What do you think?
Rate this book
Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You to Know
You have been inundated with reports from media, governments, think tanks and “experts” saying that our climate is changing for the worse and it is our fault. Increases in droughts, heat waves, tornadoes and poison ivy—to name a few—are all blamed on our “sins of emissions” from burning fossil fuels and increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Yet, you don’t quite buy into this human-caused climate apocalypse. You aren’t sure about the details because you don’t have all the facts and likely aren’t a scientist. Inconvenient Facts was specifically created for you. Writing in plain English and providing easily understood charts and figures, Gregory Wrightstone presents the science to assess the basis of the threatened Thermageddon.
The book’s 60 “inconvenient facts” come from government sources, peer-reviewed literature or scholarly works, set forth in a way that is lucid and entertaining. The information likely will challenge your current understanding of many apocalyptic predictions about our ever dynamic climate.
You will learn that the planet is improving, not in spite of increasing CO2 and rising temperature, but because of it. The very framework of the climate-catastrophe argument will be confronted with scientific fact.
Arm yourself with the truth.
The book’s 60 “inconvenient facts” come from government sources, peer-reviewed literature or scholarly works, set forth in a way that is lucid and entertaining. The information likely will challenge your current understanding of many apocalyptic predictions about our ever dynamic climate.
You will learn that the planet is improving, not in spite of increasing CO2 and rising temperature, but because of it. The very framework of the climate-catastrophe argument will be confronted with scientific fact.
Arm yourself with the truth.
200 pages, Kindle Edition
First published November 24, 2017
423 people are currently reading
1431 people want to read
About the author
Gregory Wrightstone
7 books43 followersGregory Wrightstone is a geologist with more than 35 years of experience researching and studying various aspects of the Earth's processes. He earned a BS from Waynesburg University and a master's from West Virginia University, both in the field of geology. He has written and presented extensively on many aspects of geology including how paleogeography and paleoclimate control geologic processes. His findings have allowed him to speak at many venues around the world including Ireland, England, China and most recently India.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews
May 3, 2020
To be honest, I don't know if I should laugh, or cry at this book. I really don't. While I think about it, let me say that you should always give credit where credit is due, and the thing is, Gregory Wrightstone is a clever writer, because you have to be clever to do what he does to the facts and data in this book. He does it so well that I wouldn't blame anyone for falling for the claims presented in it.
He begins by claiming that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Do you know what? He's is right. The fact is that water vapor really is a greenhouse gas, but there is nothing inconvenient about that fact. It's just a fact. You know, I have read and listened to quite a few climate scientists, and I have so far never heard any reputable member of that group ever refute this. The problem is that the science is a little bit more complicated than Wrightstone states. Both water vapor and CO2 are greenhouse gasses that raise temperature, but they play different roles in all of this, and they behave differently in the atmosphere. You see, the hotter is gets, the more water evaporates, which causes more water vapor. It is a cycle that means that if CO2 raises the temperature by one degree, the added water vapor will raise the temperature additional two degrees. So yes, water vapor raises the temperature more than CO2, but it wouldn't be raising the temperature without the temperature rises that CO2 caused.
Now Wrightstone is a clever writer like I already said. He knows someone will point out this very fact, so he counters it by saying that the water vapor feedback loop has been overestimated. The thing is, he never actually presents any evidence for his statement. Statement without evidence is an opinion, not a fact. And this is actually what Wrightstone does over and over throughout this book. He takes facts, jumps to conclusions with them, cherry picks the data he presents, and so on and on.
Let's look at another example, his claim that CO2 is plant food. Do you know what? He is right. He is absolutely right. CO2 is plant food. The thing is, just as it was with water vapor, that is not an inconvenient fact. It is not a contested fact. It is just a fact. But when he starts making it sound as if the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more plant growth there will be, that is where he strays from the facts, because it is not quite that simple. I live in Iceland, and for awhile there was extra plant growth due to rising CO2 levels, but at some point this extra growth levelled out. If there was a simple correlation between the two, it would have kept on rising, but it hasn't. Nature just isn't that simple.
Think of it this way. A man with a backpack full of meat is walking in the desert. He has enough food for weeks, but then he runs out of water. How long does he last? A long time? After all, he has enough food. No, if he doesn't get the water within a short time, he dies. This is a very simple example, and I know it doesn't completely apply to this situation with CO2 and plants. What I am trying to point out with this is that CO2 isn't the only thing plants need for growth. In fact, there are a lot of things that can hinder plant growth. Pests, heat, cold, how much water is available, how much sunlight there is, how much wind, and so on, come into play here. Other plant foods such as nitrogen and phosphorus come into it also. A lack of either of those two can hinder plant growth, even when there is enough CO2 in the air. Wrightstone is trying with this to make a simple equation out of something that isn't quite so simple.
What Wrightstone is trying to prove is that CO2 is irrelevant when it comes to climate change. The thing is the proof for why CO2 matters when it comes to climate change is grounded in basic physics and chemistry. Experiments on this started some 200 years ago. It's not a new idea. It‘s not something that Al Gore thought of to make your life more difficult. In my view Al Gore really is even quite irrelevant in all of this. He is only one of many people that are talking about climate change. What does matter is that the science of climate change is a sound one. It is the result of a great deal of research, by thousands of scientists, over a long, long, long time.
The whole book is Wrightstone's attempt to disprove basic climate science, but once one starts to actually look for the basis of his claims, all these proofs start to sound hollow because even though they are often based on facts, such as is in these two cases that I have gone into very, very lightly, he never really tells the whole story. He uses cherry picked data to make sure the facts are in line with his argument, leaps to conclusions when that is necessary to make the argument sound plausible, and so on and on. One can find examples of that all over this book. Look at the forest fire chapter for example, then look up the data for yourself. It's worth it. In short, chase up the data he uses and you‘ll see how he does it. A review like this is too short to actually take on all the problems I've found with this book, so I'm not getting any further into this now.
