Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming

by James Hoggan, Richard Littlemore (Contributor)

Talk of global warming is nearly inescapable these days — but there are some who believe the concept of climate change is an elaborate hoax. Despite the input of the world’s leading climate scientists, the urgings of politicians, and the outcry of many grassroots activists, many Americans continue to ignore the warning signs of severe climate shifts. How did this happen? Climate Cover-up seeks to answer this question, describing the pollsters and public faces who have crafted careful language to refute the findings of environmental scientists. Exploring the PR techniques, phony "think tanks," and funding used to pervert scientific fact, this book serves as a wake-up call to those who still wish to deny the inconvenient truth.

Genres: Science, Climate Change, Environment, Nonfiction, Politics, Sustainability, Nature

240 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2009

Reviews

[Ana Mardoll · Rating 3 out of 5]

Climate Cover-Up / 978-1-553-65485-8

Every so often, I read a book that I'm just not sure how to rate, according to Amazon's five star guidelines. "Climate Cover-Up" is one of these rare, and difficult books.

It's unclear who the intended audience is for this slightly unfocused book. Upfront, the clarification is made that this book is not intended to educate readers about global climate change; multiple volumes already perform that task and, indeed, such an approach would contradict the spirit of this book: Hoggan's sensible premise is that science should be done by scientists, and not by celebrities or professional authors. (This premise is slightly undermined by the editor's rather poor choice of front-page endorsements: Leonardo DiCaprio? Really? It's something of a shame that authors don't have more control over how their books are packaged.) No, "Climate Cover-Up" isn't here to convince us about global climate change - it's here, instead, to discuss the much-hyped "controversy" around the issue and to point out how much of that controversy is artificially manufactured.

I can't help wondering, though, who is supposed to read this? To anyone who accepts global climate change as fact, this is going to read as preaching to the proverbial choir; to the rest, their unbelief is not going to be undermined by the exposure of a handful of specific lobbying groups - does *anyone* trust professional lobbyists anymore? Opinions are, of course, shaped by individuals, but those individuals are quickly forgotten in favor of an overall impression - I cannot imagine that anyone will read "Climate Cover-Up" only to smack their forehead and say, "My god, PR representative John Johnson *lied* to me!" before quickly putting the book down and ordering "An Inconvenient Truth". At best, it seems, they may consider rethinking what they *thought* they knew: i.e., that climate change is "controversial".

But the problem with Hoggan's approach to uncovering the roots of this "controversy", however, is that his deeply passionate pleas will not move the skeptical and may in fact be a detriment to his cause. He is a little too quick to ascribe malice where it may not apply, and very happy to leap on slight pieces of `evidence' and crow in triumph. (And he's not going to win friends with the rather bizarre side-track into cigarettes, or - as he calls them - "death sticks".) Things start off poorly when Hoggan seems to ascribe to malice (or, at least, greed) the motives of newspapers who present Freemon Dyson's opinion on global climate change as something worth considering. While I agree wholeheartedly that climate science should be discussed by people with *relevant* knowledge, and not Ph.Ds in something else entirely, I think Neil Postman noted years ago in "Amusing Ourselves to Death" that the news media is rapidly becoming an entertainment industry rather than an information source. To the news media, Dyson is a rock star of scientists, and climate change is a scientific topic, so let's interview him! And, next up, we'll see a rebuttal by Leonardo DiCaprio! This sort of vaudeville approach to scientific coverage is certainly sickening, but hardly something that is limited to climate change coverage, and hardly makes the media somehow complicit in a web of greed, intrigue, and goodness knows what else.

When Hoggan leaves the beleaguered media and moves to the spin doctors, lobbyists, and their methods, he doesn't have as much to work with as one might hope. A LOT of effort is put into pointing out that the mission statements of the lobbyists never explicitly state "spread facts" or "tell the truth" as a goal, and Hoggan seems to find this very damning. I can't help but feel, however, that probably the "goal statements" of *any* lobbyist group, for either side, is phrased that way - the whole point of a mission statement is to directly guide specific behavior like, for example, "distribute articles to various news media outlets" which is, unsurprisingly, what many of these groups' mission statements say. If the goal statements said "Spread the *truth* that global warming is a myth" or something equally false, would that somehow be better? Hoggan seems to feel that the lack of the words "facts" or "truth" means that the lobbyists KNOW that they are on the side of lies and they've practically admitted such in their vision statements. And Hoggan has caught them red-handed! Encyclopedia Brown solves another case!

