Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax

by Larry Bell

Foreword written by S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and coauthor of Unstoppable Global Warming . Melting glaciers, suffering polar bears, rising oceans- these are just a few of the climate change crisis myths debunked by noted aerospace expert Larry Bell in this explosive new book. With meticulous research, Bell deflates these and other climate misconceptions with perceptive analysis, humor, and the most recent scientific data. Written for the laymen, yet in-depth enough for the specialist, this book digs deep into the natural and political aspects of the climate change debate, answering fundamental questions that reveal the all-too-human origins of "scientific" inquiry. Why and how are some of the world s most prestigious scientific institutions cashing in on the debate? Who stand to benefit most by promoting public climate change alarmism? What true political and financial purposes are served by the vilification of carbon dioxide? How do climate deceptions promote grossly exaggerated claims for non-fossil alternative energy capacities and advance blatant global wealth redistribution goals? With its devastating portrayal of scientific and government establishments run amok, this book is an invaluable addition to the tremendously popular literature attacking the scientific status quo. Climate of Corruption will bring welcome relief to all those who are fed up with climate crisis insanity.

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

300 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2011

About the author

Larry Bell is a professor of architecture and endowed professor of space architecture at the University of Houston, where he founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA). SICSA is globally recognized as a leading academic organization for research, planning, and design of habitats in extreme environments. These include orbital and planetary space facilities, polar research stations, offshore and underwater accommodations, and shelters for populations impacted by natural and man-made disasters. SISCA sponsors the world's only graduate program in space architecture. A central priority is to explore and apply sustainable design and living approaches that can prevent unnecessary extreme conditions from occurring everywhere on our planet. In this regard, Larry believes that a "Spaceship Earth" perspective is entirely realistic. Municipalities, states, and nations are beginning to realize that we are all in that tiny fragile spacecraft together. All of us depend upon the same limited support systems and share a vital mission that will determine the future of all life.

Larry and SICSA are frequently featured in national and international broadcast media and print presentations. Examples include the History Channel (Modern Marvels Series), the Discovery Channel-Canada (Daily Planet Series), NASA Select, PBS, ABC TV: Australia, the BBC TV World Business Report, the National TV Network of Italy, the Swedish Educational Network, the NECT TV Broadcast Network-Japan, Radio Moscow, and National Geographic TV-UK. Larry has been interviewed and quoted in lead Time magazine and Christian Science Monitor features. He has also written dozens of technical conference papers and professional journal articles addressing a broad range of space and terrestrial design issues, as well as written about the environment, energy, and technology for Energy Tribune, and international magazine.

Larry has cofounded several high-tech companies. One, a commercial aerospace corporation, grew to more than eight thousand professionals through various mergers and acquisitions, and was purchased by General Dynamics. A spin-off of another company he cofounded designs and manufactures drive systems for hybrid-electric buses and other vehicles that are on the roads in several cities.

In addition to NASA headquarters achievements certificates awarded to SICSA, Larry has received important international honors. Among those are the Space Pioneer Award from the Kyushu Sanyu University in Japan, and two of the highest honors awarded by the Federation of Astronautics and Cosmonautics of the Former Soviet Union - the Yuri Gagarin Diploma and the Konstantin Tsiolkovsky Gold Medal - for his contributions to international space development. His name was placed on the Russian Rocket that launched the first crew to the International Space Station. Three major professional aerospace engineering societies in the NASA Johnson Space Center Texas region jointly selected him for the Technical Educator of the Year Award in 2003.

Reviews

[Jimyanni · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an extremely well-written book disputing the validity of the mainstream-accepted idea of human-caused global warming. It is well-researched, and makes a very strong case for an outlook that is contrary to most of what you might hear on the subject. While the author is occasionally a tad snarky with regard to those on the other side of the issue, he is nowhere near as uncivil as they gnerally are in regard to anyone disputing their accepted wisdom, nor does he sound as irrational as many people on his side of the issue do.

I am nowhere near the scientist it would take to be able to definitively determine whether his claims are in fact accurate, or whether those who take the more mainstream approach have the truth on their side.I confess to bias in Bell's favor: I WANT to believe what he says, because I expect that if the doomsayers are correct, we are faced with two choices. Either we will cause a catastrophic climate change, or our entire civilization will collapse. Neither of these choices are acceptable, and picking between them is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't alternative that I truly hope that we are not faced with. But whether Bell is right or not, one thing is certain: if you want to read a rational, well-balanced and researched statement of the argument against human-caused climate change, even if just to acquaint yourself with the arguments that need to be refuted, you'd be hard-pressed to find a better example than this book.

[JM · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Issues of debate cannot be resolved by claims that a consensus among authorities has settled the matters so long as a minority, even a small one, believes other-wise."

This quote is the crux.
Bell is unhinged.

[Rachel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although I’m not a huge fan of the current scaremongering about global warming and the media portrayal, I still feel we need to do something about the current level of consumerism and population growth around the world.

This book gave some good arguments towards the idea that global warming/climate change is process which isn’t man-made, but something which is natural and works on a cycle and if you look back in time this is clearly true. However, I felt the author was very narrow-minded towards certain ideas and was very negative towards anyone who had an opposing view to his. There was no middle ground anywhere.

