Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet or computer—no Kindle device required.
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera, scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Climate Change: The Facts 2017 Paperback – 1 September 2017
| Amazon Price | New from | Used from |
|
Paperback
"Please retry" |
—
| $68.09 | — |
- Kindle
$11.99 Read with Our Free App - Paperback
from $68.0913 New from $68.09
- Print length380 pages
- LanguageEnglish
- PublisherConnor Court
- Publication date1 September 2017
- Dimensions14.81 x 2.08 x 21.01 cm
- ISBN-100909536031
- ISBN-13978-0909536039
Customers who viewed this item also viewed
Product details
- Publisher : Connor Court (1 September 2017)
- Language : English
- Paperback : 380 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0909536031
- ISBN-13 : 978-0909536039
- Dimensions : 14.81 x 2.08 x 21.01 cm
- Best Sellers Rank: 198,624 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- 839 in Weather Science
- 998 in Environmental Science (Books)
- 5,095 in Sociology (Books)
- Customer Reviews:
About the author

Matt Ridley's books have been shortlisted for six literary awards, including the Los Angeles Times Book Prize (for Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters). His most recent book, The Agile Gene: How Nature Turns on Nurture, won the award for the best science book published in 2003 from the National Academies of Science. He has been a scientist, a journalist, and a national newspaper columnist, and is the chairman of the International Centre for Life, in Newcastle, England. Matt Ridley is also a visiting professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York.
Customer reviews
-
Top reviews
Top reviews from Australia
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Considering one theme - adjustment of temperature records. To my mind adjustment of the individual temperature records by considering adjacent temperature measurement cannot be justified at all. Some adjacent site are hundreds of kilometres apart. One wonders if the scientists making these adjustments have ever been outside and observed the microclimate changes in temperature that occur from metre to metre in some cases. Granted there are problems with obtaining continuous temperature records in one location that have been made with the same instruments in the same physical environment but where inconsistent records exist they usually cannot be reliably corrected except under well defined circumstances. (As an aside this reviewer has been involved for much of his professional life with correlating standard tests between laboratories and this is often problematical even though it is a much less complex problem than trying to correlate field measurements.)
In summary this book requires careful reading by the climate scientists and policy makers.
Warmist cult high priests have excommunicated these professionals. Why? What are they afraid of? Transparency.
After reading this great book, I know which facts and arguments are more credible.
At least this book looks at real science andinterprets
Top reviews from other countries
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.
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.
I was in Dusseldorf last week to present a paper on erosion in the Fiji Islands. All the erosion investigated had purely human causes, i.e., sea walls, groins, removal of stabilizing vegetation or animals. The sea level in the Fijis is nearly static and has been this way for 50-70 years. Yet the Fiji government is in Bonn, Germany, right now with their hands out for aid, claiming they will soon be climate refugees. They must be talking about another Fiji in a parallel universe because the one I spent three weeks doing field work in is in great shape!
Read Anthony Watt's book, Climate Change: The Facts 2017 if you really want the truth about what is happening in the climate. Your alternative is to go see Al Gore's latest horror film about how we are all going to die because we drive our cars, heat our homes, and use electricity on a daily basis to make our lives better.
