A new book in which I have a chapter: Climate Change: The Facts

climate-change-facts-bookFrom 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

Advertisements

144 thoughts on “A new book in which I have a chapter: Climate Change: The Facts

  1. 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.

    • 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.

    • 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.

    • 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?

  2. 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.

    • K-12 education, the climate change/manmade warming hype, and the emphasis on local governments taking the lead are…

      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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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…

      • 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.

      • 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.

  6. 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?

      • 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.

  7. 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]

    • 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.

  8. The book sounds fantastic. A concise collection of truths to promote some rational thinking. I can sense heads exploding already.

  9. 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.

  10. 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!

    • 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.

    • 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.]

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

      • 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.

    • 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.

  13. 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.

  14. The BBC are trailing a programme called “Climate Change by Numbers” in which three mathematicians (no names given, but photos shown) use three numbers to explore climate change past present and future. Anybody out there know anything more?

    • Questing Vole

      The BBC are trailing a programme called “Climate Change by Numbers” in which three mathematicians (no names given, but photos shown) use three numbers to explore climate change past present and future.

      Make that Zero, None, and a Slim Chance in Hell … of accurately predicting the future climate, right?

      Bet 1.3 trillion in energy taxes and 8.6 trillion in carbon futures trading are not in there either.

      • I do – I was a scientific consultant. The mathematicians are Hannah Fry (UCL), Norman Fenton (Queen Mary London University) and David Spiegelhalter (Cambridge). It’s out on the 2nd March at 9pm UK time. It will be on iPlayer after that, though not *cough, officially* available outside the UK.

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jsdrk

        Hope that helps,

        Tamsin (Open University, blogs.plos.org/models, @flimsin)

  15. The alarmistas are always saying the skeptics want to “change the facts”, now it’s the title of their new book. Maybe you can hire an editor who knows how a ‘:’ is used.

    • On my paperback copy the front cover has “CLIMATE CHANGE” as the main heading.
      Below that, in a font half the size, it reads “THE FACTS ….”
      There is no confusion, IMHO.

    • Hey JDN!

      Could you do us “Good Guys” a favor and, in the future, spare us any further, bio-hazard exposure to your little, “Hive-Bozo”, retentive-dork, tidy-bowl obsession with colonic rectitude? Thanks in advance, creep-out.

      P. S. Can anyone believe that JDN’s little sicko-booger, here, rated a “shout-out” in HotWhopper’s latest blog-post along with a supporting, “me-too!”, hive-solidarity comment in the attached comment-thread (very first comment, even)? I dunno, but that blog seems to me to be gettin’ weirder and weirder, by the day.

  16. Just bought the ebook ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ and downloaded it to the Kindle for PC
    app on my Surface Pro 3.

    Looking forward to reading it on this long US weekend (Monday is Presidents Day holiday).

    NOTE: while I was there at the Amazon site I saw an advertisement for George Reisman’s essay ‘Why Nazi$m** Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian’. A long time ago I had the pleasure of attending several of Reisman’s talks, so this will be interesting to see if basically his thinking has developed.

    ** purposely misspelt by me – JW

    [Reply: Comment rescued from Spam. If you’re trying to evade the spam filter, you can’t use the letters n-a-z-i together, even with other letters or symbols around it. ~mod.]

    John

    • [Reply: Comment rescued from Spam. If you’re trying to evade the spam filter, you can’t use the letters n-a-z-i together, even with other letters or symbols around it. ~m o d.]

      Yeah, thanks for the tip. That’s exactly what I was trying to do. : )

      John

  17. I have had my copy for a few weeks, now, it’s very interesting, and informative. I am now reading it again, as I often do with blog posts on this site
    . Some very telling science and opinion. It’s worth every penny.

  18. Where can one order a hard copy? I don’t use kindle (too hard on my eyes) and prefer hard copy. According to some comments, hard copies are availbale at places other than Amazon.com

      • Tried that but my bank won’t let credit card go through and paypal won’t let me pay either. May try to call and see if I can place order over phone.

        It’s a bummer that hard copy is not available in USA. Big market here.

