The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (Politically Incorrect Guides

Politically Incorrect Guides

by Marc Morano, John McLain (Reading)

Less freedom. More regulation. Higher costs. Make no mistake: those are the surefire consequences of the modern global warming campaign waged by political and cultural elites, who have long ago abandoned fact-based science for dramatic fearmongering in order to push increased central planning. The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change gives a voice-backed by statistics, real-life stories, and incontrovertible evidence-to the millions of "deplorable" Americans skeptical about the multibillion dollar "climate change" complex, whose claims have time and time again been proven wrong.

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

MP3 CD

Published February 26, 2018

Reviews

[Amora · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love the PIG series, and this is the series at its very best. Cultural elites have long urged us to take action on climate change but seldom offer fact-based commentary. More often than not the commentary is just platitudes that have been repeated thousands of times on cable news. In this book that takes the form of a comprehensive dossier, Marc Morano presents hundreds of peer-reviewed studies and reports showing how science has been ignored in order to push for more central planning. Best part, the dossier format of the book makes this incredibly easy to pick up and read at any section.

Climate change is in fact real and will have consequences, but it will not end “humanity as we know it” as some activists are quoted in this book are saying.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Are climate change enthusiasts/devotees part of a religious cult warning humanity about a coming apocalypse if we don't change our ways or are they mostly mislead by agenda-driven politicians, professors looking for research grants, and companies sensing a government subsidized business opportunity? In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change author Marc Morano lays out fact after fact in logical arguments to pull the curtain back and expose the whole Climate Change industry with example after example of inaccurate (poor track record) computer climate modeling, retroactive data "correction," and even outright false statements and claims. The author states that with the cooperation of the crisis-loving media and the indoctrination of our nation's children through our school system the message appears to be that the majority of Americans believe climate change (as defined by the activists, as climate is always changing) is real and caused by man, even though any contribution by man by the actual numbers is actually miniscule and is swamped out by natural factors like effects of the sun, volcanos, and etc. Real science is not determined by concensus. If that were the case we would still believe the earth is flat! Real science is put forth as a theorem or in academic and scientific papers for fellow scientists to study, try to replicate results, dispute unsubstantiated claims, and test alternative theorems. In other words, in REAL science the debate is never over! Great read for anyone who is open minded enough to listen to facts, determine for themselves what seems most valid, and be open to changing their opinion based on the evidence presented. At this point there are more and more of the claimed 97% of scientists (the author shows how even this is a bogus and misleading number) are moving into what the climate change church refers to as deniers as they are convinced by actual facts and scientific evidence and not flashy films, Hollywood actors, and politicians who do not have the proper background to evaluate the facts. Great read for anyone truly concerned about our home on planet Earth.

[Hazel Bright · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is the guy whose claim to fame is that he was the first to publish the Swift Boat lie. His "expertise" in this matter is that he is just another paid mouthpiece like the toads he has worked for, including Rush Limbaugh, who gets paid to be a blowhard, and Jim Inhofe, who gets his campaign money from oil, natural gas, and coal companies that received $369 billion, $121 billion, and $104 billion (2010 dollars) worth of subsidies in return. If you believe this guy, you probably believed the tobacco companies when they had guys like this saying the same thing about smoking and cancer. But no, actually, you would probably not be believing anything, because you would be dead.

[Hamed Manoochehri · Rating 5 out of 5]

از امروز من یک کافر هستم.


قبل از خوندن این کتاب فقط در مورد «پیش‌بینی‌ها» و «مدل‌ها»ی مطالعاتی که از گرمایش زمین ارایه میشه با دید شک و تردید نگاه میکردم. تصورم این بود که ۱) بله، مشخصاً زمین در حال گرم شدنه ۲) این گرمایش غیر «طبیعی» هست ۳) این گرمایش محصول مستقیم عوامل بشریه و ۴) نتایج این گرمایش تاثیر منفی روی زندگی ما و سایر موجودات زنده خواهد داشت.

این کتاب با ارایه صدها مقاله معتبر علمی، گزارشات تایید شده و مصاحبه با افراد دست اندر کار در زمینه مطالعات آب و هوا، باعث شد به همه اون ۴ مورد شک کنم، تحقیق کنم و الان، بعد از بیست روز مطالعه و تحقیق روی درستی مطالب کتاب، بلند داد بزنم که من اشتباه می‌کردم و با توجه به دانش امروز، گرمایش زمین و کلایمت چنج یه مذهب بی ریشه و منبع کنترل عوامه.
(می دونم بیست روز زمان زیادی نیست، ولی شما چقدر برای باورتون خودآگاهانه تحقیق کردید؟)
از این کتاب یه خروار هایلایت و نکته یادداشت کردم که اینجا و بدون کانتکست ذکرشون شاید تاثیر واقعیشو نذاره پس اگه وقتشو دارید، حتی برای اینکه ثابت کنید من اشتباه میکنم، این کتابو بخونید.
آپدیت‌های کیانوش
(تحت وب لینکو باز کنید لطفاً) هم که داره کتابو می‌خونه از دست ندید.

[Bill Giles · Rating 5 out of 5]

Well written and very eye-opening. Marc Morano's credentials are impeccable on this topic. He clearly reveals the blatant lies and misinformation being taught to our children in school. Such a shame when an organized effort by our government and their academic allies is revealed. It seems, once again, that truth is the victim when it interferes with the agenda.

[C.A. Gray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Second review (6/23):

I stopped reading this book the first time around because I didn't have any clear purpose for the information, and it was making me angry, in a helpless sort of way. I revisited it once I started working on the outline for my next book series, and realized I needed to know a bit more about the other side of the climate debate, though. I don't know whether I *really* want that to factor in heavily to the next series, considering climate change has become almost a religion. (Do I really want to open that can of worms, considering it will massively piss off like half my readers?)

Regardless, this was a great refresher for all the various angles of the argument - the global cooling scares of the 1970s (and the historical Medieval warming comparable to today), the sleight of hand in cooking the data, why CO2 is the wrong target anyway, how weather is notoriously difficult to predict and how feedback systems in the weather are self-correcting generally. Morano covers how environmental concerns have coalesced from concerns about deforestation and pollution (so common when I was a kid), to JUST the CO2/warming issue, but since the data didn't support actual global warming, they had to change their terms (from "global warming" to "climate change.") Conveniently enough, now any strange weather, from blizzards to draughts, can be attributed to "climate change." Literally every possible type of weather (including contradictory weather within narrow parameters) has been predicted by climate change scientists, so that no matter what happens, they can say it conforms to their narrative.

