By Dr. Roy Spencer
I sometimes get asked for a concise and accessible summary of my skeptical views on global warming. After a year or more of thinking and writing, my new Kindle book Global Warming Skepticism for Busy People is meant to fill that need.
As a bonus, I guarantee it will be easier to understand than Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Astrophysics for People in a Hurry.
At nearly 32,000 words with 40 high-res illustrations it’s more comprehensive than my previous Kindle books, but still readable in about 2-3 hours. The book is not meant to cover all of the skeptical views out there, but rather everything that I believe is most important to the global warming and energy policy debate. (If people convince me I’ve missed a couple of subjects that need to be addressed, it is easy and fast to update Kindle books.)
Maybe the best way to summarize what is in the book is to list the chapter titles:
Preface
1. Overview of the Reasons for Skepticism
2. The Five Big Questions
3. Skepticism versus Alarmism
4. The Unholy Alliance: Politics and Science
5. How Could 97% of Scientists Be Wrong?
6. What is the Greenhouse Effect?
7. What Causes Temperature Change?
8. The Good News about Increasing CO2
9. The U.N. IPCC Consensus: Government-Funded Biased Science
10. Climate Models Exaggerate Recent Warming
11. Warming since the 1800s Suggests Climate Models are Too Sensitive
12. How the Reliance on IPCC Climate Models Affects You
13. Why is Warming Not Progressing as Predicted?
14. Refuting Common Climate Delusions
Conclusions
That last chapter is where I refute the frequent media claims about worsening heatwaves, wildfires, droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, weather-related disaster losses, sea level rise, sea ice melt, ice sheet collapse, and ocean acidification.
I consider this my most complete treatment of the subject in one place, with my latest position on a variety of subjects. I have references to some of the latest findings and events of interest — as recent as September 3, 2018. I’ve included hyperlinks where appropriate so that readers can easily investigate my claims for themselves.
I hope you find it entertaining and informative. And, again, I am open to suggestions for material I might have missed… keeping in mind I am not aiming for the most exhaustive treatment of global warming skepticism, but the most effective one.
ALSO: I have updated and expanded my Kindle book Inevitable Disaster: Why Hurricanes Can’t be Blamed on Global Warming, with new information and inclusion of Hurricane Florence. This 2nd Edition should go live tonight.
From the Amazon description:
This book draws on decades of climate research to explain why the threat of anthropogenic climate change has been grossly exaggerated. Global warming and associated climate change exists – but the role of humans in that change is entirely debatable. A little-known aspect of modern climate science is that the warming of the global atmosphere-ocean system over the last 100 years, even if entirely human-caused, has progressed at a rate that reduces the threat of future warming by 50% compared to the climate model projections.
To the extent warming is partly natural (a possibility even the IPCC acknowledges), the future threat is reduced even further. This, by itself, should be part of the debate over energy policy – but it isn’t. Why? The news media, politicians, bureaucrats, rent-seekers, government funding agencies, and a “scientific-technological elite” (as President Eisenhower called it) have collaborated to spread what amounts to fake climate news.
Exaggerated climate claims appear on a daily basis, sucking the air out of more reasoned discussions of the scientific evidence which are too boring for a populace increasingly addicted to climate change porn. Upon close examination it is found that the “97% of climate scientists agree” meme is inaccurate, misleading, and useless for decision-making; human causation of warming is simply assumed by the vast majority of climate researchers. In contrast to what many have been taught, there have been no obvious changes in severe weather, including hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or floods.
Despite an active 2018 wildfire season, there has actually been a long-term decrease in wildfire activity, although that will change if forest management practices are not implemented. Proxy evidence of past temperature and Arctic sea ice changes suggest warming and sea ice decline over the last 50 years or so is not out of the ordinary, and partly or even mostly natural. The Antarctic ice sheet isn’t collapsing, but remains stable.
The human component of sea level rise is shown to be, at most, only 1 inch per 30 years (25% of the observed rate of rise); and the latest evidence is that more CO2 dissolved in ocean water will be good for marine life, not harmful. Admittedly, continued emissions of CO2 from fossil fuel burning can be expected to cause (and probably has caused) some of our recent warming. But the Paris Agreement, even if extended through the end of the 21st Century, will have no measurable effect on global temperatures because the governments of the world realize humanity will depend upon fossil fuels for decades to come.
