Americans are over-regulated and over-taxed. When regulation escalates, the result is an increase in regulators. In other words, bigger government is required to enforce the greater degree of regulation. Bigger government means bigger budgets and higher taxes. "More" simply doesn't mean "better." A perfect example is the entire global warming, climate-change issue, which is an effort to dramatically and hugely increase regulation of each of our lives and business, and to raise our cost of living and taxes. In The Greatest Hoax, Senator James Inhofe will reveal the reasons behind those perpetuating the Hoax of global warming, who is benefitting from the general acceptance of the Hoax and why the premise statements are blatantly and categorically false.
The Greatest Hoax
and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more
| |||||||||||||||
Browse our Bookshelf Favorites store for big savings on popular fiction, nonfiction, children's books, and more. |
Book Description
Frequently Bought Together
Editorial Reviews
About the Author
First elected to the Senate in 1994, Senator James Inhofe is one of the leading conservative voices in America and a strong advocate of common sense values. In January 2003, Inhofe became the Chairman of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee where his priorities include strengthening our Nation's infrastructure, continuing strong environmental protections and improving national security.
Product Details
Would you like to update product info or give feedback on images? |
Customer Reviews
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
75 of 102 people found the following review helpful
By Dave Smth
Format:Hardcover
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.
21 of 29 people found the following review helpful
Format:Hardcover|Amazon Verified Purchase
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." (Emphases added.) 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.
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." (Emphases added.) 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.
159 of 232 people found the following review helpful
By Mark Morris
Format:Kindle Edition|Amazon Verified Purchase
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.
Most Recent Customer Reviews
5.0 out of 5 stars
Needs to be taught in the public schools
Global warming is now mandated to be taught in public schools in the US. This book is the antidote--not just because he is my Senator and I know him. Read more
Published 2 months ago by Cy Tuma
1.0 out of 5 stars
Watch the puppet masters make him dance. What me worry???
Inhofe, from the oil state of Oklahoma, has not let the facts get in the way. Follow the money: look at where he gets his campaign $$$ and you will understand that this book made... Read more
Published 2 months ago by Kevin Coffey
4.0 out of 5 stars
The Greatest Hoax: Senator Imhof
A good accurate history of how we arrived here with Global Warming/Cap n Trade. The question now is will the science or the politics prevail.
Published 3 months ago by Leonard J. Johnson
1.0 out of 5 stars
Drivel.
Maybe we can build a seawall out of these to block the rising waters. Worthless book, from a worthless public servant.
Published 3 months ago by Dcro850
1.0 out of 5 stars
Starting from the conclusion is not the way to do scientific analysis!
The way this politically driven theme was done is that they started with what they wanted to be the conclusion (global warming is a myth, don't need any regulation on pollutants,... Read more
Published 3 months ago by ShamusNYC
2.0 out of 5 stars
The lesson of Easter Island
The first thing I thought of with this book was, OK, another bit of Republican mythology. But I understand how anyone can be a little myopic when change happens at a glacial rate. Read more
Published 3 months ago by Bob from Mass.
3.0 out of 5 stars
misnamed
I guess I was wrong to think this book was going to be about the Global Warming Hoax as the title suggests. Instead, it is all about its author, Senator James Inhofe. Read more
Published 3 months ago by David Hanthorn
5.0 out of 5 stars
Important
Important to share with family & friends - then call your reps in Washington. It's important to prevent increased taxes that are intended to slow 'globel warming' & that will harm... Read more
Published 4 months ago by ping
5.0 out of 5 stars
Intellectual backbone of denial
Anybody thinking that climate-change deniers are wilfully misinformed, intellectually dishonest, ideologically-motivated guard-dogs of narrow, short-term economic self-interest... Read more
Published 4 months ago by GarethGray
1.0 out of 5 stars
Harmful political blunder
Senator Inhofe, you have sold out future generations by your immoral devotion to optimizing carbon fuel interests. Read more
Published 4 months ago by R. Pauli
What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?
Listmania!
So You'd Like to...
|
|
Look for Similar Items by Category
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Politics & Government > Public Affairs & Policy > Environmental Policy
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Communication & Media Studies
- Books > Politics & Social Sciences > Sociology
- Books > Science & Math > Earth Sciences > Environmental Science
- Books > Science & Math > Earth Sciences > Rivers
- Books > Science & Math > Environment > Weather