He also covers the hypocrisy of the biggest proponents of climate change, making rules "for thee but not for me." The jet-setters who burn massive amounts of fuel to get to climate conferences are the most obvious example, but there were many others. Probably many proponents of climate change are sincere, though, and truly believe it's critical for us to take steps now in order to save the planet. They must simply not be aware of the real data--only of the utterly misleading consensus statements that say some "97% of climate scientists agree" that man's actions are causing catastrophic global warming. (And if they're not experts themselves, that's a daunting statistic to disagree with. Most people really will conclude, "Well, if all those experts think so, it must be true...)

And that's why I knocked off a star: while it's understandable considering all he's been through at the forefront of the climate debate, Morano did not seem to give any of his opponents the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps they might be sincere (yet still wrong). He seemed to assume that the real motives of nearly everyone involved was control.

Yet I don't see any way around this conclusion for those driving legislation and regulations from the top. They *must* know better. And if they do, the only possible logical explanation is that it was never about the climate for them in the first place; it was always about controlling critical energy resources. (And, it's hard to invent a fictional villain with a better strategy for world domination than this, though it probably does hit way too close to the truth.)

------
12/20:

I did my own research on this subject years ago, and at that time concluded that there was no evidence that global warming was occurring, at least on a worldwide scale. At that time I also recall discovering that there was a "global cooling" scare back in the 70s--and given what I know of the human body, as well as my limited knowledge of all ecosystems, it makes sense that there would be a feedback system in which temperature recalibrates itself over a period of (apparently) decades. But since I've grown increasingly annoyed with all the Great Courses commentary on global warming asif it were an undisputed fact, I thought I'd revisit the other point of view, as it's been a long time. ...But the politics behind this issue was making me angry, and we have enough anger going around right now. Since there is nothing I can do with the information anyway, I decided it was healthier to stop listening.

[Mike Martello · Rating 1 out of 5]

I never write reviews of books and I often find books with obvious political biases quite tolerable and eye-opening (regardless of which side of the aisle the represent). However, Mr. Murano's book was nearly intolerable, as it was filled with sporadic, illogical, hypocritical, and contradictory arguments that at best serve to confuse the reader, but realistically aims to deeply misinform the public. The senselessly self-righteous tone with which it is written not only makes this book dangerously misinformative, but also does little to advance scientific discussion or policy debate. It is quite unfortunate, as he does bring up several interesting and valid critiques of the political aspects of the climate change movement, but proceeds to nullify his insights with emotional attacks on his apparent political adversaries, as well as with outdated and confused conceptions of scientific concepts. Further, a linchpin of Mr. Murano's argument, that the climate will continue to change, less any anthropogenic externalities, in no way negates the fact that the observed sea level rise (which he has not disputed the existence of) has and will increasingly impose significant costs to coastal developments by end of century. As a well educated and avid reader, I would very much like to see a less confused or inflammatory critique, with more finely crafted and logical arguments. But unfortunately, this wasn't it.

[Judy · Rating 4 out of 5]

There are myriad books dealing with the world’s climate. Admittedly, the title of this one caught my eye. It may not be the best, but it is well-researched and documented. About seventy five pages at the end are references. I began turning there to look at them, but soon decided it was too time-consuming. So I looked at those I thought were most interesting. I was impressed at the number of scientists who do not subscribe to the findings of the UN’s climate committee, even there are those who have changed their minds when doing independent study. I am old enough to remember the 1970s when scientists were predicting we were headed into an ice age with the worlds temperatures falling. Some of the same scientists who predicted that now say temps are rising. What information we have of the history of the worlds temperatures tell us that there have been cycles of cooling and rising temps. I believe there is a lot of hysteria about a situation over which we have very little control. I try to do my part to control waste—that’s just being a good steward over our planet.

[Dale · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read this book twice now in the last two weeks.

It's brilliant. I recommend it highly.

I was in high school and then studying physics in college during the height of the "Coming Ice Age" and global cooling scare in the 1970s. And I was consumed with the theories and the data. But there was no political discussion about how to warm the earth to save us.

Then less than 10 years after the argument went cold (pun intended), the scientists took the 180° opposite position of global warming. But this time, it was politicized. And we have committed trillions of dollars to try and keep the temperature from rising 0.5°.

This book does an excellent job tracing the history of the controversy, but it's laid out thematically rather than chronologically, and I find that easier to follow.

This is a tremendous reference book for anyone who wants to refute the Chicken Littles of the anthropogenic global warming crowd.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. First off I feel we have a responsibility to take care of our planet. Morano has his detractors and there are those that utterly hate him. In this book he details with study after study and statements by industry leading scientists about how our current climate crisis, at least how it is framed, is primarily fiction.

This book makes me feel like I do about the whole covid 19 response. Those in power and media continue to send mix signals about the real problems and the solutions. Why do we focus so much on carbon dioxide problems, if in truth carbon dioxide has been proven to not be a problem? 20 years ago Al Gore told us the earth would be gone if we didn't do something drastic within 10 years. Well, that time has come and gone and things are actually better. If the science is so powerful, then why is there issues of those in power falsifying data or scheming to suppress conflicting studies? Shouldn't we follow what the data actually says? For me I guess I am having to follow the words of Greenpeace Co-Founder Patrick Moore, saying that the environmental movement "abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism."

[Bill Leach · Rating 5 out of 5]

Those thinking for themselves have realized that there is something very much wrong with the climate change narrative. Unless one relies on the media for one's opinions, the failed predictions, conflicting stories, narratives that prove to be false, the unwillingness to engage in debate and the unethical behaviour of the supporters show that global warming / climate change is a political movement, having little to do with science.

The history of the movement is fascinating. It's origins lie with those that were environmentally concerned and desired a move toward world government. The author fails to describe the genesis in Maurice Strong who founded the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) in 1972, which set up the IPCC in 1988. The 1990 IPCC report that CO2 would lead to the greenhouse effect and global warming, and the subsequent UN sponsored 1992 Earth Summit, led to increasing support by the environmental groups, which was picked up by the media. Once political parties embraced the idea to gain votes, subsequent government spending created a feeding frenzy and everyone got on the bandwagon.

Today climate change is a religion. Adherents are unwilling to consider facts or ideas outside of the CO2 greenhouse effect, are unwilling to engage in debate, and are intolerant of any that question their meme.

Ironically, while the intentions of Maurice Strong and many of the other founders included redistributing the wealth to include the poor, the current effort to eliminate fossil fuels and even hydroelectric power are threatening the access to power that the poor need to advance. Another regret is that the single-minded concentration on CO2 has greatly reduced the focus on all other environmental problems, many far more pressing than the possibility of warming.

The strength of this book is that it gives a good overview of the movement. Included are discussions on the lack of basis for the 97 percent consensus, Mann's fabricated hockey stick, the erroneous idea that extreme climate events are increasing, and the stoppage of warming. Perhaps the most enlightening feature is a gathering of the opinions of the many scientists who question the CO2 as a greenhouse idea.

