What do you think?
Rate this book
Hot Air: The Inside Story of the Battle Against Climate Change Denial
***SHORTLISTED FOR THE ROYAL SOCIETY SCIENCE BOOK PRIZE 2022******SHORTLISTED FOR THE RSL CHRISTOPHER BLAND PRIZE 2022*** Ours is the age of global warming. Rising sea levels, extreme weather, forest fires. Dire warnings are everywhere, so why has it taken so long for the crisis to be recognised? Here, for the first time, climate scientist Peter Stott reveals the bitter fight to get international recognition for what, among scientists, has been known for human activity causes climate change. Across continents and against the efforts of sceptical governments, prominent climate change deniers and shadowy lobbyists, Hot Air is the urgent story of how the science was developed, how it has been repeatedly sabotaged and why humanity hasn't a second to spare in the fight to halt climate change.
334 pages, Kindle Edition
First published October 7, 2021
11 people are currently reading
285 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 - 14 of 14 reviews
November 12, 2022
A very satisfying read tracing the history of climate change denial and providing an inside story from a key scientist of the IPCC. Things I learnt: 1. Many of the climate denial arguments you hear today were voiced to scientists way back in the '90's. 2. The IPCC is full of sceptics! They have to bring scepticism in order that their findings are robust. 3. I hadn't realised that before an IPCC report is released, world leaders have to agree on wording also. What a huge process!
I loved the insights around the hockey stick graph, Al Gore's movie, Greta and Trump. I also loved the way the drama of conference presentations was brought to life.
I wonder how the author and his peers coped with the unwarranted critique and personal attacks? It must have been maddening. I also wonder whether some of the big name denialists of the past have changed their position? It's hard to imagine history having anything good to say about them when this era is written about.
This book is written in an even keeled unemotional type way such as you might expect from a scientist. But I sensed real passion in it. How many times the author and his colleagues had to get back up after ridiculous, overblown and unwarranted attacks. I'm so pleased that they did!
A final question: Are there any female climate change deniers? I don't recall any in this book. Is it a male ego thing that enjoys notoriety and attention?
I loved the insights around the hockey stick graph, Al Gore's movie, Greta and Trump. I also loved the way the drama of conference presentations was brought to life.
I wonder how the author and his peers coped with the unwarranted critique and personal attacks? It must have been maddening. I also wonder whether some of the big name denialists of the past have changed their position? It's hard to imagine history having anything good to say about them when this era is written about.
This book is written in an even keeled unemotional type way such as you might expect from a scientist. But I sensed real passion in it. How many times the author and his colleagues had to get back up after ridiculous, overblown and unwarranted attacks. I'm so pleased that they did!
A final question: Are there any female climate change deniers? I don't recall any in this book. Is it a male ego thing that enjoys notoriety and attention?
August 22, 2023
Some interesting history of climate negotiations.
I wasn't entirely convinced the breathless retelling of some details merited quite the drama he attempted to inject. Were the stakes really so high at the Russian Academy of Sciences that Russian ratification of Kyoto hung on this junior researchers comments?
More significantly, I was expecting much more detail on climate denialism. It never really gets into the detail of who they are, who funds them and how their tactics have evolved. E.g. (I think...) outright denial > obfuscation > individual not collective reponse > adaptation but no mitigation > net zero is right but not so fast or expensively.
And, I really am not one to say that one can only write about climate if they live in a cave and wear home-grown yoghurt sandles but.... does every chapter have to start with, "I flew to Toulouse/Moscow/Hobart...etc for a meeting"?
I wasn't entirely convinced the breathless retelling of some details merited quite the drama he attempted to inject. Were the stakes really so high at the Russian Academy of Sciences that Russian ratification of Kyoto hung on this junior researchers comments?
More significantly, I was expecting much more detail on climate denialism. It never really gets into the detail of who they are, who funds them and how their tactics have evolved. E.g. (I think...) outright denial > obfuscation > individual not collective reponse > adaptation but no mitigation > net zero is right but not so fast or expensively.
And, I really am not one to say that one can only write about climate if they live in a cave and wear home-grown yoghurt sandles but.... does every chapter have to start with, "I flew to Toulouse/Moscow/Hobart...etc for a meeting"?
