Customer Reviews


107 Reviews
5 star:
 (48)
4 star:
 (13)
3 star:
 (2)
2 star:
 (2)
1 star:
 (42)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


5.0 out of 5 stars Shows clearly how corrupt the political systems are. They ...
Shows clearly how corrupt the political systems are. They take science and change the results to be what they want and then claim it is what the scientists originally said.
Published 7 days ago by Spitfire13

versus
180 of 255 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars A political, NOT scientific, work
The book gets off to rather an unfortunate start on the cover with the absurd contention that thousands of scientists working independently over decades, publishing countless papers in peer reviewed journals, have somehow managed to coordinate, or at least are complicit in constructing and perpetuating a "hoax". The enormity of that accusation is staggering in its...
Published 18 months ago by Dave Smth


‹ Previous | 1 211 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

180 of 255 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars A political, NOT scientific, work, December 20, 2012
The book gets off to rather an unfortunate start on the cover with the absurd contention that thousands of scientists working independently over decades, publishing countless papers in peer reviewed journals, have somehow managed to coordinate, or at least are complicit in constructing and perpetuating a "hoax". The enormity of that accusation is staggering in its implications and the lack of understanding of science and the scientific process and more importantly perhaps, the scientific community. However, one can reasonably assume that it is intentional and is basically intended to misinform. mislead, and support a political agenda rather than contribute to the global warming discussion. The problem I see with this type of book--and the potential harm it does--is that many readers don't have the background and/or have not done enough reading to really understand the science being discussed and, therefore, cannot assess its validity. Much of what the author says about climate science is simply incorrect and easily verified as such. Probably the reason that this book has such a pronounced bimodal distribution of reviews (i.e. either 1 star or 5 stars) is that readers are equally divided among those with and without some science education. The author's discussion of regulation and government policy is where his real expertise lies and worthy of reading & considering. That really is a key point about global climate change--what steps should, or should not be taken by governments. Even in this discussion, there are several (better) books available that provide some objective analysis of costs and efficacy of various proposals, rather than political campaigning for a particular agenda. I did not purchase the book, I read it at the bookstore as I cannot support funding this type of book which I see as impediment, rather than a help to the lay persons understanding of climate science and global warming. To me, one of the interesting things about this and other similar books is that the basic concept of global warming/climate change is easy for anyone to understand, whereas the underlying science is much more complex. Therefore, authors such as Inhofe can easily mislead readers who have only the most rudimentary understanding of the science, or the basic idea, without having to really defend his science points in rigorous way.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Shows clearly how corrupt the political systems are. They ..., July 4, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Shows clearly how corrupt the political systems are. They take science and change the results to be what they want and then claim it is what the scientists originally said.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4.0 out of 5 stars Efforts to fend off the draconian measures, June 27, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Good presentation of Inhoff and others efforts to fend off the draconian measures being promoted to solve a phony crisis.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Global warming, June 20, 2014
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future (Kindle Edition)
Cap and trade, more taxes, bigger more controlling government and the un agenda 21 to gain control. Global warming is a ploy!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


39 of 60 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Could be better, but not bad, March 29, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I think there are 3 basic reasons (if true) why one wouldn't fall for the "hoax":
1. High carbon in the atmosphere has no/little impact on the environment.
2. Even if high carbon has an impact, it is mostly naturally occurring, and thus we need to evolve to survive in the changing conditions.
3. Even if high carbon has an impact, and it's mostly man-made, the economic impact would be way to great (and potentially lead to unintended consequences), and thus we need to evolve.
This book kind of skims the surface of some of those points, but doesn't really delve deeply into any of them. Instead focuses more on political rhetoric, such as aligning one side with Olberman, Maddow, or some liberal politician like Al Gore or Barbara Boxer while aligning his side with conservative heroes. He spends quite a bit of time making sure that he is recognized as the one-person truth teller against an incredible wall of religious zealots.
Not a terrible book, but I'd say the most significant part is his focus on "climategate". The rest is pretty high level.
At one point he quotes one of Crichton's novels for several paragraphs, and even includes a chapter in the appendix. I just don't know if quoting a work of fiction as extensively as he has is very compelling. I think his best chapter relates to the significant thinkers and scientist who have backed away from some of the disaster-scenarios envisioned by the IPCC.
I would like for the book to be more straight forward and linear. Give a postion and lay out the evidence for the postion. Going on for half a chapter about his daughter's igloo on Capitol Hill seems unnecessary postioning for example. The book has encouraged me to read more on the subject, but hasn't satisfied my appetite for the subject very much.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


