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.
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.
Thanks, I’m ordering it now.
I am a British Lefty and a staunch atheist!
Pamela:
“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? ;*)
Jim
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.
G.Alston
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.
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)
http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Global-Warming-Environmentalism/dp/1596985011/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225979961&sr=1-1
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.
Abraham Lincoln was a lawyer.
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.
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.
Rah:
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.
“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong”
Voltaire.
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.
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.
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. 🙂
“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!
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.
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?”
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:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/06/popular_vote_pop/
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.”
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.