300,000 deaths per year in the USA from prescription drugs? Google "Death by Medicine". So these examples demonstrate Freese's shaky grasp of chemistry and technology. Thus, when she insists that CO2 is the main cause of climate change by being the most important greenhouse gas, trapping heat in the same way that the glass of a greenhouse does, she does not grasp the science, and possibly has never seen the good stuff that >32,000 of us have. Water vapor is the main greenhouse gas. Its absorption bands that capture earth emission of infrared rays lie on top of the CO2 emission that might otherwise matter. There is no correlation of CO2 levels with warming, and those levels have been as high or higher than now in 1822, 1858 and 1944. My own review: Joel M. Kauffman "Climate Change Reexamined" (CCR), Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, Pages 723-749, 2007 http://folk.uio.no/tomvs/esef/Kauffman_JSE-21-4-723_2007.pdf is as good as any overall. The Earth warmed up as much in the 19th century as in the 20th with much less human CO2 present (http://www.jpands.org/jpands1203.htm p79). So when Freese dismissed nuclear power because of waste disposal problems and possible terrorist attacks in 3 lines (p240), you can guess how accurate this is. The French seem to do fine with recycling of fuel and waste disposal. The USA has had the WIPP site in safe operation for 9 years, and is accepted by the local population near Carlsbad, NM (www.wipp.energy.gov). On p245: "Unburned methane is a greenhouse gas 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide." Well then, why was it not detectable in my infrared spectrum of air in Figure 7 of my review (CCR)? No gas could do what she claimed at <2 ppm. The hysteria Freese works up to by p247 has no scientific support at all. As the talented physicist Viscount Christopher Monckton has said and written: "Have the courage to do nothing." Meaning that no economy-crushing action need be taken to limit CO2 because it will accomplish nothing.

Excellent research, reasoning - not flashy, very solid

Customer Rating:

There is much less advocacy here than in (the terrible) Coal River or (the good) Moving Mountains, but just as much information, both scientific and historical, primarily the latter. Freese is a former assistant attorney general of Minnesota who reasons rather than assails. She reasons (correctly, I believe) that we humans use energy from the sun to function. "Life on earth is, in short, a vast and sophisticated system for capturing, converting, storing and moving solar energy." As a nascent civilization developed, humans used solar-source energy stored in recently dead plants and animals to power their lives. Those resources limit the population that the earth can support. For example, a small cabin in a temperate climate (like that of West Virginia) uses about 15 cords of firewood per year, which is the output of just under an acre. (One cord equals 128 cubic feet.) In England, where coal was first mined, the forests were vanishing at an alarming rate. Up to that point, we were "spending the interest," the current solar energy converted. And then came coal, solar-source energy from long-dead plants which had stored energy collected over millions of years, and which let us begin profligately spending the principal. There was (and is) so much coal that until the mid-20th Century, it was considered functionally infinite. Even the oil industry was made possible with the power of coal. The dependence on coal is alarming - fully half of the electricity that we use comes from coal. The environmental effects have crept up to an alarming point. On an average day in the Eastern United States, you can see fourteen miles, due to tiny sulfate particulates that scatter sunlight. Without human-made air pollution, you could see forty-five-plus miles. Freese discusses fairly the dispute about mountain top/valley fill mining, that it is "pitting those who want to hang on to dwindling coal jobs against those who hate to see their mountains and valleys forever altered." Whether you are a conservationist, an industrialist, or both, if you believe in Vince Lombardi's "back to basics" approach, this book has great value.

I'd only finish this if I were being graded on it.	Customer Rating:
I gave up on this book five chapters in. If I wanted to read a slow compilation of quotes from other literature about the history of coal, I'd have purchased a textbook. I can only recommend this to people who have papers to write on this very subject as a shortcut to finding original sources. The bibliography received one of the stars in this review.

Something to learn but a tedious read

Customer Rating:

I bought this book because of its small size (only 7 x 5" and 248 pages). I thought I would learn something and I did. Subtitled "A Human History", this is the story of coal -- how it was discovered, how it impacted the world in the past and how it is impacting the world today. I learned about the industrial revolution, the hard lives of the miners, the fortunes made by the industrialists and the regulations that were later put into place. The writer also explored coal mines today and I was fascinated by her recent visit to a coal mine in China. Some of the book was pretty technical and I could not follow it, but I did understand that the author was trying to put the world of coal in perspective and teach us about its dangers. She is an environmentalist and an expert in coal. I am glad she wrote this book. However, and this is a big "however", I found her style of writing tedious and therefore raced through the book fast, just so I wouldn't have to read it anymore. I must say though that it is certainly worthwhile, and I would recommend it particularly to high school and college students who might have to write a paper on the subject. For all others though, I only give it a lukewarm recommendation.

Coal interesting? Sure is	Customer Rating:
Very interesting, fascinating, informative book. I learned lots from this well written, thoroughly enthralling book and gave it a well deserved 5 star rating.