The Web    Google
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming
List Price: $18.95

Our Price: $9.99

You Save: $8.96 (47%)


Product Description

This latest installment in the P.I.G. series provides a provocative, entertaining, and well-documented expose of some of the most shamelessly politicized pseudo-science we are likely to see in our relatively cool lifetimes.

Customer Reviews:

  • yuck
    absolutely amazing denial of reality; complete crap, and less enjoyable to read than my junk mail offers this week.

    it's inventive in the sense that the stretching of any factual evidence to support the claims made is such that the space-time continuum makes a really loud 'twanging' kinda noise as you read it.

    an example of the witty prose from the inside flap helps set the tone: "With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only "global governance" (Jacques Chirac's words) can tackle such problems"

    if you agree that scientist = environmentalist = leftist = conspiracy, well, then buy this junk and crawl back under that rock you live under to read it.

    ...more info
  • Read this book!
    This is a great resource for anyone on either side of the "global warming" debate. Full of facts that will make you re-think who and what is behind the warming scare. It's definitely written from an anti-global warming standpoint, but the author bases it all on science, unlike the radical greens! The green agenda effect on the US economy is especially important now - read this!...more info
  • Ok, but not deep
    I cannot argue with the points the author made, but this book did not do a good job of helping me understand why the environmentalists think what they do and what it takes to talk sense into people. There are always two sides to an issue, and you need to know both sides to effectively debate and reach a valid conclusion. ...more info
  • Truth Frees
    The number and variety of reviews on this book is indicative of the worldwide controversy surrounding the Climate Change controversy. The opinions expressed by "reviewers" run the gamut from "Superb" to "Awful". The actual value of the book lays somewhere in-between these two extremes.

    If we disregard the obvious "reviews" from the "One-star Club", the many bad reviews submitted about the same time and designed to discourage potential book buyers, we find a few thoughtful reviews that are honest. These reviews make their point without attacking the book's author or twisting the truth to satisfy a political agenda. Many eviewers on both sides of this polarizing subject offer objective reviews.

    Unlike many of the reviewers, I DID take the time to read and re-read, challenge and verify, discuss the authors points with those who agree and those who disagree. My conclusion is similar to many others who were honest in their reviews. The author provides valuable information at a level the nonprofessional can understand but from a definite political viewpoint.

    If one actually reads the book rather than skimming it, deciding beforehand what the author intends, the book can be a rewarding read. One may not like some of the levity the author injects (I personally found his quips amusing) or some of the shots he takes at prominent political and academic figures (e.g., Al Gore and James Hansen). However, if one keeps and open mind about the subject at hand it becomes clear that his reasoning is logical, his sources well documented and his overall presentation helpful in keeping the whole issue of Climate Change in perspective.

    Contrary to what many critics of the book state or imply, the author does not deny that we are experiencing global warming. He acknowledges that creditable evidence shows the earth's temperature has increased about one degree in the past one hundred years. The author challenges assumptions and methodologies involved in making predictions of the eventual effect of this temperature change and the assumed and often unproven causes of the change. He believes, with good reason, that we need more discussions, better predictive computer models, more scientific facts, and more and better information before governments enact Draconian laws in panic mode. Actual and proposed laws will negatively influence the personal and economic freedom of nations and individual citizens as now envisioned by the proponents of such laws.

    The book's author makes a power argument that the causes of global warming is not "settled science". Recently, the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society published a study agreeing with the author. Study co-author S. Fred Singer of the University of Virginia said, "We are fairly sure that what's causing the warming are changes in the sun." Co-author David H. Douglass of the University of Rochester added, "The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant."

