Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor

• #16 in Best Science Books

86 Reviews

Sort by: Most Helpful ▲ Date Rating

The very first review of my book to appear here claims I (the author) am funded by Exxon-Mobil, which is totally false. Apparently, people can say whatever they want on the internet, spreading rumors, and this is the eventual result. My research has always been 100% U.S. Government-funded. No oil company has ever even ASKED me to do anything for them, let alone paid me. I have written on this issue for 15 years, and am supportive of the oil and coal industries simply because of the huge benefit to mankind that has resulted from access to abundant, affordable energy.

I have a "full disclosure" on my website if anyone is interested in more details...just Google [Roy Spencer full disclosure]. If the best a reviewer can do is say they haven't read the book, but they know I'm just a shill for big oil, then they are seriously misinformed on the global warming issue. Unfortunately, this is becoming commonplace.
-Roy W. Spencer

Roy Spencer argues that the reason there seems to be a consensus among scientists regarding "global warming theory" is that 1) most scientists don't actually conduct research on the forecasting models the theory is based on, and so, though they are scientists, are not any more knowledgeable than laypersons regarding this particular theory and 2) scientists are human too, and as humans, fall victim to group think. Spencer points out that the mathematical models used to predict future climate are NOT akin to the forecasting methods meteorologists use to forecast next week's weather. Some important points: Sure, we are good at predicting whether it will rain tomorrow or in two days, but the validity of even short-term weather forecasts shrinks to nearly zero when trying to predict 10 days ahead or more. Climatologists using mathematical models to predict future climate, say, 100 years from now are playing a whole other ball game.

The somewhat steady temperature of the earth is hypothesized to occur because of a somewhat constant tradeoff between the energy coming in from the sun and the infrared energy the earth bleeds back out into space. Global warming theory posits that the accumulation of greenhouse gasses throws off this balance, so that the earth traps more heat than it releases, thereby raising temperatures in the lower atmosphere. A problem with global warming theory is that it seems to be overly simplistic. First of all, most people going around talking about "greenhouse gasses" seem to believe that most of these "gasses" are caused by car emissions. Not so. The greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor in the atmosphere, cloud cover, methane, CO2 and a few other things. Contrary to popular belief, 90 percent of the greenhouse effect is dependent upon water vapor and cloud cover. Very little of it has anything to do with CO2 emissions.

The problem is, mathematical models that project such trends do so by making horribly unrealistic ceteris paribus clauses ("all else being equal" assumptions), when in reality, all else will not be equal in the future. In other words, it is unrealistic to assume that if CO2 keeps increasing that water vapor and cloud cover will remain the same. Global warming advocates assume that as CO2 increases water vapor will either remain the same or increase, thereby raising temperatures. Spencer thinks that water vapor may react by lessening, thereby balancing things out. The bottom line though is that using mathematical models to predict the future, of anything, is an extremely dubious practice. They are almost always wrong (actually, they are right about the same amount of the time one would expect to be right due to chance alone--no different than guessing). In the recent bestseller Black Swans, author Nassim Nicholas Taleb argues that experts who use modeling to forecast are paid liars. Scott Armstrong, one of the world's leading experts on forecasting methods, is an outspoken critic of global warming, and argues that the forecasting models the theory is based on are in no way scientific. He has also, by the way, issued a $10,000 challenge to Al Gore (who of course never responded), reminiscent of the famous Julian Simon-Paul Ehrlich wager. Armstrong states that the models Al Gore relied on are not even technically forecasts. They are unaided subjective forecasts, or, in other words, just a computer model depicting one possible scenario. (Also amusing is that the founder of the weather channel wants to sue Al Gore for fraud!)

Interestingly, a lot of the backbone of global warming theory rests on the famous hockey stick graph from Mann et al., 1998, showing that it is warmer now than it has been in 1000 years. What most people don't know is that in 2006 the National Academy of Sciences issued a report stating that this graph used flawed data. It used tree ring data, which is dubious considering that tree ring size is confounded by amount of rainfall. (Land-based devices used to measure temperatures often fare little better as they are typically installed on buildings, around asphalt and cement, which artificially inflates their temperature reports.) A corrected graph shows that it was much warmer in the medieval period than it is today. The medieval warm period was followed by a little ice age that lasted almost 400 years. That makes the claim that "it is warmer now than it has been in 400 years" a little less alarming. Of course it is if we are coming out of a little ice age! That's a good thing! The little ice age was very hard on people in the 17 and 1800s. Vikings who settled Greenland right after the medieval warm period ended found that it was lush and habitable. When the little ice age started they were all but wiped out by the weather, as Greenland became an ice-covered wasteland.

Global warming advocates also seem to assume that it got progressively warmer throughout the 20th century. Not so. It got warmer until about 1940, and then started getting colder until the 1970s (and if car emissions make the earth warmer, isn't it during THIS time that we would most expect to see a sharp increase in temperature?), and then reversed again. Some other points that seem to be unappreciated: A big part of the greenhouse effect is amount of cloud cover, which is in part dependent upon sun activity (a lot of this is probably just natural fluctuation). People seem to assume that most of the CO2 out there is manmade. Not so. Only about 2 percent of it is from car emissions. About 20 percent is from, not car emissions but (can you guess?) manure. That's right. There are so many animals making so much excrement that this causes more CO2 than cars. If you REALLY think we are responsible for global warming you shouldn't buy a hybrid, you should attack factory farming by becoming a vegetarian, for cow farts trump SUV exhaust easily. Furthermore, all of this biofuel nonsense such as ethanol is worsening global poverty and contributing to starvation from places as disparate as Italy to the bread riots in Egypt.

It is important to also remember that correlation does not imply causation. What we know is that warmer weather is CORRELATED with higher CO2 levels. It is a mistake to ASSUME a priori 1) that this is a causal relationship (it could be a third-variable problem) or 2) if it is a causal relationship, what the DIRECTION of it is. People are ASSUMING that higher CO2 levels CAUSE warmer temperature, when there is emerging evidence (such as from Willie Soon) that it's actually the other way around!! Warmer temperatures cause higher CO2 levels!!

Here's a fun fact for you: If you live within walking distance of work, which do you think would put more CO2 into the atmosphere, driving to work, or walking to work? Contrary to what most would expect, the correct answer is walking to work! The food production that would be necessary to replace the calories that you would burn would put three times as much CO2 into the atmosphere than driving your car the same distance! Thus, if you buy into this global warming stuff, you better not exercise, because you are "causing global warming!!"

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor by Roy Spencer is a breath of fresh wind. Written by a highly qualified NASA scientist, Climate Confusion examines the current evidence about global warming and the debate surrounding it.

Well written for a mass audience and expertly researched and documented, Climate Confusion should be read by all sides of the climate debate. One thing that everyone should note is that their is not massive agreement among the scientific community about global warming. Spencers book is but one voice among many that cries out that we are all being fed a bill of goods by the doom and gloom crowd. He is to congratulated on work well done.

Peace to all.

The book only has 150 pages but there is a lot to learn here.

First, a few words about the author. Roy Spencer is one of the main people behind the technologies and algorithms to measure the global temperatures from the satellites - achievements that have been rewarded by various awards and that may be giving us the most accurate data about the global mean temperature that is available, even more accurate than James Hansen's GISS data, indeed. (But, despite some people's prejudices, Spencer has been funded from pretty much the same government sources as Hansen, except for those USD 250,000 from Heinz Kerry that Spencer sadly didn't receive.) He is also a very witty and comprehensible expositor who has been writing a website with cute parodies. Recently, he co-authored potentially important papers about the regulating role of clouds for the climate and about the uncertainty about the direction of the causal relationships between the clouds and the temperature.

In the book, he first introduces some basics of climate science and explains the nature of the scientific consensus. If the passionate reviewers below had seen the book, they would almost certainly appreciate it. Spencer reveals that the mankind almost certainly contributes something to the climate change and the greenhouse effect is nonzero, too. I know he has also patiently explained many of these well-known things to some of the less educated and more "radical" skeptics and his balanced treatment in the book wasn't a surprise for me. He is clearly no biased partisan.

However, he quickly turns his attention to a more important question, namely whether the human activity poses a danger for the climate. He explains that there exist no scientific papers that would offer reliable evidence of such a threat and he exposes various political, ideological, profit-driven, and other non-scientific factors that allow the irrational alarm about global warming to thrive and solid science about these questions to be suppressed and neglected. There is clearly no consensus about a dangerous global warming and after reading the book, you will see why.

If I were rating the author's opinions about the origin of the species, he would get less than 5 stars but I suppose this is not what readers should be rating here. This review should be about the book which is witty, technically solid - although avoiding equations -, and revealing the true major scientific and social aspects of the whole debate. Such a book from a qualified expert deserves at least 4.8 stars and I recommend it to you wholeheartedly.

As I have been trying to learn about climate change, I was interested to see several points of view. Spencer's book is a good example of the contrarian view from an expert in the field.

From my understanding so far, the reason that man-made climate change is hard to grasp by the general public is that the signal for it is, at present, comparable to the size of natural fluctuations. Therefore it requires an analysis within the context of physics models to see if it exists. The models are also important for predicting the future climate. The models contain a number of effects like solar activity, sulfur emissions, volcanic activity, CO2, etc. There is an important graph in the IPCC 2007 report (I'm referring to fig 8.1 in "Climate Change 2007, the Physical Science Basis") which shows how all the available models agree well with the data, but this result is not described in Spencer's book. Maybe he simply doesn't believe it.

Spencer says the models leave out things which are not fully understood, such as a possible water-vapor feedback. Spencer asserts that the model-builders are biased and try to conform to each other. I find this hard to believe, but then I wouldn't know. The IPCC 2007 report lists the uncertainties with it's findings. My understanding is that not all the issues are completely settled, but that's why it's scientific research: the answers are not obvious.

