Skeptic Beating Al Gore on Amazon

August 24th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Al Gore’s new movie, An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power, has been in theaters for about a month now, and has received rather tepid reviews.

The Kindle e-book version of Gore’s movie, despite being very colorful, has been doing even worse and is currently running at #20,768 overall on Amazon, and is not ranked #1 in any sub-category.

But the skeptic take-down of Gore’s new movie and book, An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy, is at #956, and is #1 in three sub-categories.

What makes the discrepancy even worse is that An Inconvenient Deception was self published, with no paid advertising.

Maybe people are finally wising up to Mr. Gore.

46 Responses to “Skeptic Beating Al Gore on Amazon”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Jeff Taylor says:

    Well I bought a Kindle copy of ‘An inconvenient Deception’. It was a good read.

  2. Greg61 says:

    I bought one today – Kindle as well

  3. wert says:

    My DNS finally finds your blog again – was this DOS attack or just a mistake from your ISP?

    Congrats on the book. Can I buy it in print version?

    • Roy Spencer says:

      They confirmed it was a DDoS attack, but whether it was because of me we will never know. Took down most of the hosts network.

  4. Ken in Idaho says:

    Dr. Spencer also has more reviews and a higher rating, someone gave Dr. Spencer a 1 star rating, but it wasn’t a verified purchase and it isn’t a comment about the book, but the author…

    • Roy Spencer says:

      Ah ha! I tried ready the 1 star review and it said it wasn’t available.

      • Mike Curry says:

        To read reviews that are not a verified purchase change the filter to all reviewers. On the Canadian Amazon site there are 5 reviews all 5 star. I look forward to reading your book.

      • Ken in Idaho says:

        I reported it as abuse with the details that it provided no information about the book and only attacked the author’s credentials, looks like Amazon agreed.

      • Marty Novak says:

        Dr Spencer. With 5 billion more people on earth than there was 200 years ago and with them all exhaling CO 2 why wouldn’t that increase CO 2 in the atmosphere

        • joe berger says:

          Certainly co2 has increased by about 30-40 % in the past 150 to 200 years. I have done much research on people’s idea of how much co2 in really in our air. The vast majority (about 90%) guess it to be between 10 and 50%
          Only 2 people of the sample of 65 got remotely close to the real number which is 1 part per 2500. Once people realize that co2 is such a miniscule part of our air, they then begin to understand how unlikely it is to have any significant affect on our weather or climate.
          And methane at 1.8 parts per million is even more unlikely.
          People should realize that there is not one single scrap of proof suggesting that co2 is having a significant affect on our weather or climate.
          the only “proof” they have is supposed correlations between warm periods and co2 in ice core samples which are many thousands of years old.
          Yes the glaciers are melting but the cause is NOT co2.
          POLLUTION IS OUR BIG PROBLEM…and co2 is not one of them.

  5. Nicholas Alden says:

    I was so worried about your website Dr. Spencer. Congrats on your book!!! You’re a real hero in the climate debate and I plan on making Gore’s life hell.

  6. tom0mason says:

    Well done with the book, Dr. Spencer and nice to see your site is back online.

  7. Bill Wolfe says:

    Thanks for keeping the truth out there. Al’s hypocrisy and dishonesty need to be kept at the forefront.

    Will updates to AMSU Temps return? The site is 2 weeks behind. I love seeing the satelite record graphically displayed.

  8. Scott Wenzel says:

    Great to see your sight back up. Just bought my Kindle copy.

  9. Paul roullard says:

    Loved the book, should make it mandatory reading in high school science classes

  10. Joz Jonlin says:

    I purchased my copy already, but won’t be able to get to it immediately due to a backlog of books in my reading queue. I’m telling everyone I can to get this book. Have you thought about getting a dead tree publishing run? I would purchase one if you decided to go that route.

  11. William rambo says:

    I bought. I read. I committed. All positive.

  12. lewis says:

    In more general response, I believe many people are wising up to the antics of the left and the left wing press. The Great Silent Majority, who lean moderately right, are sick and tired and aren’t going to take it anymore.

    Dr. Spencer’s book is encouragement in this direction.

    Tell us the truth, we’ll make our own minds up what to make of it.

