Grok Summaries of my Climate Recommended Books

 

Please read & summarise this book: 1. Not For Greens by Prof. Ian Plimer 2014
Summary of Not for Greens: He Who Sups with the Devil Should Have a Long Spoon by Ian Plimer (2014)
Not for Greens by Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist and climate change skeptic, is a polemical critique of the environmental movement, particularly the "greens," whom Plimer accuses of promoting unrealistic and harmful policies. Published in 2014 by Connor Court Publishing, the book uses the production of a stainless steel teaspoon as a central metaphor to argue that modern industrial processes, reliant on fossil fuels and complex systems, are essential for human progress and cannot be replaced by green alternatives without severe consequences. Below is a summary of the book’s key themes, arguments, and conclusions, based on available information and analysis.
Key Themes and Arguments
  1. Critique of Green Ideology and Hypocrisy:
    • Plimer argues that the green movement, initially rooted in genuine environmental concern, has morphed into an unelected, extremist political force that lacks accountability and scientific grounding. He portrays greens as hypocrites who criticize fossil fuels while benefiting from modern conveniences (e.g., stainless steel cutlery) that depend on them.
    • He contends that greens advocate for a return to a pre-industrial lifestyle but fail to live by their own principles, enjoying the comforts of modern technology while demanding others abandon them. Plimer suggests that unless greens live sustainably in caves without modern tools, they should be dismissed as inconsistent.
  2. Defense of Fossil Fuels and Industrial Progress:
    • Using the stainless steel teaspoon as an allegory, Plimer illustrates the complexity of industrial processes, which involve coal, energy, mining, international trade, and centuries of scientific advancement. He argues that these processes are indispensable for creating safe, reliable tools that prevent bacterial contamination and improve quality of life.
    • Plimer asserts that fossil fuels and nuclear power are critical to sustaining modern civilization. He claims that green alternatives like wind, solar, and biomass energy are inefficient, emit more carbon dioxide than they save, and cannot support the energy demands of industrial production (e.g., no teaspoon could be made using "alternative energy").
  3. Skepticism of Anthropogenic Climate Change:
    • Plimer challenges the scientific consensus on human-induced climate change, arguing that it has not been conclusively proven that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) drive global warming. He claims that natural processes, such as ocean degassing or volcanic activity, could account for increases in atmospheric CO2.
    • He minimizes the impact of human CO2 emissions, stating that they constitute only a small fraction (e.g., one molecule in 85,000) compared to natural emissions, ignoring the carbon cycle’s role in balancing natural emissions and sinks. Plimer also disputes claims of recent global warming, citing outdated or misinterpreted data.
  4. Criticism of Green Policies and Their Consequences:
    • Plimer argues that green policies, adopted by "supine governments," lead to negative outcomes, including rising costs, increased taxes, energy poverty, political instability, decreased longevity, and environmental degradation. He cites examples like fuel poverty in Europe and economic challenges in regions pursuing renewable energy.
    • He contends that reducing CO2 emissions has no measurable impact on climate and only impoverishes societies by increasing energy costs without delivering promised environmental benefits.
  5. Confrontational Style and Broader Social Commentary:
    • The book adopts a combative tone, with Plimer accusing greens of using fearmongering, hyperbole, and deceptive tactics to push their agenda. He describes climate scientists as activists rather than scientists and criticizes institutions like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as politically motivated.
    • Plimer frames his work as a defense of science and reason against what he sees as a "totalitarian" green movement that stifles debate and misleads the public. He also highlights the economic and social costs of green policies, such as reliance on Chinese-manufactured renewables, which he claims undermines sovereignty and exploits labor in developing nations.
Key Claims and Scientific Critiques
Plimer’s arguments have been heavily criticized by climate scientists for factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations:
  • CO2 Emissions: Plimer’s claim that human CO2 emissions are negligible ignores the carbon cycle, where natural emissions are balanced by natural sinks (e.g., oceans and biosphere), making human emissions the primary driver of atmospheric CO2 increases. Ice core data and isotopic analysis confirm the anthropogenic source of rising CO2 levels.
  • Renewable Energy: His assertion that wind, solar, and biomass emit more CO2 than they save contradicts life-cycle analyses, which show renewables generally have lower emissions than fossil fuels, though their production and intermittency pose challenges.
  • Climate Data: Plimer’s denial of recent global warming and misuse of temperature records (e.g., claiming 1934 was the warmest year globally) have been debunked, as global datasets confirm 1998 and subsequent years as among the warmest, with a clear warming trend.
  • Volcanic CO2: His claim that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activity is incorrect; the US Geological Survey estimates human emissions are 130 times greater than volcanic contributions.
Critics, including climate scientist Ian McHugh, argue that Plimer employs a "Gish Gallop" debating tactic—overwhelming opponents with numerous claims, many of which are misleading or unsupported. His refusal to engage with specific criticisms, as noted in reviews of his earlier work Heaven and Earth, further undermines his credibility.
Reception and Impact
  • Supporters: The book resonates with climate skeptics and those critical of environmental policies. Readers on platforms like Amazon and Goodreads praise its clarity, humor, and "common-sense" approach, appreciating Plimer’s credentials as a geologist and his challenge to the green narrative. Some describe it as a refreshing antidote to climate change "hysteria."
  • Critics: Climate scientists and environmentalists dismiss the book as unscientific and polemical. Reviews in outlets like Crikey and The Guardian highlight factual errors, lack of citations, and Plimer’s evasive responses to challenges. The book’s influence is noted within Australian conservative circles, particularly among Coalition MPs, but it has been criticized for fueling misinformation.
  • Cultural Context: Published during a period of intense climate policy debate in Australia under the Abbott government, the book gained traction among skeptics and was promoted by groups like the Institute of Public Affairs. Its appeal lies in its provocative style and alignment with anti-green sentiments, though it lacks mainstream scientific acceptance.
Conclusion
Not for Greens is a provocative, controversial book that challenges the environmental movement and climate change consensus through a skeptical lens. Plimer argues that green policies are impractical, economically damaging, and scientifically unfounded, using the stainless steel teaspoon to underscore the indispensability of fossil fuels. While it appeals to those distrustful of environmentalism, the book’s scientific claims are widely criticized for inaccuracies and selective reasoning. It serves as a rhetorical rallying point for climate skeptics but falls short of rigorous scientific scholarship due to its lack of citations and engagement with counterevidence. For a balanced perspective, readers are encouraged to cross-reference Plimer’s claims with peer-reviewed climate science and critiques from sources like Crikey or The Guardian.
Note: I have not directly read the book but have synthesized this summary from reliable sources, including reviews, synopses, and critiques available on the web. If you seek specific details or excerpts, I recommend accessing the book through a library or retailer like Booktopia or Amazon. For further scientific context, consult primary climate research or IPCC reports.