Despite news reports and politicians’ proclamations, international agreements to reduce CO2 emissions are all economic pain for no observable climate gain. What government-mandated reliance on expensive and impractical energy sources will do is increase energy poverty, and poverty kills. This downside to illusory efforts to “Save the Earth” is already being experienced in the UK and elsewhere.
If people are genuinely concerned about humanity thriving, they must reject global warming alarmism. In terms of environmental regulation, the end result of the U.S. EPA’s Endangerment Finding will be reduced prosperity for all, and climate gain for none.
The good news is that there is no global warming crisis, and this book will inform citizens and help guide governments toward decisions which benefit the most people while doing the least harm.
Available now on Amazon
Global warming by CO2 is bullshit to say the least.
Roy,
Excellent read. Thank you.
For what it’s worth, I’ve been a lurker on WUWT since it’s early inception. I’m a simple sceptic. No science background. Sometimes, I may bite and add my comments – but most of the time, like many others, I come here for my daily fix. My search for truth. I am also reasonably intelligent and am not an idiot.
Similar publications’ (just like yours above – which is also aimed at the layman) invariably miss a one vital important issue – that IF CO2 is so evil, WHY do we use it for so many things? Why do we manufacture the stuff on such a global scale – every day. Why is it that us humans continue to produce vast quantities of it (and I’m not talking about burning fossil fuels) for Food production, Beverages, Cremation, Welding, etc.
A simple, but comprehensive list of all the ways we use CO2 – from Ammonia manufacture to shoving the stuff (in highly compressed form) into airbags, life vests, extinguishers; from bread making, wine making, agricultural polytunnels, processing decaffienated coffee to cleaning dentures and removing limescale. It’s going to be a very long list.
The best one is that, on a global scale, humans actually inject the evil stuff into carbonated drinks. It adds no flavour – it’s just there purely as a novelty effect. Every nation. Every bottle of Coke. Every bottle of lemonade. Worldwide.
410ppm. Humph.
410ppm = 1/2,439th of the sky. Whoopeedoo. And THIS is the sole reason why the UK had a heatwave during June & July. Nahhh, I don’t think so.
Rounding it all up, let’s say 95% of CO2’s 410 ppm is natural and 5% is man made. How much of that minuscule 5% (that we make) is purely down to driving your car, ignighting the log burner or powering a coal-fired power station (when the sun isn’t shining and the wind’s not blowing). Very good question.
If CAGW is our fault – then how much of it is really because we also bake a lot of bread (or brew beer, or use CO2 lasers to manufacture computer PCB’s, or use dry-ice pellets for sand blasting)?
After all these years of following WUWT, I’m becoming tiresome of excuses.
Roy, we need a list.
Ban CO2 in beer, champagne, sparkling wines, and soda pop.
Start with phony Green campaign to ban CO2 in beer:
THE FLAT BEER MOVEMENT – NO BUBBLES IN BEER!
That should put the Greens out of business soon enough. 🙂
Fermentation of biomass grains is renewable certainly. The CO2 is recaptured in the grain regrown to make next years batches. Ya know, burning biomass and fermenting corn for fuel is all green endorsed. The same principle is true of meat production from our vegetarian cattle sheep, pigs, fowl… grass and grains they ate have all regrown to feed the next batch. You nimrods are happy to burn Carolinas hardwoods in UK former coal fired electrical plants as renewables and they take a century to regrow. This builds up CO2 in the atmosphere greater than more efficient coal!
Someone above touched on the missing issue – psychology. No amount of argument on CO2 terms gets around this extremely annoying gorilla under the carpet.
As I posted above, the issue is putting Sopie’s Choice to ordinary citizens – abandon the very basis for modern civilization (carbon) or face certain extinction soon. This is Kahneman military brainwashing (forced irrationality).
This was pushed before at the 1975 conference on Endangered Atmosphere by anthropoligist Margaret Mead – keep people running from fire or disaster, to control and cull. One can see exactly how Dr. Schellnhuber uses this method. Even the Pope is at it.
Of couse a fear ridden herd will stone a single (elected) human who refuses to be herded by an illusion.
It is the oldest trick of various , all extinct, empires.
Thank You
Dr. Roy Spencer wrote above:
“The good news is that there is no global warming crisis,”
My co-authors and I published in 2002 as follows:
“Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – THE ALLEGED WARMING CRISIS DOES NOT EXIST.”