The author examines the science of climate, describing the various possible factors that may influence climate, many of which are not even factored into the climate models. The factors that affect the climate are not well understood today, making the climate models too simplistic to show any value. Their inability to model past history, ENSO events, precipitation patterns and the "pause" shows them to be unsuitable for forecasting climate change. The author points out that many of the proponents acknowledge this, speaking of the projections only as possible futures. Strangely, many climate scientists view these untested models as evidence.

Morano devotes a chapter to those who proselytize the climate change meme, but live a lifestyle that emits CO2 well in excess of the average person of an advanced country. Notable in this group are the politicians, film / music stars and environmental crusaders.

Climate change will go down in history as one of the greatest fads / fallacies of all time.

[Don · Rating 5 out of 5]

Inhofe OK Senator, no significant man made warming no crisis, books the deliberate corruption of climate science Climate of Extremes climate confusion Amazon Forest Myths the deliberate corruption of climate science State of Fear the politically incorrect guide to global warming and environmentalism The Missing Science roy spencer Climategate shattered consensus Greenhouse Delusion Overblown Science the deniers Red Hot Lies global warming fraud Inevitable Disaster climate hussle movie Cracking Big Green egoimperialism, buy wood and need more trees planted, Climatedepot.com , 70's ice age global cooling Spock, then in 88 warming panic, Gore and Worth stage craft, armadillo cited NE to MX, science as belief as eugenics, to gain funding is driver, government officials outnumber climate scientists who support, 97% is scam, 77 of over 2k, settled science is anti-science re claims and methods, variations in weather more dependent on solar activity, many contributing factors, science is not a belief system or religion, warmer temperatures have more benefits than cooling temperatures, predictions not evidence models not data, Europe on-board except Poland, who is running on sensationalism misinformation and fear to gain more and more funding, who has the bigger budget already by a factor of 100 or more, corruption of science via politics and funding, normal people see thru educated are vulnerable, last chances to save earth doom the past 20 years, control carbon and economy and water and population and engineer humans, not about climate about control, green money compared to opposition is 3500 to 1, Obama weaved climate money into agencies, Gore grew to $100m enroute to $1b sold tv to oil money, cut funding to clear out corruption, Paris accords yield no measurable results, if a real problem never solved with central planning and big govt, real loser is African continent and restriction of oil/coal power to aid poor, similar to other programs wherein the rich are on the boat and the rest are restricted by those already on the boat.

[Sean Reeves · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm largely in sympathy with the author's viewpoint on climate change and the book's content effectively demolishes the Church of Climatology end-of-days prophecies. However, I wouldn't say it's a great "book" per se because it seems hobbled together from a variety of sources and lacks the cohesive feel that a good book should have.

[Tom Cross · Rating 5 out of 5]

Outstanding book that uses sold data to refute many of the outlandish propaganda global warming claims.

[Forrest · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marc Morano absolutely destroys the hyperbolic anthropogenic climate change myth in this masterpiece. Here he exposes the climate change agenda and the power greedy individuals and institutions and their political lobbies who drive the narrative. I learned a mountain of information from reading this and obtained several quotes and 'inconvenient truths' to share with my associates who still refuse to open their eyes to the realities of climate change alarmism. This is going straight to my favorites.

"The U.N. climate panel is nothing more than a political lobbying organization masquerading as a scientific body. "

"Scientific consensus claims are hyperbolic marketing ploys. They're often pulled out of thin air by political activists. These consensus claims never provide from whom the "consensus" is derived, or what specific data was agreed upon."

I noticed that on Wikipedia the author is labeled a "climate change denier". On the other hand those who are supporters of the man-made climate change myth are honored with the "climate change researcher" label. I wonder what atheists would say if we labeled them "God deniers". I find it funny how leftist radicals snobbishly use semantics as an attempt to smear those who say anything contradictory to their political propaganda.

Below are a few of the topics and notable key points from the book to ponder:

-Provides ample evidence disputing the false "97% consensus" claim.

-Ice ages have occurred when CO2 levels were up to 10 times that they are today as seen in ice core data.

-Studies show that land masses are not shrinking as climate alarmists falsely claim. Sea levels fluctuate continually.

-How polar Bear populations have dramatically increased until now, not decreased.

-The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), when the planet was significantly warmer than it is now. The evidences behind it and the climate hustlers' attempts to dispute it and hide the facts. Also the Little Ice Age.

-Michael Mann's false "Hockey Stick Graph"

-"The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" A.W. Montford

-How climate alarmists are further corrupting climate science by using models and projections as data and evidence.

-Quote after quote by highly educated and experienced peer reviewed, respected scientists among various scientific backgrounds from around the world providing testimony disputing anthropogenic climate change and the entire global warming and climate debacle.

-How "global warming" scare morphed into the "climate change" scare as predictions by global warming hustlers were routinely proven to be false.
"Climate change" is 'unfalseifiable' since virtually anything the weather does can be blamed on "climate change" including record snow and cold temperatures.

-How climate extremists hype naturally occurring weather events, as well as floods, earthquakes, drought, and forest fires on man made climate change.

-Climate change fanatic and blowhard Prince Charles of Wales and his ever extended timeline of doom as well as that of other prominent politicians such as Al Gore.

-Climate alarmist hypocrites such as Chevy Chase, Harrison Ford, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Leonardo DiCaprio, Drew Barrymore, Alec Baldwin, Robert Redford, James Cameron, and other Hollywood gas bags who demand people make sacrifices to help end "climate change" while they themselves fly private jets and consume far more energy than the rest of us.

-Climate activist's goal of intimidating and indoctrinating young children through entertainment and public education, using children as tools and pawns to spread climate change propaganda.

-The cowardice and incompetence of prominent climate change alarmists and their inability to successfully debate well informed climate change skeptics such as the author.

-How climate change policies have been detrimental and harmful to poor and developing countries.

-The follies and complications of renewable sources of energy

Also read "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" A.W. Montford

[Harvey Tharp · Rating 2 out of 5]

(1) Historical records of global warming show that temperature increases begin hundreds of years before carbon dioxide (CO2) levels follow.

The truth is that there's a strong correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, which the author vaguely hints at when he mentions that CO2 follows temperature, and I should mention this is in ice core records going back nearly a million years. The rest of the story is that carbon dioxide levels didn't decide to change by themselves, they're a feedback of other natural climate change caused initially by Earth's orbital pattern. As the oceans heat up, or cool down, over centuries, they either release CO2 and heat the planet or absorb CO2 and cool the planet. It remains inescapable the CO2 regulates temperature, so the authors of the book are lying to you, and this is a common fabrication. And even here, this is but one data set, a graph made famous by Al Gore in his first movie that showed a remarkable correlation between temperature and carbon dioxide, so the author seeks to impeach the graph (and I assume Gore as well). But here's another example that demonstrates that you get the whole picture from more data, and the author is out to deceive you with cherry-picked factoids by contrast. Expand the time horizons of Gore's graph from one million years to 60 million years, and what's the relationship between temperature and carbon dioxide? Over this lengthy time horizon it's not climatic events that caused changes in carbon dioxide levels, it was the Indian subcontinent ramming into the Asian continental plate and forcing the Himalayas and Tibet upwards. This exposed massive amounts of new rock, and carbon dioxide 'weathers' newly exposed rock, a chemical process that removes CO2 from the air. The result is that over this lengthy time period temperatures fell along with carbon dioxide levels, and of course as a result of reductions in CO2 levels.

