According to Mathiesen, the transformation of a relatively obscure scientific issue into a major concern of the everyday citizen - which ultimately can lead to binding legislation - follows a three-step process.  The first step is a press release from an environmental interest group, government bureaucracy or high-profile scientist or politician, which calls attention to a new (or not so new) environmental phenomenon that is painted as likely to have catastrophic consequences if something is not done to avert it.  The designated culprit is characteristically associated with economic growth, and the issue raised is often framed in terms of good (nature) versus evil (industrialized man).

The second step is characterized by intense political activity and media reporting, which Mathiesen says is characterized "not by balance and critical analysis," but by elimination of any conditional language in the original press release, which technique serves "to enhance the emotional response and intensify political action."  This heightened political awareness then helps to secure funding for additional expensive studies, and legislation is proposed to counter the perceived threat.  A series of political debates and press reports follow, tending to focus on worst-case scenarios of the perceived threat, while research inconsistent with such scenarios is "studiously ignored."

The third and final step is to enact legislation to avert the predicted catastrophes, which step, according to Mathiesen, often occurs before legislatively-commissioned study results are available.  And when the results of such studies finally do come in, they are typically largely ignored, regardless of their content; for the debate is effectively over, and the issue is dead.  Shortly thereafter, however, a new threat is identified.  And the process repeats itself.

In analyzing the politicization of DDT, acid rain, asbestos and stratospheric ozone depletion in chapters 2-5, Mathiesen delivers compelling arguments for the validity of his three-step process, revealing how each of these four issues progressed from obscure hypotheses into legally-binding legislation.  Then, in chapter 6, he dissects the politicization of global warming, which is still ongoing, as the United States and a host of other nations have yet to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

Illuminating the workings of his perceived three-step process, Mathiesen begins chapter 6 with a review of the "sensational opening" of the politicization of global warming, reminding us of NASA scientist James Hansen's proclamation to the U.S. Senate in 1988 that he was 99% certain global warming had begun.  Thereafter, a flurry of international political activity followed; and carbon dioxide - a benign colorless, odorless, tasteless trace gas of the atmosphere and all-important plant nutrient - was labeled an industrial pollutant capable of raising global temperatures to a degree that would lead to catastrophic environmental destruction.

Mathiesen continues his treatise on the politicization of CO2-induced global warming by carefully detailing how, in spite of considerable sound research debunking numerous aspects of the issue, step number two has proceeded inexorably on its way.  Heightened political awareness, fueled by scare-mongering predictions from organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have helped secure worldwide funding for global warming-related research to the tune of over 5 billion dollars annually, with the United States accounting for just under half of that amount in 1999.  He also describes how relentless media coverage has led to several international actions to avert the perceived catastrophes, culminating with the development of the infamous Kyoto Protocol.

The third step, enacting legally-binding legislation to avert the disasters predicted to accompany global warming, has not yet been accomplished in the United States; and there is some doubt the U.S. Senate will ever ratify the Kyoto Protocol, as Mathiesen correctly points out that such action would take a big bite out of the country's economy, while having no discernable impact on climate.  He then proceeds to outline what he considers to be fatal flaws in the greenhouse hypothesis, asserting that variable solar activity is the more likely cause of historical climate change.  Mathiesen concludes his book with a final chapter on political correctness and the roles of several interested parties in the global warming debate, including advocacy groups, industry, bureaucracies, scientists, lawyers, politicians, the media and the public.

Political correctness as a driving force in the three-step process of transforming a scientific issue into an effective lever for political action is the theme that permeates Mathiesen's book.  He argues it has successfully eroded and undermined true science in several important instances over the past three decades, because of "the collective results of a number of interested parties following the path of least resistance in pursuit of monetary gain, power and prestige at the public's expense without any accountability for their individual contributions."

We agree.  And we think you will too, when you acquire and read the book for yourself, which can be done by visiting iUniverse or Barnes & Noble on the internet or by going in person to select Barnes & Noble retail stores.  After all, we don't want you to take our word for anything.  "Read it yourself!" is our motto.  Make up your own mind.