I'm featured in this book

The title screams “Red Hot Lies” and will indeed make some “see red”.  While it initially made me a bit uncomfortable, it is fairly straightforward and compelling. Having been written about in this book with such an “inflammatory” title and style, I suppose now I’ll be branded as a “denier deluxe”.


Click image above for details on how to order a copy from Amazon at a discount price. If you order from this link above, I’ll get a small percentage from the sale.

I got my signed copy in the mail today from the author, Chris Horner. This is it on the black slate of my desk. You can find the details about my surfacestations project on page 267, along with photos. There’s a back story there as to why that is the only page with photographs. I refused to give permission for my chapter unless they used at least one of the photos I provided. At one point, there were no photos. My argument was “it’s what I do”.

Even after all that argument, I had to chuckle though, because the way Horner signed it was quite the surprise. I never really looked at myself that way, I started down this road because I was curious about paint, and then one thing led to another…and well here I am.


The book also has a good compendium of what has occurred not only on the blogosphere, but also in the government, news media, and with the individual players like Hansen and Gore in the last few years. It also has entries from sometimes moderator and regular contributor here, John Goetz as well as many other familiar names that have inspired questions.

After reading the first chapter I thought I should pass on this note to readers who practice the “dark art” of questioning the veracity of the AGW science and the IPCC: shred your trash, then douse it liberally with butyl seleno-mercaptan (C4H9SeH).

Here are the details on the book from Amazon:

Product Description

From the author of the New York Times bestselling Politically Incorrect Guide(tm) to Global Warming (and Environmentalism) comes Red Hot Lies, an exposé of the hypocrisy, deceit, and outright lies of the global warming alarmists and the compliant media that support them. Did you know that most scientists are global warming skeptics? Or that environmental alarmists have knowingly promoted false and exaggerated data on global warming? Or that in the Left’s efforts to suppress free speech (and scientific research), they have compared global warming dissent with “treason”? Shocking, frank, and illuminating, Chris Horner’s Red Hot Lies explodes as many myths as Al Gore promotes.

From the Inside Flap

Liars–Al Gore, the United Nations, the New York Times. The global warming lobby, relentless in its push for bigger government, more spending, and more regulation, will use any means necessary to scare you out of your wits–as well as your tax dollars and your liberties–with threats of rising oceans, deadly droughts, and unspeakable future consequences of “climate change.” In pursuing their anti-energy, anti-capitalist, and pro-government agenda, the global warming alarmists–and unscrupulous scientists who see this scare as their gravy train to federal grants and foundation money–resort to dirty tricks, smear campaigns, and outright lies, abandoning scientific standards, journalistic integrity, and the old-fashioned notions of free speech and open debate. In Red Hot Lies, bestselling author Christopher Horner–himself the target of Greenpeace dirty tricks and alarmist smears–exposes the dark underbelly of the environmental movement. Power-hungry politicians blacklist scientists who reject global warming alarmism. U.S. senators threaten companies that fund climate change dissenters. Mainstream media outlets openly reject the notion of “balance.” The occasional unguarded scientist candidly admits the need to twist the facts to paint an uglier picture in order to keep the faucet of government money flowing. In the name of “saving the planet,” anything goes. But why the nasty tactics? Why the cover ups, lies, and intimidation? Because Al Gore and his ilk want to use big government at the local, state, federal, and global level to run your life, and they can brook no opposition. But the actual facts, as Red Hot Lies makes clear, aren’t nearly as scary as their fiction.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 5, 2008 6:59 pm

Heroism — courage and self-sacrifice in the face of danger and adversity.
You fit the bill, Anthony. Congratulations and KUTGW.

November 5, 2008 7:00 pm

Ordered per your request!

Steven Hill
November 5, 2008 7:06 pm


November 5, 2008 7:07 pm

Congratulations, you are a hero. Only the best to you.

Graeme Rodaughan
November 5, 2008 7:09 pm

Yes Neo – you are already being watched…

November 5, 2008 7:12 pm

Anthony, “denier deluxe” a new moniker? Can we just call you Double D [DD] from now on?
REPLY: I prefer D^2, it seems less “buxom”. – Anthony

David Ball
November 5, 2008 7:23 pm

“The Debate is over” humorously enough signaled the start of the debate for most people. I have had a ringside seat for this my entire life. Glad to see there is hope for common sense in the world. “Stop climate change” has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. I have come up with one that is more realistic. “Keep Adapting !!” ;^)
REPLY: Thanks David, your dad is also in the book. Tell him I said hello. I meant to respond to your previous comment but it was “lost at sea” when I got back to it. – Anthony

Pamela Gray
November 5, 2008 7:25 pm

Just a note: There are many farmers who are Democrats. I suppose a hold over from the agrarian vs metro split early in the last century. These farmers are almost of the same mind regarding AGW. They are skeptics. They do, however, believe in climate change and plant accordingly. Yet according to this book, because they are Democrats, they are leftist. The author may be close to the truth regarding the way in which AGW has been more of a media-political movement than a scientific one, yet still writes with stereotypical strokes of the pen. He uses too broad of a paint brush to paint an intricately complicated picture of exactly who is for and who is against AGW and the policies it will give birth to. We all paint with brushes. The trick is to use smaller brushes to paint complicated pictures. Otherwise your work will be dismissed as nothing but slapping on of barn paint.
REPLY: Just wondering, have you read the whole book, or are you relying on the description above? – Anthony

November 5, 2008 7:35 pm

My ‘one click’ order is on its way.
Have you checked this out?