Plants and animals flourished in past ages when CO2 levels were more than twice as high as now.

Dinosaurs flourished at CO2 levels more than twice their current levels. Warm blooded dinosaurs, and I might add that the equatorial regions of the globe hold relatively few dinosaur fossils (and smaller ones) compared to the Northern lattitudes. Problem is, we aren't dinosaurs, and temperatures are now pushing above levels where humans have never existed on Earth, which is a bad thing.

(2) At least 90% of greenhouse gas warming is due to water vapor and clouds; thus, CO2 level deserves less concern.

Before humans started adding CO2 to the air on an industrial scale approaching three centuries ago, there were already clouds and already water vapor to form clouds. In fact, the greenhouse effect of naturally occurring greenhouse gases was (and is) almost 60 degrees Fahrenheit, and the only thing keeping Earth from being a frozen ball of ice and slush, devoid of life. The theory of manmade global warming is merely an extension of the universally accepted greenhouse effect, that adding more greenhouse gases will warm the planet still more, and did I mention that no one disputes the greenhouse effect, no one at all? Also the world of 1750, which was globally warmed by the greenhouse effect of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide, and the last ten thousand years before it, was ideal for the formation of human civilization, the century of climate and temperature we're heading into, much less so. It's because of that extra degree already, plus more to come from added CO2 that there is indeed reason for concern. So once again, authors of book lie to you.

(3) Hurricanes, floods, droughts, and tornadoes have been less frequent during years after 1988 than before 1988, when atmospheric CO2 was 15% lower.

Right away there's a problem. The current warming trend didn't begin in 1988, it began in the early 1970s, which is why they call this 'Cherry-Picking,' the selection of a nice ripe piece of data that supports your cause, ignoring other data ripe for the picking, i.e. for inclusion. It can also be called a lie of omission. Tornadoes are shifting location from tornado alley to the Southeast, possibly/plausibly a climate change result, but mainstream climate change research doesn't count number or severity of tornadoes as being caused by climate change. With this's year's two-week off the charts pattern of storms/floods/hail and tornadoes, yes it was a climate change event, but strongly influenced by the deteriorating jet stream versus warmer temperatures that's the primary subject of inquiry with extreme weather linkage. Similarly, frequency of hurricanes is highly variable, and more importantly the specific wind patterns off the coast of Africa where hurricanes form don't necessarily make for more of them with increased temperature. Instead it's primarily the amount of rain in a given hurricane that increases with climate change due to increased evaporation. Also hurricanes are generally speaking a heat engine, so if there's more heat in the ocean and the atmosphere it's like giving them more fuel. To say hurricanes are becoming more powerful is true, there's evidence from paleoclimate that they were much worse in warmer epochs, but at the same time that's not the same thing as saying it can be conclusively demonstrated on a chart at this time due to substantial variability. Another key piece of evidence with hurricanes can be found on Wikipedia under "List of the most intense tropical cyclones" (as hurricanes refer only to the Atlantic, and they're called Typhoons elsewhere). Before global warming, it was believed that a hurricane or tropical storm couldn't exist in the Southern Atlantic. But then category 2 hurricane Catarina struck Brazil in 2004, plus eight more tropical/subtropical storms since 2010. All believed unprecedented before global warming. Finally, let's loop back to that point on cherry-picking as the whole article I quoted is worth reviewing in comparison to the author's factoid. For every ocean basin in the world the vast majority of the most intense hurricanes/typhoons have been since the sustained global warming trend began about 1975. It's just that simple. I'm giving you all the data for all the most intense hurricanes and equivalent storms for the entire world, while the author of this book is playing you for an imbecile. For floods and droughts, suffice to say I'm not buying into the veracity of the Politically Incorrect author's statistical methods, but my best guess is the year 1988 is an example of cherry-picking for their start point, and they have their choice of several measures of both floods and droughts. But 1988 was the year of famous Congressional hearings into global warming, where the issue first made national headlines, in part because of dramatic climatic events like wildfires in Yellowstone National Park. This makes me exceedingly suspicious why the authors picked 1988 instead of the beginning point of the sustained warming trend around fifteen years earlier, to say the least, as floods and droughts are also susceptible to statistical variance year-to-year, so this looks like the author cherry-picked a high point in the early years of the warming trend. For an example of cherry picking from the stock market, investment advisors say you just about can't lose in the market over ten years, but if you bought the day before the great crash of 1929, and excluding for reinvested dividends, you'd need until the late 1960's to earn a single nickel of profit, so nearly thirty years. With floods specifically, warmer temperatures create more evaporation, as evaporation is a continuum between none at freezing and below and 100% with steam at the boiling point and above. Then warmer air can hold more humidity, which is why you'll often get a Summer day in the midwest with 90 degrees and 90 percent humidity, but never a Winter day with 10 degrees and 90 percent humidity. And lastly, what goes up must come down, which is why the increased evaporation from warmer temperatures that ends up as seven percent more humidity per each degree of warming falls to Earth at times as increased floods and severe rain events. With droughts, it's getting drier in America specifically at the 'macro' level, and the best example is the famed 100th Meridian, the North-South line that divides the wetter Eastern U.S. from the more arid Western U.S. (the farmers from the ranchers so to speak). Well that used to be the dividing line, but in the global warming ear it keeps moving Eastward, and by now it's shifted over a hundred miles. Well gosh, that sure does appear as though it's become more arid overall around here, and indeed coinciding with increases in greenhouse emissions and temperatures. Not to belittle the plight of agriculture, especially this year, but the author of this book takes one preferred definition of the increased suffering from increased prevailing aridity and matches it with one carefully plucked data point to match it up to, and now he's hunting for rubes to sell his arguments to on Amazon. Any takers? I might point out that it's a problem to rely on just one continent for my argument about increased aridity, so other examples are the fastest expanding-in-the-world Gobi desert of Western Asia, nearby in China where sand dunes have reached within a hundred miles of the capital Beijing, and the world's largest desert the Sahara, which is both expanding Southward and where temperatures and climatic conditions are expanding Northward. On that point, in Sicily it used to be a breadbasket of Italy but farmers are now trying tropical fruit, and just this week there were one or two examples of lethally hot temperatures in France, as in a healthy and slender adult sitting in the shade would die within six hours there. So yes, conditions of aridity at the macro level are increasing, bigly they are, and it really doesn't concern me how he concocts his statistics of total hokum.

