New climate skeptic book will set the record straight

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE FACTS 2017 is to be published in June 2017. I’m happy to say that I’m an author of a chapter.

This work is dedicated to the late Professor Bob Carter, who dedicated his life to truth and openness in the climate debate. This is the second volume of this book, the first being published in 2015 and available here.

The Institute of Public Affairs in Australia is bringing together some of the leading experts in the field including:

Peter RIDD, Roy SPENCER, Nicola SCAFETTA, Ian PLIMER, Wilie SOON, Sallie BALIUNAS, Jo NOVA, Anthony WATTS, Matt RIDLEY and Bjørn LOMBORG.

Editor: Dr. Jennifer MAROHASY.

Advance notices will go out when it is available, to register your interest go to
http://thefacts2017.ipa.org.au and provide your email address, and you’ll be notified when available.

Advertisements

84 thoughts on “New climate skeptic book will set the record straight

  1. Warmists attack books like this by smearing the authors. As everyone who reads this blog (bless you, Anthony) knows, warmists claim every climate skeptic is funded by oil companies. I think that books like Climate Change The Facts should have a chapter with data showing that big oil companies give more money to environmental groups than to free market groups that criticize climate policy. That way when we drag out this book to point out the facts to our liberal friends, we are also ready to rebut their charge that the book should be ignored because it was “funded by big oil.”

      • News Flash Griff
        Everyone takes money to produce scientific research. 99% of it is funneled through the institutions that they do the research through. Very little is paid directly to the researcher and only a small percentage of what the institute receives goes directly to the researcher for services rendered. Dr Soon didn’t do anything wrong that Dr Mann also didn’t do and, as an aside, Big Oil does fund Climate Change research for the warmist agenda.
        The majority of funding that goes to debunk climate change research is about 1/10 of what goes to support it

      • Wow. Stop the presses. I think Griff will find that Soon’s ideas existed long before he accepted any research grants. Apparently some retards think that research grants from the biased Obama regime
        are given to “neutral” rsearchers. The Obama grants were payoffs for producing research results in line with Obama’s fuzzy thoughts. Griff, the Obama apologist.

      • Griff- any grant money went to the Smithsonian/Harvard, which took approximately 40% for ‘overhead’, Dr. Soon did not hide that he was paid and funded by the Smithsonian. The same type of deal is often used for scientists not working directly for the government or its agencies.
        These are all patronage arrangements, whether funded by the government or others.
        It’s pretty obvious that for quite some time, certainly the last 8 years, the government has been the overwhelming special interest funding climate research. Both NOAA and NASA were specifically ordered to do certain types of research to support the theory that CO2 is the primary climate driver.
        The whole field of research has been agenda driven. Dr.Soon’s publications, to my reading, are in the upper tier of quality compared other funded papers.

      • Willie Soon must have been right in his work because all the government funded nasties attacked him relentlessly

      • One constant with Griff, he never lets go of a good lie, no matter how many times it’s been refuted.

        1) Soon did not take the money. The organization that he worked for did.
        2) The money was given before Soon began to work for the organization.
        3) The grant was given to support something other than what Soon was working on.
        4) The money was reported by the organization at the time it was given.

        I’d ask Griff to apologize, but we already know he isn’t capable of human emotions.

      • ‘I’d ask Griff to apologize’

        As I’ve said many times, he just simply parrots press releases and talking points. What he’s incapable of is independent thought.

      • Even if true, so what?
        Can you invalidate his research?

        I made a comment on another post about those who will jump on a comma to dismiss the rest of the sentence.
        Thanks for proving my point.
        (Though in your case you’ve invented the “comma”.)

      • Willie soon certainly took money to produce scientific research, without declaring it…

        Yes, Griff, he did, that is true. But you overlook, or omit, the Inconvenient Truth that the grantor (the body making the grant for Dr Soon’s research) stipulated in the contract that the grantor’s identity was to be and to remain confidential. Soon acted as he was obliged to.

        That IT (Inconvenient Truth) was covered in some depth and some detail here on WUWT.
        That is recent history.

