What do you think?
Rate this book
Climate Change: The Facts
Stockade Books and The Institute of Public Affairs are proud to publish Climate Change: The Facts, featuring 22 chapters on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. Climate Change: The Facts features the world’s leading experts and commentators on climate change. Highlights of Climate Change: The Facts include:
Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.
Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called ‘sceptics’. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.
Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing ‘Ship of Fools’ expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don’t know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.
Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.
Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called ‘sceptics’. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.
Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing ‘Ship of Fools’ expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don’t know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.
389 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 11, 2015
314 people are currently reading
493 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
April 17, 2015
If you weren't already a sceptic about 'climate change' and 'global warming' before you read this book, you would be after you'd read it. Fact after fact is laid out in the book and the alarmists are put in their place over and over. Yes, some of the chapters are (shock! horror!) written by people who aren't scientists (but as James Delingpole points out, many of those who make the most noise about global warming aren't scientists either; at least they're not climate scientists). But a number of the chapters are written by scientists, and ones who know their climate science stuff.
I've given the book five stars, though I do have a bit of a gripe that there's quite a lot of repetition in it. Different authors writing from the same viewpoints and giving the same examples. Still these examples are real: they're facts about what has actually happened in the supposed global warming period, not fiction.
I've given the book five stars, though I do have a bit of a gripe that there's quite a lot of repetition in it. Different authors writing from the same viewpoints and giving the same examples. Still these examples are real: they're facts about what has actually happened in the supposed global warming period, not fiction.
May 3, 2017
Some great counterpoints to the Climate Change debate. This debate has grown unfoundedly heated (pun intended). All respect and courtesy quickly flee when it is brought up. This book contains essays from leading scientists, mostly in Australia, who disagree with the current politically correct theory. Some share the hatred they have received in the form of emails, job loss, news articles attacking their character just for speaking up and questioning the dogma of the day.
While some of what is said in this book seems to be unfounded and incorrect, a lot of it seems to check out. Much is footnoted. I followed many of those footnotes and undertook my own independent research just googling things. A lot of what I found agrees with the essays in this book. Some did not.
So read the book for details and more science than the common layman can grasp. I'll just sum up the overarching key themes and points I took away from reading this:
1. Climate is changing. No one argues that.
2. Climate has always been changing. 2 Billion years ago the climate was changing. It is still changing. It will always change.
3. The Climate Change/Global Warming movement is our first attempt to terraform a planet. Our world governments are spending billions convincing us that they can and will control the weather on this planet.
4. Weather and Climate are incredibly poorly understood. Scientists cannot yet quantifiably explain or prove the workings of almost any component to weather. Today's working models based on this current knowledge of the science are so inadequate they do't even allow our weathermen to predict the weather a week out. That is because we don't understand how weather forms and changes. We don't fully understand how the elements in the atmosphere interact.
5. Science is base on theory, and theory is never "settled." When you hear "the science is settled" or "the debate is over" you should immediately be skeptical. Science is the pursuit of truth, which means systematic trials from every angle to disprove a theory. Year after year. Decade after decade. If the theory stands, then it is a good theory. Still ONLY a theory. What do people get for making the argument that manmade Climate Change is 95%-100% proven? The theory of gravity, quantum physics, Thermodynamics, special relativity, (any infinite number of other scientific theories) are not proven or "settled." They are still being researched and tested and debated. So why are people chanting "climate science is proven?" Why are scientists threatened, hounded, or worse if they question the reasons of climate change?
6. The fact that books like this are still being written and that the internet is full of dissenting blogs is a clear sign that no matter how loudly our talk show hosts or government officials yell "the science is settled" it is not. There is a lot of unrest in the scientific community. I equate this to Donald Trump's repeated assertion that he had the largest crowd of any president ever to attend his inauguration. Yet photos, surveys, and polls all show he did not get close. But he will yell (or tweet) at anyone who contradicts him.
7. Manmade climate change is less about science and more about politics. The science is completely unproven and unsettled for EITHER side. The politics, however, are settled and already a multibillion dollar business with an army of lobbyists.
8. Both sides of the argument have lobbyist, corporations sponsoring(buying) research results, and spinning the debate. Only, according to Scientific American the anti-manmade climate change side is spending around $70-100 million a year fighting the "settled science." But the Climate Policy Initiative proudly claims the Pro-manmade climate change is spending $359+billion a year on this debate and stopping climate change.
