Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming: And Environmentalism

Politically Incorrect Guides

by Christopher C. Horner

Christopher C. Horner exposes the shoddy science, plain dishonesty, and hidden political agenda behind the biggest phony environmental scare since the predictions of catastrophic global cooling in the 1970s.

Genres: Politics, Science, Nonfiction, Environment, Audiobook, Current Affairs, Economics

Audio Cassette

First published January 1, 2006

Reviews

[Michael · Rating 1 out of 5]

Are you looking for examples of logical fallacies? Search no further! In this volume, you can find multiple examples of all of them.

I would like to point out that, when I read (most of) this sucker, I had no firm "opinion" about what our climate was doing. I was still trying to make my way through the different positions in the discussion. I'm a contrarian, so I would've been ecstatic to have one more anti-establishment position to be smug about! Alas, this P.O.S. could've been more accurately titled A Non-Argument Against Global Warming. Among the classic non-arguments present:

1. Scientists are just saying there's global warming because there's so much money to be made by telling people to stop consuming!

2. Some parts of some ice floes are actually getting bigger! Thus, no global warming!

3. Something something, liberal media something, Al Gore owns a big house, hahaha!

So, it's less of a "guide" than a "rant," much like this review. I enjoy carrying around books that might offend those around me, probably because I'm so emotionally well-balanced. Unfortunately, carrying this one around eventually made me quite embarrassed. When asked at one point what the book's "argument" was by a friend, my response was, "There isn't one."

The sad fact for those wanting to "refute" climate change is this: if you want to refute SCIENTIFIC FACT, the only way to do it is with better supported and clearer SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Insults and accusations about double-standards some random-ass celebrity holds will not counter scientific evidence, so stop telling me how many gallons of petroleum Leonardo DiCaprio's airliner uses when he flies to his Earth Day after-party or whatever. I really don't care.

[Hamed Manoochehri · Rating 2 out of 5]

لحن راوی کتاب بیشتر شبیه یکی از یوتوبرهای مأمور پروپاگانداست و "علم" کتاب مربوط به تقریبا 20 سال پیش. 

این کتاب رُ به هیچ وجه توصیه نمیکنم چون کتاب دیگهٔ همین مجموعه به نام [The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change] در دسترس هست  و با یه لحن معقول و ارائه مستندات و منابع برای هر ادعا، باعث میشه به تمام "باورها"ی قبلیتون شک کنید و شاید هم مثل من کافر بشید.


کتاب Guide To Global Warming  اما یه بخش اختصاصی درباره پیمان کیوتو داره که به نظرم قابل تامل بود و کلی نقل قول از دین‌باوران گرمایشی که واقعا تاسف آور و خیلی از موارد غیرقابل‌باور بودن [تا اینکه درستیشون رُ چک کردم]. چندتاش رُ پایین میارم:


1-"To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest." Climate alarmist Stephen Schneider, Discover magazine, October 1989


2-'The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." Henrik Svensmark, director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, as quoted in the Copenhagen Post, October 4, 2006


3-According to leading Canadian polar bear biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, "Of The thirteen populations of polar bears in Canada, eleven are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present."


4-The truth is that Mozart, Pascal, Boolean algebra, Shakespeare, parliamentary government, baroque churches, Newton, the emancipation of women, Kant, Marx, Balanchine ballet et aI., don't redeem what this particular civilization has wrought upon the world. The white race is the cancer of human history. It is the white race and it alone-its ideologies and inventions-which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of life itself' Susan Sontag, Partisan Review, Winter 1967

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing."

Published in 2007 by Regnery Publishing
366 pages


I am a former environmentalist.

Quotes like the one in my title (from Tim Wirth, a former Senator and Clinton State Department official) pushed me to be a FORMER environmentalist.