To amplify his points, Spencer is sarcastic and often disrespectful, and he complains about environmental extremism. He's right that we should avoid hysteria, but I think he misrepresents how science works. Science is a process for finding the truth. On some rare occasions, erroneous "group-think" may occur, but a wrong hypothesis is always proven wrong eventually.

I cannot recommend the IPCC 2007 report, as it is too long and detailed; however, a nice short book for the general public which explains the findings is "The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change" by A. Dessler and E. Parson. Overall I found it to be a much more balanced presentation, including explanations of the uncertainties such as those Spencer mentions.

Writing a review of this book has been a little difficult, and I have had to simmer on what to write for several days now. The author, from the beginning, lets the reader know that he is a skeptic about global warming and the end result is a book that is basically a polemic wrapped in scientific information. That is not necessarily a bad thing, as the author is entitled to his opinion and is certainly free to express it by whatever means he feels appropriate. In fact, it's very possible to read something you disagree with fundamentally and learn something new.

The author of this book lost me when he started playing with the science and got it wrong. It doesn't matter whether he doesn't understand it, left out items to further his argument or is using old data; the science has to be correct or the author's credibility suffers. One example is his statement that polar bear populations are increasing. That is simply not true and he further states that no polar bears in trouble could be found to film. Again, not true...if he wants those photos he should talk to my daughter, as she has a few dozen she can share with him. The author also goes on to restate the old sage about increased CO2 being good for plant growth, yet research done in the past five years shows this simply isn't the case. The plants adapt to increased carbon dioxide and begin to respire more slowly. There are more examples, but the point here isn't to rewrite the book...simply to point out that his use of facts is, at times, questionable.

Finally, in addition to the above problems there is no backup for what the author claims. There are no end notes, or biographical information. That maybe tolerable to some degree, but when the author claims to be reciting comments made by individuals, intellectually honesty require validating his quotations with back up material.

As it stands, this book will be well received by those who are skeptical about global warming and will be dismissed by those who believe in anthropogenic warming. Where you stand on the issue will determine whether or not you will enjoy the book. It is, however, a polemic and the title doesn't really indicate that to be the case, so beware.
I would rate it at 2 ½ stars since I believe in the authors right to an opinion, and he does write well.

Dr. Spencer's book was a surprise in several aspects. First, I found it to be a very easy read compared with other recent books on climate. He conveys a sense of the complexities involved in unraveling climate forcings and responses, and even if we have them in the right order in current General Circulation Models, without introducing a lot of technical jargon. After having read much on climate and running through the Stefan-Boltzmann greybody calculations of the Earth's expected temperature, I still learned a critical fact about Earth's climate from Dr. Spencer's book. When a convection model by Manabe and Stickler from 1964 includes atmospheric convection into the greybody calculation, the Earth's temperature is expected to be 140 F, or 60 C or 333 K. Dr. Spencer indicates that the Earth's weather systems provide an efficient, self-regulating mechanism of transferring energy from the Earth's surface to the tropopause where it can be radiated away, resulting in sufficient cooling of the Earth's surface to make it a habitable 57 F. When looked at in this light, the contribution from increased infrared forcing due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases, although real, becomes a secondary forcing that is easily compensated by small variations in cloud cover. Indeed, Dr. Spencer's recently published satellite observations of cloud behavior confirm this effect, first put forward by Prof. Lindzen of MIT more than 15 years ago.

I found the discussions on technology solutions for replacing fossil fuels to be very thin, but amusing (he introduces a new name for the process of using the output of a fuel cell to electrolyze hydrogen for powering fuel-cells- the perpetual motion machine!). The economic discussions were simple and excellent. Dr. Spencer treads into the return on investment question for Kyoto and similar emission-reduction schemes- all pain for no gain. The discussion of the devastation in Africa caused by banning the use of DDT (based on junk science) can never be repeated enough times. The ban on CFC's to 'save the ozone' and the recent discrediting of the fundamental chemical reaction rates upon which that ban was based could have been included in this chapter.

The most important lesson I take away from this book is in the title of this review. Weather cools the Earth's surface by almost 83 F, making it habitable. Every single member of Congress should be required to read this book before even starting to blather about climate change legislation.

Roy Spencer gets to the heart of the debate by focusing on the human, emotional, and religious aspects of those who hold the mainstream view: that climate change is primarily man made, and that it will lead to cataclysmic climate events unless we do something NOW. Like most climatologist skeptics (and there are more out there than you think) he approaches his subject (Climate change) with an appreciation for what we don't know about the science, and a sense of humility that comes from observing the climate in action, rather than through the algorithm of a computer model. Rather than brand his opponents in the debate with some ill motive, he lays out common sense explanations of why the scientific community may have gotten the theory of anthropogenic global warming wrong in a fundamental way.

Good writing - but not from a scientific perspective. The community has standards and if you want to write a critique of a well-researched scientific system, the scientific method must be used. This book fails to discuss that as well as cite sources or use a bibliography. How are we to believe or cross reference material from this book? How can we use this in research papers, etc? We can't - thus, although it is an interesting read, it is useless scientifically.

I found this book to be a good read, and understandable for an average person. I got a chuckle out of the emotional review "Bad Science" seeming to claim that a scientist can not disagree with a "consensus" without being funded by Exxon, engaging in propaganda, etc. In a scientific search for truth shouldn't even just one person armed with new facts be able to sway a consensus? At least that's how it's supposed to work. In the book, the author presents a good description of what he believes is a strong negative feedback in the climate system - precipitation systems - that are currently unaccounted or inadequately accounted for in the current climate models. I enjoyed this book as it presented new information I hadn't read before and therefore recommend it to anyone interested in the topic. Wished it would have been available on the Kindle, it was my first paper book since January :-)

I read Roy Spencer's book, Climate Confusion, this weekend. I don't know Dr. Spencer personally but I have followed his work and I've had some occasional email exchanges with him. I have found him to be the kind of personable ("really nice") guy with whom I would love to have a beer and discuss a wide variety of different topics. This book just magnifies that feeling by at least two orders of magnitude. The book was an easy read but it was not exactly what I had expected. But that certainly doesn't mean bad in any way -- the book was a very pleasant surprise! It provides an excellent foundation of weather/climate in layman's terms and then it goes into the philosophy of science, economics, politics, and religion and the implications of their interrelationships not only with climate science but also with science in general.

The key to this book is the subtitle: "How Global Warming Hysteria leads to bad science, pandering politicians, and misguided policies that hurt the poor."

I had anticipated that Roy might drive the nail into the coffin of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but he did not! Rather, he gave the average guy a hammer and a lot of nails so he could decide for himself and then drive the nails into anything he wants, because the insights Roy provides are equally valid for many different government programs as well as human emotions and reactions in general. Even if your passion is NOT the global warming debate this book will help to make you think more rationally about any topic and just happens to use global warming as the example.

This is the book that poorly informed main-stream media types should read and is written at a level that anyone can understand. It is short, it is funny (at times), and it sets the stage for the reader to make his own decisions about AGW as well as many other issues in the complex climate-change SYSTEM -- where the climate-change SYSTEM also includes the politics, religion, economics, etc of climate.

The book is inexpensive enough at Amazon that everyone should buy multiple copies and pass them around to people who would never buy it themselves. After they read it, they will thank you for helping them to understand much more than just global warming. I bought two copies and one of them is getting mailed to a friend of mine who teaches climatology and is chairman of the earth science's department at a well-respected university. This book "WORKS" whether you are a student, businessman, or PhD in climatology. It is well worth the small investment in time and money. It will provide clarity to many more things than just the climate-change debate.

I bought this book looking for an accurate, scientifically based review of global warming from someone who is not in favor of it. As an MD, MS (Physical Chemistry), PhD (Biochemistry), and former University Professor who has relied on the National Institutes of Health for funding, I have the ability to understand the science, and am not ignorant of what he speaks. First of all, there is almost no data in the book, only opinions. Secondly, it clearly has a political agenda much more than a scientific agenda. It diverges into Intelligent Design, Control of the world by the UN, etc., and paints a frequently inaccurate picture. By no means does he stick to Climatology. While he does have some valid points worth thinking about, you basically have to be an expert to figure out which ones these are. He mocks the scientific system, and while some of his points are true, his approach is a little like mocking the US Postal Service because it is not perfect. However, the great majority of your mail gets to you everyday with relatively few errors. He makes it sound like the US scientific system should be dismantled. Remember as well, that this is not just the American system working on this problem.
There are some issues in science that take a while to work out. For instance, one of the classics was the battle between Edward Teller and Robert Oppenheimer shortly after WWII regarding whether the "H-Bomb" was theoretically possible. In this case, you had probably ten of the smartest people on the planet who couldn't agree for years, although in the end, the scientific process came through, and obviously, the "H-bomb" was possible. I would hate to have had to take sides on that one half way through.
The scientific process is at work on global warming, and while I don't think the answer is clear, the great bulk of the evidence supports, rather than denies, the truth of global warming.
What I was hoping for with this book was an objective treatment of the topic by someone with expertise in the area.
What I think has happened here is that Dr. Spencer has used his position and titles as a springboard for his political views, not his scientific expertise. Unfortunately, for the lay person, this probably looks like a good book, but only if you believe all of his statements because of his titles. Unfortunately, Global Warming is so complex that unless you have a deep scientific background, you really cannot analyze it yourself, but must rely on the opinions of others. Even those of us with the background to understand the science can read about it for days and still not come to a conclusion. I wouldn't place too much weight on this book at the present time. Are there "low quality" books that are "Pro-Global Warming"? Absolutely. There is definitely some "silly science" supporting global warming. They just prove the point that when politics get involved in science, it's usually bad for the science. Therefore I will continue my search for books against global warming that actually are based on science. Not enough room to cover all the details here, but this was a major dissappointment, and I hope that not too many people will use it to define their thinking regarding global warming.