      • https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry

        “Greenpeace has suggested Soon also improperly concealed his funding sources for a recent article, in violation of the journal’s conflict of interest guidelines.

        “The company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” Davies said. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on the behalf of Southern Company and the Kochs.” ”

      • Griff

        Thank you for the reference to the truth in the Guardian. We need a quality reference, how can we trust Smithsonian/Harvard?

      • I seem to remember that Obama was awarded a Nobel Prize, and the explanation was that it was not for what he had done but for what he was about to do.

    • This is a very valid point. When I speak to alarmists, they are convinced that big money is behind skepticism. Just think of the lawsuit attempts towards Exxon, where they want to portray the climate debate as a situation similar to the cigarette companies hiding evidence (big money hiding or distorting the truth). It would be nice to see actual numbers, how much money goes to one camp vs the other and who provides that money. It would give great ammunition in any discussions on the subject.

      • I’ve become the person my parents warned me about.
        And they’re proud of me!
        I’m impressed how much they’ve learned over the years.

      • Leo Smith March 28, 2017 at 10:53 am

        … They are the people they warned you about.

        That reminds me of:

        We Have Met The Enemy, And He Is Us link

        These people have left reality far behind. Facts and reason do not move them. There is some hope that academia has lost patience with all the special snowflakes. Maybe, in a generation or three, get back to a place where people are taught to respect facts and reason and to actively seek the truth.

    • An excellent idea to address a key vulnerability in the conversation with the drones, who are just numbly reading from the Warmists’ (and their Masters’) teleprompter. If they have any out at all, any undisputed rhetoric, they will use it to avoid dealing with the facts. Confirmation bias wins every time unless each talking point can be neutralized.

      But then, they can always just call us liars (or the Antichrist), and don’t feel any need to justify that with evidence. This is simply not a science conversation for most Warmists, it’s a virtue-signaling and identity-myth-maintaining recitation. It only pretends to be rational.

      • Arguing rationally with warmists, and progressives generally, is like the proverbial game of chess with a pigeon–the pigeon stamps around the board, knocks over the pieces, poops on it and declares he’s won.
        Has anyone but me noticed how much of the “news” these days consists of OPINIONS, usually “shock and outrage,” from people (actors, “activists”) with zero expertise or relevance to the matter at hand?

        The only people we need to convince are the ones at the top legislating policy. The rest can go hang in their Hollywood weird where even male and female biology are no longer a thing! Their knowledge of any kind of “science” would demonstrably fit on the head of a pin. They never took hard courses, they were too busy “expressing their artistic temperaments.”

      • Unfortunately, this pretty much sums up the situation. Even so, I’ll still get the book. You never know when you might come across a truly rational person that still has an open mind.

      • We need to convince anyone and everyone and, yes, the Grand Illusion is that it’s all paid for by the fossil-fuel industry– Merchants of Doubt said so, and so did Michael Mann. I encounter this all the time and people assume that I’ve been deceived by all the money going to create doubt. It’s no longer about the science– was it ever? You can’t break the illusion by constantly setting forward science because for every tidbit you put forward, there are 50 that say that the consensus is so-and-so. It’s an ethics problem. When people understand that the deception has been on the alarmist side all along, then they’ll begin to understand. When people start to understand that when retired NASA scientists say that climate models are junk, they aren’t doing it because they’re paid by the industry: they’re doing it because they care about their planet, their children, and their grandchildren. We do need to point out where the money is going, and we need to point out the basic scientific ethics of putting theory before evidence and how wrong it is to play computer games with simulated models and then shove those in people’s faces to scare them. When people start to see that the ethics of climate change science is all screwed up– as the Climategate emails showed us– then they’ll start listening to the science. Until then it has to be catastrophic climate change because it says so in the New York Times, National Geographic, on NPR, and in the Smithsonian magazine. The fundamental deception is the bad science passed as good and trusted by other scientists; the problem is to show that they don’t deserve our trust and never did.

    • It would be useful if something on this issue were published here for our reference (if it isn’t already and I missed it) so we unscientific types can refer to it for our debates with alarmists.

      Anyone care to volunteer?

