Customer Reviews

The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, The Cover-up, The Prescription

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

"The Heat is On" is a well-researched, detailed description of how the coal and oil industries are trying (and succeeding) to confuse the issue of global warming today. In this frightening exposé, Ross Gelbspan shows how the fossil fuel industries are spending millions of dollars to confuse the public through misleading advertising and PR tactics in order to protect their financial interests. The story behind this campaign of lies is astounding.

Try a little experiment: talk to several people about global warming. Just bring it up in the conversation, and watch their reaction. I did, and I found that most people laughed, or said, "Yeah, but I heard there's no conclusive evidence to support that." This is the direct effect of the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign. Gelbspan describes how they have done this largely through industry-created groups with misleading names (such as the "Information Council on the Environment"), and pseudo-scientists paid by the industry.

Gelbspan explains that the industry's groups and scientists have received a great deal of media coverage because journalists, as part of their duty, are compelled to cover both sides of the story. The problem is that the "other side of the story" in this case is a small group who is paid by the industry. The confusion and lies promoted by the fossil fuel industry has been enough to drown out the 2,500 climate scientists around the world who all agree that global warming is a fact.

"The Heat is On" offers irrefutable facts to debunk the myth that global warming evidence is inconclusive. For example, many people claim that recent extreme colde and winter weather refutes the theory. Wrong, says Gelbspan: "severe winter weather perfectly consistent with global warming. One effect of climate change is to produce more extreme local temperatures--leading to hotter hots, unseasonal colds, and more severe snowstorms." And temperature changes are just the beginning of the problem. Other effects include outbreaks of disease, proliferation of pests, and extinction of species, among others.

The only solution is to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions, probably as much as 60%. This is no easy task, but Gelbspan does offer a plausible "prescription". He suggests that we (1) divert all fossil fuels subsidies ($20 billion/year!) to renewable energy development, (2) implement efficiency standards to require generating facilities to be highly efficient (instead of the current 35% efficiency average), and (3) support developing nations in the conversion with an international currency transaction tax.

This is a very powerful book. Hopefully it will help to re-educate the public, and serve as a model for global change. I strongly recommend it.

Gelbspan is a reporter for the Boston Globe who does a great job of describing the science, economics and politics behind gobal climate change. He does an excellent job of defining the problem (in layman's terms) and discussing the disinformation campaign sponsored by the oil industry.

If you're looking for the nitty-gritty science behind global warming, you will find only a sampling in the appendix. Gelbspan starts with the assumption that the thousands of world class climatologists who make up the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are correct in their consensus that climate change is real and happening now. From that assumption, he unleashes a barrage of disturbing anecdotal evidence describing the many effects of climate change. He also unmasks the efforts of a few scientists backed by the oil industry to sabotage the findings of IPCC. The book presents a thorough and disturbing expose of this effective PR campaign to neutralize the warnings of the scientific community.

Ten years ago, I began to research and learn as much as I could about global warming. In that attempt I have watched alarming predictions be issued along with a growing, but minority voice indicating the opposite. I began to research these groups and their information. I learned a valuable lesson; good science and logic can no longer (nor probably ever was) used for sound policy decisions without the ugly head of bias and disinformation rising.

This book serves to illustrate what I have experienced in the frustrating attempt to separate politics from science. I purchased "The Heated Debate" after learning from e-mail correspondance with global greenhouse skeptics that their mission is not to establish the scientific truth, but rather to protect vested interests. Needless to say, the words of this book were enlightening, confirming, and had excellent attention to detail that makes this book stand out as a firm summary to the "debate" of anthropogenic (man induced) climate change.

It doesn't take long to learn what this book so amply demostrates; that propagandist statements from global greenhouse skeptics often are a pronosticator of poor science and obvious bias, and the dangers of the politicalization of the search for truth. As this book correctly states , scientific inquiry from industry isn't automatically nullified but it too needs to be peer-reviewed and subjected to the same processes as all other scientific research. This book makes it clear that evidence contrary to the scientific consensus has not met passed this test. After reading this book and comparing it to my own research, I find that the general conclusions outlined in the book are that the politicalization of science is at the very heart of this particular "debate," not the science itself. Science becomes the victim in the politics of global climate change. Furthermore, the details of the "debate" in the US congress have so clearly and tragically indicated that some of those in power to make policy decisions are often too ignorant, scientifically illiterate, and have questionable ethical standards to be in such a powerful position. This book might be a wake-up call to not only the vast evidence in favor of an anthropogenic climate change but also to the need of a more scientifically literate public and its servants.

I have to say that the scattered passages indicating extreme weather during the various timelines in the book are not useful. Indeed it is far too easy to use these passages as some kind of weak evidence that this book uses scare tactics as so many greenhouse skeptics accuse environmental publications and agencies of using. However, the actual transcipts of congressional hearings used in this book are more than enough to scare me let alone the poor science used by the skeptics in winning congressional approval for their biased lobbying efforts.

I found the book to be right on par with my own research into the effects of "global warming". His conclusions are actually pretty tame compared with mid to worst case scenarios I have heard from eminent environmental scientists.

That being said, the fact that there are so many 1 star ratings tells me that the PR campaign is in great force. It is absolutely true that people don't want to believe that there is any threat from global warming or pollution, so they are more susceptible to the falsehoods proposed by the oil, coal and gas companies.

You can meet all of his goals as stated, and even be MORE energy conscious, and not have to give up your car, stereo, twinkies, pizza or boat(s). You can be wealthy or poor (as you like). You can consume to your heart's content. All you have to do is DEMAND ENERGY EFFICIENCY. And of course, the Government has to get out of the oil companies back pocket(s) by ridding us of oil subsidies.

Cars can burn alcohol (like brazil does in 40% of its cars) and/or bio-diesel (like Germany and other european countries do in 30%+ of their vehicles) made from veg-oil. We can make limitless supplies of these two fuels.. why the hell do we need crude oil? Well, it's because oil companies want us to drink crude oil because it is cheaper for them to produce than vegetable based fuels. Also because switching to veg based fuels switches the power base.. now any joe can fuel his car with farm alcohol.. eek! Lost Revenue! Why do you think that the 'New Fuel Cell Technology' being developed is going to use compunds which are completely unfeasible for the backyard chemist to produce?

No, the situation is not as it is depictied by our friendly author here.. its worse. Try to make a change for the better. Make the world a better place for all of its children and burn some corn instead of dead dinosaurs.

Coral reefs in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are dying because of rising water temperatures. Butterflies are migrating northward. Antarctica is melting. Northern hemisphere forests are being decimated by climate-related fires and insect infestations. The Great Plains states are becoming deserts, as are areas of Southern Europe. Tropical diseases such as malaria and West Nile fever are spreading northwards as temperatures rise.

These are all facts that are incontestably documented by science today, and each of them is directly linked to the climate change brought about by global warming. The earth and its species are in for a tough time in the century ahead. Extreme weather patterns caused by the heating up of the planet is already creating climatic chaos: horrible downpours and snow in some areas, rising temperatures and drought in others, hurricanes, tornadoes, forest fires, and so on. And for the most part it's been caused by the incredibly high rate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions--6 billion tons (and counting) a year.

Ross Gelspan argues that the science is clear; most of the world's leading scientists agree that fossil fuels are causing the problem. The rub is that the oil and coal industries--at $10 trillion, the largest in human history--have an obvious vested interest in convincing the public and lawmakers that global warming is all Chicken Little stuff. So they fund a handful of dissenting scientists who, like tobacco industry scientists a few years ago, are in the business of convincing the public that global warming is a myth. Conservative lawmakers have been particularly receptive to their line, and this in turn has affected public policy for the worse.

Gelbspan's book is horrifying in its diagnosis of global warming and the extent to which the fossil fuel industry has protected its own interests at the expense of the planet's. But the book also makes clear that the technology to replace the world's use of fossil fuels already exists, and concludes with a plan of action for weaning ourselves from our oil addictions.

Make no mistake about it, however: things will get worse, and perhaps much worse, before they get better. We're only beginning to feel the effects of carbon dioxide emissions from 50 years ago. We've yet to feel the whammy from our current frenzied use. When we do, God help us.

I work in the field of global climate change, so I am fairly familiar with the arguments - and I found this book to be well-researched. The more you look into this issue, the more alarming it becomes, and Ross is an excellent writer. I recommend it to anyone who wants to get a better understanding of the intricacies of carbon dioxide, the solar revolution, and the campaign by the fossil fuel industry to tell us that their emissions are not a problem.