Dr. Spencer has written the definitive book debunking global warming. If you ever wondered if global warming might be an overblown media topic, read this book! Dr. Spencer has not only written an enjoyable book, it is informative and eye opening!

Spencer's approach to illuminating the issues raised by "global warming" seems largely to abandon the scientific jargon and esoteric arguments surrounding the interpretation of climatological data. No graphs or equations jump off every other page (Sorry for the inconvenience, Al Gore). Instead, with a fair amount of wit and humor, and an abundant amount of common sense, he follows the money. The contentious issue of whether or not global warming is caused by humans has been set aside in favor of a less emotional if not dispassionate look at potential consequences and alternate solutions. But there is a wealth of important information that allows the attentive reader reach some important conclusions independently. At the heart of the matter are the true economic costs of the political policies demanded by radical environmentalism -- that we as a society must "doing something now" in order to avert the disaster of global warming (real or imagined). The issues are thoughtfully explored in terms of real costs, benefits and alternatives. These include economic costs to our society, human costs (yes, loss of lives particularly among the word's poor in underdeveloped countries) political consequences (who gains power and who pays), and perhaps most importantly, the likelihood that paying the costs of such political solutions (Kyoto, for example) will make any positive impact on climate change. This is a "MUST READ" for any thoughtful person who feels the need to understand the larger issues surrounding environmentalism and our social and economic responsibility do the right thing. Well done, Dr. Spencer!

It's not difficult to discern University of Alabama meteorologist Roy W. Spencer's bias. He writes forthrightly on page 5, "I believe that the only rights that the natural world has are those conferred upon it by humans."

This sort of God-like arrogance characterizes much of what he writes. He ridicules science and beats up on the usual right wing bogeymen, Al Gore, actors, Hollywood, etc. What he doesn't mention here is that he had a conversion a few years ago when he rejected biological evolution in favor of Intelligent Design. While it could be argued that the author of a book on climate need not mention that he is a creationist, it does give the reader pause to realize that Spencer not only is a global warming denier, he is also in that very tiny minority of scientists that deny biological evolution. Well, actually Spencer admits to being a global warming "skeptic," not an out and out denier.

He has also admitted giving talks funded by Big Oil (see page 6), and he is the same Roy Spencer who along with John Christy in 1992 reported that the lower troposphere had cooled over the preceding thirteen years, more or less refuting global warming. However those findings have been refuted in three separate studies, and Professor Christy has admitted that his results were incorrect and that the atmosphere has warmed. (I am paraphrasing from George Monbiot's book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning" (2007). Monbiot gives the references for the studies that refute Spencer and Christy in footnotes on page 223.)

What I was looking for here was Spencer's admission that he had misread or misinterpreted the data. I didn't find it.

His philosophy as a "scientist" can perhaps be summed up by what he writes on page 10: "...it is not a question of whether bias exists--for we are all biased. It is a question of which bias is the best bias to be biased with." This reminds me of the idea that my God is better than your God in that a preconceived bias based on notions that have nothing to do with scientific inquiry are what is important in reaching a conclusion about what is true and what isn't. It's really just a faith-based approach to reality.

Here's an example of how Spencer presents his case against "global warming hysteria": "And while you may believe that the all-time record high temperatures in the United States were set in the last ten years or so, the truth is that the decade with the largest number of all-time state record high temperatures was the 1930s." (p. 13) He doesn't mention the salient point that the new records top the old ones. What he writes is similar to saying that more records (in an earlier time: pick the decade) were set in (you name it: basketball scoring, computer processor speed, rainfall, etc.) than during the last ten years, which is hardly surprising since it gets harder and harder to set records as the bar is raised higher and higher.

This sort of sophistry (or sly of hand) is what one would expect on say the Rush Limbaugh Show or Bill O'Reilly on Fox News, just slipshod BS to feed to the faithful. Note too that it's no longer "global warming is not true." Even the Bush administration now concedes that the planet is getting warmer. Instead it's global warming "hysteria"; in other words, Spencer is making a value judgment that we are overreacting.

The very title of Chapter 2 "Science Isn't Truth" is another example of Spencer's tricky presentation. While it is true that science does not lead to--nor pretend to--absolute truth the way the God of Intelligent Designer does, science is our best tool for increasing our understanding of ourselves and the world in which we live. Its track record dwarfs all other approaches to truth. Woe is the culture or nation that tries to replace science with "authority" or some other measure of truth.

As an example of the ridicule of scientists mentioned above, there's this from page 14: "A number of scientists, apparently frustrated historians, have created a discipline called 'paleoclimatology.' This is where scientists look at tree rings or ice core layers and magically divine the historical temperature record." Well, they don't "magically divine" anything. They use that evidence to make valuable estimates of past weather patterns.

On page 39 Spencer creates some cartoon dialogue to further his ridicule:

"Scientist: Honey, I'm home!
Spouse: Hi, dear. Did you discover anything exciting today?
Scientist: Oh, yeah! I found that the tsetse fly actually does a little dance before mating! I can't wait to tell everyone at our next international conference!
Spouse: That nice, dear."

This is the sort of distorted view of science that one would expect from a creationist, not a real meteorologist.

Chapter 6 is Spencer's take on economics. He reprises a lot of what one might find in an undergraduate course taught by a conservative economist. Spencer's point is that it is poor economics to take measures against global warming. Why spend money now to help prevent something that we do not entirely understand the consequences of? But this ignores the potential costs down the road--a kind of "let the future take care of itself" mentality that underlies so much conservative economic thought. It also ignores the essence of what it is to be human, which is the use of knowledge and insight to improve our prospects for the future.

But more than anything, a head in the sand attitude toward global warming is dangerous since the worst case scenario suggests a balmy summer day on Venus, and even lesser consequences may bring about enormous suffering to hundreds of millions of people. We owe it not only to ourselves but to our children and grandchildren to stop the denial and obfuscation and work toward understanding global warming and how it is changing this planet.

Yes, I have read this book and yes I have read the IPCC report and this book just takes the IPCC report and says the opposite. IPCC report, the sky is blue, Climate Confusion, the sky is red!!!

I am only half-way through, but am thoroughly enjoying this book. I have done a lot of research into the pro- and con- arguments of man-made global warming. Although I have always been interested in science, I am not a trained scientist. The information i have found on my own was sometimes easy to understand, and other times seemed to require some prerequisite knowledge.
Dr. Spencer's book examines, and explains in clear, concise terms, the concepts and theories involved in this subject in a manner that any layperson ( like me) can easily grasp.
I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject.

Dr. Spencer makes a logical, unemotional case refuting the "fact" of manmade global warming. One of his conclusions, with which a logical person must agree, is that we simply cannot say for certain that the warming is man-caused. The data clearly point in no certain direction, and the variables are far too complex to confidently say "XXX is the cause". We do not yet have the technology to model the extremely complex atmospheric interactions accurately enough to pinpoint the cause of a one or two degree temperature shift, or to accurately predict such a change.

One concern Dr. Spencer raises, and one I share, is that the issue has moved from the scientific to the political arena, and putting our trust in politicians to do much other than to pander for personal political advantage is foolhardy at best, and potentially destructive to our economy and standard of living. The recent politically driven (by both parties) subsidies for ethanol that has caused food prices to go through the roof should give pause to anyone who believes otherwise.

To those who say "we cannot afford to be wrong", Dr. Spencer correctly states that Al Gore's Chicken Little "crisis" has been largely generated to provide increased funding for researchers and flashy headlines for the media. Given that we are in the midst of a seven-year COOLING trend causes the "crisis" notion to deflate like a balloon full of holes.

Overall, Dr. Spencer's train of thought is easy to follow, and the conclusions he draws are valid, and the book is thought-provoking. As one who becomes involved in the discussion with friends and coworkers, I would have preferred more source information in order to add substance to the logic I try to provide in my arguments.

I have read many of Dr. Spencer's scientific articles and have always enjoyed them. He really puts it all together in this book. Try to pigeon hole him and you will fail. He presents an even handed analysis of the warming debate. He exposes superficial, shallow minded demagogues like Al Gore, pandering politicians like our three presidential contenders and shines the light of day on the billion dollar pro-warming business. He also puts people who think the earth is not warming in their place.
If you only buy one climate book this year Climate Confusion should be that book.

Mr. Roy Spencer has written a generally very good background on the global warming myth and its pernicious effects on human well being. Mr. Spencer writes very well and clearly. He demonstrates that the main driving forces behind the myth of anthropogenic global warming are political and religious, not scientific. He describes the climate system of the earth that is too complex to be adequately modeled. Mr. Spencer demonstrates how precipitation, clouds and other important factors have feedback mechanisms that have not been discovered. Mr. Spencer makes very good use of his background in meteorology.

In fact anthropogenic carbon dioxide is only a small part of the total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Mr. Spencer also describes how the quest for research grants, the media bias to alarmism and activism, and the present day political climate drive the global warming myth. He notes how the pernicious earth worship religiosity enables the rejection of objective scientific experimentation and evidence. Plainly there is malice afoot.

However Mr. Spencer's work has some deficiencies. He does not include a bibliography. And he mentions only passing such climate alarmism refuting facts as the presence throughout the earth's history of globally warm and cold periods. He neglects to mention that carbon dioxide reduces heat escape through a filter effect. As the quantity of carbon dioxide rises, the extra carbon dioxide has less warming effect than the prior carbon dioxide. He also does not mention that carbon dioxide only reflects heat in certain wavelengths, most of which are also reflected by water vapor.

For a more detailed description of the scientific refutation of the global warming myth see Dennis Avery and Fred Singer Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,Updated and Expanded Edition.

Yet Mr. Spencer has written a very readable and very good book. This book deserves to be widely read.