    Whether you agree with the book's author and these scientists, you owe it to yourself to read about global warming and climate change issues you rarely find reported in the mass media.
    ...more info
  • Intellectually warming
    I don't know about you, but I'm quite weary of being told by Al Gore that I am a "flat earther" because I ask for real data, and the opportunity to question it. As I understand it from Mr. Gore (and that's MISTER Gore, not DOCTOR Gore), there are people out there who believe the Earth is flat, and that doesn't mean that we should investigate the Earth's shape further. OK, Mr. Gore -- perhaps in the Amazon rainforest there are a few modest tribes who contest the Earth is flat, and it would be a waste of time and money to research that matter further. But the problem here is that many bona fide climatologists disagree with the contention that man is causing disastrous climate changes by way of greenhouse gases. And many of the scientists who support your sky-is-falling pronouncements are everything but climatologists. By your own acknowledgment, you have culled supportive data and discarded non-supportive data, and then youve hidden behind the apron of "consensus." While you might have a point here and there, Mr. Gore, we'll probably never know; it's just too darned hard to look for good data in all that muck. I'm wondering if right now what we need is a separation of science and state. To my understanding, information and disinformation usually don't mix so well.

    And what concerns me greatly now is this: When the sky doesn't fall, what happens? Simple. Mr. Gore will say, "Way to go! You guys all drove 2.6 miles per week less and WE SAVED THE WORLD!" Mr. Gore is in a no-lose position. He cherry-picks data, falsifies "facts" and pushes us all toward more and more and more governmental regulation, all the while depositing his hefty Peace Prize paycheck and posing for Oscar party photos. Next on his agenda: THERE IS NO GRAVITY! (The earth sucks.)

    Anyway, thank you, gentle reader, for permitting the above rant. Having blown off steam (which I can do all day, really, when Al Gore is over the blow-hole), I will say that this particular book offers some useful insights and some reasonable questions for the tolerant mind. I have rated it one-shy of five stars because there are times when I feel the writers plugged the anti-global-warming agenda a bit too gratuitously for my taste. A lifelong scientist, I just want to see everyone have a chance to have their say. This PIG guide fronts nicely enough for the "flat-earthers." Keep asking questions. Keep wondering and pondering. And never -- NEVER -- let Al Gore tell you that a consensus is reached when he says so. Thanks for the stage....more info
  • Do Not Buy This Book...
    This book on CD was the most sarcastic bunch of biased "scientific" balderdash I have ever heard. I did listen to the whole thing just to see what the global warming disclaimers were saying. It made me sick because of the sarcasm, rudeness toward specific individuals, and utter balderdash. Do not waste your money on this!...more info
  • A Guide to The Politics of Global Warming; Not Much Science Here
    This book is actually not a bad summary of the problems many people have with believing in global warming and climate change. The author makes some good points, but many of his arguments against the existence of global warming focus on the politics of the issue - he rarely discusses basic climate observations of what's actually happening.

    For example, the author makes a valid point that "You can't trust the climate scientists, because just a few decades ago they were telling us we were heading for a new ice age. Since we are clearly not headed for a new ice age, you better not trust them when they say we are headed towards global warming". This argument appears logical, until you do your own research and find out that the climate scientists were right in both cases. In the 1970s, we had a world-wide cooling trend due to all the pollution blocking the sun (think soot and particles from cars and factories). If this trend had continued, the world would be much cooler than it is now. For reasons un-related to climate change, America decided breathing really dirty air was a bad thing for health. As soon as the air got cleaner, more sunlight was let in, and all the greenhouse gases that had been entering the environment in massive amounts since the 1950s started to really heat things up. The dirty air had actually been delaying the inevitable heating from all the carbon dioxide from cars and energy plants all along. Ironically, once the air got clean, the atmosphere got hotter. These are they types of nuances not included in this book.

    One of the reasons this book wasn't especially informative is because the author clearly does not believe that anything should be done to prevent global warming. In all truth, he may be right - the next 20 to 50 years should tell the story. In the meantime, perhaps a little prudence may be in order. I don't think my house is going to burn down, but I bought fire insurance anyway, just in case. I think our planet is worth at least as much as all of houses put together.

    A much better book than this one along the lines of "Global Warming is Not Real; and If It Is, It's Natural", can be found in the book titled "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years", by Avery and Singer.

