Poor, but better than Gore's "Truth"
"The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global warming (and Environmentalism)" is, mostly, poor, due to too much ranting and raving.
However, I consider it better than Gore's "An Inconvienient Truth". First, there are more facts. Second, more of the facts are true. Third, the author actually has more references than Gore's book did.
Unfortunately, both books, this one as well as Gore's, are more about Propaganda than about real science.
I suggest that you seek out a bunch of other books on these subjects and find real data. Personally, my look at the data and the literature seems to show some global warming but not nearly as bad as Gore contends. And, there seems to be stronger and stronger evidence that the warming is not, entirely, due to man's activities.
From my own look at the data and literature, I thing Christtopher C. Horner tells some real whoppers. But, so does Gore. So, buyer BEWARE!
A slice of the broader view of environmental issues
The lesson that gets taught over and over again without being "learned" very well is the effects of "unintended consequences". This book includes examples of that. Rachel Carson was correct about DDT, however the overzealous implementation of her ideas has led to the hardship of millions wherever malaria is endemic. One should not be gleeful that some of the global warming hyperbole is poked in this book, because there are important nuggets of truth within the PRO environmentalist views. Sometimes I see pollution issues being mixed with climate change causes. The one is an important stewardship issue for humans, the other is based upon a world-view that says people operate the universe.
The value of this book is that regardless of your postition on the topics included, one will learn another view of the issues not being communicated in the mass media. (hence the "Politically Incorrect" in the book title) True dialogue includes listening respectfully to all views.
Follow the Money
Another example of how, as the saying attributed to Benjamin Disraeli goes, there's "Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics". Like many things ( or I should say most things ) when one "follows the money" it often leads to the perpetrator. I remember when my children were small and had all those "why" questions they always do. Other than "why is the sky blue" type questions, the answer, as any good detective will tell you, is usually because of money. Make no mistake, "Global Warming" is about two things, politics and money.
The liberal scare mongering left would want us all to believe that without more government intervention ( which always translates into higher taxes and costs ) we will never survive the latest world ending tragedy upon us. Or as the author humorously notes, their publications about the end of the world always seem to have an annual renewal card enclosed ! The author develops a great case how the Kyoto Protocol is really about controlling Energy Policy. It was rejected by the US and 155 other countries, representing the majority of the world's economic activity and its population. It is a European treaty with one dozen others of which NONE are in fact currently reducing their emissions. How do the BRIC countries feel, Brazil, Russia, India and China ? They are all for having these major countries sign on. Why ? The cost to meet these impossible standards are of such staggering proportions that they gleefully declare "you, but not us". We would only become even more non-competitive with these countries as we are forced to raise our prices astronomically to adhere to the treaty. If you think you have seen jobs lost to overseas countries recently, just wait. "Cap and Trade" is a direct result of this policy, showing us once again how great sums of capital can be realized by producing nothing. I give credit to the people who dream these schemes up though, enriching themselves greatly while impoverishing others. Hey, just another day in the boardroom. OK I admit it, I'm jealous, I actually have to work and produce to earn a paycheck.
And of course, let's not forget, George Bush, who is evil incarnate. He is solely to blame for all the world's problems ( I know this because my liberal friends tell me so, he was even responsible for hurricane Katrina ! ) but none of the positives that may have come about, such as the recent handing over of Iraq's Anbar province to its people, or the successful foiling of terrorists activity within our country's borders. Just a minute while I count up how many attacks since 9/11. Oh, that was easy, it would be NONE. Then we have Nancy Pelosi ( the failed author now ) who is "Trying to save the planet " by refusing to act in the interests of the American people( I thought that was her job )and allow any drilling which would go a long way in helping America become more energy independent. Just as a side note, why haven't any more of those annoying actors and other celebs left the country yet anyway ? They did promise if Bush won a few years back didn't they ? OK, there was Johnny Depp, now living in France. But other than J.D. could it be the simple fact that because it is better here than anywhere else ?
Now, how are the statistics used to prejudice facts you may ask. On page 40 the author explains- "A combination of the absurdities occurred when President Bush introduced his 'Clear Skies Initiative'. This set of regulations aimed to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by a projected 73 percent, mercury by 69 percent, and nitrogen oxides by 67 percent. Natural Resources Defense Council and their cohorts decried this policy as an increase in pollution. They charged that Bush's policy would triple mercury emissions and increase sulphur by 50 percent. You see, the greens were advocating even stricter rules promising even larger emission reductions, enabling them to characterize 'Clear Skies' as an 'increase,' if only relative to the plans they had drawn up in their fancy offices".
