This is the seventh of the books published by the Roberts Environmental Center on various aspects of global climate change, analyzing and summarizing a selection of the papers published in scientific technical journals over the previous year. The evidence for increasing global temperatures and consequent changes in frequency, distribution, and intensity of precipitation, continues unabated. This past summer the National Research Council of the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering made available a prepublication copy of a major new report, “Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia” (National Academy of Sciences, 2010) updating and strengthening the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 reports. Just last week (November 17, 2010), in the lame-duck session of Congress, the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the House Committee on Science and Technology held a day of hearings entitled “A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: The Science, the Evidence, the Response”. The prepared testimony, available on the Internet, was an interesting mix of clearly rational discussion from mainstream climate scientists, substantial expressions of concern about the resulting environmental damage from non-scientists, and wholesale rejection of the idea that global warming might result in any sort of climate change worth worrying about from a representative of the Cato Institute, coupled with a claim that the main reason scientists believe in this problem is to insure funding of their research grants. Richard Lindzen from MIT, thought by some to be the most scientifically respected of the aggressive skeptics of climate change, provided what I thought was the least coherent presentation—I got the feeling he might have some interesting points, but it sure was hard to tell what they were in any sort of framework I’m used to thinking about climate change in. I have a bad feeling that with the new Tea Party-influenced congress we will be hearing a lot more from the skeptics and a lot less from the 97–98% of working climate scientists (Anderegg et al., 2010) who support the basic premise of anthropogenic climate change documented in the IPCC reports. The Cato Institute with its “libertarian” mission appears to be dedicated, by any means available, to minimizing governmental spending and involvement in our lives, and that sounds like Sarah Palin’s Tea Party viewpoint to me. Without governmental involvement, I think that the environment is likely to be in the same sort of risk our financial institutions were before their collapse two years ago. But, reading this book will more than likely leave you with the disquieting feeling that either the libertarians don’t know what’s happening to the world around them, or they just don’t care. Neither result is ideal. It’s quite clear that we are rapidly losing the world’s coral reefs to increased ocean acidity (a direct result of the CO2 we are pouring into the atmosphere, quite independent of any warming effect it can be denied of having), and there is ample indication that the krill are not far behind. The result is likely to be an even more dire collapse of the commercial marine fisheries than we are already seeing from overfishing. And the yields of our major crops—corn, cotton, and soybeans—look poised to decline radically before too long as well. I don’t like to be the bearer of bad news, but paying attention to bad news is likely to result in a better outcome than burying one’s head in the sand. This book describes a representative cross section of the latest science pre-dicting the ecological effects of global warming and climate change. From what we read, there will be some winners mixed in with a lot more losers.