Reading for Leisure #7: Essex and McKitrick

Essex, Christopher and Ross McKitrick (2007): Taken By Storm: The Troled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming. Key Porter Books, Toronto.

This was a book that was written by two scientists which specialized in weather related science. For example, one was a climatologist. For two scientists, they sure forgot to write a thesis in the beginning, for i went the entire book not know exactly what they were against. Were they against the politics of climate change or did they not believe in it at all? At the end, they finally say both. However, the lack of road mapping made that obscure for the most part.

Also, I find they had their audience confused. They described everything from politics to math with childish examples, but assumed that pointing that out those facts automatically made them right. they never fleshed out their arguments, because they were so caught up in describing things. dont get me wrong, describing the math is important too, but they seemed to have forgotten to argue their point effectively.

They also didn't not rebut at any time augments which might be said about their point of view, which any one you had to take an essay class in first year uni (and these guys didn't) would know you must do to make an effective stance.

the excessive sarcasm was funny at first. but after 300 and some pages, it was a bit much and tasteless.

So what the book ultimately summarizes is that 1) there are good scientists who don't think there is proof of climate change and they are not on the fringes. 2) the studies that are used to show there is evidence of climate change are not really that good. 3)politicians dont know what they are talking about when they say "global warming" 4) any thing that politicians are doing to curb climate change (if it was happening) wouldn't help any ways. 5)climate change is just a scare done with bad science and bad politics.


In the end, I could agree with much of what they said, but I some how think there is still a global warming, and they could not properly convince me of that, based on what i've said above about their argumentation. Ultimately though, this book seems more for the 'converted', since it doesn't reach out to the 'believers'. I was left with many questions that they didn't even attempt to consider.