We also correctly predicted the failure of most green energy schemes, as follows:
“The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – THE WASTEFUL, INEFFICIENT ENERGY SOLUTIONS PROPOSED BY KYOTO ADVOCATES SIMPLY CANNOT REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS.”
Source:
DEBATE ON THE KYOTO ACCORD
PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals, THE GLOBE AND MAIL and LA PRESSE in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.
http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf
Told you so, 16 years ago. 🙂
Regards, Allan MacRae, P.Eng.
For the record:
Roy Spencer and John Christy at University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH) are two of the climate scientists who I respect and trust the most, based on their lifelong track records of integrity and accomplishment. I preferentially use their UAH atmospheric temperature measurements as most credible.
Other scientists who I also trust and respect include Richard S Lindzen, Richard S Courtney, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, Tim Patterson, Jan Veizer, Nir Shaviv, Tim Ball, Tom Harris, Pat Michaels, Chris Landsea, Madhav Khandekar, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, Chris Essex, Steve McIntyre, Will Happer, Steve Koonin, Joe d’Aleo, Joe Bastardi, John Coleman, Patrick Moore, etc.
Others who I do not necessarily agree with but who deserve mention include Murry Salby, Ernst Beck, Ferdinand Engelbeen, etc.
There are many more good ones out there – this is not an exhaustive list – it is just those who come to mind this morning – pre-coffee – my apologies to those deserving scientists of true integrity who I have left out.
Integrity in the face of widespread persecution is rare, and is to be greatly admired.
It has been a difficult path for these heroes – they have been falsely vilified and shunned by corrupt and incompetent academics and politicians – those who will follow any path that leads to money and power.
That list is large – the crowd that bleats “you’re all gonna burn!” – those who claim to be part of the phony “97% consensus”. A special place in hell is reserved for the hockey team and the disgraced scoundrels and schemers in the Climategate emails.
The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are wildly and deliberately exaggerated, to produce a very-scary false result.
Global warming alarmism is a deliberate fraud, in fact it is the greatest fraud, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.
Properly deployed, the tens of trillions of dollars squandered on global warming alarmism could have:
– put clean water and sanitation systems into every village in the world, saving the lives of about 2 million under-five kids PER YEAR;
– reduced or even eradicated malaria – also a killer of many millions of infants and children;
– gone a long way to eliminating world hunger.
Regards, Allan
Roy,
I have just purchased your book on kindle to add to my library.
You are probably familiar with Professor Garth Paltridge’s short book , The Climate Caper(2009) which covers some of the territory in your latest book.
There is one interesting point he makes about Climate forcing which intrigues me and which you may address in your book.
After giving a simple equation and a couple of graphs in examining positive and negative feedbacks,he remarks,
“ As a final random thought, it is at least theoretically conceivable that the total feedback gain of the climate system is actually very close to 1.0 ( where the divisor of unforced doubled CO2 is 1-G and G = g1,g2,g3, g4,etc.being the various climate forcings).In such a circumstance one could imagine the climate skating from one extreme of temperature and back again.The extremes would be the points at which the total feedback gain became less than 1.0- as for instance when cloud cover reached zero or 100 percent and could no longer contribute to the feedback.After all, the climate has always been flipping in and out of Ice-Ages!”
Too speculative?
Roy, did you discuss Anthony’s Surface Stations project and the absolute lack of any reasonable precision in the data caused by siting issues? (www.surfacestations.org)
With the large numbers of (best in the world) US weather stations having 5 degree or larger expected errors, historical temperature rise trends from the land based stations are merely noise. The rising trend may be real, but how can you trust that it is?
Just bought the book and reading it now. So far so great!
“Proxy evidence of past temperature and Arctic sea ice changes suggest warming and sea ice decline over the last 50 years or so is not out of the ordinary.”
I’d call 5 times in half a million years out of the ordinary. Now racing towards ice-free and galloping past the Eemian.
Thank you, Dr. Spencer
“a populace increasingly addicted to climate change porn.”
Is there climate change PG-13? 🙂
This picture shouldn’t be on this site.
She is way too young and that is way too suggestive.
Not to mention that it adds fuel to the fire for those who might say that deniers are just a bunch of perverts.
This is where the mods should step in.
