IS GLOBAL WARMING A HOAX? Isn't it time you read the facts? The propaganda of man-made global warming has been promoted by those with a political agenda by suppressing the truth and spreading fear. In this effort they have recruited academics, media, environmental groups, governments, the United Nations, even religions. Scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming has now been investigated by scientists and found to be baseless. Examination of the data has revealed the theory of climate change for the propaganda it is, derived from erroneous data, junk science, even scientific fraud. Now, for the first time, the American people have available to them an honest discussion of man-made global warming and climate change that is easily understood by those without a scientific background. The Layman's Guide describes in easily understood language the science refuting claims of climatic catastrophe resulting from the burning of fossil fuels. Using well-documented scientific facts, the Layman's Guide exposes the global warming hoax as an authoritarian assault on individual freedom.
INTERESTING BOOK It is worth your time to read this book but only if you can do it with an open mind. - I think some people have made up there minds without really knowing or trying to find out if there is any opposing information out there. I think a lot of people give mankind way too much credit for destroying the world and not enough credit for all the things that make our lives better. Should we do things to make environment better? Yes. Is the sky falling? No. Most improtantly do we have to do something drastic right now without reguard or knowledge of the consequences. I would like to be informed without the spin and panic. Lets make things better for everyone.
I read this in tandem with 'Global warming for dummies' and und it far more believable than the trite summary given there (unsurprisingly perhaps). It is short and to the point, but loses credibility at times where it begins to ridicule politicians (for example). There are also points where unusual claims are made (e.g. higher CO2 in 1800s) which sound tenuous, at best.
Perhaps the key point, which seems to be in the pocket of his physics background, is that additional CO2 has limited impact on absorbing more heat. Others have raised this point and I understand the concept: I will be looking to see how this is tackled by IPCC aligned writers as well as objective sources.