Category: Environment & Climate Change

Facts relating to Environment & Climate Change known to be true and yet often disputed amongst the public

Carbon Capture and Storage an Unfulfilled Promise

Superfact 99: Carbon capture is the process of separating carbon dioxide from industrial emissions. Even though it works and could be helpful it isn’t used very much, at least not the right way.

Esther’s writing prompt: April 29, 2026: Capture

Click here or here  to join in.

Carbon capture and storage is the process of separating carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial emissions to prevent it from entering the atmosphere and contributing to climate change. There are also systems that can remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere, but this is expensive. After capturing the carbon dioxide, it is compressed and stored permanently underground or used in products.

Capturing carbon dioxide from concentrated sources like ethanol or natural gas plants can cost as little as $15–$25 per ton, which should be compared to the huge cost from the damage to health and the environment caused by carbon dioxide added to atmosphere. This cost ranges from several hundred dollars per ton, to thousands of dollars per ton, and even one hundred thousand dollars per ton according to some estimates. Yet it has only captured about 0.1% of global emissions, making its overall climate impact negligible. Instead of storing the captured carbon dioxide it is often injected into nearly depleted oil wells to force out the remaining oil.

If you have not heard about carbon capture before, its existence may be a surprise to you. If you do know about carbon capture it is likely to come as a surprise to you that it is a potentially promising technology that is underutilized and not used correctly. The facts around this technology are surprising, which is why I call it a super fact.

The illustration shows a geological cross section and includes an ethanol plant, and a coal fired power plant capturing emissions buried below earth’s surface. | Carbon Capture and Storage an Unfulfilled Promise
With CCS, carbon dioxide is captured from a point source, such as an ethanol refinery. It is usually transported via pipelines and then either used to extract oil or stored in a dedicated geologic formation. Congressional Budget Office, U.S. Federal Government, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Carbon dioxide and Global Warming

Global warming, or if you call it climate change, is happening and it is happening very fast. We also know that it is caused by us primarily as a result of our burning of fossil fuels. The primary culprit is carbon dioxide. There is a long-standing scientific consensus on these two/three facts because the evidence is conclusive. Some organizations and contrarians have successfully confused the public, but that does not mean there is a serious scientific discussion on the issue. To read more about this click here.

The damage caused by carbon dioxide to human health and the environment is difficult to assess, but you can get an idea, and you can put a dollar price on it. The economist William Nordhaus did this and got the Nobel Prize in economy for it in 2018. See my review for his book The Climate Casino. Now the question is what to do about it, and carbon capture and storage is one potential option.

Graph showing possible causes for the observed temperature (blue), natural causes (volcanic, solar), human and natural causes (volcanic, solar, greenhouse gases, NO2, ozone depletion).
Natural causes for global warming / climate change would have cooled the planet, not warm it. Click here to visit this NASA web page regarding the causes behind global warming.

Carbon capture and storage an unfulfilled promise

The following is to a large degree my opinion, not just fact. Carbon capture and storage is a good idea. However, it adds costs to the production of energy, a cost someone must pay for. It seems like a no brainer that if carbon dioxide creates a social cost of several hundred dollars per ton, then paying much less than that to mitigate the emissions would be a good idea. However, the social cost that carbon dioxide imposes on all of us is imposed on all of us whether we are responsible for the emissions or not. Whereas the cost for carbon capture is a cost to a specific company or person responsible for the emissions.

Even though the cost for carbon capture may only be a few dollars added to the natural gas bill or a few cents per gallon on a gas tank it is a cost that is not incurred by your competitor who is not doing carbon capture. Unless the governments of the world either pay for carbon capture or put a price on carbon emissions, carbon capture isn’t going to be economically viable.

In addition, carbon capture and storage has been disappointing in other ways. It has been more difficult and expensive than expected. It has been used to extract more fossil fuels rather than removing carbon emissions. In addition, renewable energy has become so cheap that it is cheaper to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels with carbon capture.

My Other Responses to Esther’s Prompts

To see the Other Super Facts click here

Nuclear Energy is Relatively Clean and Safe

Superfact 96: Nuclear power is a relatively clean and safe energy source that produces no atmospheric emissions during operation. However, there are some problems with nuclear power, but they are often overblown.