==================================================================================
Please read & summarise this book:2. Apocalypse Never by Michael Shellenberger 2020
Summary of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All by Michael Shellenberger (2020)
Apocalypse Never, published in 2020 by HarperCollins, is a controversial book by Michael Shellenberger, a longtime environmental activist and founder of Environmental Progress. Shellenberger argues that climate change, while real, is not an existential threat and that environmental alarmism—exaggerated claims of impending catastrophe—causes more harm than good. He advocates for a pragmatic, technology-driven approach to environmental challenges, emphasizing nuclear power and economic growth over renewable energy and restrictive policies. The book critiques the environmental movement’s tactics, media sensationalism, and policies that Shellenberger believes hinder progress, particularly in developing nations. Below is a summary of its key themes, arguments, and reception, based on available reviews and analyses.
Key Themes and Arguments
  1. Climate Change Is Real but Not Apocalyptic:
    • Shellenberger acknowledges human-driven climate change but argues it is manageable and not the end-of-the-world scenario often portrayed. He cites data showing progress, such as declining carbon emissions in developed nations (e.g., Britain, Germany, and France since the 1970s) and a 92% drop in natural disaster deaths since the 1920s due to improved infrastructure and technology.
    • He disputes claims like the Himalayan glaciers disappearing by 2035, arguing they stem from misinterpretations of IPCC reports. Shellenberger asserts that crop yields will increase by 20–30% in coming decades, countering famine predictions, and that extreme weather events are not historically unprecedented.
  2. Environmental Alarmism Harms Progress:
    • Shellenberger contends that exaggerated narratives—such as claims that “billions will die” or that extinction is imminent—fuel eco-anxiety, particularly among youth, and undermine rational solutions. He cites misquotes, like a Guardian article misconstrued to suggest mass death at 4°C warming, to show how media and activists distort science.
    • He argues alarmism leads to ineffective policies, such as opposition to nuclear power, which he sees as the most viable low-carbon energy source. Shellenberger claims environmentalists’ focus on renewables like wind and solar, which he calls “unreliables,” ignores their high land use and intermittency issues.
  3. Nuclear Power as the Solution:
    • A central thesis is that nuclear energy is the only scalable, low-carbon energy source capable of meeting global demand while minimizing environmental impact. Shellenberger claims nuclear has saved over two million lives by reducing air pollution, which kills seven million annually. He dismisses concerns about nuclear waste, calling it safe and manageable.
    • He criticizes environmentalists for opposing nuclear power due to ideological biases, alleging they prioritize fossil fuel interests or Malthusian fears of overpopulation. Shellenberger also supports natural gas as a low-emission bridge fuel.
  4. Economic Growth and Development:
    • Shellenberger, a Cornucopian, believes economic growth and technological innovation are key to solving environmental problems. He argues that developing nations, like the Congo, need fossil fuels, hydroelectric dams, and infrastructure to escape poverty, which he sees as a greater threat than climate change.
    • He accuses green groups of “environmental colonialism” for pushing renewables on poor nations, which he claims are inefficient and slow development. Shellenberger argues that wealthy nations’ prosperity came from fossil fuels and that denying this to others is unethical.
  5. Critique of Environmental Narratives:
    • The book debunks several environmental claims, such as polar bear extinction (populations are stable or growing), rampant species loss (only 0.8% of species extinct since 1500), and deforestation crises (protected areas have grown to 15% of Earth’s surface).
    • Shellenberger criticizes policies like biofuel expansion, which he says destroys habitats, and wind farms, which harm birds and bats. He also challenges the vilification of red meat, arguing it’s less environmentally damaging than claimed.
  6. Malthusianism and Ideological Bias:
    • Shellenberger traces environmental alarmism to Malthusian ideologies that fear overpopulation and resource scarcity. He argues this mindset drives anti-human policies, like denying energy access to Africa, and fuels a “war on abundant energy, food, and civilization.”
    • He accuses groups like Extinction Rebellion of exaggerating extinction risks and claims their rhetoric lacks scientific backing. Shellenberger sees environmentalism as increasingly ideological, replacing positivity with fear and anger.
Scientific and Critical Reception
  • Supporters: The book has been praised by some scientists (e.g., Tom Wigley, Kerry Emanuel) and conservative outlets like The Wall Street Journal and National Review for its data-driven optimism and critique of alarmism. Readers on Goodreads and Amazon appreciate its accessible style and contrarian perspective, with some calling it a “refreshing” counter to doomsday narratives.
  • Critics: Climate scientists and environmentalists, such as Peter Gleick in Yale Climate Connections, argue the book is “deeply flawed,” citing cherry-picked data, outdated studies, and logical fallacies. Gleick disputes Shellenberger’s minimization of species loss, noting he confuses species richness with biodiversity, and his dismissal of extreme weather links to climate change.
  • Scientific Errors: Critics highlight inaccuracies, such as Shellenberger’s claim that wind farms cause insect declines (attributed to agriculture by entomologists) or his underestimation of renewable energy’s potential. His nuclear advocacy is seen as overly dismissive of renewables’ progress and storage solutions.
  • Polemical Style: Reviewers like Sam Bliss in the Los Angeles Review of Books argue Shellenberger prioritizes “owning the libs” over constructive dialogue, using selective evidence to appeal to climate skeptics. His broad attacks on environmentalists are criticized as strawman arguments.
Cultural and Political Context
Published amid heated climate debates, Apocalypse Never gained traction among those skeptical of mainstream environmentalism, particularly in conservative circles. Its release coincided with growing eco-anxiety, which Shellenberger addresses by advocating rational optimism. However, his ties to nuclear advocacy and criticism of renewables have led some to label him a “pro-energy lobbyist,” though he denies being a climate denier. The book’s extensive endnotes (1,200) aim to bolster credibility, but critics argue they often cite questionable or misinterpreted sources.
Conclusion
Apocalypse Never is a provocative critique of environmental alarmism, arguing that climate change is a manageable problem best addressed through nuclear power, economic growth, and pragmatic policies. Shellenberger’s Cornucopian perspective challenges Malthusian fears, emphasizing human ingenuity and the benefits of industrialization. While praised for its optimism and accessibility, the book is heavily criticized for scientific inaccuracies, selective evidence, and a confrontational tone that alienates environmentalists. It appeals to readers seeking a counter-narrative to apocalyptic rhetoric but falls short of rigorous scholarship, as noted by climate experts. For a balanced view, readers should consult primary IPCC reports or critiques in Scientific American or Yale Climate Connections.
Note: I have not directly read the book but synthesized this summary from reviews, summaries, and analyses available online, including Yale Climate Connections, Goodreads, and The Guardian. For specific details, consider accessing the book via Amazon or libraries. To verify claims, cross-reference with peer-reviewed climate science.

