From Steynonline:
…
Climate Change: The Facts has been put together by our friends at the Institute of Public Affairs in Australia, edited by Alan Moran, and features 22 essays on the science, politics and economics of “climate change”.
[It features Mark Steyn on the Mann Hockey Stick debacle,] Joanne Nova on the climate-change gravy train; Britain’s former Chancellor Nigel Lawson on the economic consequences of abandoning fossil fuels; Patrick Michaels on the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and real-world temperatures, Garth Paltridge on the damage such failed forecasts are doing to science, and Donna Laframboise on the damage the Big Climate alarmists have done to the IPCC; professors Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter and Willie Soon on climate sensitivity and factors such as greenhouse gases, natural variability, and the role of the sun…
Oh, don’t worry, Michael E Mann and his “hockey stick” are in the book, in an analysis by one of the two men who’ve inflicted more damage on Mann’s stick than anybody else, Professor Ross McKitrick. For all but the most hardcore climate alarmists, it’s increasingly clear, almost two decades into the “pause”, that climate science and its attendant politics need a fresh start. This book is an important contribution to that, by a wide range of authors whose writing on this subject over the years has held up a lot better than the dire predictions of the climate models.
…
For now, it’s available as an eBook from Kindle via Amazon.com and other Amazon outlets around the world (scroll down). It will be in paperback soon and I’ll announce it again then.
From the Amazon description:
Stockade Books and The Institute of Public Affairs are proud to publish Climate Change: The Facts, featuring 22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate. Climate Change: The Facts features the world’s leading experts and commentators on climate change. Highlights of Climate Change: The Facts include:
Ian Plimer draws on the geological record to dismiss the possibility that human emissions of carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic consequences for the planet. Patrick Michaels demonstrates the growing chasm between the predictions of the IPCC and the real world temperature results. Richard Lindzen shows the climate is less sensitive to increases in greenhouse gases than previously thought and argues that a warmer world would have a similar weather variability to today. Willie Soon discusses the often unremarked role of the sun in climate variability. Robert Carter explains why the natural variability of the climate is far greater than any human component. John Abbot and Jennifer Marohasy demonstrate how little success climate models have in predicting important information such as rainfall.
Nigel Lawson warns of the dire economic consequences of abandoning the use of fossil fuels. Alan Moran compares the considerable costs of taking action compared to the relatively minor potential benefits of doing so. James Delingpole looks at the academic qualifications of the leading proponents of catastrophic climate change and finds many lack the credentials of so-called ‘sceptics’. Garth Paltridge says science itself will be damaged by the failure of climate forecasts to eventuate. Jo Nova chronicles the extraordinary sums of public money awarded to climate change activists, in contrast to those who question their alarmist warnings. Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong compare climate change alarmism to previous scares raised over the past 200 years. Rupert Darwall explains why an international, legally binding climate agreement has extremely minimal chances of success. Ross McKitrick reviews the ‘hockey stick’ controversy and what it reveals about the state of climate science.
Donna Laframboise explains how activists have taken charge of the IPCC. Mark Steyn recounts the embarrassing ‘Ship of Fools’ expedition to Antarctica. Christopher Essex argues the climate system is far more complex than it has been presented and there is much that we still don’t know. Bernie Lewin examines how climate change science came to be politicised. Stewart Franks lists all the unexpected developments in climate science that were not foreseen. Anthony Watts highlights the failure of the world to warm over the past 18 years, contrary to the predictions of the IPCC. Andrew Bolt reviews the litany of failed forecasts by climate change activists.
From co-author Kesten Green, a sample:
Who is more accurate, the global coolers or the global warmers?
Kesten Green and Scott Armstrong tested the predictive validity of the United Nations’ IPCC global warming hypothesis of +0.03°C per year due to increasing CO2 against the relatively conservative hypothesis of natural global cooling at a rate of -0.01°C per year. The errors of forecasts from the global warming hypothesis for horizons 11 to 100 years ahead over the period 1851 to 1975 were nearly four times larger than those from the global cooling hypothesis.
Forecasts from the no-change model, however, were substantially more accurate again than those from the global cooling hypothesis. Findings from their tests covering a period of nearly 2,000 years support the predictive validity of the no-change hypothesis for horizons from one year to centuries ahead (Green and Armstrong, 2014).
