Climate Change: The Facts 2017

This is a collection of articles, so the quality and rigor is inconsistent. However, there are some really eye-opening indictments of the way "climate science" is framed and conducted, and some of the revelations about early data points and homogenization procedures will make anyone with any life sciences background sit up and take notice. It should also serve to let even those who disagree with its conclusions understand that those who question the strictest construction of climate-change alarmism have valid reasons for doing so.

This book deals with virtually all of the major climate issues, from atmospheric temperatures to sea level rise to ocean acidification, the Great Barrier Reef and the Paris Agreement. Moreover, 21 of the 22 chapters written by leaders in their fields have been written especially for this book and seem to me to be absolutely up-to-date through 2016 and even a few mentions of events in 2017! (The exception is a chapter from a book published in 2010 by the late Bob Carter, a paleontologist and marine geologist.) The essays are very well-written and highly detailed; they do not seem to have been restricted in length. Thus the book is very satisfyingly complete at 335 pages. For those who wish to go further into any topic, there are 45 pages of well-chosen references (perhaps 500 in all).Highlights for me are as follows:Carbon Dioxide and Plant Growth, by Dr. Craig D. Idso. The author has done much to study the impacts of CO2 on plant growth. His Table 13.1 is a detailed look at the effect on plant growth of a 300 ppm increase in CO2. As all greenhouse operators know, CO2 levels at 800-1000 ppm are good for growth, but Table 13.1 tells us that an increase to about 600-700 ppm will produce 34-36% increases in the world's most important crops (wheat, rice, sugar cane, etc.), with corn not far behind at 24%. With world population increasing, these benefits of increased CO2 are crucial to maintaining and increasing world food production. Idso points out the increased greening of the planet as shown by NASA satellites that has led to a 6-13% increase in primary plant productivity since the 19080s.The Impact and Cost of the Paris Agreement, by Bjorn Lomborg. The author begins his chapter with the statement that global warming is real, mostly man-made, and will have a negative impact over the long run. He then calculates not only the benefit (reduction in global temperature) but also the cost associated with each country's statement of their intentions in the Paris Agreement. He assumes that each country actually makes good on its stated intentions (such as the USA promise to reduce CO2 emissions by 26-28% by 2030) and also considers the extension of these actions out to 2100. The result is absolutely flabbergasting: A reduction in global temperatures by 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2030 compared to the expected increase of a degree or so, and a reduction by 2100 of 0.17 C compared to the expected increase of about 1.5-2 C. Under an optimistic scenario of great efficiency of these actions, the cost is estimated at 946 billion, but under a more realistic scenario the cost balloons to about 1.9 trillion US dollars. At the time of writing, this was the only peer-reviewed benefit-cost analysis of the Paris Agreement.The Poor are Carrying the Cost of Today's Climate Policy, by Dr. Matt Ridley. Ridley estimates that ethanol subsidies have consumed about 5% of the world food crops and quotes the UN conclusion that it was the main cause of the rise in food prices in 2008 and years following. Dr. Indur Goklany has calculated that this policy resulted in the death of 200,000 people. Wind turbines kill rare birds of prey, including eagles, hawks, gannets, and swifts, plus great numbers of bats. Wind and solar power both receive huge subsidies from many governments, which enrich rich people and raise the price of electricity for poor people.Mass Death Dies Hard, by Clive James. This chapter is NOT written by an expert in climate science, but it is still one of my favorites. Clive James is a poet, author, and broadcaster. He writes "I speak as one who knows nothing about the mathematics involved in modeling non-linear systems." But he does know something about the language and uses language precisely enough to keep me laughing throughout his chapter. Here is a sample: "The Australian climate star Tim Flannery will probably not, of his own free will, shrink back to ...being an expert on the extinction of the giant wombat. He is far more likely to go on being one of the mass media's mobile experts on climate...It will go on being dangerous to stand between him and a TV camera. If the giant wombat could have moved at that speed, it would still be with us."I enjoyed reading almost every chapter. The main person responsible for the book appears to be the editor, Jennifer Marohasy, a Senior Fellow at the Australian Institute for Public Affairs. As such, there is a distinct leaning toward topics of interest to Australians, such as the Great Barrier Reef (two chapters) and the astoundingly mediocre (or worse) Bureau of Meteorology (several more chapters). One of the most perfect takedowns of the BOM is the chapter by Joanne Nova, writer of the witty and always perceptive climate science blog http://joannenova.com.au/ . She documents in unanswerable detail the trials and tribulations of one temperature station in Rutherglen, Australia, which has consistently reported temperature using the same equipment in an area that has not undergone much urban growth, thus a rare example of a long-term undisturbed data series. The raw data show a gentle cooling over 100 years, and this trend is matched by 4 nearby stations. However, the BOM transforms this into a rather sharp rise by "homogenizing" the Rutherglen data with measurements from 23 stations, some rather distant. This appears to be an example of contaminating good data with bad, a practice that Anthony Watts (another author of another chapter in the book) has repeatedly called attention to. (Watts is the proprietor of the most widely read blog on climate science)I should state that I chose to buy the rather expensive paperback book rather than the very affordable Kindle version. I am very happy with my decision, because the paperback book is so well put together, with good binding, wide margins, and highly readable type. It has clearly been planned with considerable care. I expect it will be useful to me for years to come, so for me the book was the better option.