(4) Since computer models failed to predict the slowdown in rate of global warming between 1998 and 2013, they cannot reliably forecast climate changes decades in the future.

First, this is the author's judgement regarding computers and modeling twenty years ago. For perspective, thirty years before that climate modeling involved a turntable, a washtub, a fan, and a bunsen burner to simulate the sun (and this was at the prestigious University of Chicago). And the year 1998 is more cherry-picking, and it comes up all the time among arguments of professional skeptics. Long story short, it's ElNino, and not just ElNino, but a Super-ElNino. The ElNino Southern Oscillation is like a circle of ocean currents in the Pacific moving clockwise around Hawaii. On the Southern leg near the equator, the Pacific Ocean is half the distance around the globe, and these currents pick up so much heat that the waters thermally expand, forming a bulge over time off the islands of New Guinea. The waters keep circulating at the same pace, but there's now more volume than can pass Northward and then along the Aleutians. Instead the waters take the path of least resistance and spread out over the central Pacific. It's this condition, warmer waters in the central Pacific that defines an ElNino pattern, and while they used to occur every seven years on average, they're irregular and now occur every 3.5 years because of (you get one guess) climate change. The professional skeptics community act like ElNino is a freak occurrence from the weather twilight zone, but the super-ElNinos first hit in 1982 and repeated in 1998. So long story short (too late), the computers didn't have the data to predict inter-annual variability like the super-ElNino, so just look at a chart and see a huge spike for 1998, then it takes several years before ordinary annual temperatures catch up. This is the supposed pause or slowdown, but what's been learned from the study of year-to-year variability in computer modeling since is that the same oceanic oscillations that trended towards colder temperature after the 1998 spike are now (early 2019) all forecast towards the hot side over the next five years, including ElNino. So after last year with wildfires in the Arctic circle and near-lethal temperatures recorded in the continental US, buckle up!

(5) EPA's Clean Power Plan would not significantly reduce global CO2 emissions. In 2025, total annual CO2 emissions by USA would be offset by three weeks of CO2 emissions by China.

Any plan to reduce emissions by one sector of the United States economy, a fraction of the US economy, would in turn represent a fraction of a fraction of the world economy. Whether the next generation, our posterity, and increasingly our own asses lives or dies depends on most all of those fractions adding together to reduce emissions. Also the Chinese have a version of the Green New Deal that's the envy of the world for a nation of their size, look it up sometime. But to put the absurdity of this factoid into an example from elementary storytime, there's the tale of a thirsty crow who finds large clear jug of water about two thirds full, but the mouth of the jug is too narrow for him to fit through. After some thought he starts collecting pebbles and dropping them through the mouth of the jug until the water rises high enough for him to drink. And yet, by the logic of the commentator, why should the crow have bothered, as each individual pebble would have provided essentially zero utility in slaking his thirst?

(6) UN's 2015 Paris Climate Agreement would reduce global temperature about one degree Centigrade by 2100 AD, but would cost many trillions of dollars, would subjugate economic independence of participating nations, and would require global wealth redistribution.

Allowing global warming is hitchhiking on the road to Hell in a handbasket. Seriously, I was stationed in California while still a teenager in the early Nineties. There was a sign posted about the risk of wildfires, Low, Moderate, Elevated, Severe, whatever, but no one paid much attention because wildfires happened out in the wilderness and rarely harmed anyone. And it's not like California suddenly built a metropolis in every forest, and screwed up their forest management at the same time, and exported their schemes to the rest of the West. Because the fact is that wildfires are now sixty times worse in California than before the warming trend started, the rest of the Western states are moving towards the same extreme, and the forecast is for a 4-times multiple of severity with each degree Celsius of warming. Where we're headed is 4 degrees Celsius, which would leave civilization in a shambles or even extinct, as in pick your post-apocalyptic vision for remnants of civilization on the South Island of New Zealand, the former Norse colonies of Greenland, etc. In fact, so many billionaires have been buying property in New Zealand for just that reason that the government made it illegal for non-citizens to own property there.

(7) Eliminating use of fossil fuels for electricity generation would deny developing countries the opportunity to electrify and improve living conditions. In sub-Saharan Africa, gas-fired power projects would supply electricity for three times as many people as renewable energy projects would supply for the same cost.

Among sub-Saharan Africa's biggest disadvantages is lack of infrastructure, and this is an argument that what they really need is massive investment in pipelines, port installations to import liquefied gas, and then a bill for natural gas in perpetuity. Instead if you look at the map of the equator where Earth gets the most sun and it just about bisects sub-Saharan Africa. For comparison, in the U.S. Southwest it's reaching the threshold where it's cheaper to build new solar including battery storage for the overnight compared to natural gas, and this where the pipeline infrastructure is already in place. And in Northern Africa, cloudless Saharan nations like Morocco are working to make serious money exporting power through undersea cables to Europe. The truth about solar power is that declines in price have been relentless for well over a decade.

In conclusion, this book has been written before. It's called The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism. Both books are trash, and personally I bought the previous variant at a used bookstore. What I'd say in summation about climate change is that while it's certainly worth the effort to try to solve the problem, it's not especially likely to happen. So for example, thanks to sea level rise I wouldn't recommend buying a house in Miami Beach.

[Nelson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book! Very detailed and came at the issue from many sides. For me the clincher in the argument is simply that, seeing as the climate is always changing, it is impossible to predict what the impact will be and how it will change. It is indisputable that the weather is very difficult to predict - anyone who follows the weather knows that forecasts are very often wrong - so these supposed models are merely speculation. Therefore, does it make sense to advocate going back to the stone age (so-to-speak) on the basis of a mere possibility? Does it make sense to make lives harder and more expensive for people for a mere possibility? People are more important than abstract possibilities. This may be hyperbole but it is entirely reasonable to conclude that environmentalism has become a death cult that hates humanity and wants to see us dead. For them the greatest ideal is that the planet go on without us. Now this is a depressing "religion" as the only hope of redemption is a meaningless death. Doesn't seem particularly appealing to me.

[Grant · Rating 1 out of 5]

It is truly amazing how much effort can go in writing 100's of examples in polemics and sophistry and yet not even disprove the facts it's trying to.

Marc uses most of this book claiming that scientists are driven by who funds them, so I guess it's fair to say that Marc who is funded by fossil fuel companies might be little biased and untrustworthy. Also the lols https://tinyurl.com/z57959rm

It's easy to see how people fall for this kind of work as it's long and very authoritative in it's accusations and yet a quick google on any of the claims and things start to fall apart. It's a mess of quick fire claims that omit full quotes, mischaracterise and basically outright lie to muddy the waters. Go watch potholer54 on youtube if you'd like to see Marc's arguments get sent to the shadow realm.