A pre-publication draft of their “Forecasting global climate change” chapter is available, here.
Note: For the record, I was not paid to write a chapter nor remunerated in any way before or after publication, and, I don’t share in the profits from the sale of the book. I do get a few cents if you order the Kindle version on Amazon via Amazon’s referral program. – Anthony Watts
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Timely publishing – look forward to reading it. However, the link you provide in the last line produces this dire warning
blocked red-x
Symantec logo
Malicious Web Site Blocked
You attempted to access:
http://www.kestencgreen.com/G&A-Skyfall.pdf
This is a known malicious web site. It is recommended that you do NOT visit this site. The detailed report explains the security risks on this site.
For your protection, this web site has been blocked. Visit Symantec to learn more about phishing and internet security.
I hope this can be investigated and fixed.
[I don’t get this warning, some a-v programs imporoperly flag websites -mod]
Probably misguided warmists (end justifies the means) have been reporting virus hits and/or infections, in order to discourage traffic. It is an effective tactic, which is all such people care about. Sigh… GK
G Karst, you could be right. I had no problem in downloading the article which is a very good analysis and well written. It should be sent to all politician who listen to alarmists. The conclusion is that a steady state is the best forecast both in short and long term and governments who fall for the alarmist calls make things worse. That is also the case with economics. Government spending in the long term increases unemployment and decreases the well being of the population. The evidence is there that US government spending prolonged the 1930’s depression in the US. We would be far better off we small government, less or no grants for research especially social research. The huge surge of scientific and technical knowledge in the nineteenth century did not come from government grants. Edison was an inventor who profited from his work to just name one of the many.
I have no difficulty accessing the site and .pdf running Norton (Symantec) a-v software on my system.
Green previously suggested clearing your cache.
Avast is not giving me any warning about that link.
I am thoroughly enjoying the book, though for me it is a slow go since I’m not a scientist, but just a logical thinker who’s been skeptical of the whole global warmist alarmism from the beginning.
P.S. I have also been promoting this book wherever I can!
I will definitely be buying this book. I suspect that M Mann and his deluded acolytes will not!
Could the authors please send a signed copy to the” little o”?
Excellent book. I read it as soon as I got it on Kindle. If only the general public read it!
Just bought it! Hope it sells millions! 🙂
Sounds like a good read. Hope it gets a wide audience.
Not as wide an audience as others got via the Nobel prize for significantly lesser work.
On the upside, the warmist claim that there is a well documented conspiracy financed BigOil so, if they are correct, this book will be trumpeted from every media outlet in the world.
I find it amusing that these very same Warmists are happy to take Big Oil MONEY.
If we all purchase a copy of it, it will go right up the Amazon rankings, hopefully to the top 100. That way it will get a high profile.
I’ve been reading it all day. Excellent stuff!
I reckon this should be freely distributed……………… like the Gideon Bible :-))
What is needed is for this book to “go viral” AND unlike the Gideon bible, it is not a work of political faction regurgitated for purely political motives.
Hmm . . . I wasn’t aware the Gideon Bible was a “work of political faction regurgitated for purely political motives.” Could you please direct me to your source for the basis of this assertion?
I think you mean remunerated with the ‘m’ first as in being paid money.
Good timing on the book. I just explained the related significance of Ban Ki-Moon’s December 2014 paper laying out the UN plans for the Road to Dignity for All by 2030. http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/knowledge-to-avoid-becoming-roadkill-on-the-bipartisan-global-road-to-dignity-by-2030/
K-12 education, the climate change/manmade warming hype, and the emphasis on local governments taking the lead are all necessary components for what is actually Marx’s Human Development Model. a/k/a power to the global oligarchy and their cronies.
Robin, your article(s) look very interesting indeed, however I saw reference in neither the article (“Roadkill”) nor your comment (at 2:31pm) to Climate Change – perhaps you could point me in the correct direction? Or is your comment above simply a head-turner?
Mike-it is used repeatedly in the Ban Ki-Moon document I cited in the post. It’s also in the July 2013 report from Moon I describe in the comments. It is an integral part of the vision for why a social, economic, and political transformation is necessary.
Education, my specialty, is the means. Manmade climate change is the excuse.
