97 of 120 people found the following review helpful
A definitive judgement,
Verified Purchase(What is this?)
This review is from: The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is The Obsession With `Climate Change` Turning Out To Be The Most Costly Scientific Blunder In History? (Hardcover)
Put out the phone, take the cat off the hook and settle down in your igloo with this admirable and most entertaining narration of warmist frauds, scams, and book-cooking. Apparently, when you serve a higher truth, lying is alright.
This fine history, fully referenced, is on the politics of it all. It's a rivetting read and a real eye-opener.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-8 of 8 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 26 Oct 2009 19:19:20 GMT
This book is quite brilliant. The quasi-science used by the IPCC/Green/Environmental lobby has well and truly been rumbled. How can anybody ever listen to a word they say? Other than those in league with them? Their sinister motives have been revealed and their dubious methods outlined. The IPCC is a disgrace to science!
If the UK, EU and US poilticians get their way they will be signing the biggest economic suicide note in history (sic) at Copenhagen. They must be challenged and stopped. India and China must think it is their birthday and Christmas all rolled into one. How they must be laughing at us!
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Oct 2009 19:48:56 GMT
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2009 16:43:44 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Nov 2009 16:44:20 GMT
Kevin 'Bionic' Jones says:
Why are users ignoring the common sense posts of Jrhartley? Don't they want to see another point of view other than their own? What a sad, strange lot they are!
In reply to an earlier post on 16 Nov 2009 19:06:11 GMT
Last edited by the author on 26 Nov 2009 16:16:41 GMT
I'm not surprised that so many people have marked my comments as "unhelpful", Fergus, regrettably - it seems to show that they they've all been conditioned as good corporate citizens - their only role in life is to keep their jobs so they can go and buy more things they don't need in the belief that it will make them happy, just keep the economy's cogs turning - and an increasingly phoney economy at the moment, fuelled by phoney cash from quantitative easing. I thought the point was to get away from "bubble economies", Alistair? [pumping & dumping is allowed when you're the government with a massive financial black hole to fill, apparently....]. Anyway, I digress.
I expect my comments are not appreciated here as the majority of people who trumpet Booker prefer to bury their head in the sand and leave it to the future generations to find out if the IPCC are right or not. Personally, faced with the prospect of playing Russian Roulette with the world, the upside being the economy ticks along at 2% p.a for the next 50 years, then potentially becomes uninhabitable for humans, or seeing 0 or even negative growth but acting on reducing resources and pollutants, I would think it sensible and prudent to go for the latter. But the naysayers always contend that solutions can only come out of technological advances. Its a culture of speed for speed's sake, of consumerism, of blindly running forwards without thinking why or actually savouring any of it. It would be good if people could stop and think - what is really important to me - is it going down Bluewater like a moron every Saturday searching for cheap tat, or could I actually use my brain, my imagination, my body to make the world a better place, not a higher GDP?
Above all, I question the motivation of 'manufacturing' an AGW story. No one seems really to spend too much time explaining why people would want to cook all this up. It seems that the only reason advocated by the doubters is that people like Al Gore want to see their name in lights. The other explanation advanced by the "Truth Movement" is that Carbon Taxes are the way to keep us in our place. The fact that carbon taxes, by definition can never generate as much income as all other existing taxes based on continuous GDP growth seems to be a convenient fact that the doubters are happy to overlook. If glory and status were politicians motivation, surely they would want to be the top dog of a bigger economy, rather than one which has seen its GDP reduced because it has pushed through environmental measures which have restrained production?
Clearly actually bettering yourself and learning, making, doing involves efforts. Humans are fundamentally lazy and prefer the simple gratification of status through consumption. I fear this supertanker is not for turning. Booker invariably has a lot of fat, stubborn, chauvanistic middle-aged men who love watching things like Top Gear, as his faithful cohort who will keep sniping away at anyone who does not share his stance by clicking "This does not add to the discussion", whilst being completely unable to clearly verbalise why not.
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2012 19:43:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 11 Mar 2012 19:44:51 GMT
Mr. Steven C. Watson says:
Ego, masochism and money. That's why. These have been major drivers of human endeavour since god was a boy. AGW fails to account for the rest our solar system heating up by the same order of magnitude touted for greenhouse gases. Look back over the geological record: It has been a damn sight warmer and a damn sight colder than it is now on numerous occaisions. Ditto sea levels. About ten thousand yers ago you could walk to Oslo, five thousand years ago southern Iraq was underwater and storied Ur by the sea. Today it is about 140 miles inland. Britain during the Roma occupation was several degrees warmer than today, from the Seventeeth to the Nineteenth centuries so much cooler that the period is known as The Little Ice Age. There were fairs and substantial structures on the frozen Thames and the idea of a White Christmas entered our culture. I am fifty one. I do not recall ever a Dickensian winter, let alone that they were ever the commonplace.
Science must be falsifiable. At this time the null hypothesis must be accepted for AGW. To do otherwise makes you a crank, not a thinking, reasoning person and certainly not a scientist.
Posted on 4 Oct 2012 18:11:07 BDT
R Jones says:
I haven't read the book, but I very much doubt that it reflects a 'balanced view' on the subject.
Why you might ask? - the author of the book is one of many that have a history of using 'misinformation' and other tactics in order to keep the debate on climate change going when it should have been settled long ago. Don't take my word for it, take a look at these links and make your own mind up:-
In fact, don't just accept these links. Go to the trouble of investigating yourself. Always remember to ask yourself what the source is and if people have some other agenda or if they stand to gain from adopting a certain position. Always ask yourself how credible the source is also.
There are many self-proclaimed experts on the subject of climate change who at first glance appear to be very believable to the uninformed, which let's face it includes the majority of us, but 99 times out of a 100 closer scrutiny reveals that they are a sham and simplify feeding misinformation (i.e. propoganda) to suit their own purposes.
Many of these people have an association with the Heartland Institute and other such organisations that receive much of their funding from big business and fossil fuel companies. These organisations deliberately set out to `muddy the waters', much the same way as previous campaigns that would have us believe that tobacco is not harmful to health. Such campaigns often succeed in stalling action for several decades.
So why do we believe these people?
It's often easier to believe what we want to be true if the real truth is too difficult to comprehend!
Then there is what's called confirmation bias - we all tend to seek out and believe information that confirms what we already suspect or believe:-
Climate change could be the biggest challenge in modern human history and as such deserves our attention. For those who want to take the trouble to learn more, there are several sites where the various myths propagated by the 'deniers' and 'naysayers' are totally debunked. Here are a few sites:-
In reply to an earlier post on 26 Aug 2013 18:41:31 BDT
Mr Jones - your post exemplifies much that is wrong with the Climate Change debate. You admit to not having read the book in your first sentence, yet proceed to dismiss it, purely on the basis of unsubstantiated character attacks on its author. This indicates to me that, having no answer to the arguments Booker makes, you attack him instead. We see this kind of behaviour regularly in the climate debate - from Michael Mann to most recently Ed Davey. There are huge questions over the scientific basis of the alarmist case, which in a free society should be open to debate, not supressed and ridiculed, as you attempt to do here. I DO think for myself, and this book was pivotal in opening my eyes.
In reply to an earlier post on 25 Mar 2015 19:42:32 GMT
Dr. R. G. Bullock says:
Definitive? Really? "Warmest frauds"! Conspiracy theories and muddled minds go together (with a pinch of paranoia).
‹ Previous 1 Next ›