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.
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.
knowing that urban areas can 16 degrees hotter than the countryside, especciall yat night, i cannot imagine why there would be a little warming-
%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fsatelliteimagingbest.com%252Fsatellite-view-of-earth%252F%3B640%3B360
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.
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”?
Reblogged this on My Thoughts Today and commented:
A very worthwhile read for those of us who refuse to just accept global climate alarmism unsupported by science.
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.”
Also a new booklet out (32 concise pages vs 300+ for a book written by long-winded journalists and politicians) :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-16/climate-change-is-happening-now-scientists-warn/6093724
There’s a possible error in Chapter 11, at Kindle Location 2222:
Shouldn’t that read, “. . . red herring.” ?
I nabbed it via your link to Amazon. Thanks for the heads up, Anthony!
The title of Chapter 15 is, “The IPCC and the Peace Prize.”
A better title would be, “A Nobel Lie.”
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.
FYI: Any possible errors noted in the book can be highlighted and reported directly from within the Kindle reader.
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.
You got me Bernie. 😀