In the end, I think I'll neither laugh or cry at this book, because reading it, and thinking about it has been an educational experience. It is an interesting book, and Gregory Wrightstone is a clever, clever writer. This really is not badly done. The way this book is built up is very well done, and it sounds quite convincing. That is until one starts to look closely at the basis of the claims. That's when it falls apart. I'm not going to read it again, but it showed me quite well how this is done.
He begins by claiming that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Do you know what? He's is right. The fact is that water vapor really is a greenhouse gas, but there is nothing inconvenient about that fact. It's just a fact. You know, I have read and listened to quite a few climate scientists, and I have so far never heard any reputable member of that group ever refute this. The problem is that the science is a little bit more complicated than Wrightstone states. Both water vapor and CO2 are greenhouse gasses that raise temperature, but they play different roles in all of this, and they behave differently in the atmosphere. You see, the hotter is gets, the more water evaporates, which causes more water vapor. It is a cycle that means that if CO2 raises the temperature by one degree, the added water vapor will raise the temperature additional two degrees. So yes, water vapor raises the temperature more than CO2, but it wouldn't be raising the temperature without the temperature rises that CO2 caused.
Now Wrightstone is a clever writer like I already said. He knows someone will point out this very fact, so he counters it by saying that the water vapor feedback loop has been overestimated. The thing is, he never actually presents any evidence for his statement. Statement without evidence is an opinion, not a fact. And this is actually what Wrightstone does over and over throughout this book. He takes facts, jumps to conclusions with them, cherry picks the data he presents, and so on and on.
Let's look at another example, his claim that CO2 is plant food. Do you know what? He is right. He is absolutely right. CO2 is plant food. The thing is, just as it was with water vapor, that is not an inconvenient fact. It is not a contested fact. It is just a fact. But when he starts making it sound as if the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the more plant growth there will be, that is where he strays from the facts, because it is not quite that simple. I live in Iceland, and for awhile there was extra plant growth due to rising CO2 levels, but at some point this extra growth levelled out. If there was a simple correlation between the two, it would have kept on rising, but it hasn't. Nature just isn't that simple.
Think of it this way. A man with a backpack full of meat is walking in the desert. He has enough food for weeks, but then he runs out of water. How long does he last? A long time? After all, he has enough food. No, if he doesn't get the water within a short time, he dies. This is a very simple example, and I know it doesn't completely apply to this situation with CO2 and plants. What I am trying to point out with this is that CO2 isn't the only thing plants need for growth. In fact, there are a lot of things that can hinder plant growth. Pests, heat, cold, how much water is available, how much sunlight there is, how much wind, and so on, come into play here. Other plant foods such as nitrogen and phosphorus come into it also. A lack of either of those two can hinder plant growth, even when there is enough CO2 in the air. Wrightstone is trying with this to make a simple equation out of something that isn't quite so simple.
What Wrightstone is trying to prove is that CO2 is irrelevant when it comes to climate change. The thing is the proof for why CO2 matters when it comes to climate change is grounded in basic physics and chemistry. Experiments on this started some 200 years ago. It's not a new idea. It‘s not something that Al Gore thought of to make your life more difficult. In my view Al Gore really is even quite irrelevant in all of this. He is only one of many people that are talking about climate change. What does matter is that the science of climate change is a sound one. It is the result of a great deal of research, by thousands of scientists, over a long, long, long time.
The whole book is Wrightstone's attempt to disprove basic climate science, but once one starts to actually look for the basis of his claims, all these proofs start to sound hollow because even though they are often based on facts, such as is in these two cases that I have gone into very, very lightly, he never really tells the whole story. He uses cherry picked data to make sure the facts are in line with his argument, leaps to conclusions when that is necessary to make the argument sound plausible, and so on and on. One can find examples of that all over this book. Look at the forest fire chapter for example, then look up the data for yourself. It's worth it. In short, chase up the data he uses and you‘ll see how he does it. A review like this is too short to actually take on all the problems I've found with this book, so I'm not getting any further into this now.
In the end, I think I'll neither laugh or cry at this book, because reading it, and thinking about it has been an educational experience. It is an interesting book, and Gregory Wrightstone is a clever, clever writer. This really is not badly done. The way this book is built up is very well done, and it sounds quite convincing. That is until one starts to look closely at the basis of the claims. That's when it falls apart. I'm not going to read it again, but it showed me quite well how this is done.
September 26, 2020
Each of the author’s arguments is one that climate change deniers have tried to make before. The only thing inconvenient here is someone reading this book and thinking these arguments haven’t already been debunked. Visit skepticalscience.com for research-based rebuttals to each of the author’s points.
June 28, 2019
There are 14 pages of sources and reference cites at the end of this book. And there are also listed in a six or seven page portion before that 60 inconvenient facts segment of the book- numbered quality (specific in data in majority) refutes for the original "Inconvenient Truth" (60) declarations. The reviewers who state that there are no references or sources for this book or that the "settled" consensus which cores on CO2 human original inputs HOLD their own references or proofs that ARE any more valid in their theory or measurement "sources" originals for "truth" validations? Well, they are just plain wrong. And I would lay a decent bet that some of the 1 star posters here didn't read any portion of this Wrightstone book, either.
Theory, theory, theory. Nothing is "settled" and there is no consensus in any science unless it is provable by duplication of factors/ dependable equation. Consensus and science are opposing definitions within the context of their very natures. And there is not an "expert" consensus to cause or effects either beyond that assumption. CO2 as a determining and core factor in climate change outcomes? That has become the global elites' religion to control populations for their own purposes. Repeated and indoctrinated long enough by the most highly powerful to be faith "believed".