      • Sorry, but I do not know what you mean by “on this issue” because the post is about a book that is to be available in the future.
        I hesitate to review the future.

      • @John F. Hultquist

        My comment was directed at David March 28, 2017 at 10:46 am. Apologies for not making that clear.

      • “tony mcleod March 28, 2017 at 3:51 pm

        Which one is two or three orders of magnitude larger than the other?”

        Given climate change alarm is funded by both Big Oil and Big Guvn’t I would say magnitude matters not.

      • Surely George Soros and the nuclear energy industry are in there funding big climate. Indeed Margaret Thatcher had a relationship with US General Electric in 1989, as she cited global warming as a reason to crush the enemy within: the National Union of (coal) Mineworkers.

    • That’s a good idea JohnS. I would like a chapter on the psychological warfare waged by those academics who aren’t scientists, rather psychologists and the like, who construct the bullying term ‘denier’, who try to make skepticism illegal, make all of us outlaws; for their totalitarian state where science is Post Normal Science after Jerry Ravetz.

    • The first edition failed to “set the record straight” as it was full of cherry picked facts or straight out misinformation, receiving a big yawn from the real world of science.
      Why will this be any different ?

    • Hopefully the Goebbels-like shrieks about CAGW will be broadcast a little less loudly in the US now…

      If not, cut some more slush funding.

      • May I remind you that this person nemed Goebbels has been, between 1930 and 1945, the Holocaust’s main artisan. He has been responsible for the killing of more than six millions of Jewish people (and in addition, of at least one further million of others).

        So please stop presenting such comparisons: they are simply disgusting.

  2. Congrats, these books do make a difference, for example my local library in the UK has the book by Ian Plimer (“Heaven and Earth”, not about religion, just solid facts about climate science), and the recent and very excellent book by Rupert Darwall (“The Age of Global Warming, A History”, that one is a book about religion, that of Global Warming).

    It just so happens that I’ve written a partial review of Rupert Darwall’s book here, but please don’t be put off by my rubbish review:

    https://clisciwatch.wordpress.com/2017/01/16/book-review-the-age-of-global-warming-by-rupert-darwall/

  3. A book I will want to read as soon as it is available. My congratulations and thanks to all of the authors for bringing together in one place so much valuable information about the true state of the climate and how natural changes are not a valid reason for human sacrifice and societal suicide.

  4. I am looking forward to the reviews by warmists who haven’t actually read the book or seen anything other than the cover online.

    • It should probably come with a warning label: “Caution: May cause Warmists heads to explode.”

  5. Delingpole and Lindzen aren’t here this time?

    Not reading too much into it but that’s an unfortunate omission.

    • I’m assuming it will be an updated version of the first edition. I bought the eBook when it first came out. I take it there is now a paperback edition?

  6. Jo NOVA’s an “expert” ? I like here site but I would not call here an expert on anything much.

  7. This looks excellent Anthony and I can’t wait to get a copy. I congratulate you in advance for your input. I know it will be worth reading.

    Bob Carter was a brilliant man and an outstanding teacher with great clarity and some humour. I am very sad that he passed away and have watched his presentations several times.

  8. I believe I’ve read somewhere that the supporters of CAGW are releasing a similar book called:

    “CLIMATE: Change the Facts 2017”

  9. This is the second volume of this book, the first being published in 2015…

    This is one way of viewing it, but let’s not airbrush the original Climate Change: the facts

    For this version see: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/47782890

    This was edited by Alan Moran and published by his employer, the IPA, in 2010.

    The timing of the publication meant that while the contributions were collected before Climategate, it was published just after, with two new chapters quickly added to address this recent development. For some time Moran thought a post-climategate edition was required, and early in 2014 he got the go-ahead to collect contributions for a new version. I understand that requests for support in producing the new version was a successful fundraiser for the IPA. Moran nearly completed the preparation for this book when in 2014 he abruptly left the IPA. Very late in the year, this book was published by the IPA as Climate Change: the facts 2014 . It was advertised on the IPA website and distributed in print from their Melbourne office.