Who do you trust on global warming/climate change? Do you have the time and background to be able to evaluate what you read and see about it?I took Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth of 2006 as a serious warning. As a Democrat in the U.S., I took it as reliable.My career has been in communications. I’ve worked on public information campaigns on recycling of household products, and the dangers of kids inhaling some consumer products. I’ve worked on crisis communications issues such as chemophobia (fear of chemicals) and clergy sex abuse. The first rule in crisis communications is: Tell the truth.My background in science is: high school and college basic biology, high school chemistry and physics, and career focus on chemical products. Beyond that, I discovered an adult onset interest in science and I read in general interest treatments of science from cosmology, paleontology, evolution, the environment, cancer, diabetes, the brain, health and nutrition to climate change, to mention a few topics. Am I smart enough to understand any of these topics on my own? No, I need to rely on experts who know a lot more than I do. But I live in a democratic republic and I have a responsibility as a voting citizen to educate myself as well as much as I can.When I had breast cancer two years ago, I had to trust in my chemotherapy oncologist and surgeon before I could agree to the treatments they recommended. Although I had to work like a devil to understand a Triple Negative tumor and the ways that chemo was working in me, I trusted these medical experts to be steering me as best they could. I’ve got an 80% chance of not having to deal with cancer anymore and a 20% chance of it rearing its head in me again. I’m satisfied with those odds and grateful.In contrast, something has bothered me greatly about the global warming/climate change proclamations of the past dozen years. Not debate, not discussions, but proclamations. Instead of really educating us on the questions of climate heating or cooling, most authorities have pronounced that climate change is settled, that most scientists say it is settled, that it is caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) and that reducing what is vividly named our carbon footprint will save our planet. My president, Barack Obama, so held these things. His attorney general, and therefore my attorney general, Loretta Lynch, was considering prosecuting people and businesses labeled “climate change deniers.” Labels, no-discussion proclamations, and most of all opposite-opinion prosecutions -- this is no way for a democratic republic to set policy and it’s no way for science to go forward.Climate Change, The Facts 2017, was edited by Jennifer Marohasy, senior fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs, which has close ties to the conservative-libertarian Liberal Party in Australia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs. Does the political leaning of the IPA--which would not be my approach–-bias the reporting of the 23 contributors to the book? I found it instead to be informative and thought-provoking. You can disagree with the facts presented, but there are facts to disagree with or not. I think I need to read it again.

