The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial

by David Lipsky

In 1956, the New York Times prophesied that once global warming really kicked in, we could see parrots in the Antarctic. In 2010, when science deniers had control of the climate story, Senator James Inhofe and his family built an igloo on the Washington Mall and plunked a sign on top: AL GORE'S NEW HOME: HONK IF YOU LOVE CLIMATE CHANGE. In The Parrot and the Igloo, best-selling author David Lipsky tells the astonishing story of how we moved from one extreme (the correct one) to the other.

With narrative sweep and a superb eye for character, Lipsky unfolds the dramatic narrative of the long, strange march of climate science. The story begins with a tale of three inventors—Thomas Edison, George Westinghouse, and Nikola Tesla—who made our technological world, not knowing what they had set into motion. Then there are the scientists who sounded the alarm once they identified carbon dioxide as the culprit of our warming planet. And we meet the hucksters, zealots, and crackpots who lied about that science and misled the public in ever more outrageous ways. Lipsky masterfully traces the evolution of climate denial, exposing how it grew out of early efforts to build a network of untruth about products like aspirin and cigarettes.

Featuring an indelible cast of heroes and villains, mavericks and swindlers, The Parrot and the Igloo delivers a real-life tragicomedy—one that captures the extraordinary dance of science, money, and the American character.

Genres: Nonfiction, Science, Environment, History, Climate Change, Politics, Audiobook

496 pages, Hardcover

First published July 11, 2023

About the author

David Lipsky is a contributing editor at Rolling Stone magazine. His fiction and nonfiction have appeared in The New Yorker, Harper's Magazine, The Best American Short Stories, The Best American Magazine Writing, The New York Times, The New York Times Book Review, and many other publications. He contributes as an essayist to NPR's All Things Considered, and is the recipient of a Lambert Fellowship, a Media Award from GLAAD, and a National Magazine Award. He's the author of the novel The Art Fair, a collection of stories, Three Thousand Dollars, and the bestselling nonfiction book Absolutely American, which was a Time magazine Best Book of the Year.

Reviews

[Steve · Rating 5 out of 5]

Many have successfully tackled the history and science behind global warming, leaving zero doubt in my mind on that issue, but this is the first time I've seen the history of the denial movement exposed with such an unimpeachable, and mentally satisfying, linear presentation.

It has always been obvious the global warming skeptics were simply copying big tobaccos playbook from decades earlier, but I had no idea it is in fact many of the same non degree holding, self titled "scientists" who made the switch to global warming denial once the tobacco fight was lost and the funding dried up. Lipsky exhibits exceptional research in tracing this long history of both science and skeptism from the late 1800s to our modern day and unpacks many of the famous "studies" used to refute the fact that global warming is a real issue, and one that human beings continue to contribute to through our actions.

Lipsky's writing style made this a more pleasant read, for what can often be a really grim topic. He injects plenty of humor and pop culture references, creating a more stimulating and engaging experience with subject matter that, when handled by the actual scientists, would likely put even the most motivated readers to sleep.

I had been looking forward to this book for months and was, thankfully, offered even more than I was expecting.

Thanks to Norton for the ARC.

[Clif Hostetler · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is divided into three parts which the author describes as follows: “The story this book tells is about the people who made our world; then the people who realized there might be a problem; then the people who lied about that problem.” Those three parts are then followed by a long Epilog in which the author tells how he became involved with this subject in recent years. Thus the book provides complete history of the climate story from its nineteenth century beginning to our present situation today.

The individuals featured in "Part One: Inventors" included men like Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Morse, Thomas Edison, and Nikola Tesla. This is all well known history, and it seems to me to make this book longer than it needs to be. "Part Two: Scientist" and "Part Three: Deniers" contain the history that needs to be front and center in recounting the climate story. The book’s Preface even suggests to the reader the option of skipping the first part of the book, so I’m not the only person to have questioned its value.

In Part Two of the book we learn that as early as the 1890s chemists were aware that carbon dioxide exhibited heat trapping properties, and that the burning of coal which was the dominate fuel at the time was discharging CO2 into the atmosphere. At first it was theorized that the oceans would act as a buffer by absorbing excess CO2 and thus protect the earth’s climate. Unfortunately scientific advances determined that ocean CO2 absorption was offset by release back into the atmosphere. Indeed as early as the 1930s newspapers were headlining stories about a trend toward increasing temperatures. Of course in retrospect the increase at that time was minuscule compared to more recent temperature increases.

It is in Part Two of the book that we also introduced to Roger Revelle who as early as the 1950s raised the possibility that adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could result in global warming. We are also told about Jim Hansen who testified to Congress in 1988 that the age of a hotter planet had arrived. These an other scientists published peer reviewed findings from all sorts of data from ice cores and tree rings that showed temperatures varying with CO2 concentrations.

In Part Three we learn about the deniers who didn’t need to write peer reviewed articles to take up the lucrative profession of casting doubt and using such terms as “junk science” and “sound science.” These terms were quickly picked up by certain politicians. The twisted irony of these deniers is that they claimed that the published peer reviewed science was the “junk science” and their opinions were the “sound science.”

One thing this book includes are the early biographies of famous deniers such as Dr. Frederick Seitz, S. Fred Singer, and others. I found it interesting to note that their early lives demonstrated personalities likely to take contrarian positions. Once they claimed to be expert enough to deny one issue they quickly were able to do the same on a different subject. Thus many of the deniers paid for by the tobacco companies also took denier positions on the freon/ozone hole issue, the aspirin/Reye’s syndrome, and the fossil fuels/warming climate science.

This book serves as an supplemental update to Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway’s “Merchants of Doubt.” Link is to my review.

[David Wineberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

So who are all these scientists denying climate change? David Lipsky profiles them and gives them all the color they deserve in The Parrot and the Igloo. It would be laughable if it weren’t so serious. But Lipsky has managed to both entertain and amuse in this gossipy but deeply researched book. It puts the players and the major events in perspective, and shows the deterioration of science in the process, thanks to a small cadre of quacks and frauds.

The overall impression I got was that they were and are people of very low quality, as well as amoral. These so-called skeptics are of the anything-for-a-buck genre. Some of them reversed course and contradicted their own clear statements to join the deniers’ gravy train. And let there be no doubt: there has been an immense and fabulous gravy train, funded by the usual suspects – Big Tobacco and the Koch Brothers.

Many of them are out and out frauds. They have no relevant education, no credentials, no career history and no accomplishments that would merit their classification as climate authorities. They all seem to seek fame and fortune from this, and they calculated that they could achieve it on the denial side, which is very lightly populated. As Steve Milloy, one of the worst (he’s still out there pushing debunked claims at his junkscience website and on Fox), said “There are only about 25 of us.” But with tobacco money and media seeking out the “other side”, they make far more noise than all the hundreds of thousands of global scientists who understand the facts. The deniers got huge salaries, offices, globetrotting appointments, first class travel, and set up their own think tanks to further their masters’ cause and rake in donations. And all they have to do is make waves.

Lipsky shows the real scientists have been right. Their predictions have proven to be conservative, if anything. And their timelines have proven to be largely correct. Their near unanimity on climate change comes from thousands of scholarly papers, peer reviewed and published so they can be replicated and verified. And so they have, untold times.

The deniers, by contrast, refuse to write scholarly papers. None of them have published results of their own studies. None have conducted studies that could be replicated by others. Literally all they do is deny, with no basis or backup.