9. The most vocal people involved in this debate have no understanding of weather or climate. Think of the friends you argue with about this topic. Can either of you (or I for that matter) give a detailed explanation of the water cycle? Can you make a comprehensive list of the factors influencing weather/climate? What do you think about the Navier-stokes or Maxwell equations? What about the effects on weather from orbital eccentricities associated with the Milankovitch (obliquity) cycle?
10. This debate, on the public and Facebook level, is about who has the flashiest, most compelling argument you've heard so far. Not science. Never heard of any of those equations/theories in #9? Then sit down and shut up. Stop shouting at friends, forwarding memes, and chuckling at how witty Jon Stewart or Carson Daly is. Do some reading. I don't know a lot about those above mentioned theories either, but I now know they exist and have read a good essay about how they influence weather. I will continue to study the topic; I am now aware of how little I know about climate science.
11. So this debate is equivalent to your mechanic coming to you and saying that your car engine is running a little hot and needs a $2,000 overhaul to keep running or it could die randomly on you in the next ten years. You say the engine has been running fine, and you haven't noticed anything. The mechanic says, well that is because you are a fool and not paying attention. The heat gauge needle is a few degrees past the middle and that means doom. But he is an expert and he knows it is broken and only he can fix it. You finally agree and pay him the $2,000.
Who came up with what degree your engine gauge should or should not be reading? Isn't it a good idea to do some research on your own and maybe get a second opinion before just giving in to this mechanic?
With a car engine, many of us at least have a grasp of how it works and can smell a scam. But the weather...that is a different story. How many of us have any grasp on how weather works? Honestly, the majority of people I've asked over the years don't even know something as simple as why the sky is blue. Or why the sun is yellow. Yet we see and live with those concepts in our face every day.
This is a heated debate that is costing hundreds of billions a year, and with trillions at stake. How much more then should you do research and try to come to at least a small understanding of weather before handing over your money on one side or the other of this debate?
While some of what is said in this book seems to be unfounded and incorrect, a lot of it seems to check out. Much is footnoted. I followed many of those footnotes and undertook my own independent research just googling things. A lot of what I found agrees with the essays in this book. Some did not.
So read the book for details and more science than the common layman can grasp. I'll just sum up the overarching key themes and points I took away from reading this:
1. Climate is changing. No one argues that.
2. Climate has always been changing. 2 Billion years ago the climate was changing. It is still changing. It will always change.
3. The Climate Change/Global Warming movement is our first attempt to terraform a planet. Our world governments are spending billions convincing us that they can and will control the weather on this planet.
4. Weather and Climate are incredibly poorly understood. Scientists cannot yet quantifiably explain or prove the workings of almost any component to weather. Today's working models based on this current knowledge of the science are so inadequate they do't even allow our weathermen to predict the weather a week out. That is because we don't understand how weather forms and changes. We don't fully understand how the elements in the atmosphere interact.
5. Science is base on theory, and theory is never "settled." When you hear "the science is settled" or "the debate is over" you should immediately be skeptical. Science is the pursuit of truth, which means systematic trials from every angle to disprove a theory. Year after year. Decade after decade. If the theory stands, then it is a good theory. Still ONLY a theory. What do people get for making the argument that manmade Climate Change is 95%-100% proven? The theory of gravity, quantum physics, Thermodynamics, special relativity, (any infinite number of other scientific theories) are not proven or "settled." They are still being researched and tested and debated. So why are people chanting "climate science is proven?" Why are scientists threatened, hounded, or worse if they question the reasons of climate change?
6. The fact that books like this are still being written and that the internet is full of dissenting blogs is a clear sign that no matter how loudly our talk show hosts or government officials yell "the science is settled" it is not. There is a lot of unrest in the scientific community. I equate this to Donald Trump's repeated assertion that he had the largest crowd of any president ever to attend his inauguration. Yet photos, surveys, and polls all show he did not get close. But he will yell (or tweet) at anyone who contradicts him.
7. Manmade climate change is less about science and more about politics. The science is completely unproven and unsettled for EITHER side. The politics, however, are settled and already a multibillion dollar business with an army of lobbyists.
8. Both sides of the argument have lobbyist, corporations sponsoring(buying) research results, and spinning the debate. Only, according to Scientific American the anti-manmade climate change side is spending around $70-100 million a year fighting the "settled science." But the Climate Policy Initiative proudly claims the Pro-manmade climate change is spending $359+billion a year on this debate and stopping climate change.