Another thing Hoggan spends a perplexing amount of time on is lambasting the opposition for using focus groups to choose catchy back-cronyms, like "ICE". I don't understand, though, why this is something worth demonizing. Maybe the scientific side would have better luck with the media if they created some catchy names of their own? Maybe focus groups aren't (or shouldn't be) the refuge of the charlatans only. But that's the crux of the matter: Hoggan doesn't WANT to play publicity games. I don't blame him - he wants the science to speak for himself and he's frustrated that a topic that isn't easily accessible for most people is being dominated in the public discourse by people with conflicting agendas. He hammers at his point, and yells in outrage, but doesn't have time to calmly lay out facts. A poster somewhere lied about the frost line moving south when it wasn't - what's the source for that information? Minneapolis isn't getting colder, even though "they" claimed it was - can't we at least be given a temperature graph to haul out on the holidays? But Hoggan doesn't have time, and he doesn't understand why he NEEDS to take time. If you were intellectually honest, he seems to say, you'd already agree with him - and as sympathetic as I am to that opinion, this attitude is going to turn off most of the "undecideds" that this book is ostensibly written for.

Having said all this, I feel somewhat bad. For all that I've criticized him, Hoggan seems to be a deeply passionate, very talented author and spokesperson for the subject. I believe he is moved by the crisis we are facing, and if he fails to prevent his frustration at the naysayers from spilling over, then who can blame him? I guess what I *am* saying is that if you are really interested in the tactics of lobbyists, perhaps because you are putting together a lobby of your own, this is a good book to read. If you believe in global climate change and are interested in understanding why, perhaps, your intelligent friends and family can still think otherwise, this is a good book to read. But if you are hoping to convince yourself or others that global climate change is real and the "controversy" is false... I'm not sure this book is for you. As for me, I'm just sad that there's a `controversy' at all - and in that regard, Hoggan and I seem to be in complete agreement.

NOTE: This review is based on a free Advance Review Copy of this book provided through Amazon Vine.

~ Ana Mardoll

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

In their excellent book Merchants of Doubt Naomi Oreskes and Eric Conway expose the whole, horrendous corporate strategy of paying scientists to deny science that threatens corporate profits, from the tobacco companies hiring scientists to "doubt" the evidence through to our own time when degree-laden corporate shills -- often the very same individuals -- try to pretend the science of global warming is unproven or unsound or whatever dishonest description they choose to use this week toward the end of confusing an undereducated and often irresponsibly self-indulgent public. If you read the Oreskes/Conway book you'll reach the end of it horrified and dismayed; they offer the kind of evidence that would have any court of law rushing to a conviction.

Climate Cover-Up, by contrast, is not nearly such a weighty tome; yes, there are citations, but at the level where some chapters have only an essential one or two. Overall, it reads at the pace of a thriller. And, by the end of it, I was hopping mad . . . which is precisely what we all ought to be with those scientific charlatans and the corporate masters at whose teats they shamelessly suck, and precisely the aim of the the authors of this book. Yes, your library is incomplete if you don't have Oreskes/Conway on your shelf; but if you want a blazing polemic that covers much the same ground (and contains probably as much of the essential information) then you should choose this book also, and perhaps you should choose it even in preference to Oreskes/Conway.

For obvious reasons -- I was writing a book called Denying Science after all! -- I read a lot of good nonfiction books in 2010 (yes, I'm a bit late catching up in these notes), but this was one of the very best, and quite possibly the best: certainly among the most important. Please read it.

[Marty Essen · Rating 5 out of 5]

You can tell a book hits home when the opposition (some who obviously have not even read the book) post poor reviews to lower a book's rating. Such is the case with Climate Cover-Up.

If global warming deniers are willing to make that kind of effort for something as insignificant as a book review, imagine what they'll do to when it comes to protecting their own special interests.

As someone who has read Climate Cover-Up from cover-to-cover, I can recommend it without reservation. In fact, I have already bought an extra copy to give away and will likely buy several more.

Because I speak about human-caused global warming, all over the United States, I didn't expect this book teach me a lot that I didn't already know. Boy was I wrong! The best thing about this book is that it gives the reader a behind-the-scenes look at the campaign to deny global warming through the eyes of a public relations expert. It's kind of like a veteran quarterback telling you what's going on inside the huddle.

