What do you think?
Rate this book
Climate Change: The Facts 2017
PLEASE NOTE FULL COLOUR GRAPHS BEST READ ON KINDLE APP (MAY BE DIFFICULT TO INTERPRET IN GREYSCALE ON KINDLE DEVICES) There are certain things best not discussed with neighbours over the fence, at barbeques and at gatherings of the extended family; these topics used to include sex and politics, but more recently climate change has become a sensitive issue and has, consequently, crept onto the best-to-avoid list. At the same time as climate change has assumed this status, it has become a topic more likely to be included in a church sermon. Indeed, while once considered the concern of scientific institutions, climate change is now increasingly incorporated into faith-based initiatives with even Pope Francis weighing in, issuing an encyclical on the subject as explained in chapter 16 by Paul Driessen. There are those who believe Pope Francis, and admire another climate change exponent, Al Gore – who marketed An Inconvenient Truth with comment, ‘the fact of global warming is not in question’ and that ‘its consequences for the world we live in will be disastrous if left unchecked’. And then there are the die-hard sceptics who dare to doubt. Many claim that these climate sceptics and their support base have an undue political influence, successfully thwarting attempts to implement necessary public policy change. This book is a collection of chapters by so-called climate sceptics. Each writer was asked to write on an aspect of the topic in which they are considered to have some expertise. None of them deny that climate change is real, but instead, they point out how extremely complex the topic of Earth’s climate is, with some of the contributors also querying the, often generally accepted, solutions. As you will see, this is not a book with just one message, except perhaps that there is a need for more scrutiny of the data, and of our own prejudices. This book’s reason for being is to give pause for thought, and to throw some alternative ideas and considerations into the mix.
467 pages, Kindle Edition
Published August 9, 2017
113 people are currently reading
190 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 - 10 of 10 reviews
February 20, 2018
Who do you trust on global warming/climate change? Do you have the time and background to be able to evaluate what you read and see about it?
I took Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth of 2006 as a serious warning. As a Democrat in the U.S., I took it as reliable.
My career has been in communications. I’ve worked on public information campaigns on recycling of household products, and the dangers of kids inhaling some consumer products. I’ve worked on crisis communications issues such as chemophobia (fear of chemicals) and clergy sex abuse. The first rule in crisis communications is: Tell the truth.
My background in science is: high school and college basic biology, high school chemistry and physics, and career focus on chemical products. Beyond that, I discovered an adult onset interest in science and I read in general interest treatments of science from cosmology, paleontology, evolution, the environment, cancer, diabetes, the brain, health and nutrition to climate change, to mention a few topics. Am I smart enough to understand any of these topics on my own? No, I need to rely on experts who know a lot more than I do. But I live in a democratic republic and I have a responsibility as a voting citizen to educate myself as well as much as I can.
When I had breast cancer two years ago, I had to trust in my chemotherapy oncologist and surgeon before I could agree to the treatments they recommended. Although I had to work like a devil to understand a Triple Negative tumor and the ways that chemo was working in me, I trusted these medical experts to be steering me as best they could. I’ve got an 80% chance of not having to deal with cancer anymore and a 20% chance of it rearing its head in me again. I’m satisfied with those odds and grateful.
In contrast, something has bothered me greatly about the global warming/climate change proclamations of the past dozen years. Not debate, not discussions, but proclamations. Instead of really educating us on the questions of climate heating or cooling, most authorities have pronounced that climate change is settled, that most scientists say it is settled, that it is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) and that reducing what is vividly named our carbon footprint will save our planet. My president, Barack Obama, so held these things. His attorney general, and therefore my attorney general, Loretta Lynch, was considering prosecuting people and businesses labeled “climate change deniers.” Labels, no-discussion proclamations, and most of all opposite-opinion prosecutions -- this is no way for a democratic republic to set policy and it’s no way for science to go forward.
Climate Change, The Facts 2017, was edited by Jennifer Marohasy, senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, which has close ties to the conservative-libertarian Liberal Party in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institu.... Does the political leaning of the IPA--which would not be my approach–-bias the reporting of the 23 contributors to the book? I found it instead to be informative and thought-provoking. You can disagree with the facts presented, but there are facts to disagree with or not. I think I need to read it again.
I took Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth of 2006 as a serious warning. As a Democrat in the U.S., I took it as reliable.
My career has been in communications. I’ve worked on public information campaigns on recycling of household products, and the dangers of kids inhaling some consumer products. I’ve worked on crisis communications issues such as chemophobia (fear of chemicals) and clergy sex abuse. The first rule in crisis communications is: Tell the truth.
My background in science is: high school and college basic biology, high school chemistry and physics, and career focus on chemical products. Beyond that, I discovered an adult onset interest in science and I read in general interest treatments of science from cosmology, paleontology, evolution, the environment, cancer, diabetes, the brain, health and nutrition to climate change, to mention a few topics. Am I smart enough to understand any of these topics on my own? No, I need to rely on experts who know a lot more than I do. But I live in a democratic republic and I have a responsibility as a voting citizen to educate myself as well as much as I can.
When I had breast cancer two years ago, I had to trust in my chemotherapy oncologist and surgeon before I could agree to the treatments they recommended. Although I had to work like a devil to understand a Triple Negative tumor and the ways that chemo was working in me, I trusted these medical experts to be steering me as best they could. I’ve got an 80% chance of not having to deal with cancer anymore and a 20% chance of it rearing its head in me again. I’m satisfied with those odds and grateful.
