| | Location: Home » Books » The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so | |
|
| The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so |  | Author: Lawrence Solomon
Publisher: Richard Vigilante Books
Category: Book
List Price: $27.95
Buy Used: $1.64
as of 9/7/2010 16:33 CDT details
You Save: $26.31 (94%)
New (18) Used (24) from $1.64
Seller: bargainbookcellarllc
Rating:  83 reviews
Sales Rank: 236,787
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Pages: 240
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 9.1 x 6.2 x 0.9
ISBN: 0980076315
Dewey Decimal Number: 363.73874
EAN: 9780980076318
ASIN: 0980076315
Publication Date: April 1, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Similar Items:
| |
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 83
 An excellent portrait of many world-class scientists skeptical of current global-warming alarmism and their reasons for doubt. March 10, 2008
Lee Madland (Missoula, MT USA)
307 out of 330 found this review helpful
To read what is published by most of the popular media, which have jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon almost en masse, one would likely conclude that the matter is settled -- indeed, that is presently the chief claim intended to squelch all argument on the matter. Hardly a day goes by that one interested in the question doesn't hear claims that practically all scientists agree that Global Warming is upon us and that mankind's technological overreach, especially in adding CO2 to the atmosphere, is the primary cause. (And we are seldom reminded of the fact that climate change, often of far greater magnitudes than anything human beings have seen, has been taking place throughout not only all of human history but virtually all of Earth history -- which goes back not mere millions but billions of years before the first humans trod the Earth.)
Lawrence Solomon of Canada's National Post newspaper ably puts the present-day picture into perspective; he focuses on several dozen top-tier scientists in relevant fields from around the world and very readably describes their reasons for doubt on these matters, and never forgets to summarize the scientific facts behind them. While I myself don't yet have a copy of the book, I've essentially read all of it online during the course of last year on the National Post website, in which a new article appeared every week or two. Though Solomon at first set out to write only a few articles on a handful of these "deniers," the more he looked the more world-class research scientists he discovered among their ranks, and somewhat to his own surprise found these were hardly a fringe element but on the contrary at or near the pinnacles of their professions worldwide -- notwithstanding being virtually ignored by much of the media and, importantly, by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But let Solomon speak on this in his own words:
"More than six months ago, I began writing this series, The Deniers. When I began, I accepted the prevailing view that scientists overwhelmingly believe that climate change threatens the planet. I doubted only claims that the dissenters were either kooks on the margins of science or sell-outs in the pockets of the oil companies.
"My series set out to profile the dissenters -- those who deny that the science is settled on climate change -- and to have their views heard. To demonstrate that dissent is credible, I chose high-ranking scientists at the world's premier scientific establishments. I considered stopping after writing six profiles, thinking I had made my point, but continued the series due to feedback from readers. I next planned to stop writing after 10 profiles, then 12, but the feedback increased. Now, after profiling more than 20 deniers [38 at last count], I do not know when I will stop -- the list of distinguished scientists who question the IPCC grows daily, as does the number of emails I receive, many from scientists who express gratitude for my series.
"Somewhere along the way, I stopped believing that a scientific consensus exists on climate change. Certainly there is no consensus at the very top echelons of scientists -- the ranks from which I have been drawing my subjects -- and certainly there is no consensus among astrophysicists and other solar scientists, several of whom I have profiled. If anything, the majority view among these subsets of the scientific community may run in the opposite direction." ...
"Most of the deniers I have written about have suffered for their scientific findings -- some have been forced from their positions, others lost funding grants or been publicly criticized. In writing about these ... , I have inadvertently added to their anguish. None among [them] welcome the term "denier" -- a hateful word that I used ironically, but perhaps illadvisedly. ... The word "denier," of course, is employed to tar scientists who dissent from IPCC convention. In other disciplines, dissent is part of what's called 'the scientific method' and lauded."
In summary, one has to read Solomon's profiles one by one to fully appreciate his fact-based approach, each succinctly and very readably expressed. After finishing the chapters -- which can easily be read either serially or separately in one's own chosen sequence depending on particular preferences or interest -- one will be left wondering how much of the media hype one hears is believable and how much may be gauze either inadvertently or deliberately pulled over one's eyes. At the very least it should stimulate the reader to think about these matters to which many may not have given much attention beyond a bland acceptance of the usual commentary one hears in so much of the media.