Now I am a conservationist. I do believe some wild spaces should be saved. I recycle (A lot!). I coordinate my school's paper recycling program. I own several of those little fluorescent bulbs and I use them every day. I don't spray chemicals all over my yard. I don't dump motor oil down the drain. I pick up garbage when I walk the dog. I go camping. I go to the Earth Day celebration in downtown Indianapolis because it's a great place to get information on clean-up events and they give away free trees! I also love it when they assume that I must be an ultra-liberal just to be there!

Now that I've said all of this, let me say that I am not an environmentalist. I used to be. Way back when, when I first started teaching, I showed movies to my kids in world geography that said the world as we know it is going to end by the year 2000. Mass flooding, all of the fish dead, mass starvation, etc. They were older versions of An Inconvenient Truth that featured Hollywood stars and quoted heavily from Gore's Earth in the Balance .

I am now embarrassed by that.

I did not listen to other sources.

I ignored my training as a junior historian...

Read more at: http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2012/...

[Deb Seksay · Rating 5 out of 5]

Even though it is a slow read, it has everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, you need to address a global warming fanatic with. Solid scientific evidence, along with the distorted evidence pwned into consensus material. I slogged through the whole thing, and yes, it went slow, but there is only so much I can take in at once.

My favorite quote? "Farting trees, THAT we'd notice." (p58)

I feel competently armed to logically refute anyone that addresses my nonchalant life with alarmism about climate change. The climate is changing? How is that news? The word climate might as well MEAN constantly changing. Use sparingly, live in moderation, treat the world as you would like your home to be, and really, that's all the more I see in it.

I also feel competently armed to dissect and expose the fraudulent 'Goodness' of Greens who knowingly distort data and defame actual scientists in an attempt to get their budget bumped up.

[Rachel · Rating 1 out of 5]

The author of this book doesn't believe in climate change. As someone that tries hard to be as environmentally friendly as possible, I chose to read this to understand the climate change debate from a different perspective.

I didn't enjoy this book and wouldn't recommend it. The arguments put forward were weak, the book was repetitive and the author just came across as being bitter about eco-friendly regulations being enforced and the potential financial implications on him.

With such a large volume of climate data in existence, from a wide array of sources, using a variety of research methods, from a large timeframe, and with a number of other factors impacting figures, I understand that some climate change data may be flawed or interpreted in a subjective manner. However this can be said for both the data proving and the data disproving climate change.

Despite this, my opinion is that everybody should try to protect the environment, regardless of whether or not they believe in climate change. The impacts of harming our planet could be catastrophic and irreversible, whereas what's the worst that can happen if we protect it? It might cost us extra money making eco-friendly choices? I'd say that's a risk worth taking.

[Matthew Barron · Rating 1 out of 5]

According to this author, environmentalists or “greens” are greedy anti-capitalists out to take over the world. There is no science in this book. The author instead attacks the motivations of environmentalists. Despite the title, global warming is barely mentioned, which is ironic since the author attacks “greens” for using the words “global warming” to get attention and make money. The snarky language in this book would be better suited to an internet blog rather than a professionally written book. I borrowed this book in an attempt to become familiar with some of the anti-climate change arguments. The author makes references to things we are either supposed to already know or not care to look up because we already agree with him. There are numerous quotes in the book. Whether they are accurate or taken out of context has no bearing on the climate change argument. At times, the author quotes people and then explains what the person meant in the quote because the quote itself doesn't sound as nefarious as the author thinks it is. He makes philosophical arguments that don’t have any direct impact on the climate change argument, then concludes that man-made climate change doesn't exist. He claims that our inadequate handling of climate change policy means that climate change doesn't exist, that wealthy countries have cleaner air for the sole reason that they are wealthy, that past environmental successes mean there was never a problem in the first place, etc. I didn't get any specifics from this book, but I was able to glean a few broad anti-climate change arguments and look them up on more legitimate sources. This book is very wordy compared to the actual content contained within. I normally don’t post negative reviews, but the snarky language and lack of content make this a very painful read. This book insults the intelligence its readers.