[Rabin Rai · Rating 5 out of 5]

When the politically and socially acceptable opinion is to agree that global warming is a crisis, it is an uphill battle to be the few souls to fight against the strong current of this herd mentality thinking. Marc Morano, the author, is a strong advocate of climate crisis skepticism and he debunks the climate consensus with every point backed up by bibliographical sources. Today, more climate change skeptics accompany him in the fight to educate the public from supporting wrong economic policies to treat the imaginary problem of global climate crisis.

Read with an open mind.

[James J. Zaben · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely a phenomenal book!!! I work in the environmental arena for the oil industry and we are in the mist of a long battle due to the fact the environmental activist and NGO's i.e., (California Air Resources Board) are putting extreme constraints on the oil industry; claiming CO2 is causing climate change!! This book details the false hood of their claims and their brainwashing technics. I speak to this book most often and I use it for reference.

[Megan Rosenkranz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Another fun read for adults that could be adapted to use with my middle school students. A book that tells it like it is without care for feelings marks something exciting for me, posing the hard questions and searching for hard to find answers. This book fills a gap for me in how we look at climate change.

[William Kyle Spratt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wish I could give this six stars.

[Owlseyes]

A book by the "top-tier" climate-change* denier. (According to the National Geographic).

* Or "climate emergency", a more updated version. Or climate scare??

[Wesley Dietz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Both of Marc's books about the BS climate crisis are excellent. This one focuses more of the climate debate as a whole where Green Fraud is more about the "green new deal".

[Leib Mitchell · Rating 5 out of 5]

The religion of climate change and its link to government corruption

Reviewed in the United States on March 8, 2020

There's quite a bit going on in this book. (It is extremely heavily sourced, with 1201 different citations over the space of 322 pages. 3.8 sources per page.)

In order to keep the review readable, I'll just give the main idea and a couple of thoughts from each chapter.

1. The author's background and position. He asserts most people who are involved in this are not honest. They are probably closer to clerics/ magicians than they are scientists.

2. Climate change redux. The earliest source of climate change is from 1799. Thomas Jefferson. And then, at some point it turned into a global cooling scare. And then at the end of the 80s, back into a global warming scare.

3. The "97% consensus." This is an example of lies, damned lies, and then...... statistics. (100% of scientists agreed with bloodletting and the four humors when they were a thing. So now what?)

4. Carbon dioxide is not the demon that you think it is.

a. It has been highly variable over the millennia.

b. Levels now are lower than they have ever been, compared to those times.

c. Carbon dioxide is also a minor factor compared to many other known factors, such as clouds or water or sun spots.

d. The direction of causality is not clear. Is it the carbon dioxide that causes the warmer temperatures or the warmer temperatures that cause the carbon dioxide?

5. Antarctic sea ice has actually been increasing, not melting (as per the climactic models). No errors in the models have ever been acknowledged--even though this discussion has gone all the way back to 1901. And the amount of Antarctic ice increased 193,000 square miles from 2007 to 2017.

The results depend on how you measure things. Weather balloons? Surface thermometers? Satellite altimeters? Tide gauges in tectonically inert areas?

There is the well-known statistical problem of "restriction of range." And once that creates problems, then you can always make bombastic predictions.

6. More Statistical Howlers. Specifically, Michael Mann's hockey stick schtick (i.e.- how to make something look bigger and smaller at the same time by misleading graphing technique). And by the wanton mixing and matching of proxy and actual data.

7. The fact that one year is 0.07 degrees Hotter than the last tells you ABSOLUTELY nothing if the margin of error is 0.1 degrees. There is also a long pause in global warming that nobody has attempted to explain.

8. "Models do not equal evidence and predictions are not data." The first strategy of the climate alarmists was to ignore the misses and count the hits. The next strategy is to just push the model so far out to the future that it means nothing. (Kind of like Economics.)

9. Climate alarmism is true only by consensus, in the same way that all other religions are. All of the hysteria and name-calling is actually creating "heretics" who go against what once was true. (Similar to how the hegemony of the Catholic Church created the Reformation.)

10. Climate gate. Scientists are not disinterested parties in this issue. Their job depends on funding which comes only if they can create a sense of hysteria. It's not uncommon for people to talk about the results at the report will have several years before the report is actually even compiled and written.

11. Global warming-->climate change. And so climate change explains everything but predicts nothing. (In the same way that Nostradamus predicts everything because of his excessive vagueness.)

12. "Climate change is so slow that it is not something that can be observed got anyone in their lifetime." Extreme events are repurposed to be fit onto the Climate Change Gospel. (Availability bias!)

13. "Since the strategy of ignoring the misses and counting the hits does not work, let's just put the predictions so far out as to make them useless." Ubiquitous "tipping points" are never realized, and "last chances" show up about seven times a decade.

14. "The issue is about control and redistribution." Environutballs are actually watermelons. (Green on the outside and red on the inside.) Academia is the bastion of ridiculous ideas, and it is a great source for the most totalitarian plans.

15. "Follow the money." Al Gore is the quintessential example of somebody who acts like a climate change evangelist, and then ultimately sells to big oil for 100 million dollars. Many have been enriched on the government created largess of Selling Climate Hysteria.

16. "Do as I say, not as I do."/"Let them eat cake." Al Gore is such an easy target as a hypocrite because of his lavish lifestyle, while preaching to others about their need to sacrifice. But, others are detailed in this chapter.

17. "Hide it behind the children" and "Get 'em while they're young." Greta Thunberg is no surprise to this author (nor this reviewer), and it is very common that people try to hide unsavory issues by using children as a shield. Thunberg is not the first, and she will not be the last. And she herself as a product of some children somewhere being indoctrinated.

18. The administrative state is a great tool to bypass democratic processes. And environmentalism is a convenient excuse.

19. "Keeping the black man down." Elites in Western countries are so into feeling good about restrictive carbon policies, that they don't even notice that the people who suffer the most as a result are in places like Africa and India. Green power, Black death!

20. Trump! Details of all of his rollbacks up until publication time.

It looks like this books cautious optimism may be okay. The Democrats are having a great deal of difficulty getting themselves a believable candidate. (Even from among the huge field of geriatric white men that they have to choose from.)

This entire situation has echoes of things described at least 70 years ago, by Eric Hoffer in "The True Believer." (And earlier in George Orwell's "Animal Farm." And even earlier still, in MacKay's "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds.")

The psychological/sociological architecture is the same, but the specific symbols are different.

i. Something is wrong.

ii. It cannot be solved without ceding control to some people who can solve it.

iii. There are men of words whose position only depends on where they stand with respect to the centers of power.

iv. The newly generated government bureaucracy is self-perpetuating, because they finance the Men of Words who tell them what they want to hear.

v. There are "sinners" and "saints," all of whose identity/ moral ranking is determined by the position that they hold with respect to this "sacred" knowledge.

vi. There are all the other characters in this farce. "Prophets" and "apostles." "Evangelicals" and "Doomsayers." And "zealots" and "true believers."

