February 15, 2016 was the beginning of a debate on man-made climate change between two well-known experts in the field, Dr. William Happer and Dr. David Karoly, hosted by James Barham and his team at TheBestSchools.org. Both have been heavily involved in atmospheric research since the 1980s. Happer believes that burning fossil fuels will have a minimal effect on climate but a large benefit to plant life and humanity. Karoly believes the opposite. How certain is the conclusion by some scientists that burning fossil fuels will lead to a climate disaster? Only debates can ferret out their certainty or lack of it. Burning fossil fuels may cause some harm, but if we stop burning them, we will face certain harm. Which is worse? Debates educate the public, they are necessary. This is an in-depth look at both sides of the debate between two prominent experts.

A detailed description of an important climate change debate between Princeton Professor of Physics Dr. William Happer and University of Melbourne Professor of Atmospheric Science David Karoly. 300 pages, 88 figures.

"In Hot Talk, Cold Science, Fred Singer looks at the issue of climate change the way a physicist should. He asks probing questions and offers reasoned possibilities. He notes the obvious weaknesses that others too often ignore.... Fortunately, some like Dr. Singer still prefer the joys and value of scientific inquiry." —Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor Emeritus of Meteorology, M.I.T. The revised and expanded third edition of Hot Talk, Cold Science forms the capstone of the distinguished astrophysicist Dr. S. Fred Singer's lucid, yet hard scientific look at climate change. And the book is no less explosive than its predecessors—and certainly never more timely. Singer explores the inaccuracies in historical climate data and the failures of climate models, as well as the impact of solar variability, clouds, ocean currents, and sea levels on global climate—plus factors that could mitigate any human impact on world climate. Singer's masterful analysis decisively shows that the pessimistic, and often alarming, global-warming scenarios depicted in the media have no scientific basis. In fact, he finds that many aspects of increased levels of CO2, as well as any modest warming, such as a longer growing seasons for food and a reduced need to use fossil fuels for heating, would have a highly positive impact on the human race. As alarmists clamor to impose draconian government restrictions on entire populations in order to combat "climate change," this book reveals some other startling, stubborn contradictory facts, including: CO2 has not caused temperatures or sea levels to rise beyond historical rates. Severe storms have not increased in frequency or intensity since 1970—neither have heat waves nor droughts. Global "climate change" is not harming coral reefs. Any increases in CO2 concentrations across huge time spans haven't preceded rising global temperatures, they've followed them by about 600 to 800 years—just the opposite of alarmist claims. "Carbon" taxes and other "solutions" to the global warming "crisis" would have severe consequences for economically disadvantaged groups and nations. Alarmist climate scientists have hidden their raw temperature data and deleted emails—then undermined the peer-review system to squelch debate. In sum, despite all the hot talk—and outright duplicity—there is no "climate crisis" resulting from human activities and no such threat on the horizon. With the assistance of renowned climate scientists David R. Legates and Anthony R. Lupo, Singer's Hot Talk, Cold Science is an essential, clear-headed book of scope and substance that no one who claims to value science, the environment, and human well-being can afford to ignore.

The Politics of Climate Change Negotiations describes the successes and failures of long international negotiations and most importantly, examines the lessons they hold for the future. Drawing on more than 100 interviews with climate change insiders in

Most environmental statutes passed since 1970 have endorsed a pragmatic or 'precautionary' principle under which the existence of a significant risk is enough to trigger regulation. At the same time, targets of such regulation have often argued on grounds of inefficiency that the associated costs outweigh any potential benefits. In this work, Jason Johnston unpacks and critiques the legal, economic, and scientific basis for precautionary climate policies pursued in the United States and in doing so sheds light on why the global warming policy debate has become increasingly bitter and disconnected from both climate science and economics. Johnston analyzes the most influential international climate science assessment organizations, the US electric power industry, and land management and renewable energy policies. Bridging sound economics and climate science, this pathbreaking book shows how the United States can efficiently adapt to a changing climate while radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The best briefing on global warming the student or interested general reader could wish for.

Poles Apart is a wide-ranging comparative study on the prevalence of climate scepticism - in its various forms - in the media around the world. It focuses on newspapers in Brazil, China, France, India, the UK, and the USA, but includes an overview of research on the media of other countries.Poles Apart includes a detailed survey of several hundred articles in ten British national newspapers to see where climate scepticism is most to be found, and which individual sceptics and organisations are most quoted.