[Ken · Rating 4 out of 5]

In the past few weeks I read three books and several articles on both sides of the global warming issue. "Unstoppable Global Warming" is written by one of the better known global warming skeptics(Singer)and is full of notes to many other articles and scientific papers supporting the argument that global warming is not real, that if it is happening it is minor and a normal part of climate variablity, and that it is not man made. He presents a lot of evidence supporting his point of view that is convincing at best and is at least worthy of debate at worst.
The second book I read is called "The Heat Is On" by Gelbspan and is very supportive of the view that global warming is here, it is a major problem and it is definitely caused by man. He supports his argument with many anecdotal accounts of problems caused by serious weather, but does not present us with as much pure scientific evidence that I was expecting. He spends a lot of time attacking the global warming skeptics rather than debunking their scientific points. He is a journalist and not a scientist so I quess I shouldn't be surprised. It does bother me that many of the scientists, journalists, and politicians state that "the debate is over and there is scientific concensus regarding the reality of global warming and that it is man made." That sounds like things religions teach not scientists trying to get ever closer to truth. I don't think it is healthy to ever trust a scientist who says that the debate is over.
The third book I read is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Horner and, as you can guess from the title, is very critical toward the global warming movement. His message is that global warming, if it is happening at all, is a normal "interglacial" process, that it is beneficial to almost all life, it has happened many times in the past and plant/animal species have adapted and thrived, humans have done better during periods of warming vs periods of cooling, and the entire movement has a sometimes not so hidden agenda to lower our standard of living and make us more subject to centralized big government--perhaps even world-wide government. If you have time to only read one of these books, read this one. Also, if you want to scare yourself a bit read the Ross Gelbspan article available on the internet at grist.org which argues that it is too late to do anything about global warming anyway and we are headed for disaster--read some of our fellow citizens comments at the end if you really want to ruin your day.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whatever happened to Global warming? Today it is only mentioned to deride the newer all-inclusive term of climate change. When you consider that some of the true believers are the same ones who were distraught over global cooling back in the 1970's. As it has continued under the new name of climate change it was pushed by agenda-driven politicians, professors looking for research grants, and companies sensing a government subsidized business opportunity? In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming author Christopher Horner lays out fact after fact in logical arguments to pull the curtain back and expose the whole Global Warming/Climate Change industry with example after example of inaccurate (poor track record) computer climate modeling, retroactive data "correction," and even outright false statements and claims. The author states that with the cooperation of the crisis-loving media and the indoctrination of our nation's children through our school system the message appears to be that the majority of Americans believe global warming, now climate change (as defined by the activists, as climate is always changing) is real and caused by man, even though any contribution by man by the actual numbers is actually miniscule and is swamped out by natural factors like effects of the sun, volcanos, and etc. Real science is not determined by concensus. If that were the case we would still believe the earth is flat! Real science is put forth as a theorem or in academic and scientific papers for fellow scientists to study, try to replicate results, dispute unsubstantiated claims, and test alternative theorems. In other words, in REAL science the debate is never over! Great read for anyone who is open minded enough to listen to facts, determine for themselves what seems most valid, and be open to changing their opinion based on the evidence presented. At this point there are more and more of the claimed 97% of scientists (the author shows how even this is a bogus and misleading number) are moving into what the global warming/climate change crowd refers to as deniers as they are convinced by actual facts and scientific evidence and not flashy films, Hollywood actors, and politicians who do not have the proper background to evaluate the facts. Great read for anyone truly concerned about our home on planet Earth.

[Steven H · Rating 2 out of 5]

A CRITIQUE OF PURPORTED GLOBAL WARMING ‘HYSTERIA’

Christopher C. Horner is an attorney and a Senior Fellow at the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute.