    Avery and Singer are every bit as committed to "de-bunking" prevailing wisdom on global warming as this author, but without all name-calling and vague pronouncements. Avery and Singer put forth their best evidence to prove their point of view. Although I interpret the scientific findings differently, I applaud their rigorous scientific approach. If you are interested in the climate change "contrarian" or "skeptical" point of view, I recommend Avery and Singer's "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years". ...more info
  • glorbal warming: hoax , reality, or somewhere between
    The book takes climate change with a "hoax" perspective. The author claims that global warming is a conspiracy to control people and shut down capitalism. A more balanced approach would be appreciated. There are extreme beliefs on both sides of the issue. I think it is time to listen to each other and examine the facts. No more tweaking or ignoring the facts. Both sides must get off their personal agendas and do what is right. ...more info
  • Average Income
    It should be known that before you trust the judgment of the reviewers of this book, find out whose pocket they are speaking from. If each reviewer were to post their occupation as a footnote. It would better serve the reader's decision on buying this utter rebellion to an atttack on their capitalistic influences. Science is not right 100% of the time. However, their are thousands of indisputable evidences toward global warming with just a few questionable facts that are no different then trying to predict which way a hurricane is coming. Regardless, it is coming.

    If you like rhetoric, then I recommend this book.

    Occupation: Web Designer...more info
  • Thought-Provoking Lessons for Greens and GOP's Alike
    I was almost put off by the early pages of this book. There the author seems to be steering us into the dotty world of conspiracy theory. He seems to be suggesting that there's a liberal conspiracy to promote a tyrannical, intrusive kind of world government by spreading false alarm over global warming, consequently enforcing lower consumption levels on everyone, but on Americans in particular. And indeed, there is at least an undertone of this sort of philosophy running throughout Horner's book. However, I'm glad I persisted and read on. Whatever your political orientation, I encourage you to do the same and to read through this book with an open mind. Even if it doesn't totally convince you that the alarm over global warming is a ruse, you will ultimately find some challenging, intelligent arguments here.

    Horner's first chapters predictably argue that the earth is not in fact getting warmer. He points out how a change in the baseline years you use can totally alter the shape of the graphs you produce. Yes, we are warm compared with the years of the last ice age, but cool compared to the preceding epochs. And we are warm compared to the modern baseline of 1966 that is often used because, according to Horner, that was an exceptionally cool year. Some of Horner's statistics seems a bit tortured here, but he raises some interesting points about how the statistics can be misleading.

    However, he really hits his stride with his succeeding chapters on consequences. He argues that even by Al Gore's own calculations, no realistic efforts to reduce consumption could possibly make any appreciable difference in the global warming that's predicted. So we are being scolded pointlessly.

    Or the point may be - to convict mankind of being a parasitic virus on the face of the earth. If Horner's ideas about there being a conspiracy are a bit ludicrous, his argument that some Greens are arguing from an individual bias against all things man-made rings truer. He poses a thought experiment. Suppose all the predictions about the extent of global warming we're facing are true. But suppose that the source of this warming is found to be sunspots or some geological phenomenon - rather than man-made. Would we still be urgently impressed into service to reverse the trend? It seems unlikely. In that case, the suffering polar bears and the inundated coastlines would seem a rightful consequence. Because in that case, the cause of the warming would be "natural," and therefore tolerable, benign, exhibiting a trustworthy transcendental wisdom. Only the changes brought about as a result of mankind's actions are deemed unnatural and nasty.

    Horner makes many other telling points. He clarifies our position on the Kyoto Treaty (which the U.S. has in fact signed). He writes about how many European countries and "developing countries" have been exempted from Kyoto quotas, completely undermining any possibility of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. And he does all this in an eminently readable, witty style. His sidebars and sections have titles such as "The Snowjob of Kilimanjaro" and "Baked Alaska."

    There are a few more typos throughout this book than there should be in a professionally edited book. But on the whole, there seems to be more sense than error in these pages. Whatever your environmental stand, you'll learn something from this book and find ideas that shake you out of your nice warm comfort zone. ...more info
  • good information
    "Global warming" is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. This book provides you with the information you need to understand this fraud and be informed when talking with the ignorant.

    It reveals who's promoting this fraud and why. Additionally, it explains how these people manipulate data and use flawed techniques....more info
  • A skeptic's point of view is a necessary part of science
    This book offers the skeptics' side in the global-warming debate. It is a refreshing and thorough look at the so-called science and politics of the environmental alarmists and media. The book provides references everywhere to back up its data, opinions, and facts. It picks apart many of the "global-warming" arguments put forth by such altruistic visionaries as Al Gore as it successfully highlights the manipulation of scientific data and the manipulation of the public by the alarmists in order to promote their cause.

