A must-read: The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change

My friend Marc Morano of Climate Depot has a new book out now “The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change” which is one of many books in the The Politically Incorrect Guide® series that are now available from Regnery Publishing.

I had an early review copy, and here is what I wrote about the book, listed in the beginning section of the book:

“This book covers the history of climate, from the global cooling ‘coming ice age’ scare of the 70s to the ‘we have just a few years left to save the planet’ that characterizes the current global warming scare. Written in a light reading style, virtually every page is meticulously referenced with sources for the points he makes. Love him or hate him, Morano is very effective in conveying the history and the climate flim-flammery under the guise of science that has been going on the last few decades, mostly thanks to huge government funding of climate science. It reads like a postmortem verification of President Eisenhower’s farewell address, which warned of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ but also said, ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’”

— ANTHONY WATTS, publisher of WattsUpWithThat, the world’s most viewed climate-themed website

(added) Though not included in the book (due to it being received past deadline) Dr. Richard Lindzen had this to say:

With his book “Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change”, Marc Morano vies to be the Thomas Paine of the movement to save the world from the tyranny of climate catastrophists. He exposes the seemingly infinite number of absurd claims, and the almost unbounded hypocrisy and venality of the proponents of this clearly inhuman and scientifically implausible attempt to control mankind by controlling and, more importantly, restricting access to energy. This book is an unrelenting polemic of the best kind.

— Emeritus MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen

The book is chock-full of history, and in page after page, points out how climate science has not just been a series of missteps, but an outright colossal failure of the scientific method because it has come to be so highly politicized. As I referenced above, money does that. Morano makes ample use of the work here at WUWT, and references many of our best essays throughout the book.

I particularly liked this bit of history, one I hadn’t read before.

The world is running a fever, and the effects will be dire. As another commentator observed,

Snows are less frequent and less deep. They do not often lie, below the mountains, more than one, two or three days, and very rarely a week. They are remembered to have been formerly frequent, deep and of long continuance. The elderly inform me the earth used to be covered with snow about three months in every year. The rivers, which then seldom failed to freeze over in the course of the winter, scarcely ever do now. This change has produced an unfortunate fluctuation between heat and cold in the spring of the year which is very fatal to fruits.

This same observer also noted,

“I remember that when I was a small boy, say 60 years ago, snows were frequent and deep in every winter.”

Who said that? Al Gore? Leonardo DiCaprio? Nope. That’s Thomas Jefferson, in his 1799 book “Notes on the State of Virginia.

It just goes to show, that even before the industrial revolution started around 1850, before the world saw an invasion of big, bad, carbon belching machines, the climate was changing just like it always has. In today’s political climate, Thomas Jefferson would be labeled a “denier”.

Recently, we were all saddened by the death of our friend John Coleman. In the months preceding his death, he wrote the foreword for this book, and he says it all. I’ll just leave it in his capable hands.

Foreword by John Coleman.

Don’t worry about “climate change,” says Marc Morano—there is no significant manmade global warming.

Are you kidding me? We all know that the icecaps are melting, the oceans are about to flood our cities, and more and more superstorms are happening. And the experts are certain that mankind’s use of fossil fuels is causing it all. We have all the facts; right?

The truth is that there is a debate about climate change but it has been very one-sided. With the U.S. government, all the scientific organizations, Al Gore, the Science Guy, Hollywood, the Democratic Party, and the United Nations all behind the bad news that our use of fossil fuels is destroying the climate of Earth, anyone on the other side of the debate finds themselves behind the eight ball. Peeking out from behind the eight ball is Marc Morano. In this great book he begins his comprehensive review of the debate about global warming by chatting about the history of climate scares in centuries past—and goes on to decisively debunk the current climate scare. By the time he’s done, you will realize you’ve been hoaxed. Climate change has become a scam.

As the founder of the Weather Channel and a six-decade veteran TV news weatherman, I know a great deal about this topic. We meteorologists are well aware of how limited our ability is to predict the weather. Our predictions become dramatically less reliable as they extend out into the future. When we try to predict just a few weeks into the future our predictions become increasingly inaccurate. Yet the “climate change” establishment that now dominates the UN bureaucracy and our own government science establishment claim that they can predict the temperature of the Earth decades into the future. Their global warming scare is not driven by science; it is now being driven by politics.