In contrast, something has bothered me greatly about the global warming/climate change proclamations of the past dozen years. Not debate, not discussions, but proclamations. Instead of really educating us on the questions of climate heating or cooling, most authorities have pronounced that climate change is settled, that most scientists say it is settled, that it is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) and that reducing what is vividly named our carbon footprint will save our planet. My president, Barack Obama, so held these things. His attorney general, and therefore my attorney general, Loretta Lynch, was considering prosecuting people and businesses labeled “climate change deniers.” Labels, no-discussion proclamations, and most of all opposite-opinion prosecutions -- this is no way for a democratic republic to set policy and it’s no way for science to go forward.
Climate Change, The Facts 2017, was edited by Jennifer Marohasy, senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, which has close ties to the conservative-libertarian Liberal Party in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institu.... Does the political leaning of the IPA--which would not be my approach–-bias the reporting of the 23 contributors to the book? I found it instead to be informative and thought-provoking. You can disagree with the facts presented, but there are facts to disagree with or not. I think I need to read it again.
November 27, 2019
Only two interpretations are possible.
Either the contributors to this volume (published by a right wing think tank) are right in making a string of outrageous accusations against climate science and scientists. In short: They are all corrupt and incompetent. Tens of thousands of them.
Or the contributors are essentially just ideologically (and financially) motivated manipulators; not to be trusted, willing to do whatever it takes to create confusion and undermine the credibility of science and scientists en bloc.
I know which interpretation I find most convincing...
Either the contributors to this volume (published by a right wing think tank) are right in making a string of outrageous accusations against climate science and scientists. In short: They are all corrupt and incompetent. Tens of thousands of them.
Or the contributors are essentially just ideologically (and financially) motivated manipulators; not to be trusted, willing to do whatever it takes to create confusion and undermine the credibility of science and scientists en bloc.
I know which interpretation I find most convincing...
March 14, 2018
Very informative from a broad opinion base
This was a very informative read. I have become a sceptic not so much of climate change but of global temperature change due to human CO2 emissions. Read this if you are in a process of realigning your priorities regarding mans responsibility on planet earth. Pollution (not CO2 as it is not a pollutant) and how the policies of the west impact the poorest of the poor is certainly climbing the ranks in my priority order. Pollution is not addressed here but shows clearly the issues with the Scientific validity of the current models that drive economic policy concerning climate change.
I really appreciated the calm and open way in which the authors discussed each topic. I never felt that any were trying to pursued or indoctrinate with sensationalistic claims. It was merely laying down both fact and uncertainty as they saw it.
Worth a read to really anyone who is trying to break free from the hyper normalisation prison that is our current mass media.
This was a very informative read. I have become a sceptic not so much of climate change but of global temperature change due to human CO2 emissions. Read this if you are in a process of realigning your priorities regarding mans responsibility on planet earth. Pollution (not CO2 as it is not a pollutant) and how the policies of the west impact the poorest of the poor is certainly climbing the ranks in my priority order. Pollution is not addressed here but shows clearly the issues with the Scientific validity of the current models that drive economic policy concerning climate change.
I really appreciated the calm and open way in which the authors discussed each topic. I never felt that any were trying to pursued or indoctrinate with sensationalistic claims. It was merely laying down both fact and uncertainty as they saw it.
Worth a read to really anyone who is trying to break free from the hyper normalisation prison that is our current mass media.
May 23, 2020
A must read for everyone who has a doubt about of what IPCC and UN is feeding us with.
September 19, 2021
It is difficult to read a book that doesn’t have one central theme, but that is precisely the point of this book: the scientific process - especially as relates to observational science - should allow for many different evidence-backed points of view. The range of topics in this book is broad and valuable in providing additional perspective in everything from the state of coral reefs, how temperature data is “smoothed”, the various natural climate disrupting cycles that have been in place for many years, “lukewarmer” points of view, and the cost-benefit of various CO2 reduction plans. Good book, but be prepared to jump to vastly different topics with entirely different writing styles for each of the 22 chapters.
March 11, 2020
A great argument against "settled science"
Every well documented chapter in the book has something to say that brings into question the alarmist predictions. I liked best the chapters that show the many benefits to society and the planet resulting from the improved health of plant life from higher CO2 levels. There are plenty of great argument from scientists of different disciplines, so you are sure to find some that for in your ammo belt for your next argument with a climate change advocate
Every well documented chapter in the book has something to say that brings into question the alarmist predictions. I liked best the chapters that show the many benefits to society and the planet resulting from the improved health of plant life from higher CO2 levels. There are plenty of great argument from scientists of different disciplines, so you are sure to find some that for in your ammo belt for your next argument with a climate change advocate
September 23, 2019
Informative and enlightening look at the actual facts
After so much politicised propaganda on the subject in the mainstream media this is fantastically educational book to clear the air as it were. I especially loved the chapter on the moon. Some chapters a bit on the dry side but overall very informative.
After so much politicised propaganda on the subject in the mainstream media this is fantastically educational book to clear the air as it were. I especially loved the chapter on the moon. Some chapters a bit on the dry side but overall very informative.
October 28, 2019
I am a chemist who has long been sceptical about how a gas that is less than 0.05% of the atmosphere can be solely responsible for the current far from unprecedented global temperature rises. Read this book and find out why.
July 26, 2019
Climate Skeptics Unite!
All issues related to climate science are covered. The notes and references alone are worth the price. I especially enjoyed the final chapter’s satirical take. Overall the bad news: The Great Barrier Reef will die very soon. The Good News: this remains true now for 50 years. Reports of the death of Science are greatly exaggerated.
All issues related to climate science are covered. The notes and references alone are worth the price. I especially enjoyed the final chapter’s satirical take. Overall the bad news: The Great Barrier Reef will die very soon. The Good News: this remains true now for 50 years. Reports of the death of Science are greatly exaggerated.
February 15, 2019
This is not a book that denies climate change/global warming. It just takes another perspective, questions different aspects of the current mode of thinking.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 10 reviews