    Alarmists will hate this book as it reports previously hidden, yet irrefutable scientific explanations for many of the lies that have been sprung upon the American public and the world. Every reviewer that gives this book a one star rating gives credence to the books effectiveness in that regard. Showing how the U.N manipulated its data from one report to the next or pointing out that the National Academy of Sciences debunked the "Nobel-winning" hockey-stick chart will surely rile the feathers of many.

    I myself felt comforted by the fact that "global" warming is not really a world wide phenomenon, that it doesn't really occur in the Southern Hemisphere, for example, or by the fact that the U.S. is actually cooler now than it was before the advent of its so-called "carbon economy".

    And it is always nice to hear the other side of the story for once.

    ...more info
  • Politically Incorect Guide to Global Warming
    The author successfully separates environmentalism from the real facts about climate change . He does this with charts & graphs that are easy to follow for the common person . Also , he explains the dollar costs that are not explained by Washington . I recommend this book . I have an MS degree in Geophysical Science...more info
  • gift purchase
    I bought this book for a gift for Christmas for my son. He was very pleased when he received it. I ordered the book and it was at my home in 5 days. I was very pleased with the quick service....more info
  • The only thing we have to fear is Gore himself
    This book is frightening to say the least but not because of any threat of "Manmade Global Warming." The real threat, as detailed in this book, is much scarier than that. The question is, as Col. Jessep, Jack Nicholson's character in the film "A Few Good Men," might say: "Can you handle the truth?"

    The truth is that "Manmade Global Warming" is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind in the history of mankind. The chilling thing is that if the supposed fixes being trumpeted to save the planet from this imaginary threat are ever implemented, the United States' economy will likely collapse while the perpetrators of the fraud grow in power and wealth. The implications for America, its citizens and its future are almost too appalling to contemplate.

    As seen herein, those attempting to impose these fixes by treaty and government fiat are using techniques similar to those used by Adolph Hitter and Joseph Stalin to stifle dissent. In their times, dissenters were shot, sent to Siberia, or simply placed in mental institutions. So far in America today, our most knowledgeable climate scientists and global experts are only belittled, demeaned and slandered. We are told that they don't know what they're talking about. This is all part of the "Big Lie" technique used by Hitler's propaganda minister, Josef Goebel's in his day. "The debate is over," they say, but no debates were ever held among scientific experts in the field. "There is consensus among the scientific community," but consensus is a political not a scientific term. "Anyone who disagrees with `Manmade Global Warming' is a tool of big business, don't listen to them;" but, strangely enough, the exact opposite is true. And so it goes.

    This book takes an alternate, scientific, approach and thereby sheds the light of day on the "facts" (FACT: THE QUALITY OF EXISTING OR OF BEING REAL; ACTUALITY, TRUTH). Here are a few of those facts:

    When the environmental movement held its first "Earth Day" on the 100th anniversary of Vladimir Lenin's birth, April 22, 1970, their cause for alarm was "Global Cooling" caused by the activities of man, not "Global Warming." But there is no scientific evidence to support the concept of either manmade global cooling or warming and much to refute it. In fact, there is no such thing as "an average global temperature." There are only local temperatures measured at scattered locations around the world, and worldwide temperatures have fluctuated all throughout history. Today, the global average temperature is about 0.6o Celsius, or 1o Fahrenheit higher than it was 100 years ago. The activities of man, however, have contributed little or nothing to this rise since man's activities produce only about 3% of the atmospheric CO2 . Mother Nature contributes the other 97%. The 1990s were not the "hottest decade" as claimed by the alarmists. The 1930s of "Dust Bowl" fame were. According to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) records: the U.S. warmed from 1895 to 1940 with 1934 being the hottest year recorded, then cooled until the mid-1970s (setting off a panic among environmental activists), then warmed until 1998 (setting off a panic among environmental activists) at which time a possible cooling trend began. During the 1990s, allegedly the "hottest decade on record," only five State record high temperatures were seen. In the 1930s, however, twenty-four record highs were recorded. The 1990s were simply made to appear hotter by the closing of about 6000 weather measuring stations, the majority of which were in colder climes such as Siberia, due to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. This becomes obvious when the number of "Weather Stations Operating" and "Average Global Temperature" are plotted on the same time-scale. Furthermore, much of the alarm is based on the results produced by a single computer program designed to predict climate change. Unfortunately, when independently tested it was found that this program couldn't even predict the already known "past" and that similar predictions of future warming could be produced simply by inputting "random numbers" (As computer analysts say: "garbage in/garbage out").