Mark Twain is credited with saying: "There are lies. There are damn lies. And then there are statistics."

The GW debate is full of stats and numbers and climate models that are easily manipulated. Dr. Roy Spencer does a great job here of explaining the logic and value-oriented side of the debate.

If you have ever watched the you-tube video "the scariest thing you'll ever watch" or some other hysterical title, this book answers that and more. This is not a data filled book, as Dr. Spencer points out in his prologue, because data is easily skewed, and even more easily out-dated.

Dr. Spencer takes great pains to point out that the Earth's climate is changing. He also is a ardent conservationist. And from that starting point he lays out the reasonable path of human action that promotes the welfare of all people and the vast majority of flora and fauna.

Two reasons I don't give this book a 5 star rating:
1.) Some of his writing breaks up and becomes stilted. Most of the book is conversational. But a few times it felt like a re-write or an editor broke up the flow.

2.) I needed one final chapter written in language that my 8th and 10th graders can understand more readily. Perhaps a children's edition is coming?

As a technically trained person I find this book's information and rational logic far more beliveable then the emotional hype that is being rammed down our throats by the finantical media and the selfserving politicians. When the "green" people partk their vehicles, airplanes and motorized boats; and then moge into sod covered holes in the ground like our earlier farmers did; I'll believe that they truly believe that man is causing the distruction of the planet. If all of the people that are worried about the build up of CO2 in our atmosphere would hold their breaths for only 10 minutes a major source of the problem will be solved.

If you are not a physicist you may often find some climate concepts hard to understand. This is the book for you. Chapter 3 - How Weather Works explains it all so simply that you will understand it. The whole book is written in a conversational, easy to read, style, and much of it will also appeal to older schoolchildren.

Dr Spencer writes plainly and with a sense of humour and humanity. About half the book is a primer on climate that requires no previous education in science. The science is thin, but that is because the target audience for the book is the "literate citizen" who wants to be informed on a major issue. Though I have masters degrees in both geography and Earth science, I did not find the presentation boring. The first half of the book provides the context for the second half of the book: what does climate change mean for the citizen.

Half the book discusses the religious, political and economic links with climate change. Religious, because so many of those sounding the alarm have revealed the driving force behind their advocacy is akin to a new pagan religion in which the Earth itself is treated as a god. I have been there and done that, so this theme rang a bell for me.

The book points out that someone has to pay the political and economic cost of (misguided) measures to prevent global warming, because there is no free lunch. On my web site, I argue that we should not object to paying the cost of reducing greenhouse gases, because it is like buying an insurance policy. Spencer points out that the premium is too high for the promised payoff and he is right. I was wrong, we should object: Kyoto is priced as gold, but it's only gilt.

Spencer's economic arguments may offend a lot of people, since he defends the free market as the bulwark of democracy. This rang a bell for me too, because Spencer would have offended me 30 years ago, before I lived and worked as an economist in countries that had neither democracy nor free markets. Dr Spencer is not an economist, but what he says about economics makes sense.

If you have no academic background in Earth science or economics and would like an entertaining and informative book on both subjects with a little political science on the side, this book is an easy way to begin.

If you prefer to read it for free, ask your public library to buy it or borrow it for you on an inter-library loan.

I didn't care for this book, and I consider myself somewhat skeptical of the claims of man-made global warming. It wasn't so much for all the holes that Roy Spencer poked in the theories, but the solutions he puts forward. He seems to turn to free-market capitalism as the tool for resolving what to do (ie. cost-benefit analysis). After living through two recessions, the dot-com crash, the housing crash and perhaps the soon-to-be commodities crash, it's hard for me to put much faith in free-market capitalism. I'd hate to see what would happen if the earth went through a similar boom and bust due to speculative trading.

Very good book. He discusses a serious subject with knowledge and humor. He gives a brief overview of the science behind the global warming debate. He points out gaps in our knowledge, especially how little we understand moisture in the atmosphere (amount of water, cloud formation, amount of precipitation). But the global warming debate is rarely about science (proponents argue that the science is settled). Consequently, the emphasis of this book is on policy: economics, politics, environmental religion, media coverage, and bad "solutions". Finally, he points out that climate scientists are human, too. When talking to the media, they tend to downplay their assumptions and uncertainties, and they present conclusions with confidence that is unwarranted by the science. It's a quick and entertaining read. And it gives balance to the one-sided global warming story we read in the media.

Roy Spencer writes intelligently about the weather. He is understandable, though I believe his occassional sarcasm tends to diminish his credibility. This doesn't hurt the book significantly, however. He points out how the politics of man-made global warming is hurting the poor around the world. For those of you who have jumped on the man-made, global warming band wagon, I suggest you open your purses and wallets a bit wider. The true motives behind this Chicken Little talk is soon to be realized, as our pandering politicians began to add consumption taxes to our already over taxed populace.

Dr. David Martin

This review is being written for the second time because an unknown administrator erased all 78 reviews, mostly excellent reviews, yesterday. The book only has 150 pages but there is a lot to learn here.

First, a few words about the author. Roy Spencer is one of the main people behind the technologies and algorithms to measure the global temperatures from the satellites - achievements that have been rewarded by various awards and that may be giving us the most accurate data about the global mean temperature that is available, even more accurate than James Hansen's GISS data, indeed. (But, despite some people's prejudices, Spencer has been funded from pretty much the same government sources as Hansen, except for those USD 250,000 from Heinz Kerry that Spencer sadly didn't receive.) He is also a very witty and comprehensible expositor who has been writing a website with cute parodies. Recently, he co-authored potentially important papers about the regulating role of clouds for the climate and about the uncertainty about the direction of the causal relationships between the clouds and the temperature.

In the book, he first introduces some basics of climate science and explains the nature of the scientific consensus. If the censors had seen the book, they would almost certainly appreciate it. Spencer reveals that the mankind almost certainly contributes something to the climate change and the greenhouse effect is nonzero, too. I know he has also patiently explained many of these well-known things to some of the less educated and more "radical" skeptics and his balanced treatment in the book wasn't a surprise for me. He is clearly no biased partisan.

However, he quickly turns his attention to a more important question, namely whether the human activity poses a danger for the climate. He explains that there exist no scientific papers that would offer reliable evidence of such a threat and he exposes various political, ideological, profit-driven, and other non-scientific factors that allow the irrational alarm about global warming to thrive and solid science about these questions to be suppressed and neglected. There is clearly no consensus about a dangerous global warming and after reading the book, you will see why.

If I were rating the author's opinions about the origin of the species, he would get less than 5 stars but I suppose this is not what readers should be rating here. This review should be about the book which is witty, technically solid - although avoiding equations -, and revealing the true major scientific and social aspects of the whole debate. Such a book from a qualified expert deserves at least 4.8 stars and I recommend it to you wholeheartedly.

Dr. Roy Spencer is an atmospheric scientist whose wonderful voice has added much to the global warming debate. This is a brief primer on the nature of the battles whose outcome may soon cripple our economy and jeopardize our individual rights. I was excited about the prospects of reading it long before it got released. That the US is currently squandering billion of dollars for no provable reason is indicative of the type of hysteria that has taken hold over the minds of our elites. He, like the 500 Scientists the Heartland Institute published whose research refutes man-made global warming
[...]
is not a "global warming denier." He is a "man-made global warming" questioner which is a distinction that Al Gore does not acknowledge or appreciate. What's imperative is that we determine how much of our temperature fluctuations are caused by humanity, and, no, there is no "scientific consensus at this time." As Spencer jokes in Chapter One, if you want perfect measurements...take them only once.

While Climate Confusion is not long it debunks many myths. First and foremost, the "follow the money" trail leads to government and the side of the climate hysterics not to Big Oil which does not have the type of money the federocracy possesses (it takes in over 20 percent of our GDP on an annual basis). The Leviathan now funnels over $100 million each year to environmental lobbyists. I write this just after the hullabaloo over Hurricane Gustav and the author convincingly refutes the notion that hurricanes are a result of global warming. He notes that there have always been hurricanes which threatened the United States and will continue to be irrespective of fluctuations in temperature. I found his chapter, "How Weather Works," to be the one most educational. Much of it is inside baseball with which laymen like myself are fairly unfamiliar. Overall, this is a wonderfully entertaining book that provides solid arguments to wield against the enemies of capitalism and freedom.

With the constant barrage from the liberal media crying Global Warming over the past several years, it was very refreshing to read about this issue from the perspective of a scientist and a meteorologist. All the media reports is "carbon". To find out that the natural carbon is 38 parts per 100,000 and the "so-called" disaster is 39 parts per 100,000 was a real eye-opener. The book is full of these types of illustrations and provides a great deal of insight to the lay person. The pressure for these competing groups for our tax dollars to promote global warming is unbelievable. One thing I learned for sure is that no one can model climate change and the issue of climate is so new that no conclusions should be reached until we have generations of accurate data. Climate Confusion is a must read for any person who really wants to see this issue from a neutral perspective instead of a political perspective. The liberals of this world are out to pick our pockets in the name of global warming. We must become better informed to resist their unending pressure to control our daily lives and confiscate our individual worth.

Roy Spencer really knows his stuff. He explores the validity of Global Warming and delves into the difference between fact and unproven theory, and all in non-scientific terminology. Great, informative read!

Roy Spencer has clearly enunciated the reasons why global warming fits the agenda of power and money hungry crowd. These people are more interested in devastating the lives of third-world countries and taking the world into dark ages than providing a life of prosperity for all.

"Follow the money" formula will teach you what energizes Al Gore and his band of robbers.

Sorry guys I dont know how to post a comment onto the first page of the book, or if there is any way to do so.
I just noticed how appallingly biased Amazon user community is towards climate change/global warming issue as I have looked around for information and found that books and reviews against climate change theory are overly praised while those for climate change theory are badly pulverized.