  13. Tony (Australia) says:

    Your book is brilliant. I bought it today and it was an easy read. Every politician in Australia should read it.
    I am politically incorrect.
    I saw Al Gore’s documentary An Inconventient Truth and initially was taken in. I started to observe incorrect information like sea level rise There is a site in Sydney called Fort Denison started measurements in 1866 which shows an increase at the rate of 6.5 cm in 100 years. I started examining other claims like temperature claims – Like the hottest day ever on a particular day when I remember previous times years ago which were hotter and for longer.
    Al Gore is shameless

  14. Freddie Stoller says:

    Dear Mr. Spencer, I bought the book and I like it very much, but it was way too cheap, so I just sent a donation to make up for the difference. Your donation button is way too far down, move it up so people can see it and hit it more often. Thanks a lot for all your work, best regards from the Swiss mountains, Fred

  15. TJ says:

    As the only warmist I know that regularly attends the Heartland Institute’s Climate Change events, I actually keep up with skeptical thought and literature. From what I have read so far of your book, I see you have kept up with your normal standard of rigor and presentation. Thank you. However, I think it also missed its potential. In short, it is preaching to the choir vs reaching out to people that draw different conclusions from the data. Might I suggest that when you go to print, you consider at least a different title? Maybe with the terms like; “minority report”, “alternative analysis”, or “dissenting view”. What might be better would be an edition that is more of an appeal to warmists/undecideds vs a very understandable takedown of the former VP. (Yes, I admit he is a greedy embarrassment – i.e. a politician.) In any case, with the current title, the chances of my being able to get any of my warmists associates to read your book is near zero. And that means that its chances of changing any minds has the same probability. Just some considerations from the other side of the fence. Your thoughts?

    • Ken in Idaho says:

      That is interesting, if you read the reviews for Gore’s book, like minded people give the same feedback to him, “preaching to the choir”. So, what is the format to bridge the gap?

      • Tj says:

        There will always be those that decide their views on this subject based on their political affiliation. I think you will agree that those are not really the “swing” voters that actually shape the discussion; nor are they generally worth your time trying to change – Yes, they exist on both sides.

        To appeal to those of us who eagerly digest data and analysis to form and update our opinions, hostile or demeaning language in titles immediately removes most credibility. So I think the bridge is to be, and stay, factual and use conventional scientific language.

        But I fear the emotional content is now so entrenched, that separating out the science from the noise may be inordinately problematic. Yes, I provide this sort of feedback to warmist publishers as well.

    • Matt B says:

      Surely an undecided should have little issue with the title if they value your recommendation. If your warmist associates place their anxiety from a strongly-worded title above your personal recommendation, they don’t sound very interested in being exposed to an alternate viewpoint. I understand your concern, but what I wonder is, suppose the book were less than half as popular with a weakly worded title. Then it could more easily be ignored because the book would be far less notable. Would more warmists really read it? If the problem is that people are averse to reading the book then they will try to slip out of reading it in one way or another, and attempting to corner them in such a way that they can’t slip away will be a difficult task.

      I don’t consider it obvious that reducing impact of a book will actually make it more influential with those of opposing viewpoints.

      • TJ says:

        Titles do matter. I have had some luck in getting some fairly rigid warmist friends to at least look at books like The Neglected Sun and Understanding Visual Exhibits in the Global Warming Debate. But the chances of me getting them to even look through The Little Green Book of Ecofascism is so low I dont even try.

        I did not mean to suggest that Dr Spenser should stop pushing out his present format or content. My gist was for him to consider making an edition that is more of an appeal than an indictment – with the target audience being those swing and undecideds.

        My personal goal is to facilitate honest, informed conversation about this topic and pull it back from the emotional ledge. Reducing inflammatory language is one way of doing that. And yes, both sides should make a better effort.

    • joe berger says:

      I have been searching everywhere for any small evidence that co2 at 1 part per 2500 could possibly have a significant affect on our weather or climate.
      Apart from the highly suspect ice core data from many thousands of years ago , it appears that the entire theory that co2 causes significant global warming is totally unproven… TOTALLY.
      I have been begging anyone to supply me with any evidence of any kind. And so far no one has come up with anything..
      just a lot of supposition and conjecture based on ice cores.

  16. Lance Wallace says:

    As of 8/25 at 1 PM PDT the numbers are:

    #304 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
    #1 in Books > Science & Math > Earth Sciences > Climatology
    #1 in Books > Science & Math > Earth Sciences > Environmental Science
    #1 in Books > Science & Math > Environment

    28 reviews averaging about 4.5

  17. dr No says:

    “People who work for climate science denial thinktanks tend not to spend all that much time worrying about getting stuff into scientific journals.