    And here are a few more "Inconvenient Truths": In order to further their claims for alarm, while demanding immediate action, the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) actually redefined the "Arctic" region so as to expand it by approximately 50%, adding an area, mostly over open water, large enough to hold the entire United States plus two Frances. But, according to Arctic climatologists, there is NO correlation between "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentrations" and the "Yearly Arctic-wide Surface Temperature;" but there is a direct correlation between "Solar Total Irradiance" and that temperature. Al Gore claims that "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent of thickness of the `Arctic' ice cap." At the other pole, however, and at the same time, 2006, two scientists published the results of their satellite-data study and concluded that the "Antarctic" ice sheet was growing at 4-6 millimeters in thickness per year. Another study, this time by NASA scientists, determined that the net loss of ice from Greenland/Antarctica raised the sea-level about 0.05 mm per year during from 1992 to 2002. At that rate it would take 1000 years to raise sea levels by a full five centimeters (about two inches), but Al Gore claims it will raise the oceans twenty feet in 100 years. Furthermore, much of the much ballyhooed breakup of river ice is in fact due to what scientists term "calving" which is the breaking off of a large piece of an ice river caused by increasing ice mass pushing the unit down to where its length and heft are unsustainable for the given topography. In addition, while some glaciers are known to be receding, other (unreported) glaciers in the same areas are known to be growing. The melting of some glaciers in Glacier National Park, often cited by Al Gore as proof of manmade global warming, actually began in earnest before man began adding a noticeable amount of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. And, according to Arctic climatologists, the western edge of Greenland may be experiencing ice-melt faster during the last few years, but it isn't because temperatures are rising - they aren't. Science reveals this to be more likely a result of cyclical changes in ocean currents. To make matters worse for alarmists: "Manmade Global Warming" can't be a valid concept since the Southern Hemisphere isn't warming.

    The melting of the "Snows of Kilimanjaro," also hyped by Al Gore, which began over 100 years ago was caused by a decrease of moisture in the air; while the local temperature has remained constant. The hurricane intensive year of 2005 has also been touted by environmental alarmists as proof of "Manmade Global Warming," but if so they should also tout 2006, a year in which there were no U.S. landfalls, as proof of "Manmade Global Cooling." They don't. When plotted on a decade-by-decade basis, it is also apparent that there have been a lower than average number of hurricanes each decade since 1961.

    Finally, according to memos, obtained with the collapse of ENRON, the president of ENRON, Ken Lay, and British Petroleum's (BP's) president, both companies of which were heavily investing in government subsidized wind mill farms and natural gas pipelines, met with President Clinton and his VP, Al Gore, in 1997-1998 to help hammer out America's policy regarding "manmade climate change" and the impending Kyoto treaty; after which Clinton signed the Kyoto Accord but for three years failed to submit it for Senate ratification (most likely because the Senate had earlier approved a resolution by 95-0 stating, in effect, that the Senate would not ratify any treaty which: 1) did not impose Greenhouse Gas limits on other developing countries, or 2) which would result in serious harm to the U.S. economy.) George W. Bush, who opposed Kyoto, didn't submit it either, so it is still hanging over our heads.)

    Enough said, except for this: According to Margaret Wollstrom, Europe's one-time Commissioner for the Environment, "This is not a simple environmental issue where you can say it is an issue where the scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations, this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big businesses throughout the world." (In other words: We need to hobble America's economy so Socialist countries can compete.)

