craven

American Art: History and Culture, Revised First Edition
$75.00
This textbook is well written and direct. Craven is straightforward in his approach to american art history. He is comprehsensive in his coverage of artists, movements, and issues - and the plates are of a nice quality. All in all a value for the money.

Beverley Craven
$11.98
I first heard Beverley when I was a Junior in college. My roommate from Istanbul, Turkey put her in our CD player one day and I was instantly in love with her voice. I am a black girl from a small town in Tennessee and have so many friend who've listened to the CD and ordered it. This CD is timeless. You will be able to listen to it 20 years from today and still love it. Her voice is pure and her lyrics are compelling. You can see what she sings, you can relate to the emotions in her voice. I've grown up on all types of music, thanks to my parents and I have shared Beverly with my 10 and 8 year old son and daughter. They love her. My daughter loves, "I listen to the rain", and my son loves "Promise Me". I happen to love every single song on this CD.

An heroic epistle to the Right Honourable the Lord Craven: on his deliveri
$0.99

What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate
$14.95
This is an easy to read book for most adults and high-school students and does an honest job at attempting to do what the author claims he wishes to do. That is, provide an argument for addressing climate change regardless of "what the science eventually concludes". The reason I give just three stars is that Craven does a disservice to all by even keeping alive the idea that the science is unsettled and such a debate even exists. The science has been clear for several decades now. One need merely read the Charney Report from 1979 which concludes "our best estimate is that changes in global temperature of the order of 3¡ëC will occur and that these will be accompanied by significant changes in regional climatic patterns."
The 1979 JASON technical report entitled "The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate" also predicted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would double from their pre-industrial levels by about 2035. Today it is expected this will happen by about 2050. They suggested that this doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to an average warming across the planet of 2-3C, an estimate in line with the most current IPCC findings. They further warned that polar regions would warm by much more than the average, perhaps by as much as 10C or 12C. That prediction is already coming true and was also predicted by the IPCC in 1995.
In other words there is no debate. The scientific predictions from 30 years ago, made from assessments gathered during the 1960's and 1970's, told us what ALL peer-reviewed assessments since then have told us. All we have essentially done in the last 25 years is further refine the predictions on the regional effects.
We need to stop pretending that a handful of fossil fuel industry funded opportunists doing 3rd rate science is the equivalent of a meaningful debate. The scientists who first began publishing doubts on climate change in the popular press were the very same scientists who also published similar reports to cast doubt on the link between cancer and tobacco, CFC's and the ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen emissions to acid rain. They have, in internal communications, admitted their reports are only intended to give the impression a debate exists to delay action. They have never been "correct" in their findings because that is not their intention.
While this author's heart is in the right place he is aiding those who deceive the public for their own political and economic benefit at the expense of the public good.
The science is settled, there is NO debate. It is time to give climate change deniers the same level of attention we give to those who promulgate perpetual motion machines since their "science" is roughly equally valid.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh since the author admits he "believes" in climate change but the "debate" has already cost us 30 years. One no more "believes" in climate change than one "believes" in gravity or electro-magnetism. We cannot afford to molly-coddle our societies scientifically illiterate. They are the minority and the time to act has already passed.