Peace,

Endorsed by both MIT Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen and laissez-faire economist Walter E. Williams, this book is another great addition to the growing number of books that debunking the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming hysteria. This book is *not* written by a conservative who denies the existence of global warming for political convenience.

I think the main attributes of this book that make it worth reading in addition to other leading books on this topic (e.g., Bjorn Lomborg's books and the Singer-Avery book) are as follows:

* The author is a climatologist who has included two, clearly written, chapters on how the weather works.

* The author values laissez-faire economics. Specifically, he cites his appreciation for the ideas of Fredrich Hayek and Julian Simon on numerous occasions.

* This is one of the most recent books. This is especially important, since the view that cosmic rays are largely the driving force behind climate change is relatively new (for more information see The Chilling Stars by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder), and is not discussed in several relatively recent books such as Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist.

I highly recommend this book to those who value laissez-faire economics and want a relatively quick, but informative read to separate the facts from fiction in the ongoing global warming debate. Be warned that the author has spliced jokes throughout this book. Although some might find this sophomoric, I perceived that this was not too overdone.

According to news reports, scientists agree that humans are responsible, in large part, for global warming through greenhouse gas emissions and that these emissions should be significantly reduced before they cause global warming to escalate uncontrollably - to the detriment of the human race. But not all scientists: On the other side of the table are the so-called global warming skeptics, that is, those who disagree with part of what is being professed on this issue. The author, a climate researcher and meteorologist, is a self-proclaimed global warming skeptic. However, contrary to what many people may think, he points out that skeptics do agree that global warming is happening; they agree that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have increased as advertised and have likely contributed to observed increases in global average temperatures; and they agree that human activity is most likely what has caused increases in carbon dioxide concentrations. Where the skeptics disagree, the author claims, is mainly regarding the level of confidence that is placed on the theoretical computer models' predictions of future warming. He points out that there are too many unknowns and that weather and climate are so horrendously complicated that accurate predictions are not possible, at least for the present. The author covers a variety of issues that all come into play including: the basic science, alternate energy sources, politics, economics, policy matters, human nature, religion, etc. He emphasizes that any major actions taken now would have a very high cost for very little benefit and that monetary resources would be better directed at more pressing needs that can be more realistically remedied now.

The writing style is friendly, witty, authoritative and often sarcastic. Some passages in the scientific and economics discussions are rather involved and may require a bit of re-reading for them to sink in (as I did). Also, a few more diagrams would have been useful. This book would likely be of most interest to those who would like to understand more about global warming issues and who are open-minded enough to entertain both sides of this contentious topic.

Roy Spencer (a real Rocket Scientist formerly with NASA) provides clear and logical reasoning why we should not blindly accept the mainstream argument for "Global Warming". We homeschool and found it difficult to acquire any literature that gave a balanced, logical approach to the global warming arguments, especially at our "Public" Library. Anyone with an ounce of skepticism on this subject should read this book. Anyone without any skepticism on this subject is beyond hope.

At last - a book written for the non-scientist with clear, concise information about what is and what is not happening to the climate! I doubt that Al Gore will endorse it, but I found it to be very informative. As well, it is an easy read.

Wonderful. Dr. Spencer explains the scientific process in layman's terms and puts the current hysteria over climate into perspective.

This is the best debunking of the global warming scare mongering I have read. He does a great job of explaining the issues.

A very clear and understandable read. A must read because it addresses ramifications of making folly policies without all the information.

I expected a book that would discuss the latest thinking on global warming which is that global warming is more a natural than a man made process. What I got was Roy Spencer's personal views of everything from politics, narrow-minded science and philosophy. His book is nothing more than an opportunity to get up on his soap box. Save your money.

IT IS VERY TROUBLING TO DISCOVER THAT 78 REVIEWS HAVE VANISHED. ACCESS TO INFORMATION SEEMS TO BE "MANAGED" AND THIS RAISES QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO IS DOING IT AND WHY? AT THIS POINT ALL I CAN DO IS TO RE-POST MY REVIEW OF MARCH 31, 2008 AND PROTEST THE ACTIONS OF CENSORSHIP OF AN INDIVIDUAL OR SOME ORGANIZATION.


I read Roy Spencer's book, Climate Confusion, this weekend. I don't know Dr. Spencer personally but I have followed his work and I've had some occasional email exchanges with him. I have found him to be the kind of personable ("really nice") guy with whom I would love to have a beer and discuss a wide variety of different topics. This book just magnifies that feeling by at least two orders of magnitude. The book was an easy read but it was not exactly what I had expected. But that certainly doesn't mean bad in any way -- the book was a very pleasant surprise! It provides an excellent foundation of weather/climate in layman's terms and then it goes into the philosophy of science, economics, politics, and religion and the implications of their interrelationships not only with climate science but also with science in general.

The key to this book is the subtitle: "How Global Warming Hysteria leads to bad science, pandering politicians, and misguided policies that hurt the poor."

I had anticipated that Roy might drive the nail into the coffin of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but he did not! Rather, he gave the average guy a hammer and a lot of nails so he could decide for himself and then drive the nails into anything he wants, because the insights Roy provides are equally valid for many different government programs as well as human emotions and reactions in general. Even if your passion is NOT the global warming debate this book will help to make you think more rationally about any topic and just happens to use global warming as the example.

This is the book that poorly informed main-stream media types should read and is written at a level that anyone can understand. It is short, it is funny (at times), and it sets the stage for the reader to make his own decisions about AGW as well as many other issues in the complex climate-change SYSTEM -- where the climate-change SYSTEM also includes the politics, religion, economics, etc of climate.

The book is inexpensive enough at Amazon that everyone should buy multiple copies and pass them around to people who would never buy it themselves. After they read it, they will thank you for helping them to understand much more than just global warming. I bought two copies and one of them is getting mailed to a friend of mine who teaches climatology and is chairman of the earth science's department at a well-respected university. This book "WORKS" whether you are a student, businessman, or PhD in climatology. It is well worth the small investment in time and money. It will provide clarity to many more things than just the climate-change debate.

James Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA, where the author of this book also worked in climate science, famously told a Congressional committee that global warming skeptics should be charged with crimes against humanity. I know nothing about the legal merits of such a charge, but it's clear that Dr. Hansen has much too much emotional investment in a particular viewpoint to ever be capable of doing unbiased science in the field. Good science is impossible where emotions rule. Perhaps Dr. Hansen had Dr. Spenser specifically in mind when he made that statement, and one can only imagine the cross agency resentments that must of boiled along for years, Dr. Hansen screaming incessantly about global warming to whatever reporters would listen and Dr. Spenser calmly dismissing it as a crisis problem, not nearly as bad as Hansen was saying according to Spenser's satellite data. The whole specter of two senior scientists in a field in the same agency charged with doing essentially the same thing -- measuring global temperatures --who held very different views of a key question ought to put a stake right through the heart of the idea that there is any scientific consensus on global warming.

Dr. Spenser does a good job of explaining how politics and human nature work to produce and sustain global warming hysteria. I would have preferred that he spend some time taking the government controlled system of research funding to task for its role in creating this monster. Far from just providing scientists with a meal ticket, this hysteria threatens to destroy our economic well being with oppressive environmental regulation. Perhaps it's time that the environmentalist bureaucracy is charged with crimes against humanity for attempting to appropriate resources needed to address real problems in effective ways. The NASA bureaucracy wants to take over the whole world, it would seem, or at least share it with the UN climate agency.

In any case, as one might surmise, the book spends considerable time where the action really is -- not in science but in politics. The science is not difficult to summarize briefly: we just don't know about future climate and we have no reliable way to predict it. What's harder to explain is how this state of affairs translates to the political situation we find ourselves in, and Spenser does a fine job of explaining that in a tone of detached bemusement, reassuring us that this is the fellow unbiased enough to give us the straight scoop.

It troubles me that fellow educators will only smile condescendingly at your invitation to have them watch a video, show them what you're reading. Especially say science teachers. In my own field, if someone handed me a book that might challenge some grand notion, or present some new idea ...I would feel some obligation (if I haven't read much from that position already) to become acquainted with what the other views or new idea is saying. What has become of education that no longer obligates itself so? How can we be so disinterested in our own areas of study? The free exchange of ideas stops with prejudice and ego, and so does arriving at a balance of knowing truth.

This is an excellent book that should get into as many hands as possible. I've seen the video, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and Spencer's book brings a balance to what scientists are saying in that video as well. Intriguing to say the least to come to a better layman's understanding of the complex intricacies of what makes weather, how the earth like a living system compensates. The statistic alone of man adding one molecule of CO2 to every 100,000 molecules of air every five years...plus the complexities of a full understanding of climatology sure puts it clear to see how this has become a faith issue, with a religious fervor...that is very agenda driven, and for something other than truth! Considering politicians are deciding where YOUR tax dollars and future is heading under the guise of the Global Warming mantra, I highly recommend this book!!!

Easy to read and understand terms about climatology and economics (with a twist of humor.) I learned more about these subjects in this short book than I did in college. I would recommend this book to anyone who desires to know how the climate really works and how global warming hysteria policies are causing more damage to humanity than so-called global warming is.