    It would be nice to think that Al Gore and his comrades in alarms are merely simpletons who have the best interests of America at heart. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case. Being elitists, they likely deem themselves too smart by half, but, if implemented their plans will bring the U.S. to ruin. All things considered, and to paraphrase President Franklin D. Roosevelt, it seems that "The only thing we have to fear is Gore himself." (and those like him)
    ...more info
  • The only way to get leftist alarmists to work is...
    ...publishing the truth and challenging their ideology because that's what their "science" very often is. They have presuppositions like total government control, government-enforced secular humanism - the whole Marxist repertoire. Everything they see they see through these "worldview glasses". Environmentalism has become a vehicle for neo-marxist ideological views. "Blue planet in green bondage" one could call it. These ideologists don't do science and they don't care about real science. They care about their secualr humanist ideology which they want to implement through alarmism, media manipulation and political activism. There is a saying in German about the judgement such people have and with which presupposition they see relaity: "What must not be CANNOT be." That's how they do "science" and that's how they view the facts. Academia is full of these people and we allow them to brainwash our children and we actually are paying tuition and tax-money for it.
    By the way: What happened to the predicted "ice age" and global cooling that was predicted by the same circles during the 80's? What happened to acid rain? What happened to the ozon hole?...........more info
  • A dishonest and one-sided representation
    A group of both conservative and liberal fellow university students and I actually met with the author's co-workers at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and were presented with a copy of this book after our meeting. Unfortunately, the so-called "discussion" we had with Myron Ebell, Marlo Lewis, and CEI president Fred Smith left all of us disillusioned that public policy think tanks like CEI are independent of Big Oil special interests (Exxon Mobil is one of their loyal donors).

    Not a word of logic or sound, peer-reviewed science found its way into either our discussion with CEI or into their book. In fact, we were barely allowed to squeeze in any questions to the "discussion" about climate change, economy, and policy. Extremely disappointing how partisan and fool-hardy these issues have become and even more so that this is evidenced by gaudy exploitations such as this book. It is both politically incorrect and scientifically incorrect....more info
  • Great when he sticks to the facts
    This is one of those books that I almost did not get past the first couple of chapters. This is because he cannot hide his dislike for the environmentalist movement as it exists today, and I did not want to read a hate filled book. But the book takes off when he gets to the science and statistics that explain the heart of the "global warming" dilemna. His arguments are extremely persuasive, and it does give an understanding of why he has such hatred toward the movement.

    If you are an environmentalist, I would suggest starting at Part II and go back and read the first section afterwards. That way you will hopefully have an open mind when you get to the real debate....more info
  • A disappointing product of a disappointing debate
    This is not a studious effort to get to the bottom of climate change: the author isn't motivated to find out whether we're drowning or unnecessarily alarmed. He barely cares about the state of the earth on which he depends for his sustainance. Instead, it's a rant - an expression of frustration, essentially, with the way the debate has developed. I can't dismiss his sentiment entirely - who hasn't been annoyed by the way these issues are portrayed, especially in the US media. But I can dismiss his conclusions. He's wrong: worry about global warming, because it matters - and it matters even more than a frustrating debate!...more info
  • Good Overview of the Political Nature of the Global Warming Hysteria
    It would be very easy, from listening to the bloviations emanating from certain quarters to conclude that mankind, Americans in particular, are on the verge of causing catastrophic climate changes that might ultimately result in millions of deaths, the inundation of coastlands around the world, and only God knows what else. It's said that anthropogenic (man-made) GHGs (Green House Gases) resulting from manufacturing processes and the burning of fossil fuels is causing a rise in average global temperature sufficient to melt glaciers and polar ice, flooding coastlands, and that if we--mankind--don't act very quickly, perhaps now, it will not be possible to stop the temperature increase.

    While I don't doubt in the least that mankind has the capacity to severely foul its own nest, so to speak, I also have an almost infinite faith in the ability of finite Man to royally screw things up and get the facts wrong, particularly when it seems that his lemming-like propensity for following idiots off cliff ledges has been aroused. I've taken "global warming" warnings with a grain of salt, as they have long seemed to me to be merely the latest entry in a drearily long list of means by which we are supposedly destroying ourselves, and also because so many of those raising this alarm have impressed me as being completely without credibility on other issues (Al Gore immediately springs to mind) that it is hard to take them seriously on any issue, including climate change.