    • George, a possible solution. Get either a Kindle Fire or an iPad. Now you have interactivity and color images in a device a bit smaller than Time mag, and a bit bigger than a paperback.
      After downloading, go to the upper right corner and do some clicking. One of the things that comes up in either format is an Aa icon. That allows you to adjust the book font size to whatever works for whatever state of your eyes. The whoe book scales accordingly. Beats reading glasses.
      I may never buy another papet book, not only because have published 3 in eform, most recently on energy and climate.. Linked chapters and footnotes, hyperlinks to primary references, digital annotation and bookmarking… All good.
      I now have about 200 books from iBooks, and about 150 from Kindle, on my iPad2 (oldie but still goody.) Not to mention several hundred .pdfs of science papers and presentations, a movie, three short films, and music. All there while I am travelling, to enjoy or to study. And all backed up on my main computer hard drive, itself backed up. Nothing not to like.

      • If you have a decent monitor on a PC, Kindle for PC produces very easily readable material. The program is free from Amazon.

      • I solved problem by contacting order department. They emailed me an invoice which I am returning. Expect order to be in my hands in two weeks.

  19. The book arrived in my post box in tropical Cairns Australia 2 days ago from the IPA and I haven’t been able to put it down since. It will be useful to me, a non science person, as a reference document too.

    Thanks to all involved. Well worth the $24.

    Best wishes. Robin.W.

  20. Great book Anthony. I got a copy a few weeks ago and have read it already, some chapters twice! One section I read out aloud to my wife….seriously clever and funny. Worth every cent

  21. Congratulations, Anthony. Best of luck with the book, I’ll get a copy.
    The authors are the best and the contents attractive. I hope a paper book will come out soon, they get to more people.

    • The post graphic does fail to show the word “climate” and is a bit unfortunate for the reason you give,
      However, as I stated in an earlier comment “On my paperback copy the front cover has “CLIMATE CHANGE” as the main heading.
      Below that, in a font half the size, it reads “THE FACTS ….”
      There is no confusion, IMHO.”
      So don’t get silly about it! Stick to the facts.

  22. What’s also needed is a book or website that rebuts SkS’s 180 or so “Climate Change Myths” and Grist’s similar list. These lists are what have persuaded millions that the contrarian case has been debunked. They need to be tackled head-on. (It’s legally OK to quote them in full if that is required to credibly discuss them (to avoid accusations of out-of-context quoting), in the US.)

    Caution: In many cases a conclusive refutation isn’t possible, because the facts alone aren’t dispositive. In those cases, this should be admitted, and the aim should only be to neutralize, by casting rational doubt.

    • PS. There are at least a hundred contrarian essays of equal value. Many excellent contrarian authors are unrepresented. I therefore suggest sequel volumes with the suffix, “volume 2,” etc.

  23. Some spam filter. Have you ever heard of Ashkenazi Jews? Let’s see if this one goes into spam. I don’t care if you leave it there.

    I was hoping to note the image for the post reads “Change the facts”. We know that’s what is happening. Stalin would be proud.

    • And I for one sure don’t want to hear any of your free-wheeling views on either – ever!

      The topic is climate change theory.

  24. read all:

    14 Feb: Toronto Sun: Truth first casualty of climate wars
    For starters, ‘carbon’ isn’t the same thing as ‘carbon dioxide’
    by BOB CARTER, WILLIE SOON and TOM HARRIS
    Why is it that when politicians make basic science mistakes in support of the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming, no government agency or university representative corrects them?
    It is not as if such errors are rare; they happen all the time.
    For example, climate modellers correctly label their speculations of future temperatures as “projections”, meaning that they have no validated forecast skill.
    Yet lawmakers treat the models as providing forecasts or predictions…
    It is not just our political leaders who get away with misrepresenting climate science.
    It’s also done by many scientific organizations and even individual scientists…
    Climate change research has been politicized to the extent that much of it has become a travesty of proper scientific process.
    The main reason this is not more often labelled fraud is the fear of legal and other reprisals…
    Scientists from all disciplines must speak out. The stakes are too high to accept anything less.
    http://www.torontosun.com/2015/02/14/truth-first-casualty-of-climate-wars

    and thanx to anthony and everyone involved in the Climate Change: The Facts for having the courage to speak out.

  25. As noted by some above, received my printed copy in Australia over a month ago and finished reading it last week. It is very informative and highly recommended and should be compulsory reading for all warmists and greenies. Even the National Geographic Magazine people (February 2015 issue) are expecting a sea level rise of 2 metres around the Florida Peninsula by the end of the century.