Very early on, Big Tobacco came up with a catchy way to deny climate change. They got their talking heads to say it was “junk science”. This struck a chord with conservatives, who continue to repeat it as if it had any meaning. It doesn’t. The studies conducted by actual scientists survive rigorous rules, procedures and protocols. The results are made public so others can compare results. That is how science works. The deniers refuse to participate.

The deniers say science doesn’t work via consensus. Maybe, but as Science’s editor pointed out in 2001 “Consensus as strong as the one that has developed around this topic is rare in science.” The consensus among 25 well paid deniers is far more absurd.

Big Tobacco then came up with its counter to junk science: sound science. They even set up their own group, Advanced Sound Science – or ASS – run by the loudest of the loud. It has, needless to say, contributed nothing to science, but has convinced a lot of Republican congressmen that “sound science” is always missing in action. They long for it, if only it existed. And they will accept nothing without it. Not that anyone knows what it entails. There is no methodology for dramatic new sound science. As Stanford biologist Donald Kennedy explained it: “It doesn’t have any normative meaning whatsoever. My science is Sound Science, and the science of my enemies is Junk.”

At their most generous, the deniers claim “more research is needed”. No one can disagree with that, so it is safe to repeat after every new paper and discovery. But as the US Surgeon General of the era understood about smoking and smog: “Research without action is a dangerous sedative.” Deny and delay is proving fatal.

The final puzzle piece/cliché word in the denier arsenal is uncertainty. Washington under Reagan, Bush and Trump made it into the most common descriptor of every scientific finding. Nothing was ever clear; there was always uncertainty in science. Science is just plain unreliable in 21st century America. Then under Trump, the word climate was banned altogether. So there was no need for uncertainty any more.

But why tobacco? It seems that Big Tobacco cottoned on to climate change as the ticket out of the secondhand smoke controversy. They figured if they could malign the science behind clean air, they could dissipate the criticism of their customers killing their own children with their smoking. It’s a stretch, but Big Tobacco saw it as a lifeline as more and more customer lawsuits went against them. Worse, airlines were beginning to limit and then ban smoking onboard, followed by offices and restaurants. It had to be stopped as soon and as loudly as possible. Money was no object. So Big Tobacco went after global warming. They would take down the whole planet for cigarettes.

In Lipsky’s recap of history, he shows the greenhouse effect has been well known and well accepted for hundreds of years. Three hundred years ago, philosopher-scientists determined that the atmosphere contained CO2, and at a very important level. If CO2 were cut in half, the planet would freeze to death like Mars. If it doubled, the planet would boil to death like Venus. Those nearby planets were the laboratories, living demonstrations of the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Real evidence, right in front of us, all along.

In the 1950s, definitive predictions began to appear, showing irreparable damage to the climate unless reductions were made immediately. My own favorite was the Russian Roulette model: Every decade, you add another bullet to the revolver and have one of your children (or later, their children) pull the trigger with the gun at their own heads. That metaphor runs out in the 2020s, where we see record, out of control heating, fires, flooding and mass migration chaos all over the world. The deniers, meanwhile, continue to claim the world would be far better off with much more CO2. It would be warmer and much more comfortable year round and far more lush because plants (at least poison ivy, Lipsky found) would love more CO2. Still waiting on that nirvana. It’s a leg up on God.

In 1970, everyone got it. Even President Richard Nixon joined in, proclaiming a new federal agency, the EPA. He said 1970 must be the year “when America pays it debt to the past by reclaiming the purity of its air, its waters and our living environment. It is literally now or never. “ Richard Nixon said that. Really. And on a CBS-TV news series called Can the Planet Be Saved, Walter Cronkite said “We found not one who disagreed that some disaster portends.”

The USA was frightened and onboard until the Carter years, when fuel shortages, and Carter’s love of domestic fossil fuel firms began to turn the tide of opinion (In terms of actual oil imports though, the USA went from $3.7 billion in 1971 to $427 billion in 2013, despite all the self-sufficiency maneuvering). This followed a period of killer smogs in LA, New York and London, diverting attention to visible, smellable, choking pollution. It was literally an in-your-face issue. Much more immediately critical than long-term warming. Add Big Tobacco agendas, and conservative lawmakers could soon be counted on to actually laugh at climate change. It eventually became a hoax to them (by whom or for what gain was never clear).

Eventually, the fossil fuel folks read the Big Tobacco playbook and piled on, pumping more millions into denial, while real scientists had their already inadequate funding cut back. Big coal, for example, only decided in 1991 to band together and reposition global warming as a theory, not a fact in the mind of the public. It worked.

This at any rate is the way Lipsky presents it, except it is delightfully character-driven, which is unusual in my experience. He has been following it in great depth for decades. He has met the key players, attended the hearings, read the transcripts, and even read the awful publications of the deniers. He says writing this book has made him angry, and subject to outbursts that cost him friendships. He cannot believe how such selfish and ignorant men (all but one are men) can get away with so much fraud every day, for decades. It is costing us the planet, for their fame and comfort while they live. On behalf of cigarettes.

Lipsky’s quirky style makes it easier to digest, in some ways. His descriptions of the players is consistently colorful. Here’s how he describes Charles Keeling, who was obsessed with measuring CO2 all over the world: “He had oversize ears, a crewcut, friendly eyes—in a suit, he looked like he’d been sent to body jail (…) He measured with a Zen frenzy.”

It is Keeling’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii that is the global gold standard for CO2 measurement. Since he set it up, CO2 has gone from 313 ppm to 413ppm, passing well into the way-too-much atmospheric CO2 zone. (Before the industrial revolution, it was in the 200s.) When Keeling died in 2005, his son “Ralph—good, no-fuss name” picked up the baton.

Jim Hansen, the most famous whistleblower of climate change, was a NASA engineer who testified to this problem starting in the 1950s. There is no question of his qualifications. He became the most positive and public face of climate science for decades. He has often been called the Paul Revere of global warming. Lipsky says of him: “He has the catcher’s mitt face of a farmer, someone you might see giving reluctant directions to a sportscar at the side of a long, flat highway.” I confess I don’t know what that means.

Here’s another: Prominent climate scientist Wallace Broecker “looked, in the kindest way possible, like a highly evolved frog. Flat cheeks, wide mouth, bulge forehead. Which makes a type of sense: his specialty was water.” This is not your average climate change analysis.

Another highly qualified scientist, F. Sherwood Rowland “had the look of a local TV weatherman—owl glasses, weedy brows, friendly and concerned; a man who would use complicated phrases, then take the trouble to explain.” Does that help?

It was Rowland who said: “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if in the end all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” Just for saying that, he deserves a better description.

Speaking of complicated phrases, Lipsky is a specialist in them. His paragraphs are filled with partial sentences, stray adjectives, and obscure references. He has successfully out-obscured me, as there are three or four I could not make head nor tails of. I can only assume they come from some dark corner of pop culture I have not dwelled in. My hat comes off to Lipsky, but it doesn’t help the read.

He describes LA’s first smog tests as “It was junior prom: first corsage, first limo, first dance.” You don’t necessarily know what he’s talking about, even though it is clear and in plain English.

“(Global warming) had resumed its usual awful timing. A kind of historical reboot.” No idea.