It also has significant elements of policy books that are written about things such as the Great Depression. (I have Milton Friedman in mind here.) He asked.... "What happens when the government does not actually know what they are doing, and you consolidate this much power into their hands?"

There are resonances between the drug war and climate hysteria. Where the issue can come to mean anything that is politically expedient. So, drugs can explain moral decline to one party, and they can be a vehicle of government control and confiscation for another. Even though drugs are ostensibly one thing.

The whole book can be read through in ~4 hours, because its easy vocabulary with a fair amount of white space.

320 pages of prose / 20 chapters equals 16 pages per chapter. Enough to be read one or two over a lunch break.

Verdict: Strongly recommended at the new price.

[Robert Koslowsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

Marc Morano wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change in 2018. I highly recommend it, if nothing more than to simply glean another perspective on the climate change debate.

The late geologist Bob Carter, a professor emeritus at James Cook University in Australia best summed up the current situation in 2015, “We are currently living on a carbon dioxide starved planet. And were we to double carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is the figure everybody fears, that would be a small step back towards restoring the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.” He called “the idea that doubling carbon dioxide is going to be environmentally catastrophic . . . just a silly idea,” and added, “We’re not dealing with a scientific issue, we haven’t been dealing with a scientific issue now for 15 years. We’re dealing with the determined political issue. It’s a campaign cause.”

I was once impressed by Al Gore’s book and movie, “Inconvenient Truth,” until I subsequently learned that his presentation was flawed and lacked basis in science. Morano provides much detail about what I had discovered more than a decade ago. Be sure to check out his refutation of Gore’s mythical temperature rising notion, and Michael Mann’s flawed hockey stick temperature graph, especially since temperature rises occur before carbon dioxide in the atmosphere ramps up. Gore had it backwards and Mann lied. In fact, Gore stopped talking about drowning polar bears in the Arctic recently, simply because the polar bear population is thriving in 2021.

I decided to investigate whether man-made “global warming” is a threat and whether the proposed “solutions” are really necessary. Like the thirteen months I spent investigating the faulty algorithms of an insurance company’s claimant payment system, I spent the past two years digging into claims made by many California politicos and their activist environmentalists and found almost all of their assertions lack facts, distort logic, or posses no scientific basis. I did so because the climate agenda literally impacts every aspect of your life and mine.

As Morano points out, “The purported solutions to this non-problem will affect what kind of lightbulbs and appliances you are allowed to buy, the size of your home and how it is heated and air conditioned, how you travel, the food you eat, the clothes you wear, and how many kids you can have. They will have enormous impacts on land use, jobs, prices, the world’s economy, and even our national sovereignty. Some scientists are even advocating for shrinking the human race to decrease our carbon footprint – and for medicating us to make us care more about the planet.”

In California, all of this has happened or is on the drawing board, about to be rolled out with state mandates. One example is the oppressed homeowner in California. In 2021, residents’ desire for simplicity by having two suppliers of energy – electric plus natural gas (or propane) – is being replaced by the complexity of a homeowner or landlord becoming a utility operator in the production and trading of electricity, using a rooftop solar connected to a garage-based battery backup system, interconnected to another battery system integrated into a required electric vehicle needing an electric charger, with a web of wires needing a working WiFi system and an in-structure, complex energy management system to keep it all working while determining how much you will pay to the government each month.

Do all of these climate change driven mandates for one’s living space suggest that without $100,000-plus home retrofits (pre-2015 construction) as well as the addition of $120,000 in rooftop solar, battery backup, an electric vehicle, EV chargers, and a complex in-home management system, residents will experience power outages of even longer duration?

To date, neither the government nor regulators will answer such questions nor engage in serious dialog. They just produce more mandates and restrictive building codes, even as the lights continue to go out with increasing frequency and longer duration.

That’s the modus operandi of the global warming-become-climate change zealots: Push a false narrative that continually declares a crisis to, as Morano argues, “instill fear and force people to bow down at the alter of government authority.”

Less than a decade ago, in 2013, even James Lovelock recanted the current orthodoxy, “I am an environmentalist and founder member of the Greens but now I bow my head in shame at the thought that our original good intentions should have been so misunderstood and misapplied. We never intended a fundamentalist Green movement that rejected all energy sources other than renewable, nor did we expect the Greens to cast aside our priceless ecological heritage because of their failure to understand that the needs of the Earth are not separable from human needs. We need [to] take care that the spinning windmills do not become like the statues on Easter Island, monuments of a failed civilisation.”

I encourage you to read Morano’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change. Then pick your chosen issue in order to challenge government policies rooted in lies and fabricated science, especially those bad or proposed mandates being used to force unnecessary change and exorbitant living costs on Americans.

[Steven H · Rating 1 out of 5]

THE “CLIMATE HUSTLE” DOCUMENTARY PRODUCER EXPLAINS HIS POSITIONS

Marc Morano wrote in the first chapter of this 2018 book, “I am not a scientist---though I do occasionally play one on TV. Well, Actually, I debate scientists there, regularly appearing on television to expose the unscientific claims about catastrophic man-made climate change… I am a climate skeptic, a doubter, a dissenter---and have been smeared as a ‘denier.’ But I am not alone in my skepticism. I work regularly with a huge network of internationally renowned scientists, many of them formerly of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)…” (Pg. 1-2)

He continues, “This book will serve as a reference guide for readers who know they are not getting the full story from the New York Times, CBS News, and the UK Guardian. The case against man-made climate change fears has only been strengthened in recent years.” (Pg. 8) He adds, “On climate change, the science is not ‘settled.’ The debate is not ‘over.’ This book is designed to provide you with the facts you need to understand and resist a political agenda that has no real basis in science, that threatens our very sovereignty and prosperity, and that promises to trap millions in grinding poverty.” (Pg. 11)

He states, “Peer-reviewed studies have documented that there have been temperatures similar to our temperatures when carbon dioxide was five times higher than today’s levels… As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere than with CO2… In fact, climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, not just CO2.” (Pg. 47-48)

He suggests, “We need to keep reminding ourselves just how small the influence of increasing CO2 is on the global energy balance. The energy flows that naturally occur in the climate system are huge compared to the small, ‘1% perturbation in those flows that we have theoretically imposed upon the system.” (Pg. 57)

He explains, “Penn State professor Michael Mann rose to climate fame with his 1998 study including the famous ‘hockey stick’ graph, which purported to show that the Northern Hemisphere today is experiencing high temperatures unprecedented in almost a thousand years. The graph was called ‘the hockey stick’ because it resembled a hockey stick lying on its side, with the blade being the supposed spike in temperature in the twentieth century… [Was his study] Accurate? No. Peer-reviewed research both before and after … show that both the medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period were as warm or warmer than modern temperatures.” (Pg. 83)