9. The most vocal people involved in this debate have no understanding of weather or climate. Think of the friends you argue with about this topic. Can either of you (or I for that matter) give a detailed explanation of the water cycle? Can you make a comprehensive list of the factors influencing weather/climate? What do you think about the Navier-stokes or Maxwell equations? What about the effects on weather from orbital eccentricities associated with the Milankovitch (obliquity) cycle?
10. This debate, on the public and Facebook level, is about who has the flashiest, most compelling argument you've heard so far. Not science. Never heard of any of those equations/theories in #9? Then sit down and shut up. Stop shouting at friends, forwarding memes, and chuckling at how witty Jon Stewart or Carson Daly is. Do some reading. I don't know a lot about those above mentioned theories either, but I now know they exist and have read a good essay about how they influence weather. I will continue to study the topic; I am now aware of how little I know about climate science.
11. So this debate is equivalent to your mechanic coming to you and saying that your car engine is running a little hot and needs a $2,000 overhaul to keep running or it could die randomly on you in the next ten years. You say the engine has been running fine, and you haven't noticed anything. The mechanic says, well that is because you are a fool and not paying attention. The heat gauge needle is a few degrees past the middle and that means doom. But he is an expert and he knows it is broken and only he can fix it. You finally agree and pay him the $2,000.
Who came up with what degree your engine gauge should or should not be reading? Isn't it a good idea to do some research on your own and maybe get a second opinion before just giving in to this mechanic?
With a car engine, many of us at least have a grasp of how it works and can smell a scam. But the weather...that is a different story. How many of us have any grasp on how weather works? Honestly, the majority of people I've asked over the years don't even know something as simple as why the sky is blue. Or why the sun is yellow. Yet we see and live with those concepts in our face every day.
This is a heated debate that is costing hundreds of billions a year, and with trillions at stake. How much more then should you do research and try to come to at least a small understanding of weather before handing over your money on one side or the other of this debate?
December 31, 2018
This occult religious tract claims a young earth creationist is an expert in climatology.... and the book then gets even more absurd. Of the people the book cites as an authority on human-caused climate change, none of them are an authority on human-caused climate change. This is probably by design, and not a freakish accident. Ship this idiot proagranda.
May 11, 2018
Excellent series of essays and articles on various aspects of the topic.
Asks some excellent questions and discusses MANY items which have been discussed much in the general media.
Asks some excellent questions and discusses MANY items which have been discussed much in the general media.
December 28, 2018
There is plenty of material here for you to start questioning a few of the main conclusions about global warming. To do so you have to endure and ignore the continual demonisation of the work of others. The very use of this narrative technique, combined with its many misdirections and falsification of what is actually published, undermines much of its objective for me. Apart from a few carefully worded, highly technical chapters, it largely comes across as a confused and muddled rant against climate scientists.
I have difficulty understanding why it was recommended to me as a suitable volume to convert a “climate alarmist” to either doubt or scepticism.
I have difficulty understanding why it was recommended to me as a suitable volume to convert a “climate alarmist” to either doubt or scepticism.
Want to read
June 3, 2017"Global warming may not be happening. If it is happening it is not very severe and to try do do something about it will be extremely expensive. It will mean a total revolution of the world's economy and it will mean almost a centralized control over the world's economy which is a) unpalatable and b) likely to lead to an economic disaster."
Alan Moran, economist
Images provided by the Academy in Lagado.
Alan Moran, economist
Images provided by the Academy in Lagado.
September 16, 2015
An alternative to apocalyptical alarmism is well received but the writing and contextualization could simply be better. Mark Steyn's essay is hilarious, as usual.
December 17, 2020
I read pieces of this religious manifesto, what's curious is that the author has no concept of science or what the Scientific Method is, the author appears to think that his Christian and Republican ideologies are "science," ergo the author utterly fails to not only understand actual climate change science, but the author utterly fails to present any science in defense of the author's supposition that the tens of thousands of world scientists who research and publish on the warming climate are some how wrong while the author is right.
