The Author makes very sound arguments as to the underlying reasons liberals have such an intense disdain for anything that is contrary to their position. When real truth is held up and given a fair stage onto which to expound its arguments, honest logic prevails. After all real truth is meant to set us free, and any censorship of that or intentional manipulation of such should sour any reader association to that element. The author has done us all a great service by letting us have a peek at what really motivates the liberal mentality

Jeanne

I once proudly called myself an environmentalist. Now I am a conservationist and a steward.

I believe some wild spaces should be saved. I recycle (A lot!). I coordinate my school's paper recycling program. I own several of those little flourescent bulbs and I use them every day. I don't spray chemicals all over my yard. I don't dump motor oil down the drain. I pick up garbage when I walk the dog. I go camping. I go to the Earth Day celebration in downtown Indianapolis because it's a great place to get information on clean-up events and they give away free trees! I also love it when they assume that I must be an ultra-liberal just to be there!

Now that I've said all of this, let me say that I am not an environmentalist. I used to be. Way back when, when I first started teaching, I showed movies to my kids in world geography that said the world as we know it is going to end by the year 2000. Mass flooding, all of the fish dead, mass starvation, etc. They were older versions of the "Inconvenient Truth" that featured Hollywood stars and quoted heavily from Gore's "Earth in the Balance".

I am now embarrassed by all of that.

Why? Because I fell for the hype and did not do simple things like check sources and see if what I was being told was backed up by other testimony. Sometimes, simple facts get in the way (like Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" book predictions never quite came true, like those predictions in the videos I showed to my class) and make it hard to follow that line of reasoning any longer.

So, what are the 7 environmental catastrophes:

1. DDT & Malaria in Africa
2. Ethanol as fuel
3. The "Pill" and its effect on fish downstream from water treatment plants.
4. The burning of Yellowstone and other National lands
5. The Cuyahoga River burning
6. The Endangered Species Act "Shoot, Shovel and Shut up!"
7. The Aral Sea

Positives:

This book is extremely well-written and approachable. It is also well-documented with more than 300 footnotes.

His commentary on DDT & Malaria is not only well thought out, but correctly placed as the first disaster since it causes around 1 Million deaths per year. He does not deny that DDT can have an affect on large birds, but he points out that it was not the use of DDT that caused it, but rather the mis-use of it. DDT is effective in small doses and does not need multiple applications to control bug populations. The multiple applications is a mis-use that makes it dangerous for birds (although it begs the question: Is any bird species worth 1 million lives every year - we are now up to nearly 40 million dead due to malaria carried by mosquitos). It does not cause human birth defects as Rachel "Silent Spring" Carson suggested. He skewers her research. Why it is still held up with pride as the start of the modern environmental movement is a mystery to me.

His commentary on Al Gore (do as I say, not as I do) and what he characterizes as the Church of Eco-Paganism are brilliant. He builds on Michael Crichton's commentary along the same lines and calls it a form of eco-Lutheranism (not to insult Lutherans - I am one and thought it was brilliant) since it is based on "Not one works, but on Faith alone," which is why the high priest of the movement, Al Gore, can use more than 20 times the electricity of the average Tennessean, own 2 more homes and jet around the world while telling us to cut back - he has the Faith!

The commentary on the Endangered Species Act was strong and largely built on an essay by the author of Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, Steven D. Levitt. It studies the unintended consequences of the Endangered Species Act in which some people kill endangered species or destroy their habitats so they don't lose their property rights to a series of federal mandates.

Negatives:

His commentary on ethanol is strong, but goes overboard. His math sometimes does not make sense. He claims (correctly, I'm pretty sure) that all of the gasoline must be 10% ethanol. A few pages later he notes that if this were to happen an extra 55 million acres of corn would have to be planted. Well, we're already doing it. He also cites sources that claim we'd have to clear cut forests to plant all of this corn. I live in the cornbelt (Indiana) and I grew up on the farm. Every farmer has fields that are devoted to hay, straw or pastureland that will be converted to fields before we start clearing forests. Plus, increased yields (an achievement Murray points out in this chapter) will make up some of the difference as well.