Review of Deniers April 6, 2008
Walter H. Pierce (Cypress, Tx USA)
139 out of 153 found this review helpful
The author, Lawrence Solomon, comes from an "environmentalist" background having worked as an activist against nuclear power expansion and world rain forest protection, and as a journalist or the National Post of Toronto. This book stems from a series of newspaper articles on individual scientists that disagreed in some way with the "conventional wisdom" or "political correctness" of Global Warming, specifically, man's role in Global Warming. It is evident at the conclusion of the book that Mr. Solomon has considerable respect for the 30+ scientists which he has interviewed for the book. There is little question that in Mr. Solomon's words the question of man's role in Global Warming is not settled science.
This is really a remarkable book. The reader is able to take advantage of an author that has been able to converse with a cross section of some of the most outstanding scientists, an author who is obviously devoted to environmental ethics, and an author that can write with the clarity of a experienced journalist. Reading this book is a real education. The scientific questions broached touch on multiple topics in science, ranging from glaciers to malaria, from Antarctic to hurricanes, from low clouds to the Sun and the way the Sun and the planetary system impacts cosmic radiation, from geologic history to the way science is done, and finally to a plethora of scientific approaches to understanding the physics, chemistry, geochemical distribution and history of carbon dioxide in the earth, oceans, atmosphere.
What is important here? Public policy will be formulated on the results of science. One of Solomon's major concerns is that poor public policy stemming from poor science or misinterpreted science will have a negative impact on the world's poor. In addition to the science itself Mr. Solomon is very concerned with the way the results of science are received and acted upon in our political world.
Mr. Solomon treats each scientist with respect, giving each a mini resume. His order of treatment makes pedagogic sense and thematic sense. A real challenge of the book is to cover the scope of the science in a responsible and understandable way. In my opinion he does that admirably and concisely way.
He begins with a discussion of the word, Deniers, explaining its derogatory usage. meaning and emphasizes that most of these scientists do not consider themselves deniers. My sense is that both Solomon and the scientists discussed would have preferred the word Skeptics to Deniers. The word Deniers does set up the context of the book into the tension and edginess, that present circumstances deserve. The first scientist depicted is Edward Wegman, who along with a group of select scientists was asked by Congress to critique the famous hockey stick graph. Selected important graphs and data displays are used in the text with comparisons and unusually complete captions. Each chapter contains references and highlights available articles and their web locations or urls.
After you finish this book you will have a better understanding of how the temperature of the earth is measured and how the temperature history of the earth is approximated. An understanding of the cycle, sources and sinks of carbon dioxide is crucial and selected scientists that have give their life work to study of carbon dioxide in ice, in the ocean, in the earth, in the atmosphere, and in the earths history are reviewed. Does carbon dioxide drive temperature or does temperature drive carbon dioxide? This is the all important question to answer, and must be answered before we attempt to use policy to "correct" global warming. Is the earth really warming or is it beginning to cool?
This is not an easy book to read. Frankly the scope of the science covered in the book is staggering. I will definitely re-read portions if not all of the book. But, because of the clarity of Solomon's language and the importance of the content he has amassed, I will. As scientist, myself, I am very impressed with what Mr. Solomon has done here. Even though this book's mission is to elucidate the view point of the skeptics, I believe this synthesis will help scientists and the public on both sides of the issue.
The book challenges, at the core, the case for man's impact on global warming as a consequence carbon dioxide emissions. Questions are raised as to whether the earth is actually warming. It is pointed out that the temperature record stations are un-representative of the earth's surface with the ocean being under-represented, and that measurements considered to be most representative (satellite-mounted microwave sounding units -- MSU) have not shown a record of warming since initiated in 1979.
There are critical comments about the management and agenda of the IPCC. The IPCC is self described as: "... a scientific inter governmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)" from the IPCC web site. In this book the IPCC stands accused of changing and dictating the conclusions of the scientists doing the work in their own organization.
Winning the Debate April 7, 2008
George Gilder (Tyringham, MA USA)
137 out of 158 found this review helpful
Richard Vigilante has launched an eponymous publishing company--Richard Vigilante Books--that takes advantage of all the new Amazonian efficiencies to produce great books in days rather than years.
His first book, replete with statistics and material as recent as February 2008, ends the global warming debate before Al Gore can even start his new $300M climate change panic campaign.
Entitled The Deniers and already a #3 Amazon best seller in Canada and leaping listwise in the US, it tells the story of "The World Renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud"
Gore recently declared, as I recall his words, that scientists opposing his theory are the kind of people who party together with the flat earth society, with holocaust deniers, and with cultists who claim that the Apollo moon landing was concocted on a back lot in Burbank.
But it turns out that these denier folk comprise most of the world's leading climate scientists, physicists, and statisticians, including hundreds of participants in the IPCC reports that Gore cites as an impregnable consensus. Among the scores of deniers interviewed and analyzed in the book are Freeman Dyson, the world's most eminent living physicist, Hendrik Tennekes, director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute who asserts that the global warmers cannot tell the difference between "clouds and clocks," David Bromwich, president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology who can find no global warming signal "from the mainland of Antarctica right now," and Reid Bryson, "father of scientific climatology," the world's most cited climatologist and a sainted environmentalist, who responds to a question about Gore's movie: "Don't make me throw up."
Covering the range of global warming claims, from the famed "hockey stick graph" to a predicted rise of mosquito borne diseases, the book is fascinating and even profound on the flaws of computer modelling, the irrelevance of consensus to science, the crippling effects of excessive specialization, and the mounting evidence of a coming cooling trend.
Its author is Canadian environmentalist Lawrence Solomon, who ends with a cogent explanation of how carbon taxes and offsets devastate the environment.
George Gilder
Climate Realism Indeed July 10, 2008
Joel M. Kauffman (Berwyn, PA United States)
28 out of 30 found this review helpful
Lawrence Solomon is a columnist with the National Post of Toronto, author of other books, environmentalist and activist. In the latter role Solomon strives to save the world's rain forests and prevent nuclear power expansion. He works for an environmental group called Energy Probe. Despite these credentials, he has written an unusually accurate work about climate change.
The term "deniers" was coined by Al Gore et al. to discredit dissenters from his view on climate catastrophe, trying to place them in the same category as Holocaust deniers. Other forms of slander and intimidation are exposed by Solomon. The book was inspired by a bet by a climate "warmer" or alarmist that he could name three areas of climate science that were settled. Solomon showed that a credible dissenting scientist could be found to refute each one.
So one area of climate after another was discussed along with the findings of one or more experts in that area. The CVs of the experts showed that they were usually more qualified than than the alarmists making the doomsday claims. These CVs were in boxes, of which there were 29, nearly all on professors who were also authors of peer-reviewed papers or books as well as winners of scientific prizes. Several are or were members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose reports are normally revered as gospel by climate alarmists, but exposed as misleading or worse by some of these very reviewers, and also by entire books, such as Shattered Consensus, Prof. Patrick J. Michaels, Ed., 2005.
Examples are given of punishment of deniers, no matter how good their science was, just for disagreeing and thus threatening the alarmists. Loss of research funding, dismissal from expert panels, loss of office or status in scientific bodies as well as character assassination are all revealed.