He argues, “global temperatures are holding basically steady. The media and climate activists are hyping supposed ‘record’ temperatures that are not even outside the margin of error of the dataset as somehow meaningful. It is a fancy way of saying the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown,’ ‘hiatus’ or ‘standstill’ in temperature is continuing.” (Pg. 98)

He points out that “Renowned geophysicists and green guru James Lovelock was one of the leading voices of man-made climate alarm… But Lovelock grew steadily more skeptical and has now seemingly made a full U-turn on man-made global warming fears… [He] declared in 2012, ‘I was WRONG and alarmist on climate. I swore Earth should be frying by now.’ … Lovelock contended that the science supposedly justifying climate change was ‘overblown.’” (Pg. 121-122)

Of the so-called ‘Climategate’ scandal, he notes, “what the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Institute revealed was more than just a shocking case of dishonesty in science. It was the fraudulence of the entire man-made climate change narrative. The Climategate emails showed that the UN IPCC scientists were holding together the global warming narrative and the supposed scientific ‘consensus’ that supported it by subterfuge and intimidation… Data manipulation, manipulation of the peer-review process, blacklisting, data destruction, and willful violation of Freedom of Information Act requests were some of the key revelations in the Climategate emails.” (Pg. 143)

He says, “The climate movement has steadily and quietly been morphing the phrase ‘global warming’ into ‘climate change.’ Why the change? … global temperatures have essentially been holding steady for the past two decades. The hysterical predictions about polar bears’ habitat melting and rising sea levels inundating our coastal cities were all a bust. Given those facts, ‘global warming’ is an increasingly hard sell.” (Pg. 165)

He contends, “The climate change panic is all about central planning, global governance, planned recessions, and redistributing wealth. It’s just the most recent in a long chain of eco-scares---overpopulation, deforestation, the ozone hole, resource scarcity, and so forth---for which the solution is always the same: global regulation by central planners. At the moment, the UN IPCC is the leader of this agenda.” (Pg. 225)

He states, “attempts to control weather and climate will have no measurable impact on climate, but a huge impact on energy prices and the economy. That’s true for the United States and the rest of the developed world. But it matters a lot more to poor nations. The so-called solutions to the supposed threat of man-made climate change would limit economic development and ban many forms of life-saving carbon-based energy. These restrictions and other policies inspired by the global warming panic function as a modern day colonialism.” (Pg. 295)

He proclaims, “With Trump’s election, climate sanity was restored to the United States… Candidate Trump was the warmists’ worst nightmare: the first Republican presidential nominee who ever staked out a strongly science-supported skeptical position not only on climate change but also on the so-called ‘solutions.’” (Pg. 312)

He concludes, “So let’s review. By virtually every measure—from global temperatures and climate model predictions to polar bears, sea level rise, and extreme weather events—the scientific claims of the global warming movement are falling short, or the science is actually going in the opposite direction. The fears that rising levels of carbon dioxide are a major threat facing humanity does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. The geologic history of the Earth demonstrates that carbon dioxide is drowned out by many, many other variables in our earth’s climate system… And the alleged scientific ‘consensus’ is merely an illusion carefully crafted by a partisan campaign to promote global warming fears and their so-called solutions… It bears repeating: if we actually faced a man-made climate crisis and we had to rely on the UN or the EPA of Congress to save us, we would all be doomed!... if we actually did face a catastrophic global warming, the last ‘solution’ we would want to seek would be one that saddles us with sovereignty-threatening, central-planning, wealth-distributing, economy-crippling regulations and the most expensive treaty in world history.” (Pg. 321-322)

This book will be of great interest to critics of “climate change” and “global warming” forecasts.

[Tana · Rating 3 out of 5]

In my opinion, if the information in this book doesn't make you angry, then you aren't paying attention. The author shows how climatologists have been manipulating the data to match their predictions. In science, you are supposed to use the data to make your predictions more accurate. Also, the last 20 years of data on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere vs temperature have shown no correlation between the two. The climate models being used are not accurate. None of the predictions made by climatologists have been accurate. I can still remember back when I was in high school that climatologists were predicting a new ice age and we were all going to freeze from global cooling. The Global-Warming-Climate-Change crowd will not tolerate any kind of dissent. No matter what they say, this is NOT settled science. Yes, our climate is getting warmer, but there has been a pause in the warming so that in the last 20 years, the amount of warming is so small that it falls into the zone of rounding errors. The Climate Change movement is a political/religious movement, not a scientific one, which is why they call the folks who don't agree with them "heretics" and try to shut them up. If they truly believe that science supports their hypothesis that the current warming trend in our climate is primarily caused by human activities instead of other factors such as the variability of sun spots and the earth's natural warming/cooling cycles that have been occurring for millennia then they should welcome the scientific debate. Having someone challenge your ideas can make you find weaknesses in your own hypothesis and give you the opportunity to improve them and create more accurate models. The Global-Warming-Climate-Change crowd is doing their cause a disservice by not welcoming the scientific debate.

[Morten Greve · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is your gateway to Bizarro Land. In the strange world conjured by Morano - a notorious paid shill of regressive political forces over several decades - black is white, up is down and warming is cooling.

According to this book, there is an active stream of published, evidence-based research denying the reality of serious man-made climate change (in fact, anyone who cares to consult recent volumes of the best journals - Science, Nature, PNAS etc. - will find that this is a blatant lie); global average temperature has been flat for decades (in fact, it has risen approximately one degree C since the mid-1970s - and all data sources are in essential agreement); Arctic sea ice extent is increasing (in fact, the very opposite has been the case for many years) and the large ice sheets are gaining mass (in fact, they are doing the opposite at an increasing rate); climate model projections are wildly inaccurate (in fact, model projections from the 1970s and 1980s based on realistic assumptions about subsequent anthropogenic emissions have done impressively well). And so on and so forth...

Morano employs all the usual tricks from the denialist playbook - only in his case it's all on steroids. For instance, he mobilizes absolutely everyone of those increasingly old and confused men (oh, and Judith Curry - also old) with some semblance of scientific credibility that have sought to legitimize the denial movement for decades. This - by the way - ought to be a cause of grave concern for people like Morano. What is he going to do when the last member of his geronto-army has died? The recruitment pipeline is not promising to say the least.

If the stakes weren't so high texts by people like Morano would just be a slightly sad and pathetic joke - but given the influence his sort still has on so many there is absolutely nothing to laugh about.

[Shane Hawk · Rating 4 out of 5]

For what I expected to be a condescending screed it turned out to be rather informative. He shows a number of data manipulations that have been made over the decades to promote one idea or the other. In the end, you can only support the concept of anthropogenic climate change and the governmental-solutions proposed for its combat in any public setting. You know it’s true, so why bother taking the contrarian view? Oy