 | Summaries and Customer Reviews are supplied by Amazon.com | Booker focuses his attention on the mother of all environmental scares: global warming. This original book considers one of the most extraordinary scientific and political stories of our time: how in the 1980s a handful of scientists came to believe that mankind faced catastrophe from runaway global warming, and how today this has persuaded politicians to land us with what promises to be the biggest bill in history. Christopher Booker interweaves the science of global warming with that of its growing political consequences, showing how just when the politicians are threatening to change our Western way of life beyond recognition, the scientific evidence behind the global warming theory is being challenged like never before. The book exposes the myth that the global warming theory is supported by a 'consensus of the world's top climate scientists'. It shows how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is run by a small group of 'global warming' zealots, who have repeatedly rigged evidence to support their theory. But the politicians, pushed by the media, have so fallen for its propaganda that, short of dramatic change, our Western world now faces an unprecedented disaster. |
Average Customer Rating:   Long, But Good Read - Worth It This book is a long read, but well worth it. It is very well written and very readable. It is meticulously researched. Christopher Booker is not a scientist, and makes no claims of such. Rather he is a last surviving example of a nearly extinct species in today's media world: he is an INVESTIGATIVE journalist. He digs very deep - well beyond the superficial, sensationalist hype that masquerades as "news" in much of today's shallow media. He takes no one's word for anything - pro or con. He takes the news of the day then researches it - where did it come from? Who said it, and what is their authority? What and where is their evidence? Is the evidence compelling? Who disagrees with them, and WHY? Based on WHAT? Can they demonstrate in a practical way why their viewpoint and evidence should be considered credible? What motivations might these various players have for their viewpoint - pro or con? He also recognizes the difference between science and politics. Consensus is an appropriate tool in the political arena. It has no credible place in science. Credible science depends on the discovery of what actually is and is not in the world and universe. And it must be backed up by a rigorous process of verification that allows one scientist to take the inarguable facts and analyze them with the known and proven scientific methods and arrive at substantially the same conclusion of the first scientist who makes the original claim of discovery.
Credible scientists are doubters. Unless they can prove a hypothesis to themselves, they remain in doubt until such time as they can prove the hypothesis - even when said hypothesis is their own. In fact as I learned in my days as an engineer analyzing manufacturing and quality problems with statistical analysis, you must use the techniques of experimental design. Your first step is to develop a likely hypothesis based on your observations and all facts known to you at the time. The second step is to design an experiment. And you do not design the experiment to prove your hypothesis, but rather to DISPROVE your hypothesis. After you have made exhaustive attempts to disprove your hypothesis with everything you know and every thing you can learn from working with others who are also investigating the problem and you still fail to disprove your hypothesis, you then accept it with a defined degree of confidence (expressed as a percentage) based on your experimental design and the amount of data you have analyzed.
Mr. Booker uses a similar mindset in his investigation of the science behind the global warming hoopla. The inescapable conclusion is that for every ounce of science there seems to have been a pound of sensationalism, theatrics and drama since the original theories of anthropogenic global warming emerged in the early 1980's. And this has lead many perhaps well meaning but completely technically illiterate people to propose some of the most outrageous, even comical yet highly destructive "solutions" to the perceived problem imaginable. In some cases these solutions have been akin to chopping one's arm off to prevent possible infection from a sliver in the pinkie finger. Additionally, as is always the case in such far reaching situations, there have been the swarms of parasitic opportunists swimming like hungry sharks around the masses of disinformation, confusion and ignorance looking for opportunities to "cash in" on what appears to be the most sensational scare in all of mankind's history. The result has been billions of dollars spent to discover that the fox in the hen house was only the neighbor's Chihuahua or less.
The book also is a serious slap in the face to the so called "news media" that has had access to the same information that Booker had, and they have had that access all along had they bothered to make even a modicum of effort to look. But they apparently did not want to do their job. Maybe they instead saw a better opportunity for themselves in fanning the flames of ignorant hysteria, fear and superstition. In the end, the "news media" should be the biggest loser of all in this despicable chapter of human history. They have well earned it, and are still working hard at earning it. (That is, if you can consider taking dictation from the shady operatives and opportunists as hard work.)
Offers valuable food for debate and thought for any science or political history library The Real Global Warming Disaster offers a blend of scientific, political and social history in telling how in the 1980s a group of scientists came to believe that mankind faced catastrophe from runaway global warming. This story of the science of global warming weaves this with political decision-making processes and an analysis of scientific evidence behind the theory that CO2 is causing a world-threatening rise in temperatures - a theory being challenged. It exposes the myth that global warming theory is supported by a 'consensus of the world' top climate scientists' - and offers valuable food for debate and thought for any science or political history library. BOOKER ON TRACK, I found this information highly enlightening it got me angry that Global warming was used to enhance the wealth of a few so called scientist.
The millions that made so many rich as Al Gore was troubling.
These lies did more harm to so many American youth concerning their trust in our system. It explained the fallacy of the warming in a way that helped all reading it, that we better check things more closely. Well done for a science writer This, as opposed to an actual scientist. Christopher Booker makes the argument (generally) that the earth is probably not warming so much from greenhouse gases, as from solar activity variations and ocean current changes. Further, current pushes to spend heavily on greenhouse gas cures for global warming will rather shift the balance of power and money away from the U.S. In fact, he argues that the whole process being forced by supporters of the IPCC will simply mail us the hugest bill for any project in history. His "conclusion" chapter lists the four reasons why global warming will likely end up the most expensive scare in history (p. 338). To his credit, the author details the myth that the global warming theory today is "settled science," and that "all scientists" support the IPCC findings, as claimed by Mr. Al Gore. The IPCC was shown to have been started and kept active by only a few famous scientists (and several non-scientists).
Importantly, Booker lists a dozen fields of science which will have to be heavily involved with analysis and remedy for global warming; simply listening to single-science advocates, especially from marginal science fields, will lead us to dangerously incomplete conclusions. He also spends considerable time demonstrating why the popular "hockey stick" graph turned out to be at best, just incorrect. At worst, and more appalling than the very bad statistical methodology used to create the conclusion, was the sloppy way the IPCC dealt with the whole affair, from acceptance to lack of critique (p.104)
Booker interlaces the science with the politics, a method that makes for interesting reading, if not causing occasional flipping pages back and forth the check former details and claims. The book's editor should take 10 lashes for not catching some publishing errors (10 were discovered by this reviewer!), but these are easily passed over, as they are mostly not substantial ones. The smart reader will catch the few more substantial ones. No science writer can be fully up-to-date with all sciences, and Booker may need to do more research on biofuels, as he discounts the energy value of this source because of crowding out food crops (p. 221). He makes no mention of using methanol, which would not have to use edible crops, and can exist in huge quantities on non-farm lands. Anyway, get this book to get one of the best, and most easily readable, critiques of global warming hyperbole.
fantastic Presents this complex issue in a historical context. The climate change discussion has gone so far off base that you can only understand it from the viewpoint of evolution. |  |
Select button not working? 