November 5, 2008 7:36 pm

Congrats…I’m ordering my copy now.
Remember…there is no spoon.

November 5, 2008 7:42 pm

Yes – this is intereesting as Jennifer Morahasy confirmed today that she is from a Labour (Liberal) background as has Steve McIntyre. To try to label skeptics by politics is using a pretty wide brush IMO. Hey – I’m a lefty too. 🙂

November 5, 2008 7:48 pm

It’s all about trying to keep your job as a scientist by finding some way (however obscure and ridiculous) to relate what you study to global warming.

November 5, 2008 7:50 pm

Just ordered it and I’m looking forward to it 😀

November 5, 2008 7:51 pm

Well, you SHOULD be in that book! Your work and this blog are special contributions to exposing the fraud.

Bill Illis
November 5, 2008 7:54 pm

Thanks for stepping up Anthony (probably works out to a few dozen times already actually).
If the public is not educated about the real science surrounding global warming, we will all be driving bicycles to work every day in a few years. I’m okay with a bike if warranted, but I don’t want to be forced to ride one just because of an irrational groupthink mania.

November 5, 2008 7:54 pm

Butyl Seleno Mercaptan. If I’m not mistaken, is that the smelliest substance on earth? I remember references to this material in graduate school. At least Greenpeace is doing its chemistry homework. Too bad they skipped civics.

Pamela Gray
November 5, 2008 7:57 pm

Based on his other books and the reviews written, I have come to believe he is fairly well on the conservative side of things. But you are right. I haven’t read this particular book. However, I will not retract or buffer my comment. When he riffs through the “anti’s” and conspiracy theories, he comes very close to stereotypical views of the left, which when seriously considered, don’t hold up to such consideration. I am clearly a left-leaning individual but I am also a believer in capitalism and lean government controls (EX: federal forests should be returned to state and private control, the Dept of Ed should be dismissed from school toot sweet, etc). I also don’t give much credence to conspiracy theories. I believe that it is fairly easy for large groups of people to honestly believe in and work for something that in reality holds little water. That is as true for conservatives as it is for liberals.
Maybe I am just tired of this damnable divide and the conspiracy chants. To tell you the truth, I have come to my end of patience regarding stereotypical views of “left” as well as “right”, or “pro” vs “anti” government, or “pro” vs “anti” capitalism, no matter who is holding the pen. My experience at the personal level tells me that for the most part, these differences should be celebrated and respected, and that the people who hold them are decent law abiding and patriotic citizens who seek only what they think is right for their country.
Most people give a new book a cursory look. This book seems as alarmist to me as those the author denigrates, and seems to want to pander to a certain group of people at the get go without thought at all towards broadening the appeal to a wider audience. You can, at times, judge a book by its cover. That is what is usually done. I doubt this book, with its title and flaps, will be used in serious circles to provide a balanced view of climate change when potential policies and programs are being discussed. That is sad. We need an opposing view that WILL be considered in serious discussions at the policy level.

barbee butts
November 5, 2008 8:09 pm

A man should not go through life trying to make everyone like him. If you do, you will be a very unhappy man indeed.
Your wisdom, your creativity, your talent, your skill and your ability to iinfluence others is a unique thing.
Many will envy you. They are to be avoided.
Others will worship you. They are to be avoided.
Yet another group will listen to you, challenge you and engage you in honest discourse.
You will know the difference and must deal w/ them all accordingly.

November 5, 2008 8:12 pm

Does the book mention McIntyre, the hockey stick, and the Mann shenanigans that Bishop Hill so nicely summarized?
REPLY: Yes it does. _ Anthony

November 5, 2008 8:16 pm

What’s the background of the author?

November 5, 2008 9:44 pm

Pamela Gray,
IF you really want something to bite on, try this Philosophy!

November 5, 2008 9:59 pm

Good show, Rev!
I am more interested in specific instances of “threats” and “fraud” than I am of “deception” (which regard as par for the course).

Leon Brozyna
November 5, 2008 10:11 pm

“I was curious about paint, and then one thing led to another…and well here I am.”
Just look at how a little curiosity took you in an unexpected direction, shining a light into one of NOAA’s darker corners. Rather hard to talk about a warming climate when the instruments are shown to be lacking and/or poorly sited.

November 5, 2008 10:57 pm

Mark, Christopher C. Horner is an attorney in Washington D.C. He’s also a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He got his Juris Doctorate from Washington University in St. Louis and was awarded the Judge Samuel Breckenridge Award, which is fairly prestigious. Quoting from his bio:
He has testified before the United States Senate Committees on Foreign Relations and Environment and Public Works, given numerous addresses in the European Parliament in Strasbourg and Brussels and before policymakers in numerous capitals including London, Rome, Copenhagen, Madrid, Warsaw and Prague. As a result of these efforts to educate the public, Greenpeace has repeatedly targeted Mr. Horner, by stealing his garbage on a weekly basis, issuing press releases announcing with whom he is seen in the same room and including him in various other hysterical publications including most recently “A Field Guide to Climate Criminals” distributed at the UN climate meeting in Montreal in December 2005. Also in 2005, Cristina Narbona, Spain’s Socialist Environment Minister, referred to Horner as “the devil” for demonstrating to audiences in Spain and other European Union nations how Europe is failing to meet its obligations under the Kyoto Protocol and why Europeans should abandon the doomed process.
He is, apart from everything else, a genuinely erudite fellow. He’s also extraordinarily articulate in live settings, and he’s fearless.
janama, you’re absolutely correct: Steve McIntyre did indeed disclose his extreme leftist leanings today — and more: he disclosed a shockingly heavy hand anent issues of speech and discussion, more akin to what you’d expect at realclimate. Let us just say, it’s very good that he does not venture into politics on his otherwise excellent blog, because his political-economic ideology is dangerously naive.