    For this version see: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/211900483

    When this ‘2014’ version was first distributed to authors at the end of 2014, editorial errors were noted. Anyway, publicity and distribution were minimal. Some of the authors raised concerns about distribution outside Australia and especially in the USA. An associate of one of the authors took up the case and arranged for US publication in electronic and in print. The other authors were contacted to assist with correcting the errors. The correct version of the book was quickly made available from Amazon with the ‘2014’ date dropped from the title. During 2015 it was promoted on this site and by some of the authors.

    For this version see: http://trove.nla.gov.au/version/214553571

    • So more ‘doubt’, misinformation and a sprinkle of truthy factoids from the IPA. Ho hum.

      Not forgetting the blinkered cheer squad.
      Go for it. Get all riled up over the wrong thimble.

  10. Much thanks to Anthony for posting this promo!

    In answer to some of the questions in this thread…

    Roger Knights, It is all new content – some of it new findings, many review-type articles.

    Cwon14, There are a mix of ‘old’ and new authors. James Delingpole may not be in this edition, but Matt Ridley is. Richard Lindzen was in the last edition, this time we have John Nicol – who has had a long career in spectroscopy – writing on carbon dioxide and climate sensitivity with particular reference to the work of Jack Barrett at Imperial College, London, in the 1980s.

    Jo Nova has pulled together a chapter showing some of the most outrageous ‘revisions’ undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology to this southern hemisphere climate record. Tony Heller is also included, with a chapter focused on US temperatures in the 1930s.

    The very last chapter in the book (chapter 22) is about ‘popular culture’ and the ‘abuse of language’ by Clive James.

    Of course, a book dedicated to Bob Carter must include something about the Great Barrier Reef – this chapter has been written by his former student and now physic’s Professor: Peter Ridd.

    Geological history is covered by Ian Plimer; and we are also republishing a chapter from Prof Carter’s book ‘Climate: The Counter Consensus’.

      • Of course, Steve Goddard is the pen name for Tony Heller. Given this is a scholarly work, we use his real name – Tony Heller. The advertisement/show interest page was not written by me – and I shall endeavour to have it corrected. Much thanks, John F. H. for pointing out this inconsistency.

  11. Writing books won’t necessarily help, IMHO. Uncovering direct evidence of wrongdoing at EPA, however, will. Scott Pruitt should launch a thorough internal investigation of EPA and throwback the blanket of secrecy that the agency has wrapped itself in during the Obama administration.

    Demonstrating to the world how the agency propped up the flimsy narrative of AGW will be fun to watch.

    I wonder what the over/under is on the the number of wiped hard drives and servers will be?

  12. Anthony, thank you so much for posting this promo for our book.

    Roger Knights, It is all new content.

    Cwon14, Some ‘old’ authors – but also some new authors with new important findings. While James Delingpole was not included in this edition – we do have Matt Ridley from his House of Lords. And while Richard Lindzen was not included, we have John Nicol writing on climate sensitivity. Dr Nicol is an expert on spectroscopy – and reviews the important work of Jack Barrett undertaken at Imperial College (London) in the 1980s.

    Jo Nova does an hilarious review of some of the more outrageous ‘revisions’ undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology of our climate history – she is as good as Delingpole. Maybe better. ;-).

    … and there is much more.

  13. So, I didn’t think that the first comment had posted, so I wrote another – apologies for the maybe double post. Jen

    • In recent weeks, many of us have found the actions of WordPress to be very mysterious.

      • John F. Hultquist, Thanks for your understanding, and the reason. And I think my second post was better – and shorter!

  14. For information:

    I published “Climate Change and its Impacts: Ground Realities”, BSPublication [Email: info@bspbooks.net], Hyderabad, Telangana State, India, 276p [2016]. This is in continuation of my earlier book: Climate Change: Myths & Realities, http://www.scribd.com and Google Books, [2008].

    The book is divided in to five chapters

    General issues in climate change 1-54p
    Impacts of global warming: Ground Realities 55-116
    Natural variability: Ground Realities 117-153
    Impacts of climate change: Ground Realities 154-219
    Summary and Conclusions 220-264

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

  15. I feel I have to direct a comment directly to Griff. I do not know Willie Soon for starters and yet I admire his persistence in the face of what I see as a kangaroo court. That is my opinion Griff is that ok? If you want to go to the facts then lets. I believe they clearly show that yes he did receive funding from what you might perceive as dodgy sources but he received them via a total clean skin source. What is his “crime” Griff? Please explain!!