This religious manifesto probably will appeal to the Rush Limbaugh and Fox "News" white older Christian Republican men and women in their 60s and older, however for people who actually understand how science works and what science does, this religious tract is pointless
This religious manifesto probably will appeal to the Rush Limbaugh and Fox "News" white older Christian Republican men and women in their 60s and older, however for people who actually understand how science works and what science does, this religious tract is pointless
June 3, 2015
Interesting book on the science and politics of the climate warming/change issue. I had to skim over the scientific technical sections as it is necessary to be a physics major but most of the narratives and conclusions are quite clear enough. It is also interesting how many of those involved with the IPCC reports who claim to be Nobel Laureates are not. Politics and money are the prime ideas in this issue. Quite interesting, however weather has been changing for millions of years without any help from humans. Follow the money and power.
September 23, 2015
Very impressive facts that our political leaders are ignoring.
I was amazed that George Bush and Margaret Thatcher started the panic about Global warming. Global Warming (now called Climate Change) has infected both political parties. It is disgusting!
I was amazed that George Bush and Margaret Thatcher started the panic about Global warming. Global Warming (now called Climate Change) has infected both political parties. It is disgusting!
July 6, 2016
22 chapters, 23 authors outline the facts on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. This collection of authors make the point that the debate on the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet is driven more by politics and greed rather then science and in fact that science and climate history supports the fact that man and his actions have little or no influence on weather, climate or climate change. (I think it's the Sun!). Published in 2015 this book is up to date with what we call facts today because as we all know a lot of facts have short lives. Very good book for those with open minds.
October 5, 2018
Refuting the themes of the popular press.
This summary of the scientific evidence refuting the claims of man made catastrophic global warming is easy to read and can be understood by anyone who has mastered high school science. I'm not sure that expensive intervention will prevent climate catastrophes or even climate change. But climate is very complicated and our mathematic models fail in prediction as well as explanation. The prediction models used by climate alarmists fail to follow most of the best practices for these types of models. The science is definitely not settled.
This summary of the scientific evidence refuting the claims of man made catastrophic global warming is easy to read and can be understood by anyone who has mastered high school science. I'm not sure that expensive intervention will prevent climate catastrophes or even climate change. But climate is very complicated and our mathematic models fail in prediction as well as explanation. The prediction models used by climate alarmists fail to follow most of the best practices for these types of models. The science is definitely not settled.
June 20, 2015
A refreshing read! A valuable overview of diverse technical knowledge in the field. This book presents a heavyweight lineup of dissenting scientific voices to the current perceived wisdom of the dangers of global warming and its new all-purpose mantra: Climate Change. Mark Steyn's contribution adds an entertaining element, as always. No need for any more ranting polemics on the topic: this new book features a blend of calm clarity and up-to-date technical scholarship and is well worth a read!
January 2, 2016
A brilliant, scientific, debunking of the global warming scam. No temperature rises for 16 years, no noticeable rise in sea levels, no reduction in Arctic or Antarctic ice. Fraudulent 'correction' of inconvenient temperature measurements. Biased computer models that cannot explain the past, and which have failed to forecast accurately for the last twenty years. Just billions of dollars diverted to an international gravy train.
August 19, 2015
Great compilation of anti-AGM articles
Are these authors all of the non-97% of scientists who don't believe in Global warming/climate change/climate disruption? Probably not, but they make a good, data-based case that global warming is not happening,or not happening at an alarming rate. Chill people.
Are these authors all of the non-97% of scientists who don't believe in Global warming/climate change/climate disruption? Probably not, but they make a good, data-based case that global warming is not happening,or not happening at an alarming rate. Chill people.
December 21, 2016
A Place to Find the Truth
While this book is written by and focused on Australian environmental issues, its science is global. The science is excellent and the results challenge the current global warming and climate change predictions. I have been studying this issue and found this to be an excellent source!
While this book is written by and focused on Australian environmental issues, its science is global. The science is excellent and the results challenge the current global warming and climate change predictions. I have been studying this issue and found this to be an excellent source!
November 9, 2017
Stephen King has never written anything this scary. Moran addresses the issue of climate change from environmental, agricultural, economic and health perspectives.
This book is well researched and easy to read but heavy on scientific details. An excellent reference book on a complicated topic.
Recommended.
This book is well researched and easy to read but heavy on scientific details. An excellent reference book on a complicated topic.
Recommended.
April 17, 2019
Thought Provoking
Contesting the idea that ALL scientists and thinkers are in lockstep regarding the causes,effects and responses to changes in global climate,this book is a rare but necessary foray into how one topic has grabbed the attention of scientists, politicians and the public and become so muddied that rational thought and argument is actively repressed.
