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.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

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

Ordered per your request!

Steven Hill



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

Graeme Rodaughan

Yes Neo – you are already being watched…

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

“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

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


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


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


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. 🙂

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.

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

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

Bill Illis

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.


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

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

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.


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


What’s the background of the author?


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


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

“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.


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

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

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. }:)

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

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


“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? ;*)

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.


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

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

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

Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer.

Wondering Aloud

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

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

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


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.

Bill Marsh

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

Don B

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

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_.


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

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.


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

“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.

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

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

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

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.


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.