“The self-defense of last resort is the gavel.” It is? Do you hit people with it, or is an auction the last resort? Maybe Congressional hearings? It turns out to refer to suing someone, in this case suing Arthur Robinson, the man whose non-existent think tank made up the signed statement that claimed 31,000 signatures of scientists, all non-believers in warming. For two decades, this fraudulent claim circulated as the real thing, cited by Fox News repeatedly as if it were new each time Robinson added more signatures, and of course was the very foundation stone of denial. It turns out it was made up, with ridiculous cutesy names and a lot of “scientists” with degrees in computer science, if any. Actual climate scientists, though, were much less in evidence.

The very title of the book is about as obscure as can be. Pretty much only David Lipsky would get it. And he takes several pages to explain it. So the book has issues. Nonetheless, it is a fast-paced and highly descriptive overview of how the USA abandoned scientific discovery for a hoax. It profiles all the key players, and not always in a flattering light. And it acknowledges that too late was in the 1970s, not 2050. So the ride will only get bumpier as we add bullets to the overloaded revolver.

David Wineberg

If you liked this review, I invite you to read more in my book The Straight Dope. It’s an essay collection based on my first thousand reviews and what I learned. Right now it’s FREE for Prime members, otherwise — cheap! Reputed to be fascinating and a superfast read. And you already know it is well-written. https://www.amazon.com/Straight-Dope-...

[John Kelly · Rating 4 out of 5]

Heroes, villains, and a dash of humor – "The Parrot and the Igloo" unravels the gripping saga of climate change battles..……

Book Information

“The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial” by David Lipsky, is a 496-page science book published on July 11, 2023. The audio version is Narrated by Mike Chamberlain and spans 18 hours and 44 minutes. Thank you to RB Media for providing me with an advance readers copy of this book for review.

Summary

"The Parrot and the Igloo" is an account of the genesis of climate denial, weaving together the stories of prominent inventors like Edison, Tesla, and Westinghouse who revolutionized our world. Amidst this backdrop, the book introduces courageous scientists who raised concerns about climate change. David Lipsky skillfully reveals how a web of deception, first established to distort facts about products like aspirin and cigarettes, later facilitated the proliferation of denialist ideas.

My Thoughts

David Lipsky's book, "The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial," is a unique and comprehensive exploration of climate change history and the denial movement. Divided into three parts, "Part One: The Inventors," "Part Two: Scientists," and "Part Three: Deniers," the book offers the flexibility to listen in any order. “The Parrot and the Igloo” is a mind-blowing journey through science, lies, and the fight for truth.

While the book provides a wealth of captivating and well-researched information, its considerable length can be overwhelming at times. Nonetheless, it masterfully traces the long history of science and skepticism surrounding global warming, debunking famous "studies" used to discredit its reality.

One of the book's strengths lies in its infusion of humor and pop culture references, making the content more engaging and enjoyable. Lipsky skillfully presents complex concepts in an accessible manner, making them easy for readers to understand. Notably, the book uncovers surprising connections between big tobacco and climate deniers, shedding light on the manipulative tactics employed to challenge established science.

The book's focus on character-driven storytelling sets it apart from typical science literature. By delving into the lives of both heroes and villains related to climate change, readers gain a fascinating understanding of the science and quackery intertwined in their experiences.

The vivid descriptions of the people involved add intrigue to the narrative and keep readers hooked throughout the book. Moreover, the narrator, Mike Chamberlain, enhances the experience with his engaging performance, making the material feel more like a mystery, comedy, or thriller than a traditional science book.

Recommendation

"The Parrot and the Igloo" is a deeply researched and captivating book that skillfully navigates the history of climate change and denial. Despite its length, the narrative style and excellent narration make it a rewarding and enlightening read for anyone interested in understanding the complexities of climate science and denial movements.

Rating

4 Real Science Stars

[Jackie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have to be honest, this one really didn't resonate with me. I'm not sure if it was the audiobook narrator, or the weird jokey way the author tried to force analogies to modern day situations and scenarios, but I just found the whole thing absolutely exhausting.

I liked the idea that the book was in 3 parts, and you could listen in any order, but the audiobook didn't have chapter headings, much less section headings, and it was all over a really bad listening experience that made me want to bang my head against a wall.

I've given this 3 stars, even though it's a 1 star in my head and heart, because I wonder if the overall stress of the book had me hating it. I found it interesting that the author said working on this book made him hate everything as well, so... maybe it's just the topic is extremely frustrating and awful and migraine inducing. Either way, I've never been so happy to be done with a book.

Thank you NetGalley and RB Media for sending this book for review consideration. All opinions are my own.

[Michael · Rating 2 out of 5]

This deeply flawed history of the climate crisis is well researched and contains a lot of useful information, much of which is obscured by the author's unconventional and extremely annoying writing style. It is divided into three parts, the first about the scientists who the discovered electricity and started the world on its long and dangerous romance with burning fossil fuels, the second about the scientists who discovered the greenhouse effect of increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and tried to warn an unlistening world about it, and a third about those who make a living denying the indisputable facts of climate change. There is also a lengthy epilogue that is little more than a temper tantrum. The author suggests that you can read them singly or in any order, but I had the audiobook, so I listened to it in order. You then realize that many of the points that the author wishes to make, and certain quotations from scientists, such as Jim Hansen's about what he owed his grandchildren, are repeated in each section in almost identical language.

To me, the most worthwhile section was the second one, where the author illustrates quite clearly that the greenhouse effect has been known to scientists since the 1950s, and was the subject of numerous news reports and warnings to political leaders, but that next to nothing was done about it. He debunks a few myths along the way, such as Jimmy Carter's image as a great friend of the environment (his solution to oil shortages inflicted on the West by Arab nations was to burn more coal), and that George H. W. Bush wasn't really a wimp (he came into office promising action on climate change but was not permitted to do anything by his Chief of Staff, and by 1992 was reduced to name-calling, dubbing Al Gore "Ozone Man"). This is the clearest section of the book. One realizes that the facts were as clear as day more than half a century ago and that supposed "leaders" looked the other way. Some of them, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, falsified reports about the warming of the planet to remove any mention of the danger to future life that already existed and was known to scientists and to political leaders. It's a colossal failure of leadership.

That was why the third section of the book was so baffling. It is mostly a discussion of the right wing bloggers, cranks and "scientists" of dubious credentials who make a living as climate change skeptics. The author traces their histories, mostly of failure in "real" science, and their association with bad actors such as the Reverend Moon and the tobacco companies. The big revelation, at least in the author's mind, is that many of the climate deniers had prior lives as lackeys of the tobacco companies, denying that second hand smoke was harmful. He points out that many of the tobacco company strategies, such as pretending that settled science is still in doubt, have been resurrected by those denying either that climate change is occurring, that it is caused by human activities, or that it is a bad thing. I get all that, but these people didn't just materialize out of thin air. They are paid to falsify science by those who have a lot of money to make burning fossil fuels. Listening to page after page about Steve McIntyre and James Delingpole, I kept waiting for the unmasking of the real bad guys. But it never happened.

Is this possible? I asked myself. Does he really think that the Fred Singers and James Delingpoles of the world are the reason why no legislative action is ever taken against climate change in the US? (And it is only US action or inaction we hear about. The rest of the world might as well not exist). They're the evil masterminds? But he had that section about the 2007 legislation that forced everyone to change light bulbs. He learned, after interviewing executives of the three companies that make the world's light bulbs, that the legislation only went through because industry wanted it. They were ready to roll out new (and more profitable for them) technology, but it would force everyone to pay more for the better (and more environmentally friendly) bulbs. Passing a law to require the new technology would mean that consumers would blame the government, and not the light bulb manufacturers, for the extra expense. "Hey, we're only doing this because the government says we have to."

In my mind, this should have been the "Aha" moment, the realization of how things really work and the explanation for why we never get the necessary action on global warming. What I thought should have followed the light bulb discussion was a realization that nothing ever gets through Congress in the US unless industry wants it. And why is that? What did Deep Throat tell Bob Woodward? Of course, FOLLOW THE MONEY! We have a political system that is saturated with money, and the Supreme Court, in Citizens United and other cases, has made sure that corporate money will continue to control our politics. The Republican Party is practically a wholly owned subsidiary of the fossil fuel industry. The Democrats, while better on the environment than Republicans (it would be impossible to be worse) also rely heavily on donations from big corporate donors. Senators and Congressmen spend large amounts of their time raising campaign cash. Money flows in very large quantities from Big Oil to Republican politicians. That money insures that environmental legislation dies in Congress. The political parties act in the interests of their donors, not their constituents.

The author spent a lot of time drawing an analogy between climate denial and tobacco denial, but his time might have been better spent looking at the parallels between the oil industry and the gun industry. Thousands are dying in mass shootings but it is impossible to pass gun control legislation because of the stranglehold that the gun industry and the NRA have on Republican politicians. Purchased with lots of campaign donations, of course. It's the same with Big Oil. Their money controls the politicians who make sure that meaningful action to address climate change never occurs.

Amazingly, there is nothing about money in politics in this book. It is well known that the Koch brothers have over the years contributed massive amounts of money to conservative causes and politicians. Republicans who are serious about attaining high political office are careful to stay on the right side of of Koch Industries. They don't want that campaign money going to their primary opponents. The money isn't without strings attached. It is about making sure that the fossil fuel industry gets what it wants. And what it mostly doesn't want is legislation limiting emissions.

I waited and waited for a glimpse of Charles Koch. Could it be true, I thought? He's going to write an entire book of nearly 500 pages about global warming and not address the role of the oil companies in hiring and paying these deniers, and the role of the representatives elected with Big Oil money in providing platforms for the climate deniers at Congressional hearings? Shouldn't he have talked about which politicians got the most oil money and how they voted on climate-related issues? Then, there it was. A single tiny mention that some denier had received funding from the Koch brothers. But that was it. It was like Casey at the Bat. All this buildup, and then a big swing and miss.

The author did blast one president near the end of the book. It was, surprisingly, Barack Obama. The author must have had high hopes for action by Obama and was very disappointed that he didn't come through. He blames a lot of it on Rahm Emanuel (an easy target if there ever was one), but goes on to skewer Obama for doing nothing about climate change.

This didn't square with my recollection so I did some research of my own. It turned out that a cap and trade bill passed the House of Representatives in 2009, Obama's first year in office, but there was no action in the Senate because of well, see above, and the filibuster and oh yeah, there was a financial meltdown that made everyone skittish about passing legislation that would make enormous changes to the economy. But none of this is in the book. Apparently, Obama was supposed to wave his hand and the author would get the urgent action that the planet needed. Obama also moved later to limit emissions from power plants, to raise the mileage requirements for motor vehicles and to have carbon dioxide regulated by the EPA as harmful pollution. None of that is in the book either.

Not to excuse Obama. His record on climate change, like that of every president, was abysmal. But the structure of the US government, and the money that is choking our political system, pose enormous challenges to anyone trying to accomplish something meaningful on the issue. I don't really see this situation changing until the government changes or some major disaster occurs. But, then again, those of us who live in the north spent a lot of time this past summer breathing smoke from Canadian wildfires and not a single world leader publicly demanded immediate action on climate change. It's like they are all in a trance.

I don't want to be overcritical, because the author does make some important points about how the disinformation spread by fake scientists and blogging climate science skeptics has played a big role in shaping public perception of the seriousness of the crisis. But laying all responsibility for this at the feet of the Fred Singers of the world allows those really at fault to escape responsibility. A Fred Singer exists because it is in the financial interest of industry, tobacco formerly and fossil fuels more recently, to have a supposed scientist spouting his contrarian views. Industry provides him with funding and the politicians who receive funding from the same sources promote his views. The book also illustrates how incredibly negligent journalists covering the climate issue have been, failing to differentiate between real science and fossil fuel industry-bought fake science, and repeating the claims of the climate skeptics without any examination of their motives or scientific credentials.

Many reviewers have commented on the author's writing style and I will add my two cents. The author thinks that he is funny and clever and he is forever trying to come up with witty metaphors to illustrate his points. He's so fond of metaphors that he probably used the word "metaphor" a dozen or more times in the book. This became tiresome very, very quickly and he never let up. In addition to adding length to the book (the information here would easily have been covered in 300-350 pages), the attempts at humor undermine the serious of the message. When the author interrupts a discussion of anticipated environmental disaster to riff on the Beatles, Beyonce, iPhones and Charlton Heston movies, the message that comes across is that this isn't all that serious.

The tone got worse as the book went on, apparently because he got angrier as he wrote the book (as he has stated). The discussion of the charlatans who did the bidding of the fossil fuel industry by posing as experts on topics they really knew nothing about degenerated into outright mockery, which will rarely win you converts. I wondered whether the author thought that he could really change conservative minds by writing this book. The third section came to reek of the smug condescension that infuriates conservatives when they think that they are being lectured by liberals. Will they join the cause?

But then again, David Lipsky has to be David Lipsky. It wasn't until I finished this that I realized that I had previously read his book of interviews with David Foster Wallace, where the subject of the book was crowded out by Lipsky's self-important blathering. It must be that, no matter what the subject, a book by David Lipsky is mostly about David Lipsky.

This (climate change, not David Lipsky's ego) is an important issue, perhaps the most important and serious challenge that mankind has ever faced. There are good books out there about the issue, some of which are referenced in this book, some by an outstanding writer on the issue, Elizabeth Kolbert of the New Yorker. Elizabeth Kolbert is one of my heroes. James Hansen is another. Another more recent, and far better, book (it is also terrifying) is John Vaillant's "Fire Weather." If you want a serious discussion of a serious issue, read Hansen, Kolbert and Vaillant, not David Lipsky.

[Peacegal · Rating 5 out of 5]

THE PARROT AND THE IGLOO was one of those books that I feel was written just for me. I enjoy learning about science and history in an engaging way, and I especially am interested in how societal change happens (or does not).

Some readers may not enjoy how this book leapfrogs from subject to subject, including the creation and development of the electricity industry, how fossil fuels (particularly coal) came to dominate energy production, the history of corporations using social and political lobbying to fight regulations on everything from cigarettes to children’s medication, to how many near-misses could have put us on a different trajectory in regards to global warming—but I found it invigorating to the mind.

So, so many near-misses. It’s amazing (or perhaps not) how many tobacco lobbyists pivoted to the climate denial track…and with both industries, the same names keep popping up over and over. These individuals are an odd bunch, often experiencing multiple professional and personal failures before being embraced (and enriched) by some of the worst industries in the world. And yet, these folks have not only convinced generations of politicians to vote in their industries’ favor, but also have a decent-sized segment of the population repeating their buzzwords and arguments.

Incredibly, TV viewers were warned about the effects of climate change in 1958. And the science wasn’t new even then. Change in response to societal ills or world problems happens incredibly slowly. Many of the activists on behalf of change never see the causes they champion come to fruition in their lifetimes. However, as rising temperatures and more and more extreme weather events testifies, the decision on whether we act on climate is already being made for us.

[Katie Putz · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is like listening to that super smart friend who knows way too much about something deeply disturbing and talks way too damn fast about it for ages without stopping to take a breath. Sometimes it gets confusing and you feel a little lost and then he reveals the connection you missed and all of a sudden it's Moonies and Big Tobacco and climate denial city, weighed down with incrementalism and "more research" and straight up fucking lies. 

There are also heroes in here, people whose names we should know because they were right and they kept saying so and in the face of so much money and pressure not everyone sells out.


This book will make you mad and it should.

[Jennifer-L-R · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5. The book is a hard read both because of the content and the writing style. The author uses a LOT of metaphors and it just gets hard to follow. In some ways to clarify a point but often to be cute. It just made things harder to follow.
But - the research he did! This was a comprehensive history of climate change denial. Starting with cigarettes and Philip Morris, which a direct link to current science skepticism. So infuriating, and with so many interesting back stories of these repugnant people. And the heroes who just kept on telling the truth.
This is a rough book - but important.

[Jack · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked this, but I struggled to read about the deniers. The author said that writing it put him in a bad mood and I found reading about it was also anger inducing. The denial people will say and do anything for money and fame regardless of the effect it has on the habitability of our world.

[Laurel Reinoehl · Rating 2 out of 5]

DNF - pg 116. Just......just mostly unreadable. Sentence fragments were all over. Things did not even make sense if it was supposed to be a transcript of a podcast or spoken instead of read. Just....not readable right now. Maybe if I was on stronger antidepressants.

[Gailileo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well-researched and critically important, but be prepared to read with a high tolerance for meandering.

[Dan Dillabough · Rating 5 out of 5]

Equal parts infuriating and darkly funny. Probably the most essential book of the year.

[Darlene · Rating 3 out of 5]

I am really not finished yet. I am at 99%, but I wanted to write this review before closing the laptop.

This is highly political, but David Lipsky seems to have no favorites. He has much to say about the denial on both sides of the aisle. I love science, but this proves how human ambition can kill science and the people who would benefit most from knowing the answers, however they proved.

Mike Chamberlain (Narrator) did a reasonably good job reading the book, but there wasn't much to work with. It seemed the thing I hated most about this book was how the author chose to pretty up the story with words or illustrations that seemed to entertain him. I found these annoying, and it took me out of the story he was trying to tell. Not to say this is fiction. It was history in light of science and politics.

There are various opinions about this book in the reviews. Maybe you will love it? Or not? Try for yourself to see.

[A · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lipsky tackles climate change in three parts - the inventors whose creations led to climate change, the scientists who discovered carbon dioxide was causing climate change, and the leaders who denied the effects of climate change.

Well researched and easy to understand Lipsky takes the reader on a climate change journey that is sure to leave the reader frustrated at the lack of urgency by global leaders.

If you’re interested in climate change and understanding how/why the world continues to grow warmer, don’t miss out on this one!

ARC provided via NetGalley

[Jason Bednar · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ultimately, I am going to say that I think everyone should read this book. Have the malarkey from climate change deniers purged from your brain. Learn how the crass profit motive led to underhanded methods to destroy science and ruin scientists. Climate change is real and we need the political will to actually do something about it before it is too late.

[Gretchen_MadeUBook · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars-I really enjoyed this book and I learned about so much more than just climate science denial. The author takes a really interesting approach by starting with a history of the inventors that helped propel our technical world into what it is today, Edison, Tesla, and Westinghouse. Then the focus shifts to the early stages of when we started to see the beginning evidence of climate change (the whole way back in the 1890s) and those that tried to warn us that something bad was on the horizon. With the last section being dedicated to those that tried to keep the world from believing anything was bad was happening. There are so many layers to this book and each one of the sections is fascinating in its own way. Although I am not shocked or surprised at all, I found it interesting to learn about the huge part that Big Tobacco played/plays a role in the overall denial by funding the deniers directly. I admittedly still need to do some fact checking of my own on some of the topics the book covers, but all in all, I found it to be a very engaging and thought provoking book. It also made me really sad because I do believe that climate change is a vital issue that impacts each and everyone of us. If there truly are people in the world purposely denying facts and making it difficult for us to save our planet, then what hope do we really have?

[Kimberly · Rating 4 out of 5]

I listen to the audio version of this. The book is in three parts. The first part is about the inventors, and I found it very fascinating. It was about Edison, Westinghouse and Tesla. The rest of the book is a frustrating, yet enlightning read on how deniers of science, manipulate and lie about facts for the sake of greed. It’s shocking to learn that scientists, based on science and studies, have known since the 1950s, that humans are the cause of global warming and climate change, and yet we’ve gotten nowhere!

[Maria · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well researched. I was interested in how different industries used similar ideas to override research to keep making money. The political side was also interesting to see that it was all driven by those who were influenced to keep industry the way it has always been.

[Diogenes Grief · Rating 5 out of 5]

“I became a very unpleasant person writing this book. There’s something about reading people who are lying that makes you suspicious and argumentative company. My back was always up. I was always starting fights, demanding agreement—I would tell friends what they’d said a day or year before, contrasting it with what they’d said just now. It is proof of the decency of the world that I retained any friendships at all. I became one more voice arguing about global warming” (p. 482, Libby).

Lipsky feels like a guy I’d like to have a g&t with watching a hockey game. Of course then my mind drifts down the carbon-footprint nightmare as I consider all the energy, raw materials, and waste that went into that single glass of organic gin & elderflower tonic with a thick slice of lime perfectly juicy and green, never mind the tremendous energy, raw materials, and waste that go into a single televised hockey game with tens of thousands of fans glued to screens of all sizes, their consumption of stuff mined-farmed-manufactured-shipped-warehoused-delivered and all the waste destined for landfills and polluting the planet, and the power-sucking needs of everyone enjoying such entertainment (electric grid, power plants, server farms, satellites, cell towers) to keep us distracted from the doom and gloom of thinking too hard for two hours at a time. We should all be so mindful. Guilt generates action, sometimes.

This could be the only book you need to read about the progression of the science on global warming (from Svante Arrhenius in 1903 to the most recent IPCC report published this year [https://www.theguardian.com/environme...]), and the massive disinformation machine that was created to confuse, distract, and delude the public with greenwashing rhetoric, wish-cycling dreams, the kick-the-can-down-the-road “we need more research” escapism, the Cheshire-cat grinning "Sound Science" ploy, the noble futility of “reuse-repurpose-recycle” for all us EV-driving, tree-planting, tree-hugging, granola-eating Earth-worshippers, the “lightbulbs over legislation” subterfuge, the weaponizing psychological operations of “climategate” that unleashed the worst in tinfoil-hat-people online and evangelized doubt in science overall, and—at best from those with all the power and clout—half-hearted half-measures to ease the collective pain in simple, ephemeral ways, while those doing the most polluting continue to rake in record profits and gloat in the face of overwhelming, incontrovertible science. There is a virtual mountain of corroborating, accompanying works, reports, and computer-powered projections to support this book, but The Parrot and the Igloo: Climate and the Science of Denial might be all you need (it never hurts to read more though). Guilt generates action . . . sometimes.