February 24, 2022
A very interesting inside view of the development of the climate change argument admit the myriad attempts to squash the emerging facts. The duration of this book not only shows the exponential effect of climate change but also the similar exponential explosion in the science of understanding the impact of that change. It also provides a glimpse of the personal growth and development of Peter as a scientist and man.
Not as easy a read as the blurb would have you believe but a good volume to read if you have an interest in climate change and want to get background on the headlines you read in the press.
Informative and entertaining it puts the science of climate change in the reach of normal people.
Not as easy a read as the blurb would have you believe but a good volume to read if you have an interest in climate change and want to get background on the headlines you read in the press.
Informative and entertaining it puts the science of climate change in the reach of normal people.
August 22, 2022
batshit and important, i think everyone should read this.
still mad they didn't title it 'Keeping Up With the Climatologists' tho
still mad they didn't title it 'Keeping Up With the Climatologists' tho
January 10, 2023
It's interesting, and important, and full kudos to Peter and all of the others who did all of the hard work and faced down the deniers and all. But it's not a great or fun read.
January 27, 2025
Something in the air
The author is a colleague of mine, and I've collaborated with a couple of his co-workers, so I know something of the science of the detection and attribution of climate change, which is his professional field. However, until reading his book, I had only a sketchy idea of the history of attribution and its role in the development of the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
His story starts in 1988 with James Hansen's testimony to the US Senate that global warming was "already happening", and he points out that, at the time, there was "no definitive proof" that atmospheric temperatures really were changing unnaturally [p25]. From there, he details how researchers analysed observations and found increased evidence for warming, and - more particularly - how he and others used climate models to show that this was caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere which were produced by human activity. It's a link which has proved contentious - chiefly because of its implications for human activity - and Stott describes the actions of climate change deniers (many of which he's met with), some of whom were supported by the US oil and gas industry, in arguing against it. He points out that there's a difference between deniers and sceptics; in fact, the latter include the scientists who critically review and check research papers in order to ensure that the conclusions they draw are based on the results that they report. By contrast, deniers would "spread confusion by cherry-picking data, targeting individuals and promoting unsubstantiated claims" [p32].
The author describes the progress made in climate change attribution over the past forty years, including his own work on the degree to which humans contributed to the European heatwave of 2003. He's very good at not only conveying the degree of excitement associated with research (carefully posing questions and finding answers) but also connecting its results to the real world - e.g. "although the event I was analysing had devastating and fatal consequences, I hoped my research would help improve the lot of vulnerable people [who'd] been so hard hit in 2003" [p108]. Although climate science is a complex research field (in which, at a crude level, we're trying to understand the past and future workings of the whole world), its results have implications (again, at a somewhat crude level) for the lives of everyone on the planet. This distinguishes the field from other, equally challenging, research areas (the detection of the Higgs Boson, for example).
Along the way, the author discusses the impact of the 2006 film "An Inconvenient Truth" (for which he acted as an expert witness when the distribution of the film to schools was challenged in the High Court; his account of the trial is one of the most gripping parts of the book) and the theft of emails from the Climate Research Unit at UEA in 2009 (just ahead of the COP15 climate change conference in Copenhagen). Here, he gives a detailed account of the content of the contentious emails (which were relatively small in number) and explains their meaning before noting that, by taking them out of context, they provided ammunition for the deniers' case that "global warming was a scientific conspiracy". He also describes the work he's done in what could be called the court of public opinion - for example, appearing on BBC Radio 4 in 2017 to refute Nigel Lawson's contention that global temperatures were declining.
Furthering that work, this book showcases a scientist's passion for his subject, coupled with a sense of urgency that the implications and meaning of its results need to be understood and taken into account by policy makers. It's well-written, with copious endnotes which direct the reader to original sources and further reading (although the notes include some degree of repetition because the author has opted to make the numbering of the citations continuous). Published in 2021, the year of the COP26 conference in Glasgow (a meeting I also attended), more recent events make it heart-breaking to read Stott's optimistic account of its agreements tempered by his caution that "[t]he US could yet elect a president in 2024 who, like Trump, favours oil and gas, withdraws from the COP process and delays decarbonisation of the American economy" [pxi]. Plus ça change.