============================================================================

Please read & summarise this book: 3. False Alarm by Bjorn Lomborg 2020
Summary of False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet by Bjørn Lomborg (2020)
False Alarm, published in 2020 by Basic Books, is a provocative book by Bjørn Lomborg, a Danish political scientist and president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. Known as the “skeptical environmentalist,” Lomborg argues that while climate change is real, the apocalyptic rhetoric surrounding it is exaggerated, leading to costly and ineffective policies that harm the poor and fail to address the problem efficiently. He advocates for a pragmatic, cost-benefit approach, emphasizing adaptation, innovation, and a carbon tax over drastic emissions cuts. The book, structured in five sections, critiques climate alarmism, evaluates current policies, and proposes alternative solutions. Below is a summary of its key themes, arguments, and reception, based on reviews and analyses.
Key Themes and Arguments
  1. Climate Change Is Real but Not Cataclysmic:
    • Lomborg acknowledges human-driven climate change, citing the scientific consensus that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions increase global temperatures. Using the MAGICC model (used by UN climate scientists), he projects a “middle-of-the-road” scenario with a 7.4°F (4.1°C) temperature rise by 2100 if no drastic cuts are made.
    • He argues this is not an existential threat. Historical data shows adaptation has reduced climate-related deaths significantly: climate disasters killed 500,000 annually in the 1920s but fewer than 20,000 today, despite a larger population. Examples include Bangladesh reducing hurricane deaths from 15,000 annually (1970–2000) to 12 since 2010 through better infrastructure.
    • Lomborg disputes alarmist claims, such as mass droughts or worsening wildfires, stating there’s no evidence of increased frequency or severity. Sea levels have risen about a foot in 150 years, but societies have adapted through measures like dikes in the Netherlands or flood management in Houston.
  2. Alarmism Fuels Fear and Bad Policy:
    • Lomborg contends that media, activists, and politicians exaggerate climate impacts, fostering panic. A 2019 poll cited in the book found 48% of people believe climate change could end humanity, and 57% of teenagers fear global warming. He argues this fear drives irrational policies and eco-anxiety, with children protesting and adults questioning the ethics of having children.
    • He accuses the media of attributing every weather event to climate change, ignoring adaptation’s role. For example, improved building codes and early warning systems have mitigated losses from hurricanes and fires.
    • Alarmism, he claims, benefits media (sensationalism sells), academics (funding), and politicians (justifying taxes), but distorts public perception and policy priorities.web:0-EconomicCostsofAlarmistPolicies: -Lomborgestimatesclimatepolicies,liketheParisAgreement,costtrillionswhiledeliveringminimalbenefitsHeclaimstheAgreement’spledges(eg,UScuttingemissions26%by2025)couldcost$154–172billionannuallyfortheUSalone,yetreducewarmingbyonly04°Fby2100Globally,currentpoliciescost$400billionyearly,projectedtoescalatetotensoftrillions,withrenewablessubsidies($141billionannually)providingjust1%ofglobalenergy(IEAestimates5%by2040)web:11
    • He argues these policies disproportionately harm the poor, as energy price hikes from renewables subsidies hit low-income households hardest. In contrast, fossil fuels are essential for lifting developing nations out of poverty, as seen in the failure of solar grids in places like Rukua, Fiji, which couldn’t power basic needs.
    • Lomborg critiques the Paris Agreement as “the most expensive treaty in history,” returning only 11 cents per dollar invested, crowding out investments in health, education, and nutrition that could yield higher global benefits.
  3. Critique of Current Climate Strategies:
    • Lomborg argues that renewables like solar and wind are inefficient, citing their 11% share of US energy (projected 16–20% by 2050) and high costs relative to output. He claims they can’t scale to meet global energy demands, especially in poor nations, and require fossil fuel backups due to intermittency.
    • International agreements (Rio, Kyoto, Paris) have failed to reduce emissions significantly, as countries like China and India continue to rely on coal. Lomborg notes that post-2030 emissions cuts are often ignored in cost estimates, inflating perceived benefits.
    • He criticizes the dismissal of adaptation, which he sees as a proven, cost-effective strategy, and the neglect of fossil fuel subsidies ($1 trillion annually) compared to renewables’ focus.
  4. Proposed Solutions:
    • Adaptation: Invest in infrastructure (e.g., flood barriers, heat-resistant crops) to reduce climate impacts, as demonstrated by successful adaptations in Bangladesh and California.
    • Carbon Tax: Implement a modest, progressive carbon tax to incentivize low-carbon innovation without crippling economies. Lomborg supports a tax aligned with economic models like DICE, though critics note DICE may underestimate climate damages.
    • Innovation: Fund R&D for green technologies, such as energy storage, carbon capture, and nuclear fusion, to make low-carbon energy affordable and scalable. He cites historical innovation (e.g., fracking) as evidence of human ingenuity.
    • Geoengineering: Consider as a backup if other measures fail, though Lomborg acknowledges its risks.
    • Address Other Priorities: Redirect resources to poverty alleviation, education, and health, which offer higher returns. For example, improving nutrition could boost global GDP more than climate policies.
  5. Broader Context for Global Challenges:
    • Lomborg argues that climate change, while serious, is one of many issues (e.g., poverty, disease) that deserve attention. He estimates unchecked climate change could cost $140 trillion in global GDP by 2100 (1–2% annually), but poverty and disease kill millions yearly, warranting balanced investment.
    • He advocates a human-centric approach, prioritizing economic growth and resilience to improve lives, especially in developing nations, over symbolic but ineffective emissions cuts.
Scientific and Critical Reception
  • Supporters: The book is praised by figures like Matt Ridley and Jordan Peterson for its data-driven moderation, offering a counterpoint to apocalyptic narratives. Outlets like Forbes, National Review, and The Wall Street Journal commend its meticulous research and pragmatic solutions. Readers on Goodreads (400+ reviews, ~4/5 stars) appreciate its nuanced, non-partisan take, calling it “essential” for policy debates.
  • Critics: Climate scientists and environmentalists, such as Bob Ward of the Grantham Research Institute, criticize Lomborg for misusing data, cherry-picking outdated studies, and exaggerating costs. His claim of an “optimal” 3.75°C warming by 2100 is deemed out-of-date, ignoring Paris Agreement goals (1.5–2°C) and modern humans’ lack of adaptation to such temperatures.
  • Scientific Errors: Critics note Lomborg’s reliance on the DICE model underestimates climate damages, and his cost estimates (e.g., doubling Nordhaus’s figures based on a 2009 study) are misleading, as the EU met its 20% emissions cut early at lower costs. He’s accused of ignoring renewable energy’s growth (e.g., China’s 50% renewable capacity by 2024) and innovations like batteries.
  • Polemical Style: Reviewers, including The Guardian and Joseph Stiglitz in The New York Times, argue Lomborg’s narrative distorts science to downplay risks, appealing to “lukewarmers” but lacking scholarly rigor. His dismissal of regulations (e.g., coal plant bans) and naive faith in markets are criticized as ignoring market failures.
  • Cultural Impact: The book gained traction among conservatives and skeptics, amplified by Murdoch-owned media, but is dismissed by environmentalists as “the Lomborg scam” (per E.O. Wilson). Its influence is notable in policy circles, though critics warn it fuels inaction.
Conclusion
False Alarm argues that climate change, while a real challenge, is not an apocalyptic threat, and panic-driven policies waste trillions, harm the poor, and fail to fix the planet. Lomborg’s cost-benefit analysis advocates adaptation, carbon taxes, and innovation over renewables and drastic emissions cuts, urging a balanced approach that addresses poverty and health alongside climate. Praised for its data-driven optimism, the book is criticized for scientific inaccuracies, selective evidence, and underestimating climate risks. It appeals to those seeking a middle ground but is seen as misleading by experts, particularly for ignoring Paris Agreement progress and renewable advancements. For a balanced view, readers should consult IPCC reports or critiques in Yale Climate Connections or The Guardian.
Note: I have not directly read the book but synthesized this summary from reviews, summaries, and analyses, including Forbes, Goodreads, The Guardian, and Lomborg’s own posts on X. For specific details, access the book via Amazon, Hachette, or libraries. Verify claims with peer-reviewed climate science, such as IPCC reports.