Paragraphs 50 and 88 of the July document “A Life of dignity for all: accelerating progress toward the Millennium Development Goals and advancing the United Nations development agenda beyond 2015” are explicitly on climate change. It is interesting to see how small a component it is to the real change agenda when it is all being laid out. A search will pull it up. A hot link will take this down. The December 2014 report incorporates aspects of the earlier report to flesh out the vision of what constitutes Dignity for All.
Thanks Robin. The references were in deeper layers than the article itself. I agree regards the means and the excuse. Cheers.
And you’re in pretty distinguished company, judging by that cover. Well done, all! Hope the paper version is out ahead of the upcoming Paris junket.
We are lucky here in New Zealand…I have had my copy of the paper version for over a month! It’s a great summary of the current status. I especially liked geologist Ian Plimer’s chapter…he mentions that there are only 32 molecules of CO2 in the atmosphere for every 85,000 other ones…and only one of these 32 is of manmade origin! Sort of puts all the hype into perspective if only we could get the word out..but this book is certainly a step in the right direction.
Alastair Brickell, am kiwi too – where can I get printed copies please?
Hi Mike Jowsey, I got mine from the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne for $24.95 AUD…they can be contacted at ipa@ipa.org.au…Cheers!
Thanks Alistair
I have it on my kindle and peruse it every day!,
I saw this at Steyn’s site. Waiting for the book, I prefer books to Kindle.
Is it just me? Is it just my biases? But it seems to me, just looking at that list of authors, that members of the skeptic community (gawd, how I hate that tribal generalization – but it is convenient) are hell’s bells better writers, and possess far better senses of humor (actually ‘better’ is an inaccurate term when the comparison is to, well … nothing) than the dour, self righteous, nose-in-the-air, humorless, screeds who populate the CAGW opportunistic industrial complex. I’ve enjoyed the clever humor of Michaels, the smoothness of McKitrick, and the others, and then, there’s … Mark Steyn.
WOW! A book that should be required reading for all 435 house representatives/delegates and 50 senators. Although, I would suspect that a good many of them are in the pocket of the alarmist green energy companies and know that AGW is a farce. The Essays pull no punches from what I have read so far and tell it like it is..
Cue left wing alarmist hate mail in 3….2……1……
Nicely done Mr Watts and Company…
I think all 100 Senators should read it, and the POTUS and Veep, though 50 would be a good start.
Sorry to disagree, but I think the only thing the POTUS should read, on a Friday afternoon, is a memo printed on pink paper that says, “Your presence is requested at the Human Resources Department at 4:30. Bring all personal effects and your pass card.”
Dave-as bad as Congress is my research makes it crystal clear that the real political players in this agenda are at the local level. The School District supers, mayors, state legislators, city councilmen. I mention it in that link but in early January I wrote a post about the Global CIFAL Network the UN established in 2002. The intention is to train local ‘actors’ and authorities to quietly implement the UN agenda. It’s also why political scientist Benjamin Barber now hypes mayors as the key to fulfilling his vision of democracy in the economic justice sense.
POTUS should read the Constitution.
Excellent, Tom J … The Cost to America of a AWOL President
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/14/the-cost-to-america-of-a-awol-president/
Upload it to the teleprompter. Get Popcorn. Enjoy.
Tom J,
Very Good! Add a note under the wiper blade of Our Dear Leader’s car in the parking lot: “Please remove your vehicle from taxpayer funded property. This space is needed for a citizen who will defend Our Nation and Our Constitution.
A copy was sent to every member of the federal government in Australia….. sadly I don’t think it has had much impact.
There is no observational data that supports the assertion that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emmissions have any negative impact on anything.
Increased atmospheric CO2 benefits plant growth. That’s an observed fact.
Quantitative measures of extreme weather over decades are low and trending lower.
Most surface thermometer data are hopelessly contaminated by poor siting.
There are some data with good siting, those show zero warming over decades.
The USCRN is showing zero warming since it was completed.
Paleoclimate observations show thousands of years of small shifts between minor warming and cooling.
The 20th century was nothing unusual from that point of view.
Surface soot is the simplest explanation for anecdotal melting of northern ice.