G Alston
November 5, 2008 11:45 pm

Pamela Gray — GW skepticism is painted as right wing for a reason, mainly because by doing so one can imply an anti-scientific slant. Right wing as portrayed on CNN is all about bibles and guns and drooling semi-literacy, anti-evolution and pickup trucks, etc. and this is an image people all over the world (international posters on blogs like these) seem to perceive despite the fact that only a minority of right wingers are anti-evolution types. It’s how the news is slanted. By saying “right wing” this is equivalent to “doesn’t get evolution” a.k.a. anti-science which is of course the litmus test for scientific literacy. Outside the US, Right Wing is a pejorative, not a political position vis a vis state powers! In terms of AGW one dismisses skeptics as being right wingers via the same mechanism as with the big science in the room — one doesn’t debate scientific truths like evolution with these people, and there’s no reason to debate AGW with them either. If they can’t handle evolution, they sure aren’t going to be able to fathom this…
Note that Gore said the debate was over. This wasn’t an accidental or coincidental phrasing. And we’ve all heard the accusations of Bush et al as being anti-science. That’s a big brush they’re wielding there.
Let’s cast aside the not so subtle psych stuff for a moment.
We also have to deal with the natural tendencies of the left/right ways of solving problems; the right tends to allow the market to solve itself and the left tends to impose state authority. Bottom up vs top down. Most AGW “solutions” I’ve heard are from those who identify themselves as “progressive” meaning state imposition of measures hence left. I can’t say I’ve heard a right wing argument to tax gas up to $10 a gallon to make it painful to drive. I have however heard this from the left/progressives.
e.g. were it up to the right wing, alternative fuels/etc would appear as the market allowed for it. Some egghead will invent something and make him/herself rich selling it, whether this is a 450 mpg engine or a cheap way to generate 100KW of power in your back yard. There’s no end of companies working on the problem for the sake of PROFITS. The left meanwhile seems to think that all that’s needed is to mandate that society will adopt renewable sources by 2025 and then we engineers wake up one day and poof it into existence. (As if we could have done this last year, of course, but nobody had bothered to make it a requirement… )
Oh, wait, I know, we’ll make a manhattan project thingie out of it and a couple of thousand smart people will solve the problem for the sake of the science! Right, so this is going to work when a few thousand earnest types are already killing themselves trying to solve the same problem for the biggest motivator of them all — money. (Does this scenario sound like something from the Idiocracy movie or what?)
So from my vantage point, it’s not a surprise that the right wingers will be the ones who are, on average, more skeptical.

EW Matthews
November 6, 2008 2:44 am

I’m going to order it from my local book store. They’re a bunch of Warmers I just love the look on their faces when I order and pick up the books. If I ever see one of the books I bought from them on their selves I know a tipping point has been reached. }:)

November 6, 2008 3:33 am

Will order through my local friendly bookshop who so far have accepted the AGW line… I am a natural Greenie and am delighted to meet people here I wouldn’t otherwise have known any better than Punch and Judy, and to learn the dark side of the greens.
Joke time. Red hot liar, yellow liar, red liar, yellow liar… Now back to science.

Mark N
November 6, 2008 4:44 am

Thanks, I’m ordering it now.
I am a British Lefty and a staunch atheist!

November 6, 2008 4:57 am

“Most people give a new book a cursory look. This book seems as alarmist to me as those the author denigrates, …”
What if the truth IS alarming? ;*)

November 6, 2008 5:55 am

because I was curious about paint, and then one thing led to another…and well here I am

I think the fact that curiosity prods people and hooks them has been surprising some of those who consider themselves to be in the “less excitable” parts of the blogosphere.
Accessibility of blogs shows that there are plenty of curious people, and plenty of others interested in what those people discover.

November 6, 2008 6:42 am

only to add
Many of our leaders are now lawyers the have never created anything in the physical world. Many of them have never had a job involved with building things or working with natural resources or agriculture. They believe in the poof theory, poof it is there and I should regulate it. Or poof I mandate that it should exist.

Dan McCune
November 6, 2008 7:11 am

I just ordered “Red Hot Lies” and anyone else who does may consider adding the title below (only $13.57) to qualify for free shipping (a $5 savings). I have not read it yet but I have read most of the “Politically Incorrect” series of books and find them enlightening and sometimes quite humorus. I guess you could call me a Neocon Denier on most politically correct issues.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)

Edward Morgan
November 6, 2008 7:55 am

Your braver than me Anthony. Big money doesn’t like interference. I admire your courage it is truly great and I am very grateful for your fresh, honest and buzzing site its a real victory for humanity. Thank-you. Ed.

Pamela Gray
November 6, 2008 8:03 am

Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer.

Wondering Aloud
November 6, 2008 8:11 am

Perhaps a bit personal, but to Pamela Grey, I think if you express your views as you did in your first paragragh above in a meeting of people on “left” you will find out that they do not consider you left leaning.
As a moderate democrat and a person who was, at that time, a Democratic party “official” I was made to feel very out of place for views that were a lot more left leaning than those you just expressed. Stereotypes may be bad and then again they may also be useful.
I don’t know if I will get around to reading this book in the near future but, Anthony, this Blog is my favorite reading material on the web.

Pamela Gray
November 6, 2008 8:12 am

Just to be clear, I know of lawyers who are also farmers, business owners, teachers, employers, and stay-at-home moms. I have two cousins who are trying to make their way in the the legal world (and getting an out of law class education the hard way) who were raised in a rural community and know rural values. Stereotypical statements says more about the source then the subject. Pray tell, what is the friggin difference between a broad brush statement filled with stereotypical remarks made on either side of a debate? By making such statements, even sincerely and no matter which side you are on, you might as well stand together and off to the side, because real debate is not informed by it.

Gary Gulrud
November 6, 2008 8:20 am

We are indeed obliged to you for the details-on both of your subjects.

November 6, 2008 8:56 am

Pamela G – Although this cannot be applied to all lawyers, too many learn law, become elected officials who write laws they know how to circumvent, or as government executives have inside knowledge to circumvent laws they are supposed to enforce, or as judges make legal decisions to circumvent law. I am a skeptic on the right.

November 6, 2008 9:00 am

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong”

Don B
November 6, 2008 9:36 am

Pamela Grey ( 19:57 )
“toot sweet”? How suite! Let’s see, a left-leaning capitalist anti-AGW Norteastern Oregonian rancher/farmer who either speaks French or likes Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Another stereotype.

G Alston
November 6, 2008 10:28 am

Just to be clear there are two stereotypes that are common. One is deserved and proper (i.e. right wing tendency to let the market do the work) and the other is not (i.e. right wingers are anti-science due to the preponderance of anti-evolution types that are ID’d as “typical right wing” by the media.)
The AGW crowd purposefully conflates the two such that one persistent and overall image is that the right wing is generally too stupid to understand science or too dishonest (in the pockets of “big oil” or “big coal.”) Neither of these could be viewed as flattering. It is also unfortunate. I see this conflation as a deliberate tactic. Surely if I can easily distinguish these things, so can they.
As such it appears that there also are two primary types of valid skepticism coming from the right. One is purely a scientific issue based on curiosity. The other is political in nature, a skeptical distrust of the intentions of the political opponent (the left) to impose laws intended to extert political will or gain political capital. And of course there is necessary admixture; e.g. I don’t buy that the science is settled therefore I also don’t buy the idea that something must be done right-now-or-else. And if I did buy into the science argument my tendency would be to think that financial motivations would be the proper solution, even extending to X-Prize territory (e.g. McCain wanting to offer a $100M prize for a new battery technology.)
There’s also a lot of real estate sitting between claiming that a problem exists and deciding what, if anything, ought to be done about it. Skepticism covers that territory. Skeptics are all over the map, and for good reason — that’s a lot of territory. We skeptics don’t even always agree on the bit we’re skeptical _about_.

November 6, 2008 10:29 am

If AGW is indeed caused by man then either we 1) ignore it (because we know earth has been much warmer and at the same time more fecund over most of its history), 2) adapt to it, or 3) try to stop it. If we try to stop it we might do that by a) private incentives, b) technical palliatives, or c) government controlling its citizens to prevent or suppress the behavior that causes the warming. I find it peculiar that those most animated by the problem, that is the alarmists, consider no solution other than 3c. I also find it peculiar that they make little effort to determine whether (successful) behavior control will effectively control warming (actually, indications are that it won’t, but those findings are ignored). Therefore I do not find it the least bit peculiar that the alarmists tend to be statists or collectivists, i.e. they lean to the extreme left and tend to be control freaks. That leaves everyone else to contemplate 1 through 3a&b, and be insulted for doing so.

Ed Scott
November 6, 2008 10:35 am

Pamela Gray (19:25:14) :
“Just a note: There are many farmers who are Democrats.”
There are many Democrats who are conservative. There are many Republicans who are liberal (in the contemporary sense).
The origin of the AGW hoax was in the UN and was politico-economic in nature.
“The author may be close to the truth regarding the way in which AGW has been more of a media-political movement than a scientific one. yet still writes with stereotypical strokes of the pen…”
How close to the truth do you want to get? Only “deniers” use stereotypes and “alarmists” do not?
Dr. Tim Ball, attributes the initiation of this hoax to Maurice Strong and the UN’s IPCC: Science creates theories based on assumptions that are then tested by other scientists performing as skeptics. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction to this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it. Maurice Strong and his UN committees’ objectives, especially the IPCC made sure the focus was on human caused change and CO2 as the particular culprit. They’d already biased the research by using a very narrow definition of climate change in article 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a treaty produced at that infamous “Earth Summit” in Rio in 1992. Climate Change was defined as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over considerable time periods. This makes the human impact the primary purpose of the research. The problem is you cannot determine that unless you know the amount and cause of natural climate change.
Previously we touched on the political climate engendered by environmentalism and its exploitation by those who want a new world order and believe this is achieved by shutting down the industrialized nations. Chief among these is Maurice Strong who said in 1990 “What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?” He told Maclean’s magazine in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” Presumably this explains the duplicity in making a great deal of money as an industrialist. He also warned that, “…if we don’t heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.” Unfortunately, the world listened and the chaos is being caused by policies that evolved from his actions.

November 6, 2008 11:44 am

Pamela Gray,
Unfortunately, we all have to accept responsibility for the leadership of our respective sides. You may not fit those stereotypes. The majority of the electorate probably doesn’t fit either stereotype. But, we are the ones who chose the Washington leadership. We chose Al Gore. We chose Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc. Tell me, how closely do their values fit with your own, as stated above? As long as you hold those types of people up as your “representatives” you will be painted with the same brush. I happen to be an Ecologist with conservative leanings. I can’t have a conversation with a colleague who doesn’t assume that my educational background predisposes me to agree with left-leaning political views. I confess to a certain pleasure in disabusing them of their stereotypes. 🙂

Gary Gulrud
November 6, 2008 12:41 pm

“Stereotypical statements says more about the source [than] the subject.”
Aye, avoiding stereotypes, there’s a rub.
And then, if we could avoid plugging individuals into our appropriately ‘PC’ pigeon-holes, why, it’d be a perfect world!

Mike M.
November 6, 2008 2:40 pm

I must ask “Tamara”, are you she of Craig James’ blog days here in Michigan? I hope so, as I miss your wonderfully well constructed comments.

Wondering Aloud
November 6, 2008 2:57 pm

Sorry, I didn’t mean to bash Pamela, I am not sure we are talking about the same things here though. I understand that issues like AGW can cut across a lot of boundaries, I wasn’t arguing that.
Political orthodoxy within the democratic party itself is, in my extensive experience, very rigid. You may vote democrat and hold the beliefs you mentioned. They are however not represented in the platform, or issues or decisions made by the party. The party is very top down organized and rigid on platform, in my experience questions of what position is most in line with the scientific evidence, or what position is best for the country are not only not central they are not even considered.
I don’t know that other parties are better, I doubt it is much different. Perhaps people who are in positions of leadership within the party get to the point where they are so focused on winning that the question “what will get them to vote for us?” takes over instead of “What would be best for this country?”

Harold K McCard
November 6, 2008 3:05 pm

Pamela Gray (19:25:14) :
“Just a note: There are many farmers who are Democrats. I suppose a hold over from the agrarian vs metro split early in the last century.”
Many of us are weary from having seen so many Red – Blue state-by-state maps during this election cycle. Here’s a rather intersting Red – Blue county-by-county map that displays the distribution of the popular vote results from Tueday:
The rural vs urban distribution of the popular vote is quite apparent, except in New England, and affords a different perspective than a state-by state map of the popular vote.
I admit that I was both sad and glad when I observed that the only Red county remaining in ME is the one where I grew up on a farm ” a long time ago.”

Larry Scalf
November 6, 2008 3:19 pm

Thanks, Anthony, for the review. I pre-ordered Chris’s book and have just started reading it. You and he deserve a lot of credit for exposing the lies and the humbug that has been spread about AGW.
Pamela Gray, if you would spend more time reading Chris’s book than prattling on about political stereotypes and lawyers (I am a lawyer myself), you might learn something about the subject of AGW. Read the book, then your criticism may be more authoritative. By the way, I love lawyers to death, but the ones who are involved in the alarmist nonsense I have little use for.

November 6, 2008 3:34 pm

W.A.: As a moderate democrat and a person who was, at that time, a Democratic party “official” I was made to feel very out of place for views that were a lot more left leaning than those you just expressed.
. . .
Political orthodoxy within the democratic party itself is, in my extensive experience, very rigid. You may vote democrat and hold the beliefs you mentioned. They are however not represented in the platform, or issues or decisions made by the party. The party is very top down organized and rigid on platform, in my experience questions of what position is most in line with the scientific evidence, or what position is best for the country are not only not central they are not even considered.
I am afraid, Pamela, that nobody goosesteps more than a “nonconformist” (including Dress Code), no one is less tolerant than a (neo)liberal, and hell hath no fury like a pacifist.
Doubt in AGW trumps all. Considering this heresy, if you look to your left for support, you will not find even a blank file, you will find the hostile end of flails and pitchforks.
I get polite, if somewhat distant, disagreement, yet some encouragement from those to the right of me. They will generally triangulate on the issues on which we agree. But those who would agree with me on almost other every issue than AGW (or tax policy) are abusive, denigrating, and insulting. And not even content with that, they wish to shut me up.
Those to the right of me accept much of the positive things I have to say about Clinton. But as for uttering the slightest kind word concerning Bush within hearing of a democrat? Oh, brother!
Wond’ring Aloud has it right.
We are alone. We are no-men in a no-man’s land.

Ellie In Belfast
November 6, 2008 4:33 pm

Pamela Gray (19:57:12) :
“I doubt this book, with its title and flaps, will be used in serious circles to provide a balanced view of climate change when potential policies and programs are being discussed.”
That’s just it, getting the real science out is difficult.
Most folks, who just accept what they hear in the media, are interested in the alternate view but don’t care enough to chase it up, to understand the science behind the skepticism. So after a while the white wash of the AGW viewpoint washes over them again, perhaps with some debunking of ‘skeptic myths’. Doubts that crept in are probably smothered.
Those who care more are wary of the skeptical viewpoint. They usually know some of the counter-arguments, and even if polite enough to debate the issues, they are easily made to ‘see red’. It is hard to get the balance right. A drip feed (regular, moderate, good science) approach eventually works, but at the risk of becoming a ‘climate bore’. I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction to reading an extreme version of my own viewpoint being rammed down my throat. I should read this book though before being accused of passing judgement..

George E. Smith
November 6, 2008 4:51 pm

Well I think I can beat your Butyl Seleno Mercaptan; if it takes parts per million to smell. You have to remember that Nitrogen Trifluoride, the latest Devil gas in the GHG lexicon, is present in the atmosphere at exactly 0.454 parts per trillion, and I can assure you you can’t smell it. In fact air that is polluted with Nitrogen Trifluoride, is 200,000 times more pure that the high purity (seven nines) Arsenic and Gallium that are common in the LED industry. Arsenic incidently smells like Garlic, so the farmer who contracted to farm the open ground around the HP plant where I started working in 1988, was allowed to grow any sort of row crops that he wanted to (that were legal) but never Garlic; it could be an Arsine leak in the plant.
But my candidate for the worst smelling muck in the periodic table or chemistry book, is Di-Ethyl Telluride, which is used in ppm dilutions in Hydrogen carrier gas to dope Gallium Arsenide and other LED semiconductor crystals.
It is actually a sweetish smell that will have you retching in seconds after detection; any amount you can smell a all will have you glowing green from ear to ear.
It gives rise to the expression; Tellurium Breath, which apparently plagued mine workers digging the stuff out of the Ground.
So if you do go to Telluride for some art or music or film festival stay the hell out of any of the old mines; it ain’t pleasant, and I believe I got zapped about three times in the 1970s.
But congrats on the book mention there Anthony; any time one can be mentioned in dispatches; on either side of the ledger is a good thing; there’s no such thing as bad publicity, when you need to expand your audience.
Good show there Mate!

George E. Smith
November 6, 2008 5:20 pm

“”Many of us are weary from having seen so many Red – Blue state-by-state maps during this election cycle. Here’s a rather intersting Red – Blue county-by-county map that displays the distribution of the popular vote results from Tueday:
The rural vs urban distribution of the popular vote is quite apparent, except in New England, and affords a different perspective than a state-by state map of the popular vote. Doesn’t look even remotely like the County by County Map I saw yesterday; but that wassn’t in the Boston Globe.
California is a whole lot more red, than shown in that map of yours. And just how do you judge rural from urban on that map; do you have all the cities memorized as to where they are in what county.
Really funny thing in California, was that the big Obama get out the vote in California worked a whole lot better than expected, since conservatives simply didn’t bother going to the polls; with essentially no Candidates in play anywhere in the State. But the big black and Latino turnout for Obama (how plain racist can you get) also happened to turn out millions of blacks and Latinos, who are traditional family folks, and who are simply getting tired of telling California Government the obvious; that it takes one man and one women to form a marriage; presumably no closer related than first cousins; and if you want to get married but also practice a gay or Lesbian lifestyle or hermaphrodite or whatever; so long as that’s ok with your spouse, you can.
But Pamela, you mystify me; how does one become left leaning while still believing in self reliance, and limited government; or is your idea of limited gvernment mean limited to control by left leaning liberals, since presumably conservatives; whoever they are, do not consider themsleves to be left leaning.
It is strange, that 85% of Silicon Valley contributions to Presidential Candidates, evidently went to Obama Supporters; but todays’ new Si-valley turks are the flower children of the 60s; who made a few bucks in the dot com boom-bust, and are now seeking taxpayer public trough running water to fund the next boom bust cycle which is solar Voltaic energy. Like every latest craze, they will have their hand out for subsidy money for their research, and then subsidised sales to would be customers (who would be would be not customers, sans subsidies); and then when they are all making taxpayer subsidized solar cells by the hectare, will discover that it is taking more fossil fuel energy to make them, than they recover from the sun (to the grid), during their mean time to failure. about then will come the bust when the subsidies get turned off as happens with all boondoggles.
Solar energy is renewable; just not sustainable; and bio solar is worse by far that PhotoVoltaic solar in energy conversion efficiency.
Well nobody ever said si valley wasn’t just as full of snake oil scoundrels as any other environment.

November 6, 2008 5:44 pm

It doesn’t matter. He either speaks the truth or not.

Pamela Gray
November 6, 2008 7:48 pm

Dear George, thank you. Mystifying someone means they see me for what I am instead of through pre-conceived ideas based on what my voter registration card says and the government job I hold.
Nonetheless, I will try to clear it up a bit. I am a Democratic Libertarian who believes in the spirit of our Republic charter minus the gender bias (which is not rule based on majority but rule based on individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). I am closer to the liberal views of the current Democratic party planks than the conservative quasi-religious views of the current Republican party planks. That is why I remain a Democrat. The Republican party seeks too often to restrict personal liberty based on a rather arbitrary definition of who is inside and who is outside their definition of who gets rights (or equal opportunity to pursue the above) and who do not.
Living in rural NE Oregon, many of us have rather fuzzy lines of demarcation about what we believe is good government and bad government. I know of deeply conservative folks who couldn’t care less whether or not gays or lesbians decide to marry. Those are private matters and we don’t busy our nose into other people’s business. I also know of deeply conservative folks who believe that abortion should be available and legal. On the other side, I know of Democrats who are very religious in that they are religiously compelled to love, and seek peace and justice for all, but that are against all abortion, and marriage other than between a man and a woman. I guess being mystified by these rural political incongruencies are not uncommon.
Had I been around during Lincoln’s time, I would have been a Republican.

November 7, 2008 1:41 am

I knew that. #B^1
(But then, it takes one to know one.)
The only significant difference is that I think GOP represents those liberal views far, far better than the current Democratic party.

Perry Debell
November 7, 2008 2:27 am

Move along folks, nothing to see here!
What just happened here. I go to sleep in England and I wake up to find everyone spilling out their deepest political thoughts. There are too many skeletons rattling here and I suggest they are thrust back into their cupboards forthwith, the doors locked shut and the keys swallowed.
Good grief, you are all chattering like teenagers who think it’s cool to expose their unwashed, fake Calvin Klein skeggies whilst walking about, looking as if “dire rear” is the latest fragrance. Have you chaps no shame?
As for that naughty Pamela! Oh la la!
We need Smilies, so that my humour is not misjudged as a caustic diatribe.

November 7, 2008 2:55 am

Had I been around in Lincoln’s time, I would have invented the Libertarian party. 😉
With the collapse of the Whig party, they all became Republicans. Lincoln destroyed the Compact between the States, created ‘Executive Orders’ and in an attempt to save the Union, let what it stood for die on the battlefield. Federalism, as we know it, can be said to have been born under Lincoln.
Granted, the compact was deeply flawed from Day One and the Founder’s knew it at the time, but as the Articles of the Confederation weren’t working, accepting the Compromise on Slavery was at the time the only way to save these States united.
Every 70 or so years, the POTUS dramatically alters the nature of the compact. Lincoln in 1860s was the first. FDR in 1930s was the second and in 2000s, will history blame the great change on Bush or Obama? A few years ago, I first thought it might be Bush with the PATRIOT act, but I am not so sure anymore.
We live in interesting times, yes indeed.

November 7, 2008 3:09 am

G Alston
While it might be easy to see from your point of view that right-wingers are more skeptical, from a left-wing perspective they’d rather you were more skeptical about such things as faked evidence of WMD’s. If you bother to look for things that spoil your utopian, free-market, bottom-up version of the world then you can find them quite easily.
The World bank and the IMF tried to enforce the Washington consensus in country after country and they finally had to admit that it failed miserably in every one, especially their flagship country of Argentina. They even admitted in official reports that the latin economies had been growing a lot faster before the World bank’s free-market meddling. Their method of imposing free-markets was ironically a statist set of rules that governments had to comply with to the letter otherwise they’d lose cash. Of course by it’s very inflexibility it failed in exactly the same way as Stalin’s five year plans failed; by ignoring human nature and ignoring critical feedback. When things go wrong all the idealogues just keep chanting “it’s because the medicine isn’t strong enough” or “they’re not doing what we tell them”. This trust-the-theory and damn-the-data approach is of course exactly what Milton Friedman had preached.
The sad truth is that when you have a system of no controls then criminals both from the bottom-up, ie mafias, and top-down, ie monopolistic Enron-types, tend to take control. So capitalism, like it or not, needs to be regulated. And the USA and Europe merely imposes an ideological non-statist system on other nations via the World bank and the IMF despite not having ever tried it themselves.
Indeed America didn’t become dominant through a lack of regulation. That’s a huge myth. America has always been highly regulated. California and New York are indeed the most highly regulated and yet are usually the most successful. It’s greatest prosperity even actually came about under very rigid state control by FDR. And this was shortly after a relaxation of the regulation of credit had caused the depression. It’s not that simple of course but then nothing is ever as simple as people would like to believe. Mostly we only know what works by seeing what worked and it’s very often not what the theory predicted. While things are going well the incumbent party says “it’s due to our policies” while the opposition says “it’s due to the legacy we left you”. And then when things turn sour the incumbent says “it wasn’t us, it was the previous administration’s stupid policies” while the opposition says “you ruined our legacy”.
On your other idea that all good things have come from innovative right-wing ideology – well I’m afraid not. Most innovation springs from state-funded, left-wing dominated academia. It is fair to state that right-wing dominated businessmen then see those ideas and fund them but the academics have to bring the ideas to the attention of the businessmen in the first place. Hence, whether you like it or not, we all need each other.
There is a reason that the adversarial system dominates democracy and that is because while both sides are sometimes right – they are also often very wrong and when that happens we hope that the other side acts as a check and balance to such flawed ideology. The idea of preventing domination by ideologues was in fact the intention of the founding fathers of USA when they set up the separation-of-power system. It might be annoying to some but they were right.

Pamela Gray
November 7, 2008 7:44 am

The primary reason why I am not a member of the Libertarian party is that when someone else’s rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is impinged upon by another group, the Libertarian (or at least I think that is the way it goes) says “live and let live”, or this: “The persons affected should be the ones to protest, not me.” I am very ready and willing to fight for my neighbor’s right to, for example, marry whomever he/she wishes, simply because that is a governmental right given to some but apparently not to others. I think that is wrong and decidedly against the fundamental spirit of the Constitution that knits our Union together. Our form of federal government is Republic, not Democratic. And if states want to belong to that Union under that constitution, I don’t think they should be allowed to add discriminatory pieces to their own constitution. That is why I would have been a Republican in Lincoln’s time. If you take rights away from one group, or even one individual, who will be next?

Gary Gulrud
November 7, 2008 7:59 am

“they’d rather you were more skeptical about such things as faked evidence of WMD’s”
On Jan. 24 2003 the Israelis reported that Russian engineers were transporting chemical weapons to Syria. Within a year Jordan arrested in or near Amman idigenous terrorists with 20 tons of chemical weaponry.
Early on following Iraqi surrender, 500 55gal. drums of cyclosarin were found buried near an military airbase. This was labeled insecticide by the ‘media’.
To date the left still disparages the plastic turkey Bush was photographed with at Thanksgiving in Iraq.
Our problem is on the left, with its truculent media and government apparatchiks. Lie long enough and loud enough and eventually the fools either believe you or back down.

Pamela Gray
November 7, 2008 8:02 am

I hate “is” and “are”. Such a nitpicky grammar rule when I am typing fast.

November 7, 2008 8:17 am

i hate to tell you this but the prosperity that came after FDR was due mostly to world war 2 not government imposed regulations

November 7, 2008 9:18 am

Mike M. (14:40:05) :
Yes, I’ve found this spot to occasionally roost. It’s nice to hear from another of the “old crowd.” Keep fighting the good fight. 🙂

November 7, 2008 10:10 am

On a related topic
Maybe an argument for the use of strategic nuclear devices?

Tim Clark
November 7, 2008 10:35 am

JamesG (03:09:32) :
There is a reason that the adversarial system dominates democracy and that is because while both sides are sometimes right – they are also often very wrong and when that happens we hope that the other side acts as a check and balance to such flawed ideology.
With the current legislative domination, I sit in gloomy despondency earnestly hoping “we the people” will, without delay, be capable of “checking and balancing” the “flawed ideology” of income redistribution and cap and trade.
Pamela, even agricultural producers will be subject to fees.
To wit: http://www.nacdnet.org
NACD’s policy on climate change, adopted at the July 2008 Board Meeting, is fully consistent with the statement adopted at the consultation. Conservation districts could potentially be involved in a “carbon credit” system in a variety of ways. One aspect could be to act as an “aggregator,” where credits from individual farmers are collected and brokered. Aggregators typically receive a fee or commission for their work. Another opportunity is for districts would be [sic] to act as “verifiers,” to verify that the proper conservation practices were applied.
“Verify” should be a very scary word to a government employee. Will I be required to join the civilian army and carry a weapon to improve verification.

November 7, 2008 11:31 am

i hate to tell you this but the prosperity that came after FDR was due mostly to world war 2 not government imposed regulations
I hate to break it to ya, but it’s worse even than that. Life during WWII was as sparse as during the depression. Unemployment was taken care of, but since the GNP was being poured into the military, actual standard of living was terrible. In the ’30s you couldn’t afford it. During WWII, you couldn’t find it. And if you could it was either rationed or illegal.
Morale, however was great! It’s one thing to be deprived. It’s quite another to sacrifice heroically for the genuine good of all (but consume as few calories as when “deprived”). A depression is so, well, depressing. But a World War it to die for.
And, of course, when the war ended, there was a terrific recession and we were dropped back to 1940 standard of living anyway. It wasn’t until after 1947 that we started genuinely to recover from the great depression. The GI Bill was a big leg up, which goes to show that not ALL big gummint is necessarily a Bad thing. If Ike had gotten the taxes down below a 90% marginal rate, he might have been as successful as Kennedy or Reagan. Alas . . .

November 7, 2008 11:47 am

It appears that the only kind of liberty and rights you care about involve gay marriage.
Some people care about the rights of a child to life. Some care about the rights of an individual in his property or its use. Some people care about the choices parents have in educating their children. Some people care about the millions of Third World poor who die because they have no right to spray for malaria control. Some people object to the persecution of the Boy Scouts. Some people worry about those on the bottom of the economic ladder who are cut off when the minimum wage is raised and they can’t find a first job. Some people are concerned that colleges all across the country have stifling “speech codes” which enforce rigid ideological adherence. All of these people find a home in the Republican Party. Because the enemy of all the rights involved in those concerns reside in the Democratic Party.
And whoever it was above who said that America’s greatest prosperity came under FDR’s very rigid state control desperately needs a history lesson. FDR extended the depression for many years with his policies.

Gary Gulrud
November 7, 2008 11:51 am

Confirming Clark and Jones:
Lend-Lease got the engine started but things remained bleak during the war. Paper says depression lasted more than 15 years and anti-competitive regulation prolonged it 7 years.
Someone try to find the repealed/rolled back regulation of Financial Markets leading to the bailout. More lies.

Ed Scott
November 7, 2008 12:53 pm

stan (11:47:16) :
You omitted the most devastating act of the FDR regime, that of planting the seed for a welfare state.
The industry created by the war effort elevated the US economy from the Great Depression.

November 10, 2008 7:03 pm

Hey, Red Hot Lies is on Hannity! Grab yer channel switcher and tune in to Hate Cable, quick-like!

%d bloggers like this: