The Coming Global Superstorm, by Art Bell and Whitley Strieber

The Coming Global Superstorm
Art Bell and Whitley Strieber

Considering that

1. winter seems to be abnormally upon us, with several snow storms hitting the US early (and, did you know that, last week, the Middle Eastern country of Dubai received snow for the first time in recorded history?!); and


2. I recently saw the highly mediocre (despite the beauty that is Jake Gyllenhaal) The Day After Tomorrow (also written by one of our great authors here),

I now feel a resurgence of my old paranoia rising from the pit of my stomach and threatening my usually cool exterior. What a great time to discuss The Coming Global Superstorm! (I might here gloat that I read this book years ago, well before Hollywood hopped on the bandwagon. So there.)

Now, I love ridiculous theories as much as the next geek. And if it’s a conspiracy theory, even better. So I was eager to read this work by Art Bell (radio talk-show host who deals with topics such as UFOs, conspiracy theories, etc….And no, I’ve never heard his program, and I’m not interested in hearing it, either) and Whitley Strieber (author and regular on Bell’s show).

Admittedly, these two do not have much in the way of credentials to recommend their work; they are neither scientists nor scholars. At best they are concerned citizens; at worst, crackpots. But because I am a sucker for a good theory to arouse my great paranoia and curiosity, I figured I’d give the book a whirl.

To be fair, the duo admits in their preface that they were denounced as alarmists by such bastions of insightful reporting as Matt Lauer and the Today show team. And, to be even fairer, I believe this theory. One only needs to watch the news to see some alarming patterns in the weather. Does that mean the next Ice Age is creeping up on us? Probably not (hopefully not?), but we still need to recognize the warning sings of an ecology in upheaval.

Bell and Strieber make a thorough case, and I must say I was convinced by their argument, which appeared thoroughly researched. And now we get to my problem: not the argument, but the research itself. That they did research seems obvious; first, they say they did research, and, secondly, they do “cite” some studies and news articles. However, as an English teacher, I have to call them on this: WHERE IS THIS “RESEARCH”??

To Bell and Strieber: What are you citing? Where are the references? The bibliography?? Works Cited?? Perhaps these references have been swallowed by the superstorm, but if they were in the book, I couldn’t find them. And, while I believe you did find some (if not many) sources to support your thesis, failing to include them leads a skeptical reader to call bullshit. And I wasn’t skeptical upon beginning the book. I wanted to believe!!! (Although I’m glad that I can’t believe. Who really wants to believe that a very cold death awaits them in a few years?)

Admittedly, there are a few (take that literally) times when the authors state something like (and, Bell and Strieber, if you are reading this [yeah right], take note at what I’m about to do): “On March 15, 1999, scientists at the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts reported…” (10). DID YOU SEE THAT??? A CITATION!! A DIRECT QUOTE, TOO!! Go ahead, marvel at my talent. It is amazing, I know.

But what the above quote did NOT contain was an indication of where the authors found this information. Where did they read it? I’d like to know in case I’d like to read it for myself! (I won’t. But I’d like the option.) And, even more problematic is the fact that most of the time, they don’t even give you that tiny nugget of information.

If their sources were documented completely and therefore verifiable, this book would go from being a piece of alarmist overreaction to a valid, scientific hypothesis on the future of our planet, one that is clearly written for even a lay person. Such a work would be important and could not be ignored. Alas, this is not the case. Again, I’m glad; otherwise, I might have to give this work more credit than I do.

In a nutshell: if you already believe in the truth of their message, or if you have a solid scientific background and know the studies on which they “based” their information, then this book is for you. Skeptics won’t be convinced by their shoddy reporting and their apparent lack of research that turns this work of non-fiction into science fiction.

Bibliolatry Scale: 1.5 out of 6 stars. (only for entertainment’s sake)