Now I am weak in math but I believe their logic goes something like this - I ( the greenie ) ask for a 60% reduction, and you ( the evil Bush ) want to give me ONLY 40%. Therefore you are giving me an increase of 50% ( add 50% of 40, or 20, to the number 40 and it is now 60 and VOILA - since I wanted 60% and I only got 40%, so you have given me an increase of 50%, not a decrease. This is ENRON type math at the very best. Apparently the facts don't matter when dealing with these people.
Statistical Example #2- the greens would have you believe that based on weather station reporting that the earth's mean temperature is warming. The definition of mean will play no factor in their number. Why ? Because they fail to include the fact that reporting weather stations that were once included were in very cold areas of Russia. As the country began falling apart economically, they took those stations offline, thereby removing those LOW numbers that used to be included, thereby leading to higher overall numbers. Using my weak math skills again, I believe it's like this. I have a series of 20 numbers - 10 are 10 and 10 are 6. The average is 100+60 = 160, now divided by 20 = 8. I introduce the new weather readings( excuse me, numbers ) and have the following after taking the lower reporting stations offline ( sorry, I mean lower numbers out ). I now have the following set of numbers - 10 are still 10 but now only 6 are now 6. This gives me a total of 100+36 = 136. Divide 136 by 16 and the number is 8.5. Oh my word, the temperature of the earth has risen - based on my ( faulty ) SCIENTIFIC METHOD by .5 degrees or statistically by 6.25%. The result is a catastrophic scenario and a huge problem as my "statistical research" just "proved"
( actually, it's only a problem for those interested in keeping the "scientific method" scientific however ).
By the way, the above mentioned 6.25% is an example of how one uses statistics to "prove the point", or as more intelligent, unemotional, nothing financially to gain people may say - "Lie".
Follow the money. Many of the people pushing this agenda also have much to gain financially as new regulations are put into effect. Just look into how much Al Gore has at stake as these regulations become legally mandatory. In case you were not aware, Al Gore has joined Silicon Valley's Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers Venture capital firm. As luck would have it, Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers specializes in alternative energy investments. So Al is in a position to greatly profit by the efforts to offset the disasters that are attributed to Global Warming.
The author also discusses that while there are some glaciers receding there are also other glaciers increasing. For some reason we never hear about that but instead get pictures of a polar bear "stranded" on a block of ice floating in the middle of nowhere. Great picture, and really was worth a thousand words but sorry, I was under the impression that polar bears could somehow swim ? ( They can by the way, regardless of what others may try and tell you ). Besides, I have it on good authority that particular bear was simply tired and took a rest by hitching a ride to his next stop. And those great pictures showing the large slabs of ice falling off the icebergs, more "proof" the planet is heating up - or not. The scientific term is "calving" and the author explains how it happens because the iceberg has actually gotten to large to maintain its size so these pieces breaking off happen as a normal course of events and are in no way related to "Global Warming".
If they can keep us in fear, we can be told to turn to them ( government ) for more intervention and regulation to help solve the problems. After all, we all know it worked out so well with their handling of social security and the national debt.
Finally, one of the things the green machine really hates is for someone who decides to learn about this subject to bring up the fact that wasn't it just recently they were predicting we were going to perish from a new ICE AGE ? Or as stated by Nigel Calder in International Wildlife, June of 1975, " The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind". And there was Paul Ehrlich who stated in his 1968 book, "The Population Bomb" that " the battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now". Where did they hide all those bodies anyway ? Oh, I forgot, we are facing a population explosion as well as increased obesity epidemics. But don't ever let the facts get in the way of a good story.
EXAMPLE - please read the few RECENT short articles below regarding global warming at links below. The Science strongly disputes what the Eco's would have you believe
[...]
Bogus "science" paid for by oil companies
Let's see, should we believe the 95% of climate scientists and the IPCC reports on global warming? Or should we believe a man who works for the "Competitive Enterprise Institute", a conservative think tank funded by oil companies like Amoco and Texaco?
Wake up people--global warming naysayers paid by oil companies are hardly credible sources of information.
If thousands of astronomers from around the world said that an asteroid would hit Earth in 30 years, would you believe them? Or would you believe a handful of pseudo-astronomers (paid for by special interests) who claim otherwise?
Shrill diatribe
This is a shrill and near-libelous diatribe against greens, environmentalists, the media in general, and Al Gore in particular.
Its only redeeming feature is the last two chapters that actually give some reasoned information about why the Kyoto Protocol might be counterproductive.
If you can get that far without going postal, I salute you. These two chapters are the only reason I give this book two stars instead of one.
Charles Madden
(265 reviews)