Even if you are not passionate about saving our planet, this book is still worth the read for its excellent lesson in public relations. As I read about the brilliant but despicable tactics used by the fossil fuels industry, I couldn't help but be distracted from time to time, wondering, hmmm . . . how could I adapt that particular tactic and use it elsewhere for good?

Marty Essen, author of Cool Creatures, Hot Planet: Exploring the Seven Continents

[Diane Kistner · Rating 4 out of 5]

"Climate Cover-up" is not a book laying out scientific arguments pro or con, nor is it intended to be. James Hoggan (with Richard Littlemore) has written a book from the perspective of an ethical public relations professional weighing the relative strengths and weaknesses of sundry PR professionals, self-styled "experts," and pseudoscientists who have demonstrably turned to the Dark Side for fun and profit. Hoggan shows us how their bait-and-switch and smoke-and-mirrors are done--and it's shocking.

Hoggan is more than fair and even-handed with the deniers he covers, giving them credit for what they've done right and what they are good at while calling them on claims and behaviors that are more political--even unethical--than scientific. He shows us how to analyze what these deniers tell us to determine how likely it is to be scientifically valid, and he shows how climate scientists have been involved against their will in the ongoing effort by corporations to keep the public in just enough doubt that nothing will be done to curtail their harmful activities. (Until, of course, Mother Nature does it for us all.)

A great value of the book is that it provides a wealth of links to the materials discussed, providing the lay reader ample opportunity to go straight to the source and determine for themselves whether what the book presents is true or not. The most dependable sources of scientific information are offered along with those that are essentially propaganda fronts backed by those whose profits will be threatened if they do not fabricate doubt in the minds of non-scientists that global warming is occurring. Climate change denial--like many "grassroots"/astroturfed efforts--is insidious and relentless. It surprised me to learn that even what I thought was the more politically correct term "climate change" is an Orwellian meme planted by those who would deny that the activities of humankind are accelerating global warming.

I found it rather disturbing to be reading this book in the immediate aftermath of "E-mail-theft-gate" and the week of the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen--replete with the grandstanding of C Street/The Family member Senator James Inhofe about the "hoax" of global warming, even as the story of his involvement in the infamous Ugandan National Prayer Breakfasts is breaking. When you see the depth and extent of the manipulation--even EVIL, and I rarely use that word--that is done by slick, well-compensated legal and public relations teams aligned with disreputable politicians and self-styled "experts" working behind the scenes to protect corporate interests, it will make you sick.

What's chilling, too, is realizing how effectively the dishonest slogans concocted and focus-group tested by corporate shills have wound up flying out of the mouths of those who have fallen for the ruse hook, line and sinker: the common folk writing on blogs and railing for people's heads at townhalls and reactionary protests. I wonder: How many of the people screaming to high heaven about "climategate"--or government takeover of healthcare or communist/fascist takeover of their guns and freedom--realize how cynically they are being manipulated by invisible hands into working against their own best interests and the future of their children? Even though this book deals specifically with climate change deniers, it is easy to recognize the down-and-dirty, underhanded techniques Hoggan shows us in many important issues of our day.

All I can say is, question everything, especially if it's passed along to you in an email by one of your well-meaning friends. Take nothing at face value, because nothing it seems, these days, is valuable on its face. Everything's spin. If you are an honest-to-goodness scientist, you already know how to critically examine data, and you know what bunk the "uncertainty about global warming" meme is. This book is for the rest of us.

[Andrea McDowell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fabulous--great book, well-written, unbelievably infuriating. (The story described, not the book itself.)

[Alan · Rating 5 out of 5]

James Hoggan has put together an eye-opening expose of the deliberate activities of many powerful entities to refute, deny, or disclaim the cumulative scientific consensus regarding global climate change - that human activities are the primary driving force behind global climate change. These powerful entities include the oil and gas industry, the coal industry, and other money-rich manufacturing and industrial groups, as well as some local and federal governments (e.g., Canada, and the USA - under the last Bush administation). These are all entities that will suffer significantly once the general population comes to a realization that the climate is changing and that there is a worrisome risk associated with this change.

Hoggan and his associates outline and document case after case where the scientific community's consensus on climate change, including strong statements from the UN's IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:], The American Meteorological Society, The American Geophysical Union, and the AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science:] that the global climate is changing due mainly to human activities is ridiculed, undercut, and smeared by people paid either directly or indirectly by special interest money (oil, gas, coal, tobacco, manufacturing, etc.).