==========================
Please read & summarise this book: Fossil Future by Alex Epstein 2022
Summary of Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas—Not Less by Alex Epstein (2022)
Fossil Future, published in 2022 by Portfolio/Penguin, is a controversial book by Alex Epstein, a philosopher and energy commentator who founded the Center for Industrial Progress. Building on his earlier work, The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels (2014), Epstein argues that fossil fuels are essential for human flourishing and that their benefits far outweigh their negative impacts, including climate change. He contends that the world should increase, not decrease, the use of oil, coal, and natural gas to empower billions, particularly in developing nations, while improving “climate mastery” and promoting “energy freedom.” The book critiques the mainstream environmental narrative, which Epstein calls the “anti-impact framework,” and proposes a “human flourishing framework” to evaluate energy policy. Below is a summary of its key themes, arguments, and reception, based on reviews, analyses, and web sources.
Key Themes and Arguments
  1. Human Flourishing Framework:
    • Epstein introduces a “human flourishing framework,” which prioritizes human life, health, and prosperity as the moral standard for evaluating energy policies. He contrasts this with the “anti-impact framework” of environmentalists, which he claims values pristine nature over human needs and demonizes fossil fuels for their environmental side effects.
    • He argues that fossil fuels are uniquely cost-effective, reliable, and scalable, providing energy that has driven unprecedented improvements in life expectancy, income, and living standards. For example, he cites data showing that fossil-fueled development has reduced climate-related deaths by 98% since the 1920s, as infrastructure like air conditioning and flood control mitigates natural disasters.
  2. Benefits of Fossil Fuels:
    • Epstein emphasizes three principles for evaluating fossil fuels: (1) consider their benefits, (2) account for “climate mastery” benefits, and (3) assess climate side effects precisely. He argues that mainstream “experts” ignore the first two and exaggerate the third.
    • Fossil fuels power essential services—transportation, heating, electricity, and industrial processes—enabling modern civilization. Epstein notes that 80% of global energy comes from fossil fuels, and their use is growing, while renewables like solar and wind (3% of global energy) are unreliable and costly without fossil fuel backups.
    • He highlights the plight of the “unempowered world,” where 3 billion people use less electricity than a typical American refrigerator. Fossil fuels, he argues, are morally necessary to lift these populations out of poverty, as seen in historical correlations between energy use and quality-of-life metrics.
  3. Climate Change and “Climate Mastery”:
    • Epstein acknowledges that fossil fuels contribute to warming (about 1°C over 170 years) but argues that their climate impacts are manageable and not catastrophic. He claims that “climate mastery”—technologies and infrastructure powered by fossil fuels—has made societies 50 times less vulnerable to climate disasters than a century ago.
    • He disputes apocalyptic predictions, arguing that the “knowledge system” (media, scientists, and institutions) exaggerates risks by focusing on worst-case scenarios and ignoring adaptation. For instance, he cites declining storm-related deaths despite rising CO2 levels, attributing this to fossil-fueled infrastructure.
    • Epstein also notes positive climate effects, such as global greening (increased plant growth due to CO2) and warming in cold regions, which he claims are underreported.
  4. Critique of the “Knowledge System”:
    • Epstein argues that the mainstream “knowledge system”—comprising scientists, media, and policymakers—distorts energy and climate debates. He accuses it of lionizing “experts” like Bill McKibben, Paul Ehrlich, and James Hansen, who have made inaccurate predictions (e.g., resource depletion or mass starvation) yet remain influential.
    • He claims this system operates on an “anti-impact” bias, equating any human alteration of nature (e.g., CO2 emissions) with harm, and ignores fossil fuels’ benefits. Epstein calls for critical thinking over blind trust in “experts,” advocating that they be treated as advisors, not authorities.
  5. Renewables and Energy Policy:
    • Epstein dismisses claims of an imminent “renewable revolution,” arguing that solar and wind are expensive, intermittent, and dependent on fossil fuels for backup. He cites rising electricity prices and blackouts in regions heavily invested in renewables, like Germany and California.
    • He proposes “energy freedom” policies, including deregulation to allow fossil fuels and nuclear power to compete without subsidies or mandates. Epstein sees nuclear as a promising long-term alternative but argues that renewables cannot scale to meet global energy needs, especially for the developing world.
  6. Moral Case for Fossil Fuels:
    • Epstein frames increased fossil fuel use as a moral imperative, particularly for the 10% of humanity without reliable power. He argues that restricting fossil fuels is “anti-human,” condemning billions to poverty and death, and accuses environmentalists of prioritizing nature over people.
    • He contrasts his view with what he sees as the environmental movement’s “catastrophizing” rhetoric, exemplified by figures like Al Gore and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, whom he claims distort science to push anti-fossil fuel agendas.
Scientific and Critical Reception
  • Supporters: Fossil Future is praised by conservative outlets (Forbes, National Review, Wall Street Journal), libertarian groups (Ayn Rand Institute), and figures like Robert Zubrin for its bold defense of fossil fuels and human-centric perspective. Readers on Goodreads (~230 reviews, ~4.2/5 stars) and Amazon call it a “masterpiece” for its clarity, data, and challenge to “green ideology.” Supporters value Epstein’s emphasis on fossil fuels’ role in poverty alleviation and his critique of renewable energy’s limitations.
  • Critics: Climate scientists, environmentalists, and progressive outlets (Slate, Vox, Foreign Policy, The New Republic) criticize the book for cherry-picking data, ignoring long-term climate risks, and underestimating renewable energy’s potential. They argue Epstein conflates correlation (fossil fuel use and prosperity) with causation and dismisses evidence of escalating climate impacts, such as extreme weather or sea-level rise.
  • Scientific Errors: Critics, including Roger Pielke Jr., note that Epstein’s claim that fossil fuels cannot be partially replaced is false, citing France’s shift from 90% fossil fuels in 1965 to under 50% by 2021 through nuclear and renewables. His optimism about “climate mastery” is seen as downplaying risks like mass migration or ecosystem collapse. The International Energy Agency’s 2022 projection of a fossil fuel consumption peak by 2030 under current policies contradicts Epstein’s narrative of indefinite growth.
  • Polemical Style: Reviewers argue Epstein’s confrontational tone and “anti-impact framework” caricature oversimplify environmentalism, alienating mainstream readers. His philosophical approach is criticized for lacking scientific rigor, and his dismissal of climate science consensus (e.g., the 97% fallacy) is seen as misleading.
Cultural and Political Context
Published during global energy price spikes and debates over net-zero policies, Fossil Future gained traction among climate skeptics, conservatives, and fossil fuel advocates, amplified by endorsements from figures like Peter Thiel and Dan Crenshaw. Its release followed Epstein’s congressional testimonies and aligns with a broader “lukewarmer” movement that acknowledges warming but downplays its severity. Critics argue the book fuels denialism, particularly in GOP circles, where it’s seen as a potential mainstream talking point. However, its influence is limited by its polarizing style and rejection by climate scientists.
Comparison to Other Books
Like Not for Greens, Apocalypse Never, and False Alarm, Fossil Future challenges climate alarmism but stands out for its unapologetic advocacy for more fossil fuel use, rather than moderation or alternative energy. While Plimer denies significant human-driven warming, Shellenberger promotes nuclear power, and Lomborg emphasizes adaptation and cost-benefit analysis, Epstein uniquely frames fossil fuels as morally indispensable, dismissing renewables outright. His philosophical lens and combative rhetoric make the book more ideological than the others, appealing to a niche but passionate audience.
Conclusion
Fossil Future argues that global human flourishing requires increased fossil fuel use, as their benefits—cheap, reliable energy driving prosperity and climate resilience—outweigh manageable climate impacts. Epstein’s human flourishing framework challenges the environmental “anti-impact” narrative, advocating energy freedom and climate mastery over net-zero policies. Praised for its bold, data-driven case, the book is criticized for scientific inaccuracies, selective evidence, and underestimating long-term climate risks. It resonates with skeptics and fossil fuel advocates but is dismissed by experts for ignoring renewable energy’s progress and climate science consensus. Readers should cross-reference Epstein’s claims with IPCC reports, IEA data, or critiques in Foreign Policy or Slate for a balanced perspective.
Note: I have not directly read the book but synthesized this summary from reviews, summaries, and analyses, including Forbes, Goodreads, Slate, and Epstein’s posts on X. For specific details, access the book via Amazon, Penguin Random House, or libraries. Verify claims with peer-reviewed sources like IPCC reports or Yale Climate Connections