  26. worth noting:

    13 Feb: The Conversation: Mike Raupach: the scientist who tallied the world’s carbon budget
    by Helen Cleugh, Deputy Director, Oceans and Atmospheric at CSIRO, John Finnigan, Leader, Complex Systems Science at CSIRO & Pep Canadell. Executive director, Global Carbon Project at CSIRO
    Dr Mike Raupach died earlier this week after a brief illness. He passed away peacefully at home with his family in Canberra, Australia. He was 64.
    Mike was a brilliant and outstanding scientist. He was one of the nation’s foremost climate researchers, focusing on interactions between the climate, the carbon cycle and humans…
    ***His legacy lives on through the Global Carbon Project, which Mike co-founded and which now engages hundreds of scientists, practitioners, and policy-makers. His research, leadership, and personal commitment have made the project a scientifically rich, innovative and socially relevant international collaboration…
    His work on the global carbon cycle and the global carbon budget showed the rapid growth of emissions and declining efficiency of natural carbon sinks, explored current and future emission trajectories linked to economic development, and devised ways to think about the responsibility of nations to address climate mitigation.
    As his own research and that of scientists worldwide demonstrated the urgent need to mitigate climate change, Mike increasingly felt a strong moral duty to speak out. His move to ANU’s Climate Change Institute in February last year gave him the opportunity to do this, drawing on both his scientific and his communication skills…
    Mike received his BSc in mathematical physics from the University of Adelaide in 1971. For his PhD at Flinders University, he presciently wanted to work on global climate change, but was warned that it was a speculative theory and was instead steered towards micrometeorological research, measuring the turbulent processes that exchange energy and carbon dioxide at the Earth’s surface…
    http://theconversation.com/mike-raupach-the-scientist-who-tallied-the-worlds-carbon-budget-37575

    ***from Wikipedia: Global Carbon Project
    The Global Carbon Project works collaboratively with the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, the World Climate Programme, the International Human Dimensions Programme on Global Environmental Change and Diversitas, under the Earth System Science Partnership…
    On December 5, 2011 analysis released from the project claimed carbon dioxide from fossil-fuel burning jumped by the largest amount on record in 2010 to 5.9 percent from a growth rate in the 1990s closer to 1 percent annually. The combustion of coal represented more than half of the growth in emissions, the report found…

    no disrespect. RIP Mike Raupach.
    interesting, tho, to read the debate at WUWT on the Global Carbon Project’s 2009 paper, just hours before Climategate shook up the CAGW world:

    17 Nov 2009: WUWT: CO2 still going up, but temperature not following the same trend
    From Eurekalert: Human emissions rise 2 percent despite global financial crisis
    – Despite the economic effects of the global financial crisis (GFC), carbon dioxide emissions from human activities rose 2 per cent in 2008 to an all-time high of 1.3 tonnes of carbon per capita per year, according to a paper published today in Nature Geoscience.
    The paper – by scientists from the internationally respected climate research group, the Global Carbon Project (GCP) – says rising emissions from fossil fuels last year were caused mainly by increased use of coal but there were minor decreases in emissions from oil and deforestation.
    “The current growth in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions is closely linked to growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP),” said one of the paper’s lead authors, CSIRO’s Dr Mike Raupach – ETC
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/co2-still-going-up-but-temperature-not-following-the-same-trend/

  27. The title on the book could do with some work, with Climate coloured white and the rest in black I read it as

    CLIMATE:
    CHANGE THE FACTS

    I thought it was a manual on data manipulation by Michael Manne.

  28. Ahhh Dellingpole, the same fella who deletes comments he disagrees with now that he’s pals with Breibart.

    If I was you I wouldn’t want to be mentioned in the same sentence as him. The guy does climate sceptism a great disservice.

  29. meanwhile, over in the land of Oz…a non-sceptical booklet!

    16 Feb: SMH: Peter Hannam: Australian scientists make fresh attempt at explaining climate change
    Australia’s leading science body has reissued its climate change booklet in a bid to improve public understanding of the contentious subject.
    The Australian Academy of Science was prompted to update the information based on new research and public questions since its original release in 2010.
    Most available material is either too technical for the lay reader and usually omits some of the basics, such as how scientists know humans are causing global warming and what future projections are based on, said Steven Sherwood, a climate scientist at the University of NSW.
    “There is so much misinformation or confusing information out there, that we thought it would be ***nice to gather in one place an accessible explanation,” Professor Sherwood said…
    About 97 per cent of scientists who study the climate accept that humans are having an impact, with carbon dioxide – mostly emitted from humans burning fossil fuels – the primary driver…
    Perhaps less well known is the role rising temperatures have on concentrations of water vapour, a key greenhouse gas.
    “When global average atmospheric temperatures rise, global water vapour concentrations increase, amplifying the initial warming through an enhanced greenhouse effect,” the report says. “[T]his feedback approximately doubles the sensitivity of climate to human activities.”…
    http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/australian-scientists-make-fresh-attempt-at-explaining-climate-change-20150215-13f1ix.html

    ***how nice.

    • Peter Hannam is the resident uninformed alarmist at the SMH. He now does not allow comments on his article because he, and the articles he publishes, can be rather easily debunked!