The margins of many pages of my copy of this book filled with comments and personal observations of things that I had long suspected, but had never been able to take the time to discover on my own. As the pages flew by I found myself getting madder and madder, and sadder and sadder. Many things I had long suspected were confirmed repeatedly.

In summary, this is not a book about climate change or even a call for action. This is a book about the practices and tactics used by the anti-climate change community to muddy the water and to keep the general population (including all of us) from coming to the realization that there is a strong scientific consensus on this issue, and that the longer we wait to act, the less effective our actions will be. This campaign of disinformation and misinformation has been so effective that even some people that should know better because of their knowledge and training have been deceived. So I certainly don't blame people for being confused when this topic is outside of their own realm of expertise and experience.

FYI - I am not just parroting what Hoggan said in his book. I have been following and studying and teaching about the environment for almost 20 years. Everything I read in Hoggan's book rang true to what I know and many things I have long suspected.

No matter where you fall on the climate change "debate" you will benefit from reading this book!

Thanks for the insights and strong reminders about the need to be diligent regarding not only the messages we hear, but their ultimate sources as well.

5 solid stars!

[John Clark · Rating 4 out of 5]

I may have only given this four stars, but it is clear that "Climate Cover-up: the Crusade to Deny Global Warming" emphasizes and explores a five-star, unequivocally compelling topic, which is the ongoing and deepening sustainability and climate crisis.

Hoggan wants to make you angry. You should be angry, and he generally succeeds, but he doesn't grab the reader's attention as strongly as possible. Hoggan targets the oil industry, the coal industry, and other monied interests that would be less successful under additional environmental regulation, digging into the ways in which they have worked extremely diligently to avoid that regulation. The book provides details of the various strategies that these interests have used, which largely reduce to lies and misdirection to confuse and slow down any decision-making with respect to the crisis.

The book discusses all this in great detail, and provides historical context, but even Hoggan asserts that he doesn't want it to be a history. The book does a great job of pointing the spotlight on the motivations and strategies of those who would derail progress on the sustainability crisis, but it does not provide a continuous narrative, which might have helped to draw the reader more deeply into the reality of the situation. The approach that the book does take comes off as being a bit detached, and this is only aggravated by a poor analogy that Hoggan returns to several times throughout the book.

That said, the insight that this book provides is extremely valuable, and it is a great jumping off point for further research. Hoggan has a rich list of real life villains and heroes, with the challenge reaching to all of us to learn as much as possible about both in order to arm ourselves with the information that we'll need to make good decisions going forward.

[Nick Mather]

This book carefully documents the global warming denial industry and how they manipulate the public conversation and understanding of climate change. It is at times shocking and frequently enraging to know that people are intentionally trying to confuse the public so that they can continue to profit from destroying the planet. Highly recommened.

[Curt · Rating 4 out of 5]

So, many of the same institutes and scientists who denied the health risks of tobacco are climate-change deniers, and Americans are still falling for their lies? Sad.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good overview of how deniers of human-caused global warming continue to keep their disinformation in the headlines.

[Lindsay Beyerstein · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent history of the public relations campaigns behind global warming denialism, written by the head of the Vancouver PR firm behind the DeSmogBlog. Full review TK at Big Think.

[Steve · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worthwhile but unsurprisingly depressing.

[Cara · Rating 3 out of 5]

Important. I only wish it were more powerfully stated. This would not be an engaging read to the denier...

[Olga · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you want to understand the politics about climate change, this is a must read.

[Steven H · Rating 3 out of 5]

A STRONG CRITIQUE OF WIND POWER, AND ENDORSEMENT OF NUCLEAR

Author John Etherington wrote in the Preface to this 2009 book, “it has bewitched the impressionable into the belief that wild lands are … improved---even beautified---by these winged monsters. Worse still, it has persuaded them that so much advantage is to be gained that we must open our farm gates, our parks and beaches for yet more flickering steel and plastic machines or we shall be doomed to a future with no electricity and global temperatures rising so sharply that life will become intolerable with wars fought for living space and water, leaving a few survivors at the South Pole! … [In this book] I set out to explore the truth or otherwise of this rather extreme view… the wind monsters will do nothing useful for us, will spread environmental harm and above all have only one serious function---of minting money for the undeserving, aided and abetted by the uneducated.” (Pg. 10-11)