Contesting the idea that ALL scientists and thinkers are in lockstep regarding the causes,effects and responses to changes in global climate,this book is a rare but necessary foray into how one topic has grabbed the attention of scientists, politicians and the public and become so muddied that rational thought and argument is actively repressed.
September 3, 2019
This is a book of opinions not facts. The climate change debate is over, yet there are still people like this who promote their opinions as facts.
If you think this is a great book, please balance your reading with other books on the subject written by actual scientists who have the real facts. Suggest Six Degrees by mark Lynas, and The World in 2050 by Laurence C. Smith.
If you think this is a great book, please balance your reading with other books on the subject written by actual scientists who have the real facts. Suggest Six Degrees by mark Lynas, and The World in 2050 by Laurence C. Smith.
July 24, 2017
This treads into science fiction territory, but as a work of fantasy, it also holds its own. This collection of short stories is by a who's who of fantasy authors on the theme of an alternate reality where climate change isn't real.
October 18, 2017
This book editor is a conservative economist who is a free market advocate. He is not a scientist and this book is not grounded in science. Read it with that in mind. I stopped reading it in favor of a scientific perspective book.
September 9, 2018
An essay collection of Interesting contrarian views, perspectives, reads on the climate change issue. Portrays the debate as much more complex and nuanced, with much more room for dissent and questioning and open mindedness than the “settled science” theology that predominates public discourse.
July 8, 2019
Great collection of essays exposing the greatest hoax in the history of science: the notion that a naturally occurring trace gas, carbon dioxide, is causing climatic catastrophes. What a disgrace. It's high time this nonsense got exposed.
March 27, 2018
Should be required reading.
December 1, 2018
This book is well documented in clarifying the facts regarding the push for the idea of global warming which has morphed into climate change since the pushers could not prove climate warming.
August 27, 2019
Very nice to hear some science related to this topic. I now feel comfortable explaining to friends and family various aspects of the climate change movement and why it's wrong.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 21, 2019
Excellent essays from a number of scientists and others not on the IPCC bandwagon. Presents the facts in a clear manner.
March 14, 2023
Very very poor.
October 14, 2025
A SERIES OF ESSAYS EXPLORING SCIENCE, ECONOMICS, AND POLITICS
The Introduction to this 2015 book states, “the issue of human induced climate change has become a dominant theme of world politics… The book is divided into three parts. Part one examines the science of climate change… Part two… explores the politics and economics of climate change… Part three explores the climate change movement and the development of the international institutional framework and the growing disconnect from science and scientific observation that characterizes the public debate.” (Pg. 1-4)
Ian Plimer acknowledges in his essay that ‘there is an increase in emissions of carbon dioxide by human activities’; he comments: “These emissions derive mainly from the developing world and the understandable desire of its people to reach the standard of living as the Western middle class… the new industrial revolution in China, India and East Asia is causing the largest migration of humans that has ever occurred, the rise of the middle class in these nations, and the use of steel and electricity, both of which derive from coal. The very slight increase in atmospheric CO2 has led to a slight greening of the planet.” (Pg. 11)
He continues, “Extinction is normal. Highly adapted terrestrial species (such as humans) have a short life whereas some basic highly adaptable species can survive for billions of years (e.g. bacteria). There is a great diversity of reasons for extinction and climate change is only one of the minor causes… hence it is no surprise that we live in a period of extinction… Global warming may create a few extinctions although most species (including plants) have the ability to move to their ideal climate. The history of the planet shows that there is a huge increase in biodiversity during warm times and that extinctions are universal in colder times…” (Pg. 16)
He asserts, “There has never been a public debate about human-induced climate change. Only dogma. Science is full of different interpretations of similar observations… [but] it seldom leads to one side trying to attribute to their opponents all the basest characteristics of the human species. Yet this is precisely what happens in the climate change non-debate. Question even one minor factor in the ‘official’ story and you are likely to be accused of all sorts of political chicanery and moral turpitude. I am yet to find a scientist … [who] claims that the climate is not changing. Hence, to label someone as a climate change ‘denier’ demonstrates that the accuser believes that without human activity, climate would not change. This is ignorance.” (Pg. 18)
