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.
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
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)
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.
Or not put “Change the Facts” all in the same colour when there’s no logical reason to do otherwise.
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.
Talk about timing. Iconic graph at center of climate debate
“The “Hockey Stick” graph, a simple plot representing temperature over time, led to the center of the larger debate on climate change, and skewed the trajectory of at least one researcher, according to Michael Mann, Distinguished Professor of Meteorology, Penn State.”
Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-iconic-graph-center-climate-debate.html#jCp
phys. org news
Home>Earth>Environment>
February 14, 2015
One hour ago
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
Yeah, thanks for the tip. That’s exactly what I was trying to do. : )
John
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.
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
I think I shall be ordering this.
Where is Matt Ridley?
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
Institute of Public Affairs (Australia). Excellent order process and in book form.
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.
Bernie gave a hardcopy URL above.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/14/a-new-book-in-which-i-have-a-chapter-climate-change-the-facts/#comment-1859587
I ordered mine.
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.
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.
Joanne Nova’s website carried a similar story in December last year.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/12/hot-new-book-steyn-delingpole-bolt-carter-plimer-lindzen-lawson-watts-nova/
Regards
Climate Heretic
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
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.
When I first saw the title, I saw just “Change the Facts” and I couldn’t think of a better name for this book.
If you’re hallucinating,Pippen,don’t you think you should see a doctor?
Who would have thought that Mr Kool has a comprehension problem 😉
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.
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.
More devastating evidence from Homewood
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/02/14/arctic-temperature-data-from-climas/
This new finding must explain why the Arctic ice extent has decreased about 3% per decade in the last 30 or 40 years.
Not.
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.
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.
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.
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
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/17/co2-still-going-up-but-temperature-not-following-the-same-trend/
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.
it’s true, better would be “the facts” a bright blue.
this rather tickled me-
oh dear – how many stations are in urban areas-
https://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/gcos/Publications/gcos-34.pdf
go straight to e. population and values put on weather stations-
” urban warming is a phenomenon that the GSN would like to avoid, therefore more wight was given to rural or small towns.
The value they give to Urban stations is 0.
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.
Clever title:
Climate
Change the facts
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!
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