The author is a colleague of mine, and I've collaborated with a couple of his co-workers, so I know something of the science of the detection and attribution of climate change, which is his professional field. However, until reading his book, I had only a sketchy idea of the history of attribution and its role in the development of the reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
His story starts in 1988 with James Hansen's testimony to the US Senate that global warming was "already happening", and he points out that, at the time, there was "no definitive proof" that atmospheric temperatures really were changing unnaturally [p25]. From there, he details how researchers analysed observations and found increased evidence for warming, and - more particularly - how he and others used climate models to show that this was caused by increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere which were produced by human activity. It's a link which has proved contentious - chiefly because of its implications for human activity - and Stott describes the actions of climate change deniers (many of which he's met with), some of whom were supported by the US oil and gas industry, in arguing against it. He points out that there's a difference between deniers and sceptics; in fact, the latter include the scientists who critically review and check research papers in order to ensure that the conclusions they draw are based on the results that they report. By contrast, deniers would "spread confusion by cherry-picking data, targeting individuals and promoting unsubstantiated claims" [p32].
The author describes the progress made in climate change attribution over the past forty years, including his own work on the degree to which humans contributed to the European heatwave of 2003. He's very good at not only conveying the degree of excitement associated with research (carefully posing questions and finding answers) but also connecting its results to the real world - e.g. "although the event I was analysing had devastating and fatal consequences, I hoped my research would help improve the lot of vulnerable people [who'd] been so hard hit in 2003" [p108]. Although climate science is a complex research field (in which, at a crude level, we're trying to understand the past and future workings of the whole world), its results have implications (again, at a somewhat crude level) for the lives of everyone on the planet. This distinguishes the field from other, equally challenging, research areas (the detection of the Higgs Boson, for example).
Along the way, the author discusses the impact of the 2006 film "An Inconvenient Truth" (for which he acted as an expert witness when the distribution of the film to schools was challenged in the High Court; his account of the trial is one of the most gripping parts of the book) and the theft of emails from the Climate Research Unit at UEA in 2009 (just ahead of the COP15 climate change conference in Copenhagen). Here, he gives a detailed account of the content of the contentious emails (which were relatively small in number) and explains their meaning before noting that, by taking them out of context, they provided ammunition for the deniers' case that "global warming was a scientific conspiracy". He also describes the work he's done in what could be called the court of public opinion - for example, appearing on BBC Radio 4 in 2017 to refute Nigel Lawson's contention that global temperatures were declining.
Furthering that work, this book showcases a scientist's passion for his subject, coupled with a sense of urgency that the implications and meaning of its results need to be understood and taken into account by policy makers. It's well-written, with copious endnotes which direct the reader to original sources and further reading (although the notes include some degree of repetition because the author has opted to make the numbering of the citations continuous). Published in 2021, the year of the COP26 conference in Glasgow (a meeting I also attended), more recent events make it heart-breaking to read Stott's optimistic account of its agreements tempered by his caution that "[t]he US could yet elect a president in 2024 who, like Trump, favours oil and gas, withdraws from the COP process and delays decarbonisation of the American economy" [pxi]. Plus ça change.
November 13, 2022
When you think of climate change, what's the first image that comes to mind? Wild smoke fumes from factories billowing in the air? Uncontrolled blazes erupting in the middle of a forest? Or oil spills wreaking havoc on miles of the ocean, tainting the perception of the home of marine animals forever? It would come as no surprise, then, that climate change would evoke such strong feelings of contempt for the world, but as a person, who are you to make an impact? After all, the people in control of most situations in a country should be the government, right?
In fact, even these prestigious people didn't realise the true impact of their actions until about 2000, which isn't that long ago if you think about it; only 20 years ago, primarily due to the work of climate scientists.
Peter Stott was one of them. He trudged through numerous climate meetings, presenting the facts only to be met with anger and denial. After accumulating a wealth of knowledge, this is what he was met with: climate change denial, at its very beginning.
I would have thought that government bodies would have listened to him, taken his word into account. At least, that's what I would have done. I would have asked for facts, details- but that's not what they did. He was dismissed by them numerous times by numerous people, including the likes of politicians like Nigel Lawson. I was shocked. How could such science be shoved under the rug like that? There had to be something that would make them listen, at least a public outrage.
Until his idea was finally accepted: climate change is a real phenomenon. In a world where this is the status quo, who knew how much effort was required to get this through? Stott had to make models, compile research from scratch and find people to defend him. After that, you can't forget trying to convince the public that it's real.
When it came to finally getting the word out, his points backed with raw evidence clashed with the points of deniers who insisted that the temperature was going down rather than up- an archaic belief that had been disproven since 1990! The BBC, preaching for impartiality, broadcasted both of these views with equal value. It made people think: what's the truth?
In schools, there was a climate change documentary about to be shown called 'An Inconvenient Truth detailing the true impact of climate change. But it was illegal because it was considered propaganda! I considered that outrageous.
And yet this circles back to my first point: is it really the government that we should rely on for climate change action, even with the likes of climate change deniers in such an untouchable body? I believe that this will lead to people not taking action for it. There are small things that you can do to improve our world, even if it makes you seem like a mere cog in this infinitely complex machine of society: reusing, recycling and even packing up uneaten food from a takeaway to eat for later. These small things can save our planet. Though they may not help the hole in the ozone layer recover faster, at least we can contribute to a greener world somehow.
I would like to recommend this book to those of you who like politics as well as climate change. Stott blends these two together seamlessly and I was certainly very impressed with the quality of his work. It struck me as vital that we discuss this, lest we want to world to crumble.
In fact, even these prestigious people didn't realise the true impact of their actions until about 2000, which isn't that long ago if you think about it; only 20 years ago, primarily due to the work of climate scientists.
Peter Stott was one of them. He trudged through numerous climate meetings, presenting the facts only to be met with anger and denial. After accumulating a wealth of knowledge, this is what he was met with: climate change denial, at its very beginning.
I would have thought that government bodies would have listened to him, taken his word into account. At least, that's what I would have done. I would have asked for facts, details- but that's not what they did. He was dismissed by them numerous times by numerous people, including the likes of politicians like Nigel Lawson. I was shocked. How could such science be shoved under the rug like that? There had to be something that would make them listen, at least a public outrage.
Until his idea was finally accepted: climate change is a real phenomenon. In a world where this is the status quo, who knew how much effort was required to get this through? Stott had to make models, compile research from scratch and find people to defend him. After that, you can't forget trying to convince the public that it's real.
When it came to finally getting the word out, his points backed with raw evidence clashed with the points of deniers who insisted that the temperature was going down rather than up- an archaic belief that had been disproven since 1990! The BBC, preaching for impartiality, broadcasted both of these views with equal value. It made people think: what's the truth?
In schools, there was a climate change documentary about to be shown called 'An Inconvenient Truth detailing the true impact of climate change. But it was illegal because it was considered propaganda! I considered that outrageous.
And yet this circles back to my first point: is it really the government that we should rely on for climate change action, even with the likes of climate change deniers in such an untouchable body? I believe that this will lead to people not taking action for it. There are small things that you can do to improve our world, even if it makes you seem like a mere cog in this infinitely complex machine of society: reusing, recycling and even packing up uneaten food from a takeaway to eat for later. These small things can save our planet. Though they may not help the hole in the ozone layer recover faster, at least we can contribute to a greener world somehow.
I would like to recommend this book to those of you who like politics as well as climate change. Stott blends these two together seamlessly and I was certainly very impressed with the quality of his work. It struck me as vital that we discuss this, lest we want to world to crumble.
December 19, 2024
If ever there was a book too make you think, this is it. But beware – it will also make you angry. Angry at the wicked, selfish, and, it has to be said, evil people and institutions that seek to undermine, traduce, vilify and even criminalise the pursuit of science, for political ends, and in the service of powerful vested interests. Peter Stott comes across as the typical mild-mannered scientist who, in the early 1990s, found himself on the ground floor of the emerging science of climate change. As a scientist at the UK Meteorological Office, he has been at the sharp end of the research that shows, increasingly, and now unquestionably, that the world’s climate is changing, very rapidly, as a direct consequence of human activities. But he has also been at the sharp end of well-funded efforts to undermine the credibility of the science and the scientists themselves, aided at times by cackhanded and ill-informed news editors who wheel out long-discredited climate-change ‘sceptics’ for the sake of what they call ‘balance’. Thankfully the balance has shifted, for now, to embrace the reality of anthropogenic climate change – but for how long? Jair Bolsonaro was bested in Brazil by only a whisker, and if Trump succeeds in becoming US President again, the world might once again switch to the dark side. Shortlisted for the Royal Society Science Book Prize of 2022 (DISCLAIMER: I also had a dog in that fight).
September 14, 2022
we owe so much to climate scientists and their incredible efforts to warn us of the horrifying future which could await us. those who facilitated the fossil fuel industry to drive denial and doubt globally have a hot space in hell. things could be so different and this book proves it. i’m not a scientist and don’t claim to know much about the ins and outs of the science behind climate change but this book has managed to put these complicated ideas into understandable anecdotes. the timeline of events that have led to the damage we see now was harrowing to read and i can’t ever know the frustration that those on the frontlines of climate science felt. i believe everyone should listen to this book to become aware of how not only can we not afford to facilitate climate change denial, we also can’t continue to ignore what we know is happening now. everyone needs to take action and this book is proof of that - the science is there, we now need to push forward the momentum. such a good read. i listened to the audiobook version of this book and would highly recommend. it was well paced and well narrated, a great listen which i sped through in a few days.
July 18, 2024
In a world driven by instant gratification, and countries who prefer profit before people, it is up to those citizens whose votes actually count to set the trend.
As a born and bred New Zealander I take great delight in voting for an environmentally ecologically conscientious government, whichever party governs
the NZ voters are a noisy lot who have a voice.
We want a clean green habitat for all creatures that breathe, and as a group of 3 main and many outlying islands climate change is important to we all.
While I thoroughly enjoyed the focus of the book, the author made his part and his oh woe is me place in decision making a little to pretentiously personal.
This is a great book for a look into the International Panel on Climate Change, and the role governments and scientists have to play together, and a good look at different countries who are not interested in taking part unless they make the rules.
Thank you for your words Peter Stott, and Malk Williams your eloquence, very much appreciated gentlemen. (-:
As a born and bred New Zealander I take great delight in voting for an environmentally ecologically conscientious government, whichever party governs
the NZ voters are a noisy lot who have a voice.
We want a clean green habitat for all creatures that breathe, and as a group of 3 main and many outlying islands climate change is important to we all.
While I thoroughly enjoyed the focus of the book, the author made his part and his oh woe is me place in decision making a little to pretentiously personal.
This is a great book for a look into the International Panel on Climate Change, and the role governments and scientists have to play together, and a good look at different countries who are not interested in taking part unless they make the rules.
Thank you for your words Peter Stott, and Malk Williams your eloquence, very much appreciated gentlemen. (-:
December 23, 2022
A riveting behind the scenes account of the history of climate change science, the IPCC reporting and scientific process and the various ways progress in climate science has been frustrated by climate change denialists. The chronological structure works extremely well, as the author tees up the next phase of climate science at the end of each chapter.
After reading Unsettled, which made valid points on how there is a disconnect between media reporting, popular sentiment and political decision making on one hand, and what is actually established science, this book adds essential context and insight into how and why we should trust the scientists and the scientific process on climate change.
Essential reading!
After reading Unsettled, which made valid points on how there is a disconnect between media reporting, popular sentiment and political decision making on one hand, and what is actually established science, this book adds essential context and insight into how and why we should trust the scientists and the scientific process on climate change.
Essential reading!
June 16, 2023
Ma ootasin sellelt raamatult midagi, mis see polnud. Pealkirja järgi eeldasin, et teos annab ülevaate kliimamuutuste eitamisest ja torpedeerimisest maailmas, sisuliselt kirjeldab kliimaeitamise ajalugu. Nii ei ole. Autor kirjeldab enda väljakutseid kliimateadlasena ning seda, kuidas on isiklikult puutunud kokku kliimamuutusi eitavate jõududega. See on päris messed up tõesti, aga ma ootasin midagi dramaatilisemat ja kaasahaaravamat. Suurem osa raamatust on kirjeldus erinevate teadustööde koostamisest (mida näen oma töös iga päev kõrvalt ja mis pole seega mulle protsessina võõras ega huvitav). Tassisin seda raamatut kaasas mitu kuud erinevatesse linnadesse ja riikidesse, aga lõpuks andsin alla ja jätsin viimase peatüki või kaks lugemata.
August 14, 2023
3.5
Listened to this as an audiobook; it may have been the format (and I’m not great at paying full attention to audiobooks!) but I struggled a little with this one. definitely picked up towards the middle, but large sections of it felt very rambling and treading the same ground. Still, interesting stuff!
Listened to this as an audiobook; it may have been the format (and I’m not great at paying full attention to audiobooks!) but I struggled a little with this one. definitely picked up towards the middle, but large sections of it felt very rambling and treading the same ground. Still, interesting stuff!
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews