impression about our understanding and level of certainty around global warming science." The review concludes, "The book itself is a short and easy read, not as intimidating as some other works, and it hits all the main points on the science and politics behind global warming, and the policy and technological solutions to minimize damage to the planet, economy and humanity." A review in the Detroit Free Press'''s Freep.com stated, "Joseph Romm's Hell and High Water is a great book for people who want to understand the complexities of global warming and, perhaps more important, what we could be doing about it other than wringing our hands or sticking our collective head in the sand." Technology Review concluded, "His book provides an accurate summary of what is known about global warming and climate change, a sensible agenda for technology and policy, and a primer on how political disinformation has undermined climate science." BooksPath Reviews commented, Hell and High Water is nothing less than a wake-up call to the country. It is a searing critique of American environmental and energy policy and a passionate call to action by a writer with a unique command of the science and politics of climate change. Hell and High Water goes beyond ideological rhetoric to offer pragmatic solutions to avert the threat of global warming – solutions that must be taken seriously by every American. On February 21, 2007, Bill Moore at EV World.com wrote: "...it seemed every paragraph, every page revealed some new outrage that just got my dander up. If it doesn't do the same to you, I'll really be surprised." Grist's blog "Gristmill" noted, "Joseph Romm's Hell and High Water may be the most depressing book on global warming I've ever read. ... My hope is that a lifetime spent in insider elite politics causes him to underestimate what a bottom-up grassroots movement can accomplish. ... A coalition that supported real action on global warming, as part of movement that supported real solutions on these other issues too, would have a much better chance of winning than a single-issue group. It would have a broader base and could offer more immediate relief from problems; because global warming wouldn't be its only or even main issue, it would produce quicker results in the lives of ordinary people. ... Technically, Romm is sound." The writer amended his statement as follows: "I referred to the