William Soon suggests that “Selective citation from the scientific literature by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (IPCC) is clearly evident and its impact is serious... Furthermore, the IPCC has gravely misrepresented the work of two scientists from the U.S. National Solar Observatory… In conclusion, the IPCC has been practicing ‘para-science’ in that, while it affects the appearance of practicing science, it has violated long-held scientific norms and practices of fully and accurately representing the current state of scientific knowledge, and of proposing and testing alternative hypotheses in order to expand knowledge.” (Pg. 63, 65)
Robert C. Carter observes, “It is a scientific truism that climate persistently changes through time, one manifestation of which is the changing global average temperature recorded in many geological data sets… the strong commonality that exists between different paleoclimate records from widely different geographical regions nonetheless often reflects an underlying global signal. Because short thermometer temperature records … do not comprise an adequate climate record, it is to these geological datasets that we must turn to provide the proper climatic content against which to assess modern temperature changes.” (Pg. 69)
He argues, “While scientists generally agree that this ‘prima facie’ warming will cumulate to about 1 [degree] C… IPCC scientists allege that the … effect from more water vapor … will result in a total warming of about 3-6 [degrees] C. However, this speculation … [is] controversial. Though CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its warming efficacy rapidly diminishes… as atmospheric concentrations rise. When both positive … and negative… feedback effects, and geological climate records, are taken into consideration, little likelihood exists that conceivable levels of human emissions will cause dangerous future warming.” (Pg. 72)
He suggests, “the theoretical hazard of dangerous human-caused warming is but one small part of a much wider climate hazard that all scientists agree upon, which is the dangerous weather and climatic events that Nature intermittently presents us with---and always will. It is clear … that the governments of even advanced, wealthy countries are often inadequately prepared for such disasters. We need to do better, and squandering money to give Earth the benefit of the doubt based upon an unjustifiable assumption that dangerous warming will shortly resume is exactly the wrong type of ‘picking winners’ approach.” (Pg. 81)
Nigel Lawson comments, “First, other things being equal, how much can increased atmospheric CO2 be expected to warm the earth?... This is highly uncertain, not least because… the science of clouds is little understood. Until recently, the majority opinion among climate scientists had been that clouds greatly amplify the basic greenhouse effect. But there is a significant minority, including some of the most eminent climate scientists, who strongly dispute this, Second, are other things equal, anyway? We know that over millennia, the temperature of the earth has varied a great deal, long before the arrival of fossil fuels… Third, even if the earth were to warm… does it matter? It would, after all, be surprising if the planet were on a happy but precarious temperature knife-edge, from which any change in either direction would be a major disaster.” (Pg. 97-98)
He contends, “the greatest immorality of all concerns the masses in the developing world… [they] will increasingly account for the lion’s share of global carbon emissions… Asking these countries to abandon the cheapest available sources of energy is … asking them to delay the conquest of malnutrition, to perpetuate the incidence of preventable disease, and to increase the number of premature deaths. Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.” (Pg. 112)
Alan Moran points out, “The bottom line is that if global warming is taking place, even the IPCC is forced to acknowledge that it will not be very harmful. According to their own cited studies, the costs are less than a year’s annual growth in global GDP. Attempts to suppress emissions of greenhouse gases… cost more than any damage the emissions may be causing. And the costs of such radical action would appear to be grossly understated by the IPCC.” (Pg. 131-132)
James Delingpole asserts, “what ought to be immediately obvious to anyone who ponders the logic is apparently anathema to the current climate establishment… This is not ‘science’ we’re seeing in action, here, but a form of political activism.” (Pg. 142) Garth W. Paltridge similarly says, “In those parts of [science] that bear upon the politically correct, skeptics are frowned upon, given nasty names, and ultimately may have their reputations burned at the stake… The take-home message is that there is more than enough uncertainty associated with forecasting climate to allow normal human beings to be reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be as bad as is currently touted.” (Pg. 154)
Steward W. Franks notes, “Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis. Often the occurrence of a drought or flood is sufficient to generate a whole range of expert speculation from those that should know better… What is dismaying is that the worst examples of speculative claims often come from the scientists themselves.” (Pg. 252)
This book will be of great interest to critics of “climate change” and “global warming” forecasts.