He wrote in the Preface to this 2007 book, “This is the key to ‘global warming’ hysteria: unless you are distracted by threats of the Apocalypse, you might question what they demand… the alarmists do whatever they can to avoid actual debate. They declare there is ‘consensus,’ a political concept generally alien to the scientific method. They liken skeptics to Holocaust deniers and demand ‘Nuremberg-style’ trials of the disbelievers. They want to control our lifestyles---and they don’t want you to question their cause. This book will give you the details and the debate that they don’t want you to know about… by uttering these… inconvenient truths, you will first be accused of being a shill for an evil industry. They might call you a criminal… If they ever grant the accuracy of your statements, they will warn you not to repeat them, lest you deflate the fear of global warming.” (Pg. xv)

He states, “The political parties bearing the ‘Green’ name have earned the nickname ‘watermelons’: green on the outside, red [Communist] to the core. In the U.S., the Green Party’s agenda goes well beyond fighting pollution, and includes dramatic plans for wealth redistribution… While the American media’s strident ANTI-anti-communism prevents it from taking seriously any comparisons to communism, the commonality between the greens and the Reds runs dep, beyond the realms of depopulation and inhibiting individual freedoms and capital formation.” (Pg. 7)

He cites “the widespread green tenet that the truth is an article of faith: ‘It isn’t what you can demonstrate, it’s what I believe, and someday I will be able to prove it. In the meantime, I will torture data until it confesses and converts to my worldview.’ This faith has reduced elite environmentalism to little more than a white-collar version of the loon strolling around Lafayette Square… in a sandwich board demanding that you REPENT NOW, THE END IS NEAR.” (Pg. 49)

He presents ‘Top Ten “Global Warming” Myths’: “Myth 8. The science is settled; CO2 causes global warming: … If it is really settled, why don’t the scientists forego the $5 billion of taxpayer money they get every year to research climate? What scientists DO agree on is little and says nothing about Manmade global warming. Namely, they agree that (1) global average temperature is probably about …. 1 degree Fahrenheit---higher than a century ago; (2) atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have risen by about 30 percent over the past two hundred years; and (3) CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and increased greenhouse gases should have a warming effect, all else being equal (which it demonstrably is not)… ‘consensus’… means ending debate in order to ‘move on.’ Stifling debate is inherently anti-scientific.” (Pg. 62-63)

He argues, “Alarmists proclaim the 1990s as the ‘hottest decade’… It turns out that the ‘90s not only fail to live up to the ‘hottest’ title, but coincided with the closure of hundreds of measuring stations (including many in the former Soviet Union as their priorities turned to .. collapse of an empire). If you shut down measuring stations in the cold ports of the world, your average global temperatures will go up. It turns out that the 1990s temperature increases track nicely with these closures…” (Pg. 70)

He asserts, “Gore advisor Dr. James Hansen… claim[s] that the Bush administration has muzzled his criticism of their stance on global warming… Hansen’s shrill cries conjure a picture of Climate Cassandras having mouths stuffed with socks and wrapped with duct tape, crammed into the trunk of an old Buick… This is mostly incorrect. In truth, those whose voices have been run out of the debate… hail from the more sober, ‘look before you leap’ school…” (Pg. 95)

He says, “Remember, if floating ice melts, it has no effect on sea levels---only ice that melts from the land into the sea will raise waters. Basically, if arming is to raise sea levels, Greenland and Antarctica would be culprits. The charts … show Antarctica is not warming.” (Pg. 149)

He says of Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’: “Gore’s testimony affirms the beliefs of the truly passionate, the Global Salvationists: the environmentalists and their fellow believers in the creed that development and technology grind humanity’s billions, plus nature herself, under their jackboots on an unholy roll toward a coal-fired apocalypse. It is this very prediction of disaster that explains the lovefest. The entire parade of global warming horribles is trotted out, including… rising sea levels and ravaged coastal areas, increasing tornadoes, intense heat waves. These dutiful role-players all strolled to place on cue…” (Pg. 212)

He argues, “The supposedly melting Greenland ice sheet is what Gore says will drown us all… The WESTERN edge of Greenland may be experiencing ice-melt---and faster the last few years, but… we know for certain that this is NOT because temperatures on Greenland have been rising. Science reveals this to be more likely a result of cyclical changes in ocean currents…” (Pg. 228)

