The Real Inconvenient Truth: It's Warming: but it's Not CO2: The case for human-caused global warming and climate change is based on lies, deceit, and manipulation Paperback – Large Print, January 9, 2019

The author has done an impressive amount of research in order to write a comprehensive book on AGW that covers all aspects of the climate debate (politics, history, science, models and economics).The best part of the book is the science section where the author summarizes the current state of climate science and details the enormous uncertainties. Climate science is largely junk science because most of it is based on poor data. Climate scientists "make things up" by substituting "proxies" and statistical estimates for real data. No one really knows what the actual world temperature is or how much ocean levels have changed due to insufficient data with large error margins. Climate reconstructions- based on proxies- are really guesstimates since we'd need a time machine to prove they're accurate.The key point of the science section is there's no historical causal correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures- in fact, the opposite is true- temperatures rose first followed centuries later by a rise in CO2 (increasing temps cause the oceans to release more CO2). The other key point is that temperatures have been rising for over 300 years- long before human CO2 began to increase- so there's no proof that CO2- and NOT natural variation- is the primary cause of GW. Natural variation is simply far greater than most people realize so the slight temperature rise of the past few decades doesn't mean anything. (The 1930s were arguably warmer than today.) E.g., back in the 1870s- a time when CO2 levels were much lower- a severe drought killed 20-50 million people worldwide. If such a thing happened today, then CO2 would, of course, be blamed.CO2 does warm the earth- but water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, not CO2. There's simply no theoretical or experimental proof that rising CO2 will cause water vapor to markedly increase, causing runaway GW. CO2 hysteria then is based solely on computer models, which are NOT reliable since they can't reproduce past climate history and are running "hot" vs. current temperatures. All of this is well-known but that still hasn't stopped CO2 hysteria from dominating world headlines. Why? The author's answer is that CO2 hysteria is driven by socialists who use it to justify their political agenda. That's certainly part of the answer- and the book has numerous quotes to back up this claim. Another factor (not really emphasized by the author) is that CO2 hysteria has become a substitute for religion- to fill the spiritual void left by the decline of religious belief. (Most elite intellectuals- including scientists- are militant atheists with socialist inclinations.) The mainstream media also promotes climate alarmism due to the same bias and because bad news sells (good news is boring).Another factor is that the public simply has too much trust in scientists and doctors. Most people are simply unaware that ~50% of science is wrong. It's long past time to take scientists and doctors off of their pedestals- the public should be much more skeptical of their HYPED claims and agenda. (Just like politicians + priests are no longer blindly trusted.) The notion that scientists are objective is a total myth as recent "science wars" have shown (e.g. the climate+ fat/cholesterol/statin + SUSY/string/multiverse and plate tectonic debates). The public also needs to learn the distinction between true experts vs. specialists. Some fields (like engineering) truly have experts (where useful models exist that can be used to make calculations that agree with experiment-this is why we can trust engineers to design products that work). Real experts should definitely be listened to.Medicine, though, mostly has "specialists" because biology is simply far too complex to be modeled accurately. (There's no such thing as a nutrition or cancer or autism expert.) Instead of admitting what they don't know, many specialists blindly believe in their unproven hypotheses due to group-think and dogma. Specialists may know 100x what you or I know but does that matter? E.g., if I understand 0.1% about cancer and they understand 10%, then they still don't know enough to be blindly trusted.Climate science isn't as complex as biology but there's no such thing as a climate expert either. Due to its complexity and lack of real data, climate science will likely remain a useless field for the foreseeable future. (Despite billions of dollars and 30+ years of effort, climate specialists still can't determine the climate sensitivity of CO2, i.e. how much temperatures will rise per doubling of CO2 levels.) Perhaps most scientific fields (notwithstanding all of the HYPE) are becoming useless as well due to the diminishing returns of scientific investment and the limits of human understanding.Related Reading: Mirrors and Mazes, Rigor Mortis, End of Science, Lost in Math

Dr. Sangster’s book is most helpful in understanding and correcting the extraordinary popular delusion that humans are causing global warming and climate change that are dangerous to humanity, and amount to the biggest crisis of the present time.The organization of the book carries the reader from an introduction to the political and social context of the current controversy about climate, to the history of global climate over hundreds of thousands of years, and then to the relevant science itself. There is penetrating critical analysis of the science and of the history and techniques of dissemination of misinformation to the public about the science.This is an ideal book for readers looking for a clear, articulate, plain English explanation of the science relating to climate change.This book demonstrates that since the late 1980s climate science has become a dogma based upon a hodgepodge of unreliable statistics, arbitrary research techniques and politicized groupthink.Some of the quotations in the book are especially helpful to understanding the nature of the controversy, for example statements made by prime movers in the establishment of the United Nations program to study not the possibility of and causes of a warming climate, but rather “to assess . . . the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change.” With those words as its reason for existence the United Nations climate organization became an advocate for a hypothesis rather than an investigator of the validity of the hypothesis.The author’s careful discussion of the underlying science is illuminating—in explaining not only the science but the tampering with data and the misuse of computer modeling as data rather than as a tool to analyze data.