Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming

The evidence against CO2 mounts - New Book edited by Don Easterbrook

0123859565 978-0123859563 September 14, 2011 1
Global warming and human-induced climate change are perhaps the most important scientific issues of our time. These issues continue to be debated in the scientific community and in the media without true consensus about the role of greenhouse gas emissions as a contributing factor.
Evidence-Based Climate Science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming objectively gathers and analyzes scientific data concerning patterns of past climate changes, influences of changes in ocean temperatures, the effect of solar variation on global climate, and the effect of CO2 on global climate to clearly and objectively present counter-global-warming evidence not embraced by proponents of CO2.

  • An unbiased, evidence-based analysis of the scientific data concerning climate change and global warming
  • Authored by 8 of the world's leading climate scientists, each with more than 25 years of experience in the field
  • Extensive analysis of the physics of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and its role in global warming
  • Comprehensive citations, references, and bibliography
  • Adaptation strategies are presented as alternative reactions to greenhouse gas emission reductions


  1. You live in a dream world geoff,


  2. Whereas you live in a denier's world...I prefer the official figures.

  3. Official figures like 97% of climate scientists believe in climate change due to increased co2 output?

  4. Good point, anonymous. And where did that 97% statistic come from? From a very unscientific pole - and the numbers were? Why 77 of 79!

    See here - http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2011/07/tim-ross-prue-mcsween-and-loonies.html

    Isn't non science wonderful?

  5. whoops - er sorry poll - not pole - isn't voice activated software wonderful?

  6. A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:

    (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.

  7. Isn't non science wonderful? And aren't some scientists wonderful in warping the truth?
    See http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2010/06/scientists-convinced-of-climate.html

    But the paper, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, faces criticism on three fronts: how it divides scientists into one of two groups, whether the scientists have been chosen properly, and whether the peer review process stacks the deck in favor of the consensus view. "This is a completely unconvincing analysis," says climate expert Judith Curry of the Georgia Institute of Technology, who was included in neither group.

    The co-authors, led by graduate student Bill Anderegg of Stanford University, tapped online lists of scientists who have signed statements (like this, this, or this) in support or opposition to the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), namely, that the planet is warming and humans are largely responsible. They categorized the scientists as either "convinced" or "unconvinced" and then analyzed the groups for the number of papers they had published which included the word "climate" in a Google Scholar search. "Unconvinced" scientists comprised only 2% of the top 50 researchers ranked by number of climate publications and 3% of the top 100. Among scientists with 20 or more papers on climate, the so-called convinced group had an average of 172 citations for their top paper compared with 105 for the unconvinced.

    Gee Whiz, AGW Scientists caught out again! How disappointing!

  8. The 2nd edition is out now: https://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Based-Climate-Science-Second-Emissions/dp/0128045884

    Why not flip through the "Look Inside" and see what you're missing. The methodological errors in "Doran and Zimmerman" (2009) and "Cooke et. al (2013) are reviewed, I am wondering if the same selectivity errors underlie Anderegg (2016). Scroll ahead in the "look Inside" and see the huge divergence between the predictions of 90 computer models and the actual temps, the flatline temp trend for the last 15 years, etc. etc. etc. This controversy is mostly about power, money, control... not science. Ice ages are the norm, not warming epochs, it's been that way for millions of years and recent (4000 year) trends don't appear to diverge from that as a reasonable expectation for the centuries ahead.

    Let us know when the data catches AGW scientists out, versus crony opinions based on money games and media shaming / propaganda exercises. So far, not happening.


Post a Comment

All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!