Based on expert opinion, Solomon shows evidence that: (1) The 1990s were not the warmest decade in 1000 years, the period from 1100-1440 being warmer; and the evidence that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s was given for the Arctic region, utterly uncorrelated with industrial CO2 emissions. (2) Storms are not more frequent or more violent in the last 20 years, but were probably most so in the 1940s in the last 110 years. (3) The Antarctic peninsula (2% of the area of the continent) has lost ice, but the rest of Antarctica is cooler since 1957 and has gained ice. (4) Global warming of about 0.5°C in the 20th century followed equal warming in each of the previous three centuries, an utter disconnect with the claimed CO2 levels in the air, which are not correlated with warming -- the central dogma of climate alarmism. (5) Unusual even for climate realists, Solomon noted that CO2 levels were higher than now in pre-industrial times (p91), and mentioned Ernst-Georg Beck's 2007 review of 90,000 direct chemical assays, but without the solid findings that those levels were over 420 ppm in 1823 and 1942, and the same as now in 1858. (6) Solomon showed that the ice core data for CO2 levels used by warmers was hopelessly unreliable. (7) Climate modeling was shown to be badly flawed mostly because it does not model cloud behavior. (8) Several solar effects were shown to account for the warmings and coolings of the last 400 years. These include changes in the output of the sun, changes in the distance of the earth from the sun, and changes in the sun's ability to deflect cosmic rays from the earth. More cosmic rays, more clouds, and lower temperatures, as in the Little Ice Age of 1600-1800. There were other angles as well.
On the other hand, Al Gore is taken to task for misinformation on temperatures, CO2 levels, storm frequency and severity, warming as a spreader of infectious disease, and misinterpreting the positions of his Harvard Professor, Roger Revelle, are all there. An article in Cosmos in 1991 by Revelle and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Meteorologist, University of Virginia): "What To Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap" was seen by Gore as a threat to his intransigent climate positions. Gore tried to show that Revelle had become senile. Through another Harvard scientist, Justin Lancaster, Gore tried to have Revelle's name removed from a proposed reprinting of the article, and accused Singer of using Revelle's name over Revelle's objections.Singer sued Lancaster, and with overwhelming evidence, won. "Quite recently, Lancaster retracted his retraction, claiming he had only issued the retraction in the first place because of the financial strain of the lawsuit." (p197) Of course, this sort of fracas discredits many climate alarmist politicians and scientists. More important to me, it is smearing all of science, and shows why so many deniers are professors emeritus like me with not much to lose.
On the downside, while Solomon mentions water vapor as a greenhouse gas, but not that it is by far the most important one. Also, he does not seem to understand that the nuclear reactor that failed at Chernobyl, Ukraine, was an inherently unstable type never built outside of the former USSR or its satellites. He mentioned a reactor failure in Ontario, PA, which I could not locate. The only one I know of in PA was on Three Mile Island, which did not kill or injure anyone (p212). He calls hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants "grandiose govermnent-backed relics of yesteryear". On the other hand, Solomon sees environmental havoc from the new designation of "carbon" as a currency (p210).
On the whole, The Deniers is highly recommended for its unique approach, solid climate science and some astute environmental understandings. Very easy to read with mostly clear graphs. Has good citations and index.
Despite the title's rudeness, a must read for those with an apolitical position or genuine interest in the science behind GW July 9, 2008
Emc2 (Tropical Utopia)
23 out of 24 found this review helpful
First, don't be fooled by the title's lack of politeness, this is a serious book and I do highly recommend it for those interested in the global warming issue from an apolitical point of view, or with a genuine interest in the science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory. With a different approach from the typical GW skeptical literature, this is a real and earnest scientific counterbalance account to Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and above all, a tribute to free inquiry and the essential right to rational disagreement inherent to the scientific method, including questioning of the prevailing or mainstream paradigm, as any critical discussion is a fundamental element of scientific progress. As Karl Pooper brilliantly summarized this concept, "the game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."
This book is written by an experienced environmentalist advocate who believes in global warming, but decided to corroborate the claim of "scientific consensus", and discovered that the science is far from settled. The book is a collection of very interesting accounts and published materials from scientists in different fields with different degrees of skepticism and legitimate questions and criticism; most of them, believers of the anthropogenic global warming theory, but not of the exaggerations nor the alarmist or catastrophic predictions, and above all, who do not considered that the science is settled and concerned about the dogmatic position taken by most GW advocates. The book reads fast (just 213 pages) and all the materials are fully referenced, including web addresses for easier follow-up, allowing you to check the facts by yourself. Solomon left his opinion on this controversy for the final chapter, short and very sincere.
Among the so called "deniers", Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, and Eigils Friis-Christensen are known from their part in the controversial The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD) documentary, but quite a big difference does it make when the approach is serious as Mr. Solomon did. These and other respectable scientists show several of the weaknesses and prevailing uncertainties of the "consensus" theory. Among the most reputable scientists cited by Solomon, renowned physicists Freeman Dyson and Antonino Zichichi stand out, their point of view is presented in Chapter 8: Models and the Limits of Predictability, summarizing the most solid criticism presented in the book. Both scientists question the validity and confidence of the forecasts produced with climate simulation models, particularly regarding the "fudge factors". Also they are strongly opposed to the intolerant scientific consensus, as such consensus is not part of the scientific method, and in practice is just a device to thwart any rebuttal, thus endangering the freedom and the objectivity of what would have been a normal scientific discussion. This is a main criticism to the consensus, as not many scientists want to risk or can afford to be labeled a "heretic", a luxury they can afford because of their age and brilliant carriers. As Karl Pooper said "only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff".
Among the several weaknesses identified in the book, there are two fundamental flaws that are worth mentioning, and both have to do with the crucial role the climate simulation models play in the anthropogenic global warming theory: (i) attribution of the causes for the observed warming, as criticized and highlighted by both Dyson and Zichichi; and (ii) the lack of falsifiability of a theory based on simulation modeling, as raised by Hendrik Tennekes, also in Chapter 8. The latter refers to the possibility of demonstrating that a theory can be proven false by experiment of by observation, a basic requirement of any valid scientific theory. In the case of man-made GW, such ability of being falsified is hindered by the fact that simulation models use parametrization to compensate for the climate physical effects not directly simulated or when lacking enough data, and mainly because the models are calibrated to adjust for historical trends and available measurements, then, by tweaking the models, the goodness of fit for the past is guaranteed, and the reliability of the prediction might be even good for short term forecasts, but as time goes by, the models are calibrated again, so the mid and long term predictions always get adjusted. This permanent fine tuning can be confirmed by anyone simply by looking at the evolution of the predictions in consecutive IPCC Reports for the past 17 years. A good summary is presented in Figure 1.1 of the IPPC's 2007 Report (AR4) Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Climate Change 2007) (a PDF version is available for free through the web). The first IPPC predictions from 1990 (FAR) were completely off target by 2000, and significantly overestimating what is now a historical record, even without considering the fact that mean global temperature stopped increasing since 2001 (the recent and now controversial cooling trend). Thus, when forecasts do not fit reality, climate modelers can always claim that the data fed into the model was faulty or insufficient; or that the modeling has since been significantly improved; or that their predictions are good for the long term, or any other excuses, and in the end, they continue building more complex models but always avoiding fasifiability, just as have witnessed for the last 20 years. The transcription of Popper's ideas presented in the book makes clear that this approach is "not only false but dangerous, leading to undisciplined, arrogant, and worst of all unfasifiable predictions masquerading as science."
The second major flaw is related with attribution or establishing the most likely causes for the detected warming. As explained in the book, and in more detail in Section 1.3.3, Chapter 1 of the IPCC's AR4, the theory of anthropogenic global warming or climate change established this fundamental cause and effect relationship exclusively on the basis of the results obtained with climate models, through simulations with and without man-made greenhouse emissions. Chapter 8 explains at length why these models are not reliable for this purpose, and so, you are left without proof of attribution. "There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies."
For a deeper understanding on the limitations and the real confidence we can put on the global climate simulation models and any long term prediction, I strongly recommend reading The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. For an honest and detailed account on how the anthropogenic global warming theory evolved to its present state, I recommend reading The Discovery of Global Warming (New Histories of Science, Technology, and Medicine). For a serious but still work in progress alternate theory for GW read The Chilling Stars, 2nd Edition: A Cosmic View of Climate Change.
PS: For the latest contribution to this debate by Freeman Dyson see his piece entitled "The Question of Global Warming", at the website of the New York Review of Books, June, 12, 2008.
PS(2): Still doubtful about the reliablitiy of climate simulation models? For a bold and politically incorrect critic from a reliable source read Chapter 5 of SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance
Showing reviews 1-5 of 83
|
|
|
Copyright © 2009 Meteorology Information
| |
|