    Perhaps because its easier, people who are paid to tell the public and policy makers that human-caused climate change is overblown bunk would rather pump out newspaper columns, do softball interviews or push out their own self-published reports. Theres a lot less scrutiny in that kind of public relations.

    So when two staffers at Australias Institute of Public Affairs managed to get some science into a journal earlier this month, there was much delight in conservative media outlets, together with a distinct lack of any genuine scepticism.”

    …Among these leading {sceptic} experts is a New Zealander who has written several New Age-style books on cats (including Pawmistry: How to Read Your Cats Paws) while being the king of rubber-band magic.

  18. SNOWREADY says:

    I don’t think anyone has the climate figured out. I remain sceptical about all theories concerning climate change. We have many leads to investigate . It seems we get 2 questions for every answer in respect to climate change.

  19. Brian Brigg says:

    I live in Indonesia and Amazon are showing the Kindle book, An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy, as being unavailable for purchase.

    Amazon’s initial response to my questioning the reason for this was to say that the publisher has limited distribution geographically. I asked who the publisher is and did not get a reply. I asked then if Amazon was the publisher but the support person said he did not know. He then suggested that sometimes the author set restrictions on where the book could be sold.

    Dr. Spencer might want to look into this.

  20. dr No says:

    A good read is:
    The Madhouse Effect by Mann and Toles.

    “The Madhouse Effect portrays the intellectual pretzels into which denialists must twist logic to explain away the clear evidence that human activity has changed Earth’s climate. Toles’s cartoons collapse counter-scientific strategies into their biased components, helping readers see how to best strike at these fallacies. Mann’s expert skills at science communication aim to restore sanity to a debate that continues to rage against widely acknowledged scientific consensus. The synergy of these two climate science crusaders enlivens the gloom and doom of so many climate-themed booksand may even convert die-hard doubters to the side of sound science.”

  21. StewGreen says:

    Note how Global Warmist commenters are welcomed and tolerated on skeptics blogs.
    Whereas if I were to over to an alarmists blog and link to Roy Spencer’s book they’d mostly delete the comment or sling insults.

    • David Johnson says:

      So very true. Perhaps it forces them to confront the weakness of their position. Or then again, perhaps most are run by extremely delicate or immature people who just can’t bear to be criticised in any shape or form.

  22. Dr. Mark H. Shapiro says:

    Today was the warmest day ever on record for San Francisco, and 98% of California is experiencing a heat wave with temperature records falling from one end of the state to the other.

    Repeat after me “Global warming is a Chinese hoax, global warming is a Chinese hoax, global warming is a Chinese hoax.

    • Tara Carson says:

      “Warmest day ever on record for San Francisco.” So what? December 5, 2013, was the coldest day ever on record for San Francisco! That proves absolutely nothing!

    • joe berger says:

      But saying co2 is the cause of climate change is truly an Al Gore hoax.
      The climate might be changing in some small ways but blaming co2 at 1 part per 2500 is the real hoax.
      And then when they bring in methane at 1.8 parts per million a guy really has to wonder.
      It reminds me of a drowning man grasping at a straw.

  23. Paul Matthews says:

    Your book is now #1 in the whole of science and math. Well done!

  24. George says:

    The Madhouse Effect portrays the intellectual pretzels into which denialists must twist logic to explain away the clear evidence that human activity has changed Earths climate.”

    That is a joke, right? The “clear evidence’ isn’t verifiable at all. The AGW clowns can’t show that CO2 is doing what they claim, that is that it drives climate change. I think it is funny that they think it is settled science. Now, THAT is a joke!

  25. joe berger says:

    People should be made aware that co2 comprises only 1/25 of 1% of our atmosphere.
    Although co2 is certainly a greenhouse gas it is just much too small to have any significant affect on our weather or climate.

  26. joe berger says:

    I have examined the temperature records for south Sask going back to 1883 when records began.
    There is no doubt that we have warmer winters and cooler summers. At Regina in July they have had only 3 record highs after 1949 while having 28 record highs before 1950.
    Consequently our crops have never been better.
    POLLUTION in all of it many malignant and pernicious forms is our real enemy. And co2 is not one of them.
    Demonizing co2 serves only to divert us from dealing with our real enemy which is POLLUTION.

Leave a Reply