The Climate Files and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
Buy Used
$1.76
+ $3.99 shipping
Used: Good | Details
Sold by PRE-LOVED BOOKS
Condition: Used: Good
Comment: We are committed to providing each customer with the highest standard of customer service. All books are picked, packed and dispatched from the United Kingdom.
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon
Flip to back Flip to front
Listen Playing... Paused   You're listening to a sample of the Audible audio edition.
Learn more
See this image

The Climate Files: The Battle for the Truth About Global Warming Paperback – International Edition, July 27, 2010


See all 2 formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle
"Please retry"
Paperback, International Edition
"Please retry"
$11.62 $1.76

Best Books of the Year
See the Best Books of 2014
Looking for something great to read? Browse our editors' picks for 2014's Best Books of the Year in fiction, nonfiction, mysteries, children's books, and much more.
NO_CONTENT_IN_FEATURE

Best Books of the Month
Best Books of the Month
Want to know our Editors' picks for the best books of the month? Browse Best Books of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen categories.

Product Details

  • Paperback: 288 pages
  • Publisher: Guardian Books (July 27, 2010)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0852652291
  • ISBN-13: 978-0852652299
  • Product Dimensions: 5.3 x 0.8 x 8.5 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 10.6 ounces
  • Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,143,297 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Editorial Reviews

Review

"Fred Pearce has used his brilliant investigative skills to get to the heart of this issue. This book is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what the hacked University of East Anglia emails mean - and what they don't" -- George Monbiot

About the Author

FRED PEARCE is a freelance author and journalist based in London. He has reported on environment, science and development issues from 64 countries over the past 20 years. Trained as a geographer, he has been environment consultant of New Scientist magazine since 1992. He writes regularly for the Guardian newspaper, including the weekly Greenwash column, and recently published a 12-part investigation of the 'climategate' emails affair at the University of East Anglia. Fred's books have been translated into at least 14 languages.

More About the Author

Fred Pearce, author of "The Land Grabbers: The New Fight over Who Owns the Earth" (Beacon Press, 2012), is an award-winning former news editor at New Scientist. Currently its environmental and development consultant, he has also written for Audubon, Popular Science, Time, the Boston Globe, and Natural History and writes a regular column for the Guardian. He has been honored as UK environmental journalist of the year, among other awards. His many books include When the Rivers Run Dry, With Speed and Violence, Confessions of an Eco-Sinner, and The Coming Population Crash.

Photo Copyright Photographer Name: Fred Pearce, 2012.

Customer Reviews

4.0 out of 5 stars
5 star
3
4 star
0
3 star
1
2 star
1
1 star
0
See all 5 customer reviews
It's about as impartial as possible, and written in a most accessible manner and style.
Mark Lutz
Also, scientists have worked very hard to get data, either by collecting the data themselves or by building relationships with other scientists from whom they get it.
Jordan Bell
You will find plenty of "red meat" about CRU and Manistream Scientist "tribalism", lack of williingness to release data, and sloppiness in the caretake of data.
Keith Noren

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

21 of 23 people found the following review helpful By Charles on January 15, 2013
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The Climate Files
To be fair I am a skeptic about anthropogenic climate change but am convinced that climate change due to natural forces is constant. This book does a good job of describing the controversy between the two camps but leans visibly to the side of the UN Panel on Climate Change. However my main concern with this book was that it was preoccupied with the controversy between the camps and did not get into the actual science behind the controversy. The science is important.
1 Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
46 of 66 people found the following review helpful By Keith Noren on September 20, 2010
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Although I read a lot about our Climate Wars, there is much in this book that I did not know. The author (Fred Pearce) is a UK reporter who talks directly with all sides of the debate and for that I will call him a semi-insider. He provides the time-sensitive context of many of the more celebrated emails extracted from Climate Research Unit (CRU) at University at East Anglia (UEA). For instance the "hide the decline" and "Mann's Nature trick" private email from Phil Jones (given in mid 1999 but released to the public in Nov 2009) was said by Sen Jim Inhofe in Dec 2009 to demonstrate that "the science [behind global warming] has been pretty much debunked" and "the science has been rigged". Let's explore that statement. For years the CRU has put out plots of the measured "instrumental" (aka thermometers) temperature data showing an approx 0.8C temperature increase since pre-industrial times mostly in two upturn periods 1910-1940, 1977-1998, other periods being essentially flat. It is the most fundamental evidence for global warming and the same data has been analyzed with similar results by NASA's GISS. Now according to Inhofe this data had really declined, the CRU knew that, and the "hide the decline" amounts to proof that they knew that but were fabricating data to say otherwise. But the context makes it clear that the "hide the deline" phrase was related to the Paleoclimatic data of over 1000+ years based on proxies, and not the instrumental temperature measurement starting globally in ~1850. The paleoclimatic researchers acknowledge "divergence" later than 1961 or 1981 (depending on the data set) in tree ring reconstructions which does not show consistent trends - temperatures from some trees went high, while others went down.Read more ›
18 Comments Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful By photohounds on December 1, 2014
Format: Paperback
I concur with other readers. FP does examine both sides of the debate, but leans quite heavily "PRO", not bases on science.
The absence of recent warming, extra cold recent winters and the return of north pole ice show the models to be far enough out of step with the predictions that the whole thing needs to be reexamined as. The programs being run are inadequate.

It also appears that bias may have crept into computer models (that's easy to do, even accidentally. I know - I'm a passable programmer).

It also seems that Ozone and other greenhouse gases have either been ignored or underestimated.
The term carbon pollution is inaccurate as CO2 is not a pollutant except in extremely high quantities and levels have been MUCH higher and life did not perish then - neither will it now.

Fact is. life as we know it depends on the presence of CO2 - beginning at the PLANT end of the food chain)
WE are made of carbon compounds and water - without CO2 we would not be having this discussion at all.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
7 of 11 people found the following review helpful By Jordan Bell on September 10, 2012
Format: Paperback
Academic scientists work very hard for a long time to understand a field and find out things, and their main achievement is their scientific reputation. If someone successfully challenges papers they've written this damages the reputation they've worked so hard to build. And there are few incentives to do very probing work as a peer reviewer; one gets little credit for it, at best the journal editor thinks better of them, and at worst a colleague blames them for preventing their work being published. Also, scientists have worked very hard to get data, either by collecting the data themselves or by building relationships with other scientists from whom they get it. Scientists use this data to write their papers, and they have some of the same incentives to keep their data private as a drug company has to patent the drugs they make.

In fields like medicine and climatology that have strong effects on what people in society decide to do (get certain screenings done, spend money on expensive treatments, reduce carbon output), aside from doing research and convincing other trained scientists that their results are correct, scientists have some role in communicating these results to the public. I think there's a popularly held belief that science consists of unambiguously true statements, and thus if there is uncertainty in a scientific field some people think the field must be bunk. It seems like the scientists involved in the Climatic Research Unit email controversy didn't want conflicting views confusing a scientifically uneducated public, and thus badmouthed people who criticized them. If the CRU scientists worked more openly and were more free with their data they wouldn't have even had to deal with the pests.
Read more ›
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback. If this review is inappropriate, please let us know.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?