The photo shows the three mile island nuclear plant from the across the shore of Susquehanna River in Londonderry Township.
The Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant south of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. March 28, 1979, a nuclear accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant sent shockwaves across the world, raising fears about nuclear power. However, no one died, and no one was hurt. Shutterstock Asset id: 2512612545 by Aubrie K

Clean energy sources are often defamed by disinformation and misunderstandings. For example, wind power turbines are not bird killing machines. Contrary to what you often hear wind power is indeed a very clean, cheap and sustainable energy source. Nuclear power is another misunderstood energy source. Wind power, solar power, hydro, and nuclear power are all considered clean energy because they produce no greenhouse gases or air pollution during operation and they also have very low life-cycle emissions.

The graph below from Our World in Data depicting lifetime greenhouse gas emissions (construction, operation, disposal) and safety data for the European Union, show that the lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of coal power is 162 times higher than those of nuclear power and coal kill 820 times as many people as nuclear power. The lifetime greenhouse gas emissions of natural gas are 120 times higher than those of nuclear power and kill 613 times as many people as nuclear power. The difference is staggering.

The graph depicts death rates and greenhouse gas emissions per unit for different energy sources including coal, oil, natural gas, biomass, hydropower, wind, nuclear power, and solar. | Nuclear Energy is Relatively Clean and Safe
Death rates from fossil fuels and biomass are based on state-of-the art plants with pollution control in Europe and are based on older models of the impacts of air pollution on health. This means that these death rates are likely to be very conservative. For further discussion see our article: OurWorldinData.org/safest-sources-of-energy. Electricity shares are given for 2021. Data sources: Markandya & Wilkinson (2007); UNSCEAR (2008: 2018); Sovacol et al. (2016); IPCC AR5 (2014); UNECE (2022); Ember Energy (2001). OurWorldinData.org – Research and data to make progress against the world’s largest problems. Licensed under CC-BY by the authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser. Citation : Hannah Ritchie (2020) – “What are the safest and cleanest sources of energy?” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Retrieved from: ‘https://archive.ourworldindata.org/20260202-100556/safest-sources-of-energy.html’ [Online Resource] (archived on February 2, 2026).

In the graph above, greenhouse gas emissions are measured of CO2 equivalents per Gigawatt-hour of electricity over the lifecycle of the power plant. 1 Gigawatt-hour is the annual electricity consumption of 150 people in the EU. Death rate from accidents and air pollution is measured as deaths per Terawatt hour of electricity production. 1 terawatt hour is the annual electricity consumption of 150,000 people in the EU.

I should mention that there are problems with nuclear power that are not entirely covered by the graph above, including radioactive waste, a history of spectacular accidents, and a perceived connection to nuclear arms. However, as you will see later in this post, even though these problems get a lot of media attention, they are not as scary as one might think. However, it should be noted that nuclear power in its current form is not a cheap source of energy, but that is a different topic.

I consider this a super fact because nuclear power is often thought of as an extremely dangerous and dirty source of energy, which is not the case.

How Does Nuclear Power Work ?

From left to right : a neutron strikes a uranium nucleus, and it breaks apart into a Krypton and Barium isotope and release three neutrons, which strike three uranium nucleuses, causing three fission events and releasing nine neutrons in total, etc.
Illustration of nuclear chain reaction. Uranium-235 fission. Shutterstock asset id: 73714504 by Mpanchenko. Note I corrected an error in the picture.

The fuel (fuel rods) in a nuclear power station consists primarily of stacked ceramic pellets made of low enriched uranium dioxide housed inside sealed metal tubes. The uranium consists primarily of two uranium isotopes U-238, which has 92 protons and 146 neutrons and U-235, which has 92 protons and 143 neutrons. Uranium always has 92 protons. The isotope that is used for fission is U-235. Natural Uranium consists of 0.7% U-235, trace amounts of U-236 and the rest (99.3%) is U-238. The uranium in nuclear fuel rods is either natural (0.7% U-235) or a few percent of U-235 (low enriched uranium). This should be contrasted with a uranium atomic bomb which has at least 80% U-235 (highly enriched).