This book contains a series of articles on climate change. They are excellent and science-based. I especially liked the first article, on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). As expected, there is nothing wrong with the GBR. Bleaching events are normal for reefs.I also liked the superb, satirical article by the famous Clive James at the end of the book. His article also appeared in The Australian newspaper.For anyone note yet radicalised by the man-made climate change hysteria, this book will provide much necessary information to defend the skeptical point of view. Five stars.Dr Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist and paleoclimatologist.

This excellent book explores very recent research into and views about climate and the very many complex factors which create it and its changes, against the prevailing orthodoxy which demonises both CO2 and humanity as causative. 23 authors offer diverse views on Barrier reef corals, oceans, distortions by climate computer modellers, heatwaves, the costs to the poor of current climate policies, the role of CO2 as a vital trace gas for life and fertility, the geological background to climate changes, sun and moon patterns and cyclic shifts, Papal politics in climate change sermons, the dubious politicisation of the Paris Agreement, the funding and censorship in AGW policy, and so on. It ends with a brilliant and very ironically amusing article by Clive James on apocalypticism and fear factor which has me laughing out loud, it is so spot on. It should be widely read by all the forces who seek to bring and end to industrial civilisation, as put forward originally by the influential Club of Rome, which went on under Maurice Strong to form the UN IPCC agenda. There, they "hit on the idea of global warming" to bring this about, along with stating that democracy was no longer suited to world problems. Hence the censorship of alternative scientific views which do not accept AGE theory. The book is sober and not a polemic, and deserves success.

As a scientist I get rather tired of politicians and bureaucrats misusing scientific data to their own ends. This book shows how data has been homogenised over the years to 'prove' something that just isn't true. An essential read for anyone who cares about the planet and the people who populate it. While we throw money at windmills, and feel virtuous, people in Africa are dying because of a lack of power in their hospitals caused by a financially rewarded commitment to reduce carbon emissions. This should be an essential read for all those in politics.

None of the authors are 'climate change deniers'. They are mostly well-qualified scientists in relevant fields who are just doing science as it is supposed to be done rather than a mass exercise in catastrophe confirmation. The overall message is that warming is happening at about 0.1C per decade, so we may hit 1.5C by mid century and 2.0C by 2100 but of course the climate is extremely complex. One of the most fascinating chapters was about the wobble of the Sun caused by the orbits of Jupiter and Saturn and how climate is affected by the dynamics of the solar system on predictable timescales. Another fascinating graph shows no correlation between CO2 and temperature on geological timescales. None of this obviates a sensible Green New Deal to make our homes more energy efficient, but it does suggest that imminent social collapse may be some way off yet. The last chapter by Clive James is delightfully entertaining. The only health warning is that the book is published by an Australian right-wing think tank which has received funding from Exxon Mobil. But you should consider the book on its merits, rather than instantly dismissing it as spawn of the devil. Especially if you drive a car and ever use plastic.

Although there is no doubt humans have added CO2 to the atmosphere, it is clear that there are many more advantages than disadvantages to what is happening.Before dismissing, you have to ask yourself 'what is the ideal temperature for the planet?', 'what is the optimum CO2 level?' Why do farmers pump CO2 into greenhouses. Why hasn't the Sydney Opera House been flooded yet? Why is there very little wrong with the Great Barrier Reef despite the scare stories? Why on earth is everyone paying so much more for energy worldwide which is having no effect on climate changes whatsoever?A good and reassuring read produced by people who are not funded by government handouts and can therefore tell the truth.

Unless you approach the realities of the so-called 'climate change' (previously presented as ¨polar winter¨ and ¨global warming¨) analysing the facts provided by reliable sources and prestigious meteorologists you will fall, like most people, to the gigantic and extremely profitable fraud that is so powerfully defended. that practically all criticism is censored in the great media. The hoax, as we can see by just examining the magnitude of subventions backing it, is almost impossible to combat openly. For this reason books such as this are an essential element of knowledge to realise the extent of what is being imposed on the tax-payer all round the world.