    I began to take more notice of the issue a few months ago, when someone--probably Neal Boortz--reminded me of the "global cooling" scare of just thirty years or so ago. Immediately, I thought, "I remember that! I think I even saw a National Geographic that talked about it!" Just after that, I thought, "Sheesh, I'm getting to be a geezer. I actually remember things that happened thirty years ago."

    Those who, like me, have recently started paying more attention to this issue and have wondered if there is anything to it may find The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism useful and informative. Certainly I found it so, and after reading it, I can't help but think that anyone who takes a hard look at the basic facts of the matter will emerge at least somewhat skeptical of the proposition that anthropogenic GHGs are causing catastrophic climate change and possibly suspicious that "global warming" is a fraud perpetrated with the intent of pumping wealth out of some countries (including the United States) and into others, and to force the de-industrialization of the Western world.

    I wish I could examine each section in detail and provide voluminous quotes, but I haven't the time, and I suspect you haven't, either. 'Tis a pity. Mr. Horner makes thorough hash out of global warming alarmism, and I wish I could share it all with you. Earlier, I excerpted a section I thought might be particularly interesting to any readers I have. Here, I'm just going to give you the gist of the territory covered by the book and a few more interesting quotes.

    The book is divided into four parts: "Environmentalism and Authoritarians," "Global Warming: The Convenient Lies," "The False Prophets (and Real Profits) of Global Warming," and "Making You Poorer and Less Free." The first is devoted to making the reader aware of the background of many (not all) of the people hyping global warming hysteria. Some will be surprised to learn that some environmentalists come perilously close to hating man and exalting the planet, and that some embrace environmentalism as part and parcel of an overall dislike of Western civilization, capitalism, and industrialism. Some are outright socialists or communists; Mr. Horner refers to these as

    "'watermelons' : green on the outside, red to the core."

    The principal point Mr. Horner is trying to drive home is that much of the global warming hype is driven by an agenda that originates outside the realm of science, an agenda that has more to do with controlling people than with concern for the environment. Early on, he says

    "...environmental causes always include--and often are primarily--campaigns to gain more government control over the economy and individual activity. They are never fights for less control or greater liberty.

    ..."environmentalism" has matured into a nightmare for anyone who believes in private property, open markets, and limited government. Environmental pressure groups have no use for limiting governmental powers or expanding individual liberties. Instead, environmental claims are without fail invoked to advance the statist agenda."

    And indeed, by the time the reader finishes Part I, it will be hard for him not to believe that much, perhaps most, of what is advanced in the name of "environmentalism" these days has as its objective destroying the capital, the industry, and the wealth of the West--or redistributing it. Mr. Horner returns to this theme in other parts of the book, and perhaps the best summation of the idea is actually to be found in Part II:

    "That prescription itself is the greens' real goal, not remedying any particular environmental phenomenon. Control energy and you control the economy. Kyoto and its ilk seek to ration energy use."

    Another interesting aspect of Part I are the numerous quotes illustrating a rather severe attitude toward humans on the part of some "greens." For example, Charles Wursta, "chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, in response to the likely millions to die if DDT were banned (as quoted in Toxic Terror)" is quoted as saying "This is as good a way to get rid of them as any."

    Part II, "Global Warming: The Convenient Lies," is an absolute killer, replete with account after account of bad science, poorly-done research, agenda-driven assumptions, and outright lies, all done in support of an alarmist agenda. There is a great deal of interesting material here, and if I'm not mistaken, the "Top Ten 'Global Warming' Myths" section has been widely circulated on the internet. One particularly interesting point, which is expanded on elsewhere in the book, was

    "It turns out that the '90s not only fail to live up to the "hottest" title, but coincided with the closure of hundreds of measuring stations (including many in the former Soviet Union as their priorities turned to more pressing domestic matters such as collapse of an empire). If you shut down measuring stations in the cold parts of the world, your average global temperatures will go up. It turns out that the 1990s temperature increases track nicely with these closures."

    Part III, "The False Prophets (and Real Profits) of Global Warming," concerns a fairly wide range of people, but it's probably fair to say that it concentrates mostly on businesses that stand to profit (very frequently, as a result of governmental regulation, market manipulation, or subsidization) from an alarmist agenda, and on media that, in search of "hot" stories, proves an all-too-willing handmaiden.