“The School District supers, mayors, state legislators, city councilmen. I mention it in that link but in early January I wrote a post about the Global CIFAL Network the UN established in 2002. The intention is to train local ‘actors’ and authorities to quietly implement the UN agenda.”
I don’t know much about that but our local schools are all teaching that CO2=pollution. I do local speaking engagements on weather, including elementary school children. I was asked last month if I would talk to a group of 4th and 5th graders at one of the schools that I coach chess at. Their teacher says that they have been reading about all the polar bears dying(in their books) and want me to talk about how climate change is threatening the polar bears.
I spoke to a similar group last year and have to be extremely careful not to confuse these children that are being taught bad science. When I explained what CO2 does for plants and that its a beneficial gas, one 4th grader repeatedly raised his hand and almost crying, said “but isn’t it good to plant a tree”
Of course its good but he couldn’t wrap his mind around the fact that CO2 is good, after being taught that planting trees is good because they get rid of CO2 pollution.
Also, several years ago, I was contacted by an organization that wanted me to speak about climate change to the local public. They said they would set up the venues. I got excited, thinking I could share my knowledge(operational meteorologist for 34 years).
I write articles for the local paper and did weather on tv for 11 years and they must have gotten my name from somebody because they had some background information but did not actually know my views.
After reading over their email questionnaire, designed to screen me, in order to determine if my views lined up with their agenda, I realized what was going on. Most of it was the opposite of what I believe. They stated that they would “coach” me on what to say and how to respond to certain questions.
It would have been funny to give them the answers they wanted to read/hear, then go out and talk about the benefits of CO2.
I sort of like the term denier………..of dangerous warming that is.
Funny how I get called that because I believe that greenhouse gas warming is only 50% as much as what climate models project from a theory.
I share the same view on almost everything related to the physics of the atmosphere as fellow atmospheric scientists but because my view does not magnify the warming from increasing CO2 quite as much as some others, I’m a denier……..go figure.
Mike McGuire
Thank you for your time, your efforts with the kids.
But, no, there is no “conspiracy” about propagandizing Big Government’s climate change agenda, is there?
bw wrote, “Increased atmospheric CO2 benefits plant growth. That’s an observed fact.”
Yes, that’s why Scientific American called CO2 “the precious air fertilizer.”
Great link, thanks. I was having a “polite” conversation about AGW (i.e. ripping him a new one) on another site last week and his parting shot was “I’ll get all I need to know on climate change from Scientific American” thank you.” I must find that thread, although I have to say, when the warmsheeple are getting a pasting in the comments section, it seems hard to find them on Google after a week or so.
Was going to buy this, but apparently only available in Kindle or Nook e-format. 🙁
I detest trying to read anything of length on my computer.
I’ll be buying the book as soon as it comes out.
you can convert using Calibre
This is an excellent idea for a book – congratulations
Today, I found myself explaining to my son-in-law that there are no children (actually, young adults) who have gone through school and have now left university who have actually experienced ‘global warming’. After all, I said, there has been no GW for over 18 years!
The look on his face was a picture! His ‘errs’ and ‘ums’ and ‘say whats’ were his blustering way of countering my claim. He really could not believe that he and his children had been sold a pup.
This book will be a good present to him: I just hope he let’s my grand-children read it – before they become decision-makers.
Yep, my 5yo grandson was horrified when I explained that the bubbles in his fizzy drink were actually carbon dioxide. He said carbon dioxide was REALLY BAD. The wife thinks the same.
[Quickly tell him very seriously “No, you are using that CO2 to feed the trees outside and make them grow faster.” .mod]
Cute and funny, except that it is really very worrisome that little tykes are being indoctrinated with false information. Sigh.
People who write chapters in books should be paid for their work when the book sells.
Depends on the agreement. I’ve been published in two books as a chapter author, and was aware from the start that I wouldn’t be compensated. The exposure was worth more than any pay would have been, to me.
The book sounds fantastic. A concise collection of truths to promote some rational thinking. I can sense heads exploding already.
Anthony, thanks for your notice of this book and your contribution to it. It sounds like a very good read. I’ll be interested in hearing the “reviews.”
Reviews by Skeptics will be positive, glowing, “must read”, and full of praise.
Reviews by Alarmists will border on hate speech.
