Jeffrey Asher Nesbit

This book was a little out of my wheelhouse, which is precisely why I wanted to read it. Very eye-opening (and scary, lol). I've always been curious about the inner workings of politics/Washington, D.C., and this book answered a lot of my questions. Some of it did go over my head, but that's on me more than the author. I ended up looking up some of what was discussed to get a better understanding, and I'm happy to have learned new things and expanded my own ideas/opinions on certain subjects. This felt almost like a true story, and I'm sure a good percentage of it isn't as fictional as I might hope, lol. But above all, I LOVED the portrayal of the women in the industry, the ones who the author made out to be powerful, strong, smart, and capable people who were selflessly determined to make things better for everyone else. I'm so here for that, especially coming from a male perspective. Overall, 4.5 stars for sure.… (meer)

I'm marking this DNF at about page 85. There are a few things that are really bothering me about this book. First of all, there's little substance to the arguments. It seems like all we get is soundbites - just whatever sounds most alarming with only cherry-picked factoids backing it up. Please tell us a little about the studies being cited and why they are more reliable than studies from the naysayers. I'd love to see some of the anti-climate change arguments refuted with sound science. Instead we get a lot of pathos over scientists breaking down in interviews because they don't know how to get their message across, or graduate students weeping after being shown pictures of coral die-offs. That might make for an emotional appeal but if the author wants the reader to take climate change seriously he should as well.

Another thing that bothers me is how irritatingly repetitive the book is. The same thing is said in slightly different ways in paragraph after paragraph, chapter after chapter. It sounds like a high school student trying to pad his essay with b.s. and stretch it out in order to reach a teacher-decreed minimum page length. All the repetition wouldn't be necessary if there were some supported facts backing up the assertions. And I mean facts with substance, not just factoids. For instance he laments the loss of ice on Mt. Kilimanjaro in Africa. The naysayers will tell you this is not due to climate change or global warming but farmers cutting down the vegetation around the mountain. Or another weird example is when we're told that ice in the Himalayas (aka, the "third pole") is melting at unprecedented rates, and rock that has been covered in ice since WWII has been exposed. Since WWII? That's only 73 years ago, why is it significant?

Please do not think I'm coming to this with a 'denier' attitude. I have faith that the scientists are correct, and that we are causing these changes and that we need to be worried right now! But if it's as bad as this author says, we should see some proof instead of just taking it on faith. There's a lot of contention in the arguments for and against climate change, and we need a more solid understanding of the studies instead of just throwing out numbers and percentages. The author tells us that 'science gets everything right in the end, it just takes time' but anyone who's read histories of science ought to know that science also makes a lot of mistakes along the way. When the facts are missing, it's either preaching to the choir or the totally-uninformed. And if that's all this book has to offer, I'm moving on to other reading.… (meer)

This book has some serious flaws that I have a hard time overlooking. They almost make me distrust the thesis. That said I do think the message is important and I generally agree with the analysis and findings.

First, the book is horribly edited, maybe unedited. It's completely redundant even in adjacent paragraphs, using the same sentences even. How did this get past an editor? The book should have been about 1/3 the length after editing. And the author is a professional writer-- this amazes me.

The author is NOT a scientist, which shows. He sort of cites science without really adding anything to it except generalizations and hype that lend a sort of snack oil feel. (I AM a scientist and the science is there and solid, but he doesn't do it justice at all.)

He praises some of the most unethical un-environmental corporations on the planet (Walmart, Monsanto, etc.) for PR-centric programs that give a nod to something environmental while they continue to rape the land to make products with little societal or nutritional value.

Finally, he spouts guesses (stated like facts) about government agencies and their efforts. He has no clue about any of this, including what agencies are legally bound to do or prohibited from doing.

Still, we have to turn this all around somehow or we are all screwed.… (meer)