He continues, “The intention of this book is to highlight and justify reasons for rejecting wind power as a large scale source of electricity and of reducing carbon emission… a ‘scam’ is often defined as ‘an attempt to swindle people which involves gaining their confidence.’ Exactly! The repeated reference to ‘tackling climate change’ as a motivation for wind power, and the constant citation of the 1997 Kyoto treaty ‘targets’ as justification is just such an attempt to gain public confidence. The spectre of climate change is being used as a scare-tactic to get people to buy wind power… I hope without too much exaggeration to ‘tell it as it is.’” (Pg. 20)

He explains, “The problem of unpredictable wind and unpredictable wind electricity supply arises from the chaotically turbulent nature of the atmosphere and the longer-term swirls of global weather systems. In many places… it is possible for weather fronts and large shifts of wind velocity to pass through the few hundred miles of ocean fringe in less than half a day and at other times anticyclones of colossal size may become stationary for days on end bringing cloudless, wind free hot weather in summer and similar but freezing cold conditions in winter.” (Pg. 18)

He states, “The resurrection of wind power during the past two or three decades was based on the perception of need coupled with the greater ease of linkage to an AC power system conferred by solid state and computerized control systems… The perceived need arose with the wide acceptance of belief in CO2-driven climatic warming in the 1980s which provided a motivation for reducing fossil fuel use and controlling carbon dioxide emission… The main switch to renewable development was finally thrown when various subsidies and tax breaks for ‘green’ electricity became available world-wide, in response to powerful lobbying by well-intentioned green campaigners and less altruistic pressure from the multinational power companies.” (Pg,. 37-38)

He outlines, “There are multiple consequences of wind power intermittency: 1. Generation can be entirely lost and must be replaced by instantly available capacity from another source… 2. Over time because… wind speed is chaotically variable… and so the fossil fuelled backup must also be able to cope with such fast variation is demand. 3. Over time. fewer than the potential maximum MWh are generated… 4. If… it is suggested that wind power may increase security of electricity supply (for example by replacing the need for gas from politically unstable sources) then intermittency affects … how much thermal generation could be permanently closed down per unit of wind power installed…”
(Pg. 57-58)

He acknowledges, “Wind is not the only natural resource which is intermittent. Rainfall is another… but water can be stored. Electricity cannot, at least not economically in huge quantities. So… every kilowatt hour of electricity from these machines must be used instantaneously … The problem is most easily solved if the wind electricity is fed directly into a nationwide grid system in which other flexible sources can be switched-on or off at a very short notice.” (Pg. 59)

He says, “All soils contain a substantial quantity of organic material… The wetness prevents atmospheric oxygen from entering the peat and… greatly reduces the rate of bacterial breakdown and CO2 release … If a wind farm is built on deep peat, site operations such as excavation for foundational and road construction cause drying and there may be substantial CO2 emission from its oxidation in situ or after water or wind erosion.” (Pg. 91)

He notes, “By far the strongest reaction to wind power development and wildlife has been driven by reports from various parts of the world that birds and bats are killed by rotor blades… It did not take the developers long to realize that the reported death of golden eagles and other raptors, for example totalling 1,700 annually at California’s enormous Altamont Pass wind ‘factory’ was a potential publicity disaster.” (Pg. 103) Later, he adds, “Most other wildlife impacts are more general in cause and similar to those found when any major construction project damages natural and semi-natural habitats… my own opinion is manifestly that no wind farm can be justified against the backdrop of environmental damage.” (Pg. 109)

He argues, “the impact of turbines can be overwhelming and a particular problem in quiet rural areas… Some medical reports include persistent complaints from people saying they not only hear the noise from wind turbines, but can ‘feel’ disturbance in their bodies, leading to symptoms similar to those associated with vibro-acoustic disease… ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ … includes sleep disturbance, headache, dizziness, nausea, rapid heart rate, panic attacks…” (Pg. 121-122) He continues, “Unfortunately, despite 20 years of complaint about noise, most of the evidence is still dismissed by governmental as apocryphal and it will remain true that there is little clinical evidence until proper independent research is financed.” (Pg. 125)

He adds, “wind farms can disrupt terrestrial television reception… rotating blades may ‘chop’ the signal causing variable ‘ghosting’ and ‘jittering’ on an analogue TV picture… The effects of wind power on broadcast television are generally found where the wind farm is situated between the TV and the transmitter …” (Pg. 133)