==========================
5. The Great Global Warming Blunder by Roy W. Spencer 2010
Summary of The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World’s Top Climate Scientists by Roy W. Spencer (2010)
The Great Global Warming Blunder, published in 2010 by Encounter Books, is a controversial book by Roy W. Spencer, a meteorologist and principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, formerly a senior scientist at NASA. Spencer argues that climate scientists have been misled by natural climate variability, particularly cloud behavior, into overestimating the role of human activities—specifically carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions—in recent global warming. He contends that warming is largely due to chaotic, internal natural cycles, not anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and that fossil fuel use may even be beneficial. The book challenges the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus and calls for a reevaluation of climate science and policy. Below is a summary of its key themes, arguments, and reception, based on reviews, analyses, and web sources.
Key Themes and Arguments
  1. Misdiagnosis of Climate Sensitivity:
    • Spencer’s central thesis is that climate scientists have mistaken cause and effect in analyzing cloud behavior, leading to an inflated estimate of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to CO2. He argues that the IPCC’s assumption—that the small greenhouse effect of CO2 is amplified by positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds (by a factor of three)—is unproven and likely incorrect. Instead, he posits that the global climate is relatively stable and insensitive to small disturbances.
    • He focuses on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), a natural climate cycle, as a driver of recent warming. Spencer claims that variations in cloud cover, influenced by the PDO, cause temperature changes, not vice versa, and that scientists have reversed this causality in their models.
  2. Natural Cycles Over Human Influence:
    • Spencer asserts that recent warming is not primarily human-caused but results from “chaotic, internal natural cycles” that have driven warming and cooling for millennia. He presents evidence, including satellite data, suggesting that these cycles, particularly cloud variations, explain observed temperature changes better than CO2 emissions.
    • He argues that more CO2 in the atmosphere is not to be feared and may be beneficial, citing potential benefits like enhanced plant growth (CO2 fertilization) and warming in cold regions. Spencer suggests that fossil fuel use supports human progress without significant climate harm.
  3. Critique of IPCC and Climate Models:
    • The book accuses IPCC researchers of “group-think” and relying on flawed models that overestimate climate sensitivity. Spencer claims these models fail to account for negative feedbacks, such as increased cloud cover reflecting sunlight, which could dampen warming.
    • He argues that the scientific establishment suppresses dissenting research, including his own, which he claims “virtually proves” that IPCC models are overly sensitive to external forcings like greenhouse gases.
  4. Cloud Feedback and Satellite Data:
    • Spencer’s research, including his 2008 paper with William Braswell, uses satellite data to argue that cloud feedback is likely negative or neutral, not positive as IPCC models assume. He suggests that warming causes fewer clouds (allowing more solar heating), rather than clouds amplifying warming, flipping the conventional understanding.
    • He claims his findings, based on NASA’s Aqua satellite data, reveal a “huge discrepancy” between observed energy loss to space and model predictions, undermining claims of significant anthropogenic warming.
  5. Policy and Societal Implications:
    • Spencer warns that “misguided global warming policy proposals” threaten the world’s poorest by increasing energy costs and limiting access to fossil fuels, which he sees as essential for development. He argues that billions spent on reducing CO2 emissions are wasted if warming is natural.
    • He calls for open debate, accusing politicians, media, and the UN of promoting “hysteria” that distorts science and harms vulnerable populations. Spencer frames his work as a defense of scientific integrity against a corrupt establishment.
Scientific and Critical Reception
  • Supporters: The book is praised by climate skeptics, conservative outlets, and some scientists like Dick Thoenes, who call it “convincing” and a “must-read” for its clear explanation of atmospheric physics and challenge to the IPCC. Amazon and Goodreads reviews (24 reviews, ~4/5 stars) commend Spencer’s courage and substance, with readers appreciating his accessible style and call for debate. Supporters argue it exposes flaws in climate science and policy, with some suggesting it should be “compulsory reading in schools.”
  • Critics: Climate scientists and environmentalists, including Steve Ghan (RealClimate), Barry Bickmore, Ray Pierrehumbert, and Tamino, heavily criticize the book for scientific errors and misrepresentations. They argue Spencer’s cloud feedback model is overly simplistic, easily debunked mathematically, and contradicted by data showing positive cloud feedbacks (e.g., Dessler, 2010).
  • Scientific Errors: Critics note that Spencer’s 2011 paper, cited in the book, was criticized for methodological flaws, leading to the resignation of Remote Sensing’s editor-in-chief, who admitted the peer-review process failed. His claim that satellite data show more energy loss to space is disputed, as subsequent studies align with IPCC models. Spencer’s PDO-driven warming hypothesis is also criticized for ignoring well-established CO2 physics and isotopic evidence linking recent warming to fossil fuels.
  • Polemical Style: Reviewers like Grist and Skeptical Science accuse Spencer of pushing a political agenda, noting his intelligent design advocacy and past analytical errors (e.g., satellite data miscalculations with John Christy) undermine his credibility. They argue he cherry-picks data and ignores the broader evidence, such as the warming trend since 1979, which aligns with surface records.
  • Cultural Impact: The book gained traction among skeptics and conservative policymakers, amplified by figures like Marc Morano, but was dismissed by mainstream climate science. Its influence is limited by its rejection of consensus science and Spencer’s controversial reputation, though it fueled skepticism in political circles, including Utah’s legislature, where Spencer testified.
Comparison to Other Books
Like Not for Greens (Plimer, 2014), Apocalypse Never (Shellenberger, 2020), False Alarm (Lomborg, 2020), and Fossil Future (Epstein, 2022), The Great Global Warming Blunder challenges climate alarmism but is unique in its outright denial of significant anthropogenic warming, aligning closest to Plimer’s skepticism. Unlike Shellenberger’s nuclear advocacy, Lomborg’s cost-benefit approach, or Epstein’s fossil fuel defense, Spencer focuses on a technical argument about cloud feedbacks and natural cycles, grounded in his satellite research. However, his work is less philosophical than Epstein’s and less policy-focused than Lomborg’s, emphasizing scientific critique.
Conclusion
The Great Global Warming Blunder argues that climate scientists have been misled by natural cloud variability into overestimating human-driven warming, which Spencer attributes to internal cycles like the PDO. He claims CO2’s impact is minimal, fossil fuels are beneficial, and climate policies harm the poor. Praised by skeptics for its provocative questions and accessible science, the book is criticized by experts for flawed models, debunked claims, and ignoring robust evidence of anthropogenic warming. Its influence is confined to skeptical circles, but it underscores ongoing tensions in climate debates. Readers should verify Spencer’s claims against peer-reviewed sources like IPCC reports or critiques on RealClimate and Skeptical Science for a balanced view.
Note: I have not directly read the book but synthesized this summary from reviews, summaries, and analyses on Amazon, Goodreads, Skeptical Science, RealClimate, and other sources. For specific details, access the book via Amazon, Encounter Books, or libraries. Verify claims with IPCC reports or primary climate research.

