A Really Inconvenient Truth the Case Against the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming

A Really Inconvenient Truth the Case Against the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming

by Philip M. Fishman

ISBN: 9780989170802

Publisher MPS Publishing

Published in Nonfiction/Politics, Children's Books

Are you an AUTHOR? Click here to include your books on

Book Description

An honest expose of the facts surrounding the issues of climate change and alleged human caused global warming, based on unscientific hyperbole It is educational but entertaining as well, spiced with wry wit throughout.

Sample Chapter





       It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble.  It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

     The above quotation from Mark Twain was used by Nobel Laureate and ex- Vice President Al Gore at the beginning of his treatise on global warming, titled, An Inconvenient Truth.  That Gore would have used this particular quotation, strikes me as ironic, considering that he and those who accept the theory as Gospel are so sure.   He could not see that the admonition was directed at him as well as anyone absolutely certain of anything.   Apparently, Mr. Gore’s arrogance blinded him to the irony.  He “knows it for sure” and after all the matter is “settled”.

     Since I dispute the statement that the matter is settled, I guess I would fall into the category of “denier”, but the term has such a nasty connotation, I prefer the word, dissenter.  Moreover, maybe we should reserve the term for the real deniers, who just may happen to be those who are using the term against us dissenters.  I don’t want to fall into Mark Twain’s trap of knowing it for sure; so you may consider me someone who is fairly certain that the theory of anthropogenic (human caused) global warming, hereinafter referred to as The Theory, is bogus.  You, the readers, will be the jury, so let us look at the evidence together before anyone jumps to conclusions.

     A really inconvenient truth is that The Theory may be the largest and most brilliantly concocted hoax foisted on the world in all of history.  There have been many hoaxes over the ages (centuries), but they have been (fairly) localized.  The internet and global media, however, have totally altered the situation and now make it easy to spread the word, factual or not.   The UN and governments around the world have bought into The Theory and are attempting to enact laws to combat the perceived catastrophe that is inevitable if we do not take drastic measure.

     Adolph Hitler was a master of propaganda at persuading the masses.  In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler revealed his technique:

 By means of shrewd lies, unremittingly repeated, it is possible to make people believe that heaven is hell -- and hell heaven. The greater the lie, the more readily it will be believed.

     What are the ingredients of a successful hoax?

1.  As preposterous as it may be, it must be believable.

2.  In order to be believable, there must be some observable and easily established facts.

 3.  It must be supported by otherwise credible and respectable individuals. And

 4.  It must create a hysteria.

       Let me be clear.  This hoax is very different from the stereotype in that it did not start out as a hoax.  It began with some very striking data, which when coupled with some known scientific facts and a historic fact, made for a plausible first hypothesis.    Presumably, most of The Theory adherents, hereinafter referred to as Theorists, truly believe (or more accurately, believe they know) that The Theory is a fact.  The politicians, including Al Gore and lay people ignorant of the scientific method can be excused for their devotion.  The scientists who have been at the center of the controversy, pushing The Theory, know better and should be ashamed of themselves for “cherry picking” favorable data, covering up contradictory data, and trying to intimidate and silence honest critics.

      There is no governing board for scientists as there are for lawyers and doctors, which would disbar a lawyer or revoke a doctor’s license for this kind of malfeasance, and for good reason.  Scientists are encouraged to think “out of the box”.  This is where the great scientific discoveries have come from.  When a crackpot comes along with some weird off- the-wall hypothesis, peer review will normally quickly resolve the issue.  In this case, there was just enough science initially to make The Theory appear feasible.  From there, after governments took an interest; it took on a life of its own.  A second irony is the charge by the Theorists that the only scientists who reject even any part of The Theory have been “bought” by the oil companies and others who profit from the burning of fossil fuels.  The fact is that the big money by far is the government money, supporting “research” into global warming.

     Do the documented misinformation, cover-up, and refusal to listen to the many reputable scientists, who challenge various assertions of The Theory in themselves, disprove The Theory?  Of course not, but they certainly create a credibility gap when the Theorists proclaim that the science is settled and there is no need for further discussion or inquiry.

      Before we begin however, I would like to set the record straight on what has created a lot of confusion (which I believe from some quarters, was intentional).  We dissenters do not dispute the fact that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, or that direct readings taken from 1952 show a distinct upward trend.  Most of us also agree that average global temperatures had been in a slight uptrend from perhaps the mid 1800’s and more certainly from 1970 to about 1998.  A smaller number may even agree that the increasing carbon dioxide levels are probably responsible for the slight uptrend of temperatures since the beginning of the industrial revolution..  Where we depart adamantly from The Theory is the premise that temperatures have reached levels unseen for thousands or tens of thousands years and are in an accelerating uptrend, leading us to a global catastrophe if drastic measures to abate CO2 emissions are not immediately undertaken. 

       If you ask me if I believe the earth is warming, I would ask you to clarify the question.  If you mean “warming at this instant and continuing to warm into the immediate future”, I would have to honestly say that I have no more insight into that than I would in trying to predict the direction of the stock market at any given time.  The market will go up and it will go down.  That, I can say with certainty.  I just can’t tell you when.  

       In Mr. Gore’s book a casual reader might infer that he had formally studied climatology for many years before he went into politics.   Statements such as these “…studied under Professor Roger Revelle”, and “had been a student of climate for seventeen years before writing this book” might lead one to that conclusion.  Because of privacy laws, I was unable to view Mr. Gore’s transcript, but Wikipedia states that he originally majored in English and then switched to government. After earning his undergraduate degree, he entered divinity school and then law school, but dropped out of both before graduating.  I strongly suspect that the course Mr. Gore took under Professor Revelle was Gore’s only college science course, unless one wants to include political science.

       In fairness, I admit that I also am not a climatologist;  but I feel my credentials for commentary on this subject are at least as good as Mr. Gore’s based on my chemistry education and experience, and my grounding in one of the key precepts common to all science, i.e., the scientific method.  I do not know if the scientific method was taught in Reveille’s course, but if so, Mr. Gore seems to have forgotten it or dismissed it as unimportant.

     What I would like to do in this book is to take an honest look at the science, statistics, economics, facts, and uncertainties behind the theory of anthropogenic warming and then permit you, the jury, to render your verdict.  First let me address the proposition that planet earth is in a heating spell.  It is interesting that as recently as forty years ago; there was a lot of hype among certain scientists, politicians, and reporters about the coming ice age.    Even the Theorists acknowledge the fact that over the eons there have been dramatic swings in global temperatures and that there have been periods a lot warmer (and cooler) than now.  What they say is different now is that global temperatures have been going up at an alarming and accelerating rate over the last 150 years, which they relate primarily to industrialization and the emission of carbon dioxide.

     We will address this issue in chapters two and three, but before we get into the meat of the argument, I would like to make a final point.  With all the name calling and disparaging remarks aimed at us dissenters, although I have not seen it explicitly stated, there is the strong implication that any who deny the validity of The Theory, are indifferent to the future of the planet and unborn generations.  I take strong offense, as I am sure all of my fellow dissenters do, of the suggestion that we care less about posterity than they do.  In fact I believe a strong case can be made that it is just the opposite.  The scientists who are Theorists are the ones who apparently value their own livelihood more than the future since their manipulation of science is endangering posterity by damaging the credibility of the field that has brought so much good to so many people.  



Excerpted from "A Really Inconvenient Truth the Case Against the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming" by Philip M. Fishman. Copyright © 0 by Philip M. Fishman. Excerpted by permission. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. Excerpts are provided solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Thanks for reading!

Join BookDaily now and receive featured titles to sample for free by email.
Reading a book excerpt is the best way to evaluate it before you spend your time or money.

Just enter your email address and password below to get started:


Your email address is safe with us. Privacy policy
By clicking ”Get Started“ you agree to the Terms of Use. All fields are required

Instant Bonus: Get immediate access to a daily updated listing of free ebooks from Amazon when you confirm your account!

Author Profile

Philip M. Fishman

Philip M. Fishman

B.A. Chemistry Indiana University 1961 1st Lt. Army Chemical Corps 1961=1963 Sales and marketing management with several companies before retiring from Omya, inc. in 2002. All involved in various facets of the chemical industry. Have been writing since retirement. Have always been interested in all aspects of science. Became particularly interested in the subject of global warming after sitting in on one of Al Gore's slideshow presentations. There were certain details that didn't seem to make sense,which prompted me to investigate. As I delved into the subject, I found more and more disconnects, with my book being the ultimate result after more than six years of research.

View full Profile of Philip M. Fishman

Amazon Reviews