The Real Global Warming Disaster
Is the obsession with 'climate change' turning out to be the most costly scientific blunder in history?
-
- ¥2,800
発行者による作品情報
Booker focuses his attention on the mother of all environmental scares: global warming.
This original book considers one of the most extraordinary scientific and political stories of our time: how in the 1980s a handful of scientists came to believe that mankind faced catastrophe from runaway global warming, and how today this has persuaded politicians to land us with what promises to be the biggest bill in history.
Christopher Booker interweaves the science of global warming with that of its growing political consequences, showing how just when the politicians are threatening to change our Western way of life beyond recognition, the scientific evidence behind the global warming theory is being challenged like never before.
The book exposes the myth that the global warming theory is supported by a 'consensus of the world's top climate scientists'. It shows how the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is run by a small group of 'global warming' zealots, who have repeatedly rigged evidence to support their theory.
But the politicians, pushed by the media, have so fallen for its propaganda that, short of dramatic change, our Western world now faces an unprecedented disaster.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
Booker, a weekly columnist for the Sunday Telegraph, expands on a global warming chapter from his previous book, Scared to Death, co-written with Richard North, to argue that the earth is not warming. According to him, efforts to mitigate what he claims to be an imaginary problem will devastate the global economy and shift the balance of power to favor Asia to the detriment of the European Union and the U.S. Much of the book will be familiar to readers of climate-change-hoax literature: climate change research relies on flawed computer models; the "hockey stick" graph of temperature rise, made famous by Al Gore, is based on inaccuracies; the costs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will be huge, the political difficulties of realizing them untenable, and the results inadequate. Booker's stated purpose is to put all the "complex arguments" on both sides of the debate into chronological context, but his treatment is anything but balanced, and his credibility may be undermined by previous controversial claims, such as that white asbestos is identical to talc and secondhand smoke does not cause cancer.
