J.AbbotClimate Change: The Facts

PRO: A wide-ranging collection of 21 essays that thoroughly debunks the myth that climate science is "settled". It also relates some of the history of the CAGW (Catastrophic anthropogenic global warming) movement and how it became the "consensus" despite the lack of real scientific evidence. Most importantly, it cites the growing evidence that climate sensitivity is low after all.CON: The book assumes basic familiarity with climate science and politics so it's not a good introduction. Also, some of the info is repetitive. American readers should note that many of the essays are written by Australians so names and institutions may be unfamiliar.Summary:The central issue in the climate "wars" is climate sensitivity to CO2 (warming per doubling of CO2). Despite 40 years of effort, climate scientists still can't narrow the possible range (1-10 C) with 3-4 C being the "most likely". But if it turns out to be "low" (<2C), then all of the controversy and concern have been for nothing.Global temperatures increased by 0.5C from the 1970s to the late 1990s. Since then, temperatures have been basically flat ("paused") with slight random fluctuations. So it's both true we've had no global warming for almost 2 decades and yet temperatures are at "record" highs. (But the "highs" are far lower than climate models predict- and any "increase"- e.g. the recent "2014 warmest year" hype- is within the measurement error!) The pause was not predicted by climate models- and its length is increasingly embarrassing for alarmists, who can't explain it (numerous theories have been proposed with natural variation being increasingly cited). Several of the essayists point out that if natural variation explains the pause, then perhaps it also explains most of the 0.5C rise in the first place! The climate debate is incredibly polarized, so the only way it can be settled now is by nature itself. During the next decade, if the pause continues or if global cooling commences (as predicted by some alternate theories which say the sun's impact on climate has been greatly underestimated), then CAGW will finally be falsified. Stay tuned.Note: Climate science isn't the only field to face such an impasse. For 40 years, the "consensus" of particle physicists have believed in a theory called super-symmetry (SUSY). The problem is there's no evidence for it- and if it isn't found soon at the LHC collider, then most physicists will finally abandon it. But some will continue to believe in it anyway- just like some climate scientists who keep insisting climate sensitivity is high in the midst of the pause. As Planck wrote, "scientific theories don't change because old scientists change their minds; they change because old scientists die".

If you are already skeptical of the public pontification of AGW, this book may broaden your domain of credible sources (lots of the essay contributors have other more extensive materials). I've been reading a good bit over the years, but this book widened my sources. If you are supportive of the AGW platform, challenge yourself...read some of the essays...its not like you have to read the whole thing. And you can get the pre-owned copies very cheap. Each of the 6 essays under the Chapter 'The Science of Climate Change' i thought were invaluable at giving the layperson a foundation to at least understand the essentials as that is the level where many of the issues on accurate climate prediction can be understood. Chris Essex's essay on certainty/uncertainty related to computations regarding 'complex dynamic processes' (such as climate) also really stands out. I just received Essex/Mckitrick's book 'Taken By Storm' which also looks to be intriguing. The essays which most supplemented my knowledge as a layperson detailed the 'politics' of climate change. These essays are more characterized by sobriety rather than polemic (at least as i recognize polemic), the latter of which much popular reading on the political AGW tagenda ake the form of. The most valuable essay in this group (for me, alone worth the price of the book) is by Bernie Lewin 'The Scientists and the Apocalypse'. This offers a condensed but substantively detailed history (particularly since 1985) of the IPCC and related global organizations, which have gradually been granted (unquestionable?)authority for central scientific assessment and policy proposal and execution. This one essay is simply a startling read. Anyone with an interest in the AGW debate can't do without this sort of information (from this or other reliable sources) whether it bolsters their viewpoint or if they'd rather set about refuting the narrative's obvious influence on AGW mitigation policy. This subject and the info presented in this brief piece, open to fact checking and possible refute, is a major nerve animating the entire debate.Nuff said. 'Facts' is a volume worth the time of anyone with a serious interest in the debate, regardless of their point of view.