The Introduction to this 2015 book states, “the issue of human induced climate change has become a dominant theme of world politics… The book is divided into three parts. Part one examines the science of climate change… Part two… explores the politics and economics of climate change… Part three explores the climate change movement and the development of the international institutional framework and the growing disconnect from science and scientific observation that characterizes the public debate.” (Pg. 1-4)
Ian Plimer acknowledges in his essay that ‘there is an increase in emissions of carbon dioxide by human activities’; he comments: “These emissions derive mainly from the developing world and the understandable desire of its people to reach the standard of living as the Western middle class… the new industrial revolution in China, India and East Asia is causing the largest migration of humans that has ever occurred, the rise of the middle class in these nations, and the use of steel and electricity, both of which derive from coal. The very slight increase in atmospheric CO2 has led to a slight greening of the planet.” (Pg. 11)
He continues, “Extinction is normal. Highly adapted terrestrial species (such as humans) have a short life whereas some basic highly adaptable species can survive for billions of years (e.g. bacteria). There is a great diversity of reasons for extinction and climate change is only one of the minor causes… hence it is no surprise that we live in a period of extinction… Global warming may create a few extinctions although most species (including plants) have the ability to move to their ideal climate. The history of the planet shows that there is a huge increase in biodiversity during warm times and that extinctions are universal in colder times…” (Pg. 16)
He asserts, “There has never been a public debate about human-induced climate change. Only dogma. Science is full of different interpretations of similar observations… [but] it seldom leads to one side trying to attribute to their opponents all the basest characteristics of the human species. Yet this is precisely what happens in the climate change non-debate. Question even one minor factor in the ‘official’ story and you are likely to be accused of all sorts of political chicanery and moral turpitude. I am yet to find a scientist … [who] claims that the climate is not changing. Hence, to label someone as a climate change ‘denier’ demonstrates that the accuser believes that without human activity, climate would not change. This is ignorance.” (Pg. 18)
William Soon suggests that “Selective citation from the scientific literature by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] (IPCC) is clearly evident and its impact is serious... Furthermore, the IPCC has gravely misrepresented the work of two scientists from the U.S. National Solar Observatory… In conclusion, the IPCC has been practicing ‘para-science’ in that, while it affects the appearance of practicing science, it has violated long-held scientific norms and practices of fully and accurately representing the current state of scientific knowledge, and of proposing and testing alternative hypotheses in order to expand knowledge.” (Pg. 63, 65)
Robert C. Carter observes, “It is a scientific truism that climate persistently changes through time, one manifestation of which is the changing global average temperature recorded in many geological data sets… the strong commonality that exists between different paleoclimate records from widely different geographical regions nonetheless often reflects an underlying global signal. Because short thermometer temperature records … do not comprise an adequate climate record, it is to these geological datasets that we must turn to provide the proper climatic content against which to assess modern temperature changes.” (Pg. 69)
He argues, “While scientists generally agree that this ‘prima facie’ warming will cumulate to about 1 [degree] C… IPCC scientists allege that the … effect from more water vapor … will result in a total warming of about 3-6 [degrees] C. However, this speculation … [is] controversial. Though CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its warming efficacy rapidly diminishes… as atmospheric concentrations rise. When both positive … and negative… feedback effects, and geological climate records, are taken into consideration, little likelihood exists that conceivable levels of human emissions will cause dangerous future warming.” (Pg. 72)
He suggests, “the theoretical hazard of dangerous human-caused warming is but one small part of a much wider climate hazard that all scientists agree upon, which is the dangerous weather and climatic events that Nature intermittently presents us with---and always will. It is clear … that the governments of even advanced, wealthy countries are often inadequately prepared for such disasters. We need to do better, and squandering money to give Earth the benefit of the doubt based upon an unjustifiable assumption that dangerous warming will shortly resume is exactly the wrong type of ‘picking winners’ approach.” (Pg. 81)
Nigel Lawson comments, “First, other things being equal, how much can increased atmospheric CO2 be expected to warm the earth?... This is highly uncertain, not least because… the science of clouds is little understood. Until recently, the majority opinion among climate scientists had been that clouds greatly amplify the basic greenhouse effect. But there is a significant minority, including some of the most eminent climate scientists, who strongly dispute this, Second, are other things equal, anyway? We know that over millennia, the temperature of the earth has varied a great deal, long before the arrival of fossil fuels… Third, even if the earth were to warm… does it matter? It would, after all, be surprising if the planet were on a happy but precarious temperature knife-edge, from which any change in either direction would be a major disaster.” (Pg. 97-98)