A nuclear power plant generates electricity using heat from nuclear reactions. Inside the reactor, atoms of fuel (uranium) undergo nuclear fission, where they split apart and release a large amount of heat. The fuel rods (see picture below) in a nuclear power station consist primarily of stacked ceramic pellets made of low enriched uranium dioxide housed inside sealed metal tubes. There are also control rods in a nuclear power station, which consist of materials with a high neutron absorption cross-section. The control rods are used to regulate the reaction. If they are fully inserted the reaction will stop. Also note that nuclear reactors have a containment shield (at least in western countries).

How a nuclear reactor generates electricity using fuel rods, control rods, steam, turbines, and generators diagram hand drawn schematic vector.
Fission generates heat, which generates high pressure steam, which pushes a turbine around, which turns a generator, which generates electricity, which is transformed to the right voltage and delivered to customers. Science educational illustration Shutterstock Asset id: 2658971563 by Alexander_P

Below is an alternative illustration.

Fission generates heat, which generates high pressure steam, which pushes a turbine around, which turns a generator, which generates electricity, which is transformed to the right voltage and delivered to customers. The picture also shows a cooling tower and illustrates how a nuclear plant uses water.
A nuclear power plant generates electricity by using heat from nuclear fission to produce steam, which drives turbines connected to electrical generators. This illustration also depicts the nuclear power plant’s use of water for cooling. Don’t worry, the water will not turn radioactive. It is a separate isolated loop. Shutterstock Asset id: 2525528665 by Papia Majumder.
The photo is taken in 2024 and shows the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant with a nuclear reactor building and the associated coolant tower. | Nuclear Energy is Relatively Clean and Safe
Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant, located in Pennsylvania, is known for a partial meltdown in 1979 Shutterstock. This photo shows the reactor as well as the cooling tower. Asset id: 2520903273 by Amy Lutz.

What about Chernobyl ?

The Chernobyl disaster, which occurred on April 26, 1986, was the worst nuclear disaster in history. 50 people died as a direct result of the disaster and an estimated 4,000, perhaps 10,000 future cancer deaths are predicted from the disaster. However, it should be noted that an estimated half million people died from coal pollution in the United States over the first two decades of the 21st century. You have to compare.

Another, thing to keep in mind is that the Chernobyl reactors were RBMK reactors (Reaktor Bolshoy Moshchnosti Kanalnyy), an extremely flawed, old and dangerous design that only exists in Russia (or the former Soviet Union). Above I mentioned that the control rods slow down the nuclear reaction when inserted between the fuel rods and stop the reaction when fully inserted. In an RBMK reactor, it is the other way around. The control rods speed up the reaction when inserted. Add the fact that the Chernobyl reactor did not have a containment shield designed to contain a major release of radioactivity, unlike Western reactors and that the Soviet Union was an authoritarian and secretive regime that made things much worse. A nuclear disaster similar to Chernobyl is highly unlikely to happen in the West.

The Fukushima nuclear disaster was caused by a severe earthquake and a 15 meter tsunami. Around 2,300 died from the evacuation, and 15,000 people died from the Earthquake, but it is estimated that no one, or perhaps one person died as a direct result from the nuclear disaster itself. As mentioned no one died from the Three Mile Island accident.

What about Radioactive Waste?

Radioactive waste stored on-site at nuclear power stations (spent fuel) is often millions of times more radioactive than long-term disposal waste. It is important to remember that highly radioactive isotopes decay fast (that’s why they are dangerous), which means that long-term disposal waste is not very dangerous. We are surrounded by radioactivity and our by far largest exposure to ionizing radiation comes from the radon in our basements.

Does nuclear power for energy generation increase the risk for nuclear weapons proliferation?

While commercial nuclear energy and weapons programs share technology, they are distinct processes. The historical data and studies show that national nuclear energy programs in general don’t lead to the development of nuclear weapons. No country officially developed nuclear weapons based on a pre-existing commercial nuclear power industry. Typically, nuclear-armed nations developed dedicated, military-focused, and often secret reactors to produce plutonium or facilities to enrich uranium for weapons.  Also, the issue is mostly moot for countries that already have nuclear weapons, such as the United States.

Conclusion

Nuclear power is clean and safe. It might be our cleanest energy source that can provide baseload power. However, there are other concerns including the possibility of spectacular accidents, radioactive waste and the possibility that nuclear power for energy might aid nuclear weapons proliferation. Luckily, it appears that these concerns are overblown. It should be noted that nuclear power, as implemented today, is not cheap energy, but that is a different topic.