So today anybody who defies the prevailing “climate change” scare puts his career and his reputation into extreme danger. That is where we find Marc. He is living life behind the eight ball. He has been there for decades. But whatever you may hear from his enemies in the climate change establishment, he is no crazy denier or shill for Big Oil. The explanation is simple. He is so certain of his data that he is quite comfy there behind the eight ball. When you really study the issue, you realize that Marc Morano is absolutely right. And it turns out he is not alone there behind the eight ball. He has developed relationships with hundreds of brilliant scientists and other experts who are willing to testify, along with Marc, that in fact there is no significant man-made global warming.

This book is exactly what parents need to counter the indoctrination our children are now being subjected to. Starting at a very young age and continuing through their teenage years, American school children are being constantly bombarded with climate change propaganda. This is science gone bad. It has become political. And climate science has been hijacked by the extreme fringe of the environmental movement. The truth is that while climate is naturally changing—as it always has—no crisis is occurring and there is no reason to fear any in the future. This book uses over twelve hundred footnotes to bolster its compelling, scientific, and logical demonstration that Al Gore and the United Nations are dead wrong on climate fears. And maybe even more important, this book uses the climate change establishment’s own words to refute their silly claims.

Read this book and Marc will become your hero. Give it to your friends to read. Maybe in the end there will be enough of us who no longer believe the climate change hoax that he and those of us who know he is right can get out from behind the eight ball and enjoy life. Read on, my friend, read on.

Available on Amazon here


94 thoughts on “A must-read: The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change

  1. Another interesting one for everyone to ponder:

    Groupthink on Climate Change Ignores
    Inconvenient Facts
    by Christopher Booker

    Since we’ve now been living with the global warming story for 30 years, it might seem hard to believe that science could now come up with anything that would enable us to see that story in a wholly new light. But that is what I am suggesting in a new paper, thanks to a book called Groupthink, written more than 40 years ago by a professor of psychology at Yale, Irving Janis.

    What Janis did was to define scientifically just how what he called groupthink operates, according to three basic rules. And what my paper tries to show is the astonishing degree to which they explain so much that many have long found puzzling about the global warming story.


    And then there’s this:

    Search on ‘mental obtundity’ for a few bits of insight into the affliction of mental darkness. .

      • I really hate buying things on Amazon because I am not a big fan of theirs, don’t have a Kindle and really dislike the Kindle PC app. On the other hand, I want support your web site.

        What to do, What to do?

        I think I will buy it on Barnes and Noble and make a donation to your web site.

      • Just checked, B&N only has it in paperback, not in Nook format yet. I also do not like to buy from Amazon. Anthony, get a deal with B&N too so we have options.

      • Anthony: Being in Ontari-owe, and not knowing about your arrangement with Amazon.com, I have previously ordered from Amazon.ca. Do you have a similar deal with them?


      • I was able to purchase “The Politically Incorrect Guide® to Climate Change” on Barnes and Nobel yesterday (2/26/2018) but was not able to download the Nook Book until today (2/27/2018) at 10:30 AM EST. I also made a donation the WUWT web site.

    • Exactly. While I appreciate Jeff Bezos giving my rocket-scientist son his first job after graduating from engineering school, I really chafe at the idea of propping up his Left-wing endeavors any further.

      • But doesn’t Amazon and the richest man in the world deserve more of your money, especially in the form of tax breaks for locating offices and warehouses near your community?

      • “I really chafe at the idea of propping up his Left-wing endeavors any further.”

        Bezos isn’t a left-winger. He supports Reason, a libertarian outfit. I don’t know why he bought WaPo except to show that his technology and marketing can make a winner out of a loser.

      • Jeff Bezos does what is best for himself and Amazon. The greatest threat to such a company is the left. See the announcement of Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway and JP Morgan Chase establishing an insurance cooperative to offset the costs associated with the “Affordable Care Act”?
        The best defense is political ambiguity. Do what is best for the bottom line.

  2. Swiss Alpine mountaineer and skiing teacher Theodor Romang published his own thoughts about climate and the vagaries of weather based on a meticulously kept chronicle in his home commune of Saanen. The records are going back to the middle ages and give a fascinating insight about the climate during that period and the sometimes dramatically and fast changing extreme weather and seasonal patterns at that time – all without fossil fuel burning.

