The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change (The Politically Incorrect Guides)

I’m an environmental scientist and find the arguments within to be so inaccurate/incorrect as to be laughable. A climate change denying conspiracy theory rant written by a non-scientist from a ultra conservative think tank. Full of cherry picked, refuted and misinterpreted studies. If you want actual facts on climate change avoid. From what I can see in the reviews this is primarily being purchased by climate change deniers and conspiracy theorists to reinforce their bias, rather than anyone seriously wanting to know the truth about climate change.

Marc Morano has done the country, the planet a great service with this book. Revealing the politics, and the lack of science behind the warmist’s/alarmist’s claims and their motivation to save the world, not from rising temperatures but from capitalism.

If nothing else, this book should correct anyone who believes in the 97% consensus on climate change. Many of the leading climatologists are dismayed that what should be a question of science has become almost totally political and like a religion to the true believers. Here are men and women that are giants in their fields of study standing up and saying "bo-o-o-Gus!" Morano has the guts to call out the Climate Change alarmists for their entention to keep Africa poor to address a non-existent problem.

It is so good to know that not all mainstream scientists blindly accept man caused climate change as true. There are plenty of contradictions to the current politically correct verbiage on climate change. This was the most informative book I have read in a long time.

If you are a consumer of traditional media read this book. It’s entertaining as well as informative. You get a perspective on why so many people are appalled at the behavior of the climate activists. How they systematically rally to destroy careers of good honest scientist who refuse to tow the company line. I’m thankful for Marc and many others like him who will not be silenced. The book is also well sourced by scientist of the highest caliber. Very informative on the latest in climate science.

Full of lies and conflation

The fact that this book can be published is a miserable sign that the fossil fuel industry still controls a massive financial infrastructure set on denying and real threats to us, our family and our species. Devastating. I was hoping for a reasonable discussion but constantly found strew men of the 'left's' position - a manufactured stance absolutely disingenuous to anyone working to make the world a better place - an constant reference to facts that seemed to repeatedly miss the point.

This book is simply not a responsible, reliable book. To give one example, on page 68, the author claims Arctic temperatures have "stabilized with no significant detectible warming." This is easily disproven with a quick websearch (go ahead, I'll wait) or a review of recent literature. In fact, as I write this, temperatures are about 35 degrees F above normal. Claim after claim in this book is wrong.

Facts are the bastion of true intellectuals. This book exposes the phony claims of the leftist (read Nazis). Pravda is not truth, but it does enrich the frauds of climate change.

I read a lot about global warming because I’m trying to figure out if I need to worry. Given the vast number of high-level scientists who doubt that man-made climate change is what the alarmists would have us believe, I am convinced that the science is not yet settled. However, with senior scientists on opposite sides of the table, I can’t seem to get a clear picture. And what’s worse is the theatrics that people use to influence public opinion. In “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” for example, Marc Morano sites a PBS story about Senator Timothy Wirth listening to testimony from NASA scientist James Hansen in 1988. Senator Wirth told PBS that to make the testimony more dramatic, they chose to hold the hearing on the day that weather experts told him would be the hottest that summer. Wirth said, “We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington….” But it gets even more manipulative, explains the senator who was trying to push the global warming agenda. “What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room…. Jim Hansen was wiping his brow at the table at the hearing, at the witness table,” which was all fabricated to make people afraid the world was burning up. In other words, instead of using real data, they used real clever tricks.
When reading about the sizzle instead of the steak, it becomes clear why scientists turn away from the opinions of the climate change advocates. For example, Morano notes, “In April 2014 Harvard professor Robert Stavins revealed his disgust with the UN IPCC process for which he was a lead author: ‘It has been an intense and exceptionally time-consuming process, which recently culminated in a grueling week . . . some 195 country delegations discussed, revised, and ultimately approved (line-by-line) the “Summary for Policymakers” (SPM) . . . the resulting document should probably be called the Summary by Policymakers, rather than the Summary for Policymakers.’ During one session, Stavins said he was one of only two IPCC authors present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials. When I read this, I researched the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is real. This figure has been bandied around for years, but it turns out that it’s based on poor research. In fact, some of the research came from undergraduate term papers, and other studies included research of only the abstracts of scientific articles. That means that someone, probably someone looking to find a climate change point of view, just read the abstract of a paper and then marked if he felt the author believed in anthropogenic climate change. Once again, the alarmism has overtaken good science and makes me doubt the climate change agenda.
Since bias overwhelms the presentation of the climate change story, I decided to try to check out original source documents. Morano writes, “Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2.” I wanted to verify this issue from sources other than the author, so I went to NASA’s website, https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/. The problem was that the historical temperature chart that they showed only began in 1880. Overall, it showed a small increase in “temperature anomaly” over that period, which would seem to correspond to the industrial revolution. However, from 1940 to around 1975, there was no appreciable increase, which would make one wonder why there was no increase for 35 years if, according to scientists, the increase in CO2 is directly responsible for global warming. More than that, though, I thought the study would be more interesting if we could see the data from before 1880, to see what the trend had been. That chart was not on the home page of the NASA site, so I looked at https://www.temperaturerecord.org/, which claims to get its data from “NASA's GLOBAL Land-Ocean Temperature Index,” and that site showed that the temperature has been increasing from the beginning of the 1800s, well before there was manmade carbon dioxide being pumped into the air. So there must have been another cause of warming, and perhaps whatever caused the warming then (not human beings creating fossil fuel emissions) is also responsible for warming today.
So given the disingenuousness of the climate change supporters, should we worry? I’m inclined to side with physicist Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London, who has referred to climate models as “rubbish.” Morano quotes him as saying, “I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields and farms and forests.” Frankly, the climate is complicated, it’s not just that CO2 is poison and is going to destroy the climate. And even if someone believed that is true, he could turn to the prince of climate change himself, Al Gore. The problem is, though, Gore realizes that all of the economy-ruining changes that politicians propose (which ultimately give them more power) will only lead to symbolic gestures. “…During a 2017 Fox News interview with Chris Wallace, [Al Gore admitted] that the UN Paris pact is symbolic: WALLACE: “You would agree that even if all 195 nations, now 194, met their targets, it still wouldn’t solve the problem.” GORE: “That is correct. However, it sends a very powerful signal to business and industry and civil society, and countries around the world.”
Send a signal? There seems to be no climate change problem, so sending a signal seems silly. And as always, it will be the poorest countries that suffer if the American and European elites decides that the third world cannot use fossil fuels to help them have light at night, warmth in the winter, and the doubling of life expectancy that we have all enjoyed.