Of sea-level rise, he says, “Gore fails to remind movie-goers that sea levels have been rising since the end of the last ice age, at a rate of 1.8 mm per year for the past 8,000 years, and will continue to do so at varying rates until the next ice age. The IPCC does not forecast sea-level rises of ‘eighteen to twenty feet,’ but actually a possible range from four inches to less than three feet over the century, and concludes that current trends may or may not be slightly higher than the trend over the past 150 years.” (Pg. 232)

Of the Kyoto Agreement, he comments, “The effect of Kyoto on the price of consumer goods would be mitigated by the fact that China, Mexico, and India… are NOT bound by Kyoto’s restrictions, and thus would not experience higher manufacturing costs. That is, U.S. manufacturing would be offshored even quicker, and we would become even better customers of the Chinese, except that we would have lower incomes to spend on their goods. If we have fewer steel mills here and more steel mills there, this provides no reduction in CO2.” (Pg. 257-258)

He concludes, “The risks of climate change policy---poverty and coercive wealth redistribution---outweigh the risks that might be expected as climate continues to change… climate has always changed and it always will; Man has always adapted, the wealthiest societies adapt the best; reducing global wealth---as Kyoto will---only ensures we will be even more vulnerable to the one certainty of the global warming debate: unpredictable and occasionally severe weather….” (Pg. 299, 302)

This book will appeal to those skeptical of environmentalists’ and scientists’ warnings about Climate Change and Global Warming.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oh, the dangers of politicized science. This book clearly shows how politicians abuse science by distorting it and turning it into a tool for ramming home otherwise unconscionable legislation. Author Christopher Horner reviews the actual evidence for what causes global warming and shows why the answers aren't as clear cut as people in the green movement would have you believe. He also demonstrates how the incredibly invasive "solutions" politicians propose actually do nothing toward addressing the situation, other than to make people feel better about themselves for "caring" and "doing something." The book is a little bit old hat, as Horner spends an inordinate amount of time discussing Al Gore's movie AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, as well as the political hoopla surrounding the embarrassingly inept Kyoto Treaty--stuff that was a lot more relevant six years ago. However, even though the book is a bit dated, it still does a great job of illustrating the pitfalls of blindly trusting in claims of scientific "consensus." It's also rather enlightening to see how ruthless corporations (such as Enron) have always been quick to jump on the "green" bandwagon as a way to garner government subsidies and stifle competition. Turns out that the environmental movement and big business are a lot more comfortable with each other than people think.

[Mirjam · Rating 1 out of 5]

I was initially intrigued by the concept of a "politically incorrect guide" to anything. Contrary to popular belief, I'm actually an advocate of the Know Thine Enemy concept or whatever the kids call it these days, and I think understanding one's opponents is crucial. I was a debate kid in primary and secondary school, okay? I've read stuff by political conservatives that spans the scale from the most mild-mannered US Republican's public campaign emails to the stomach-turning creed Mein Kampf. None of that shit has made me renounce my beliefs and turn into a fucking idiot. That's not how brains work. If a single piece of writing will convince you of something, then you already believed that thing, to some extent. Which is to say that I don't exclusively read stuff that agrees with me; that's how you get an echo chamber, and I don't love the sound of my own voice that much. But this? This was just flat-out boring. And full of boring lies. Boring denials of science. Boring complaining about Le Democratic Party. Boring whining. Boring blame-shifting. Grow a fucking pair, Chris. Go recycle or something. And eat a dick.

[Rmtjournal]

"The sky is falling...literally!" Is global warming as obvious as we are being told?

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent.

[عدنان العبار · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is such an amazing book. It exposes the environmental movement, and the global warming craze in such a hilarious and delightful manner, and especially focuses on Al Gore, who has been at the center of it all.

As a physicist, I understand how stable the planet is, thermodynamically. And how hard it is to stabilize it, if it has become unstable. How extremely chaotic it would be, if we focus on certain microstates, but much much more stable if we look at the macrostates (temperature, pressure, etc).