============================================
6.Review and Summary of Challenging 'Net Zero' with Science by Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and Gregory Wrightstone (CO2 Coalition, 2023)
Review and Summary of Challenging 'Net Zero' with Science by Richard Lindzen, William Happer, and Gregory Wrightstone (CO2 Coalition, 2023)
Challenging 'Net Zero' with Science, a 46-page paper published by the CO2 Coalition on February 23, 2023, authored by Richard Lindzen (MIT, Emeritus), William Happer (Princeton, Emeritus), and Gregory Wrightstone (CO2 Coalition Executive Director), argues that Net Zero initiatives—aimed at eliminating fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions—are scientifically invalid and pose catastrophic risks to global prosperity and food security. The paper asserts that these policies violate the scientific method, rely on flawed data and models, and ignore the benefits of carbon dioxide (CO2) and fossil fuels. Below is a summary of its key arguments, a critical review of its claims, and an assessment of its reception, drawing on web sources, reviews, and related materials.
Summary of Key Arguments
  1. Scientific Invalidity of Net Zero:
    • The authors claim Net Zero policies violate the scientific method, which requires theories to be validated by observations. They argue that Net Zero relies on fabricated data, omitted contradictory evidence, and computer models that fail to match real-world observations.
    • Specifically, they assert that 101 of 102 climate models used by Net Zero proponents overestimate warming, rendering them unreliable for policy decisions. These models underpin regulations and subsidies for renewables, electric vehicles, and other Net Zero initiatives, costing trillions.
    • The paper accuses proponents of claiming increased extreme weather (e.g., hurricanes, heatwaves) due to climate change, despite evidence showing no increase or even decreases in such events. For example, they cite a downward trend in high temperatures over nearly 100 years, despite rising CO2.
  2. Benefits of CO2 and Fossil Fuels:
    • CO2 is framed as essential for life, acting as “plant food” that boosts crop yields by approximately 60% at 800 ppm (double current levels). This increase is said to enhance food security, particularly in drought-stricken areas.
    • Fossil fuels are described as economical, abundant, and critical for modern societies, providing energy and feedstocks for nitrogen fertilizers and pesticides that support billions. The authors argue that eliminating fossil fuels would halve global food production, leading to mass starvation.
    • Greenhouse gases (CO2, methane, nitrous oxide) are credited with maintaining Earth’s habitable temperatures, preventing a “freezing” climate.
  3. Minimal Climate Impact of CO2:
    • The authors, leveraging their expertise in radiation physics, argue that CO2’s warming effect diminishes logarithmically as concentrations rise, making it a “weak greenhouse gas” at current levels (420 ppm). They claim Net Zero efforts would avert negligible warming: 0.02°F (no feedback) or 0.06°F (with feedback) for the U.S., and 0.13°F or 0.50°F globally by 2050.
    • They dispute the IPCC’s claim that CO2 drives over 50% of climate change, asserting that natural variability and other factors (e.g., water vapor) are underestimated.
  4. Critique of IPCC and Scientific Institutions:
    • The IPCC is described as a government-controlled body issuing “opinions, not science,” with Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) approved by governments, overriding scientists’ findings.
    • The authors argue that the scientific establishment ignores evidence contradicting Net Zero, such as the lack of catastrophic warming or extreme weather trends, and suppresses dissenting research.
  5. Socioeconomic Consequences:
    • Net Zero is labeled a threat to billions, particularly the poor, by increasing energy costs and limiting access to fossil fuels critical for development. The paper warns of “worldwide impoverishment and starvation” if fossil fuel-derived fertilizers are eliminated.
    • Examples like Sri Lanka and the Netherlands, where fertilizer reductions led to agricultural crises, are cited as cautionary tales of Net Zero policies.
Critical Review
Strengths:
  • Credentials of Authors: Lindzen and Happer are distinguished physicists with expertise in atmospheric radiation, lending weight to their technical arguments about CO2’s diminishing greenhouse effect. Wrightstone’s geological perspective adds a long-term view of climate variability.
  • Focus on Scientific Method: The emphasis on validating theories with observations aligns with core scientific principles, resonating with skeptics who question model-driven policy.
  • Socioeconomic Concerns: The paper effectively highlights the reliance of global agriculture on fossil fuel-derived fertilizers, raising valid concerns about food security in developing nations.
  • Accessibility: The paper’s clear language and downloadable format make it accessible to policymakers and the public, as intended by the CO2 Coalition.
Weaknesses and Critiques:
  • Selective Evidence and Cherry-Picking:
    • The claim that 101 of 102 climate models fail is misleading. Studies (e.g., Hausfather et al., 2020) show that while some models overestimate warming, many align with observations when tuned to realistic emissions scenarios. The paper omits this nuance, exaggerating model unreliability.
    • Assertions about stable or decreasing extreme weather trends contradict data from NOAA and IPCC AR6, which document increases in heatwaves, heavy precipitation, and tropical cyclone intensity in some regions. The authors’ reliance on long-term averages obscures regional and short-term trends.
  • Underestimation of CO2’s Role:
    • The claim that CO2 is a “weak greenhouse gas” ignores its cumulative effect and interaction with water vapor, a feedback mechanism well-established by decades of radiative transfer studies. Critics, like Piers Forster, note that CO2’s greenhouse effect is quantifiable to within a few percent, refuting Lindzen’s water vapor argument.
    • The projected warming reductions (0.02–0.50°F) assume no feedback or outdated feedback estimates, underestimating potential impacts compared to IPCC’s 1.5–4.5°C range for doubled CO2.
  • Dismissal of IPCC:
    • Labeling IPCC findings as “government opinions” oversimplifies its rigorous peer-review process involving thousands of scientists. While SPMs are politically negotiated, the underlying reports are evidence-based, and the authors’ claim of overriding science lacks substantiation.
  • CO2 Benefits Overstated:
    • While CO2 fertilization boosts crop yields, the paper ignores negative impacts like heat stress, altered precipitation, and nutrient depletion, which IPCC and FAO studies show could offset gains, especially in vulnerable regions.
    • The starvation narrative assumes complete elimination of fossil fuels, a strawman, as Net Zero includes transitions to alternatives like green ammonia for fertilizers.
  • Funding and Bias Concerns:
    • The CO2 Coalition, funded partly by fossil fuel interests (e.g., Mercer Family Foundation, Koch network), raises questions about bias. Critics note Happer’s ties to groups like the Heartland Institute, which has a history of challenging climate science.
    • Lindzen’s past errors, such as his iris hypothesis (disproven by satellite data showing positive cloud feedback) and admitted “stupid mistakes” in climate sensitivity estimates, undermine his credibility.
Scientific Accuracy:
  • The paper’s core claim about CO2’s logarithmic effect is correct but not novel; climate models account for this. Its dismissal of feedback mechanisms (e.g., water vapor, clouds) contradicts extensive evidence, as seen in rebuttals by Dessler (2010) and others.
  • The assertion that CO2 does not drive significant warming ignores isotopic and paleoclimate data linking fossil fuel emissions to recent temperature rises. The authors’ focus on natural variability (e.g., PDO) lacks quantitative support to explain observed warming since 1850.
  • The paper’s rejection of extreme weather trends is selective, ignoring peer-reviewed studies showing increased frequency of certain events, even if global averages vary.
Reception:
  • Supporters: The paper is praised by climate skeptic outlets (Watts Up With That, Iowa Climate Science Education, NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT) and figures like Paul Homewood for its bold challenge to Net Zero. On X, users like
    @EcoSenseNow
    and
    @NetZeroWatch
    laud its scientific rigor and warnings about food security, citing Lindzen and Happer’s credentials.
  • Critics: Mainstream climate scientists and outlets like Skeptical Science dismiss the paper as reiterating debunked arguments. MIT colleagues of Lindzen, in a 2017 open letter, rejected his views, affirming CO2’s risks (e.g., sea-level rise, ocean acidification). The paper’s claims about models and weather are seen as misrepresentations, echoing earlier critiques of Lindzen and Happer’s Wall Street Journal letters.
  • Cultural Impact: The paper has influenced skeptic communities and some policymakers, notably in conservative circles, but lacks traction in mainstream science or policy due to its rejection of consensus evidence. Its warnings about fertilizer bans resonate in debates over agricultural policy, as seen in Sri Lanka’s crisis, but are overstated.
Comparison to Other Works
Compared to Not for Greens (Plimer), Apocalypse Never (Shellenberger), False Alarm (Lomborg), Fossil Future (Epstein), and The Great Global Warming Blunder (Spencer), Challenging 'Net Zero' with Science aligns most closely with Plimer and Spencer in denying significant anthropogenic warming, though it focuses on policy (Net Zero) rather than technical mechanisms (e.g., Spencer’s cloud feedbacks). Unlike Shellenberger’s nuclear advocacy or Lomborg’s cost-benefit approach, it rejects mitigation outright, echoing Epstein’s fossil fuel defense but with a stronger scientific veneer due to Happer and Lindzen’s credentials. Its dire warnings about starvation are unique but mirror Epstein’s socioeconomic concerns.
Conclusion
Challenging 'Net Zero' with Science argues that Net Zero is scientifically flawed, relying on invalid models, fabricated data, and an underestimation of CO2’s benefits, while posing catastrophic risks to food security and prosperity. Its strengths lie in its authors’ credentials, focus on the scientific method, and highlighting fertilizer dependence, but it is undermined by selective evidence, debunked claims, and potential bias from fossil fuel funding. While influential among skeptics, it is dismissed by mainstream scientists for misrepresenting climate data and consensus. Readers should critically compare its claims with IPCC reports, NOAA data, or critiques on Skeptical Science and RealClimate for a balanced perspective. The paper’s warnings about agricultural impacts merit consideration, but its rejection of CO2’s climate role is unsupported by robust evidence.
Note: I have not directly read the full paper but synthesized this review from its summary, related CO2 Coalition publications, and critiques on web sources like Watts Up With That, Skeptical Science, and Inside Climate News. The paper is available for download at co2coalition.org. For verification, consult peer-reviewed sources like IPCC AR6 or Nature Climate Change