To see the Other Super Facts click here

Science History of the Greenhouse Effect by Craigvad

I came across a very interesting post about the science history of greenhouse effect: “The Greenhouse Effect: From Early Chemistry to the Keeling Curve” by Craigavad miscellany a science blog written by a retired academic. It is a very educational and interesting post related to this topic. Please take a look.

The Greenhouse Effect: From Early Chemistry to the Keeling Curve
Curve showing CO2 concentration starting 10,000 years ago. Again a very sharp uptick towards end. | Science History of the Greenhouse Effect by Craigvad
From Scripps institute. Keep two things in mind. First the warming from CO2 is delayed and may result in positive feedback that can manifest decades and centuries later. Secondly, human civilization developed during a period of stable climate. That CO2 levels and temperatures were higher millions of years ago is not much comfort.

To see the Super Facts click here

Without carbon dioxide the Earth would freeze

Superfact 91: Without greenhouse gases, the Earth’s average surface temperature would drop from the current 15 Celsius (59 Fahrenheit) to approximately -18 Celsius (0 Fahrenheit), which is an average temperature drop of 33 degrees Celsius. If you removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere but let the other greenhouse gases stay the drop would be 30 degrees Celsius. In both cases most of the planet would freeze. This is referred to as snowball Earth.

Snowball Earth or Snowball planet. In the picture Earth is seen from space. It is covered by ice all over. | Without carbon dioxide the Earth would freeze
Shutterstock Asset id: 2750019199 by Shutterstock AI

Our planet is much warmer than it otherwise would be because of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, or CO2, is the most important of the greenhouse gases. We are rapidly warming the atmosphere with our carbon dioxide emissions as explained by these articles from NASA and NOAA.  If we did the opposite and removed CO2 from the atmosphere we would be cooling the atmosphere. As mentioned, if we removed all greenhouse gases from the atmosphere the planet’s average temperature would drop by 33 degrees Celsius and this NASA article claims it would take 50 years to reach that temperature.

If we removed only carbon dioxide and let all the other greenhouse gases remain, we would get an almost as big temperature drop of 30 degrees Celsius according to the calculations done by this article. Some of you may know that water vapor provides a larger portion of the warming than CO2. In fact, 75% of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor and clouds. This seems contradictory. However, when the atmosphere cools, the water vapor will rain out of the atmosphere unlike CO2. Basically, water vapor will adjust to the temperature whilst CO2 is  forcing the temperature. It is crucial to understand this difference. That is why CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas. In summary, we need just the right amount of CO2 for a healthy climate.

I consider this a super fact because it is true, it is an important fact, and I believe it is a surprising fact to many, especially those who doubt carbon dioxide’s importance to the global warming we are experiencing. I called it global warming but whether you call it global warming, climate change, or climate disruption, we are talking about the same thing.

Snowball Earth

Mountains covered by ice and snow and valleys covered by a thick ice sheet.
Shutterstock Asset id: 2749007159 by Shutterstock AI

Scientists believe there have been at least two major “Snowball Earth” events between 720 and 635 million years ago where ice and snow covered nearly the entire planet. These snowball earth events were triggered by natural events, likely a plunge in sunlight, followed by a plunge in carbon dioxide not entering the atmosphere, and amplified by sunlight reflecting back into space. All three effects made Earth cooler. The recent ice ages were likely caused primarily by earth’s orbital cycles. Climate changed in the past due to natural phenomena, but that does not mean that the current very rapid warming (rapid geologically speaking) is natural.

If you want to understand why we can be so sure that it is our CO2 emissions that is causing the current global warming, not the sun, not volcanoes, not orbital cycles, and not another natural process, please check out the list of evidence in the second part of this post “Global Warming is Happening and is Caused by us”.

Hothouse Venus

What we see in the photo is a large white smooth planet. The MESSENGER spacecraft snapped a series of images as it approached Venus on June 5, 2007. The planet is enshrouded by a global layer of clouds that obscures its surface to the MESSENGER Dual Imaging System (MDIS) cameras. This single frame is part of a color sequence taken that helped the MESSENGER team calibrate the camera in preparation for the spacecraft's first flyby of Mercury on January 14, 2008.
Image taken by the NASA MESSENGER as it approached Venus on June 5, 2007. NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Carnegie Institution of Washington, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. The image is taken from this Wikipedia article.

The opposite of snowball Earth is hot Venus. Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system due to an extreme runaway greenhouse effect. Surface temperatures are averaging around 465 degrees Celsius (870 degrees Fahrenheit). The thick atmosphere of Venus is composed primarily of carbon dioxide with clouds of sulfuric acid. This causes a greenhouse effect that traps heat.

Despite the fact that Mercury is much closer to the sun (58 million kilometers versus 108 million kilometers) and receives nearly four times as much sunlight per unit area than Venus, Mercury is on average much cooler. The reason is that Mercury’s atmosphere is thin and without a greenhouse effect.

The YouTube video below from NASA explains the greenhouse effect on Venus. It is just one minute long.

I would also like you to take a look at this post:, “The Greenhouse Effect: From Early Chemistry to the Keeling Curve” by Craigavad miscellany a science blog written by a retired academic. It is a very educational and interesting post related to this topic.

To see the Other Super Facts click here

Beyond Debate by Shahir Masri a Review

The goal of this blog is to create a list of what I call super facts. Super facts are important and true facts that are nevertheless highly surprising to many, misunderstood, or disputed among the public. They are special facts that we all can learn something important from. However, I also make posts that are not super facts but feature other interesting information, such as this book review and book recommendation.

A Note About Liars on Amazon

I’ve noticed that most of the reviews for this book were positive but there were a few negative reviews from what I refer to as climate deniers. These reviews were not just misguided fossil fuel talking points, but they were obviously written by people who had not read the book or by people who skimmed the book and who did not make an honest effort to understand the content of the book. You can tell because the objections they raise were addressed and clearly debunked in the book in a way that was easy to understand.

I’ve read many books on climate science and there are always a bunch of negative reviews written by people who have no clue about the content of the book. Writing reviews for books you have not read is the same as lying, especially if you are slamming the book. There are reviewers who literally seem to be at war with the truth, and they spend their time trying to bury it, and in the process, they are shamelessly lying. Why would someone dump lots of fake reviews over books they haven’t read?

BEYOND DEBATE: Answers to 50 Misconceptions on Climate Change by Dr. Shahir Masri

Below I am listing the two versions of this book (kindle and paperback). I bought the paperback version.

  • Paperback –  Publisher : Dockside Sailing Press (July 14, 2018), ISBN-10 : 0692157417, ISBN-13 : 978-0692157411, 329 pages, item weight : 1.09 pounds, dimensions : 5.5 x 0.75 x 8.5 inches. It costs $6.44 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
  • Kindle –  Published : Dockside Sailing Press (April 12, 2021) ASIN : B092DPY7LL, 245 pages, it costs $9.99 on US Amazon. Click here to order it from Amazon.com.
The front cover features a photo of snowy mountains in the background and sea ice in the foreground, as well as the title and author name. The title is “BEYOND DEBATE: Answers to 50 Misconceptions on Climate Change” by “Shahir Masri” front cover | Beyond Debate by Shahir Masri a Review
BEYOND DEBATE: Answers to 50 Misconceptions on Climate Change. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the paperback version of the book.

Amazon’s Description of the Book

What if volcanoes are heating the planet? Maybe solar cycles are to blame? Isn’t carbon dioxide good for plants? These are but a few of the questions on global warming that are addressed in this book. If you are concerned that global warming may be a serious problem, but find it hard to know what to believe or how to help in the face of conflicting arguments, you will want to read this book. You don’t have to be a scientist to understand Dr. Shahir Masri’s explanations and solutions. They proceed along common-sense lines that are easy to follow. Climate change poses a major threat to public health and the environment. Yet, political squabbles and misinformation have stalled policy and enabled little progress to be made in solving the crisis.

Similarly, the notion of a “climate debate” has created the illusion of a divided scientific community, when in fact most scientists agree that human activity is causing the planet to warm. At a time when open discussion is essential, talk of global warming has become entrenched in politics and all but taboo in unfamiliar company. In Beyond Debate, Shahir Masri clears up 50 of the most common misconceptions surrounding climate change. He simplifies the science and resolves the confusion so that everyone may better understand the issue. Now is not the time for silence, but rather a time for conversation and collective action to address greenhouse gas emissions and begin to solve the climate crisis. Action begins with understanding, which Beyond Debate so eloquently offers. Masri conveys a sense of urgency while describing opportunities for hope.

This is my five-star review for BEYOND DEBATE

Fix your misconceptions. Don’t fall for disinformation. Be curious and learn.

There are a lot of misconceptions, misunderstandings as well as disinformation surrounding climate change or if you call it global warming, global weirding, or climate disruption. This book provides answers and explanations to 50 misconceptions. Some of the misconceptions are common but basic misunderstandings. Other misconceptions require more in depth explanations.

In addition, the book gives you an introduction into how the greenhouse effect works, covering 200+ years of scientific discoveries by some famous scientists. Did you know that without the various greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone), our planet would be 60 degrees colder than it is. It would be a snowball earth. This book is for those of us who are curious and want to learn more about this topic.

An example of a basic misconception is Chapter 4, “Earth’s Natural cycles explain recent warming”, well they don’t. For example, the Milankovitch cycles, earth’s precession, axial tilt, and the eccentricity of earth’s orbit, are too slow and would favor cooling right now, not warming. It is not the sun (chapter 5) and not volcanoes (chapter 3). Volcanoes release less than 1 % of the CO2 released currently by human activities, and they are part of the carbon cycle, and CO2 from volcanoes have the wrong isotope mix to correspond to the increase of CO2. He explains that the carbon atom comes in different isotopes (different number of neutrons) and that the mix is different for different carbon sources and that the carbon added to the atmosphere comes from burning fossil fuels based on the isotope mix.

I can add that in addition different potential causes for global warming result in different ways the warming happens (like a fingerprint) and the fingerprint of the current warming is that of greenhouse gases (he does not explain this enough). Another thing to ask yourself is if you think the current global warming is natural, why do paleoclimatologists and others who have dedicated their lives to studying naturally occurring climate change not think this warming is natural.

Another basic misconception is addressed in Chapter 23, “Climate models don’t account for the most abundant greenhouse gas, water vapor”, which is false, they do account for water vapor. Some people believe that because water vapor is a more powerful and abundant greenhouse gas than CO2, it should be what is causing global warming. That’s not how it works. We are not increasing water vapor in the atmosphere by emitting it and even if we did it would rain back down. Therefore, water vapor is not driving global warming. If a greenhouse gas isn’t increasing it can’t cause rising temperatures, no matter how abundant it is.

However, an increase in carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere which in turn increases the amount of humidity the atmosphere can hold (positive feedback loop) thus water vapor gives the greenhouse effect a boost. It gives CO2 and methane a bit of a helping hand as the emissions and increase of these gases heats things up, but water vapor is not driving it. This is not hard to understand and yet this misconception refuses to go away.

Some other examples are chapter 8, “Climate Change is Chinese hoax” – this is a funny one. Climate science is 200+ year old European science. Chapter 12, “Climate change is just a theory” – see “evolution is just a theory”. Chapter 15, “there is still uncertainty about climate change” – that we know it is happening and that we are the cause is well established but there is uncertainty about other related things. Chapter 36, “glaciers aren’t melting, Antarctica is even gaining ice” – glaciers and sea ice are melting rapidly. Antarctica was gaining ice for four decades despite warming but there are good explanations for this (for example, precipitation). Now Antarctica is losing ice. Chapter 43, “Electric cars aren’t that green” – they are much cleaner than gas cars, but it depends on where you live. Chapter 49, “It’s too late for climate” – no it isn’t.

So, as you can see, this is a fact packed book addressing and correcting a lot of misconceptions. It is very educational and great for anyone ready to learn and understand. It is also well organized and well written. Reading this book will make you smarter and I highly recommend it to anyone who is curious about this topic. I think we all have some misconception on this topic. Let’s correct them.

The back cover features an overview of the book and a photo and a brief introduction of the author “Shahir Masri”. | Back cover for BEYOND DEBATE: Answers to 50 Misconceptions on Climate Change By Dr. Shahir Masri
BEYOND DEBATE: Answers to 50 Misconceptions on Climate Change. Click on the image to go to the Amazon page for the Kindle version of the book.