So,what are we all to believe over this hoopla about Global Warming? I have read much material about it and Spencer covers it about as well as anyone can.He shows ,without doubt,that predictions,particularly long term,about weather and particularly climate is far beyond anything resembling science , theories and models available today.
Without a doubt,weather changes as does climate ;but if anyone believes that there is science available to predict it is either fooling themselves or simply jumping on an agenda bandwagon. Spencer covers all the reasons why the hysteria is building;and not the least of the reasons is once again,the almighty buck.Now; that the issue is front and center,huge amounts of money,particularly directed by governments,is just sitting there to be gobbled up as grants to study the problem. The amazing thing is that there is absolutely no accountability on the part of those responsible for this money being spent.There is also absolutely no requirement that there be a return on the investment of these funds and none involved will personally suffer any loss,regardless if the studies prove anything ,one way or another. There have always been such things promoted,but this has to be the "mother of all research bonanzas" because it has limitless avenues to pursue and seemingly endless resources combined with endless researchers and organizations looking for a piece of the action.After reading this book,you will come to the conclusion that after all is said and done,and humongous amounts of money has been spent,that there probably is climate change underway,and why shouldn't there be,climate is always changing,and man's impact on it is probaly infinitesimal,unpredictible and totally non influential.
Spencer asks;"How much will it cost and how much will it help? That is a good question ,especially when it is not even known what "it" is.
If there is anything that you can really count on,it is mankind's ability to adapt and solve problems and continue to reap the benefits of our wonderful planet.There have always been doomsayers predicting the demise of just about everything; and disaster for all, just around the corner.
In my short lifetime ,I can recall a few;

Predictions that the whole iron industry was going to come to an end because we would run out of oak trees to cut down to make charcoal to melt the ore. Guess what? We found coal and oil to do the job.
And what about the predictions about there not being enough rubber tree plantations to make tires for all the vehicles that were on the horizon.Guess what? We invented nylon and synthetic tires; and not only that,rubber tires didn't last much more than 20,000 miles.
More recently,we went hysterical because Acid Rain was going to kill all the trees, and in a few years there would be no more Maple Syrup. Guess what? There are still lots of maple trees and maple syrup.
Then there was Y2K ,wasn't that a dandy! How much did that cost and how much did it help?Who knows?
Then there was the "Population Bomb",with Paul Erlich, and all.In the 60's the world population was 3 Billion and we we were all heading for ruin,There would be mass starving in third world countries like China,if the growth was'nt immediately reversed.Guess what? The population is now 6 Billion,China is now shipping food to America,and rather than starving,obesity is a major problem.Also, China and India have some of the fastest growing economies in the wotld.
Then there was the "Killer Bees"
and
"Bird Flu"
Not to mention several predictions of the World coming to an end -with actual dates ,no less.
The author reaches back to that wonderful sage,Makk Twain,and who wrote in 1874;

"There is something fascinating about science.One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." Mark Twain could see through it all,way back then,what's our problem?
Thanks for a great book,Roy.
Just keep the words of that great philosopher, Sachel Page, as you face the future,who said something to the effect;
"Don't look back ,the S.O.B.s might be gaining on you!!"
As I' m writing this,I notice they watching Hurricane Bertha off Bermuda,trying to figure what it is going to do.They really don't know. That ought to tell you something.Too bad there's not time to apply for a research grant to study it,'cause there's plenty of researchers waiting and available to accept the funds.

Professor Roy Spencer's book "Climate Confusion" (2008 191-page hardback) is a compact study about how "man made global warming is based as much on faith as it is upon knowledge". His meteorologically founded discussion convinces that science has not, yet, settled the news media's climate change dilemma.

With nine chapters Spencer suggests how weather works, how the globe warms and cools, why scientists are often biased, how politics informs the global warming debate, some "dumb global warming solutions", and much more. His energetic and entertaining writing style makes Spence's broad scientific analysis interesting and informative. His humor, whit, and meteorological background illuminate various contemporary climate change/global warming philosophies and mythologies. The weather warning here- don't believe everything you hear about global warming!

This book teaches but it has a downside (keeping it from earning the fifth star). Spencer offers little, or no, resourcing. There are no footnote nor endnotes in this text. Perhaps, Dr. Roy wants the book portrayed as a novel, (always the result of no resourcing). Give us locations for further research, professor.

The book's subtitle embraces its principle point. Spencer's credible science presents viable alternatives and responses for global warming. Citing the Sun as Earth's warming source, Spencer believes (and proves) that climate change is only marginally affected by humanity. Such hard scientific conclusions make this book worth its purchase price.

This book is recommended to everyone interested in human made global warming, North American meteorology, and doing good science.

I have read several books on this subject. This one is by far the best. It is clear, easy for the non-climatologist, well balanced and humorous. It is also brief. The chapters on weather and climate are lucidly presented although they might take reading twice over, since this book is not intended for scientists. The politics of climate research are well presented and important in understanding the bias in funding researchers in this field. I highly recommend this book and have already told many others to read it!
As a physician, I believe our wealth should be directed to such global problems as HIV, sanitation, poverty, malaria, tuberculosis, lack of electricity and refrigeration and not the illusive possible man-made contribution to trivial global temperature change. The author, I believe, shares my distress at the global warming pseudoscience and hysteria. Let's wake up to oft, repeated, big lie of man as evildoer and direct our efforts toward problems that are present here and now and that we can remedy with certainty, with all our wisdom, with all our wealth.

An excellent revelation about the truth of man's real role in climate change in the world today. The author states clearly how the current "fad" that global climate change can be addressed by the general populace going "green" is being over blown by the media and scientists who are dependent on government funding. While the author does agree that climate change is taking place and that some enviornmental changes can be helpful, he clearly shows by example why the true causes are unknown and climate models cannot always be trusted.

Sometimes, we're a bigger danger to ourselves than our ever changing climate. Restrictions by our government have a more immediate impact on our lives than the temerature changes we've been seeing over the last decade or so... The climate changed long before we were here, and will continue to change long after we're gone (if we even make it that far).

I urge everybody who believes that humankind is responsible for hurricanes, tornados, and every other destructive weather system to read this book.

I highly recommend this book for anyone that is interested in an experts view on climate change and some common sense consequences for the current batch of policies our leaders in the US are espousing.

Roy Spencer has written a very fine report of what is known about climate change versus what the UN-IPCC/algore hoax are peddling. And in easy to read and understand manner. His point, natural changes occur constantly, but some catastrophic algorean event isn't happening. I emjoy reading his work.

ken barker

There is a reason one of the tags on this book is "junk science". Junk science is psuedoscience, or somebody's spin made to look like science, which is exactly what this is. Save your money.

Nice to see the author refute claims that he is "biased by money". ...Not that being "Government funded" means "unbiased".

On that point, someone...somewhere...should point out that the side making the doomsday claims about global warming is the one getting the money. Billions of dollars have already been spent by the U.S government on this research...and the best way to get your hands on that money is by scaring the crap out of Congress/the media.

What scientist is really going to say "This is really exaggerated" when that would mean jeopardizing your job? I'll paraphrase Al Gore from "An Inconvenient Truth": "Never trust a someone to see the truth when their job depends on them NOT seeing the truth". Al didn't know how right he was. I guess he didn't think we would find which side is really getting all the money.

I cannot recommend this book more highly. It is well written, as entertaining as may be considering it is a serious work, highly informative, and finally, quite persuasive. The objects of that persuasion are primarily twofold.

First, Spencer does not argue that anthropogenic global warming is not currently occurring, but rather that climatologic science can not at its current stage of development support any of the global warming alarmists' projections. The analysis here is quite clear and readily accessible to the non scientist. This scientific uncertainty being the case, the current alarmism and policy prescriptions represent a misallocation of creative and fiscal resources to pseudo problems while real problems go unaddressed or even undetected.

Second, the author argues that even if the problem of anthropogenic global warming is real, currently proposed solutions (like Kyoto) either do nothing, or by fettering the potential of the free market and its attendant creativity make matters worse. Put another way, since it is likely that the advanced industrial nations which currently pour billions of public and private money into alternative energy research are going to be the ones to find and perfect alternatives, policies which slow those economies will extend the time it takes to fully develop non-carbon based energy options.

Finally, I would point out that I usually read the negative reviews of books in order to possibly glean points of view that merit consideration. It is not appropriate in a review to refute other reviews, though with the negatives for this book it could easily be done on a point by point basis. Let me simply say that the negative reviews should dissuade one neither from reading the book, nor giving serious weight to it's content.

Spencer's book clearly highlights what is known and what is not in climate science. This is the real problem when we try to understand media climate news. Roy Spencer gives us a guide very useful to find the right way avoiding the dangers of consensus science hysteria.

This book is very interesting and informative. This man is one of the many climatologists and scientists that do not accept that changes in the earths atmosphere are all the fault of people. He explains why in this book. Read it! Science is not based on consensus. Science is based on facts. Why does Al Gore refuse to debate any of these scientists who do not agree with him? Because he cannot win a debate, that is why, and he knows it! He cannot argue with the facts. All he can do is resort to name calling. He calls them "deniers"! I still can't beleive this un-informed doofus got the peace prize! He spreads lies and gets a prize! Al Gore even admits himself that he is not a scientist! Be informed of facts, not fiction. Read this book!

Just finished "Climate Confusion". Kudos to Dr. Spencer! It was even better than I'd hoped, and heaven knows it is sorely needed now to even partially offset the tidal wave of contrary Global Warming Alarmist diatribe currently flooding the media. Hopefully it will be read by some on the other side of the controversy, or fence-straddlers, and just maybe some will more critically examine the nature of the activist onslaught. Although the subject is quite serious and so treated, the book was very lightly written, easy to read, and gave me more than a few chuckles.

The brief explanation of the basic climate processes influencing weather patterns of our globe was simple, short, succinct (and totally free of any mind-boggling equations that scare folks off), and should be relatively easy for anyone of average intelligence to comprehend.

Similarly, the characterization of the vastness, and almost unbelievably (and largely not at all understood) complex, and sometimes apparently chaotic, and diverse processes making up our global weather systems was extremely well done. As was the discussions of: the total incapacity of the best and fastest of our computer systems to come close to modeling a tiny fraction of the global weather; the painfully minute volume of CO2 we put into the atmosphere compared to the total atmospheric volume; the difficulty and questionable nature of obtaining historical climatological data; and the total lack of any other completed similar modeling problem against which our erstwhile climate "modelers" can compare/calibrate their "comprehensive" computer models. (How these unquestionable facts can fail to give pause to our GCM modelers and other Global Warming activists is completely beyond my comprehension).