Don132
Mods I think this image should be deleted immediately….just think what the opposition could do with this!
She’s just playing with her toy dolphin not WTF
So that’s the level of maturity reached at WUWT?
She’s mature. She doesn’t play with her food on dinner dates
Dr. Spencer:
Since you indicated that you were open to suggestions for other inclusions in your book, I would like to point out that Earth’s climate is primarily controlled by the amount of dimming Sulfur Dioxide aerosols in the atmosphere, of either volcanic or anthropogenic origin, and as such, is amenable to alteration by man’s efforts.
Decrease the net amount of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, and average global temperatures increase. Increase the net amount, and average global temperatures decrease.
This fact is obvious from the climatic behavior of a large volcanic eruption.
Initially, cooling occurs due to the injection of SO2 aerosols into the stratosphere. As these aerosols eventually settle out, temperatures recover to pre-eruption levels because of the cleaner air, or often higher, forming a volcanic-induced El Nino.
The reduction in the amount of anthropogenic SO2 aerosol emissions from the atmosphere due to Clean Air efforts has the same effect, a man-made in crease in average global temperatures and occasional El Ninos, as in 2015-2016.
Thus, the global warming that has occurred since 1975 has, unfortunately, been CAUSED by the environmentalists.
All of the increases and decreases in a plot of average anomalous global temperatures are entirely due to changing levels of SO2 aerosols in the atmosphere, primarily volcanic-driven.
Any overview book on Climate Change needs to include this information!
I just finished the Kindle book and it is an excellent read. Dr. Spencer covers the subject in a comprehensive, concise and thorough manner. His reduction of complex scientific concepts, principles and research studies to understandable (to a nonscientist such as myself) explanations is invaluable. The subject of climate change is fascinating and prescient. This is a magnificent contribution to the understanding of that subject.
This is a good effort, but it still drinks the standard Kool Aid that carbon dioxide causes global warming. It doesn’t. My research (in press) reveals that in fact it can’t.
The way I get across the problem of the CAGW failure is to use probability and logic.
In order for their to be catastrophic results it requires all 3 things below to be true. If any of these 3 things is false or low probability then because the rules of probability require multiplying these 3 things to arrive at the probability of the final thing one thing with low probability even if the other 2 are high makes the whole thing improbable.
The 3 things are:
1) We have to massively increase CO2 to 1000ppm in the atmosphere or greater
2) It must be the case that the response to CO2 must be large, i.e. that if CO2 doesn’t cause a large response in temperature you cannot get the catastrophic result
3) The bad effects of temperature rise have to outweigh by a large amount the good things that result
1)In order to get to 1000ppm would mean increasing the rate we put co2 into the atmosphere by a factor of 10. We are already in developed countries reaching what appears to be a peak output. It is developing countries which are increasing co2 output. Once they achieve more parity they will stop increasing. Further new technology will eventually solve this problem. There are existing solutions if things were to get bad to drastically cut co2 output including the use of nuclear. No reasonable way could be found to get to 1000ppm or anywhere above 600 or 700 in the next 80 years. Therefore this is false.
2) As the author above points out ocean effects have already shown that model estimates of the impact of co2 on temperature are half. For the models to be correct the atmosphere has to start reacting to CO2 differently than it has over the last 70 years. Why would it do that?
3) The impact assesments of rising temperatures are horribly flawed and don’t take into account massive benefits from rising CO2 and temperatures including more arable land and more wetness resulting in less desert. Also frequently overlooked is that more deaths happen with colder temperatures and fewer deaths from higher temperatures. One study showed that 23 times more people die from colder temps than higher meaning that we will have much faster reduction in the number of deaths from cold than we will have increasing deaths from heat. Estimates of farming losses are grossly in error and new studies show no loss in agriculture which is considered to be the biggest factor.
The result of this is that the probabilty that any of the 3 things needed for their to be a catastrophic response to co2 is almost zero and the combined product of the 3 probabilities is essentially zero. There is NO chance for CAGW to be true. Even if we produce massive co2 for some reason the change that co2 produces is a lot less than they think. Even if the response somehow becomes like the models say we aren’t likely to put in enough co2 to cause a significant rise and even if we put in a lot of co2 and the response is what they say the chances the response is actually catastrophic is near zero. In no case could there be a catastrophic result. Case closed. Science and math prove it.