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

Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor, by Roy W. Spencer, 191 pp, hardback, $21.95, ISBN-10:1-59403-210-6, Encounter Books, 2008.

Most books whose theme is that climate change is caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide repeat dogma based on misleading temperature records and misleading records of the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. (1) Most of the 100 or so books taking the opposite and more optimistic position concentrate on the science. Many address the motivations of climate alarmists in addition to the science. Climate Confusion has solid science on how weather operates, but most space is devoted to climate alarmist motivations, biases, and social networks.

Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology in 1981, was co-developer of the original satellite method for measuring atmospheric temperatures from orbiting satellites, was a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA, and is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He was careful to note that his research funding was from NASA, not Exxon Mobil, despite frequent accusations by climate alarmists. He also wrote that no fuel company has ever asked him for help.

This book was intended to be, and is humorous, with irony, ridicule, and sardonic cartoons. There is an index, but for the intended audience of educated nonscientists, no citations. Along, accurate explanation of how science works, how predictions often fail, and the severe limitations of computer models of climate, whose predictions have failed, is followed by the most detailed explanation of how weather works that I, not being a meteorologist, have ever seen.

Much of the book is quotable. From p 37: "We scientists can usually be divided into two main camps--male and female.... But in contrast to most humans, who must provide useful goods and services in their jobs in order to earn a living, the government-funded scientist's job is to spend your money.... This tends to make most scientists relatively clueless about basic economics."

Spencer explains that research on "global warming" appears to support a man-made cause because this is what the funding was intended to support, abetted by groupthink. He comments on the ballyhooed 2004 study that claimed that, of 928 abstracts of articles dealing with "climate change," none disputed the "scientific consensus" that recent global warming, presumably from 1978-1998, (1) could be attributed to humans. He then noted that he has a stack of such non-consensus papers in his office (p 44), as do I.

Following the chapter on weather is one on how global warming and cooling works, with due respect to water vapor as the main greenhouse gas and the source of Earth's thermostat by making more or fewer sunlight-reflecting clouds, and by moving heat around by precipitating and then evaporating, leading to warming and cooling respectively. Spencer's explanations are very clear. Spencer discusses problems in the thermometric temperature record caused by increasing urbanization of weather stations (p 83).

Chapter 5, "The Scientists' Faith, the Environmentalists' Religion" goes further than any other writing I have seen on the lack of consensus on the causes of climate change. Predictions of warming made in the late 1980s were shown to have been exaggerated. "Some climate scientists act like they are doing something worthwhile for humanity by expressing alarm about global warming. Just like most environmentalists, they seem to think that risks should be reduced through more government regulation [based on unproven assumptions].... Several have said, in effect, 'Even if global warming isn't going to be a problem, reducing fossil fuel use is the right thing to do anyway'" (p 88).

The nonscientific decision to ban DDT use, resulting in the deaths of millions of Africans, is used a dozen times to show how "do-gooding" and political correctness kill people. On p 93 the intimidation of climate skeptics (who now prefer the term "climate realists") by climate alarmists was said to be dangerous. Ad hominem attacks on realists were said to accuse them of behavior as bad as genocide or tobacco promotion, while a major characteristic of alarmists was said to be their difficulty in addressing evidence.

Spencer then goes even further than Michael Crichton in showing how stubborn views, such as "evil" mankind causing global warming, are more characteristic of religion than science (pp 95-102). Spencer recounts an example of an alarmist calling for outlawing climate change denial (p 94). He cites pressure from Al Gore, the Royal Society of London, and the biases of the news journals Science and Nature. Rather than attacks, segregation, and ostracism, Spencer asks: "Why not put our [climate realist] claims in the spotlight and under the microscope, and show everyone the stupidity of our positions?"

The chapter "Economics 101" explains that everything has a cost and a risk. More wealth means more can be done to solve problems, and that capitalism and free enterprise generate the most wealth, even if it is unevenly distributed. The market system that allows the price of oil, for example, to rise, automatically causes individuals' demand to fall. Interference causes shortages, and Spencer gives the examples of California's fixing electricity prices, which led to blackouts in 2000. He notes that the EPA makes regulations with no regard to cost (p 120).

A chapter on the politics of climate change suggests that the federal government begin requesting climate research proposals that fall into two equally funded groups: one to investigate climate destabilizing mechanisms (the alarmist view) and the other for climate stabilizing mechanisms (the realist view). Current peer review, Spencer says, is incestuous (p 127). Indirectly, he shows the continuing folly of having scientifically ignorant (or phobic) politicians, or their appointees, make policy decisions. He proposes that candidates for elective office should have had the experience of running a business.

Finally there are chapters on "dumb" global warming solutions and "less dumb" ones, even though Spencer wrote that there is no reason for climate panic. This includes the environmentalist and alarmist positions that no practical large-scale energy source is acceptable. And there is an excellent conclusion.

My only misgivings were Spencer's failure to present either the carbon dioxide assays from 1812-1965 and the non-correlated global cooling from 1940-1978 and 1998-2008, (1) or the warming in the 19th century without much carbon dioxide from burning. (2) Also missing is the evidence that DDT was guiltless for thinning birds' eggshells. (3)

But this book was written to persuade undecided nonscientists to see climate reality, for whom more facts may not be as helpful as the social commentary. I recommend the book, especially for your patients or schoolchildren who are terrified of "global warming" to the point of having nightmares.

Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D.

Berwyn, Pa.

(1) Kauffman JM. Climate change reexamined. J Sci Exploration 2007;21:723-750.

(2) Robinson AB, Robinson NE, Soon W. Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. J Am Phys Surg 2007; 12:79-90.

(3) Edwards JG. DDT: a case study in scientific fraud. J Am Phys Surg 2004;9:83-88.