Let's see, should we believe the 95% of climate scientists and the IPCC reports on global warming? Or should we believe a man who works for the "Competitive Enterprise Institute", a conservative think tank funded by oil companies like Amoco and Texaco?

Wake up people--global warming naysayers paid by oil companies are hardly credible sources of information.

If thousands of astronomers from around the world said that an asteroid would hit Earth in 30 years, would you believe them? Or would you believe a handful of pseudo-astronomers (paid for by special interests) who claim otherwise?

This is a shrill and near-libelous diatribe against greens, environmentalists, the media in general, and Al Gore in particular.
Its only redeeming feature is the last two chapters that actually give some reasoned information about why the Kyoto Protocol might be counterproductive.

If you can get that far without going postal, I salute you. These two chapters are the only reason I give this book two stars instead of one.

Charles Madden

Finest book published on the subject and a must read for anyone voteing this November!!!!!!

Christopher C. Horner begins his polemical "The PIG to Global Warming" by letting the screeching cat out of the bag: "Green is the new Red." The full cast of environmentalists, UN leaders, heads of industry, think tanks, and a certain American past presidential candidate-cum-pantheist guru are now today performing what the Soviet Comintern failed to accomplish back in the 20th century. Looking at how Al Gore currently strengthens his spiritual `oneness' with Creation (his annual electricity use in Nashville rose 10% in 2008, source: The Daily Telegraph) and works to reduce his `carbon footprint' while simultaneously jetting around the world on carbon-belching planes, I think skepticism is a healthy first-step before one blindly accepts Mr. Gore's often fabled `truths.' You certainly will not get skepticism and critical thinking from the likes of CNN, MSNBC for FAUX (Fox) News.

The mainstream media shy away from accurately portraying the global warming issue, instead opting for alarmism, the parroting of falsehoods and outright lies, and the sucking up to powerful elites like Al Gore. This book is a welcomed relief, a near 300-page work of logical reasoning, sound scientific methodology, and careful political analysis. Horner documents environmentalism's ties with communism (Mikhail Gorbachev is a major player in the UN and `climate change' movement), the science behind global warming, the real profits and political ambitions that lie beneath the surface, and the destructive costs of global warming policies to the American consumer and economy.

"Green" environmental movements suspiciously coincide with the political elites' plans for global government. According to Paul Johnson's April 23, 2007, article in Forbes, "The Menace of the Lobby," the number of "Greens" in Great Britain may well be in the millions. What exactly are their plans? For one, the denial of man-made climate change, according to environmental activists, would be considered a criminal offense on the scale of denying the Holocaust. Another sought-after goal is the subjecting of financial penalties on any particular activity that cause an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. These environmentalists all have the blessing of the Royal Society, Britain's most influential and prestigious scientific institution. Will these policies set sail for American soon? With "Sustainable Development," a UN/US program for governmental control over land, water, housing, and food, progressing without opposition in the United States, they may well already be here.

Al Gore receives his own chapter in this latest edition of the "PIG" series. Although Mr. Horner decimates the shoddy arguments, half-truths, and outright falsities of "An Inconvenient Truth," the author largely ignores the fact that Gore's crusade shelters deep spiritual and religious zeal conveniently wrapped inside the name of science. Gore's first book, "Earth in the Balance," gives headway to the idea that Gore's message is intensely religious. His earth-centered spirituality calls for "saving the planet" to be the "central organizing principle" of government. "[A] panreligious perspective may prove especially important where our global civilization's responsibility for the earth is concerned.... Native American religions, for instance, offer a rich tapestry of ideas about our relationship to the earth....'All things are connected like the blood that unites us all.'" ("Earth in the Balance, pg. 259) Al Gore's pantheism is a perfect accomplice to the UN agenda of creating a universal spiritual outlook.

The next time you fill up your gas tank in order to make the commute to the job that pays for that fuel and puts food on the table, remember that it was Al Gore and your member of Congress who refused to allow drilling in ANWR and offshore locations near Florida and California. It was not Greenpeace or any other environmental group. This inaction led to the energy catastrophe now hitting America (and expected to get worse). "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" factually documents the powerful forces behind this movement, who desire a one-world government, increasingly large energy costs, "carbon taxes" and dastardly cap-and-trade systems, all in the name of "protecting the environment." However, a proper response cannot be issued without educating yourself (by reading this book) and educating your elected representatives and senators. If they are voting for the devastating consequences described in this book, vote the bums out and elect new members who will represent the American people. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when government pursues destructive ends without the consent of the governed, it is the people's RIGHT (not option, but RIGHT) to alter and abolish it, and to institute new government. Be thinking of those words when you go to the ballot box this November.

The consequences of doing nothing and the concern for the environment being right begin where the consequences of doing something and the concern being overblown end.

This book is written with tongue in cheek humor, a very fun read on a very serious subject. It makes clear arguments that the religious fervor over environmentalism is not about climate change but about controlling people. It is a must read for those who wish to understand that man has little to do with environmental change and that we are at the mercy of nature. A single volcanic event pukes more into the atmosphere than man could in a hundred years, and rotting foliage in the swamps around the world generate more methane every day than all of the football fans in a decade of superbowl sundays!

This is an interesting and informative book on a current subject which is dominating the news. Less hype and more facts. Truly worthwhile.

This book is well written, well documented and a fun read if your not an environmentalist and want to know the truth about the Global Warming Lie! I am sure that the environmentalists are cringing over this one as it "rats them out" for what they really are!

If you haven't gotten both sides of this story, this book is a great start. This book piles on the facts to overwhelm you with the conclusion that the human impact on global temperature is miniscule. It was eye-opening to see that termites and cows account for most of the methane in the atmosphere, and that CO2 has no absorbtion effect once light has passed through a mere 12 yards of atmosphere! More CO2 in the atmosphere cannot absorb any more light energy.

This pseudo-crisis is blinding us to the real crisis, that the earth's regular cycle of warming and cooling will take a turn before mid-century. Warmth is easy to deal with (catastrophy-mongers aside). When the cooling cycle comes back and rivers start freezing in 70-80 years we will have REAL environmental problems. Unfortunately, humans are not creating a nice little greenhouse.

List of "scientifically" proven crises that never happened:

1) The Population Bomb - remember this one? By 1980, the earth was supposed to be so overpopulated that we would all be starving and have no room. The earth was supposed to be wall to wall people. Never happened.

2) AIDS decimates the heterosexual population in the USA. Remember this prediction? Thank Masters and Johnson for this crisis that never happened.

3) Y2K - ah yes! ALL of the computers were supposed to go down on Jan 1, 2000. The science press went into overdrive to pump up this scenario. Cities would go dark. We would all be reduced to living like survivalists. Never happened.

4) Bird flu - looks like this world wide epidemic flew the coop! Experts said that 25% of the world would die of bird flu by 2006. Never happened.

Al Gore is the latest nut to promote dystopia based on bad data. He is also part of the movement to silence anyone who doesn't get on board with his crackpot theories. There is no scientific consensus on global warming. It isn't happening and isn't going to happen!

Horner's politically incorrect book against both the myth and quasi-religion of global warming (on account it's based on nothing but philosophy as opposed to facts or science!) is a long overdue godsend and point-by-point refutation of Gore and environmentalist hysteria. The point with Horner's book is not that it totally massacres the talking point-propaganda from the liberals, it's the airtight specificity with which it does!!!! Since I'm a fair and balanced human, I actively read Gore's Inconvenient Truth to get the liberal side of the argument (which is regrettably infested with hardly any sources, lots of prevarication and much alarmism). Horner's book is such a juggernaut because it analytically pursues each and every false charge by the global warming alarmist lobby and cruelly dissects it, piece by piece.

Here are some examples of Horner's skewering:

1. Environmentalism is the new authoritarianism because Greens plot to run your way of life, as verified by infamous examples. The Greens' motive is to shift energy policy from the sovereign to the multinational level, and one way of perpetrating this is via unelected judges and international tribunals. Law firms like Freshfields actually plan to sue companies for "causing" global warming, misusing lawsuits to force industry to cede profits/control.
2. Environmental improvement is actually occurring around the world, asserted even in studies by former, radical environmentalists like Denmark University's statistics professor Bjorn Lomborg. Contrary to environmentalists and the lib media's complicit misinformation, Lomborg concluded that air pollutants are less over decades, and global warming's "impact" would be "rather slight." Juxtapose this with alarmism spread by newspapers always questionably attesting to various cities having the "worst" air quality.
3. The temperature is NOT getting hotter because the environmentalist lobby and the lib media connivers merely select doubtful baselines for such warming, baselines which impersonate a reinforcement of "warming." Take other baselines by comparing today to 1000AD or the 1930s, and there's actually evidence of global cooling.
4. Gore abuses the chicanery that the 90s were the hottest decade on record to scare up misdirected support for global warming alarmism. Yet, the National Academy of Sciences contemptuously dismissed this in 2006 in part due to an inequality in the methodology of measuring stations after an uptick in population growth.
5. A surreptitious reason for the misrepresentation of warming globally is the close of many measuring stations in specifically colder areas such as the former Soviet Union. What Gore and the lib media connivance refuse to confess is when the USSR fell, record-keeping from their measuring stations was neglected. Therefore, removing those stations from the average measure would manufacture an artificial increase in "warming" globally.
6. The science is anything BUT settled regarding the fable that CO2 causes global warming. Increases of atmospheric CO2 occur AFTER warming has begun; CO2 doesn't serve as a cause of global warming. Gore and the gang dictatorially stifle widespread dissent on this issue by falsely arguing like children that there's "consensus" on this, but that's just chicanery to elude answering to all their inconstancies.
7. Climate was NEVER stable until man "destabilized" it with global warming. The best and most infamous example to disprove this prevarication is the graph known as the "hockey stick," a UN-instigated scandal perpetrated to revise climate history!!!! The graph was a forgery concocted by University of Virginia professor Michael Mann, plotting to show "stable" climate for the past 1000 years, covering up the fluctuations known as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming Period. His revisionism was later dismissed from the IPCC's official summary due to debunking by The National Academy of Sciences and mathematician Steven McIntyre and professor Ross McKitrick.
8. Glaciers aren't retreating all over the world, contrary to Gore's propaganda. There are just as many advancing glaciers which just don't get the same, fawning media attention that the sporadically retreating ones get. Retreating glaciers aren't related to warming since regional land use and atmospheric moisture changes account for receding snow on Mount Kilimanjaro, for instance, where there's been decades of COOLING.
9. Sea levels aren't rising markedly due to global warming. This Gore allegation is so fra*dulent even the IPCC rejected it due to stability in the slow rise over the past hundred years. This is because sea levels have been rising microscopically over centuries without industry or rising CO2 noticeably affecting said levels.
10. The Greens keep mendaciously censuring "manmade" climate change as the worst threat to the world's poor. That logic is more perverse than usual since technological advances, industry, infrastructure and energy access are most conducive to alleviating poverty. Greens depravedly would ration energy use to hurt technological advances.
11. Environmentalists perpetuate the hoax that global warming has increased storm severity. What's actually true is that more people are simply building homes in the way of storm patterns (due to population explosion) and storms are by nature cyclical.
12. Proposals to "curb" global warming are NEVER about altruistic intention to help the environment. They're fiendishly about industries lobbying to make money off of global warming legislation and leveling the playing field for businesses worldwide through bailouts. This is why companies like the notorious Enron where intimately crafting energy policy in the Clinton white house: to lobby government policy in alternative-energy areas where they needed subsidies to turn a profit.
13. The US' unfair demonization as the lone country not signed up to Kyoto is exposed as European and Gore propaganda. Kyoto excludes the worst polluters like China and India and 155 other developing countries precisely to help out their economies. Kyoto is a European-based proposal wherein Europe is even behind the US in reducing pollution; charts by Europe's own Environment Agency miserably detail Europe's unrepentant, rising emissions in years after signing Kyoto. Bush is also demonized as having isolated the US by refusing to sign Kyoto, yet Clinton-Gore were "culpable" of the same thing since they never pushed the Senate to ratify Clinton's signature, in effect neutralizing Clinton's ceremonial signature.

These 13 points--despite their juggernaut value in skewering liberals' feeble arguments--are only a pittance of what edification is contained in Horner's book. Just these 13 points alone are enough to drive liberals into a frenzy as they'll gnash their teeth with the impotent frustration of not being able to refute ANY of them. This is the eternal value of Horner's book: it gives the skeptic completely solid and verified ammunition with which to punch holes all over the liberals' agenda of pushing global warming. Horner's book is also praiseworthy in the exhaustive breadth of sources he draws from: his sources go on for 30-plus pages. Compare this heavy foundation with Gore's laughingstock book which had something like a few pages of "notes" to "substantiate" his fiction. Horner's book is godsend for disproving and antagonizing global warming ideologues because it succeeds at proving that global warming ISN'T manmade.

This book gives plenty of evidence and arguments to counter the Church of Global Warming and it's attempts to take over the world. Global Warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the world. Recommend everyone read this and all the other evidence out there that GW is a bunch of lies - just a way to take $$ from one industry and transfer it to another that can't succeed on its own. There's an old saying, follow the money. Just saw an article last night that the GW prophet Al Gore is about to go public on one of his companies and stands to make $35mil. No conflict of interest there!

Seriously, get this book so you won't be sucked into the deception.

Am preparing an article for a Senior Citizens newsletter and found the book invaluable in combating all the fearmongering prevalent in this country.

I thought this book did a good job of explaining some of this issues in the controversy of global warming, but the author sometimes goes off on tangents and doesn't loop back to his original point, making it sound a little right-wing wacko, but ultimately a very informative piece to help one decipher the REAL issues of global warming when reading the left-leaning newspapers.

I thought this book did a good job of explaining some of this issues in the controversy of global warming, but the author sometimes goes off on tangents and doesn't loop back to his original point, making it sound a little right-wing wacko, but ultimately a very informative piece to help one decipher the REAL issues of global warming when reading the left-leaning newspapers.

I was really looking forward to an intelligent look at the "other" side of global warming. Instead, the author resorts to name calling and generalizations - everyone who dares ponder the fate of the environment is called a "green", and apparently all "greens" believe all of the same things. It is a book of opinions masquerading as facts. Just one of a hundred examples - he'll rebuke the "greens"' statement that icebergs are shrinking, followed by an unbacked opinion that they're actually growing. Where's your data? What are your sources? The figures and graphs generally have no labels or axes, and no sources...the idea is that if there's a graph, it must be true. One graph that does have a source shows trends in global temperatures - but the source is an economist! This is a scientific issue, not political or economic, except when it's morphed into such by those with an agenda. I understand how it would be easy to get wrapped up in his words...but readers must have a critical mind and ask themselves where the author is getting his information. This is such an important issue that it must be supported by facts. Enough rants and baseless opinions. If these kinds of arguments are what count for the anti-global warming movement, then it doesn't have a leg to stand on. It undermines an author's credibility and insults the readers' intelligence. Very disappointing.

The content of this book flies in the face of the global warming scare mongers. There are quotes and references galore which point out the fallacies of the global warming people and researchers. Many side bars on the pages distract from the reading of the book. Guaranteed to produce second and third thoughts about the media, research results, and earth weather cycles.

It takes a bit to wade through the first few chapters, which get repetitive, and in which the author keeps referring to later chapters (which, thankfully, turn out to be quite good).

There is one later chapter, where the author disassembles and debunks Al Gore's works STEP by STEP. From the silly theory that the 2005 hurricanes were caused by Manmade Global Warming (if so, then why, in 2006, when there is MORE manmade CO2 in the atmosphere, are there virtually NO hurricanes?), to the equally silly "hockey stick" curve.

What Warming we have is not "Manmade", nor "Catastrophic" (indeed it may be quite beneficial), nor "Global" (the Southern Hemisphere is not warming). Greens and the leftwing media seek to use "Alarmism" to get us to give up our cars and rights, and allow these communists to exert their form of Totalitarianism and snuff out capitalism and our great economy. This lark must be exposed for what it is.

Our planet has many periods of global worming and cooling. Warming creates a period of prosperity while cooling is the reverse. Al Gore is NOT a climatologist: he could not make it in academia so his bleatings are just so much BS. The so-called "Hockey Stick" graph was used by Gore in his film showing, but it was totally debunked as false science prior to the release of his film. While CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its effectiveness as such is minor, clouds are far more important, yet the Kyoto Protocol is directed primarily at CO2 emissions: it is a worthless exercise in futility. Following Gore's stupid predictions (which are based upon faulted computer predictions) will destroy our economy.

This is one of those books that I almost did not get past the first couple of chapters. This is because he cannot hide his dislike for the environmentalist movement as it exists today, and I did not want to read a hate filled book. But the book takes off when he gets to the science and statistics that explain the heart of the "global warming" dilemna. His arguments are extremely persuasive, and it does give an understanding of why he has such hatred toward the movement.

If you are an environmentalist, I would suggest starting at Part II and go back and read the first section afterwards. That way you will hopefully have an open mind when you get to the real debate.

This book offers the skeptics' side in the global-warming debate. It is a refreshing and thorough look at the so-called science and politics of the environmental alarmists and media. The book provides references everywhere to back up its data, opinions, and facts. It picks apart many of the "global-warming" arguments put forth by such altruistic visionaries as Al Gore as it successfully highlights the manipulation of scientific data and the manipulation of the public by the alarmists in order to promote their cause.

Alarmists will hate this book as it reports previously hidden, yet irrefutable scientific explanations for many of the lies that have been sprung upon the American public and the world. Every reviewer that gives this book a one star rating gives credence to the books effectiveness in that regard. Showing how the U.N manipulated its data from one report to the next or pointing out that the National Academy of Sciences debunked the "Nobel-winning" hockey-stick chart will surely rile the feathers of many.

I myself felt comforted by the fact that "global" warming is not really a world wide phenomenon, that it doesn't really occur in the Southern Hemisphere, for example, or by the fact that the U.S. is actually cooler now than it was before the advent of its so-called "carbon economy".

And it is always nice to hear the other side of the story for once.

"Global warming" is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind. This book provides you with the information you need to understand this fraud and be informed when talking with the ignorant.

It reveals who's promoting this fraud and why. Additionally, it explains how these people manipulate data and use flawed techniques.

I bought this book for a gift for Christmas for my son. He was very pleased when he received it. I ordered the book and it was at my home in 5 days. I was very pleased with the quick service.

...publishing the truth and challenging their ideology because that's what it is. They are not doing science but iedology. The have presuppositions like total government control, secular humanism, neo-marxism etc. and everything they see they see through these "worldview glasses". Environmentalism has become a vehicle for their ideological views. "Blue planet in green bondage" They never do science but they always to ideology through alarmism, media manipulation and political activism. There is a saying in German about the judgement such people have and with which presupposition they see relaity: Their mindset is: "What must not be CANNOT be." That's how they do "science" and that's how they view the facts. Academia is full of these people and we allow them to brainwash our children and we actually are paying for it...BRAVO!

This book is not a critique of the science behind the controversy of global climate change but then it does not claim to be. Rather it is more an analysis of the many factors that motivate people to advocate drastic global governmental intervention in numerous economic activities in the name of attempting to stem climate change. The title of this work is most appropriate; this book is a much-needed counterbalancing political statement.

The author, Christopher C. Horner, is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He is an attorney who has represented scientists and members of the U.S. House and Senate on matters of environmental policy in the federal courts including the Supreme Court. He has written numerous articles on climate change. His authority on this subject is unquestionable. Nevertheless, he cites his source material meticulously, so much so that it causes me to wonder if some of the negative reviewers actually read the book.

Central to the credibility of the book is the fact that Mr. Horner does not deny the reality of global climate change; few thoughtful people would. His main scientific argument is that the small change in temperature over the last 120 years is not unusual. It is just not reasonable for a sincere and critical person to look at the accumulated data and say with complete conviction that the current small change can be clearly distinguished from the numerous changes over millions of years that make up the background or that that small change is definitely anthropogenic.

While Mr. Horner presents other aspects of the science behind the controversy of climate change this is not the main point of the book. Indeed some of the scientific arguments he makes get irritatingly repetitive. I lost count of how many times he mentioned the closing of weather monitoring stations in Siberia. Also, sarcasm when employed with such frequency becomes tedious. No the strength of the book is Mr. Horner's analysis of who benefits from the advocacy of catastrophe, those sincere but anachronistic socialists who truly believe in the benefits of overarching global government, disingenuous big business out to make a buck through the elimination of competition (the biggest being Enron, BP and GE), and pandering politicians (on both sides of the isle). And no ox goes unGored. The deconstruction of the former Vice Presidents movie illustrates yet again the mischief of a politician believing that his Nobel end justifies any means. The fact that a British high court has declared the movie riddled with errors substantiates Mr. Horner's assertions about it.

So, with this book the worshipers at the Church of Gaia cannot claim that all scientists agree on global warming - they do not (and I am one of them), that the question is settled - it is not, that the situation is so dire as to require drastic and immediate measures no matter the cost - it is not. This book very powerfully opens the argument for thoughtful analysis just when it was about to be forcefully slammed shut and unbelievers banished as heretics. Agree with it or not; you cannot dismiss it.

If you have already decided that we have to change all our light bulbs to say the polar bears this book is not for you.
IF however you aren't sure yet, or you are starting wonder about the new religion of Global Warming, then you need to read this book and form your own opinion about this book. Don't listen to people who tell you what to think about this book until you have read it. You need to read what some other people with knowledge about this subject are saying.
You can't go wrong knowing both sides of an argument, This book is well written, and resources to check the statements made in this book are included, so you can check them out. Does Al Gore give you a chance to check his facts?

You can predict your reaction to this book by your reaction to the fact that chapter one is devoted to an absurd attempt to associate environmentalists with communists. The chapter title is "Green is the New Red: The Anti-American, Anti-Capitalist, and Anti-Human Agenda of Today's Environmentalists."

If that doesn't bring the book into focus for you, then look at the second chapter, which is devoted to arguing that "Environmentalists want to run your life."

When chapter one of a book is a general ad hominem attack, and a straw man argument follows as the basis of chapter two, you have no reason to expect anything except more fallacies in the following chapters. This book turns out to be a compendium of examples of the different fallacies that are available as deceptive arguments.

There is little or no science in the book. In order to verify that just look at the footnotes. There are pages of citations to blogs, news articles, and political journals. There are very few references to scientific journals that actually support the author.

It is not science because it hand picks it data and makes non-falsifiable claims. Also it is biased because it focus on the industrial interest to implement cap-and-trade even though the industrial interest on the warming denial side are much bigger and the majority of lobbying is thus on that side.

Instead of wasting your money and time on this book watch the "How it all ends" series on YouTube. It explains how the scientific process works and what a scientific consensus mean. It also shows how we can decide what we should do, even thought global warming is (an will never be) certain.

It would be very easy, from listening to the bloviations emanating from certain quarters to conclude that mankind, Americans in particular, are on the verge of causing catastrophic climate changes that might ultimately result in millions of deaths, the inundation of coastlands around the world, and only God knows what else. It's said that anthropogenic (man-made) GHGs (Green House Gases) resulting from manufacturing processes and the burning of fossil fuels is causing a rise in average global temperature sufficient to melt glaciers and polar ice, flooding coastlands, and that if we--mankind--don't act very quickly, perhaps now, it will not be possible to stop the temperature increase.

While I don't doubt in the least that mankind has the capacity to severely foul its own nest, so to speak, I also have an almost infinite faith in the ability of finite Man to royally screw things up and get the facts wrong, particularly when it seems that his lemming-like propensity for following idiots off cliff ledges has been aroused. I've taken "global warming" warnings with a grain of salt, as they have long seemed to me to be merely the latest entry in a drearily long list of means by which we are supposedly destroying ourselves, and also because so many of those raising this alarm have impressed me as being completely without credibility on other issues (Al Gore immediately springs to mind) that it is hard to take them seriously on any issue, including climate change.

I began to take more notice of the issue a few months ago, when someone--probably Neal Boortz--reminded me of the "global cooling" scare of just thirty years or so ago. Immediately, I thought, "I remember that! I think I even saw a National Geographic that talked about it!" Just after that, I thought, "Sheesh, I'm getting to be a geezer. I actually remember things that happened thirty years ago."

Those who, like me, have recently started paying more attention to this issue and have wondered if there is anything to it may find The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism useful and informative. Certainly I found it so, and after reading it, I can't help but think that anyone who takes a hard look at the basic facts of the matter will emerge at least somewhat skeptical of the proposition that anthropogenic GHGs are causing catastrophic climate change and possibly suspicious that "global warming" is a fraud perpetrated with the intent of pumping wealth out of some countries (including the United States) and into others, and to force the de-industrialization of the Western world.

I wish I could examine each section in detail and provide voluminous quotes, but I haven't the time, and I suspect you haven't, either. 'Tis a pity. Mr. Horner makes thorough hash out of global warming alarmism, and I wish I could share it all with you. Earlier, I excerpted a section I thought might be particularly interesting to any readers I have. Here, I'm just going to give you the gist of the territory covered by the book and a few more interesting quotes.

The book is divided into four parts: "Environmentalism and Authoritarians," "Global Warming: The Convenient Lies," "The False Prophets (and Real Profits) of Global Warming," and "Making You Poorer and Less Free." The first is devoted to making the reader aware of the background of many (not all) of the people hyping global warming hysteria. Some will be surprised to learn that some environmentalists come perilously close to hating man and exalting the planet, and that some embrace environmentalism as part and parcel of an overall dislike of Western civilization, capitalism, and industrialism. Some are outright socialists or communists; Mr. Horner refers to these as

"'watermelons' : green on the outside, red to the core."

The principal point Mr. Horner is trying to drive home is that much of the global warming hype is driven by an agenda that originates outside the realm of science, an agenda that has more to do with controlling people than with concern for the environment. Early on, he says

"...environmental causes always include--and often are primarily--campaigns to gain more government control over the economy and individual activity. They are never fights for less control or greater liberty.

..."environmentalism" has matured into a nightmare for anyone who believes in private property, open markets, and limited government. Environmental pressure groups have no use for limiting governmental powers or expanding individual liberties. Instead, environmental claims are without fail invoked to advance the statist agenda."

And indeed, by the time the reader finishes Part I, it will be hard for him not to believe that much, perhaps most, of what is advanced in the name of "environmentalism" these days has as its objective destroying the capital, the industry, and the wealth of the West--or redistributing it. Mr. Horner returns to this theme in other parts of the book, and perhaps the best summation of the idea is actually to be found in Part II:

"That prescription itself is the greens' real goal, not remedying any particular environmental phenomenon. Control energy and you control the economy. Kyoto and its ilk seek to ration energy use."

Another interesting aspect of Part I are the numerous quotes illustrating a rather severe attitude toward humans on the part of some "greens." For example, Charles Wursta, "chief scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund, in response to the likely millions to die if DDT were banned (as quoted in Toxic Terror)" is quoted as saying "This is as good a way to get rid of them as any."

Part II, "Global Warming: The Convenient Lies," is an absolute killer, replete with account after account of bad science, poorly-done research, agenda-driven assumptions, and outright lies, all done in support of an alarmist agenda. There is a great deal of interesting material here, and if I'm not mistaken, the "Top Ten 'Global Warming' Myths" section has been widely circulated on the internet. One particularly interesting point, which is expanded on elsewhere in the book, was

"It turns out that the '90s not only fail to live up to the "hottest" title, but coincided with the closure of hundreds of measuring stations (including many in the former Soviet Union as their priorities turned to more pressing domestic matters such as collapse of an empire). If you shut down measuring stations in the cold parts of the world, your average global temperatures will go up. It turns out that the 1990s temperature increases track nicely with these closures."

Part III, "The False Prophets (and Real Profits) of Global Warming," concerns a fairly wide range of people, but it's probably fair to say that it concentrates mostly on businesses that stand to profit (very frequently, as a result of governmental regulation, market manipulation, or subsidization) from an alarmist agenda, and on media that, in search of "hot" stories, proves an all-too-willing handmaiden.

This is more important a section than might be apparent at first glance. Mr. Horner notes early on that a standard "green" tactic is to smear anyone who doubts their global warming alarmism as a tool of big business, especially "big oil." In this section, Mr. Horner makes it very clear that there are big bucks to be made off the environmentalist agenda, too, and that this must be taken into account when evaluating the motives and veracity of those involved with the environmentalists. A representative quote:

"Duke Energy, DuPont, Morgan Stanley, GE, and Steve Bing all are trying to get rich off environmental policies--by basically investing in something worthless (CO2 credits, ethanol, wind) and then lobbying to make it mandatory."

Part IV, "Making You Poorer and Less Free," concerns the economic effects of implementing the greens' agenda and the infamous Kyoto treaty. Kyoto, as a matter of fact, has a chapter all to itself. This is representative, and of great interest.

"Even Kyoto's proponents acknowledge that despite accepting, for the sake of argument, Kyoto's underlying assumptions, and even were it implemented fully, universally, and perfectly, it would have no detectable effect on temperature increase... That is to say that even in theory and according to its proponents' best case (which has been already proven to be utterly unrealistic), Kyoto might avert--delay, in fact, by just six short years--projected future warming of an undetectable few-hundredths-of-one-degree Celsius by 2050.

This stunning impotence would however ensure that future growth in industry and agriculture would be outsourced from Kyoto's few covered countries to the vast majority of the world rejecting Kyoto's rationing. Kyoto exempts major developing nations and "top ten" emitters such as China, India, and South Korea. Mexico, Brazil, and others are free riders and happily intend to stay so.

This diagnosis of climatic meaninglessness would not change even were the United States to join up and comply with its terms. In fact, U.S. participation was one of the assumptions in the calculation.

It is critical to this most distorted of public debates as well as to "climate economics" to recall that it is this exempt majority of 155 countries--not just the United States and Australia--that refuse to accept any restrictions, now as well as in the future."

Today's world is awash in signs, in little hints, in intimations, and even a few outright statements, that many people think that the world will be better off if it is all "leveled out," so to speak, that is, if we in the industrialized nations (especially the U.S.) are not so rich and so powerful, and that the way to accomplish this is by erasing borders and redistributing wealth. After reading this book, I couldn't help but think that global warming alarmism serves little purpose other than to enrich a few companies at public expense, and to transfer industry (and therefore wealth) to other nations, all in service of the goal of eliminating vast divergences of culture, ethnicity, and wealth.

Overall, I enjoyed the book. Mr. Horner maintains what appears to be a somewhat sarcastic tone throughout the book, but I have to point out that when dealing with some of the silliness he covers, even a straightforward recitation of the facts might well come across as sarcastic. The book is informative, and I have little doubt that I will refer to its contents in the future.

My one gripe is the usual one I have with Regnery Press: the editing is nothing short of awful. Time and again, I found little grammatical errors, things that are really an editor's job to catch and fix. I wish Regnery would hire some better editing staff; it would make their authors look better.

Disappointing. I was expecting some new leading edge scientific views on global warming not some make-up, make-believe facts that only the writer would find amusing. This was so twisted and not remotely funny.

It's sad to know trees were killed for the printing of this book.

Chris Horner does an excellent job debunking Global Warming. This book will break a lot of dooms day liberal hippies hearts. A must read for anyone looking for the truths behind global warming.

The number and variety of reviews on this book is indicative of the worldwide controversy surrounding the Climate Change controversy. The opinions expressed by "reviewers" run the gamut from "Superb" to "Awful". The actual value of the book lays somewhere in-between these two extremes.

If we disregard the obvious "reviews" from the "One-star Club", the many bad reviews submitted about the same time and designed to discourage potential book buyers, we find a few thoughtful reviews that are honest. These reviews make their point without attacking the book's author or twisting the truth to satisfy a political agenda. Many eviewers on both sides of this polarizing subject offer objective reviews.

Unlike many of the reviewers, I DID take the time to read and re-read, challenge and verify, discuss the authors points with those who agree and those who disagree. My conclusion is similar to many others who were honest in their reviews. The author provides valuable information at a level the nonprofessional can understand but from a definite political viewpoint.

If one actually reads the book rather than skimming it, deciding beforehand what the author intends, the book can be a rewarding read. One may not like some of the levity the author injects (I personally found his quips amusing) or some of the shots he takes at prominent political and academic figures (e.g., Al Gore and James Hansen). However, if one keeps and open mind about the subject at hand it becomes clear that his reasoning is logical, his sources well documented and his overall presentation helpful in keeping the whole issue of Climate Change in perspective.

Contrary to what many critics of the book state or imply, the author does not deny that we are experiencing global warming. He acknowledges that creditable evidence shows the earth's temperature has increased about one degree in the past one hundred years. The author challenges assumptions and methodologies involved in making predictions of the eventual effect of this temperature change and the assumed and often unproven causes of the change. He believes, with good reason, that we need more discussions, better predictive computer models, more scientific facts, and more and better information before governments enact Draconian laws in panic mode. Actual and proposed laws will negatively influence the personal and economic freedom of nations and individual citizens as now envisioned by the proponents of such laws.

The book's author makes a power argument that the causes of global warming is not "settled science". Recently, the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society published a study agreeing with the author. Study co-author S. Fred Singer of the University of Virginia said, "We are fairly sure that what's causing the warming are changes in the sun." Co-author David H. Douglass of the University of Rochester added, "The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant."

Whether you agree with the book's author and these scientists, you owe it to yourself to read about global warming and climate change issues you rarely find reported in the mass media.

I cannot argue with the points the author made, but this book did not do a good job of helping me understand why the environmentalists think what they do and what it takes to talk sense into people. There are always two sides to an issue, and you need to know both sides to effectively debate and reach a valid conclusion.

While I certainly had my doubts about the magnificent hoax that is known as "Global Warming", reading this book certainly clarified my perception on the subject. If you think that you see and hear the truth from your local media, just think as to how much attention they pay to reports contrary to the "consensus opinion" about global warming. Not much you'll find. This book is complete with facts and explanations of the misinformation being spoon fed to the public on this phenomenom. I didn't have to read the article from Great Britain about the English judge who ruled that Al Gore's movie must be labeled a "Political" movie before it could be shown to school children, because of the factual misrepresentations in the movie. I knew it from reading this book. This is the book that should be mandatory reading in our public schools!

Chances are, if you want to read this book, you have already made your mind up that global warming is at best, a minor nuisance, and at worst, a leftist conspiracy to weaken America. You will not be disappointed. However, you will find a lot of information on the politics of global warming, and very little on the science behind the theory. If you are truly interested in understanding the contrarian point of view on global warming (that it's either not real, or insignificant), then I recommend reading a book with actual science and facts in it titled "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years", by Avery and Singer.

Avery and Singer are every bit as committed to "de-bunking" prevailing wisdom on global warming as this author, but they do not resort to name-calling and vague pronouncements. No, as scientists, they put forth their best evidence to prove their point of view. Although I interpret the scientific findings differently, I applaud their rigorous scientific approach. Save your money and time, and skip to the better book "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years".

If you have not already fossilized your point of view, and are willing to look at evidence that perhaps global warming is occurring, and may not be such a good thing (and therefore worth trying to reduce), I highly recommend "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery, and "With Speed and Violence, Why Scientists Fear Tipping Points in Climate Change" by Fred Pearce.

This book on CD was the most sarcastic bunch of biased "scientific" balderdash I have ever heard. I did listen to the whole thing just to see what the global warming disclaimers were saying. It made me sick because of the sarcasm, rudeness toward specific individuals, and utter balderdash. Do not waste your money on this!

I don't know about you, but I'm quite weary of being told by Al Gore that I am a "flat earther" because I ask for real data, and the opportunity to question it. As I understand it from Mr. Gore (and that's MISTER Gore, not DOCTOR Gore), there are people out there who believe the Earth is flat, and that doesn't mean that we should investigate the Earth's shape further. OK, Mr. Gore -- perhaps in the Amazon rainforest there are a few modest tribes who contest the Earth is flat, and it would be a waste of time and money to research that matter further. But the problem here is that many bona fide climatologists disagree with the contention that man is causing disastrous climate changes by way of greenhouse gases. And many of the scientists who support your sky-is-falling pronouncements are everything but climatologists. By your own acknowledgment, you have culled supportive data and discarded non-supportive data, and then youve hidden behind the apron of "consensus." While you might have a point here and there, Mr. Gore, we'll probably never know; it's just too darned hard to look for good data in all that muck. I'm wondering if right now what we need is a separation of science and state. To my understanding, information and disinformation usually don't mix so well.

And what concerns me greatly now is this: When the sky doesn't fall, what happens? Simple. Mr. Gore will say, "Way to go! You guys all drove 2.6 miles per week less and WE SAVED THE WORLD!" Mr. Gore is in a no-lose position. He cherry-picks data, falsifies "facts" and pushes us all toward more and more and more governmental regulation, all the while depositing his hefty Peace Prize paycheck and posing for Oscar party photos. Next on his agenda: THERE IS NO GRAVITY! (The earth sucks.)

Anyway, thank you, gentle reader, for permitting the above rant. Having blown off steam (which I can do all day, really, when Al Gore is over the blow-hole), I will say that this particular book offers some useful insights and some reasonable questions for the tolerant mind. I have rated it one-shy of five stars because there are times when I feel the writers plugged the anti-global-warming agenda a bit too gratuitously for my taste. A lifelong scientist, I just want to see everyone have a chance to have their say. This PIG guide fronts nicely enough for the "flat-earthers." Keep asking questions. Keep wondering and pondering. And never -- NEVER -- let Al Gore tell you that a consensus is reached when he says so. Thanks for the stage.

I don't know about you, but I'm quite weary of being told by Al Gore that I am a "flat earther" because I ask for real data, and the opportunity to question it. As I understand it from Mr. Gore (and that's MISTER Gore, not DOCTOR Gore), there are people out there who believe the Earth is flat, and that doesn't mean that we should investigate the Earth's shape further. OK, Mr. Gore -- perhaps in the Amazon rainforest there are a few modest tribes who contest the Earth is flat, and it would be a waste of time and money to research that matter further. But the problem here is that many bona fide climatologists disagree with the contention that man is causing disastrous climate changes by way of greenhouse gases. And many of the scientists who support your sky-is-falling pronouncements are everything but climatologists. By your own acknowledgment, you have culled supportive data and discarded non-supportive data, and then youve hidden behind the apron of "consensus." While you might have a point here and there, Mr. Gore, we'll probably never know; it's just too darned hard to look for good data in all that muck. I'm wondering if right now what we need is a separation of science and state. To my understanding, information and disinformation usually don't mix so well.

And what concerns me greatly now is this: When the sky doesn't fall, what happens? Simple. Mr. Gore will say, "Way to go! You guys all drove 2.6 miles per week less and WE SAVED THE WORLD!" Mr. Gore is in a no-lose position. He cherry-picks data, falsifies "facts" and pushes us all toward more and more and more governmental regulation, all the while depositing his hefty Peace Prize paycheck and posing for Oscar party photos. Next on his agenda: THERE IS NO GRAVITY! (The earth sucks.)

Ron Marlar (a retired USAF officer, college professor, school teacher, living currently in Florida)

Al Gore exposed. What a horrible thought! No wonder he is so into save the whale-like movements.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism exposes Al Gore, others and their movements for what they are: political, economic ruses foisted on an unbelievably large segment of the world population to gain big government control over every aspect of our lives.

There is no doubt Al Gore (and others) are profiting from and hope to profit more from their lies of commission and omission. One need only watch how quickly the global warming conferences, some held on the coldest days of the year in which they were held, turned to their real aims - payments from the countries who bothered to develop to those who did not do so, and a so-called "leveling of the playing field." The playing field has been level. Some simply have not chosen to play wisely.

It is best though in addition to watching the conference reports, reading, viewing, listening to the comments of real scientists - true experts in the fields of concern - climate and weather, history, to read this book. That is the way to get a real handle on the lies we have been told, the misleading omissions, distortions of facts. As some say Mark Twain said long ago, "There are ... lies, damned lies, and statistics."

I could not help but be reminded while reading this book of one of the principal methods of Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Reichminister of Propaganda and National Enlightenment: Tell a big lie, the bigger the better, and keep repeating it while controlling all the media. Soon people will believe it rather than obvious truth. Fortunately for us, Al Gore and his co-conspirators do not control all of the media.

I was confident as a pilot, college professor and school teacher that global warming due to human activity was a farce based on simple intuition, faith belief in God, and some smattering of knowledge and scientific approach to analysis of data, weather and climate data included. Still though I was surprised, even shocked by the transparency of some of the lies revealed by this book. Buy it. Read it. You can see right away where and how the gullible have been misled so readily.

A group of both conservative and liberal fellow university students and I actually met with the author's co-workers at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and were presented with a copy of this book after our meeting. Unfortunately, the so-called "discussion" we had with Myron Ebell, Marlo Lewis, and CEI president Fred Smith left all of us disillusioned that public policy think tanks like CEI are independent of Big Oil special interests (Exxon Mobil is one of their loyal donors).

Not a word of logic or sound, peer-reviewed science found its way into either our discussion with CEI or into their book. In fact, we were barely allowed to squeeze in any questions to the "discussion" about climate change, economy, and policy. Extremely disappointing how partisan and fool-hardy these issues have become and even more so that this is evidenced by gaudy exploitations such as this book. It is both politically incorrect and scientifically incorrect.

The book takes climate change with a "hoax" perspective. The author claims that global warming is a conspiracy to control people and shut down capitalism. A more balanced approach would be appreciated. There are extreme beliefs on both sides of the issue. I think it is time to listen to each other and examine the facts. No more tweaking or ignoring the facts. Both sides must get off their personal agendas and do what is right.

It should be known that before you trust the judgment of the reviewers of this book, find out whose pocket they are speaking from. If each reviewer were to post their occupation as a footnote. It would better serve the reader's decision on buying this utter rebellion to an atttack on their capitalistic influences. Science is not right 100% of the time. However, their are thousands of indisputable evidences toward global warming with just a few questionable facts that are no different then trying to predict which way a hurricane is coming. Regardless, it is coming.

If you like rhetoric, then I recommend this book.

Occupation: Web Designer

absolutely amazing denial of reality; complete crap, and less enjoyable to read than my junk mail offers this week.

it's inventive in the sense that the stretching of any factual evidence to support the claims made is such that the space-time continuum makes a really loud 'twanging' kinda noise as you read it.

an example of the witty prose from the inside flap helps set the tone: "With global warming, however, greenhouse gasbags can argue that auto emissions in Ohio threaten people in Paris, and that only "global governance" (Jacques Chirac's words) can tackle such problems"

if you agree that scientist = environmentalist = leftist = conspiracy, well, then buy this junk and crawl back under that rock you live under to read it.

Currently, California is experiencing the worst firestorms EVER!

According to real scientists interviewed on 60 Minutes (Sunday, October 21, 2007):

"As the spring is arriving earlier because of warming conditions, the snow on these high mountain areas is melting and running off. So the logs and the branches and the tree needles all can dry out more quickly and have a longer time period to be dry. And so there's a longer time period and opportunity for fires to start," Swetnam says

"The spring comes earlier, so the fire season is just longer," Pelley remarks.

"That's right. The fire season in the last 15 years or so has increased more than two months over the whole Western U.S. So actually 78 days of average longer fire season in the last 15 years compared to the previous 15 or 20 years," Swetnam says.

Swetnam says that climate change -- global warming -- has increased temperatures in the West about one degree and that has caused four times more fires. Swetnam and his colleagues published those findings in the journal "Science," and the world's leading researchers on climate change have endorsed their conclusions.

But what was news to the scientists is something Tom Boatner has noticed for about ten years now. "This kind of low brush would normally be really moist and actually be a fairly good barrier to fire. But as I look at this I just see wilted leaves everywhere. There's no moisture left in them. They're dead," he points out.

This book is not only false, but completely irresponsible. The people who wrote this book are probably just a bunch of trolls who are in a tizzy because they don't want to give up their SUV's or their money they are earning from oil.

It's about time someone brought to light the other side of the story. A must read for liberals.

The issue of global warming has long been in the news. From the perspective of Australia the issue is critical, as rainfall in my home city of Melbourne has declined by forty percent in the past eleven years. Such a decline is totally unparalleled in the 150 years of instrumental record.

At the same time, the northwest of Australia has seen dramatic increases in rainfall ever since the late 1960s, so much so that seven of its eight wettest years (since 1885) have occurred since 1995.

In this context, even though able usually to listen to anybody (actually, I generally dislike moderate views because they tend to be wishy-washy) it is not possible for me to take most of the claims made by Horner seriously.

Horner's contention, basically, is that global warming is either not man-made or will in the long-term benefit human society. As to the first point, he greatly exaggerates the proportion of greenhouse gases that is naturally occurring. For instance, my prior knowledge of science tell me that it impossible that more than minute quantities (like, say, a few grams per year) of sulfur hexafluoride or other exceedingly potent fluorine-containing greenhouse gases could be naturally produced each year. Because there is no natural sink for them, natural production of fluorine-containing greenhouse gases in the quantities asserted by Horner would inevitably turn the Earth into an inferno with temperatures hot enough, say, to melt copper. He also understates the proportion of other greenhouse gases that are man-made, notably carbon dioxide where emissions from combustion are far greater than those from biological decay, fires, volcanoes and oceanic release.

Horner's viewpoints about the extent and effects of global warming are also very poorly done. For instance, he suggests that increases in global temperatures have been due to closures of stations in the Russian Arctic. As a person with knowledge of how mean temperatures for an area are calculated, I know well that is unlikely unless every single station in Arctic Russia was closed (which is not what he says): the few that remain would be always given greater weight owing to the large areas they represent and the closures would not affect the average. Although he rightly asserts that the Southern Hemisphere is warming much less than the Northern, my knowledge of Australian climatology suggests this is almost certainly due to the large increases in rainfall that have occurred not only over pastoral areas of Western Australia but also in similar latitudes of South America. Large increases in rainfall naturally lead to reduced temperatures because it has become much cloudier. For example, 2000, whilst the fifth warmest year on record globally, was one of the coolest on record in pastoral areas of Western Australia owing to general record-breaking annual rainfall. In areas of Australia that have dried out, there has been as much warming as in the Northern Hemisphere.

Horners' idea about the question of "global cooling" is similarly weak. The issue rose form the fact that it was thought upon studying previous glacial-interglacial cycles where 10,000 years of interglacial were followed by 90,000 years of glacial that we were near the end of the Holocene and that the next ice age was due to begin soon. Recent data show that we are moving towards an era of longer - but cooler - interglacials (and relatively shorter, less cold glacial periods).

Horner's other chief thesis is that warming always benefits civilisations. He cites the effects of the Medieval Warm Period upon European civilisation as an example - for instance the settlement of Greenland by the Norse and its ending with cooling and the Little Ice Age. However, there is little evidence that this rule holds in hotter and more fragile environments. For instance, the Hohokam of Arizona declined after reaching a peak in the eighth century just before the Medieval Warm Period, and some Mesoamerican societies also declined from the ninth century, apparently due to climate change. In any case, because many areas that are major agricultural regions today were not farmed in the Middle Ages, comparisons are not possible.

Horner's viewpoint that reducing greenhouse emissions would be immensely costly is also impossible to accept. Government welfare to polluting corporations is extremely large, as are budgets for building utterly unnecessary freeways. These could easily be completely redirected to supporting renewable energy and public transit at great benefit to everybody except some exceedingly powerful vested interests in car and fossil fuel corporations. Although Horner is actually right in saying the US' per capita emissions show greater decline than Europe's, the difference is not significant and if it reflects anything at all, it is probably the greater willingness of Americans to accept less comfortable lifestyles.

The way in which Horner accepts only the evidence that suits his viewpoints is really the worst kind of science you will ever see. It recurs time and time against throughout this book and for this reason alone I would not recommend "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming".

This book covers all the stuff you need to know