This book covers the story of the environmental movement, and its political motives and anti-capitalistic mentality, how much focused it is on the United States and Europe, as opposed to China, Russia, and India, and how sentimental and overlordly their advocates have become over the years. The biggest issue is that most of what's been advocated cannot be proven, and a lot of it is taken at face value without ample evidence, and ultimately, we do not know if we really do have that much of an effect. (Such statements ought to come from a climate scientist, and not a physicist -- I can only understand the thermodynamics of the situation.)

Finally, the book focuses on this false authority of the scientific consensus, when we know that scientists from other fields might agree without much understanding the science between global warming (or the lack thereof); and often, the numbers that add up to the global consensus come from scientists who concede that if the planet got warmer, what the consequences would be to such and such things within their area of expertise.

I recommend the book to people who want to be challenged, not those who accept what's been repeated everytime.

[Kamron Brinkerhoff · Rating 1 out of 5]

As this book is about a divisive topic, I am basing my score on the quality of the research it has done rather than the conclusions it has made. I spent quite a long time looking at its sources, and unfortunately its research quality is poor at best and blatantly dishonest at worst. The first few chapters paints all environmentalists as extremists who hate America and want to destroy capitalism, failing to take into consideration environmental moderates. As for the actual debunking parts, the book claims that most of the global warming peer-reviewed research is a fraud, and the sources it uses to back this off are mostly blog posts, most of which no longer exist and are written by people who do not even study climate science. In the entirety of the main science chapter I only found 1 peer-reviewed source. At one point it also stated that a certain group thoroughly debunked a certain climate scientist's findings, when the group cited actually directly supported his claim. At another point, the book claimed a scientist said "We need to get rid of the medieval warming period" when really he said that they needed to get rid of "misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature." None of this is surprising when the author, Christopher Warner, has received money from coal companies to write this book. There are much better sources on alternative climate change views, and this book frankly does a disservice to whole skeptical movement.

[Craig Conway · Rating 1 out of 5]

Trash.

I've read some of the other Politically Incorrect Guides and I really enjoyed them. This one was not up to standards on facts or ration. It's basically a cliff notes version of Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity (alt-right Heralds) talking points on "anti-global warming".

If you're reading a book about a scientific theory, scientific model, or scientific conclusion and are expecting them to site at least "alternative" data or studies, you will be disappointed in this book. There's no data. It's just a rant of "common sense" ranting.

I could not finish this book, as it was the intellectual equivalent of listening to a mentally disturbed homeless purpose rant on a street corner.

[Dennis Fay · Rating 5 out of 5]

A GREAT book about the lies and false statements about "Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change! This shows how much money is made by the doomsday prophets of climate change. Climate and weather has always changed and always will.....

It shows how liberals (socialist) want to control nearly every aspect of our lives. Watch out for the "Inteligrid," coming to your house soon!

I use this book as my classroom TEXTBOOK!!!!!!!

[C. · Rating 1 out of 5]

lolNOPE.

[Kyle Grindberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was an excellent and well-written reference in debunking the claims of the global warming agenda. The only issue was that it was written in 2007, so it was responding to issues of that time.

[Morten Greve · Rating 1 out of 5]

Oh, my, god...

[Sandra Strange · Rating 2 out of 5]

Though this book is dated, the information it presents still applies. This book answers the "politically correct" stance that climate change is human caused and can be human corrected. Supported using real science and real climate scientists' research, the book shows the misinformation and deception used by the big corporations and politicians to produce grants, public support, and pure profits. It is definitely biased, but makes the case that climate change certainly is proceeding, but caused by natural processes and part of continuing fluctuation, with the current warming caused by several processes, many of which began either long before or long after fossil fuel usage exploded. Everyone should read this book, especially if they have absorbed Al Gore's deliberately deceptive material.

[Luke · Rating 2 out of 5]

Deserves 5 stars for being exactly what it says on the title - it is political, it is completely incorrect. It is an interesting look at what a certain segment of the Republican politicians believed back in 2006 when climate change didn't start affecting everyone in the country on a regular basis.

That's actually pretty depressing though, that a good number of people still believed this even with mounting evidence in the 2020s and so I also want to give it 0 stars...

[Stan Sorensen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Well documented. I doubt if many of the naysayers in these reviews have really worked through the book. They don't try to grapple with the arguments and seek to refute them, chapter by chapter with published research that is available. They simply wave their hand and voice generalizations. That's the sad thing about climate activists.

[Wesley Molt · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first chapter read like a conspiracy theory, but after that, Mr. Horner takes on all the teachings of environmentalists from the early 2000's and backs them up with hard science. All in all, not bad if one ignores that first chapter.

[John Stevenson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent book. Very detailed descriptions and data regarding the fallacy of the environmentalists and the politicians, culminating in the ridiculous Kyoto accord.

[Sandie Elsom · Rating 1 out of 5]

What absolute garbage.

[Howard · Rating 4 out of 5]

test review

[John Reis · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very informative book, especially about the political maneuvering behind global warming. It was however, an aggravating book because it did not provide data in a coherent and organized way. It also hopped around and inserted political stories into discussion of data. This wasn’t meant to be a scholarly book, yet it made many statements that should have been footnoted. I have read enough on the subject not to be worried about the planet, however I am concerned to know how much the players know and what their real agendas are. And that needs more careful writing than Horner provides.

[Rich · Rating 4 out of 5]

Many claim the science on global warming is decided and the time for debate has ended. We're all going to bake to death unless we move back into caves immediately. Here's my problem with this issue (and I've had it since long before I read this book): 30 years ago when I was a junior high and high school student, the very same organizations, and some times the very same people, who are now telling us the planet is becoming one big oven, were telling us the planet was about to become one big refrigerator because of global cooling. Don't these people have any instutitional memory?

Here, Horner pulls together the research from many scientists who question the whole global warming concept, including Dr. Patrick Moore--one of the co-founders of Greenpeace. Horner shows evidence that at the time Al Gore was running around saying the planet is warming too quickly, the Himalaya mountains were experiencing record snowfalls, the center of the Antartic Ice Sheet was actually thickening, temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were actually staying static, he shows how Al Gore doctored the now famous/infamous hockey stick graph to prove his point, when in reality the men who worked on it said, ultimately temperatures actually showed NORMAL fluctuations. For those who are deeply worried about losing Alpine glaciers throughout the Alps, please keep in mind that when the African conqueror Hannibal brought his armies complete with elephants over the Alps, those glaciers didn't exist, the Alps were actually snow and glacier free enough to allow Hannibal passage. When the Vikings were running all over the North Atlantic, the Greenland Ice Sheet had retreated enough to allow the Vikings to place settlements on Greenland.

Horner also cites many other scientists who say that the only thing static about the Earth's weather patterns is that they are always dynamic--i.e. always changing.

This is worth the time of anyone who wants to get both sides of the global warming/climate change debate.

[Robert · Rating 2 out of 5]

I didn't disagree with the author but as others have indicated the book was rather boring and repetitive. It has a lot of rhetoric in it and many arguments were restated several times. I think most people understand that Al Gore is not a scientist and isn't credible arguing about this issue but it got ridiculous after the third time with the Gore bashing (even though he does deserve it). Because of those issues the people who need to read the book wont which is a shame.

What I appreciated about the book is that it does highlight how factual knowledge, data, can be interpreted differently. We are not "tabula rasas" and it is impossible to approach anything without a bias. I hope people understand that this doesn't apply just to the issue of global warming but in every aspect of science. There's one other major politicized "issue" in science where if you don't agree with the "consensus" you are ostracized from being thought of as a scientist. That's what happens when you don't understand the difference between theory and law.

Another issue with the book I had is that I would have preferred more of the hard data of temperatures and temperature stations presented in the book.

If the book had been more concise. If it hit the main arguments only a couple of times and maybe have concentrated on them and presented more coherently I could have given a better rating.