7. An Assessment Of The Conventional GlobalWarmingNarrative by RichardLindzen, comments by Nic Lewis
Summary of An Assessment of the Conventional Global Warming Narrative by Richard Lindzen, with Comments by Nic Lewis (2022)
An Assessment of the Conventional Global Warming Narrative is a discussion paper by Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Emeritus at MIT, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) on September 22, 2022. The paper challenges the mainstream narrative that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary driver of recent global warming, arguing that climate variability is largely due to natural processes, particularly changes in heat transport between the tropics and poles. Lindzen asserts that the narrative is “absurd” and has led to misguided policies, such as Net Zero, that harm energy systems and economies. Nic Lewis, a climate researcher known for skeptical analyses, provides technical comments endorsing Lindzen’s arguments and adding data-driven critiques of climate models. Below is a summary of the paper’s key arguments, Lewis’s comments, and a critical assessment, based on the document, reviews, and web sources.
Summary of Key Arguments (Lindzen)
  1. Critique of the Greenhouse Effect Narrative:
    • Lindzen argues that the conventional view—where CO2 increases elevate the characteristic emission level, requiring atmospheric warming to restore radiative equilibrium—oversimplifies the climate system. This one-dimensional model dominates IPCC reports but fails to account for the three-dimensional dynamics of the atmosphere, particularly heat transport via oceanic and atmospheric currents.
    • He contends that the IPCC’s focus on CO2 as the primary driver ignores the complexity of climate, which involves distinct tropical and extratropical regimes. The tropics are stabilized by the greenhouse effect and convection, maintaining uniform temperatures, while the extratropics are dominated by baroclinic eddies that transport heat poleward, driving temperature variability.
  2. Natural Variability Over CO2:
    • Lindzen asserts that changes in global mean temperature are primarily due to variations in the tropics-to-pole temperature difference, not CO2-driven greenhouse effects. He cites paleoclimate data, such as Vostok ice cores, showing cooling precedes CO2 decreases during glacial cycles, and no CO2-temperature correlation over 600 million years.
    • He argues that recent warming (about 1°C since 1850) is within natural variability, comparable to the 1919–1940 period, which was not attributed to CO2. Lindzen suggests that natural processes, like changes in the Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) or ocean currents, better explain temperature fluctuations.
  3. Stable Tropics and Polar Variability:
    • The paper emphasizes that tropical temperatures are remarkably stable due to moist adiabatic lapse rates and convection, while high-latitude temperatures are highly variable. Lindzen disputes the IPCC’s claim of polar amplification (where CO2-driven warming is amplified at high latitudes), arguing that neither theory nor data support this. Instead, he attributes polar variability to natural heat transport mechanisms.
    • He cites the Eocene warm period and Last Glacial Maximum, where large climate changes were driven by tropics-to-pole temperature differences, not greenhouse gas changes.
  4. CO2 as a Beneficial Gas:
    • Lindzen calls CO2 a “ridiculous” choice for a pollutant, emphasizing its role as a plant fertilizer. He notes that current levels (420 ppm) are low compared to historical averages, and reducing CO2 by 60% would starve plants and animals without significantly cooling the planet. He references the Early Faint Sun Paradox, where a 30% weaker sun 2.5 billion years ago did not freeze Earth, suggesting CO2’s minor radiative impact.
    • He argues that CO2’s logarithmic forcing means doubling from 280 to 560 ppm has a diminishing effect, producing only modest warming (about 1.2°C without feedbacks).
  5. Policy and Societal Harm:
    • Lindzen frames climate change as a “quasi-religious movement” driven by an absurd narrative, leading to policies that cripple energy systems. He cites the U.S. undermining its energy sector, Europe’s shale gas bans, and reliance on Russian gas as examples of policy failures that increase costs, poverty, and geopolitical vulnerability.
    • He warns that continued demonization of CO2 risks further economic and social disasters, echoing Eisenhower’s 1961 warning about a scientific-technological elite capturing public policy.
Nic Lewis’s Comments
Nic Lewis, a physicist and climate researcher known for estimating lower climate sensitivity, provides technical comments in an appendix, reinforcing Lindzen’s arguments with data-driven critiques:
  • Climate Sensitivity:
    • Lewis argues that equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS)—the warming from doubled CO2—is likely 1–2°C, far below the IPCC’s 2.5–4°C range. He cites his own studies (e.g., Lewis & Curry, 2018) using observational data, which suggest ECS values of 1.5–1.8°C, contrasting with models averaging 3.9°C in CMIP6.
    • He notes that models overestimate tropospheric warming, particularly in the tropics, and fail to match observed surface temperature trends, supporting Lindzen’s claim of model unreliability.
  • Model Failures:
    • Lewis highlights that CMIP5 and CMIP6 models overestimate historical warming by 20–30%, especially in the tropics, and fail to replicate the stable tropical temperatures Lindzen emphasizes. He cites Hausfather et al. (2020) but argues that even “realistic” models overpredict warming when tuned to high-emission scenarios.
    • He supports Lindzen’s tropics-to-pole argument, noting that models struggle to simulate meridional heat transport, leading to exaggerated polar amplification.
  • Natural Variability:
    • Lewis endorses Lindzen’s view that natural variability, such as ocean circulation changes, likely drives much of the observed warming. He points to discrepancies between model-predicted and observed aerosol effects, suggesting natural factors are undervalued.
  • Policy Implications:
    • Lewis argues that high-sensitivity models justify costly Net Zero policies, but lower sensitivity implies minimal warming risks, making such policies unnecessary. He calls for policy grounded in observational data, not model projections.
Critical Assessment
Strengths:
  • Expertise: Lindzen’s background in atmospheric dynamics and Lewis’s rigorous sensitivity analyses lend credibility to their technical critiques, particularly on model limitations and CO2’s logarithmic effect.
  • Focus on Natural Variability: The emphasis on tropics-to-pole dynamics and historical climate variability raises valid questions about oversimplified CO2-centric models, encouraging deeper exploration of heat transport mechanisms.
  • Policy Critique: The paper effectively highlights the socioeconomic costs of Net Zero, such as energy poverty and geopolitical risks, which resonate in debates over energy transitions.
Weaknesses and Critiques:
  • Selective Evidence:
    • Lindzen’s claim that CO2 has no causal role is contradicted by robust evidence, including isotopic analysis and radiative forcing calculations showing CO2’s dominant role in post-1850 warming (e.g., U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment). His reliance on Vostok data ignores higher-resolution studies (Caillon et al., 2003) showing CO2 amplifies warming.
    • The dismissal of polar amplification ignores observational data (e.g., Arctic warming at twice the global rate) and physics-based models showing ice-albedo feedbacks, which Lindzen downplays without substantiation.
  • Model Misrepresentation:
    • Lewis’s claim that models universally overestimate warming is nuanced by studies like Hausfather et al. (2020), which show many CMIP6 models align with observations when using realistic emissions. The authors cherry-pick high-sensitivity models to exaggerate failures.
    • Lindzen’s assertion that models ignore natural variability is misleading, as IPCC models incorporate ocean oscillations (e.g., PDO, AMO) and solar forcing, though uncertainties remain.
  • CO2 Benefits Overstated:
    • While CO2 fertilization boosts plant growth, Lindzen ignores negative impacts like heat stress and nutrient depletion, which IPCC and FAO reports show could reduce crop yields in vulnerable regions. His starvation scenario assumes abrupt CO2 removal, a strawman argument.
  • Funding and Bias:
    • The GWPF, funded partly by fossil fuel interests, and Lindzen’s ties to groups like the Cato Institute raise bias concerns. Critics, including MIT colleagues in a 2017 letter, argue his views misrepresent consensus science.
  • Scientific Errors:
    • Lindzen’s past claims, like the iris effect (negative cloud feedback), were disproven by satellite data showing positive feedbacks (Dessler, 2010). His dismissal of water vapor’s role contradicts precise measurements quantifying its greenhouse effect (Forster, 2023).
    • Lewis’s low ECS estimates are outliers, with mainstream studies (e.g., Sherwood et al., 2020) supporting 2.5–4°C based on multiple lines of evidence, including paleoclimate data.
Reception:
  • Supporters: Skeptic outlets (Watts Up With That, Climate Depot, Iowa Climate Science Education) and figures like Patrick Moore praise the paper for challenging the “climate cult” and highlighting policy harms. On X, users like
    @EcoSenseNow
    amplify its CO2 fertilization argument.
  • Critics: Climate scientists (e.g., Timothy Osborn, Piers Forster) and outlets like Science Feedback and Inside Climate News dismiss Lindzen’s claims as misrepresentations, citing overwhelming evidence for CO2-driven warming. MIT colleagues in 2017 rejected his views, affirming human-caused climate risks.
  • Impact: The paper has influenced skeptic communities and conservative policymakers but lacks mainstream scientific traction due to its rejection of consensus evidence. It fuels debates over Net Zero but is criticized for recycling debunked arguments.
Comparison to Other Works
Like Not for Greens (Plimer), Apocalypse Never (Shellenberger), False Alarm (Lomborg), Fossil Future (Epstein), The Great Global Warming Blunder (Spencer), and Challenging 'Net Zero' with Science (Lindzen, Happer, Wrightstone), this paper denies significant CO2-driven warming, aligning closest to Plimer, Spencer, and Lindzen’s own prior work. Unlike Shellenberger’s nuclear focus, Lomborg’s cost-benefit approach, or Epstein’s fossil fuel advocacy, Lindzen and Lewis emphasize atmospheric dynamics and model failures, with a technical tone. However, its policy critique echoes Epstein and Lomborg, and its CO2 fertilization argument mirrors Challenging 'Net Zero'.
Conclusion
An Assessment of the Conventional Global Warming Narrative argues that the CO2-centric climate narrative is flawed, attributing warming to natural tropics-to-pole heat transport rather than greenhouse gases. Lindzen calls climate change a “quasi-religious” movement driving harmful policies, while Lewis supports this with low-sensitivity estimates and model critiques. The paper raises valid questions about model uncertainties and policy costs but is undermined by selective evidence, disproven claims (e.g., iris effect), and bias concerns from GWPF funding. Its denial of CO2’s role contradicts isotopic, paleoclimate, and modeling evidence, limiting its scientific credibility. Readers should cross-check with IPCC AR6, Nature Climate Change, or critiques on Skeptical Science and RealClimate for balance. The socioeconomic concerns merit discussion, but the rejection of anthropogenic warming is unsupported by robust science.
Note: I have synthesized this summary from the paper’s text (available at co2coalition.org and thegwpf.org), reviews, and analyses on Skeptical Science, Science Feedback, and X posts. For specific details, access the paper directly. Verify claims with peer-reviewed sources like IPCC AR6 or Nature.