    This is more important a section than might be apparent at first glance. Mr. Horner notes early on that a standard "green" tactic is to smear anyone who doubts their global warming alarmism as a tool of big business, especially "big oil." In this section, Mr. Horner makes it very clear that there are big bucks to be made off the environmentalist agenda, too, and that this must be taken into account when evaluating the motives and veracity of those involved with the environmentalists. A representative quote:

    "Duke Energy, DuPont, Morgan Stanley, GE, and Steve Bing all are trying to get rich off environmental policies--by basically investing in something worthless (CO2 credits, ethanol, wind) and then lobbying to make it mandatory."

    Part IV, "Making You Poorer and Less Free," concerns the economic effects of implementing the greens' agenda and the infamous Kyoto treaty. Kyoto, as a matter of fact, has a chapter all to itself. This is representative, and of great interest.

    "Even Kyoto's proponents acknowledge that despite accepting, for the sake of argument, Kyoto's underlying assumptions, and even were it implemented fully, universally, and perfectly, it would have no detectable effect on temperature increase... That is to say that even in theory and according to its proponents' best case (which has been already proven to be utterly unrealistic), Kyoto might avert--delay, in fact, by just six short years--projected future warming of an undetectable few-hundredths-of-one-degree Celsius by 2050.

    This stunning impotence would however ensure that future growth in industry and agriculture would be outsourced from Kyoto's few covered countries to the vast majority of the world rejecting Kyoto's rationing. Kyoto exempts major developing nations and "top ten" emitters such as China, India, and South Korea. Mexico, Brazil, and others are free riders and happily intend to stay so.

    This diagnosis of climatic meaninglessness would not change even were the United States to join up and comply with its terms. In fact, U.S. participation was one of the assumptions in the calculation.

    It is critical to this most distorted of public debates as well as to "climate economics" to recall that it is this exempt majority of 155 countries--not just the United States and Australia--that refuse to accept any restrictions, now as well as in the future."

    Today's world is awash in signs, in little hints, in intimations, and even a few outright statements, that many people think that the world will be better off if it is all "leveled out," so to speak, that is, if we in the industrialized nations (especially the U.S.) are not so rich and so powerful, and that the way to accomplish this is by erasing borders and redistributing wealth. After reading this book, I couldn't help but think that global warming alarmism serves little purpose other than to enrich a few companies at public expense, and to transfer industry (and therefore wealth) to other nations, all in service of the goal of eliminating vast divergences of culture, ethnicity, and wealth.

    Overall, I enjoyed the book. Mr. Horner maintains what appears to be a somewhat sarcastic tone throughout the book, but I have to point out that when dealing with some of the silliness he covers, even a straightforward recitation of the facts might well come across as sarcastic. The book is informative, and I have little doubt that I will refer to its contents in the future.

    My one gripe is the usual one I have with Regnery Press: the editing is nothing short of awful. Time and again, I found little grammatical errors, things that are really an editor's job to catch and fix. I wish Regnery would hire some better editing staff; it would make their authors look better....more info
  • What the media won't tell you about this farce called globla warming
    This book covers all the stuff you need to know to become informed about so called global warming. Yes the climate does change but it is cyclic not due to man made causes!!!! The powers that be that worship this religion are only in it to pick your pockets and gain power!!!

    It is a fallacy that man is causing this to the degree that the greens and the great Goreacle want you to believe.

    Read this and become informed to put to rest the misinformation that they want you to believe....more info
    While I certainly had my doubts about the magnificent hoax that is known as "Global Warming", reading this book certainly clarified my perception on the subject. If you think that you see and hear the truth from your local media, just think as to how much attention they pay to reports contrary to the "consensus opinion" about global warming. Not much you'll find. This book is complete with facts and explanations of the misinformation being spoon fed to the public on this phenomenom. I didn't have to read the article from Great Britain about the English judge who ruled that Al Gore's movie must be labeled a "Political" movie before it could be shown to school children, because of the factual misrepresentations in the movie. I knew it from reading this book. This is the book that should be mandatory reading in our public schools!...more info