Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media

This book is very eye opening. Michaels uses easily accesible studies to disprove many of the most popular scare stories regarding global warming. This is most effective when he discredits articles in Nature magazine, the NY Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, etc. with readily verifiable facts. The book points out many times when these publications had to print retractions (often buried) based on Michaels' research. He also makes a lot of politicians look foolish by printing their quotes contrasted with reality. I highly recommend this book.

This book is an exquisite dissection of the global warming hype, using real facts, scientific principles, long-term data and long-term trends. Yes, NATURAL global warming and NATURAL global cooling has existed throughout the history of the earth. Michaels does an oustanding job of showing long-term data trends (pre-massive industrialization in the post- WOrld War II period, pre-petroleum age, and even from before the industrial revolution in some instances) that indicate climate changes are cyclic, or in some locations, cooling, and in some locations, warming. He analyzes each of the global warming arguments with factual analyses and scientific principles in a sobering manner. His data cast doubts on so-called climate model projections and the so-called overwhelming effect of anthrogenic influences. In short, the sky is NOT falling. Michaels also is to be commended for showing how flawed governmental policies have driven global warming science, and the associated conflict of interest invoving funding and publication. He exposes serious flaws in the so-called journal peer-review system that are obvious to relevant scientists. Frankly, his funding sources from ExxonMobil and his "neo-con" leanings have NOTHING to do with the outcomes described in his book. What he does is expose the flawed science in global warming studies using scientific prrinciples that are independent of financial sources for his research and his perceived political leanings. This is an excellent book with realism that policy makers must be required to read before caving in to the policies and hype of nihilism and defeatism advocated by the global warming crowd.

For 15 years now the media has fed us an apocalyptic vision of global warming. Seldom are sceptical voices heard. When they do get through, a feeling can persist that their opinions are scientifically on shaky ground. The great thing about Michaels' book is that not only is it a well written, digestable and at times witty read, but everything he says is backed up with a either a scientific reference or a clear graph. This is a tour de force for anybody who wants to be armed with some home truths about the real nature of global warming and the unhealthy, closed loop that can exist between elements of the scientific community, the government and the media.

It's inspiring to me that a few individuals like Michaels, Lomberg, and some others, armed only with critical intelligence and courage, choose to stand against the tide of demagogues and chicken littles. Using dozens of examples from science journals, the mainstream press and political speeches, he demolishes predictions of extreme climate change with easy to comprehend logic and facts. Michaels could have written a polemic, but his targets (government funded scientists, pandering politicians and media selling alarmism) end up looking so ridulous and cravenly self interested that he might as well have. Without the few rays of sanity provided by people like Michaels, the world would seem completely mad to me.

For those of you whose understanding of climate change or global warming comes from the main stream media (New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Tribune, CBS-TV, et al) this book is a must read, that is if you subscribed to the "chicken little" thesis that the sky is falling, or in the case of climate change that we will be unable to live on planet earth because rising global temperatures will destroy civilization. The sub-title of Meltdown reads "the Predictable Distortion of global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media" and in this he admirably succeeds in documenting and proving. The book is a compendium of headlines and stories found in the media mentioned as well as in a number of scientific journals, mainly Science and Nature. He also addresses some of the more outlandish stories, press releases, and declarations by organizations such as Greenpeace and the World Wild Life federation. Dr. Michaels provide chapter and verse, 12 of them, documenting the egregious errors and in some case patently false information foisted on the public at large by all of these organizations. That said the main stream media comes in for the most criticism. His method is really quite simple. He looks at the data gathered in the real world and uses it to confirm or rebut the hypothesis that anthropogenic warming is causing glaciers to shrink and retreat, is the root cause of rising sea levels that are about to inundate the island of Tuvalu in the Pacific Ocean or that malaria is making a come back due to warming trends or a plethora of other disasters just over the horizon. Though he doesn't explicitly say so, the book amply illustrates the incompetence, ignorance, and lack of skepticism by the science writers, as well as their employers, in the main stream media. They come across as cheerleaders with a bull horn instead of skeptical fact reporting and investigative individuals they claim to be. For example, in an USA Today article on the effect of warming sea temperature, the text tells us an increase of 10 degrees will cause a volume increase of .1%. The accompanying graphic shows a 100% increase that are in fact 1000 times more than the actual effect. Or more blatantly, the New York Times in its August 19, 2000 edition reported on Page 1 that "The North Pole is Melting". This story was based on an eyewitness report of a professor of oceanography on a Russian cruise ship in arctic region that had sited open water. According to the Times, "it had been 50 million years since the pole was awash in water". That the Times failed to exercise due diligence is obvious since as Dr. Michaels points out that public domain information available with just a few "mouse clicks" would save them from printing a retraction, of sorts, on Page 3 of Section D three days later. In fact open seawater is not unusual at this time of year and in fact a common occurrence. Space and time will not allow me to discuss the problems Dr. Michaels found with peer revie