Of course, this is partially explained by another of the well-made points in the book - that is the existence of the vicious, incestuous circle (well-oiled by Federal funds - many Billions of $) of: Environmentalists ("Noble", passionate & single-minded) / GCM modelers [& meteorologists] (human, greedy, job-security concerned, & anxious to "make a real difference") / media types and movie stars (hopeless, looking for publicity and "sexy" news) / legislators (also virtually hopeless, with their fingers in the wind, but with their hands on the money spigots) / and finally, The Public (totally overwhelmed by the other 4 groups). This was well done, and is partially understandable, but only to a degree.

Another well-made thesis of the book is the real impact (and very limited effectiveness) of punitive CO2 reduction measures (such as the Kyoto Protocol, which we, in the US, continue to beat ourselves over the head about, since the Senate, for once wisely, totally disavowed it) on the real global economy. This impact will far and away adversely impact the poverty stricken masses of the world far more than it will hurt us, largely middle-class denizens of the US and other developed nations. For us it will mean a little less steak and shorter vacations - for them, it is life or death, literally. (This point will not be conceded by the environmental elite.) The analogy to the Annual deaths of a million or so Africans, and severe disabilities to many more due to malaria, which could easily be controlled by the simple and inexpensive expedient of DDT spraying, forbidden to them due to developed nations forcing them to ban it under pain of "trade sanctions", is eye-opening and shocking. As Dr. Spencer says, this situation is totally unsupportable. And this, while our environmentalist heroes continue to pat themselves on the back about their successful victory over this horrid substance. Something is very wrong with this picture.

I have some minor criticism of the book. Not over anything the author missed, or got wrong or avoided, but for perhaps not being harsh enough with some of the main players in this on-going farce. In my opinion, the GCM modelers were let off a bit too easy. To me, they're the worst offenders in this scientific debacle. I understand the rationale Dr. Spencer gives for their failings (they're human; they want to make a difference; the money/research grants are only there for those who toe the party line; they do [quietly] state the limitations and assumptions underlying their work). But I'm sorry, this is not enough excuse, in my view, to over-dramatize their hypotheses and to let the media even more greatly do so. It shows a high level of scientific arrogance. They are intelligent adults and should show more honesty and morality in characterizing their work. While the environmentalists are even more guilty, they are probably even more a lost cause. Also, I think the good Dr. was a bit too easy on his former agency, NASA. I do appreciate that they have done, and continue to do, a lot of good. But that does not excuse overstating their "Global Warming" case.

The author has done a real service to us all - Skeptics, True Believers, and Fence Sitters alike, for writing and seeing this book published, and bringing at least a little balance to the ongoing debate.

This is an excellent book and while based on scientific evidence, it is for the most part easy to read. I only wish more people could be familiar with the contents.

If you want to know what is behind the "global warming" scare read this book. Unbiased look into the world of climate, business and politics.

This is an interesting and enjoyable book to read on a "Hot" issue but do not expect a scholarly treatise that presents fact after scientific fact to support the author's points. Rather is an introduction to the subject from the viewpoint of an interested layman (which the author is not -- he's a climatologist). That being said, author Spencer does hit the main, non-technical points, and skewers the elitist environmentalists who have adopted an absolutely rasict approach to solving the world's environmental problems as they see them by turning to the public (everyone other than themselves) to sacrifice economically and let the 3rd world's poor die off as rapidly as possible (after all, we need to reduce the world's population.) And he does it with humor.

An aside to remember when listening to politicians bloviate on global warming: If every politician had to pay the US Treasury $10,000 every time they told a lie, we'd have the national debt paid off in a year.

So what does this book add? Well, environmentalism has become a new type of religion, pagan in orientation, in which Mother Earth is the all-powerful God (as ably assisted by her disciples, the environmental elite.) Insects and animals are more important than humans, and we had better watch our step lest we tread on an endangered Furbish lousewart.

The impact of mankind's industrial revolution is probably miniscule compared to the father God, the Sun, and probably this is all much ado about nothing. Wait twenty years and the Earth will be in a cooling phase regardless of what we release into the atmosphere in the way of greenhouse gases. That's the nice thing about the whole argument -- we'll find out shortly (geologically speaking) who is correct. And if he is wrong, will Al Gore return all the money he has made terrifying people plus all donations?

The author explains how the climate system works -- more or less since there is much we don't know -- and treats forecasts beyond the very short term as meaningless. Perhaps the Farmer's Almanac can tell us what will happed July 4th, 2030, but the model used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can't predict two weeks out. There are too many clouds and other factors about which we know next to nothing.

Instead, the global warming catastrophic scenerio is a political theory with a huge bureaucracy and academic community depending on it for their well-being (including the author.) To be scientific, a theory must be provable, or at least be subject to possibly being disproved and pass those tests. Unforunately for the GW cult, literally all of the details in their theories have been or probably soon will be disproven. Can we say like Roseanne Roseannadanna, "Oops, never mind?" This assumption that global warming is manmade (and I will assume the earth has been warming one degree per century for the last three centuries as the best scientific evidence now indicates) has NOT been proven, and likely never will be.

The author points out in classical fashion the huge human catastrophy brought about by Rachel Carson's propaganda in "Silent Spring" that caused DDT to be banned. Tens of millions of people in Africa and the 3rd World have died from malaria as a result, but apparently these are just necessary losses among the unfortunate. The environmental elite and their fellow traveler politicians should come and work on my cattle ranch picking off deer ticks and worry about getting Lyme disease. That should change their attitude. Many a few tens of thousands of deaths in the US will bring back DDT or Diazinon, but several thousand per year so far hasn't caught their attention.

So read this book as a starter, then become informed from the dozens of good books presenting the science of the situation. That's why I gave this book only three stars -- it is a teaser without much scientific meat for the reader to hang his hat upon. But it is going in the correct direction, and it does ask the right questions and pose the situation in an understandable light. For that I thank Dr. Spencer.

I understand this book formerly had 78 reviews. If so, and they were deliberately deleted in a bid to discourage readership, I say shame on you, Amazon.

Dr Roy Spencer is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama and was formerly a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA.

He says that we should ask - how much of global warming is the result of natural processes? Every scientist-sceptic believes that global warming is a fact, but it is not a fact that is manmade: scientists just do not know how much warming is due to natural climate change.

He explains why global warming is unlikely to be a serious threat. The atmospheric CO2 concentration was 320 parts per million in 1960 and 380 in 2005. The rise was one extra molecule for every 100,000 molecules of air, every five years.

He advises that we should also ask - how much will any `Green' proposal cost? Cutting CO2 would cut the benefits of industry, production, technology and energy use. Isn't Gore just another US billionaire telling the rest of us to stay poor?

The Kyoto Agreement encourages firms to move to developing countries, which have fewer environmental controls, so the firms can pollute more. Kyoto shifts, not cuts, pollution.
Kyoto is also causing the destruction of old-growth forests - which do not soak up carbon - because some third world governments cut them down and replace them with plantations that do soak up carbon. Kyoto has also made countries turn farm land over to growing biofuels like ethanol, which are very water-intensive, taking water from crops and people.
The world has enough coal reserves for 1,000 years or more. We should be building nuclear power stations like France, 75% of whose electricity is nuclear. So we don't need `alternative energy resources' - the hope of some new non-fossil fuel - which anyway is about as likely as some new alternative range of food.

Spencer points out that alarmism can be lethal, for example the ban on DDT has killed millions of Africans. Restoring residual spraying of African homes with DDT would save a million lives a year, but the EU threatens to impose trade sanctions on any country that does so.

Excellent book, refutes the politicians view of natural changes in global temperatures. To Al Gore, the debate is NOT over.

Re the 78 missing reviews: I hope this was part of the normal process for clearing old stuff on the site and not some worker (with green flunkey tendencies) exceeding his/her authority. But even more so, I hope this was not some editorial type exercising company (green flunkey) policy.

Roy Spencer presents a well-stated and reasoned defense for the "deniers" of global warming, although he does not deny the globe is warming, he denies that we can definitively lay it at the feet of hydrocarbon emissions. The greatest strength of this book is its readability - Spencer has a great sense of humor and lets it shine throughout - he reminds me of Dave Berry quite a bit.

Spencer cites the difficulty in creating computer-based climate models and the difficulty in understanding all of the relationships between the myriad of variables that come together to create the ill-understood phenomenon we call weather. For example, as has been oft-noted by Al Gore, Carbon Dioxide levels have risen in the last century. Spencer notes that we have no idea what that exactly means for the global climate. Will water vapor increase due to an increase in global temperatures? Will the system self-regulate, or have a cascade effect (which Spencer seriously doubts, as do I) as depicted in Art Bell's The Coming Global Superstorm?

In reality, we don't know and can't really know because we cannot run accurate climate models. We don't understand or even know all of the variables. What we do know is that temperatures fluctuate - they go up and they go down. There is no "perfect" average temperature for our planet.

Spencer's weakest chapter is actually a well-written treatise on basic economics. He looks at cost-benefit analysis and the concept of diminishing returns, but the chapter feels out of place and slows the pace of the book.

Spencer also addresses the Kyoto Treaty but this is done better in other similar works, specifically The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) by Chris Horner. Spencer also talks about the idea that modern environmentalism is more a faith than a science. Spencer does a good job but Iain Murray does a better job in his book The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them. If you read all three of them you should have a well-rounded summary of the main arguments.

As one person who believes we should reduce pollution for the betterment of our lives, but does not believe in the hysteria of Global Warming as the Al Gores of the media and entertainment believe, it is refreshing to FINALLY get a clear understanding of the this MADE-UP religion of lies and scare tactics na dbad political pandering.