This book is accurate and a stunning piece of reporting. The man , a pulitzer prize winning journalist, has done his homework. I learned a great deal from reading it. He explains the dynamics of the market place and why it is so dang hard to get anything done to benefit humanity. The writing is well done,highly documented, readable, informational and he lays out the problem and possible solutions with a clarity befitting his reputation. Read this book now and learn. Thanks.I'm telling everyone I know about this book.

A chilling look at the current evidence of widespread climatalogical change and its possible ramifications, this book includes the first thoughtful treatment I encountered of the sociological and political implications of global warming. The author warns that totalitarian governments are very likely to emerge in the upheaval of massive starvation and dislocation brought by rising seas and increasingly chaotic weather. Gelbspan, a science writer and editor for The Boston Globe and The Washington Post, explains how a handful of scientists employed by oil and coal companies have managed to confuse the U.S. public about the greenhouse effect and the realistic choices we face. In this curiously hopeful book (considering its ominous theme), the author notes that the fossil fuel companies are now facing an increasingly powerful opposition led by island nations, Germany and international insurers (who may be bankrupted by escalating weather-related claims). He also notes that science has already invented our way out of the heat trap, and that all we need to do is shift gears (quickly, to be sure) and install sustainable technologies. This is good news/bad news on a global scale -- a sobering look even for those familiar with the facts and the prospects -- and a reminder that the punch line may be very unfunny.

"The Heat is On" is a well-researched, detailed description of how the coal and oil industries are trying (and succeeding) to confuse the issue of global warming today. In this frightening exposé, Ross Gelbspan shows how the fossil fuel industries are spending millions of dollars to confuse the public through misleading advertising and PR tactics in order to protect their financial interests. The story behind this campaign of lies is astounding.

Try a little experiment: talk to several people about global warming. Just bring it up in the conversation, and watch their reaction. I did, and I found that most people laughed, or said, "Yeah, but I heard there's no conclusive evidence to support that." This is the direct effect of the fossil fuel industry's PR campaign. Gelbspan describes how they have done this largely through industry-created groups with misleading names (such as the "Information Council on the Environment"), and pseudo-scientists paid by the industry (such as Pat Michaels, Robert Balling, and Dr. Fred Singer).

Gelbspan explains that the industry's groups and scientists have received a great deal of media coverage because journalists, as part of their duty, are compelled to cover both sides of the story. The problem is that the "other side of the story" in this case is a small group who is paid by the industry. The confusion and lies promoted by the fossil fuel industry has been enough to drown out the 2,500 climate scientists around the world who all agree that global warming is a fact.

"The Heat is On" offers irrefutable facts to debunk the myth that global warming evidence is inconclusive. For example, many people claim that recent extreme colde and winter weather refutes the theory. Wrong, says Gelbspan: "severe winter weather perfectly consistent with global warming. One effect of climate change is to produce more extreme local temperatures--leading to hotter hots, unseasonal colds, and more severe snowstorms." And temperature changes are just the beginning of the problem. Other effects include outbreaks of disease, proliferation of pests, and extinction of species, among others.

The only solution is to cut back on carbon dioxide emissions, probably as much as 60%. This is no easy task, but Gelbspan does offer a plausible "prescription". He suggests that we (1) divert all fossil fuels subsidies ($20 billion/year!) to renewable energy development, (2) implement efficiency standards to require generating facilities to be highly efficient (instead of the current 35% efficiency average), and (3) support developing nations in the conversion with an international currency transaction tax.

This is a very powerful book. Hopefully it will help to re-educate the public, and serve as a model for global change. I strongly recommend it.

Gelbspan does a good job of laying out the case for global warming, stressing the vast consensus among practicing climate scientists, and exposing the names mentioned in the above review as industry sponsored flaks who are trudged around from meeting to meeting repeating the same sorry and inaccurate tirades which are nonetheless reported by the press in the interest of `balance.' As Gelbspan points out, there is not real balance here--on the one side are some climate scientists supported by industry, a handful in number, and on the other side are climate scientists (thousands in number) who take money only from governmental sources. Somewhat sensational in tone, but a good read.