182 of 281 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars 5 stars and 1 star reviews. Why no middle ground?, March 22, 2012
By 
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future (Kindle Edition)
I read the reviews before buying this book and I must admit all those 1 star reviews almost prevented me from reading it. What a mistake that would have been. This is an excellent, well researched book. If you want a great introduction to the book before you buy it google Senator Inhofe's July 28th 2003 speech in the Senate. As for the reviews.....I recommend only paying attention to the one's whose authors actually bought the book. Probably a good idea for all books.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


89 of 139 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Fantastic!, March 26, 2012
Instinctively, I never believed in global warming; now I have the knowledge and facts to back it up. 100 stars for this well-researched book. Easy to read and understand. Thank you Senator Inhofe for taking (what must have been) a long time to write this book and for opening my eyes! Keep up the great work!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


56 of 88 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A Most Convincing Case Against a Green America, March 28, 2012
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This review is from: The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future (Kindle Edition)
"The Greatest Hoax" is a superb book written by an absolute gentleman - Senator James Inhofe.

Senator Inhofe has presented the case against the IPCC's catastrophic man-made global warming alarmism in a masterly manner, and he tells it how it is... no bull!

The book reveals much about a man so determined to save the U.S. from the reckless and irresponsible green agenda that poses what could be the greatest ever threat to the American economy and way of life.

Despite all the efforts of Senator Inhofe, to stop the 'global warming alarmism juggernaut', it seems that those determined to push the green agenda in the U.S. keep finding new ways and means to do so... a green agenda that has the full support of the President of the United States of America.

Senator Inhofe reveals that the green agenda is contrary to the American way and will undoubtedly pose immense damage to the U.S. economy, and the American people, should it succeed in the long term. He clearly is determined to tread boldly where few brave men dare go and stop it altogether.

Senator Inhofe might take heart from what has just happened in Queensland, Australia, where a new conservative government was recently swept into power. It gives one faith that politicians really can stop the green machine. How ironic... the new Premier of Queensland ordered all Queensland's green schemes to be killed... by the very man who was responsible for setting them all up in the first place:

[...]

In conclusion, anyone who has watched Martin Durkin's documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" will find "The Greatest Hoax" equally enthralling. This book is a must read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


40 of 63 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars If you want to know the truth, April 5, 2012
This is a must-read book for anybody who desires to know what's really going on behind the scenes with global warming claims. The truth is not always what you think...
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


84 of 132 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Red Scare Meets Green Scare, April 26, 2013
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
The allegations Senator James Inhofe makes in The Greatest Hoax are unlike any since Senator Joseph McCarthy claimed to have documented evidence that Communist agents were overrunning our government. This time, liberals at the UN are corrupting science to scare us into accepting global governance, huge tax increases, and severe limits on our way of life.

When a U.S. Senator makes such an extraordinary claim, history teaches us to check the evidence. Inhofe's Green Scare could be as fake as McCarthy's Red Scare. If Inhofe is a second McCarthy, we will catch him fabricating evidence, manipulating data, and twisting truth.

We can verify Inhofe's truthfulness using Al Gore's marvelous invention, the Internet. Take, for example, Inhofe's argument that global warming is inconsistent with the "widespread global cooling scare" in the 1970's. He quotes the National Science Board as saying in 1972 that "judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end...leading into the next glacial age." Not quite. Going to the source we find what they wrote was, "leading into the next glacial age some 20,000 years from now." We find talk of the cooling effects of air pollution and the warming effects of carbon dioxide, but no imminent ice age.

Inhofe's assertion that the "hockey stick" temperature reconstruction was rebuked in a journal holds up no better. He writes:
"Three geophysicists from the University of Utah, in the April 7, 2004, edition of Geophysical Research Letters, concluded that Mann's methods used to create his temperature reconstruction were deeply flawed. ... As they wrote, Mann's results are ... 'just bad science.'"