It’s well known that the issue of a quickly warming world is the WORST kind of situation for your average human to wrap their brain around. What’s also well known is that all “the fun” sits on the deniers’ side of the table. While scientists are bound by rules and ethics, hard data and empirical observations, and peer-reviewed processes, skeptics can make up whatever perversities they dream and candy-coat them in artful deception and mischievous guile, easily spreading like wildfire through an unregulated internet populated by gullible fools.

Lipsky paints the whole book with a wry sense of humor I gravitate towards. Sarcasm, snark, a laugh at the gallows with humanity’s head in a noose. I breezed through these 561 pages, nodding with kinship, nasal laughs under the breath, that intruding pall in the heart. It takes an evolved level of clarity to see that over the past 100 years—the past 30 being littered with “bombshell” reports from leading institutions; the last 10 years being made as “final warnings” for the collective species to galvanize into collective action (Michael E. Mann’s new book this week says NOW is our last chance to do something drastic [https://www.theguardian.com/environme... laziness is laziness, politics is politics, and greed is greed. Let’s all say it in a sing-songy voice: “Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts . . . “ We had fifty solid years to change course and we’ve accomplished absolutely nothing worth mentioning. “If you tell me your politics, I can predict your thinking on global warming”, writes the author (p. 163). True enough. We get what we deserve. Selfishness is selfishness. Willful ignorance is now only deplorable as far too many people sleepwalk the entire world into existential crises no one will be able to stop.

Look, systemic change will come one way or another. Vampiric capitalism, wanton materialism, hyper-consumerism will all need to end as abruptly as possible. No matter how it happens, it will be painful for EVERYONE ON EARTH. The heat domes and hurricanes, the droughts and wildfires, the thawing permafrost and calving ice sheets, the acidification of the seas and the desertification of the forests and grasslands, the depletion of potable water and nutrient-rich soil, the erosion of infrastructure, the collapse of ecosystems, the collapse of crops, the displacement of tens of millions, the abandonment of shorelines, islands consumed by the sea, wars for resources, food insecurity, desperation and misery. I’ll be long gone before the hammer truly drops, but I still care about the future I helped forge, and can still help salve. We can choose the course of action, or we can let Gaia and Oceanus choose it for us. Pain has gradations. Priorities need to drastically shift. Mindsets need to be blown open. But this won’t happen, the dumb mammals we still are, unless we can force those with all the power to make the hard choices for the greater long-term good.

Lizardperson spawned from the tar pits of fossil fuels, Newt Gingrich, in 1995, maybe gave the only solid fact to escape his fat face while he flapped his triceratops-printed necktie at a speech on the environment: “They’re extinct. Take that as a warning. These things happen. Life is like that.”

So it goes.



Playlist:
Nuclear Assault’s “Inherited Hell” and “F# (Wake Up)“ from 1989 (tracks 3 and 7): (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIymE...)
Bad Religion’s “How Much is Enough?” from 1988: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4RY1...)
Xentrix’s “Desperate Remedies” from 1990: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6Ev8...)
Rise Against’s “The Eco-terrorist in Me” from 2014: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4JuU...)
D.R.I.’s “Manifest Destiny” of 1988 (track 2): (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCmwx...)
Misery Index’s “Strategies of Manipulation” from 2023: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPDB1...)
W.A.S.P.’s “The Headless Children” from 1989 (track 3): (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr0DB...)
Mass Extinction’s “Mindless Human Consumption” from 2020: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM2-N...)
Tulkas’s “Devastation By Greed” from 2020: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEuW3...)
The Browning’s “Poison” from 2023: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_DEds...)
END’s “Gaping Wounds of Earth” from 2023: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDGbU...)
Brutal Truth’s “Killing Planet Earth” from 2011: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHjfq...)
The Sound That Ends Creation’s “When I Take My Recycling Out, I Look Like a Raging Alcoholic” from 2021 (track 10): (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jknJ1...)
Satan’s “The Doomsday Clock” from 2018: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuLTF...)
Vader’s “The Sea Came in at Last” from 2004: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQ_7w...)
Wömit Angel’s “Planetary Destruction” from 2017: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-HNg...)
Kreator’s “As the World Burns” from 1987: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4QOt...)
God Forbid’s “Earthsblood” from 2009: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5vENR...)
Kansas’s “Dust in the Wind” from 1977: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tH2w6...)
By The Patient’s “This Barren Earth” from 2015: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0_xH...)


(Bonus playlist: Misanthropic Metal for those of us who quietly wish to see humankind wiped off the face of the Earth so Gaia can finally heal and thrive again, daydreaming of mushroom clouds and meteor strikes):
Destruction’s “No Faith in Humanity” from 2022: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUVwk...)
Enterprise Earth’s “Ashamed to be Human” from 2019: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NFGg...)
Trivium’s “No Hope For the Human Race” from 2013: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ornjH...)
Anaal Nathrakh’s “When Humanity is Cancer” from 2001: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cfsk...)
Lycanthrope’s “The Human Virus” from 2023: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh0xS...)
Demonstealer’s “The Human Pestilence” from 2018: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjCWl...)
The Last Charge’s “F Humanity” from 2014: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZM4RI...)
Mental Cruelty’s “An Incantation of Human Annihilation” from 2018: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GsGe...)
Mind Swell’s “Humanity: A Plague” from 2023: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5HP0...)
Widow Sunday’s “Human Virus” from 2009: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qi94...)
Purtenance’s “End for the Parasites (Called Humankind)” from 2014: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOykA...)
Neaera’s “Rid the Earth of the Human Virus” from 2020: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1uBl...)
Death Angel’s “Humanicide” from 2019: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVDEM...)
Within Destruction’s “Downfall of Humanity” from 2018: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2trw...)
Severed Savior’s “F the Humans” from 2008: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZv2...)
Unbreakable Hatred’s “Destroying Humanity” from 2011: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL7mw...)
Oxygen Destroyer’s “Cleaning the Earth of Humanity’s Existence” from 2020: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pKxp...)
A Pretext to Suffering’s “Humanity’s Final Cleanse” from 2020: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE0p8...)
Cholera’s “Obliteration of Humanity” from 2019 (track 6): (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_sPF...)
Runemagick’s “Last Skull of Humanity” from 2023: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntX65...)
Agalloch’s “A Celebration for the Death of Man” from 2002: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJIMg...)



Further Reading:

Where do I even begin???

Go to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and dig in (https://www.ipcc.ch).

And support the Union of Concerned Scientists if able (https://www.ucsusa.org).


For those living in US counties and states turning backwards into puritanical idiocracies, The Banned Book Club is here to toss you an app-lifeline (https://thepalaceproject.org/banned-b...). Spread the word.

Thank you, Public Library System, for having this title available. #FReadomFighters

[Mark · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is much to respect (and to be challenged by) in this book: it is fully researched, Mr. Lipsky is a vivid writer and it is a comprehensive look at where the science and the junk science of climate change-denialism collides with very real and progressive initiatives. The book opens with scientists as diverse as Ben Franklin, Nikola Tesla and others. The most fascinating parts show how the pro-smoking and tobacco lobby of a few decades morphed into the climate change-skeptics of recent times, often using the same PR agencies, 'experts' and the same overlapping pseudo-scientists and craven government officials. The downsides: the book is abundant with analogies and metaphors (too abundant); the book does not resist tangents, although the chapters are shorter and plentiful. There are sentences that pop-up and poke from the book: "Linus Pauling is the spirit at the end of the CVS aisle, the phantom grinning..." If this were a movie, the blurbs on the film previews would be "Epic" in scope and "Sprawling" but this is not always positive. Like a Christoper Nolan movie (Inception, Tenet), you might be confused about what you have just seen. There were times when I wished the book were maybe 75-100 pages shorter. If you never expected to encounter Tesla, Lord Christopher Monckton (the Marty Feldman of climate deniers), the Rev. Sun Myung-Moon and Bill Cosby all in the same book, they are all here though.