Some of his ideas are contradictory towards each other. In one chapter he tells us that the increase in the use of coal, oil etc., is not contributing towards climate change and then in others he is telling us to use public transport more. It seems to me that he needs to sort his thoughts and ideas more. It is good to view one side of the global warming debate but needs to be taken with a contrast of anthropogenic causes towards climate change as well. Use a variety of sources to form your opinions – not just this one.

[Jack · Rating 2 out of 5]

There's nothing wrong with a critical look at the science supporting the global warming argument - but for me the author's credibility became suspect when he indicated that the global warming lobby is a socialist conspiracy of the UN, the EU, the WWF (including polar bears) which is determined to undermine capitalism and US world dominance

[Walter Straus · Rating 1 out of 5]

Why does what is happening with the environment have to be political. Rs on one side, Ds on the other. This is a poorly written, badly researched book with little in the way of facts. Just a lot of blather. What a mess.

[Randy · Rating 5 out of 5]

Climate change is a polarizing subject which as a rule generates more heat than light. Ad hominem attacks and retreats behind claims of scientific consensus, by shutting down civil debate, do nothing to further public awareness and the search for truth.

This will not do. Larry Bell has stepped up and written an accessible book on the subject. Unfortunately the subtitle, which refers to a “global warming hoax,” is not going to broaden his reading audience because the pejorative nature of the word “hoax” is unlikely to cause the other side to approach the book with a sympathetic disposition.

So just who is Larry Bell? In his own words, “First, I am not a climate scientist and… have never been associated with Big Oil.” He mentions the latter in response to the constantly repeated ad hominem charge that the only people who write for this position are in the pay of the oil companies.

So Larry Bell is not a climate scientist. He is, rather, by his own description, a “space guy,” involved in space architecture and also extreme environments (such as polar facilities) on Earth.

His “background and interests emphasize a holistic perspective regarding basic principles that govern how natural and technical systems work, how they are connected, and how they can be managed to support the most complex system of all – us humans.” All this is to show that although he is not a climate scientist, he is not entirely unqualified to speak to the issues at hand.

The reason he wrote the book, he says, is that “like many of you, I am a parent who cares about the future of my children and the generations who will follow. I want them to inherit a clean, healthy planet, along with the means to obtain energy sufficiency essential to comfortable lifestyles and economic opportunities. Conservation must be a big part of all solutions.”

Therefore he would regard himself as a true environmentalist, for “environmentalism is not so much defined by what we are against as by what we are for, and neither fear not guilt are prerequisites.” What would be a prerequisite is that it involve a commitment to what is true, to following the evidence where it leads, not selectively seeking evidence for a conclusion determined beforehand.

Such an approach, however, is being stifled by the constant appeal to authority, where we are told over and over again that the debate is over, that 97% of scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change, that this is the consensus of the scientific community.

Bell argues that not only is this not true – there are many scientists who are not convinced of that thesis, but more important, it is irrelevant, because science does not progress by counting noses, but by an open examination of the evidence. And Bell gives lots of instances where there has been not an open examination, but actual suppression, of contrary evidence to what the orthodox position would like to see.

Bell makes several strong claims, and it is these which should be getting more attention in the media, rather than the conversation-stopping ad hominem attacks and appeals to consensus. Some of these are:

1. The IPCC has repeatedly given evidence of political intrusions into science, appointing researchers and publishing evidence that support a predetermined conclusion while suppressing or ignoring researchers and evidence that would give a different story. An egregious example is the political, not scientific, insertion into the 1995 IPCC report of the phrase “discernible human influence,” effectively reversing the entire report, and purportedly ending all debate on this matter and providing an official foundation for the UN-sponsored Kyoto Protocol to follow in 1997.

2. There is no scientific evidence that any climate crisis exists other than the hardships periodically imposed upon affected regions as a result of naturally occurring changes.

3. Over the past several glacial and interglacial climate fluctuations, atmospheric CO2 concentrations have generally increased after, not before, temperatures have risen. This would suggest that there is not a simple cause-and-effect relationship between rising CO2 levels and global warming, and at the very least, it is not the whole story. Therefore, drastic (and extremely expensive) reductions in CO2 emissions are likely to have only minimal effects on climate.

4. Climate models cannot predict climate change events or consequences, although the scary warnings we constantly hear are based upon them. They can be only as accurate as the knowledge behind them, and that knowledge is far from complete. One serious limitation is that climate models fail to incorporate solar influences, which are known to significantly affect climate.

Now are these true simply because Bell says so? Of course not. But these are questions that deserve open debate rather than dismissal.

The bottom line is that Bell does not accept the label which is sneeringly attached to his position, that being a “climate denier.” He agrees that climate has not stayed the same over the course of the earth’s history, but has often changed, sometimes more rapidly than today.

In response to the alarmist predictions that are being made, warning us that we are headed for temperature increases that will be not only exclusively detrimental but actually catastrophic, he argues that life has thrived at times when the earth was much warmer than it is today. Not only that, but rather than violent weather increasing with global warming, he argues that the evidence suggests that it will actually decrease.