================================================================ Grok3:
Are humans contributions CO2 just 3% ?
Human contributions to atmospheric CO2 are often cited as a small percentage of total CO2 emissions, but the 3% figure needs context. Here's a concise breakdown:
  • Total CO2 Emissions: The Earth's carbon cycle involves natural sources (e.g., volcanic activity, respiration, ocean release) and anthropogenic (human-related) sources. Natural sources emit roughly 750-800 billion tons of CO2 annually, while human activities (fossil fuel burning, deforestation, industry) contribute about 30-40 billion tons per year.
  • Human Contribution: This makes human emissions roughly 3-5% of total CO2 emissions. The 3% figure likely comes from comparing anthropogenic emissions to the total carbon cycle flux.
  • Key Context: While the percentage seems small, human emissions are significant because they disrupt the natural balance. Natural CO2 sources are largely offset by natural sinks (e.g., photosynthesis, ocean absorption), but human emissions are additional, accumulating in the atmosphere and driving climate change.
  • Data Check: Recent estimates (e.g., IPCC, NOAA) confirm human activities contribute about 30-40 GtCO2/year, with global CO2 concentrations rising from ~280 ppm pre-industrial to ~420 ppm today, largely due to human activity.


DeepSearch:

Investigating CO2 contributions
  • The request is about whether human CO2 contributions are just 3%. I'm curious about this environmental science topic.
Searching for "human contribution to CO2 emissions percentage"
www.reuters.com
ourworldindata.org
ourworldindata.org
www.epa.gov
www.epa.gov
  • Humans contribute around a third (142 ppm) of atmospheric CO2 (420 ppm), not 3%, per Reuters Reuters. This shows the claim is way off.
  • The impact of human CO2 is significant, even if the percentage seems small, as it disrupts the carbon cycle. It's not just about the amount, but the effect it has.
Browsing reuters.com for "human contribution to CO2 percentage"
  • The browse function didn't return what I expected. There might be an issue accessing the page or extracting info.
Browsing ourworldindata.org for "human contribution to CO2 percentage"
  • Since 1751, humans have emitted over 1.5 trillion tonnes of CO2, with the US accounting for nearly a quarter. This data's about cumulative emissions, not annual percentages.
Browsing skepticalscience.com for "human contribution to CO2 percentage"
  • In 2019, human CO2 emissions were 44.25 billion tons, while the fast carbon cycle fluxes 600 billion tons annually. About 40% of human emissions stay in the atmosphere, not absorbed by natural sinks.
Browsing newscientist.com for "human contribution to CO2 percentage"
  • Human CO2 emissions are currently 26.4 Gt per year, with an extra 5.9 Gt from land disturbances, totaling 32.3 Gt annually from human activities.
  • Natural CO2 emissions include 220 Gt per year from terrestrial vegetation respiration. Oceans have a net flux of 330 Gt per year, but it's part of a cycle.
Searching for "percentage of total CO2 emissions from human activities"
ourworldindata.org
ourworldindata.org
www.reuters.com
www.che-project.eu
www.climate.gov
  • Humans are responsible for about 33.5% of current atmospheric CO2, not 3%, based on the increase from 280 ppm to 421 ppm USA Today. This matches earlier findings from Reuters.
Browsing usatoday.com for "human contribution to CO2 percentage"
  • This confirms that the human contribution to the current atmospheric CO2 is about 33%, not 3%.
  • To answer the question, no, human contributions to CO2 aren't just 3%. They're around 33%, causing the rise from 280 ppm to 421 ppm.
Completed


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Crazy Climate Websites and others

https://ukfires.org/absolute-zero/   https:// e3g.org https://www.uk100.org/UK100membership https://www.zerohour.uk  (Bill in PDF) https://www.sustrans.org.uk / https://www.c40.org/about-c40 https://www.just-food.com/news/lidl-to-cut-back-on-meat-sales-in-favour-of-plant-based-food/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/ https://www.theregister.com/2012/11/13/climate28_named_wtf/?page=2 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/12/goodbye-car-ownership-hello-clean-air-this-is-the-future-of-transport How much shale gas is there in the UK and what is the status of fracking? - Grantham Research Institute on climate change and the environment This idiot https://www.gregfoot.com Geological time scale and plant life through ages | PDF https://710wor.iheart.com/featured/mark-simone/content/2019-10-08-the-list-of-120-years-of-climate-scares-by-scientists/ https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/02/the-bbc-seminar-that-banned-discussion-of-climate-change/ https://www.ae...
Read more

WindTurbines

 Source:  https://farmersforum.com/50-reasons-to-oppose-wind-turbines/ Jane Wilson and John Lee Pettimore Special to Farmers Forum Wind Concerns Ontario likes this opinion by Canadian Armed Forces veteran and former mining technician John Lee Pettimore, posted on “X” (formerly Twitter), on how wind power can’t replace fossil fuels. Pettimore lists 46 reasons why wind turbines cannot replace fossil fuels. We’ve added a few more: 1. Windmills require petroleum every single step of their life cycle. If they can’t replicate themselves using wind turbine generated electricity, they are not sustainable. 2. Too many windmills are needed to replace fossil fuels. 3. Wind turbines can’t be built fast enough to replace fossil fuels. 4. There are not enough materials such as rare earth metals or fossil fueled heat to create the cement, steel, epoxy, and other parts needed. 5. There is not enough dispatchable power, such as natural gas or hydropower, to balance wind intermittence and unrel...
Read more

Climate Change points

Image
Do you like facts? I hope so, because a lot of them are headed your way, pal.     1 . There is no “energy transition.” It's not here. The global demand for fossil fuels (i.e., coal, oil and natural gas) has increased over 117.5% since the 1970s. Fossil fuel consumption is at all-time record highs. For every six units of renewable energy technologies put online, less than one unit of fossil fuel is displaced (see Rather and Mahlik, 2023). https:// ourworldindata.org/energy-product ion-consumption https:// link.springer.com/article/10.100 7/s10098-023-02689-8 2 . Climate change is real, but the “climate crisis” is imaginary. The term is a political distinction that refers to how global warming will allegedly harm the state of human welfare. But, in spite of warming, there is not a single shred of evidence that the warming has had a negative impact on the human condition. Here are some facts which you choose to ignore: 𝐀𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐞 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐦𝐨?...
Read more