    • Sometimes, ripparoo, I ask me wether or not this strange Griff really exists.

      Most of his comments here at WUWT are so provocative and silly that I begin to think of a virtual marionette someone in the background moves back and forth to ignite skeptics’ fury!

    • It is not science if you find the results because those are the results you have been paid to find.

      Soon’s correspondence describes his scientific papers as ‘deliverables’ produced in exchange for the money.

      It is a disservice to skepticism to defend each and every author publishing on the subject, just because their viewpoint is skeptic, surely ?

      Each contributor must be weighed in terms of expertise, honestly, etc…

      • You are so right!

        It is so shameful that universities all over the world does contract work. I still cant get a good night sleep over the fact that my professor possibly may have included stuff I did for my MSc more that a generation ago in some work he is rumored to allegedly may possibly have done for Big Oil!

        And I quite agree that each contributor must be weighed in terms of expertise, honestly, etc…

        So how about applying that to your own contributions on this sight for a starter?

      • Hey griff, I have lots of pals at various colleges in the UK and the US who are getting funding because they add the AGW issue to whatever research they do, even if the links are very tenuous. If they don’t mention AGW bull, they don’t get any funding. Some leave their courses in disgust to pursue something more honest, others go with it. SInce you’re obviously such an ethical person, I wonder what your thoughts would be on that??

      • RPT at 6:33 am
        You likely know the following, but others may not:

        When I went to college (a small one in Pennsylvania) most of the cost was picked up by the State. I lived at home.
        Following that first college, I got “in-state” tuition and a small scholarship for work I did for the department. My professors applied for grants, and I (and others) did most of the work. In some cases the prof would take, rewrite, expand one of our term papers and add her/his name to it and get it published. She or he advanced with this strategy, and so did we, the students.
        Most such funding is gotten by researchers responding to “Request for Proposals” (RFPs).
        The contract for this work is between the granting agency and the university – not the she or he listed as the principle investigator (PI). If the PI, say, has a medical issue, that person can be replaced by another and the research moves ahead.
        The contract always includes “deliverables” – The RFP will include an explanation of what these are to be like and how many copies the agency wants. The contract will include the costs (paper, ink, maps, video, …?) for these. Frequently, a paper in a journal may follow, but it is unlikely for this to be part of the contract.

        ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
        Some other names the trolls might like to investigate:
        Peter H. Gleick, Stephan Lewandowsky, James Hansen,
        Will Steffen, Jagadish Shukla, Ottmar Edenhofer, …

        The alarmist “Wall of Shame” has more panels than the wall between the US and Mexico will have, ever.

      • “It is not science if you find the results because those are the results you have been paid to find.”

        Griff do you realize the irony of you pointing out the entire IPCC process in one succinct line?

      • Griff:
        You continue to post nonsense. As usual you did not research Soon’s funding but you post the lies from two different sources.
        And it is time you apologized to Dr Crocker.
        Again, can you give us one paper which shows how warming by CO2 is MEASURED.
        Big Oil will pay you.

  16. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    It is not easy to counter the blatant propaganda of the global warming alarmists and their willing promoters and followers. The power and presence of their marketing expertise has created something of a juggernaut. Why should it be accepted at face value?
    This book is part of a substantial amount of valid scientific and related information establishing the “settled science” and “95% scientists agree” claims to be simply lies.
    The ‘climate change’ movement, supported by so many people and organizations, believed by so many with religious fanaticism because they are unwilling to allow doubts into their thought processes.
    Doubts that are in fact, essential to rational decision making. The warmists are concerned for the future of the planet because of their fears of global warming. Fears of pollution in general are well founded but including CO2 in that category is wrong.
    People will one day realize that they actually needed to fear the administration processes promoting and implementing the ‘climate change’ program.
    This post, the reviewed informative book and the WUWT blog, all provide convincing information and guidance.

Comments are closed.