  3. It is with hesitancy that I disagree with the great John Coleman, whose forecasts I was not fit to proofread. But I would not have written quite what he wrote:

    there is no significant man-made global warming

    Instead of saying that man-made global warming is insignificant, I would say that it is not significantly harmful, or that it is modest and benign, and that the best evidence is that emissions of what Scientific American once called “the precious air fertilizer” are highly beneficial both for mankind and for virtually all natural ecosystems.

      • Very good question, rocketscientist! Prompted by you, I’ve just sent Dr. Myneni an email, asking that question.

        My guess is that there’s not enough vegetation in those areas to calculate a percentage increase or decrease, using their satellite data.

        The Sahara and the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica obviously have no vegetation, and they are colored white. But much of the American west and Great Plains, Mexico, Argentina, Australia, etc. are colored grey. My guess is that the difference between white and grey is that white means “no vegetation” and grey means “not enough vegetation to determine a trend from our data,” or something like that.

        BTW, do you see that broad, green swath over central Africa? That’s the Sahel retreating, at the southern limit of the Sahara Desert. National Geographic reported on it in 2009 (though without crediting CO2 as the cause). Here’s an excerpt:

        Sahara Desert Greening Due to Climate Change?
        …Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
        The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. …
        “Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said. “Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back… The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”

        Here’s another article about it:
        NewScientist: Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim the desert.

        If you encounter one of those 350-dot-org people, campaigning for drastically lower CO2 levels, please ask him for me, “Is desertification, drought & famine in Africa your goal, or is it just “collateral damage” that you’re willing to accept?”

      • Also it isn’t true that methane traps more IR than CO2

        Methane is only worse in the atmosphere if it burns in the atmosphere which doesnt happen on its own.When mankind burns methane it turns into 1 molecule of CO2 and 2 molecules of water. H2O absorbs 10 times the IR of CO2 ; so that is the source for why methane is supposedly 21 times as powerful as CO2. This only happens when methane burns.Since mankind does not put methane into the air except via cows there is no need to worry because methane has NOT been steadily increasing in volume in the atmosphere. Iit has sometimes reduced and sometimes increased. For any increases maybe we can blame the cows. In any case it is only 1800 ppb (that is parts per billion by volume). So it really is insignificant. Methane does combine with ozone (O3) in the atmosphere to form methanol and oxygen (O2), so it doesnt hang around for a long time. So this whole thing about methane is another example of how the AGW crowd twisted a fact to suit their narrative.
        About the only 3 facts that the AGW crowd got right in 40 years of bullshit is that YES Virginia bad bad mankind has caused CO2 to be put into the atmosphere because of burning fossil fuels. That was proved by measurements of the decrease in the ratio of C14 isotope to the C12 C13 isotopes in the atmosphere. Apparently fossil fuel burning doesn’t produce C14 isotopes whereas natural sources do. The other fact that the AGW crowd got right is that there actually is an increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere from 280ppm since 1850 to 408ppm today. The 3rd fact is that CO2 absorbs Infrared radiation. However those 3 facts (which are the only 3 facts that the AGW can claim as their own have to be weighed against the 1000 other false and ridiculous claims that the AGW crowd has spewed forth in 40 years. One last comment :

        The whole debate is over whether that increase in CO2 actually causes the earths surface temperature to permanently rise. Us skeptics say SHOW US THE MONEY. Because we havent seen any runaway global warming and we havent even seen any significant non runaway warming. By significant I mean a warming not caused by natural factors. I cant prove a pink elephant doesnt exist but it is up to the AGW crowd to prove that the Null hypothesis is not true. They refuse to debate because they say the science is settled. I have never seen a TV or internet debate about this in this 40 years scam of AGW . WHY IS THAT?

      • Alan Tomalty February 25, 2018 at 5:55 pm
        Who is increassing methane emmissions. [?]

        Doesn’t matter, methane is in the news and billed as anywhere from 21 to 86 times as powerful at “trapping” heat than CO2, implying that it’s a huge problem. It isn’t a problem. The news stories never say how much methane will run up global temperatures. The reason for that is that by 2100, the increase in temperature from methane would be too small to measure. It isn’t a problem, neither is CO2.

      • Steve Case wrote, “In the do it my way department – I’d leave out any mention of global temperature and simply say: / ‘Increasing CO2 and methane emissions do represent a problem.'”

        I agree, except that I think you meant they “…do not represent a problem,” right Steve?

        I hate it when my typos invert my meaning. I’ll bet you do, too.

        Alan Tomalty wrote, “When mankind burns methane it turns into 1 molecule of CO2 and 2 molecules of water. H2O absorbs 10 times the IR of CO2 ; so that is the source for why methane is supposedly 21 times as powerful as CO2.”

        That’s incorrect. Methane (CH4) is a GHG because it absorbs long-wave infrared (LWIR) around 7.7µ. The Earth emits much more LWIR of that wavelength than it receives, so absorbing blocks more outgoing radiation than incoming radiation, which is why blocking it has a warming effect.

        The reason that adding 1 ppbv of CH4 has a larger warming effect than adding 1 ppbv of CO2 is that there’s already more than 200× more CO2 than CH4 in the atmosphere. So the warming effect of CO2 is already past the point of diminishing returns. There’s so much CO2 in the atmosphere that its main 15µ absorption band is quite thoroughly saturated, and most of the warming of additional CO2 is from its effect on the fringes of that absorption band, where it absorbs only weakly.

        However, except in very dry areas most of the 7.7µ LWIR absorbed by CH4 would be absorbed by water vapor, anyhow. So you are right that the supposed threat of CH4-induced warming is vastly overblown, and the imaginary threat of “runaway global warming” from CH4 is complete nonsense.

        rckkrgrd wrote, “I would say that the negative consequences of CO2 enrichment and global warming are insignificant but that the benefits are substantial.”

        I agree.

      • So sayith: Alan Tomalty – February 25, 2018 at 7:09 pm

        Also it isn’t true that methane traps more IR than CO2

        Of course its not true, because, as far as I know, the only things in our universe that is supposedly capable of “trapping” thermal (heat) energy are Black Holes which are situate at the centers of galaxies.

        Also sayith: Alan T

        When mankind burns methane it turns into 1 molecule of CO2 and 2 molecules of water. H2O absorbs 10 times the IR of CO2 ; so that is the source for why methane is supposedly 21 times as powerful as CO2.

        Your above statement could be factual as far as I know, …… but its context matters not a twit whenever AGW (anthropogenic global warming) is the subject of discussion.

        To determine which of the per se atmospheric “greenhouse” gases (CO2, H2O, CH4) that is the “most powerful” at absorbing IR energy, …… the atmospheric ppm quantity of each gas is multiplied by the Specific Heat Capacity (SHC) of said gas and the resulting “totals” are compared to each other.

        If one measures the temperature of any specific volume of atmosphere and determines the said temperature is 78 degrees F, ….. then that means that all the gases in that volume of atmosphere, including the different “greenhouse” gases are at 78 degrees F, ……. but, ……. each of the different “greenhouse” gases required the absorption and/or radiation of different quantities of “thermal energy” in order to maintain said 78 degrees F temperature.

        The Specific Heat is the amount of heat per unit mass required to raise the temperature by one degree Celsius.

        CO2 —– Specific Heat Capacity —– 0.844 kJ/kg K
        H2O vapor – Specific Heat Capacity – 1.930 kJ/kg K
        CH4 — Specific Heat Capacity ——– 2.220 kJ/kg K

      • Samuel C Cogar wrote, “To determine which of the per se atmospheric “greenhouse” gases (CO2, H2O, CH4) that is the “most powerful” at absorbing IR energy, …… the atmospheric ppm quantity of each gas is multiplied by the Specific Heat Capacity (SHC) of said gas and the resulting “totals” are compared to each other.”

        Samuel C Cogar, that is incorrect. The specific heat capacity of gases is completely irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect, and nothing to do with how much or how little warming atmospheric gases cause. We’ve been over this before.

        It is the absorption spectrum (“color”) of an atmospheric gas which determines its (misnamed) “greenhouse” warming effect (or lack thereof). Here’s an earlier discussion of this topic, and in November Willis made a herculean effort to educate certain confused readers about it. Specific heat capacity has nothing at all to do with the greenhouse effect.

    • Re david burton:
      **there is no significant man-made global warming**
      No, I agree with that statement, most warming or temperature change is natural.
      I would just add your remarks.

    • I would say that the negative consequences of CO2 enrichment and global warming are insignificant but that the benefits are substantial.

  4. Delicious irony/parody in mimicking the National Geographic design for the cover, and of course the Smiling Poley Bear

    Think I’ll buy a dozen and donate to all the local libraries (heh-heh)

  5. On topic, assuming the topic is books by skeptics.

    I recently published the PAPERBACK EDITION of my short story “DAD, WHY ARE YOU A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER?”

