Top Books Blog

The Green Machine explained and debunked (2009-06-27)
Scary.

The depths that the alarmists will go through to silence opposition to their claims is absolutely terrifying. Horton goes into great detail and provides so many examples that I found myself skipping ahead just to stop the brow beating. The ostracizing of "skeptic" academics gave me chills. Examples include

Extreme pressure from teachers on other teachers

Failure to publish substantial AGW debunking works in numerous peer review journals

Attempts by alarmists to retract direct quotes after learning they were used to further the "skeptic" agenda (seriously, someone threatened to sue a publisher if his direct quote while being interviewed by the author was not removed from a book because it was factual account of how CO2 is released from the ocean after it is heated up)

Extreme pressure from the Green Machine to replace any dissenting voice in positions ranging from state climatologists to the Natural Academy of Science all over the world.

Countless claims by the greens of a consensus that doesn't exist and a failure to acknowledge the actual scientific communities consensus that greatly downplays man's contribution to global warming

Sensationalism and admitted over-exaggeration of affects of AGW to get their point across.

I could continue but I think you see the trend. Science and debate is being stifled by an extreme attempt to gain more governmental control and redistribute wealth from the "poor of the rich nations to the rich of the poor nations". Claims by anyone skeptical of Gore and his cronies are immediately accused of being funded by oil and big business and being a "climate terrorist" while the alarmists draw millions from agencies that will greatly benefit from global warming (nuclear power, the government, natural gas, etc). Amazingly, it has been suggested that people who speak out against global warming should be imprisoned on the grounds that they are destroying the environment and endangering everyone's lives! Some alarmists are even against Christmas and write extremely pathetic childrens stories of santa's roof leaking due to the melting of the ice at the north pole! ABSURD!

The book was at times repetitive and poorly worded (long sentences separated by colons or commas with paranthesised interspersed that made me have to re-read some paragraphs several times to understand what he was trying to say). Overall though it was very well researched and his examples are well cited and very specific requiring little imagination or thought as to what the other side's motives were.

The green rhetoric should scare you. Debate and democracy are slowly being stifled in favor of totalitarian government. Today the US House approved a bill (going to the senate next) that is being called the largest tax in American history all under the disguise of "saving the planet". I encourage people to learn the facts of AGW and not watch erroneous and ostentatious documentaries from Al Gore.

junkscience.com vs National Academy of Sciences (2009-06-24)
Most of us are familiar with the comment, "anything's possible." If that's true, then the basic allegations in Red Hot Lies could certainly be possible. But surely, those who subscribe to Mr. Horner's premises, those who think rationally and critically, must wonder why the overwhelming majority of climate scientists and respected scientific organizations emphatically disagree. Are they, as Mr. Horner charges, "unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money?" Or are they concerned scientists, experts in their fields who rely on data, facts, and scientific principles?

Without needless litany, here's a partial list of Global Warming supporters: National Academy of Sciences; American Geophysical Union; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Australian Government, Department of Climate Change; UK Met Office; Joint Science Academies; National Climatic Data Center; National Geographic Society. And here's a brief list of naysayers: American Enterprise Institute; Ann Coulter; Cato Institute; Glenn Beck; John Birch Society; junkscience.com; Rush Limbaugh; Sean Hannity. Of those two groups, which is more likely to be correct? Seems obvious to me.

Yadda ...yadda... yadda ....and oh by the way ...yadda (2009-06-19)
This is a polemic about catastrophic global warming created by us dang humans. The author is not a climatologist so you won't get any scientific insight. Instead, he concentrates upon people and their motives. He has a list of putative dopes he discredits, just like the other side has its own list of Exonn Mobile dupes. Dupes and dopes, back and forth the nasty words fly like volleys in an artillery exchange.

Don't waste your time collecting books written by lawyers, journalists, medical doctors,or kangaroo experts. They really don't know much more than any modestly educated person who surfs the web to read pro and con positions. Come to your own conclusions. Avoid books that assume the worst and then tell you what a horrible world that lies ahead. That's just pure bunk and will get you nothing but little red lines on your eyeballs.

Horner's "Lies" are the Truth (2009-06-14)
In RED HOT LIES, Christopher Horner attempts to make sense out of one of the most confusing and politically charged topics of our time: what is global warming, does it truly exist, and what, if any, is the extant to which humanity is the cause. The answers to these questions would be complex enough even if politics were not to rear its ugly head. But rear it it does and this is the basic thrust of the book. Horner charges the political left with lying, exaggerating, intimidating, and generally perpetrating the most egregious of falsehoods to push its agenda, which he claims has little to do with scientific truth. He notes that the very ones who trumpet the loudest that global warming is indubitably here and is anthropogenitically caused are also the ones who would benefit financially and politically were their claims to be accepted across the board. Horner sees no small irony in the claims of the global warming lobby that their scientific analyses of relevant historical and current data is beyond reproach. His book is replete with refutations that the scientific community has reached a consensus that humanity has caused our planet to heat up and if we do nothing about it really soon, then a tipping point will be reached before we suffer from catastrophes of biblical proportions. Rubbish, Horner responds as he notes that even if it were possible to reach an exalted "consensus," then all that it would mean is that consensus does not equate with accuracy. Further, he relentlessly urges those scientists who clearly have been pressured to "go along" with the crowd to stop doing so. He devotes considerable space to point out scientists who have never gone along with the crowd have been misquoted to indicate that they have. The true number of reputable experts in the various fields that relate to global warming and oppose the notion that it is here, it is growing worse, and is caused by human beings poisoning the environment is far greater than currently acknowledged. It is crucial, he sees, for the supporters of global warming to present a unified front, but in books like this one, the cracks in the front grow more noticeable with each passing day. One of the more reprehensible tactics used by the global warming lobby is its use of children who are being taught in the public schools of this country to unhesitatingly accept what their NEA trained teachers insist is unqualified truth. With each new year of such inculcation, there will be a flood tide of future voters who think that Al Gore and revealed truth are synonymous. RED HOT LIES is Horner's response that at the very least there is still room for legitimate debate.

Global warming not necessarilya "liberal" issue (2009-06-09)
If Republicans and right-wingers continue to be seen as the only ones who disagree with global warming as being mostly, or largely human-caused they will reduce their influence in the debate.
I'm sure that not all who think of themselves as liberals believe or support the environmentalist doom and gloom agenda. As a forest management scientist I've been highly skeptical of claims of mainly human causes for any climate warming. It's obvious to me that many are using c.w. for political gain, especially Gore.
Dividing issues into black and white, good and bad, Communist or capitalist serves only those out for personal power or gain. The review of the book by Motl enables one to get a fair idea of whether or not to buy the book.