So yes, climate changes and is changing. But so what? It always has. That human activity has some effect on it is not really the issue: the issue is whether, as the IPCC maintains, human activity is the primary driver of climate change. And here Bell insists that there simply is no evidence to support that claim.

We might be tempted to use prudential reasoning and say, well, just in case the alarmists are right, aren’t the potential consequences so dire that we should act anyways, despite the paucity of supporting evidence?

No, says Bell, and he gives two reasons. First, he points to a project begun in 2004 called the Copenhagen Consensus, which involved three different groups of people, one being top level economists, the second being college students from all over the world, and the third a wide range of UN ambassadors. All three groups were asked to indicate where best to put resources to solve the world’s most urgent challenges.

Communicable diseases, clean drinking water, and malnutrition ranked highest. But in all three groups, climate change opportunities, including the Kyoto Protocol, ranked near the bottom. In other words, Kyoto, which one estimate put at $5 trillion for full implementation, would end up doing very little good for the world relative to costs. All three groups that participated in the Copenhagen Consensus judged that this would be a poor use of the world’s finite resources in comparison to other urgent needs.

The other reason Bell gives for not following a “just-in-case” approach and prematurely making drastic cuts in fossil fuel use is that at the moment we have no alternative. He in fact says that “Arguably the most serious public deception perpetrated by the war against climate change is the notion that cleaner, sustainable energy options are available in sufficient abundance to replace dependence upon dwindling fossils that currently provide about 85 percent of all US energy.”

Clean and safe Generation 4 nuclear power may be the only alternative to replace fossils, but it is probably a few decades away. If we rashly and prematurely try to push fossils out of the picture we will find ourselves in a real crisis – not a climate one but an energy one.

Despite everything that Bell argues, and I think he does so quite well, there is going to be suspicion from the other side. I think it might help to hear from someone who used to be on the other side but has changed his mind because of the evidence.

Bell cites Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who said, “We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years. The alarmism has driven us though scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people.”

When Moore was asked who was responsible for promoting unwarranted fear and what their motives would be, what he says is very consistent with what Bell has been arguing. He said, “A powerful convergence of interests – scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines… environmental groups and politicians wanting to make it look like they’re saving future generations – all these people have converged on this issue.”

Climate change is real. But to understand just what that phrase means and what is behind it, we need to expose and get rid of political intrusions into science. On both sides of the debate, people who care about leaving a clean and sustainable world for future generations, but want to do so on the basis of the truth, deserve to be called environmentalists and to be heard.

[Chris Collins · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author is coming from the position of: Yes, the climate changes. That's what the climate does--it changes. But the so-called "settled science" of the anthropogenic cause of climate change is not only far from settled, it's highly suspect, as are the motives of those leading the charge against it.

The author shines a footnoted light on the flawed climate models, the manipulation of data to support the narrative, and the suppression of data and scientists that do not support it. He also delves into the motivations of those beating the man-made climate change drum. From the rather benign environmentalists who think scaring the batcrap out of people will motivate them into changing their behavior to something more to their liking (think the "Overton Window" method) to those who are motivated by money (in the forms of getting grants by supporting the approved outcome and those who are positioning themselves to make a pantsload of cash with things like cap-and-trade) and/or power (think "watermelons"--green on the outside and red on the inside).

This is a position I share. I freely admit this. However, the author does a good job of presenting his case, and should be read by both the skeptic and the believer.

[JeffJefferson53 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book. Climate Change agenda is really a socialist agenda. I’m a little confused with one part in the book saying that environmentalists are also anti-globalists.
The environmentalist agenda is pushed by globalists.
Maybe this has changed since Al Gore.
George Soros name keeps coming up for someone who is not a climatologist. This book also says it’s not a specific globalist agenda... but it really is a very specific and scripted agenda by a few globalists elites who need a power grab. I’m not sure if the author is trying to say that this agenda that they are pushing is accidental and uncoordinated. That would not make sense at all.
The book is clear that the science behind this is a fraud.
Balanced between science and politics.

[Romy · Rating 1 out of 5]

I dont know why i bothered to read (part of) this. Already the first few pages consist of mistakes, and it doesn't get better. I tried to finish it for a better review, but there is no use if the first few chapters already consist so many mistakes. Spreading misinformation is dangerous.

[Heather · Rating 5 out of 5]

Did you know that 97% of the CO2 in earths atmosphere is naturally occurring, not caused by humans burning fossil fuels? Did you know that life existed and thrived when CO2 was estimated to be 13,000 parts per million in the atmosphere, whereas today it is around 330 parts per million?

What information are you using to form your opinion on climate change? Is it a reliable, scientifically sound source? Or is it something else?

This book was an eye opening read that provided a view about climate change that everyone should be privy to. You owe it to yourself and future generations to evaluate climate change information from the perspective presented in this book.

[Muriel]

So far what an eye opener.But not surprised

[Marilyn Chilcote · Rating 1 out of 5]

not worth the paper it's printed on, at least to my mind