The Aral Sea disaster (it was drained to provide water to meet Soviet cotton crop targets) is awful, but can only loosely be placed at the feet of environmentalists. He cites it as an example of poor choices of central planning and a cautionary tale to central planning schemes like Kyoto or carbon credits, but this is a loose association at best.

So, in sum, this is a pleasure to read. Well-cited, but not a perfect book.

I once proudly called myself an environmentalist. Now I am a conservationist and a steward.

I believe some wild spaces should be saved. I recycle (A lot!). I coordinate my school's paper recycling program. I own several of those little flourescent bulbs and I use them every day. I don't spray chemicals all over my yard. I don't dump motor oil down the drain. I pick up garbage when I walk the dog. I go camping. I go to the Earth Day celebration in downtown Indianapolis because it's a great place to get information on clean-up events and they give away free trees! I also love it when they assume that I must be an ultra-liberal just to be there!

Now that I've said all of this, let me say that I am not an environmentalist. I used to be. Way back when, when I first started teaching, I showed movies to my kids in world geography that said the world as we know it is going to end by the year 2000. Mass flooding, all of the fish dead, mass starvation, etc. They were older versions of the "Inconvenient Truth" that featured Hollywood stars and quoted heavily from Gore's "Earth in the Balance".

I am now embarrassed by all of that.

Why? Because I fell for the hype and did not do simple things like check sources and see if what I was being told was backed up by other testimony. Sometimes, simple facts get in the way (like Ehrlich's "Population Bomb" book predictions never quite came true, like those predictions in the videos I showed to my class) and make it hard to follow that line of reasoning any longer.

So, what are the 7 environmental catastrophes:

1. DDT & Malaria in Africa
2. Ethanol as fuel
3. The "Pill" and its effect on fish downstream from water treatment plants.
4. The burning of Yellowstone and other National lands
5. The Cuyahoga River burning
6. The Endangered Species Act "Shoot, Shovel and Shut up!"
7. The Aral Sea

Positives:

This book is extremely well-written and approachable. It is also well-documented with more than 300 footnotes.

His commentary on DDT & Malaria is not only well thought out, but correctly placed as the first disaster since it causes around 1 Million deaths per year. He does not deny that DDT can have an affect on large birds, but he points out that it was not the use of DDT that caused it, but rather the mis-use of it. DDT is effective in small doses and does not need multiple applications to control bug populations. The multiple applications is a mis-use that makes it dangerous for birds (although it begs the question: Is any bird species worth 1 million lives every year - we are now up to nearly 40 million dead due to malaria carried by mosquitos). It does not cause human birth defects as Rachel "Silent Spring" Carson suggested. He skewers her research. Why it is still held up with pride as the start of the modern environmental movement is a mystery to me.

His commentary on Al Gore (do as I say, not as I do) and what he characterizes as the Church of Eco-Paganism are brilliant. He builds on Michael Crichton's commentary along the same lines and calls it a form of eco-Lutheranism (not to insult Lutherans - I am one and thought it was brilliant) since it is based on "Not one workds, but on Faith alone," which is why the high priest of the movement can use more than 20 times the electricity of the average Tennessean, own 2 more homes and jet around the world while telling us to cut back - he has the Faith!

The strong commentary on the Endangered Species Act was strong and largely built on an essay by the author of Freakonomics [Revised and Expanded]: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything, Steven D. Levitt. It studies the unintended consequences of the Endangered Species Act in which some people kill endangered species or destroy their habitats so they don't lose their property rights to a series of federal mandates.

Negatives:

His commentary on ethanol is strong, but goes overboard. His math sometimes does not make sense. He claims (correctly, I'm pretty sure) that all of the gasoline must be 10% ethanol. A few pages later he notes that if this were to happen an extra 55 million acres of corn would have to be planted. Well, we're already doing it. He also cites sources that claim we'd have to clear cut forests to plant all of this corn. I live in the cornbelt (Indiana) and I grew up on the farm. Every farmer has fields that are devoted to hay, straw or pastureland that will be converted to fields before we start clearing forests. Plus, increased yields (an achievement Murray points out in this chapter) will make up some of the difference as well.

The Aral Sea disaster (it was drained to provide water to meet Soviet cotton crop targets) is awful, but can only loosely be placed at the feet of environmentalists. He cites it as an example of poor choices of central planning and a cautionary tale to central planning schemes like Kyoto or carbon credits, but this is a loose association at best.

So, in sum, this is a pleasure to read. Well-cited, but not a perfect book.

So, strong, but not perfect book.

points out that are unintended consequences as a result of acts done by the elitist

Iain Murray well-written book skewers the fundamental principles of the radical left environmental movement, and does it very artfully. Clearly, this is a compelling book which mastefully states the case of the failures of the environmental movement, and their `liberal fascistic" approach to society.

Murray shows at the very beginning that the environmental movement focuses on (1) identifying a cause and laws requiring immediate passage, (2) creating an apocalyptic scenario, (3) claiming a threat to children, (4) donning the mantle of science while dismissing any (and all) scientific evidence that contradicts their position (and cause), (5) creating a clamor that rules the debate, and (6) defending ruthlessly all measures. Basically the movement is no different than leninism, communism, and nazi-ism for openers. It is the blue print for totalitarianism and I concur with Murray that totalitarian control is the goal of the environmental movement.

The following quote caught my eye as a scientist (geology) and as a former state Sea Grant director. "In a world of increasingly devoid of moral authority, the supposed impartiality of science provides a seemingly objective source of authority" (P. 51-52). That authority is a major threat to the environmental movement.

In my experience, the principles and methodology of science have been under attack from several quarters during the past 25 years. In Europe, university scientists who attain the rank of "professor" are asked, now-a-days, to spend their time serving on government panels so "science has a seat at the table". It means time away from teaching and research. Classes are taught by junior faculty with the "professor" making what are tantamount to guest appearances in classes in his/her area of expertise. More and more of their research is handled by graduate students with minimal supervision. Meanwhile, others at "the table" in these government panels also have demands and thus place science in the untenable position of moving from its impartiality (It's called conflict of interest).

I saw this first hand as a Senior Fulbright Research Fellow at the Vrije University of Amsterdam in 1989. Since then, it has only gotten worse.

As a state Sea Grant director, I observed some of this first hand also. Scientific FACTS were denigrated by environmental activists because they were inconvenient and stood in the way of achieving environmental goals. Those goals normally did not consider the consequences of their actions including economic consequences for the working class and the working poor. Hence the affluence, elitism, and racism of this movement. One rarely saw minorities or working class people at meetings called or promoted by environmental activists, for instance.

Murray's book is replete with examples of environmentalism gone wrong that illustrate this point persuasively. The banning of DDT has caused a devastating INCREASE of malaria in Africa (a form of environmental racism?). The current mandates to manufacture ethanol has had severe consequences for the global food supply. The development of certain pharmaceuticals, including birth control pills, has lead to deformities in fish as these pharmaceuticals are excreted from the human body into waste water discharge points where fish habitats occur. The misplaced protection of some "endangered species" has hurt economic development and progress when studies show many of these species were hardly threatened (but some were; however, no retraction of the endangered species from the list of protected animals was implemented after their populations were restored to well above acceptable levels).

So what's in store if the environmental movement takes over? Just visit the Aral Sea in the Former Soviet Union. This is a classic case of central environmental planning going from worse to disastrous. This chapter should be required reading for all citizens.

The bottom line of consequences was well stated by Murray. He stated "Liberal environmentalism, with its focus on box-checking rules, preference for words over substance, and its obsession with punishment of the guilty, has on too many occasions failed to prevent environmental damage, and in the meantime has harmed the economy and the humans whose well-being the economy represents" (p. 296). That, in a nutshell, is what the environmental movement has wrought. We should be grateful to Murray for stating it so eloquently.

I bought the book after seeing a C-Span discussion by Iain Murray. I am a tree farmer and retired engineer trying to make practical sense of all the attention being given human influence on global warming and offers to pay me for carbon being sequestered in my growing trees. Murray provides both a framework for understanding the extremes of the public debate and examples of unintended consequences of prior policies. I recommend the book to anyone attempting to understand the scope and ramifications of the activist environmentalism movement. I gave four rather than five stars because there are a few subjective observations (that I tend to agree with) that are also extreme and tend to make it more difficult to have a rational discussion of the issues.

While this book's title seems to indicate that it is about global warming, it is more of a popular history through environmentalism since the 1960s. And that is what makes it so valuable - and so devastating. The incompetence of environmentalists has led to much worse destruction of the environment than if we had done nothing at all. So the book does not address global warming per se (thought he does to an extent in the first chapter), but by revealing the results of previous environmental shrieking, he shows that we really shouldn't over react this time either. And we should be squinting extra carefully at the proposed solutions to climate change as, given the record, they are likely to make things much, much worse.

Murray walks us through seven incidents or issues that environmentalism has utterly botched. The book ranges far and wide on environmentalism, so that by the end we not only have explored those seven, but we know something positive about economics (for instance, how burning corn as ethenal in our cars results in less efficient care performance, more polluted atmosphere, and less food going to African aid - we literally are burning the lunch of someone in the third world), and positive solutions to environmental issues. One of my favorite chapters in the book shows how the chemicals from birth control pills are destroying fish populations, but the environmentalists refuse to do anything about it because it conflicts with the assumption that zero-consequences sexual activity is a good thing.

The book is well documented, and it is well written as well, but I found the last few chapters lagged a bit. This could also be because I read it in a single day. The last chapter, however, was a real gem, showing what we can do to help the environment without running to statist regulations, which he shows are simply disastrous to the environment.

All in all, highly recommended.

What can I say? Get this book. Get it now. Give it to your friends.

These are the stories that you will not hear on the news. Mr. Murray has opened my eyes. I always suspected that the environmental talk being spouted these days was all fear-mongering. Now I know. The truths behind the various catastrophes outlined in this book are very disturbing. All conscientious citizens should read this book. Thank you Mr. Murray.

As anyone who pays any attention to current events knows, energy and food prices are spiralling upward. Many do not know the reasons for that.

In this scholarly review of the subject, Iain Murray explores those issues and several others. He not only provides the reasons for many of our current predicaments, he also supplies solutions.

As the subtitle states, this book deals with 'seven environmental catastrophes that liberals don't want you to know about - because they helped cause them.' Although many environmentalists likely have good motives, the unintended consequences of the policies that they push have been and continue to be disastrous for our planet and the human race.

One example is the ban on the 'dreaded DDT'. Mr. Murray does a great job of showing how that ban has resulted in the deaths of a countless number of children in Africa due to malaria.

Another is ethanol. Murray makes the case that the ethanol mandates enacted by the U.S. Congress have led to much higher food prices and shortages. Additionally, it is ineffective in battling the 'problem'. Ethanol may produce 1/3 less greenhouse gas than gasoline, but it uses more gasoline to produce it than it replaces.

The Yellowstone Fire of 1988 is another great environmental tragedy brought about by the policies of so-called environmentalists. The war against logging and the anti controlled burn crusades created a powder keg. The fuel buildup was so huge that a massive fire was inevitable.

In the case of The Endangered Species Act, Mr. Murray shows how it has created disincentives to protect some of the species it claims to champion while at the same time wreaking havoc on our economy.

There are several other disasters that leftist environmentalist policies have caused. As Murray says, 'Liberal environmentalism, with its focus on box-checking rules, preference for word over substance, and its obsession with punishment of the guilty, has on too many occasions failed to prevent environmental damage, and in the meantime has harmed the economy and the humans whose well-being the economy represents.'

This is an important and timely book. From skyrocketing energy prices to high priced food and shortages of the same, the policies of the radical environmentalist movement are greatly damaging the world food supply, economy, and the environment. This book should be read by all voters and policymakers.

If you have any interest in the environment, or the proper use of science and statistics in public policy, you must read this book.

The author covers a range of ways that science and statistics have been misused in the environmental debate by the left to try to achieve results that they would otherwise be unable to sell to the voters. The author demonstrates that liberals are not the only ones that are keen to ensure that we hand on a clean safe world to our children - and indeed that many of the policies that they promote may have precisely the opposite result.

Those on the right won't be surprised by this revelation, but will enjoy this book for the way it covers the issues with enough detail to be convincing, but a light enough touch to be an truly enjoyable read. Those on the left should read it for a different reason - it puts forward a series of correctives on issues they are likely to care about, and will make them question the facts underlying their positions. You don't need to agree with the author or his conclusions, but you certainly need to hear what he has to say.

Now the book is available on Kindle it's even kind to trees. What more could you want!

Iain Murray makes an important contribution to the debate about environmentalism, global warming (or the new catchall "climate change") and the left-wing's desire to bring individual activities under government control - provided, of course, that the left-wing is the government.

Murray is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute whose colleagues have also produced excellent books on the same general subjects. I highly recommend Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health! and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism). Along with two or three other books, such as Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition, you will be both very well-informed on the global warming . . . oh, I mean "climate change" . . . myth and able to rebut any left-wing argument with facts, not falsehoods.

Murray's work does not duplicate Berlau or Horner, rather he makes his examination from a somewhat different perspective.

Murray focuses his aim on Al Gore's falsehoods and exaggerations. One of the biggest distortions in Al Gore's movie and book is about a "threat" to polar bears. Gore claims "[a] new scientific study shows that, for the first time, polar bears have been drowning in significant numbers". The study Gore refers to is neither scientific nor accurate and Murray shows why. (The polar bears in question died as the result of a storm, not "global warming".)

What is important that a poorly drafted law from the time when left-wingers were claiming that the world was about to enter a new Ice Age - - - just four decades ago - - - calls for potentially endangered animals to be classified as such. The endangerment need not be proven. But the economic consequences can be devestating as left-wing groups rush to file lawsuits to block all kinds of economic activity on the spurious claim that polar bears will be further endangered.

Other environmental catastrophes that the left-wing doesn't want to talk about are also covered, such as the alarming rise of artificial estrogen found in streams, rivers and lakes. This artificial estrogen vastly increases the instance of "intersexed" fish which cannot breed and, ultimately, to the destruction of fish stocks. The left-wing, Murray explains, won't talk about this because the artificial estrogen is excreted by women taking birth control pills and to criticize another left-wing dogma is not permitted.

Likewise, as Berlau did so well, Murray points out the because of the left-wing's groundless campaign to ban DDT, thousands of children die from malaria. No tears for them from the left-wing. In fact, as Murray explains, many on the left are pleased to see any reduction in human population.

Murray's writing style is relaxed, but he provides sources for every claim he makes. (You don't see Al Gore doing that.)

In short, Murray is good to the cover's claim: he exposes "Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You To Know About - Because They Helped To Cause Them".

"The Really Inconvenient Truths" is an excellent exposition of the fallacies of the left-wing environmentalist and climate change myths. Well worth the time to read - and I suspect, underline as well. It is good stuff.

Jerry

Mr. Murray has written a very interesting and informative book on how dogmatic environmentalists have often actually worsened environmental problems or human living conditions or both. Mr. Murray demonstrates that a main part of the problem of the environmentalist dogma is the hostility to property rights. He demonstrates how this rejection of property rights led to the fires of debris on the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland Ohio. Also relevant is the vanishing of the Aral Sea in Central Asia.

Mr. Murray also discusses other environmentalist made crises like the banning of the insecticide DDT and the emergence of malaria in Africa and other areas. Other notable crises discussed include the take over of crop land for ethanol production and the environmental restrictions that created fire prone areas near housing developments and national parks in the United States.

To his great credit Mr. Murray has exposed a lot of the fallacies of Al Gore's unscientific rant An Inconvenient Truth.

In essence Mr. Murray demonstrates that religious and dogmatic environmentalism has most often worsened both the environment and the human condition.

Mr. Murray covers a lot of the same ground as John Berlau in his excellent book Eco-Freaks: Environmentalism Is Hazardous to Your Health!. However these authors often do write about different topics. For example Mr. Berlau writes about the environmentalist opposition to adequate flood protection in New Orleans and the use of asbestos that could have prevented the collapse of the World Trade Center towers. I feel Mr. Berlau writes a bit better. But still Mr. Murray has written and excellent work that merits the widest readership.

Nothing in this book was really new. It is a good place to start doing research to get facts instead of liberal hysteria. It really makes me sad for all the deserving people that received the Nobel Peace Prize that it was GIVEN to Al Gore. Given because he certainly didn't earn it!

The author of this book, Iain Murray, is on C-Span right now spouting his nonsense. I decided to look at the funding sources of his Washington DC lobby, Competitive Enterprise Institute. You can find this info at SourceWatch. I notice Murray is funded by, among many similar, Koch Industries, the "nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion." Also until 1999 CEI received funds from the tobacco industry. This is not scientific information, it is industry propaganda. CEI paid Murray $65,000 in 2004 to develop an "energy policy" (to attack Al Gore?). He also writes for Tech Central Station, "an astroturf site which routinely publishes pro-business psuedoscience." Murray is not a scientist, he is an industry paid propagandist. This is not a helpful basis for discussion of such serious problems.

Iain Murray's book tells a dismal tale of the issues that the environmental movement failed. Patrick Moore (Greenpeace founder) has often talked about the reasons he left the movement he founded. He has mentioned the dismal view of humans, the radicalization of the movement, the lack of science-based policy pursuit. Iain Murray does not tell you that it is so, he shows you the issues that the movement abandoned and disregarded because it was convenient.

The people involved in either side of this debate are often angry and defensive. The debate has been dirty for a long time. What struck me with Murray's book is his gentle voice, his descriptive, evidence based narrative. I grew up in the green movement; my first political engagement was in the Norwegian version of Friends of the Earth's youth group. I soon got disillusioned, and had I known the seven truths that Murray tells, I might have left sooner than I did.

If you are serious about your desire do conservation work, if you are serious about your dedication to make the human footprint on earth smaller, read this book. There are other alternatives out there, where you can contribute to a greener, wealthier world. A world where humans flourish and the environment is protected. Don't by into the dismal view of the Malthusian totalitarians. As Murray shows in this book, their policies kills people and hurts the environment.

Iain Murray has done a real service with The Really Inconvenient Truths. Perhaps a majority of us are now environmentalists. Yet the track record of environmentalist legislation and regulation is unenviable. There are problems with the incentives created by many bills.

The ban on DDT might have saved the live save the lives of a few birds, but it has cost deaths of Africans from malaria. Ethanol increases food prices. The endangered species act creates perverse incentives. There are what we might term as unintended consequences, as far as most environmentalists are concerned. It is important to note, however, that there does exist a lunatic fringe of the environmentalist movement, who will interpret part of the results discussed in this book as a job well done.

In some respects The Really Inconvenient Truths is unremarkable. Much of its analysis derives from common sense economics. Some of its examples are already known. This in not the first time someone has noted a connection between malaria and the DDT ban. However, The Really Inconvenient Truths is quite remarkable in the current political environment. This is a very politically incorrect book. As Murray himself notes, there is certain populist fervor among environmentalists. Murray deserves credit for taking on such a emotionally and politically charged issue.

Part of the problem of environmentalism is the conceit of social democrats and socialists who think that the world is made better through conscious planning. Yet most environmentalists are just normal well intentioned people, whose faith in government solutions has caused them to implement the wrong solutions. Why is it that the environmentalist movement retains its momentum despite the severe unintended consequences of its policies? This movement is dangerous because it is based on emotion, rather than the type of cool headed reasoning found in The Really Inconvenient Truths. Sound reasoning is important here because many lives are at stake. Bravo!

Iain Murray has done a real service with The Really Inconvenient Truths. Perhaps a majority of us are now environmentalists. Yet the green movement has been influenced heavily by a small number of fanatics. One such fanatic is Eric Pianka. Pianka is a "scientist" at the University of Texas who wants to kill 90% of the human race, to save the planet. Such extremism would surely offend nearly all environmentalists. The shocking truths is that a few environmentalists have actually done more than propose atrocities.

The ban on DDT might have saved the live save the lives of a few birds, but it has cost many human lives in Africa. Ethanol increases food prices. There are what we might term as unintended consequences, as far as most environmentalists are concerned. It is important to note, however, that there does exist a lunatic fringe of the environmentalist movement, who will interpret part of the results discussed in this book as a job well done.

In some respects The Really Inconvenient Truths is unremarkable. This book uses common sense economics to examine the effects of environmentalist inspired legislation. However, The Really Inconvenient Truths is quite remarkable in the current political environment. This is a very politically incorrect book. Murray deserves credit for taking on such a emotionally and politically charged issue. Extreme environmentalists will make every effort to discredit and demonize him precisely because this is the kind of work that will redirect their movement in a more sensible direction.

Part of the problem of environmentalism is the fatal conceit of social democrats and socialists who think that the world is made better through concious planning. Yet most environmentalists are just normal well intentioned people, who have been misinformed. Also, the environmetalist movement does contain some anti-human extremists. There is a knowledge gap between mainstream and lunatic environmentalists. Closing this gap is important because there are many lives at stake. Bravo!!!

This book exposes the hypocrisy of Al Gore and the liberal movement. Excellent book filled with facts detailing liberal and radical environmentalist hypocrisy. Highly recommended!

A wonderfully readable handbook on how to protect yourself from the barbarian onslaught on science.

I'll make it simple: this is the best book written about the environment in the past five years. It's a well-researched, well-written, never boring look at the way that the liberal passion for central planning has damaged just about every aspect of the natural environment. Although the subject mater may seem dry at first glance, this book actually makes it fun. It's a must-read.

The real conspiracy theorists are Democrats, especially liberals, "An Inconvenient Truth" has been proven wrong, and that we are actually experiencing Global Cooling as shown by NOAA, and even many of the same scientists Gore used have changed their minds after looking at the data.

Another falsehood is Gore and his cronies took stock footage and added it into their movie/book, such as ABC Television had a CGI shot of part of the polar ice cap as melted, they put the two original footage before CGI and it was full of ice. It was taken without permission, "An Inconvenient Truth" should be filed under Fiction.

There are some issues which the press doesn't present in a one-sided fashion: the ones they refuse to mention at all.

If you want to learn about problems which you won't hear about otherwise, this book is the place to start. If you read only the section on malaria you'll never look at environmentalism the same way again.

Plus, this is the perfect Earth Day gift!

I should have seen the subtitle when I first ordered this book. I was thinking it would tell me something I needed to know. The main thesis seems to be "It is the liberals" who are to blame. In other words another waste of time reading another volume of rightwing political screed and smear. Accordingly, even with absolutely no real proof again to be merely divisive the lesson here is "Liberals are responsible for everything wrong and only the extreme right can save us." Thank goodness 258 pages is all it took, even though I had the feeling the author had many more negatives to expound upon.