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

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

Straight forward non-political facts on the major factors contributing to climate cooling and warming. Skips the political nonsense and hysteria about anthropogenic climate change.So this book is primarily about the science and is why it stands out so much as the most comprehensive book on climate change I have ever read. Of course it is somewhat condensed on each subject but it doesn't leave out the details as related to climate either. You will find this a great information book on climate change and all the natural influences that effect/change climate. So when I look at the science in this book, I find a "truth" that is indeed "inconvenient".I have looked for the truth like many have. Political science vs physical, meteorological, geological science, and simple laws of nature.....So here are the mathematical (actually proven and well established physical data) not modelsFirst of all the science is not settled (political stance) ......is far more complex than a political grand-stander pushing an agenda driven narrative proclaims.the facts;The main gases in the earth's atmosphere are Nitrogen 78%, Oxygen 21%, and Argon 0.93%. this leaves about 0.07 % for all other gases which are mostly greenhouse gases (so greenhouse gases might be considered trace gases?) Of the trace gases about 90-95% is water vapor. This is a variable (cloud cover evaporation etc.) so most political modeling (IPCC) leaves this out. hmm? Co2 is roughly 5-6 % of greenhouse gases. Out of this 5-6%, about 5 % is anthropogenic (man caused) So human caused Co2 is a trace of a trace occupying 0.003 % of the atmosphere.Of course I'm just breaking down the math but it does speak for itself (i didn't make it up in other words) So climate is complex and there are probably thousands of variables that can move the needle.... but how much can you move the needle on 0.003 % (man's influence) when the math gets done?. Should we blow up economies with hysterical political narratives? We have, right now, shocking reality, in what this "cart before the horse tactic" can do...................70,000 scientists around the world says what any real scientist would say...The "science is not settled" and they have with 4.5 billion years of climate change on earth to draw from.so I read books, lots of them....If I want the truth I won't use google, and all other media sources on the information highway online that decide what information you should get.Read the book....and please don't let political ideology cloud your thought process. No one has proven this guy wrong and the real science loves debate.

Looks self-published; but this is great work. Kudos to Dr. Sangster. Recommended to everyone, in particular, to all members of the IPCC.