    And I’ve prepared the graphs/illustrations for the second book in the series “DAD, WHY ARE YOU A CLIMATE CHANGE DENIER, TOO?” It’ll be a couple of months until it’s ready for publishing.


    PS: A heartfelt thank you to everyone who’s purchased and will purchase “DAD, WHY ARE YOU A GLOBAL WARMING DENIER?”

  6. “I remember that when I was a small boy, say 60 years ago, snows were frequent and deep in every winter.” ~ Thomas Jefferson, 1799

    The man’s command of the language never ceases to amaze. Thomas Jefferson, the adult, stood 6′ 2 1/2″ tall. Those daunting 18″ snows of his youth undoubtably looked less imposing once full grown.

    • There’s a little problem with that Jefferson quote. He wasn’t a small boy 60 years ago (1739) He was -4 years old. The sperm and egg could not possibly remember the winter LOL
      His parents probably remembered

      • “..when I was a small boy, say 60 years ago…”.

        He could easily have been talking about 1743 or 1744 when he would have been eight or nine.

  7. Added historical note:

    Jefferson also reported/recorded the “weather” day by day during the
    Continental Congress sessions using a mercury barometer and thermometer.

    No one seems interested in digging that information out. This data would
    \otherwise make for a politically incorrect Master’s thesis.

    • The night that Washington led his men across the Delaware River to attack the Hessians at Trenton and save the revolution Jefferson reported 8″ of snow fell at Monticello.

  8. If you stand still (ie expect things including climate to be static) you will be left behind. Look forward. See where your foot lands. Consider where it lands, think about it, but don’t worry about it. Worry about those you love. Friends, family. The world, including climate, has always and will always change. In the end Homo sapiens sapiens must go extinct. Will you help in that evaluation or hinder it?

  9. I would say that the negative consequences of CO2 enrichment and global warming are insignificant but that the benefits are substantial.

  10. Our planet is cold. Only the sunny part receives enough heat and, in summer, the closest hemisphere. But the heat does not keep. Even in a very well insulated house, if you stop the indoor heating the temperature drops to become comparable to that of the outside.

    The heat is rising. Climb to the ceiling in a room and in the sky outside. But, this heat loses degrees when rising. The hot becomes cold. Cold like the intergalactic immensity that surrounds us.

    Only submarine and submarine volcanic heat maintains 24/24 hours a temperature carried by the currents. This heat goes up to the coasts / beaches and rises in the atmosphere. That’s why it’s always better in the seas. Winds also help to warm up distant lands.

    What would happen to our world if the sun were to go out ?! (stupid question often asked).

    Today, our planet would continue to live. On the one hand, abundant energy (nuclear or hydro) could illuminate large greenhouses or buildings built hard with krypton bulbs. The millions (billions ?) Of submarine and submarine hot springs would continue to heat up the wind and currents 24 hours a day. gas carbonic would continue to be absorbed by the plants that supply our oxygen or it would continue to be absorbed / transformed by the phytoplankton present on all oceans, rivers, puddles, rain and fog, in nanoparticles of carbon. These nano become very quickly micro that constitute coal. Coal that turns into gas carbonic during its combustion.

    All is transformed, everything is recycled continuously and forever (and free without the help of anyone !).



  11. I only had to read the first couple of sentences of your Thomas Jefferson quote to realise that it wasn’t anything recent. The whole style of writing was different a hundred and more years ago…

  12. The following from Marc Morano above sums it up perfectly:-
    “President Eisenhower’s farewell address, which warned of the ‘military-industrial complex,’ but also said, ‘The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.’”
    In the UK so many of us now ignore the BBC
    and other parts of our media that questions are now being asked.
    Me?…..I read WUWT….then use foreign tv stations in English with British and American presenters from France, Germany, RT Moscow, China. India and Al Jazeera.”
    All of them have an agenda….

  13. FYI: I wanted to see the Jefferson quote so I did a word search on the word “snow” at the “Notes on the State of Virginia” link. Didn’t read the whole thing but at least when searching for “snow” it came up empty.

  14. I already bought and read a “Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming” about ten years ago. It was full of great facts for rebuttal of the “warmists”, and cute little illustrations of pigs (for Politically Incorrect Guide).

    Maybe Marc Murano has done an update for 2018. I really like that polar bear on the surfboard!

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s