Shop now Shop now Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Learn more Shop now Learn more Shop Fire Shop Kindle Listen with Prime Pre-order now Shop Men's Shop Women's

Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on 15 October 2009
This is easily the best of several books I have read on the subject of global warming. Booker traces the history of the alarm over AGW from its origin - following the careers of the main proponents of the scare, such as James Hansen and Al Gore. In doing so he highlights their political manouevring, their inability to debate and justify their views and their growing vested interests. He describes in detail the way the notorious "Hockey Stick" graph appeared, became a major propaganda weapon, then became completely discredited. He describes how the British government's scientific advisers were exposed and humiliated when they tried to recruit leading Russian scientists to the crusade against global warming.
Booker goes on to chronicle the political response to warming - the process that led to Kyoto, the proliferation of useless wind farms and the British government's new law which requires us to reduce CO2 emissions by 80%, without having the slightest idea how to do so without shutting down the economy.
If you only buy one book about global warming, buy this one.
4343 comments| 250 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 25 October 2009
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.
88 comments| 100 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 19 November 2009
Everyone should read it, but especially if you are a politician or policy maker heading for the Copenhagen Climate Conference later this year. Sadly, of course, they will not.

Christopher Booker has written a devastating critique of the `global warming consensus' that has grown-up and been driven by an array of individuals and groups (but certainly not expert climate scientists), aided by a weak and compliant media. See my review of Flat Earth News by Nick Davies to see just how easy it is to use the media and some of these people, including Al Gore are true experts in media manipulation and news management.

I am no scientist, but I have become curious enough over the years to investigate a little deeper into the `scientific consensus' that mankind has put the earth in such a serious environmental state that it can only be saved by drastic government actions. Of course, the truth is there is no scientific consensus and never has been. Why our political leaders have not been at least as equally as curious is a damning indictment of them - after all they are the ones committing our economies to potentially billions of pounds of expenditure to `save the planet'. As responsible public servants, they have a duty to ensure the money will be well spent and achieve the stated objective.

One of the most telling sections for me is an incident in the Australian Senate earlier this year, when a Senator wanted the answer to 3 questions before he would vote with the government on a controversial cap and trade scheme driven by a blind belief in the `global warming consensus'.

I would like some brave politicians (other than President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic who appears to the lone voice of reason)to publicly ask the same questions at Copenhagen before the farcical horse-trading gets under way about cutting emissions, carbon-trading schemes, building wind turbines etc. They need to be brave, because they will be ridiculed by the 'consensus' but that should not deter them from doing what is right, even at this late stage. Perhaps some 'brave' journalists will then pick up on the possible 'story' and actually start to do their job properly.

The questions are:
1. Is it the case that CO2 levels have increased since 1998 by 5%, while temperature has cooled? If so, how can human CO2 emissions be blamed for causing dangerous warming?
2. Is it true that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 was not unusual in the light of previous warmings in the earth's history? If so, why is human CO2 perceived to have been the cause of just this latest warming and why is warming seen to be such a problem if the planet had survived similar episodes in the past?
3. Is it the case that IPCC computer models had predicted continuous warming between 1990 and 2008, whereas in reality temperatures have shown 8 years of warming followed by 10 of cooling? If so, is it suitable that long-term climate projections by the same models should be used as the basis for public policy making?

The subsequent written answers the Senator received were totally inadequate in his view and he voted against the government. One small step, but surely, it is not too much to expect for one of our elected representatives to just ask the same questions? Then we can all begin to have an informed debate based on the science. I do know it won't happen in Copenhagen, but these (or similar) questions will be asked some day (hopefully soon) because I do sense the tide is beginning to turn against the fraudulent `global warming consensus'.

I really can not recommend this book highly enough. For any open minded individual, it is a very sobering tale, well referenced and researched, told extremely well with occasional black humour (of the 'if you don't laugh, you will cry' variety) to lighten, what is after all a very serious subject.
1313 comments| 121 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 7 June 2013
This was a fairly concentrated read - but well worth it. a lot of believeable information and it helps to balance the obsession with Global Warming (and its all our fault!) which permeates just about every newspaper and TV report. Would you believe I was doing a survey for a local library recently and one of the staff asked whether I was going to be asking any questions about how Global Warming is impacting on people attending the library !!!!! It's become an unhealthy obsession and Christopher Booker book give you "the other side of the story". Excellent.
0Comment| 15 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 29 October 2009
What an eye opening account of how political agenda has pervaded scientific thought! I can imagine this is what it must have been like in Communist Russia where all dissenters are ridiculed and persecuted (removal from senior positions and taking away of grants) for refusing to tow the party line.

It is frightening at just how powerful the pro- global warming phenom has become, and how such senior figures as Barack Obama are publicly declaring it as being a scientific fact when it is anything but.

If the sources and information provided in this book are accurate (which I'm not doubting for an instant) then the world must take a step back and reconsider their stance on what, as the author declares, may just be the most far reaching economic suicide the world has yet seen.
33 comments| 56 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 14 December 2009
I have just finished reading this book and thoroughly enjoyed it, although its message is far from enjoyable. It provides a good overview of the development of the AGW movement and highlights just how highly political it has become over the past three decades.

I would not for one minute suggest that this is the only book one should read on the subject, but for anyone with an open-mind who is willing to see that there is more than one view (the Consensus view) on what is driving climate change this book will provide some interesting viewpoints and facts.

The eco-warriors will claim that this is more conspiracy dwaddle. On the contrary, I think it provides a very credible social and political analysis of how a belief system can take on quasi-religious fervour and bias. The IPCC position was never intended to be an independent and non-bias organisation. Rather it was formed through the vision and influence of a small circle of individuals who were convinced that the relatively recent pattern of observed 'global warming' has been caused by human industrial processes, in particular the release of CO2 (carbon dioxide). The vehicle of the IPCC has evolved into a juggernaut that has travelled via Rio, Kyoto and now Copenhagen to harness the political leaders of the West (post Clinton and Bush) to embrace the theory as truth. Most recently, the Gore machine and his 'inconvenient truth' video provides the ultimate 'dumbing-down' and distortion of science to emerge in a long-time.

The current questioning of Gore by Congressional Committee, the Climategate fiasco and Copenhagen make a lot more sense after one has read this book. It will not answer all your questions on this complex subject (nor should you expect a detailed explanation of the science involved); however, if you are interested to look at how climate change and the associated demands that the UK government will be making on UK citizens as a result of last year's Climate Change Act, then this book will help put things into perspective.
0Comment| 34 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 6 December 2009
This is a well-written and entertaining polemic which lands some very effective blows on important soft targets. He is mainly attacking the "hockey stick" as piece of political propaganda rather than science and the political consensus which has developed to drive policy at the expense of rational and open debate.

But it is important to understand Christopher Booker as an entertaining extremist who likes to find people who hold extreme views, show how flawed they are and conclude that everything anyone says is therefore a lie. This is faulty logic. As an example he has also written on evolution. Dawkins uses exactly this tactic to attack naive Creationists and somehow conclude that therefore God does not exist. Booker attacks Dawkins by pointing out that evolution does not explain everything. What they have in common is that they ignore the fact that most people know this and most sensible opinion is in between. Dawkins does not represent evolution any more than Creationists represent Christianity. They are both extreme sects with limited but vocal support.

The recent exposure of the CRU emails supports many of his assertions in the book. But this is not a book which addresses the science or even acknowledges what it actually is setting out to demonstrate. I think he is producing evidence to support the idea that the science is not "settled" or "certain". He concludes from this that it is all therefore a lie and that there is no AGW. But this is not a necessary conclusion; it could just be regular science on a complex topic.

As an aside my personal view is that the insistence of the AGW lobby that the science is "certain" is counterproductive. It is a silly assertion which leaves them open to this type of attack as a small chink in the argument makes everything fall down.
55 comments| 45 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 18 October 2010
I have just finished this book and have a scientific background.

I have also just been reading a lot of the comments regarding other reviews.

I am not that clever but here is what I think of the book.

It was an entertaining read. It asked questions about the validity of data and the supposed manipulation of said data to bring about the "end of the world" scenario that the pro-Global Warming lobby seem hell bent on (please excuse the pun) presenting.
I have to say that the text reads as less than balanced (as the vehement anti-Gore/Mann/IPCC sentiment attests to) but have to admit that I am swung by the more than real questions regarding the "social" connections between the IPCC report "scientists" and the very real criticisms of the manipulation of data by independent specialists in their respective fields (e.g. Wegman). I find the suppression, if that is the real truth, of Svensmark's papers (muon seeding) because of their possible anti-concensus spin really disturbing.

I will add that this book is written by a JOURNALIST not a SCIENTIST so all those reviewers/zealots from either camp should stay away from it. It will not change your mind! I am, personally, glad it isn't written by a scientist because, having read so many papers in my time, it would be deathly dull and wouldn't get you moved either way.

BIG CRITICISM - For a journalist there had been very slack tracking of errors. Spelling and basic grammar were found lacking in most chapters. I'm guessing that Mr Booker has such feelings that his fingers were in a blur on the keyboard. No excuses - bad writing (I should know, I'm not Shakespeare) from a broadsheet newspaper should be a criminal offence.

To all readers a question:

Does it seem funny to either side of the Global Warming camp that the most vehement advocate of the "disaster" scenario, and Nobel prize winner to boot, will stand to become obscenely rich from the trading of carbon on various markets around the world? Does that not qualify as insider trading?

Can I also just point out that many politicians are crooked. The proof? The UK MP Allowances Scandal. The inability of the EU Auditors to accept the last few years accounts for the European Parliament prompting claims of fraud on an obscene scale by MEPs. The US Lobby system - lots of money with lots of vested interests to individuals. As long as people that are politically motivated are allowed to continue to dictate the direction of the science then we will NEVER get any closer to understanding even a fraction of the complexity of our environment.

Leave science to the scientists and let there be INDEPENDENT scrutiny of the evidence by genuinely independent specialists in the field.

Oh, and by the way Mr Booker, if you believed that the BBC has ever been apolitical then we haven't been watching the same channels for about 30 years!

I say buy the book. At the very least it is a page-turner!
0Comment| 18 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 16 December 2012
Well written and informative. If you have a healthy questioning mind this book will help you to see through the vested interests, scare stories and associated propaganda that passes for news coverage in the UK (and probably the rest of the western world).
There may be some factual inaccuracies ( I'm not sure Snowdon is Britain's highest peak, surely there a few Scottish mountains higher), but the general thrust of the book just reads true. I've been reading it in conjunction with Nassim Taleb's "The Black Swan" and much of what Taleb says about experts in general, can be applied to all those mentioned in CB's book who are given to making long term predictions. Pity our leaders and opinion formers don't appear to have healthy questioning minds!
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on 5 November 2009
An excellent account of the global warming fiasco, meticulously researched and documented. It should be made compulsory reading for our stupid politicians. It reads rather like a plot for a rather poor quality science fiction novel. It also sheds an unfavourable light on the way in which scientific research is well funded only if it supports whatever is the current fad. It also shows how respectable science can lose out to propaganda and nonsense. Most enjoyable.
33 comments| 25 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Need customer service? Click here

Sponsored Links

  (What is this?)