I always knew from a young age that the environment and its system of controls will always balance out and that man, even though he has the power to alter his environment, does not have as significant an impact as is believed. To assume that we have that kind of power is placing humans on a even level with the universe or God if you want.

Roy Spencer takes the reader though a basic understanding of climate models and how they could never acurately model a complex system like the earths due to the shear fact of multiple variables that effect each other, regardless if science was able to model a single elemnt of the system preceisley. He ties the environmental movement to econmic greed and shows how thes environmentalists use gaining more money and power to push junk science and misinfomation to the public in the form of fear and ridicule.

Spencer tells the reader how most scientist actually believe that global climate change is not happeneing, but if they stray too far from the dogma, they are ostricized and shuned. He shows how entrenched the environmentalists are with the media, politics and educational system, and how with that power, they control what people hear and think.

This is a great read and easy for anybody to understand. I highly recommend this book and have done so already.

Considering that he has a PhD and has been working with NASA for a long time, the author has high credentials, unlike Mr. Gore. He explains science is still in it's primitive state, that scientists have only scratched the surface. Therefore it is highly unlikely that CO2 can be the blame. The Earth contains far too many factors to consider. What he does explain though, is that nature has it's own check & balance. When CO2 increases, temperature increases a LITTLE, but this increases water vapor. Water vapor is the gas that will form cloud, which block out the sun. This in the process prevents the sun's UV light from entering the atmosphere and reflect back to the Earth continuously with infrared, thus negating the greenhouse effect. The author also shows acute understanding of economics, and how dangerous it is to fund hundreds of billions of dollars of our tax money to put scientists on a ghost chase for alternative energy. His work also provides graph and some humor to show how stupid your Gore worshiping friends are. After all, radical liberals don't need scientists when they have Al Gore. But I do have an energy conservation recommendation, let's keep Al Gore's private jet on the ground.

This is a very well written book that is easy to read and understand by the average person that is not educated in weather. This book gives facts about weather and related subjects by informed professionals that don't have a political agenda and want to know the truth.

Thanks for this book.

Jerry Bratcher

This is a book that should be read by all American adults. In fact, it should be read in High School science classes, as we've gone very wrong -- and only recently -- about how our society views science.

It's sad a fact of history that religion and politics often trump scientific fact. This caused the Dark Ages in Western Europe. It caused China of the Marco Polo era to regress into a backward nation. In a scant century or two, Islamic nations fell from a huge lead in science and medicine, to backwards, warring, tribes and clans. And it's possible they may never recover.

Up until 1995, an agency of Congress -- the well-respected Office of Technology Assessment -- existed to deliver competent, objective, non-partisan science advice, hopefully BEFORE Members of Congress would vote on legislation or take public positions on important scientific issues. That's how it used to work. Several nations around the world copied this, but we abolished it without warning, allegedly for "cost savings."

The sad truth is that both parties, each for its own reasons, now prefer to not be constrained by real science. We're turning away from science as a society, and history has not been kind to nations that chose that path.

It was technology and informed policy that made historians call the 20th Century "The American Century." Are we turning away from what made us great? Let's just say that the cults and political factions forming around science based issues like Global Warming and Creationism (remember the Scopes Monkey trial of the 1930s?) are not encouraging.

Is this trend too late to stop? I honestly don't know, but both "Global Warming" and "Creationism" are now widely accepted by the American public, and I'd argue this falling into ignorance does not bode well for our sons and daughters.

Right now, the critical issue for America is energy policy. For the long term, we need alternate energy sources. For the medium term, we need to find more oil and develop better sources of supply. For the short term, we need real science and to let the market run its course.

Because of Mr. Gore's widely accepted misinformation -- he invented the Internet, you know -- we are making bad decisions and bungling our future. This book is a good way for Americans to return to real science about Global Warming. Whatever your party or views, I think it is a must-read.

The global warming fight is bad for your health because it shifts the policy focus to global warming, to so called "greenhouse gases" and away from toxic pollution, such as SO2, NO and particulate matter. No one is claiming these are not bad for your health and were particularly bad in Southern California and London before they enacted sensible regulations to curb it.

Lets shift to using fuel cells in cars and for electric power not to reduce greenhouse gases but to reduce or eliminate toxic pollution. Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater, i.e. the battle against toxic pollution because of the likely spurious concern with "greenhouse gases".

This is a well written, well researched, rational answer to the radical global warming enthusiasts who have for the most part avoided addressing the complexity of climate control and feedback systems that make it very difficult to predict the weather 10 days from now let alone in 50 or 100 years. A must read for science teachers and especially policy makers.

Dr. Spencer is an award-winning scientist. He uses his intelligence to challenge a number of widely accepted scientific theories, including global warming and evolution.

From Wikipedia:

Intelligent design, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . . . In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college."

Roy Spencer clearly explains science, its scientific methodology, and its limitations. He also clearly explains "the science" vis-a-vis "global warming" and "climate change". Then, he clearly explains the economics, the politics, the biases, and the religion. Finally, he proposes a prescription.

It is a pleasure to read a book by a distinguished scientist who has the ability to see and put things in perspective. Dr. Spencer shows convincingly how recent global warming fits in the natural cycles of changing climate, and that human activity is not likely to add much to the natural warming. Most important, he shows that climate is enormously complicated and that we do not know nearly enough about it to make the dogmatic statements favored by politicians and environmentalists. In the foreseeable future there can be no established consensus.

This book does an excellent job of covering the science behind the global warming scare. It also provides understanding of the human motives behind the issue such as the desire to "go along to get along" and the fear of losing funding or standing if you honestly go against the politically correct view of climate change.

This really is fun to read, especially since a meteorologist wrote it, taking pains to talk about how weather really works, large and small scales - as far as he (and others) know. This leads into a main likeable feature of "Climate Confusion": science, and scientists do NOT know everything. Or even as much as most laymen think. Roy Spencer's constant caveats about what we, including most climate alarmists, actually know remind us that there is much, much more to learn about the zillion interacting force and matter transfers occurring in the atmosphere every moment, all affecting weather and climate in some way.

Since determining how much, and in what direction, mankind is altering climate (or maybe many directions at once) then determines what should be done (or not done), we must not be overly hasty to spend valuable resources just to "do something." Chapter 6 spends time talking through the economics, in general, of such spending. The worst we can do are the wrong, expensive things that actually cause greater damage to the climate. He spends a couple chapters giving examples of some dumb things we can do, and some smarter things.

The strength of this book is its readability, its straightforward prose. The examples are helpful in understanding the explanations, although the reader might wish for just a few more. As a scholarly work, this would not do, as Spencer has no endnotes. On the other hand, this fact makes the book easier to get though. Without references, the book resembles a very long feature column. Well worth reading.

Allan Blackman
522 -29th Ave. South * Seattle, WA * 98144-2430
Phone: 206 323 2080

EMAIL: blackallan26@msn.com

October 18, 2008

REVIEW

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, by Roy W. Spencer.

There are a number of books available debunking the hysteria about global warming. Three that I've read are accurate but have key defects as reading for those open to alternatives to Al Gore's message. With one qualification, I can recommend Roy Spencer's book.

Spencer has a Ph. D. in Meteorology from the University of Wisconsin, is a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama where he directs a variety of climate research projects. He was formerly a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA and was co-developer of the original satellite method for precise monitoring of global temperatures from Earth-orbiting satellites. In short, he has the right scientific credentials and experience.

Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer's writing style is heavy with sarcasm. While the sarcasm is justified, it is also off putting. Therefore, I would strongly recommend skipping the Prologue and Chapters 1 and 2. Begin with Chapter 3, How Weather Works and then read Chapter 4, How Global Warming (Allegedly) Works, and Chapter 5, The Scientists Faith, the Environmentalists' Religion. All the solid science in this book is contained in those 57 pages.

You can skip the rest of the book but I do recommend Chapter 9 in which Spencer reviews the key alternatives to imported oil. Spencer is overly optimistic about these alternatives but the chapter is still a good quick overview. Spencer is not an economist but he has prepared a good overview of free market economics and its relevance to the global warming debate in Chapter 6 however you don't have to read this chapter to benefit from Spencer's scientific knowledge.

This book is one of those books once you open the cover you put it down when you get to the back cover, I have been suggesting to everyone I know to read this book.

Easy reading analysis of a very complex situation. The message is very enlightening - "manmade global warming is a hoax".

I recommend this book who is truly interested in facts about our climate and its effect on the planet.

Spencer takes a confusing topic, shakes out all the hyperbole and whittles down the junk...until a clear and concise explanation of the climate, weather patterns and motives from those who are so shrill on this topic become clear. This country is headed for hard times if we continue to ride the "Man-Made global warming train" to disaster. Whenever someone on the radio, TV or in print states, "this 'such and such' is a fact agreed upon by everyone"..then I'll KNOW it isn't true! Good read, even funny at times. Sobering for sure. If you still have an open mind this book is for you.

Very well written, easy to understand, but very informative. This should be a required text to combat the propaganda in our public schools.

Dr. Spencer lays out his objectives for the book in the introduction which primarily is to provide climate information to climate lay people (which is most everyone on the planet).

I found this book to be very informative regarding the atmosphere, basic weather (energy, wind, currents, temperature, etc.), theories of global warming, government policy creation, and overall just how much is unknown about warming, weather, and climate change.

He also provides information on his experience working for the government and his experience with environmentalists (including Al Gore) and alarmists.

As a bonus Dr. Spencer has a chapter on basic economics (related to policy creation) that should be required reading for all.

I would recommend this book.

Dr. Spencer's book isn't the first word or the last on this topic, but he definitely gets props here for clobbering the fraudulent modeling science behind the global warming alarmism that often substitutes for science. Highly-recommended - I plan to make the book available for my kids as part of their overall science library.

The amount of