  30. I really want a hardcover edition signed by all the authors … even if I have it bound myself, and pay for fedex to taxi it around to everyone

  31. It is a great read. However, I missed references, and I wanted them. For instance, Ian Plimer’s one-in-85000 human-derived CO2 in the atmosphere – where did that come from? At 400ppm today, we are supposed to be around 120ppm higher than pre-industrial times, so human-derived CO2 would be of the order of (1000000/120) = 8333. Did he make a factor of 10 error? It would have been so easy to hyperlink every fact to a reference.

    • IPCC states that human CO2 is about 3 percent of the global carbon cycle. 34/85000 = 400
      3 percent of those 34 is about one. One out of 34 atmospheric CO2 molecules is of anthropogenic origin, the remaining 33 are part of the natural global carbon cycle.
      Atmospheric CO2 is part of a flowing system, there is no “accumulation” from any source. the turnover is very rapid. Using bomb tracer data, every 10 years, the atmosphere loses 1/2 of all CO2 to permanent sinks.
      Out of the 400 ppm CO2, about 15 to 25 ppm are from human addition, the remaining 375 to 385 are the natural global biogeochemical carbon flow.

  32. I believe that Figure 1 in Anthony’s chapter has two typos. The first two dates (1987 and 1996) should be 1887 and 1896?

    I have never seen the data presented in a manner as in Figure 1 and I wanted to copy it so I could show it to others. Kindle will not allow me to copy this particular figure.

    It would be helpful (to me, at least) if Anthony would include this Figure on his website in a manner that could be copied.

  33. I believe that Figure 1 in Anthony’s chapter has two typos. The first two dates (1987 and 1996) should be 1887 and 1896?
    I have never seen the data presented in a manner as in Figure 1 and I wanted to copy it so I could show it to others. Kindle will not allow me to copy this particular figure.

    It would be helpful (to me, at least) if Anthony would include this Figure on his website in a manner that could be copied.

    • Yes – those dates are obvious typos. Also in the paperback book.

      As for printing the figure, I would suppose you can “screen capture” it (Crtl+Print Screen) and paste it into “Paint” (or similar) and save it as .BMP or .JPG. As a bonus, in Paint you could fix the two dates. Using this approach, you could make a hard copy of your whole Kindle book – possibly a couple of week’s work!!!! Not to mention printing costs. And then, you could be pretty confident that the day you finish the hard copy will appear on Amazon.

      • Again, please note if you have the Kindle, you can highlight and report errors observed directly to the publisher via your Kindle. I only just discovered this myself, and it’s very handy.

      • Holly –

        I didn’t know that. Do you know what happens if a person (or group, en-mass by conspiracy) decides to report not a legitimate typo (like 1987 for 1887), but a difference of opinion AS an “error”?

  34. Since it’s a critique of the CAGW Alarmist community – and especially if they had included a chapter on the continual adjustments to the instrumental temperature record – I might prefer that the colon be moved, so that the title read, “Climate: Change The Facts.”

  35. There’s a possible error in Chapter 11, at Kindle Location 2222:

    All the talk of ‘it’ being ‘simple physics’ is, and always was, a complete red flag.

    Shouldn’t that read, “. . . red herring.” ?

  36. The title of Chapter 15 is, “The IPCC and the Peace Prize.”
    A better title would be, “A Nobel Lie.”

  37. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

    Publishing helps, but only continued study and diligent explaining will blunt the charge of this latest alarmism. (Global warming alarmism is, after all, just the latest end-times version of the apocalypse.

    Please consider purchasing and, of course, reading this book.

  38. What’s with the author’s names looking so ragged on the front cover? Schiek text styling, love how it makes stuff so much harder to scan. I hope they didn’t continue that styling theme inside.

    • That’s a scan or image of the cover of course. [HA! – – are you judging a book by it’s (scanned) cover?] The cover text IS sharp. It’s a quality production to accompany top-quality writing.

Comments are closed.