“”Reviews by Alarmists will border on hate speech.””
By people who didn’t read the book as history shows us.
The book (of which the cover is depicted in this post) IS IN FACT available in paperback (336 pages). I have had mine for three weeks. I ordered it from the Institute of Public Affairs (Australia) following a link that was on Jo Nova’s site and paying $24.95 (US). It was shipped promptly and took just a week to get here in the US. One expects to find hard copies on Amazon.
Topically arranged, the 21 chapters read easily in any order. I found it ALL very useful, but particularly value the chapters by Carter, Lawson, Nova, and Watts. A priority on your wish list!
Ordered, thanks Bernie.
I must say that the authors are losing out by not offering hardcopy is the USA.
Bernie,
Just ordered it from Aus.
Thanks for the link.
Yes it was published in 2014 and available in Oz but with “2014” added in the title that has now been thankfully deleted. Its a very good read indeed.
Indeed – I think the link to IPA Australia was:
http://thefacts2014.ipa.org.au/
If this doesn’t work, try going to Jo Nova’s post of Dec. 18, 2014 (I believe someone posted that link below) and click on the book cover image which IS the link above.
Indeed – the book I have has the cover as posted at the top – except mine has 2014 appended to the actual title. You are looking for the one with 21 chapters – as per the description pasted from Amazon above. It appears there may also be an (earlier? shorter?) online book with a very similar title at the IPA site (lots of good stuff to look at at the IPA site). I kind of hoped the “2014” in the title was an indication of possible plans for sequels.
Here is the link to the IPA pdf file “Climate Change The Facts” which was dated 2010 and has 13 authors – many different from the “book” discussed here. I have not read it carefully yet, but even the same authors have different chapters – I think. Anyway, you do need the new book, and this pdf is free. What’s not to like?
https://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1321487125_document_moran_climatechange-thefacts.pdf
Anthony, Were you remunerated in any way?
If you split the author’s commission 22 ways, this means that – errr – Anthony will be able to buy an extra pint of beer!
But only every other year………
Anthony, typo in the final paragraph: remunerated for renumerated
[Fixed, thanks. ~mod.]
I look forward to the book. Barely have internet so e-version is no good for me.
I hope that:
includes mention of the post-normal “scientists” so the public can appreciate the extent to which they have been deceived and not by scientists, but rather the arrogant sociologist messaging hoard.
https://buythetruth.wordpress.com/2009/10/31/climate-change-and-the-death-of-science/
Free copy sent to every Australian federal MP key journalists and opinion makers.
also all school teachers
Anthony, you deserve more than just a few cents from orders of the Kindle version of this book on Amazon’s referral program. No apology needed.
Oh, good to see some many highly credentialed conservative politicians and journalists (Mark Steyn, Nigel Lawson, James Delingpole, etc.) collaborating on a book on climate science. Finally we will read the unbiased truth!
Barry,
I suppose you prefer Algore’s books.
Book hard to read movie better.
I think that was Barry’s point—why listen to politicians, and that includes Al Gore. If you’re going to write a book about climate, why not have it written by scientists whose fields overlap into climate? Good that there are a few scientists (Dr. Soon), but where’s Dr. Christie, Dr. Curry? Heck, you could even get a well-known biologist writing on something climate-related in his/her field, and that still would have far more credibility than all those political-types lumped together.
And Delingpole? He’s done more spectacular self-goals than most—albeit, written in a very entertaining and engaging style—would that he were half as eloquent and twice as careful in fact-checking though.
Thirteen of the book’s 21 authors have doctorates.
Yes, it IS good to see arguments against the leftist propaganda by folks who understand politics, including the (ab)use of science to advance political agendas.
Bought the ebook (no more room for more paper books, and highly recommend ebook interactivity (linked footnotes, hyperlinked references, unconstrained color imagery, ability to bookmark, comment, note…)). Completed reading it just now. Many good and some very chuckle worthy contributions. Lord Lawson on consequences, Nova on ‘water’, Watts on ‘weather’, Steyn on ‘Ship of Fools’ and more, Dellingport on English majors, laFramboise on ‘Nobels’, Essex on experts and models…. Recommended reading. Thanks, Anthony.
Give the book to a True Believer, and watch them break out in hives. They are allergic to facts.