I missed out on posting this week, due to some work commitments. However, I did manage to do what I said I would do last week: started reading again.
Yes, I took on the first book in my queue. It was An Inconvenient Deception by Roy Spencer. The book is a rebuttal to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel. Spencer is a denier that he’s a denier of climate change. His major arguments are that the the effects of climate change that are reported in the media are either not our fault or are bullshit and the idea that we should immediately embrace alternative energy sources and dump fossil fuels is bullshit.
I admittedly read it for the wrong reasons, you know. A couple of months ago, I added it to my list because young Thrilla came home talking about how her teacher was indoctrinating them with some gibberish about the dying polar bears and I wanted something to challenge all that gubmint school librul propaganda. On that basis, An Inconvenient Deception met my expectations. I now have sufficient data to successfully challenge a 5th grader to a debate on global climate change. Could I take on a real scientist like RTFLC’s Hal 10000? Fuck no. But that’s not what I was looking for. I’m hardly a climatologist (is that a word?), even an amateur one. Of course, neither are Al Gore or Bill Nye.
I wasn’t looking for a science book on climate change, simply something to question the politics of climate change. This was good enough. I enjoyed it, but I wouldn’t jump into any tough arguments with real academics based on it alone.
Any of you reading anything you’d like to summarize? Take your time. The world isn’t ending anytime soon.