Book Review: “Inconvenient Doubts: Climate Change Apocalypse. Really?”Canadian Senator Rosa Galvez wrote a hyperbolic op-ed in The Hill Times on Feb. 28, 2024, wherein she made astonishing claims about the impact of fossil fuels on climate change. Thus, it was refreshing to receive a link to Quebec author Joanne Marcotte’s latest podcast with Tom Nelson. It’s all about her new book “Inconvenient Doubts: Climate Change Apocalypse. Really?”This is the perfect book for senators, MPs, bureaucrats and schools because it is written in a plain language style that draws on research by some of the best scientists in the world — and it is available in both English and French. Furthermore, the cover art will make you laugh.Nelson and Marcotte open the podcast showing that there is wide disagreement amongst climate scientists on the ratio of human versus natural factors affecting climate change. There’s also vast disagreement on the claims about the ‘dangerous’ nature of human influence on climate. So. No consensus.Marcotte was a systems architect for financial institutions, but she’s no stranger to tackling complex and controversial subjects, having researched and produced her own film about the Quebec nanny state many years ago. She put on her researcher’s hat and spent about two years studying climate science literature, recognizing that there are two distinct camps, the alarmists and the realists.In terms of my reference to Senator Rosa Galvez in the opening, she is firmly in the alarmist camp. In The Hill Times, Galvez tells readers that Canada must accelerate the transition to clean energy, never acknowledging that renewables and electric vehicles are only possible due to vast amounts of fossil fuels. The critical minerals necessary for the alleged ‘transition’ must be mined; mining is one of the most energy intensive operations in the world. As “X” commentator (former mining mechanic) John Lee Pettimore explains, a big machine like a Liebherr 9800 uses 2 million gallons of diesel per year.Galvez needs to explain how we will mine or make things without oil, natural gas and coal before she implements her “Climate Aligned Finance Bill S-243” which plans to choke off finance for any fossil fuel operation. While Galvez talks of how economically valuable fossil fuels are to Canada, she does not explain what money train would replace the present revenues created by the fossil fuels industry. Galvez wrote “energy exports were recorded as totalling $240.5-billion, and representing 33 per cent of total Canadian goods exports, with oil and gas domestic exports totalling $217-billion”. She says that energy jobs “directly employed 290,300 people, while indirectly supporting more than 405,800 jobs.”The scientists cited in Joanne Marcotte’s book disagree that fossil fuel use drives ‘dangerous’ climate change though most agree CO2 may have a modest warming impact; in fact, a key part of Marcotte’s review showed that it is virtually impossible to untangle the influence of human industrial emissions on climate, versus the effects of Mother Nature.Many of the scientists in Marcotte’s book cite the benefits of increased carbon dioxide in terms of ‘fertilization’ — increased plant growth and agricultural yields.Marcotte’s presentation shows a split between climate alarmists, like Senator Galvez, and climate realists like Steve Koonin or Judith Curry. In Marcotte’s podcast and her book, she cites Judith Curry, author of the recent book “Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response” who stated that the ‘political kart was way ahead of the scientific kart’ at the 1992 Rio Convention. That’s when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was drafted with the stated objective to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions to prevent ‘dangerous’ human-caused interference in the climate system.But there was no scientific evidence of that then. And Marcotte shows there is no consensus on the claim of ‘dangerous’ anthropogenic climate change, today.One of the challenges in the climate change debate is the climate sensitivity (or shall we say warming effect) of carbon dioxide. I asked Friends of Science Society’s research director, Ken Gregory, P. Eng., for comments.Gregory said: “CO2 is proven to cause warming to a high degree of certainty in my opinion. The issue is the climate sensitivity (CS) to increasing GHG concentrations, which is quite uncertain, and whether increasing GHGs is net beneficial or harmful.”As Gregory has noted in “The Social Cost (Benefit) of Carbon”, nominal warming in Canada is very beneficial to crops and to our economy.Joanne Marcotte’s book holds a key to creating a platform for open, civil debate in Canada on climate and energy policies. Clearly Senator Galvez’ proposed Bill S-243 is the ‘dangerous’ thing in the room. A bevy of green activists are busy cheering it on employing the dubious climate catastrophe narrative. That’s where “Inconvenient Doubts” can help Canada address climate policies with evidence over ideology.Michelle Stirling is a writer/researcher whose op-eds have appeared in various Alberta newspapers. She is also the Communications Manager for Friends of Science Society
