RED HOT LIES : how climate alarmists use threats, deception and deception to keep you uninformed.

Christopher Horner, 2008, Regnery Publishing, 407 p.

During my many visits to the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington, I met Christopher Horner in 2010, who offered me his latest book that I have just reviewed. Horner responds to the current discussion on the origin and means of a dominant thought that not only supports the anthropogenic origin of global warming but also strives to combat any dissenting opinion…

Horner, a lawyer, politist and confirmed climate-sceptic , narrates in 8 chapters the attacks and threats he has been subjected to as a result of institutional hysteria:

  • Media in a Mission
  • Fear and loathing: alarmist scare, demonization and threats
  • The establishment attacks: woe to dissenters
  • Stifling everyone’s speech: even their own
  • Poisoning the little ones: propagandizing your children
  • Big government: How government, politicians and alarmists abuse power in the pursuit of power
  • Stupid science tricks: keeping the gravy train chugging
  • The IPCC : the UN four-alarm liar

Horner’s concludes: Heretics, speak out !

The interest of the book is that it is based on multiple facts including an insult letter from a think tank (ACORE) linked to big business.

The provision of public and private funding largely explains the domination of réchauffist theses and it is not clear that the election of Donald Trumup really changed the imbalance of forces as evidenced by Horner’s recent email:

“The argument in my book is still valid… we’ll see if Trump really succeeds in reforming, but his mere presence may accelerate warming…”

All realistic climate opponents should read these reflections to define a strategy and build alliances.

In fact Johan Rivalland espouses the same thesis (Counterpoints July 27th 2019) “a large number of interests suggest that there are strong motivations for some to defend catastrophist allegations:

  • for left-wing economists, this is a great opportunity to address market failures and propose corrective measures
  • for some UN representatives, this reinforces the idea of pursuing the path to global governance.
  • for dictators in developing countries, a practical way to claim aid from rich countries.
  • for environmental movements, it is a social issue

In conclusion, it is not a question of entering into any conspiracy theories or suspicious forms of negationism, nor of claiming to hold truths and rejecting everything that could go against certain ideas (let us not reverse things), but once again – let us repeat, and this is the title of this article – of trying to reintroduce a debate that no longer seems really on the agenda, unlike an approach that would be scientific and would by nature accept a greater confrontation of the work of scientists. And, in the spirit of this forum, to allow the ordinary citizen to find his way around better by not feeling that it would be a more or less prohibited kind of debate, where science, on such complex subjects, and when it is still in its infancy, if you will, does not seem to be in a position to display almost definitive and unanimous certainties”

As a matter of fact it seems futile to expect a political change to overthrow the ecological doxa. This is Jeff Bennet’s observation for Australia, which has just confirmed politically, against all expectations, a climatosceptic government: “Hysteria has not given way to anything… The election has simply slowed it down a little. My university colleagues are among the worst… even economists! Genuine subsidy seakers raising millions of dollars at the taxpayers’ expense to finance their research projects, their careers and international travel to attend COPs and academic conferences where they present their research to their fellow grant hunters” (email of July 23, 2019)

Max Falque