He comments, “Two claims … have resulted in a three to fourfold exaggeration of the real saving of CO2 emission by wind power… The first was projection of unrealistically high load factors… The second concerned the displacement of fossil-fueled generation. From the outset the industry claimed that coal-fired generation, which has a very high CO2 emission, would be displaced by wind, but critics of the industry argued that the correct factor could not exceed the ‘grid-mix’ of fuels---a weighted avenue of coal, gas, and nuclear.” (Pg. 155-156)

He acknowledges, “It is a matter of fact that air concentration of CO2 has been increasing… at least from the 1950s and … much of the increment has come from fossil fuel. All physicists would accept that long wave absorption by this extra CO2 will cause some warming… but the magnitude of … consequent temperature rise is in dispute. It is also correct that a generalized warming has continued sporadically since the late 1800s… There is controversy about the … extent it has driven additional warming.” (Pg. 173) He adds, “I am shocked by the discussion-stoper … that there is ‘consensus.’ This is simply not how science works.” (Pg. 177)

He summarizes, “what other options are there? Option 1… let us just build more coal-fired or gas-fired power stations… and not bother with wind at all...; Option 2: Let’s use coal, fitted with carbon capture and storage… Option 3: Other renewable… Option 4: The fourth and final option is … Nuclear… The green organizations are in a dilemma---needing to decide which is worse---CO2 or the threat of radioactive materials.” (Pg. 188-190)

This book (which is often VERY technical) will be of great interest to those seeking critiques of wind power.

[Lauren · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a persuasive author, Hoggan doesn't appear to be very good - strange from a PR perspective. His book is very good at wooing the already convinced (who are not the people who need convincing), and too passionate and angry to win over people on the fence. However, that passion does also make the book more readable if you are already of his persuasion. Where the book actually is useful is as a catalogue of the sophisticated political and PR effort to "deny and delay." This information is useful to prevent similar fates on other issues. As a public policy student, I found a lot to be interested in. I'm just not sure it was the stuff Hoggan wanted me to be interested in.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

What an expose! The author lays bare the machinations of the Oil and Gas industry to control information regarding environmental effects of their industry. Their goal at first was to deny climate change was happening. Next they sought to confuse the issue and delay any efforts to change things. Because so many people are invested in industries which are effected by this industry, change is hard to come by. But as the author reminds us, we have only one planet. We need to take care of it.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent overview of how Exxon and other fossil fuel companies bankrolled efforts by think tanks like the Heartland Institute and unqualified scientists like S. Fred Singer to spread doubt about climate science, purely to protect profits of oil and coal companies.

This book will make you angry. And then it will inspire you to act against the climate crisis.

[Ahmed Messaoud · Rating 5 out of 5]

Want to know how twisted and manipulated Climate Science really is? Read this book and you will find out! Compares the old PR campaigns of Cigarettes with those of todays denying global warming.
Awesome read!

[Eric · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was almost the exact same as Merchant of Doubt. I can't believe how similar they were. Its still shocking the work that goes into obscuring the truth but only read one or the other! And yeah, my break did not last long.

[Shawn Williamson]

Gets a little repetitive at points with the same people doing the same thing over and over but I guess that is pretty much the point. Would be curious to hear if people who "aren't sure" about Climate Change are convinced and a little embarrassed by this book or further confused?!?

[Alan Field · Rating 5 out of 5]

It's high time someone told the truth and James Hogan is the man to do it. There is so much information backed up by verifiable research that will make your skin crawl. A must read for anyone with a heartbeat.

[Wahdey · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very clearly presented. Helpful in this time of disinformation. Will probably reread soon.

[Janel · Rating 5 out of 5]

completely eye-opening. Definitely sparked my interest in learning more about the issue.

[Leigh · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm having nightmares!

[Lee Belbin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent investigative journalism!

[Sara Best · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was frustrating to read, not because of the writing, but because of what it has to say. It exposes the manipulation by big oil on the media message of climate change. If only those millions had been invested in research and action to mitigate the impact of their industry on the climate. The book is already a few years out of date, but considering the current administration, it is sadly even more relevant.

[Claire August · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was Drilled about ten years before Drilled existed. And it only touched on some of the methods of deception that Amy Westervelt dives into. But it was nevertheless enjoyable and not THAT much of a bummer to read 10+ years later.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

God is true. And He send his prophets to show you there is a conspiracy of Satan.

[Jim Ordolis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative, inspiring and eye-opening!
I gave this book 4.6/5. I’m very interested in the science of climate-change and found it a very riveting and fascinating read.