He contends, “the greatest immorality of all concerns the masses in the developing world… [they] will increasingly account for the lion’s share of global carbon emissions… Asking these countries to abandon the cheapest available sources of energy is … asking them to delay the conquest of malnutrition, to perpetuate the incidence of preventable disease, and to increase the number of premature deaths. Global warming orthodoxy is not merely irrational. It is wicked.” (Pg. 112)
Alan Moran points out, “The bottom line is that if global warming is taking place, even the IPCC is forced to acknowledge that it will not be very harmful. According to their own cited studies, the costs are less than a year’s annual growth in global GDP. Attempts to suppress emissions of greenhouse gases… cost more than any damage the emissions may be causing. And the costs of such radical action would appear to be grossly understated by the IPCC.” (Pg. 131-132)
James Delingpole asserts, “what ought to be immediately obvious to anyone who ponders the logic is apparently anathema to the current climate establishment… This is not ‘science’ we’re seeing in action, here, but a form of political activism.” (Pg. 142) Garth W. Paltridge similarly says, “In those parts of [science] that bear upon the politically correct, skeptics are frowned upon, given nasty names, and ultimately may have their reputations burned at the stake… The take-home message is that there is more than enough uncertainty associated with forecasting climate to allow normal human beings to be reasonably hopeful that global warming might not be as bad as is currently touted.” (Pg. 154)
Steward W. Franks notes, “Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis. Often the occurrence of a drought or flood is sufficient to generate a whole range of expert speculation from those that should know better… What is dismaying is that the worst examples of speculative claims often come from the scientists themselves.” (Pg. 252)
This book will be of great interest to critics of “climate change” and “global warming” forecasts.
March 27, 2021
This was an ok book overall. I like the fact that most (not all of the chapters) were made with a serious tone of criticizing that climate change is now an ideology and we should be striving to falsify the climate change theory (a la Popper) rather than build hypothesis that search for confirmatory evidence (actually I noticed a great deal of arguments for searching for direct causal mechanisms and ruling out other explanations such as a solar activity which I agree).
This book is a bit outdated and the main criticism of the climate warming hiatus (1998-2012) is now over and further warming has been recorded. However I celebrate the questioning of everything as long as reasonable arguments are offerred. Some of these chapters argue that we haven't really understood well how the climate system works and point out to flaws in incorporating the role of solar activity, the assumptions of climate sensitivity (the expected temperature change with a doubling of CO2) in all forecasts (which according to some is less than expected and even though warming is happening it's less alarmist than thought) and the inability to compare current frequency of extreme events to the past frequency of extreme events because we simply don't have that data.
Other chapters were plain boring because they ended up mocking climate change activists without really delving into evidence. This book criticizes ideology a lot and I like that. However, in my opinion it failed to tackle the main evidence in favor of climate change evidence: yes, warming has occurred in the past but never at this rapid pace in a short amount of time.
The Medieval Warming period lasted for more than a century but these changes did not occur as fast as now and were mainly concetrated in the North Atlantic. In other regions the temperature actually decreased on average.
Overall the book is technical in nature. I would only recommend this if you're really into climate change and not looking for some light reading on the topic. I celebrate backed up skepticisim and some chapter offered that while others were just ranting against climate alarmists.
This book is a bit outdated and the main criticism of the climate warming hiatus (1998-2012) is now over and further warming has been recorded. However I celebrate the questioning of everything as long as reasonable arguments are offerred. Some of these chapters argue that we haven't really understood well how the climate system works and point out to flaws in incorporating the role of solar activity, the assumptions of climate sensitivity (the expected temperature change with a doubling of CO2) in all forecasts (which according to some is less than expected and even though warming is happening it's less alarmist than thought) and the inability to compare current frequency of extreme events to the past frequency of extreme events because we simply don't have that data.
Other chapters were plain boring because they ended up mocking climate change activists without really delving into evidence. This book criticizes ideology a lot and I like that. However, in my opinion it failed to tackle the main evidence in favor of climate change evidence: yes, warming has occurred in the past but never at this rapid pace in a short amount of time.
The Medieval Warming period lasted for more than a century but these changes did not occur as fast as now and were mainly concetrated in the North Atlantic. In other regions the temperature actually decreased on average.
Overall the book is technical in nature. I would only recommend this if you're really into climate change and not looking for some light reading on the topic. I celebrate backed up skepticisim and some chapter offered that while others were just ranting against climate alarmists.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews