My Favorite Climate Cover Up Quote So Far

Sun, 2009-10-25 10:34Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

My Favorite Climate Cover Up Quote So Far

Climate Cover Up continues to amass some amazing coverage and praise from around the world. 

Here are some of my favorite reviews so far:

Jeff Biggers reviewed Climate Cover Up at the Huffington Post:

“James Hoggan and his DeSmogBlog.com posse might be our nation’s most important sleuths–and they ain’t even from the United States. … Climate Cover-Up is an indispensable guidebook to anyone concerned about our planet’s climate future; in fact, it should be required reading for all American citizens, journalists, public policy makers – and President Barack Obama. … Let’s hope Climate Cover-Up makes it to the White House before the next round of Big Coal lobbyists.”

Liz Veazey at It’s Getting Hot in Here says:

“As someone fighting for bold climate action it is really helpful to better understand folks fighting against you and how they are organized.  I would definitely recommend the book, especially if you, like me and many others, felt like the climate denial campaign was mostly over.”

The Georgia Straight in Vancouver writes that Climate Cover Up offers “compelling insights for anyone interested in learning why there is so much confusion about this issue in the media.”

Straight Goods, Canada’s leading independent online newsmagazine, says:
“If you care about your well-being, the fate of your children and the environment, please read James Hoggan’s new book, Climate Cover-Up.”

RealClimate.org, a website that focuses on the science of climate change, had this to say about the book:
“There is an important story behind the climate change denial effort that goes well beyond the scientific issues at hand. It’s not our mission at RealClimate to tell that story, but there are others who are doing it, and doing it well. Hoggan and Littlemore are clearly among them. Read this book, and equally important, make sure that others who need to do as well.”


But my favorite quote of all (so far) comes from David Roberts at Grist, who describes DeSmogBlog as “a Canadian outfit that has its teeth in the skeptic movement’s arse like it was made of sirloin.”

Roberts says Climate Cover Up “offers chapter and verse on the industry groups, scientists for hire, and lazy-ass media that have colluded to leave the public in its current state of ignorance on the most important scientific question of our time. This isn’t just bloggy ranting either: the guys know how to dig, and they’ve uncovered original documents. Tasty, tasty documents.”


Have you seen another great review of Climate Cover Up? Drop me a line at desmogblog@gmail.com,

Previous Comments

The main thing stopping me from getting the book at this point is that I’m concerned I might end up taking the whole thing more seriously and become bitter and so for now I’m not getting it. Why would I be bitter if I took the thing more seriously? The end game.

What is the end game of this climate catastrophe debate?

Scenario 1: The climate goes out of control and scientists are vindicated and we have disaster - everybody loses at that point.

Scenario 2: The warning is heard, CO2 emissions plummet, climate stabilizes and no surprise: climate deniers become louder and cockier than ever as they inevitably and effectively proclaim that the whole climate thing was a sham and sacrifices were unnecessary, the climate really stabilized itself and was never in trouble and so somebody has to go to jail. … and yeah they’ll make a movie about it.

Scenario 3: CO2 continues to rise and the climate remains stable anyway. Deniers totally rule the planet at that point.

So that’s it. The only possibility of deniers going away is scenario 1 - total disaster

or maybe everyone could become reasonable and pleasant about it but I’m not holding my breath on that one.

And Fox News will become the leading scientific journal in the world.

Are you sure? On what reason did you write that statement?

he has inside info. Fox may not look like much now, but pretty soon it will take over all aspects of official communication under President Palin. Fox will become required viewing. Glen Beck will be secretary of state. You heard it here first.

You know, Rick, I came up with exactly those scenarios some time ago, too. It is galling to me that if we all make the effort and DO manage to pull ourselves back from the brink, the deniers will claim it was a natural adjustment and crow from the rooftops that AGW was a hoax. Just as the doubters did about Y2K, after everyone, alerted to the issue, took steps to correct it so that nothing serious happened – they all cried “what was all the fuss about?” And if everyone gets the H1N1 shot and only a few people die, they will claim it was all an over-reaction. There are always smug, know-it-all anti-intellectuals who will be there at the ready to say “I told you so.”

Thing is, Rick, that I can live with a few jerks saying “I told you so” as long as the deltas aren’t flooded and the droughts abate and the permafrost doesn’t thaw overnight. At the worst, if we make the effort, we get cleaner air, more efficient sources of energy and a greener, more sustainable planet. Not so bad, even if we’re wrong about AGW. But if we’re RIGHT …? Priceless.

Fern Mackenzie

Some denialists have argued that we don’t hear about the ozone hole anymore, until more knowledgeable people point out that is because the nations of the world agreed to do something about it and did. Seems to me that’s also what happened with acid rain.

Starting out by giving up accomplishes nothing. And we historians will remember those who led and those who were a drag on humanity.

Actually the ozone hole is just as thin if not thinner than it’s ever been, especially over Antarctica. The last three years (2006, 2007 and 2008) have recorded the largest holes on record, even accounting for seasonal fluctuations. http://www.theozonehole.com/ozoneholehistory.htm

I don’t know why the ozone hole isn’t a news item anymore. It should be, because we certainly haven’t “fixed it”. Though most people, including science writers and journalists, just assume we have.

not really fixed at all then? very surprising because the “we fixed the ozone hole” thinking has been around for a long time now. maybe it’s a case of public attention on one environmental issue at a time. - Did global warming just push the ozone hole off the stage?

Femack I hope you can live with yourself because I plan on giving you a big fat I told you so everyday of my life for your part in perpetuating a hoax. H1N1 is not as bad as the regular flu and it is being overhyped. But I want to address your points “we get cleaner air, more efficient energy” We will get that anyway, you don’t and can’t legislate theoretical energy. Femack, what is being done about all the trash in the ocean? I think the giant trash pile is more of a concern than global warming right now. It is a problem, it is visible and it is only getting worse. I’d like to see desmog do a story on this trash pile, hell I would even donate money to a cause like that.

It doesn’t have to be either/or. I’m very concerned about the state of the oceans from a number of angles, and trash is high on the list.

As for H1N1, the news reported this morning that a 13-year-old boy died of it here in Toronto yesterday, only hours after developing a fever, and that the number of reported cases already (very early days) match the number at the height of regular flu season last year. I think precautions are certainly warranted.

FM

how to get the people who really need to know this to read it? I think Obama probably already has a copy in his IN basket. He’ll be up to speed on the basics by now. It’s the people like my brother/sister-in-law, the guys at work, the ones who sit in traffic on the way to work, the folks who are too busy finding the rent and feeding the family and can’t afford a book – these are the people we need to reach. My copy is on the magazine table at work, labelled “recommended reading”, but it’s preaching to the choir. The folks that the Republicans are depending on for support don’t have time to worry about AGW. They are trying to make ends meet any way that they can. And any hint that the government might make life more expensive or threaten their jobs is lethal.

Kudos to Jim out there on the book promotion tour. It’s a grind and no mistake. The more news associations pick up on this and the more it gets into the blogs, the greater the chances that the information will get to where it needs to go. Fern

“While those who stand in denial of climate change have failed in the last 15 years to produce a single, peer-reviewed scientific journal article that challenges the theory and evidence of human-induced climate change, mainstream media was, until very recently, covering the story (in more than half the cases, according to the academic researchers”
A new study in the journal Science has just shown that all of the climate modeling results of the past are erroneous. The IPCC’s modeling cronies have just been told that the figures used for greenhouse gas forcings are incorrect, meaning none of the model results from prior IPCC reports can be considered valid. What has caused climate scientists’ assumptions to go awry? Short lived aerosol particles in the atmosphere changing how greenhouse gases react in previously unsuspected ways. The result is another devastating blow to the climate catastrophists’ computer generated

I’ve seen a lot of graphs showing global atmospheric CO2 versus global average temperature, trying to prove the pro and con side of AGW.

Why do we not see graphs of human produced CO2 (ACO2) versus temperature? What I talking about here is total human produced CO2, say going back to 1870, not just the amount remaining in the atmosphere.

The reason I ask is that if AGW is correlated with ACO2, then we should see a stronger correlation between total human produced CO2 as compared to total atmospheric CO2.

This would be strong evidence that AGW from ACO2 is correct. However, is the correlation is weaker, then it would tend to show AGW from ACO2 is not correct.

This seems to be a very simply test. Why not post it? This is my challenge to the pro and con AGW groups. Show that ACO2 is more/less strongly correlated with AGW than total atmospheric CO2.