I live near the (NJ) Shore, including Superstorm Sandy. As much as I love the Ocean, I wanted to learn more about the science. I did pick it up and put it down several times over many weeks. sometimes in exasperation. (Rating: 3.1-3.5/5.0 stars).

[Philip Kuhn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really great book and I enjoyed it very much. Very interesting and very well researched. Lipsky leads you to lots of other people, books and articles to go back and read. Very interesting how he ties together the smoking denial people and the climate change deniers, some of whom were the exact same people. They both used the same tactics and learned from pollsters like Frank Luntz. I also liked the way he covers the inventors at the beginning and ties it to climate change. So crazy sad that Arrehenis first came up with the figures in the 1890s. There's a lot you can say about this book in a review. There's so much information and people in it. And I agree completely with the author that the section on the climate deniers is kind of depressing. They all lie and have no scientific evidence, just opinions.
Great book.

PHIL Kuhn

[Kayla Brown · Rating 2 out of 5]

Listen to tried to convince myself I liked this book more than I did. I respect the amount of research that went into this book but there was so much unnecessary background info on some is the scientists, and the jumping of timelines really stressed me out.

[Brady the Book Boy😎 · Rating 4 out of 5]

A great read for anybody even remotely interested in climate change. In this book, David Lipsky chronicles both the history of our understanding of climate change as well as the concerted effort by major corporations and freelance nutjobs to discredit the undeniable scientific truth of climate change. Lots of nonfiction can be incredibly dry, but not this book! This book is wetter than your grandma when Elvis first gyrated his hips!!! Lipsky’s writing style was a lot of fun to read, as he has a real knack for simile. His prose exhibits, at times, an almost poetic, sort of abstract quality. Man, that just sounds really stupid. Never said I was terribly clever. Anywho…

[Johnett · Rating 4 out of 5]

4+

Fascinating, frustrating and frightening; Lipsky’s book details the history of both the causes of climate change and its most important deniers. I knew a few of the stories about some of these folks but not all by a long shot.

Not only has denialism impacted our response to the climate crisis, but the public’s perception of science in general.

Be sure to take your blood pressure medicine before reading his research. Truly maddening, but also enlightening.

[Carla Cook · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is a fine line between clever and obnoxious and this writer crosses so far over it, he’s moved to a different state. Also, the narrative is depressingly repetitive, though that’s not his fault but all of ours.

[Reagan Ferris · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fantastic collection of pithy and vivid biographies describing the lives of climate’s greatest heroes and villains. Merchants of Doubt through a Willy Wonka lens of surreal and often hilarious metaphors.

[Neal Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

(spoiler alert - I felt that this book was so important I didn't want to forget any of it. So what follows is a summary of the book. If you've come across this review per chance, the bottom line is I really enjoyed the book).


Lipsky has a unique writing style that can both a pleasure to read and annoying at the same time. Sometimes he gets a little too cute with his analogies and metaphors; I had trouble following his train of thought. I've seen a few other reviews that make this same point. However, for the most part the 'Parrot and the Igloo' is truly one of a kind, a unique work about the history of climate science and in particular their deniers. The book begins with John Tawell who murdered his mistress in 1845, and was the first person arrested using telecommunications technology, in this case the telegraph. I found this to be a very creative way to segue into the story of electricity and the light bulb which, in some sense, has created our current global climate crisis.

Admittedly, when I think of global warming, I think in terms of the last 30 years or so. First I heard of it was in the late 80s. I was surprised to learn that knowledge of our atmosphere and what we're doing to it goes back well over 100 years. Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, as a member of Napoleon's army stationed in Egypt, in 1824 posed the question, 'what kept the Earth warm?, why didn't heat evaporate into space?' Fourier was one of the first to propose the greenhouse theory, that is the Earth's atmosphere acts as a greenhouse, trapping heat. In the 1850s John Tyndall, one of England's leading scientist, would expound on this theory by discovering the gases that trap heat, carbon dioxide and water vapor. It was a Swedish scientist in the 1890s that would perform the calculations on the correlation between the amount of C02 in the atmosphere and the Earth's temperature. In 1896 Svante Arrhenius proposed that C02 emitted by the industrial revolution would cause a rise in temperature; however at the rate CO2 was being emitted in Svante's time it would take thousands of years to see an appreciable rise. So not to worry. And perhaps a warmer world would be more pleasant. Unfortunately, Arrenius would be remembered more for his theory on Panspermia than climate.

Arrhenius' work long-forgotten, in the 1930s meteorologists noticed the Earth's average temperature had risen compared to the climate of the 19th century. 1934 was a particular hot and dry year. No one could figure out why. G.S. Callendar, a steam engineer in the coal industry, took it upon himself as sort of a hobby to examine the role that fossil fuel might play. In 1938 he delivered his paper 'The Artificial Production of Carbon Dioxide and its influence on Climate' to the Royal Meteorological Society. Probably because he wasn't a scientist, Callendar's study was discredited by his peers. And besides at the time it was believed any excess CO2 in the atmosphere would be absorbed by the ocean. Two decades later in honor of Callendar the Earth's warming would be called the Callendar Effect.

Of course we now get World War II which effectively shut down any voices on climate change. Callendar himself would enter the War. The next scientist we meet is Roger Revelle, an oceanographer with Scripps Oceanographic. Revelle would also teach at Harvard in the 60s. One of his students was none other than Al Gore, future Senator, VP and climate activist. Revelle decided to test the theory that the oceans were absorbing most of the CO2 being emitted. He discovered that the oceans only hold about 10 percent. He published in 1957, "Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future."

Revelle would partner with a Caltech postgraduate student Charles David Keeling who would travel around the world taking CO2 measurements. The goal was to measure the exact amount of CO2 trapped in the atmosphere. The resulting research was the so-called Keeling curve which charts the rise in CO2 in parts per million. Keeling was able to show that CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing year by year, 1958 313 ppm, 1959 314 ppm and so on.

In the 1960s the first computer models would take shape. Dr. Syukuro Manabe in 1967 would produce the first GSM model. Manabe showed that by doubling the parts per million could increase the global temperatures by 3 to 4 degrees. In 1975 a researcher Walter Broecker would use Manabe's GSM model in conjunction with data gather from ice cores. He would note that "by the decade of the next century, we may experience global temperatures warmer than any in the last 1000 years." In Antartica ice cores had been drilled that depict the atmosphere going back 160k years, while the Greenland ice cores reflect 110k years of data. Both show that fluctuations of temperature correspond with levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

In the late 1920s Thomas Midley of General Motors would invent a coolant to be used in GM's line of refrigerators. It wasn't until the early 70s that a scientist examined the effects of so many CFCs being dumped into the atmosphere and discovered their potential to destroy ozone molecules. Sherwood Roland would publish his work in 1974 calling for an immediate ban. Dupont, the largest manufacturer of CFCs, would deny any correlation with ozone deplete, but nonetheless a national ban on aerosol spray cans went into effect in 1979. However, CFCS were still in many other products. In the 1980s a hole in the ozone was discovered over Antartica which finally led to a worldwide ban. Lipsky tells the story of the Secretary of the Interior under Reagan who advised we should learn to adapt to the hole and wear extra sunblock and sunglasses. After all most of us spend most of our times in doors anyway. Although it shouldn't, such a callous remark really surprised me. I had to google the name....Donald Hodel.

This brings us to those who resisted the science. In 1989 James Hansen, a scientist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was set to testify before Congress on global warming. Since Hansen was a government employee, he was required to submit his words first to the White House for approval. John Sununu, Chief of Staff to Bush, marked up Hansen's testimony to minimize or distort the dangers or climate change. Hansen would turn to Al Gore in the Senate who would go onto the leak to the press. The ensuing controversy would pressure the US into international discussions that would eventually lead the US into joining the Kyoto Accords in 1997. The exact opposite of what Sununu had intended.

In 1991 Gallup released a poll reporting that only 16 percent of climate scientists believed in global warming. The report caused quite a stir and was still being reported as accurate as late as 2006. However, a year after the poll came up Gallup actually disavowed the results. It turns out the actual numbers were closer to 67 percent. Mark Mills, the sponsor of the poll, fudged the numbers. Mark Mills, a somewhat shadowy figure, was a staff assistance to Reagan's science office who would start his own company, Science Concepts, Inc. Mark Mills would spend decades writing reports for the coal industry, minimizing man's role in climate change.

Lipsky provides a juxtaposition between big Tobacco and Oil and Gas. Climate denial actually began with Phillip Morris. The two industries' fight over pollution actually parallel each other. For what are greenhouse emissions than second hand smoke on a larger scale. At the time Revelle published his own study of the effects of CO2, Phillip Morris was confronting its own crisis. In 1953 Times magazine ran an article that doctor's had grown tumors in mice from cigarette tar. As more and more evidence was mounting against cigarettes, the industry turned to a PR campaign to discredit the science. They also created the Tobacco Industry Research Committee. Thus began a familiar denial strategy, research the problem to death but never provide an end or a real solution.

Heading this new committee was Clarence Cook Little, a geneticist and an actual Eugenicist. He would found the American Birth Control League which would later morph into Planned Parenthood (once they dissociated themselves from him). Little would go on a media tour of misinformation as he counters the claims of the American Cancer Society. We don't know where Cancer comes from. It could be the genes, Little would say.

In 1986 the Surgeon General would report on a link between cancer and second hand smoke. The EPA would also chime in, citing the number of death per year. Big Tobacco found themselves in another crisis. Ellen Merlo, Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Phillip Morris, would devise a strategy to discredit the EPA and all of its science. She would turn to a PR firm, APCO to build a 'junk science' coalition. In fact 'Junk Science' was a term invented by the tobacco industry. Heading this coalition was the scientist Fred Singer. A couple of themes that run through many of the climate deniers is their being funded by the oil and gas industry. Also, many of them had been spurned by the mainstream scientific community, and their denials may have been a way to hit back. Fred Singer who would go on to become a famous climate denier missed out on an opportunity to discover Van Allen Belts. He decided on a job in England over working with Dr. Van Allen. He would also become aligned with Moonie and the Unification Church. The Washington Times, a Moonie publication, would fund much of his 'research.'

There's also a correlation between the timing of some of these denial studies and efforts to curb greenhouse gases. The Gallup poll cited above was released in order to deter the US from any international negotiations on climate change. The Oregon Petition is another document purporting to show that 30k climate scientists reject Global Warming. This came out in 1997 just before the US signed onto the Kyoto Accords. Arthur Robinson, head of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine commissioned the study. However, his institute was little more than a barn in his front yard run by his family. Robinson had earlier partnered with Linus Paulus on his research with vitamin C. Paulus advocated taking large amounts of the vitamin to cure just about any disease including cancer. His own experiments didn't support his basic thesis, and he ended up fabricating the results. Robinson and Paul would eventually split and Robinson would devote his energy to climate science denial. Most of the names on the Oregon Petition were not climate scientists, some were barely even scientists. Nonetheless, Robinson's work found its way into the media. Timothy Ball, a geologist nonetheless, went on Sean Hannity making the claim that climate change was a fiction.

Jim Tozzi was a lawmaker who worked for the EPA in the Nixon administration. It was his job to review environmental regulations, and he rewrote them in a way that benefited the oil and gas industry. He would also shield the aspirin industry from warning labels concerning Reyes syndrome which resulted in the deaths of many children. He would leave government and work as a tobacco lobbyist. Tozzi would also help a renown climate denier, Fred Seitz, found the George Marshall Institute. Seitz would author a study on second hand smoke at Tozzi's behest. However, to make his research more believable, he included other science to discredit, such as global warming. In 1993 Phillip Morris was paying Tozzi 600k a year. Phillip Morris also 'donated' money to the Marshall Institute but it was funneled indirectly through Tozzi. Seitz also held a position on Phillip Morris' Junk Science Board. After 1998 Tobacco finally gave up denying the role cigarettes play in cancer. However, now the oil and gas industry took over. Exxon pumped millions into PR and studies that denied the science.

In the last few years climate deniers began wielding a new strategy, overwhelming science institutes with Freedom of Information requests. The impetus was a 1973 Harvard Study commissioned by the National Institute for Health. The study followed the lives of individuals living in 6 different cities, from worst to least polluted over a period of twenty years. It found higher death rates in cities that were more polluted and in 1996 would lead to an EPA law limiting particle matter to 2.5 microns or less. Industry was apoplectic and claimed the EPA was trying to take away the Fourth of July. Deniers also clamored that they didn't have access to the underlying data. As a result, Tozzi, still a tobacco lobbyist, collaborated with a senator, Richard Shelby, to add language to an upcoming bill that would allow access to the underlying data on any government funded project. The resulting Shelby Amendment opened the flood gates to a barrage of information requests.

A few years after the Shelby Amendment passed, the Climatic Research Unit in England was hacked and millions of emails were dumped online. So-called Climategate was suppose to show a cabal of scientists manufacturing the climate crisis. Much of it revolved around an email sent to Michael Mann from a fellow colleague who was plotting global temperatures over time. Michael Mann had done a similar graph, known as the Hockey Stick. His colleague wrote him that he was going to employ a similar 'trick' that Mann had used. The word 'trick' set off a fire storm amid claims a smoking gun had been found. However, this colleague meant he was going to use real world reported temperatures for 1981 onwards instead of examining tree rings and the like. He was not admitting to fabricating data.

All in all, Lipsky's book was a real joy to read. I learned so much about the climate science as well as those who deny the science. It really surprised me the role the tobacco industry played in denying the science of climate change. My only critique is sometimes his language and metaphors got a little too cute. But I would definitely read another one of his books.

[Sadie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book will make you angry. So so angry.

[Sav · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really struggled to get through this book. Started out motivated but by the end I was skimming. The information was accurate and interesting but it read like a disorganized textbook. Story after story, name after name of the same thing. I have a masters degree in environmental science and policy, and climate denialism is something I studied in depth. I read this book in hopes it would have new, relevant information; It was mostly things I already knew. I am not sure if this book would be better for someone who had not deeply studied climate science or if it would be even more thick and hard to get through for them.