Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming [Paperback]

A useful read for anyone interested in the role of public relations firms in redefining the debate on climate change. In particular, the way vested interests use PR agencies to create confusion and doubt about the science of climate change in order to frustrate action. Having read the book I am surprised by how many of the 'cast' I have since spotted in subsequent 'news' stories. An important read.

If you believe smoking is safe, this book is not for you. Look away now.

The authors do start from a position that Global warming is undebatable. Not unreasonable, given the amount of peer reviewed research and volume of raw data available. They also accept the consensus that climate change is happening as a consequence, again not unreasonable. They work with the current scientific consensus of over 95% probability that man is a major influence in these events. So this book is not going to give you any of that background or insight. It works with the view that true scientific principles are the best guide we have for what is happening around us. If you don't understand climate science, this book won't help you.

This book is about the human condition that needs to ignore bad news and our tendency to latch onto any contrary statements and assertions that return our sense of security and comfort. This book is about public relations and political manipulation machinery that is directed at protecting vested interest by causing inaction and uncertainty. If you want insight into how the PR machine works and is used and abused, then read on.

When taken into the context of climate science it dissects how the issue has been obfuscated and dissembled by various groups of pseudo-scientists using rhetoric and assertion. It is well researched, not in climate science but in the workings of P.R. sources and data is presented to support positions, you can follow many threads on google yourself and get source documents.

It observes that the current commentary trends are shifting to acceptance of the warming facts and that the game is now about causing confusion and inaction through challenging priotities and predicted consequences.

As and engineer and someone who has followed the issue since the 70ies and who has seen the experiments, read journals, spent time with the scientists, I found this book to be a thought provoking slant on the climate change situation. It has always seemed odd to me that we have a large body of factual evidence that shows we have civilsation affecting problem and yet we do not act. Accepting there is still a bit of a debate left over how much humankind is at fault but given the level of probability that we are, shouldn't we be doing something to mitigate such a massive threat to our future? This book outlines we why aren't. We are going through a repeat of the tobacco story, only this time it isn't about individual choice to die it is about the end of our civilisation.

As to style. The book is an easy read if a bit over the top in condemnation of various campaigns to the point that you tend to glaze over when reading another one. It does get the points over well though. It clearly states that it has no problem with alternative views and true, peer reviewed research from that camp but can't find any. This means that it can start to seem like a rant after a while but hold that thought and see the book as a whole and you will get a good insight in to the messages on P.R and media manipulation going on around you. The insights you get will be useful in assessing what you are fed in many other issues e.g "the Euro is safe, greece will not default" coming from the European spinmeisters.

It is very hard to be objective about this book for a number of reasons. At the outset I would admit to being rather agnostic about climate change. I am not affiliated to any particular organisation by way of being renumerated. My educational qualifications are primarily in economics and social science whereas my interests have foundations in the sciences. I believe that any person who believes in being an informed citizen needs to be sceptical of claims to truth and particularly towards any claims by government or the media or anyone else including corporations.

If this gambit appears defensive then let it be acknowledged so. Climate Cover-Up is a political book which attempts to bulldoze a view that no-one in their right mind should oppose the policies to tackle climate change. It makes reference to the common cause that scientists have flocked to about the truth of the issue and denigrates those in opposition as being lackeys of the corporate world, while failing to acknowledge that there are funds available too to sustain those who argue the proponents case.

The author quoes sources on the internet and applauds true science in pursuit of his goal to beat down the opposition while at the same time does not provide the detailed source material he accuses his opponents of not using. He also does not acknowledge that most educated observers do not have access to scientific journals or to the techniques to fully understand them

I do not argue that this issue may be a political battle to sequester funds on one side or the other, or that vested interests wish to see one side, rather than the other succeed. I firmly believe that each one of us carries the right to probe and question, and the evidence for that statement lies in the way that everyone used to believe that the earth was flat until sceptics and non-conformists challenged the conventional viewpoint.

Books like this force rival camps into deeply entrenched positions where forces merely lob another grenade and duck. In the interests of the human race, is not the answer to have real academic debate in public with sides responding to the arguments?

I agree entirely with the authors findings about public attitudes though. very few of us trust the government, the spinners, the media, even the academe especially because of the way each and every one of those spheres has used the public for their own ends without realising that when the chips are down, the public will no longer rally to their support.