The subtitle of "Red Hot Lies", "How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed" says it all, and Chris Horner has done an admirable job.
This highly-referenced book details what all too many scientists know, but are afraid to speak about: the truth on global warming is not to be told, or, if it is told, the cost of telling it will be dear. I know from whence I speak, perhaps more personally than most of the people that Horner writes about. And what he says is true. If you don't think global warming is going to be the end of the world, and, especially if you can quantitatively and effectively demonstrate that in public, watch out!
On the other hand, if you are willing to wheedle data to show a foregone conclusion, or puff a kernel of reality into a cornfield of alarm, you are going to do very well.
Horner documents these truths with remarkable clarity and irrefutable evidence. I'm sure he's already received some fine email as a result.
If you want to see proof of his thesis, just watch the reactions. They will attack Horner, or where he works, but not the facts that he elucidates on global warming. This will be because Horner is pretty fair to the data. He's more in the camp that warming is quite real but quite less threatening than portrayed by likes of Al Gore, Joe Romm, or the myriad of apocalyptics feeding on public fear for personal gain. For that he will be pilloried.
I recommend reading this book along with "Liberal Fascism", by Jonah Goldberg. It's too bad that Horner didn't quite get to tying up the connection, but I suspect that will become obvious in the near future. The shouting down of opposition, the agenda of command-and-control, the abject fear of fact-based argument, and the use of youth and students are all tied together.
What is interesting, but left for the reader to ponder, is this: Obviously there is a tremendously well-oiled and funded machine out there that portrays exaggerated climate change as fact, and this includes the political, journalistic, university communities, as well as the guardians of the so-called canon of scientific knowledge, the refereed journals. But Horner does cite a number of papers in the refereed literature that debunk hysteria. Given the overall climate of exaggeration, the fact that these papers were publshed must mean that they were absolutely compelling.
What is fearful, though, is the incident he described at the journal Climate Research, where editors resigned in "protest" of the publication of a non-alarmist paper. I had one in there a few years ago, and I saw the process first-hand. Tom Wigley and a few of his cronies demanded that the paper be withdrawn, and that the process as to how it could have been published be investigated. The message to editors is clear: if you're not with us, we're against you. That creates a scientific climate of fear.
Also touched upon is the unwillingness of scientists to open their data files to others. When Australian climatologist Warrick Hughes asked Phil Jones, the developer of the United Nations' climate history, for the raw data (he wanted to see how the error bars were calculated), Jones responded: "We have 25 years or so invested in this work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it"?
The last I heard, "science" is about finding "something wrong" with what has gone before. But that is not true in a world of Red Hot Lies.
In summary, read this book. Everything you feared about global warming science is true, and it is only going to get worse.