As confused as can be about the state of knowledge regarding global climate change and the influence of human behavior on it, I decided to start reading. I had read one of these short-intro books in this Oxford series on Literary Theory once, and it was quite good. This book, by contrast, is terrible. Two major complaints: (1) It is unnecessarily unscientific and opinionated in tone. For example, in presenting a reason past researchers thought extra C02 output might be a non-issue because the sea would absorb it, the author adds, "in other words, the ocean would mop up our pollution." Is C02 pollution? Are plants "polluting" by releasing oxygen? It is unncessarily value-laden language, which gives me pause when trying to determine if he knows what he is talking about and can keep a control on his biases. (2) More damagingly, he presents a graph of the last several-hundred thousand years showing three curves: one for C02, one for temperature, and one for methane. He writes,"This strongly supports the idea that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and global temperature are closely linked." Now, in teaching statistics, one of the most common fallacies I have to combat is the idea that association implies causation. Now the author hedges by writing "supports," but in so doing he misses a major point. Even if there is a causal link somewhere, it could be that A causes B rather than B causes A; in fact, when there are THREE things (C02 and methane as well as temp) covarying similarly, it strongly suggests there is a fourth factor causing all three. Even if the causal loop, if you will, is capture in these three things, how does one know it isn't the increase in temperature that causes the concentrations to rise? Indeed, when looking in another, better source, I discover that "it is likely" that the temperature changes caused the C02 fluctuations historically. (Even that author says such an observation does not refute that C02 rises will cause temp increases; no, it doesn't refute it, but it also means that those historical graphs are completely irrelevant to the argument that the causality will run in the other direction, i.e., C02 increases cause temp increases.) Of course, I cannot say, because I don't understand enough yet, whether it seems likely that C02 increases are causing most of global warming these days, but it is really depressing when people use false arguments to make even a good case.