When I did research for medical personnel I would often come across entire scientific staff and institutional material which published refutes to the CO2 Gore dogma criteria. And would note how and when and by whom these experts and officials were squelched. Or the how/ where/ by whom elimination to their questioning of this "fact" was endlessly pursued. Now I begin to understand the why of all that- these many years later. It's being used as religion used to be- to control and dominate pursuits.
This book takes 60 "facts" and gives you charts, ice, air, water, historical, animal, plant life record. The entire graphs, charts, relationship %'s and much else of data all have their source and origins of who/ what organization did the evaluations listed, down to the where and whom or what institute. The Michael Mann hockey stick evaluation to relationship used in the movie / Al Gore's is exactly equated to what portion it truly represents in this book for the longer record- even a tiny portion of that "longer" record. All kinds of factors re Sheet Ice (GISP2) projects and also animal count models and crop outputs are also highly referenced (down to a list of dozens and dozens of foodstuffs). That some do not equate this with sources is laughable and truly displayed how the dogma of this CO2 theory has been swallowed. Especially since the entire Carbon / Human condition connection that is translated to be the Chicken Little message continually is based upon only one of 1000's and 1000's of other intersecting factors toward climate and weather changes to Earth inputs. And it absolutely is in great majority negated by the facts alone of human history records in the era portions in which there have been "homo" populations, not just homo sapiens. At times there has been nearly 40 times the CO2 that exists in the atmosphere today. And it was during a period of early animal/ human evolution. Warmth of Earth history has increased biology, cold has always decreased it.
In other words, it seems it may be exactly the opposite of what is being currently preached as the "end of the world". Because the best times for animals and more humans (all biology of the animal world) has been within periods of HIGH CO2 in the atmosphere. Higher than the present. There was a nadir point (during the "Little Ice Age") when it became too low to properly ensure that plant life could profligate. (CO2 is what actually is the base food for photosynthesis.) Cold always has and always will kill more species, and humans too- then will heat. And every portion where climate has changed the most in the long earth's past (some indicative within the last 4000 years, as well) have been when there was near to none, or none at all human CO2 inputs in percentages to the "whole" existing.
This is just a portion of the book. There are 60 categories of facts at the end. And at least 4 dozen quotes that are priceless. Most from scientists or leaders of the past- but some of ancient record in categories to nature of Earth itself, as well. That humans are the primary cause of any climate change, or that they may have a minuscule difference to the 1000's of solar activities and other inner earth issues to the final outcomes, is probably the most mighty hubris that humans have ever conceived about themselves. Humans are just not that powerful or important in the dynamic, like thinking that the everything in Space revolved only around "us"- one time a "settled science". Water Vapor is excluded too in the Gore equation. Which by itself is the most ridiculous of all premises for this entire category of declaration or questioning. Greenhouse effect itself is primarily a factor of water vapor. Seas will also not rise. There are chapters on this and sea ice and polar bears and the facts about what has happened and will probably happen next. Like the ozone layer "crisis"? Do you ever hear about what happened with that lately? No, you haven't.
There are real numbers here too about which scientists "agree" with this "settled" science. Not what you think at all either. And the Paris Climate Change agreement would use trillions and trillions of dollars while obliterating many human populations viability while not lessening temperature of Earth even a tiny fraction of hundreths of 1% percentage. The exact figures are here for that, as well.
If you want to know about the Maunder Minimum (real Science with the capital S) and about 5 million years of recorded and tested by cores, rocks, formations, geology studies weather or climate periods in relationship to human or animal or crop/ plant growth populations read this book.
The best part was the 60 inconvenient facts from page 124-130 that parody the "Truth" film by current values. Point by point - the real Science. As the experiment where ice melts and if that makes the water levels rise. It doesn't. Ice takes up as much space as does water. But in fact some of the most "dire" ice sheet studies are included too. As are the reality history counts of hurricanes, tornadoes etc. etc.
Humans and animals (even in the seas) have always prospered /expanded in warmer weather Earth periods than they have from Cold or Ice ages. Read this book if you want to know why. And also how the periods of human history itself has changed with the climate and weather conditions. The Dark Ages were dark for a reason.
This is NOT saying that pollution does not exist nor that it is innocent for ruinous conditions of long effect. Nor does it ever suggest that pollution is not harmful. Not at all. That's another issue entirely. This is about the actual values of CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect that cored the movie Inconvenient Truth.
Theory, theory, theory. Nothing is "settled" and there is no consensus in any science unless it is provable by duplication of factors/ dependable equation. Consensus and science are opposing definitions within the context of their very natures. And there is not an "expert" consensus to cause or effects either beyond that assumption. CO2 as a determining and core factor in climate change outcomes? That has become the global elites' religion to control populations for their own purposes. Repeated and indoctrinated long enough by the most highly powerful to be faith "believed".
When I did research for medical personnel I would often come across entire scientific staff and institutional material which published refutes to the CO2 Gore dogma criteria. And would note how and when and by whom these experts and officials were squelched. Or the how/ where/ by whom elimination to their questioning of this "fact" was endlessly pursued. Now I begin to understand the why of all that- these many years later. It's being used as religion used to be- to control and dominate pursuits.
This book takes 60 "facts" and gives you charts, ice, air, water, historical, animal, plant life record. The entire graphs, charts, relationship %'s and much else of data all have their source and origins of who/ what organization did the evaluations listed, down to the where and whom or what institute. The Michael Mann hockey stick evaluation to relationship used in the movie / Al Gore's is exactly equated to what portion it truly represents in this book for the longer record- even a tiny portion of that "longer" record. All kinds of factors re Sheet Ice (GISP2) projects and also animal count models and crop outputs are also highly referenced (down to a list of dozens and dozens of foodstuffs). That some do not equate this with sources is laughable and truly displayed how the dogma of this CO2 theory has been swallowed. Especially since the entire Carbon / Human condition connection that is translated to be the Chicken Little message continually is based upon only one of 1000's and 1000's of other intersecting factors toward climate and weather changes to Earth inputs. And it absolutely is in great majority negated by the facts alone of human history records in the era portions in which there have been "homo" populations, not just homo sapiens. At times there has been nearly 40 times the CO2 that exists in the atmosphere today. And it was during a period of early animal/ human evolution. Warmth of Earth history has increased biology, cold has always decreased it.
In other words, it seems it may be exactly the opposite of what is being currently preached as the "end of the world". Because the best times for animals and more humans (all biology of the animal world) has been within periods of HIGH CO2 in the atmosphere. Higher than the present. There was a nadir point (during the "Little Ice Age") when it became too low to properly ensure that plant life could profligate. (CO2 is what actually is the base food for photosynthesis.) Cold always has and always will kill more species, and humans too- then will heat. And every portion where climate has changed the most in the long earth's past (some indicative within the last 4000 years, as well) have been when there was near to none, or none at all human CO2 inputs in percentages to the "whole" existing.
This is just a portion of the book. There are 60 categories of facts at the end. And at least 4 dozen quotes that are priceless. Most from scientists or leaders of the past- but some of ancient record in categories to nature of Earth itself, as well. That humans are the primary cause of any climate change, or that they may have a minuscule difference to the 1000's of solar activities and other inner earth issues to the final outcomes, is probably the most mighty hubris that humans have ever conceived about themselves. Humans are just not that powerful or important in the dynamic, like thinking that the everything in Space revolved only around "us"- one time a "settled science". Water Vapor is excluded too in the Gore equation. Which by itself is the most ridiculous of all premises for this entire category of declaration or questioning. Greenhouse effect itself is primarily a factor of water vapor. Seas will also not rise. There are chapters on this and sea ice and polar bears and the facts about what has happened and will probably happen next. Like the ozone layer "crisis"? Do you ever hear about what happened with that lately? No, you haven't.
There are real numbers here too about which scientists "agree" with this "settled" science. Not what you think at all either. And the Paris Climate Change agreement would use trillions and trillions of dollars while obliterating many human populations viability while not lessening temperature of Earth even a tiny fraction of hundreths of 1% percentage. The exact figures are here for that, as well.
If you want to know about the Maunder Minimum (real Science with the capital S) and about 5 million years of recorded and tested by cores, rocks, formations, geology studies weather or climate periods in relationship to human or animal or crop/ plant growth populations read this book.
The best part was the 60 inconvenient facts from page 124-130 that parody the "Truth" film by current values. Point by point - the real Science. As the experiment where ice melts and if that makes the water levels rise. It doesn't. Ice takes up as much space as does water. But in fact some of the most "dire" ice sheet studies are included too. As are the reality history counts of hurricanes, tornadoes etc. etc.
Humans and animals (even in the seas) have always prospered /expanded in warmer weather Earth periods than they have from Cold or Ice ages. Read this book if you want to know why. And also how the periods of human history itself has changed with the climate and weather conditions. The Dark Ages were dark for a reason.
This is NOT saying that pollution does not exist nor that it is innocent for ruinous conditions of long effect. Nor does it ever suggest that pollution is not harmful. Not at all. That's another issue entirely. This is about the actual values of CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect that cored the movie Inconvenient Truth.
um-not-these-authors
August 19, 2018Oh, FFS.
April 22, 2019
Fake science.
April 26, 2018
I am not a “climate denier,” but at the same time I do not believe that a warming earth is necessarily bad, that man is the principle cause of warming, or that it is or will be catastrophic. I have read a number of books on this subject and I find this book to be well written, factual but not wonky, and the science is presented in a way that is easy for the non-scientist to understand. It may not completely change your mind, but it should definitely cause anyone to rethink their climate change orthodoxy.
March 28, 2019
Seriously horrible. I was excited to see what conflicting evidence there is on climate change-- I'm not left-leaning, right-leaning or have any agenda when it comes to discovering scientific evidence. This book, however, was riddled with extreme bias, ridiculous assumptions with unsubstantiated claims, and lacked scientific tone. I was thoroughly disappointed but am still hopeful to find thoughtful (and evidence-based) contradictory evidence to the popular views of human-induced climate change. This book feel FAR short of that.
June 3, 2021
So I was recommended to read this book by a friend of a friend. I was a little sceptical after reading about the author - no peer reviewed journal articles on climate change, spent career in the gas industry, and on the board of the Heartland Institute (the one that supported Phillip Morris discredit the health risks of smoking and funded by Exxon Mobile and Koch Industries)
But I wanted to understand his fact based approach so decided to read it - and at 135 pages, it’s a short book
Yes, he uses a wide range of peer reviewed data sources, but his conclusions in using them don’t follow logic, use cherry picked stats and unsurprisingly aren’t peer reviewed. 3 examples that come to mind:
- One of his key arguments is that the earth used to have more CO2 and be warmer (true), so we have “dangerously decreasing CO2”. Wrong conclusion - the ecosystems we have today are in balance with the CO2 and temperature levels we’ve had for the past thousands of years. No one logical would suggest we need to move to CO2 levels from thousands / millions of years ago
- Temperatures changed over the past 800,000 years and past 10,000 years and it wasn’t us (true), so this rapid rise now isn’t down to us. Wrong conclusion - we’ve never seen such a rapid rise in CO2 which is undeniably because of us. He then shows cool patches like 98-12 (true) despite CO2 rising (true), which he concludes means there is no correlation between the two - wrong conclusion as we need to look at the overall trend since 1600 (a clear rise getting quicker over time). Also notice he doesn’t show 12-17 which shows clear temp rises (book was published in 2017)
- One at the heart of it. 11,944 peer reviewed papers on climate change in past 21 years. 3,898 state it is man made, 116 state it is not man made, 7,930 aren’t focused on if it is man made it not. He then argues that the correct interpretation of these numbers is that only 33% of papers support climate change is man made. Yes, but of those with a view on if it is man made or not, 97% support it as man made
It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that the author’s motives aren’t simply to sow uncertainty in the climate change debate using a raft of research that, although is entirely correct, doesn’t back his conclusions which are ones that any high school student could dismantle
I would, however, recommend this book for those who would like some background climate information (as I say, the sources he uses are good background), and as an example of how such information can be mis-used to support incorrect conclusions
Also worth a read is the following link from Willard MacDonald, who had a bit more time to wade through this than me:
https://medium.com/@willardm22/its-ea...
But I wanted to understand his fact based approach so decided to read it - and at 135 pages, it’s a short book
Yes, he uses a wide range of peer reviewed data sources, but his conclusions in using them don’t follow logic, use cherry picked stats and unsurprisingly aren’t peer reviewed. 3 examples that come to mind:
- One of his key arguments is that the earth used to have more CO2 and be warmer (true), so we have “dangerously decreasing CO2”. Wrong conclusion - the ecosystems we have today are in balance with the CO2 and temperature levels we’ve had for the past thousands of years. No one logical would suggest we need to move to CO2 levels from thousands / millions of years ago
- Temperatures changed over the past 800,000 years and past 10,000 years and it wasn’t us (true), so this rapid rise now isn’t down to us. Wrong conclusion - we’ve never seen such a rapid rise in CO2 which is undeniably because of us. He then shows cool patches like 98-12 (true) despite CO2 rising (true), which he concludes means there is no correlation between the two - wrong conclusion as we need to look at the overall trend since 1600 (a clear rise getting quicker over time). Also notice he doesn’t show 12-17 which shows clear temp rises (book was published in 2017)
- One at the heart of it. 11,944 peer reviewed papers on climate change in past 21 years. 3,898 state it is man made, 116 state it is not man made, 7,930 aren’t focused on if it is man made it not. He then argues that the correct interpretation of these numbers is that only 33% of papers support climate change is man made. Yes, but of those with a view on if it is man made or not, 97% support it as man made
It’s hard not to come to the conclusion that the author’s motives aren’t simply to sow uncertainty in the climate change debate using a raft of research that, although is entirely correct, doesn’t back his conclusions which are ones that any high school student could dismantle
I would, however, recommend this book for those who would like some background climate information (as I say, the sources he uses are good background), and as an example of how such information can be mis-used to support incorrect conclusions
Also worth a read is the following link from Willard MacDonald, who had a bit more time to wade through this than me:
https://medium.com/@willardm22/its-ea...
August 25, 2022
Nothing really new since I've read a lot on "Climate Change" already. What Wrightstone achieves here is what he states as he goal: to put the evidence in a concise and easily understood format. Well-done.
July 16, 2020
I read this book as someone dear to me does not agree with climate science and has expressed frustration about their side not being fairly considered.
I’m not going to write about the specific cases of the misrepresentation of data, poor assumptions, or the self contradiction in this book. That’s been discussed by some reviewers on here, and there exist a number of blogs and websites that address these things. Instead, I want to suggest that anyone who enjoyed this book also read The Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway. Before you dismiss it (I’ll warn you now it’s a bit the opposite of this book), I would have to point out that in Inconvenient Facts it was insinuated that the other side is being silenced and that both sides must be considered. I have read Inconvenient Facts and considered your side; I ask that you do the same for me.
Merchants of Doubt is about how a handful of scientists, funded by special interest groups such as the Heartland Institute, attempt to cast doubt on scientific consensus (smoking and cancer, DDT, ozone, acid rain, and climate change). The goal of these special interest groups is to delay and avoid regulation as long as possible such that they can more easily profit. In the summary of Inconvenient Facts, readers of The Merchants of Doubt will see something familiar, “the specter of catastrophic warming provides the moral justification for ever-higher taxation, ever-tighter regulation, ever-greater state interference and ever-diminished private freedom.” Indeed, Wrightstone is also associated with the Heartland Institute.
To quote Oreskes and Conway, “We think that if someone disagrees, we should give that someone due consideration. We think that’s only fair. What we don’t understand is that in many cases, that person has already received due consideration in the halls of science.” This is where we are in this debate. There exist numerous technical reports from the IPCC, thousands of scientific articles on climate change, and websites dedicated to educating the public and debunking this kind of pseudo-science. The scientific consensus at this moment is that the climate is changing (this is admitted by Wrightstone), this sudden change is due to human intervention (partially admitted by Wrightstone), and this change can have significant negative effects on both us and elements of our ecosystems. Of course science can be wrong, but for the author to state his contrarian position so unequivocally with such a low quality, biased approach is a failure “to uphold the integrity of their profession, whether because of willful self-promotion, desperate self-preservation, ignorance, greed, or fear of ridicule by the high priests of climate orthodoxy.”
I think the reality is well summed up by a quote from Bill Nierenberg, a merchant of doubt in the acid rain climate emergency, “You just know in your heart that you can’t throw 25 million tons a year of sulfates into the Northeast and not expect some… consequences”. I think in our hearts we all know that if we throw massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere we might have to expect some consequences, even if you may want to debate some of the details. I just hope for the next climate disaster we don’t have to deal with this kind of argumentation again.
I’m not going to write about the specific cases of the misrepresentation of data, poor assumptions, or the self contradiction in this book. That’s been discussed by some reviewers on here, and there exist a number of blogs and websites that address these things. Instead, I want to suggest that anyone who enjoyed this book also read The Merchants of Doubt by Oreskes and Conway. Before you dismiss it (I’ll warn you now it’s a bit the opposite of this book), I would have to point out that in Inconvenient Facts it was insinuated that the other side is being silenced and that both sides must be considered. I have read Inconvenient Facts and considered your side; I ask that you do the same for me.
Merchants of Doubt is about how a handful of scientists, funded by special interest groups such as the Heartland Institute, attempt to cast doubt on scientific consensus (smoking and cancer, DDT, ozone, acid rain, and climate change). The goal of these special interest groups is to delay and avoid regulation as long as possible such that they can more easily profit. In the summary of Inconvenient Facts, readers of The Merchants of Doubt will see something familiar, “the specter of catastrophic warming provides the moral justification for ever-higher taxation, ever-tighter regulation, ever-greater state interference and ever-diminished private freedom.” Indeed, Wrightstone is also associated with the Heartland Institute.
To quote Oreskes and Conway, “We think that if someone disagrees, we should give that someone due consideration. We think that’s only fair. What we don’t understand is that in many cases, that person has already received due consideration in the halls of science.” This is where we are in this debate. There exist numerous technical reports from the IPCC, thousands of scientific articles on climate change, and websites dedicated to educating the public and debunking this kind of pseudo-science. The scientific consensus at this moment is that the climate is changing (this is admitted by Wrightstone), this sudden change is due to human intervention (partially admitted by Wrightstone), and this change can have significant negative effects on both us and elements of our ecosystems. Of course science can be wrong, but for the author to state his contrarian position so unequivocally with such a low quality, biased approach is a failure “to uphold the integrity of their profession, whether because of willful self-promotion, desperate self-preservation, ignorance, greed, or fear of ridicule by the high priests of climate orthodoxy.”
I think the reality is well summed up by a quote from Bill Nierenberg, a merchant of doubt in the acid rain climate emergency, “You just know in your heart that you can’t throw 25 million tons a year of sulfates into the Northeast and not expect some… consequences”. I think in our hearts we all know that if we throw massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere we might have to expect some consequences, even if you may want to debate some of the details. I just hope for the next climate disaster we don’t have to deal with this kind of argumentation again.
August 5, 2019
Inconvenient Facts: The Science That Al Gore Doesn't Want You To Know by Gregory Wrightstone presents in plain English with easy to understand charts and figures the real science that allows you to see how you are being deceived by those with control or profit motives. He details 60 "inconvenient facts" directly from government sources, peer-reviewed scientific papers, and other scholarly works and presents them in an entertaining fashion. Open-minded people who read this will find their current understanding of our climate and the catastrophic predictions from political and media sources challenged with hard factual information. In reality you will find that our planet is actually improving BECAUSE of increasing CO2 levels and temperatures. You owe it to yourself and our future to know and understand the facts and why the End-of-the World predictions keep changing.
March 25, 2019
Everyone needs to read this book, whether you believe wholeheartedly in the new religion of climate science orthodoxy and that the world will end in 12 years or whether you are more skeptical and willing to believe actual science versus "consensus" science. The 60 Inconvenient Facts presented by this author go a long way towards debunking most of the science and a great deal of their methodologies and data collection and modeling promoted by climate-apocalypse proponents. In chapter after chapter, you will learn that scientifically supported truths, as revealed within this book, are polar opposites of what you hear from climate alarmists and their willing accomplices in the media. Also the fact that Apple removed the app created by the Geologist who wrote this book as a companion to get facts easily tells you all you need to know about the censorship currently going on when someone dares to go against the "settled" science of climate change. Just because Al Gore is on their board and all of these truths are inconvenient for him and for the thousands of dollars he has made at gullible people's expense? That's no reason for censorship. If this is all not true, then why censor it? Why keep people from seeing the other side of your arguments? Wow I thought we lived in a free society...
June 8, 2018
Easy Read!
The author was on the Andy Caldwell show, he sounded so rational that I wanted to read the book. I am not a scientist & this could have been a very technical book, it isn't. It is very clear that anthropogenic warming isn't a problem. I am looking forward to sharing the information about Polar Bears with my 8 year old granddaughter who is being taught that the polar bears will soon be extinct soon because of the melting polar ice caps & their inability to blend into their new environment! Great book & lots of charts to reference in the future.
The author was on the Andy Caldwell show, he sounded so rational that I wanted to read the book. I am not a scientist & this could have been a very technical book, it isn't. It is very clear that anthropogenic warming isn't a problem. I am looking forward to sharing the information about Polar Bears with my 8 year old granddaughter who is being taught that the polar bears will soon be extinct soon because of the melting polar ice caps & their inability to blend into their new environment! Great book & lots of charts to reference in the future.
August 29, 2018
This is a fact filled book about global warming. You will learn so much by reading this book.
June 8, 2020
I recommend The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy by Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles 2016
"Deliberate confusion can be sown under a false pretext of "skepticism."
Also, a good time to remember that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
"Inconvenient Facts claims, over and over, to be based in science and emphasizes the importance of the scientific method; however, the author does not, himself, use the scientific method in his own analysis. There are no references to any peer-reviewed journal articles by Wrightstone himself. Many of his “inconvenient facts” are non-controversial statements. In fact, most of them are actually true. It’s the conclusions that he draws from the “facts” that are not supported by peer-reviewed journal papers — they’re just his own misleading opinions."
See
https://medium.com/@willardm22/its-ea...
The conclusion of the linked review follows:
"Wrightstone found 60 “facts” (most of which are true) that, when highlighted can make an open minded person scratch their head and wonder whether climate change is what it is. He uses this small set of “facts” to support his myths. But legitimate scientists have thousands of facts that point in the opposite direction and definitively show the unfortunate reality of climate change.
Books like Wrightstone’s have the potential to mislead the public into inaction on the critical issue of climate change. It’s fake science, and the risk is that it becomes the foundation of fake news that ultimately shapes public opinion and elections. It appears that this is Wrightstone’s goal. He has given 17 interviews in the past 12 months, and in March 2019 he testified before the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee giving the same false arguments I have addressed in this article (Wrightstone, 2019, Meyer, 2019)."
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylva...
"Deliberate confusion can be sown under a false pretext of "skepticism."
Also, a good time to remember that “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
"Inconvenient Facts claims, over and over, to be based in science and emphasizes the importance of the scientific method; however, the author does not, himself, use the scientific method in his own analysis. There are no references to any peer-reviewed journal articles by Wrightstone himself. Many of his “inconvenient facts” are non-controversial statements. In fact, most of them are actually true. It’s the conclusions that he draws from the “facts” that are not supported by peer-reviewed journal papers — they’re just his own misleading opinions."
See
https://medium.com/@willardm22/its-ea...
The conclusion of the linked review follows:
"Wrightstone found 60 “facts” (most of which are true) that, when highlighted can make an open minded person scratch their head and wonder whether climate change is what it is. He uses this small set of “facts” to support his myths. But legitimate scientists have thousands of facts that point in the opposite direction and definitively show the unfortunate reality of climate change.
Books like Wrightstone’s have the potential to mislead the public into inaction on the critical issue of climate change. It’s fake science, and the risk is that it becomes the foundation of fake news that ultimately shapes public opinion and elections. It appears that this is Wrightstone’s goal. He has given 17 interviews in the past 12 months, and in March 2019 he testified before the Pennsylvania House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee giving the same false arguments I have addressed in this article (Wrightstone, 2019, Meyer, 2019)."
https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylva...
July 1, 2019
Wrightstone is a geoscientist who had questions concerning the science behind climate-change alarmism and so went on an exploration of the methods and results of the climate scientists, as well as what was actually reported as scientific fact. He also takes a look at the long-term climate changes the Earth has undergone to put the current climate in perspective, as opposed to the rather short term (a few decades) perspective taken by climate activists, politicians and the media. He takes a look at what was predicted in terms of climate and what has actually occurred. Carbon dioxide, ocean acidification, droughts, famine, heat-waves, weather anomalies, polar bears etc are all covered. This is a short, fascinating, easy-to-understand book that is packed full of relevant graphs, charts and diagrams; along with pages of scientific references.
I especially recommend this book to those people who feel helpless, depressed or panicked in the face of the impending climate catastrophe. Using an evidence based approach, Wrightstone helps illustrate that things aren't nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be. Wrightstone provides the information (and the references for additional information) and allows the reader to draw their own conclusion.
I especially recommend this book to those people who feel helpless, depressed or panicked in the face of the impending climate catastrophe. Using an evidence based approach, Wrightstone helps illustrate that things aren't nearly as bad as the media makes it out to be. Wrightstone provides the information (and the references for additional information) and allows the reader to draw their own conclusion.
March 25, 2019
Efficient and straight to the points.
I have read a number of books on this topic and most of them are good. Gregory Wrightstone presents the information in this book efficient and fast to read and easy to find the facts again when looking for them. I'm planning now to buy a few copies and pass them out to family and friends.
I have read a number of books on this topic and most of them are good. Gregory Wrightstone presents the information in this book efficient and fast to read and easy to find the facts again when looking for them. I'm planning now to buy a few copies and pass them out to family and friends.
May 7, 2019
About Time
Finally a scientific look at “climate change”. Common sense hasn’t worked. It is about time that somebody actually looked at the scientific data available and summarized it for us everyday people. I was always skeptical about the political notion that “man-made climate apocalypse” was true. Now I know it’s bunk.
Finally a scientific look at “climate change”. Common sense hasn’t worked. It is about time that somebody actually looked at the scientific data available and summarized it for us everyday people. I was always skeptical about the political notion that “man-made climate apocalypse” was true. Now I know it’s bunk.
Want to read
October 1, 2019JUST A SUMMARY
The [political] Left has been demonizing the CO2 molecule. CO2 is the miracle molecule, actually. In fact, we don't have enough of it. Rising temperatures is beneficial (for planet Earth).
Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist.
The [political] Left has been demonizing the CO2 molecule. CO2 is the miracle molecule, actually. In fact, we don't have enough of it. Rising temperatures is beneficial (for planet Earth).
Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist.
December 22, 2019
This book is filled with additional information about how our planet’s climate is changing and seeks to debunk the CO2 hysteria without losing sight of planetary climatic cycles. He uses data from current measures maintained by independent sources to make his point. While I have yet to verify all of them, it is consistent with what I have looked into since my college days when Rachel Carson’s book came out.
My hope is that it will lead to a more balanced debate that focuses more on removing proven harmful pollutants like nitrous oxide and fertilizer runoff. After all, aren’t those of us in cities tired of smog alerts and all the noise? Plenty of reasons to improve our environment without resorting to drastic, government-enforced measures.
My hope is that it will lead to a more balanced debate that focuses more on removing proven harmful pollutants like nitrous oxide and fertilizer runoff. After all, aren’t those of us in cities tired of smog alerts and all the noise? Plenty of reasons to improve our environment without resorting to drastic, government-enforced measures.
February 13, 2019
Tons of great, useful, scientific information with graphs & charts , written in an easy to understand style. No political agenda, just facts, solid science. Let the chips fall where they may, you want to be informed, you want the real dope on global warming, climate change, etc.? THen this is for you.
January 19, 2022
"0.3% of published scientists stated that in their ppers that recent warming was man made. Science does not advance through consensus. The claim of consensus has no place in any rational scientific debate."
Question everything, and then question what you find. When science becomes political, question it even deeper.
Question everything, and then question what you find. When science becomes political, question it even deeper.
June 14, 2019
Inconvenient Facts overthrow Inconvenient Truths
Wrightstone uses simple language, and cold hard facts, not wishful thinking from climate models, to show how climate Changers have been duped into following the party line instead of scientific facts.
Wrightstone uses simple language, and cold hard facts, not wishful thinking from climate models, to show how climate Changers have been duped into following the party line instead of scientific facts.
October 1, 2019
Excellent discussion of the facts about climate change
Gregory Whitestone's book provided an excellent discussion of very technical and science-based research in a way that is easily understandable by non-scientists like me. I highly recommend it.
Gregory Whitestone's book provided an excellent discussion of very technical and science-based research in a way that is easily understandable by non-scientists like me. I highly recommend it.
June 3, 2021
I'm still trying to find my way through the climate change issues. It seems really sad that Carbon dioxide has been demonized yet studies and findings on all sides seem to agree that carbon dioxide is beneficial, necessary, and leads to positive environments. I am at a loss with all of this.
August 1, 2018
Feeling smarter
I knew a lot of this information but the way it was presented helps me counter the crazy climate alarmists.
I knew a lot of this information but the way it was presented helps me counter the crazy climate alarmists.
September 13, 2018
Great book. This is the antidote to all of the global warming bloviators and climate change fruitcakes. Must read for anyone with a shred of common sense.
February 16, 2020
My mind is blown. I have always believed the global warming rhetoric to be false and fear mongering but to see even more evidence of this is just mind-boggling. I have never been the someone who listens to what the media says and instead do my own research and as someone who studied psychology I learned about how research should be done. So it just peeves me to see how scientists and others have skewed their research and used false data to push their rhetoric.
This is not the first thing I have read on the matter but I loved how easy this book was to read; that the average person can pick this up and understand it for the most part is fantastic! I have always struggled with the atmospheric sciences but this helped me to understand it better. Not understanding it did not keep me from wanting to learn about it and to get to the truth.
I highly recommend this book. If you have taken the stance that global warming is going to be catastrophic for our planet but you haven't actually done any research yourself, you are seriously misguided. Do your research people! I'm going to share a few of my favorite quotes from the book below.
"Media sensationalism is compounded by misrepresentations of available science and by an unscientific reliance on computer projections rather than historical data."
"We are relying on complex computer programs, using an array of complicated equations "tweaked" by the scientists who built them to arrive at a forecast temperature some 100 years into the future. We cannot confidently forecast temperature merely 10 days in the future from now, but are asked to base climate policies and risk trillions of dollars on models that have failed and failed again the test of prediction versus observation."
"In a true scientific inquiry, real data should always trump models. If actual hard data are available, there is no need to forecast--unless your objective is to promote the latest hobgoblin of climate alarmism."
I have so many tabbed quotations that I would love to share but those are just a few to whet your appetite. Go pick up the book.
This is not the first thing I have read on the matter but I loved how easy this book was to read; that the average person can pick this up and understand it for the most part is fantastic! I have always struggled with the atmospheric sciences but this helped me to understand it better. Not understanding it did not keep me from wanting to learn about it and to get to the truth.
I highly recommend this book. If you have taken the stance that global warming is going to be catastrophic for our planet but you haven't actually done any research yourself, you are seriously misguided. Do your research people! I'm going to share a few of my favorite quotes from the book below.
"Media sensationalism is compounded by misrepresentations of available science and by an unscientific reliance on computer projections rather than historical data."
"We are relying on complex computer programs, using an array of complicated equations "tweaked" by the scientists who built them to arrive at a forecast temperature some 100 years into the future. We cannot confidently forecast temperature merely 10 days in the future from now, but are asked to base climate policies and risk trillions of dollars on models that have failed and failed again the test of prediction versus observation."
"In a true scientific inquiry, real data should always trump models. If actual hard data are available, there is no need to forecast--unless your objective is to promote the latest hobgoblin of climate alarmism."
I have so many tabbed quotations that I would love to share but those are just a few to whet your appetite. Go pick up the book.
January 11, 2020
What was this??? No, I didn’t waste my time, I made the decision to read this book. I’m not brainwashed by “Greta Thunberg Move”, but I tend to do my part at saving our planet. “CO2 is the food of our plants. Produce more CO2, if not, starvation will kill humans and all animals”. Such are the lessons from this book. Isn’t there a balance? Don’t we breathe oxygen?
This book also confused my by the extremely stupid data. I’m not going to spend time and write my opinions in detail, but look at this:
Inconvenient fact 24:
We’re living in one of the coldest periods in all of earth’s history.
Inconvenient fact 36
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more food for everyone
Inconvenient fact 37
Earth is becoming greener, not turning into desert
This book is contradicting, useless, plenty of graphs from million of years( which I don’t believe are accurate), doesn’t touch the effect of civilization and development.
This book also confused my by the extremely stupid data. I’m not going to spend time and write my opinions in detail, but look at this:
Inconvenient fact 24:
We’re living in one of the coldest periods in all of earth’s history.
Inconvenient fact 36
More CO2 in the atmosphere means more food for everyone
Inconvenient fact 37
Earth is becoming greener, not turning into desert
This book is contradicting, useless, plenty of graphs from million of years( which I don’t believe are accurate), doesn’t touch the effect of civilization and development.
March 23, 2019
If only all the people who have been alarmed by media reports of looming climate apocalypse would read this book, their fears would be massively calmed down. Wrightstone presents scientific evidence, plus many, many charts that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are actually good for the planet, since that it is food for plants, helps plants to flourish, creates longer growing seasons for plants, and therefore provides more food for humans and animals alike. He also shows how increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does NOT cause more tornadoes, hurricanes, fires, floods, or rising seas. This is a must read for everyone who cares about our environment.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 92 reviews