Rating: 
Summary: A very motivating behind-the-secnes look at global warming.
Review: I work in the field of global climate change, so I am fairly familiar with the arguments - and I found this book to be well-researched. The more you look into this issue, the more alarming it becomes, and Ross is an excellent writer. I recommend it to anyone who wants to get a better understanding of the intricacies of carbon dioxide, the solar revolution, and the campaign by the fossil fuel industry to tell us that their emissions are not a problem.
Rating: 
Summary: This guy is a joke
Review: If you want to read distorted facts then go ahead and waste your time. Otherwise stay away. Any respected organization will admit that Gelbspan is a joke.
Rating: 
Summary: Scaremonger
Review: In this book the journalist Ross Gelbspan preaches about the evils of global warming. I embrace his efforts with the utmost enthusiasm.The rightwing paradigm, with respect to this concern, is contingent upon three premises: 1) The majority of scientists are obsequious grant-hungry vassals of politicians in Washington 2) The U.N. is working with us in the socialist crowd to bring about world revolution (and global warming is somehow a part of it) 3) The mass-media is a component of this communist conspiracy as well Well, we haven't witnessed the massive flipflop in the "acquiescent" scientific community since the GOP has taken over the government. I know from experience that socialist groups have NOTHING to do with the U.N. And if one reads "The Media Monopoly" by Ben Bagdikian, Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent," McChesney's "Rich Media, Poor Democracy" -- the corporate influence in the media becomes manifest. (What, you thought AOL, GE, Viacom, Murdoch, etc were in on the communist conspiracy?) It is not an accident that in the mass media global warming is presented in a "fair and balanced" manner --i.e. the words of industry funded quacks having equal validity with the overwhelming quantity of specialists that confirm global warming's reality. In this book-- The exposition of the "climate crisis" is accurate, but takes on a scaremongerish tone, which I feel only resonates with the converted, and reinforces the "environmental-psycho" image conservatives have of us. The exposure of industry funded "skeptics" has value. The appendix, albeit limited, contains hardhitting reviews of the work of Michaels, Singer, Lindzen, and Balling -- and I wish this book had more of this substance and less fluff, since it illustrates why these quacks cannot even get their industry funded "research" peer reviewed. As far as his "prescription," I feel it is quite limited. Fossil fuel corporations and their allies in other industries carry enormous global weight. National militaries are deployed with the utmost celerity in Yugoslavia and Iraq where oil is at stake while millions die in Rwanda and the Sudan. This kind of moral nihilism is built into capitalism itself, with its pathological drive for profits, which after all, is the superlative good. For a detailed view of how the corporations have been beating on the environmentalists in the battle of the public psyche -- I recommend Sharon Beder's "Global Spin" and for the activists -- David Helvarg's "The War Against the Greens." For concrete facts, it is always best to check out the universities, scientific journals, et cetera. This book, even though well meaning, is tackling too broad of a subject. A success, albeit limited.
Rating: 
Summary: Issue is tough to accept , but "Heat" a good contribution
Review: It is hard to imagine the future climate scientists are telling us is coming. Our world is going to dramatically change, no matter what we do. We can affect the degree of change, if we choose to act. Gelbspan discusses why the issue of climate change (global warming) has gotten the media spin that it has and what the consequences of that has been on awareness of the issue. Thanks to people like him, we "regular folks" can have input into how to handle the crisis, because we know that we must act now. Otherwise the people in the "smoke filled back rooms" of politics will decide to tell us what "we have to do" in a climate-derived emergency. I found his examination of the "greenhouse skeptics" to be hard-hitting (and needed!), but did not sense any significant unfairness. Thanks, Ross!
Rating:
Summary: Mindless Concoction
Review: Journalists find it easy to build fascinating stories around misunderstood science. This leads to serious consequences, but who cares? Catastrophe scenarios sell well and the misinformation disseminated to an unsuspecting public is not something the author will be accountable for. When writers without scientific training or comprehension take on complex issues such as global warming, the result tends to be a calamity as exemplified by this volume. It should be listed under 'fiction'. There are several excellent new books available on the topic, such as 'Global Warming in a Politically Correct Climate' and 'Geological Perspectives on Global Climate Change', both of which provide a scientifically correct view - even if it may not be politically correct. Science, thankfully, provides the truth of the matter irrespective of what is politically acceptable. It differentiates between objective reason and pure advocacy based on little knowledge an no scientific insight.
Rating:
Summary: The pending global stupid storm
Review: Some day, we will look back at global warming as the Population Bomb of the 90's. Some people need a crisis to sell books, or get more money in federal grants, or become the Democratic nominee for president. Apparently 55% of our income isn't enough. Now they want our cars. As an alternative, I propose that all eco-nuts that use any form of energy commit suicide immediately. This will reduce greenhouse emissions by at least 15% (even more if we include the hot air these gasbags emit orally). If you agree with the premise of this book, please join in. With your help, we can whip this thing! But hurry! It's already hotter than last month! Oh... it's Spring. But still, it wasn't this hot last year. And besides, I read that Antartica has jillions of bucket-feet of melting ice. Penguins are dying and my rent-subsidized condo is sinking! Oh my GOlod-olblrlblr lrlbrl lrbalr! 0Ooo•••::....