We learn different with help from Google. The commentary where Inhofe gets this quote explicitly refers to an article titled "Ground vs. surface air temperature trends: Implications for borehole surface temperature reconstructions." What the geophysicists criticize is a narrow issue in a study about the relationship between air and ground temperature. Saying their criticism applied to the hockey stick is a lie, a flat lie.

Inhofe's most serious allegation is that for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "science was secondary, even non-essential, to the ultimate goal of confirming catastrophic global warming and achieving global governance." Under "Flawed IPCC Assessment Reports," Inhofe channels McCarthy, charging "systematic and documented abuse of the scientific process."

No evidence of corruption in the 1990 IPCC First Assessment Report is needed though as the flaws were "glaringly apparent." The IPCC had found temperatures over the last hundred years were "broadly consistent" with models that took greenhouse gases into account. That "appeared suspect," Inhofe says, because "the climate cooled between 1940 and 1975.... How does one reconcile this cooling with the observed increase in greenhouse gases?"

This simple question reveals how little Inhofe knows about climate. He would know if he had he done his homework on the Environment and Public Works Committee. Still, it's a fair question, how could temperatures have fallen while greenhouse gasses were increasing?

It's simple really. How can deficits go down when spending goes up? If spending is more than offset by revenue. How can your weight go down when you eat more? If the extra calories are more than offset by exercise. Temperatures could have fallen while greenhouse gases were increasing if their warming effect was more than offset by cooling.

Inhofe knows about global cooling. He cites, for example, a 1974 report to show that temperatures had fallen in the previous 20 to 30 years. Checking, we learn that burning fossil fuels was believed to cause warming, while dust from industry and agriculture reduced sunshine reaching the earth, causing cooling. "By the middle of this century," the National Science Board wrote, "the cooling effect of the dust particles more than compensated for the warming effect of the carbon dioxide, and world temperature began to fall." His Newsweek story on cooling confirms this, reporting that "the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972." Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, a 2001 report by the National Research Council, echoed the 1974 report, finding that "it seems likely that aerosols ... have caused a negative climate forcing (cooling) that has tended to offset much of the positive forcing by greenhouse gases."

To sum it up, U.S. science in 1974 was consistent with the IPCC's assessment in 1990, which was consistent with U.S. science in 2001, which U.S. Senator Inhofe found "suspect" but couldn't say exactly why, other than it must be a conspiracy.

When he comes to the IPCC's Second Assessment Report, released in June, 1996, Inhofe's first allegation involves "altering of the document." His evidence is a Wall Street Journal op-ed describing the differences between the published version of a chapter dealing with the human causes of global warming and an approved draft. Alleging corruption, the author characterizes the edits as not trivial, not in keeping with IPCC rules, and all increasing certainty that global warming is man-made.

Inhofe doesn't submit the incriminating draft chapter into evidence. We don't need it though, because when describing the report's second problem--that it was "replete with caveats and qualifications, providing little evidence to support anthropogenic theories of global warming"--Inhofe unwittingly undermines his first charge. First he says, "Nearly all the changes removed hints of scientific doubts regarding the claim that human activities are having a major impact on global warming." Then he says, "...the IPCC report...is actually quite explicit about the uncertainties surrounding a link between human actions and global warming." Is it your contention, Senator, that the IPCC removed the doubts but left the uncertainties?

Inhofe further alleges that the IPCC inserted a key finding in the report's Summary for Policymakers behind the backs of reviewers. It reads: "The balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate." But thanks to Google, we can find a firsthand account describing how the finding was debated for more than an hour and was the consensus of delegates from 96 countries. (Nature, 9 October 2008)

The Greatest Hoax is a poorly edited anthology of unsubstantiated blog posts folded into a political memoir and wrapped in a grandiose, attention-seeking accusation. Claim after claim, Senator Inhofe manipulates the science to allege the science was manipulated. The evidence is worse than thin, it's phony. On the charge of promoting a false conspiracy with intent to deceive the American people, Senator Inhofe provides plenty of solid evidence.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 211 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Search these reviews only
Rate and Discover Movies
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.