The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism by Christopher C. Horner

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism Reviews

• 
  Michael

  Are you looking for examples of logical fallacies? Search no further! In this volume, you can find multiple examples of all of them.
  
  I would like to point out that, when I read (most of) this sucker, I had no firm "opinion" about what our climate was doing. I was still trying to make my way through the different positions in the discussion. I'm a contrarian, so I would've been ecstatic to have one more anti-establishment position to be smug about! Alas, this P.O.S. could've been more accurately titled A Non-Argument Against Global Warming. Among the classic non-arguments present:
  
  1. Scientists are just saying there's global warming because there's so much money to be made by telling people to stop consuming!
  
  2. Some parts of some ice floes are actually getting bigger! Thus, no global warming!
  
  3. Something something, liberal media something, Al Gore owns a big house, hahaha!
  
  So, it's less of a "guide" than a "rant," much like this review. I enjoy carrying around books that might offend those around me, probably because I'm so emotionally well-balanced. Unfortunately, carrying this one around eventually made me quite embarrassed. When asked at one point what the book's "argument" was by a friend, my response was, "There isn't one."
  
  The sad fact for those wanting to "refute" climate change is this: if you want to refute SCIENTIFIC FACT, the only way to do it is with better supported and clearer SCIENTIFIC FACTS. Insults and accusations about double-standards some random-ass celebrity holds will not counter scientific evidence, so stop telling me how many gallons of petroleum Leonardo DiCaprio's airliner uses when he flies to his Earth Day after-party or whatever. I really don't care.
• 
  Dale

  "Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing."
  
  Published in 2007 by Regnery Publishing
  366 pages
  
  
  I am a former environmentalist.
  
  Quotes like the one in my title (from Tim Wirth, a former Senator and Clinton State Department official) pushed me to be a FORMER environmentalist.
  
  Now I am a conservationist. I do believe some wild spaces should be saved. I recycle (A lot!). I coordinate my school's paper recycling program. I own several of those little fluorescent bulbs and I use them every day. I don't spray chemicals all over my yard. I don't dump motor oil down the drain. I pick up garbage when I walk the dog. I go camping. I go to the Earth Day celebration in downtown Indianapolis because it's a great place to get information on clean-up events and they give away free trees! I also love it when they assume that I must be an ultra-liberal just to be there!
  
  Now that I've said all of this, let me say that I am not an environmentalist. I used to be. Way back when, when I first started teaching, I showed movies to my kids in world geography that said the world as we know it is going to end by the year 2000. Mass flooding, all of the fish dead, mass starvation, etc. They were older versions of An Inconvenient Truth that featured Hollywood stars and quoted heavily from Gore's Earth in the Balance.
  
  I am now embarrassed by that.
  
  I did not listen to other sources.
  
  I ignored my training as a junior historian...
  
  Read more at:
  http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2012/...
• 
  Deb Seksay

  Even though it is a slow read, it has everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, you need to address a global warming fanatic with. Solid scientific evidence, along with the distorted evidence pwned into consensus material. I slogged through the whole thing, and yes, it went slow, but there is only so much I can take in at once.
  
  My favorite quote? "Farting trees, THAT we'd notice." (p58)
  
  I feel competently armed to logically refute anyone that addresses my nonchalant life with alarmism about climate change. The climate is changing? How is that news? The word climate might as well MEAN constantly changing. Use sparingly, live in moderation, treat the world as you would like your home to be, and really, that's all the more I see in it.
  
  I also feel competently armed to dissect and expose the fraudulent 'Goodness' of Greens who knowingly distort data and defame actual scientists in an attempt to get their budget bumped up.
• 
  Rachel

  The author of this book doesn't believe in climate change. As someone that tries hard to be as environmentally friendly as possible, I chose to read this to understand the climate change debate from a different perspective.
  
  I didn't enjoy this book and wouldn't recommend it. The arguments put forward were weak, the book was repetitive and the author just came across as being bitter about eco-friendly regulations being enforced and the potential financial implications on him.
  
  With such a large volume of climate data in existence, from a wide array of sources, using a variety of research methods, from a large timeframe, and with a number of other factors impacting figures, I understand that some climate change data may be flawed or interpreted in a subjective manner. However this can be said for both the data proving and the data disproving climate change.
  
  Despite this, my opinion is that everybody should try to protect the environment, regardless of whether or not they believe in climate change. The impacts of harming our planet could be catastrophic and irreversible, whereas what's the worst that can happen if we protect it? It might cost us extra money making eco-friendly choices? I'd say that's a risk worth taking.
• 
  Ken

  In the past few weeks I read three books and several articles on both sides of the global warming issue. "Unstoppable Global Warming" is written by one of the better known global warming skeptics(Singer)and is full of notes to many other articles and scientific papers supporting the argument that global warming is not real, that if it is happening it is minor and a normal part of climate variablity, and that it is not man made. He presents a lot of evidence supporting his point of view that is convincing at best and is at least worthy of debate at worst.
  The second book I read is called "The Heat Is On" by Gelbspan and is very supportive of the view that global warming is here, it is a major problem and it is definitely caused by man. He supports his argument with many anecdotal accounts of problems caused by serious weather, but does not present us with as much pure scientific evidence that I was expecting. He spends a lot of time attacking the global warming skeptics rather than debunking their scientific points. He is a journalist and not a scientist so I quess I shouldn't be surprised. It does bother me that many of the scientists, journalists, and politicians state that "the debate is over and there is scientific concensus regarding the reality of global warming and that it is man made." That sounds like things religions teach not scientists trying to get ever closer to truth. I don't think it is healthy to ever trust a scientist who says that the debate is over.
  The third book I read is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" by Horner and, as you can guess from the title, is very critical toward the global warming movement. His message is that global warming, if it is happening at all, is a normal "interglacial" process, that it is beneficial to almost all life, it has happened many times in the past and plant/animal species have adapted and thrived, humans have done better during periods of warming vs periods of cooling, and the entire movement has a sometimes not so hidden agenda to lower our standard of living and make us more subject to centralized big government--perhaps even world-wide government. If you have time to only read one of these books, read this one. Also, if you want to scare yourself a bit read the Ross Gelbspan article available on the internet at grist.org which argues that it is too late to do anything about global warming anyway and we are headed for disaster--read some of our fellow citizens comments at the end if you really want to ruin your day.
• 
  David

  Whatever happened to Global warming? Today it is only mentioned to deride the newer all-inclusive term of climate change. When you consider that some of the true believers are the same ones who were distraught over global cooling back in the 1970's. As it has continued under the new name of climate change it was pushed by agenda-driven politicians, professors looking for research grants, and companies sensing a government subsidized business opportunity? In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming author Christopher Horner lays out fact after fact in logical arguments to pull the curtain back and expose the whole Global Warming/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 global warming, now 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 global warming/climate change crowd 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.
• 
  John

  Oh, the dangers of politicized science. This book clearly shows how politicians abuse science by distorting it and turning it into a tool for ramming home otherwise unconscionable legislation. Author Christopher Horner reviews the actual evidence for what causes global warming and shows why the answers aren't as clear cut as people in the green movement would have you believe. He also demonstrates how the incredibly invasive "solutions" politicians propose actually do nothing toward addressing the situation, other than to make people feel better about themselves for "caring" and "doing something." The book is a little bit old hat, as Horner spends an inordinate amount of time discussing Al Gore's movie AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH, as well as the political hoopla surrounding the embarrassingly inept Kyoto Treaty--stuff that was a lot more relevant six years ago. However, even though the book is a bit dated, it still does a great job of illustrating the pitfalls of blindly trusting in claims of scientific "consensus." It's also rather enlightening to see how ruthless corporations (such as Enron) have always been quick to jump on the "green" bandwagon as a way to garner government subsidies and stifle competition. Turns out that the environmental movement and big business are a lot more comfortable with each other than people think.
• 
  Mirjam

  I was initially intrigued by the concept of a "politically incorrect guide" to anything. Contrary to popular belief, I'm actually an advocate of the Know Thine Enemy concept or whatever the kids call it these days, and I think understanding one's opponents is crucial. I was a debate kid in primary and secondary school, okay? I've read stuff by political conservatives that spans the scale from the most mild-mannered US Republican's public campaign emails to the stomach-turning creed Mein Kampf. None of that shit has made me renounce my beliefs and turn into a fucking idiot. That's not how brains work. If a single piece of writing will convince you of something, then you already believed that thing, to some extent. Which is to say that I don't exclusively read stuff that agrees with me; that's how you get an echo chamber, and I don't love the sound of my own voice that much. But this? This was just flat-out boring. And full of boring lies. Boring denials of science. Boring complaining about Le Democratic Party. Boring whining. Boring blame-shifting. Grow a fucking pair, Chris. Go recycle or something. And eat a dick.
• 
  Douglas Wilson

  Excellent.
• 
  Adnan

  This is such an amazing book. It exposes the environmental movement, and the global warming craze in such a hilarious and delightful manner, and especially focuses on Al Gore, who has been at the center of it all.
  
  As a physicist, I understand how stable the planet is, thermodynamically. And how hard it is to stabilize it, if it has become unstable. How extremely chaotic it would be, if we focus on certain microstates, but much much more stable if we look at the macrostates (temperature, pressure, etc).
  
  This book covers the story of the environmental movement, and its political motives and anti-capitalistic mentality, how much focused it is on the United States and Europe, as opposed to China, Russia, and India, and how sentimental and overlordly their advocates have become over the years. The biggest issue is that most of what's been advocated cannot be proven, and a lot of it is taken at face value without ample evidence, and ultimately, we do not know if we really do have that much of an effect. (Such statements ought to come from a climate scientist, and not a physicist -- I can only understand the thermodynamics of the situation.)
  
  Finally, the book focuses on this false authority of the scientific consensus, when we know that scientists from other fields might agree without much understanding the science between global warming (or the lack thereof); and often, the numbers that add up to the global consensus come from scientists who concede that if the planet got warmer, what the consequences would be to such and such things within their area of expertise.
  
  I recommend the book to people who want to be challenged, not those who accept what's been repeated everytime.
• 
  Kamron Brinkerhoff

  As this book is about a divisive topic, I am basing my score on the quality of the research it has done rather than the conclusions it has made. I spent quite a long time looking at its sources, and unfortunately its research quality is poor at best and blatantly dishonest at worst. The first few chapters paints all environmentalists as extremists who hate America and want to destroy capitalism, failing to take into consideration environmental moderates. As for the actual debunking parts, the book claims that most of the global warming peer-reviewed research is a fraud, and the sources it uses to back this off are mostly blog posts, most of which no longer exist and are written by people who do not even study climate science. In the entirety of the main science chapter I only found 1 peer-reviewed source. At one point it also stated that a certain group thoroughly debunked a certain climate scientist's findings, when the group cited actually directly supported his claim. At another point, the book claimed a scientist said "We need to get rid of the medieval warming period" when really he said that they needed to get rid of "misuse of supposed warm period terms and myths in the literature." None of this is surprising when the author, Christopher Warner, has received money from coal companies to write this book. There are much better sources on alternative climate change views, and this book frankly does a disservice to whole skeptical movement.
• 
  Craig Conway

  Trash.
  
  I've read some of the other Politically Incorrect Guides and I really enjoyed them. This one was not up to standards on facts or ration. It's basically a cliff notes version of Anne Coulter or Sean Hannity (alt-right Heralds) talking points on "anti-global warming".
  
  If you're reading a book about a scientific theory, scientific model, or scientific conclusion and are expecting them to site at least "alternative" data or studies, you will be disappointed in this book. There's no data. It's just a rant of "common sense" ranting.
  
  I could not finish this book, as it was the intellectual equivalent of listening to a mentally disturbed homeless purpose rant on a street corner.
• 
  Dennis Fay

  A GREAT book about the lies and false statements about "Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change! This shows how much money is made by the doomsday prophets of climate change. Climate and weather has always changed and always will.....
  
  It shows how liberals (socialist) want to control nearly every aspect of our lives. Watch out for the "Inteligrid," coming to your house soon!
  
  I use this book as my classroom TEXTBOOK!!!!!!!
• 
  C.

  lolNOPE.
• 
  Kyle Grindberg

  It was an excellent and well-written reference in debunking the claims of the global warming agenda. The only issue was that it was written in 2007, so it was responding to issues of that time.
• 
  Morten Greve

  Oh, my, god...
• 
  Sandra Strange

  Though this book is dated, the information it presents still applies. This book answers the "politically correct" stance that climate change is human caused and can be human corrected. Supported using real science and real climate scientists' research, the book shows the misinformation and deception used by the big corporations and politicians to produce grants, public support, and pure profits. It is definitely biased, but makes the case that climate change certainly is proceeding, but caused by natural processes and part of continuing fluctuation, with the current warming caused by several processes, many of which began either long before or long after fossil fuel usage exploded. Everyone should read this book, especially if they have absorbed Al Gore's deliberately deceptive material.
• 
  Stan Sorensen

  Excellent! Well documented. I doubt if many of the naysayers in these reviews have really worked through the book. They don't try to grapple with the arguments and seek to refute them, chapter by chapter with published research that is available. They simply wave their hand and voice generalizations. That's the sad thing about climate activists.
• 
  John Stevenson

  Excellent book. Very detailed descriptions and data regarding the fallacy of the environmentalists and the politicians, culminating in the ridiculous Kyoto accord.
• 
  Sandie Elsom

  What absolute garbage.
• 
  Robert

  I didn't disagree with the author but as others have indicated the book was rather boring and repetitive. It has a lot of rhetoric in it and many arguments were restated several times. I think most people understand that Al Gore is not a scientist and isn't credible arguing about this issue but it got ridiculous after the third time with the Gore bashing (even though he does deserve it). Because of those issues the people who need to read the book wont which is a shame.
  
  What I appreciated about the book is that it does highlight how factual knowledge, data, can be interpreted differently. We are not "tabula rasas" and it is impossible to approach anything without a bias. I hope people understand that this doesn't apply just to the issue of global warming but in every aspect of science. There's one other major politicized "issue" in science where if you don't agree with the "consensus" you are ostracized from being thought of as a scientist. That's what happens when you don't understand the difference between theory and law.
  
  Another issue with the book I had is that I would have preferred more of the hard data of temperatures and temperature stations presented in the book.
  
  If the book had been more concise. If it hit the main arguments only a couple of times and maybe have concentrated on them and presented more coherently I could have given a better rating.
• 
  goddess

  Interesting facts completely ignored by our politicians and biased press. Satirically written (perhaps a little overboard), Horner (an acknowledged expert on global warming) outlines many of the misconceptions about emissions, green-house gases, and the Kyoto Treaty; small details left out of Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'. For instance, how 'convenient' that many areas in the former Soviet Union--some of the coldest places on the planet--have been excluded from average global temperatures. It seems that a country dissolving puts temperature reading on the back burner. Then there's the fact that temperatures were much warmer in the early 1900s.....well before the invention of the SUV. Or how about the fact that the reason the U.S. emits about 1/4 of the world's emissions is simply because we produce about 1/4 of the world's GDP? Go figure! A country must use energy for high volume output. And the EU? Oh yeah--their CO2 emissions have increased in the past decade. But alas, none of that truly matters, because CO2 and green-house gases have very little to do with global warming. The earth goes through cycles after all.
  
  A must read for anyone duped by the global warming fear-mongering and propaganda hurled at us by our so-called world leaders and their puppets.
• 
  Alan

  Christopher Horner does a beautiful job of describing the 'global warming' situation from an objective point of view. While it is objective in its presentation of the facts and voluminous evidence, it is obviously clear that the thesis of the book is to demonstrate why 'global warming' (or more accurately, man-made global warming) is largely a product of hyper-environmentalist activists bent on manipulating the facts to suit their politically-charged and monetary purposes. Not only is the book fueled with in-depth scientific evidence to support the thesis but it also examines the political and cultural evidence that would suggest that man-made global warming is largely a product of the creative imaginings of man.
  
  Clearly, science has established many things regarding the climate change topic. However, what has not been established by the scientific community is the notion that humanity is the primary cause of this change and that these changes will somehow result in a catastrophic ending as predicted by Mr. Gore.
  
  I'd highly recommend this book, particularly for those who advocate for the global warming movement.