Rating:
Summary: A confirmation of what I have experienced
Review: Ten years ago, I began to research and learn as much as I could about global warming. In that attempt I have watched alarming predictions be issued along with a growing, but minority voice indicating the opposite. I began to research these groups and their information. I learned a valuable lesson; good science and logic can no longer (nor probably ever was) used for sound policy decisions without the ugly head of bias and disinformation rising. This book serves to illustrate what I have experienced in the frustrating attempt to separate politics from science. I purchased "The Heated Debate" after learning from e-mail correspondance with global greenhouse skeptics that their mission is not to establish the scientific truth, but rather to protect vested interests. Needless to say, the words of this book were enlightening, confirming, and had excellent attention to detail that makes this book stand out as a firm summary to the "debate" of anthropogenic (man induced) climate change. It doesn't take long to learn what this book so amply demostrates; that propagandist statements from global greenhouse skeptics often are a pronosticator of poor science and obvious bias, and the dangers of the politicalization of the search for truth. As this book correctly states , scientific inquiry from industry isn't automatically nullified but it too needs to be peer-reviewed and subjected to the same processes as all other scientific research. This book makes it clear that evidence contrary to the scientific consensus has not met passed this test. After reading this book and comparing it to my own research, I find that the general conclusions outlined in the book are that the politicalization of science is at the very heart of this particular "debate," not the science itself. Science becomes the victim in the politics of global climate change. Furthermore, the details of the "debate" in the US congress have so clearly and tragically indicated that some of those in power to make policy decisions are often too ignorant, scientifically illiterate, and have questionable ethical standards to be in such a powerful position. This book might be a wake-up call to not only the vast evidence in favor of an anthropogenic climate change but also to the need of a more scientifically literate public and its servants. I have to say that the scattered passages indicating extreme weather during the various timelines in the book are not useful. Indeed it is far too easy to use these passages as some kind of weak evidence that this book uses scare tactics as so many greenhouse skeptics accuse environmental publications and agencies of using. However, the actual transcipts of congressional hearings used in this book are more than enough to scare me let alone the poor science used by the skeptics in winning congressional approval for their biased lobbying efforts.
Rating:
Summary: Another global warming demagogue
Review: The Earth has a climate, and that climate has been warming up since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended. During the medieval warming period the climate was warmer than it is today, leaving ruined medieval farmsteads at higher latitudes and altitudes than are possible today. The Vikings headed for the Arctic, even settling there, and rediscovered the Americas.
The atmosphere isn't warming the Earth -- the Earth is orders of magnitude more massive than the atmosphere.
The oceans are not warming at depth.
The planet Mars has about as much atmospheric density as the Earth does at 40 MILES altitude and has never been warmed by greenhouse gases.
The atmosphere of Venus isn't made primarily of CO2. Venus' density is slightly less than that of Earth's, same goes for its diameter. CO2 won't be found at the hideously high pressures known to exist on the Venusian surface.
Surprise! Ross Gelbspan didn't win a Pulitzer, as the DJ claims:
"'The Heat Is On' -- in which Gelbspan complains about how global warming critics distort the truth -- touted Gelbspan as a 'Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist' and Gelbspan has apparently done little in the intervening years to dissuade people of this falsehood despite being called on it on a number of occasions." -- Brian Carnell "Ross Gelbspan's Pulitzer Prize" (Thursday, January 22, 2004)
What a surprise! Global warming shills don't ever say things that are not true, do they?
"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory [sic] of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing." -- Timothy Wirth
"Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest." -- Stephen Schneider
Rating:
Summary: The Heat Is On is a wonderful primer
Review: The Heat Is On is a wonderful primer for debating the hype and myriad obfuscation about global climate change presented by highly paid industrial lobbyists and public affairs departments. Engaging and easy to read. It is also, by the way, the book President Clinton read just prior to signing the Kyoto accord.
Rating:
Summary: Bad science
Review: This book buys into all the hype and bad science surrounding global warming, and offers no proof whatsoever than the fossil fuel industry has anything to do with what is happening with the climate. It isn't the fossil fuel industry that's confusing the issue, but the kind of bad science, poor research, and ad hominen attacks that make up ninety percent of this book. While is does seem the climate is warming, it also is nearly certain that mankind is playing little or no part in the process. Global warming has happened many times before, and does, in fact, seem to be the norm. Dig beneath the arctic ice and you find tropical plants. In other words, the cooler climate we've experienced the last couple of thousand years is abnormal. The forecasts of what global warming will cause are also nonsense. Geograpical areas will not brown and die due to high carbon dioxide content. Drought might do this, but not high carbon dioxide. History disproves this completely. Rather, plant type will change, turning more tropical, and the geographical areas will actually grow more lush and green. Quite literally, we could stop burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, and the affect on global warming would be nil. A few thousand years ago, forests covered entire continents, and at that time a single forest fire could put more carbon dioxide in the air in a month than we do in a year. This book is for the paranoid who wants not facts, but hysteria. Instead of foolish attempts to stop a natural process, money and research should be going into how best to adapt to global warming. Save your money.
| 
