| Can I Come Look At These Items? | | This online store is in association with Amazon.com, so these great, high-qualiy products will come from their warehouse or from other partners. Thanks for shopping! |
|
|
|
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 | 
 enlarge | Author: Lawrence Solomon
Publisher: Richard Vigilante Books
Category: Book
List Price: $27.95
Buy New: $17.25
You Save: $10.70 (38%)
New (26) Used (6) from $13.99
Avg. Customer Rating:  33 reviews
Sales Rank: 1750
Media: Hardcover
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 240
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 9 x 6.2 x 1
ISBN: 0980076315
Dewey Decimal Number: 363.73874
EAN: 9780980076318
ASIN: 0980076315
Publication Date: April 1, 2008
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Book Description
Is The "Scientific Consensus" on Global Warming a Myth? Yes, says internationally renowned environmentalist author Lawrence Solomon who highlights the brave scientists--all leaders in their fields-- who dispute the conventional wisdom of climate change alarmists (despite the threat to their careers) Al Gore and his media allies claim the only scientists who dispute the alarmist view on global warming are corrupt crackpots and "deniers", comparable to neo-Nazis who deny the Holocaust. Solomon calmly and methodically debunks Gore's outrageous charges, showing in on 'headline' case after another that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenarios have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories. These men who expose Gore's claims as absurd hold top positions at the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world. Their work is cited and acclaimed throughout the scientific community. No wonder Gore and his allies want to pretend they don't exist. This is the one book that PROVES the science is NOT settled. The scientists profiled are too eminent and their research too devastating to allow simplistic views of global warming--like Al Gore's--to survive.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 28 more reviews...
 Bad title but excellent book July 16, 2008
1 out of 2 found this review helpful
The Deniers is an excellent and invaluable book, showing readers the other side of the global warming debate. Without editorializing, author Lawrence Solomon, a journalist and environmentalist, presents the views of many prestigious scientists who do not believe global warming is the dire threat to civilization we have been pressured to believe. I don't like the title much; many of the dissenting scientists are not actually deniers that C02 influences climate- many of them simply believe that other factors are equally or more important. But this is a quibble- please read the book. It is a much-needed counterpoint to the daily propaganda given to us by the mass media. It's not the final word, but it's an important point of view.
 A wake-up call of a different sort July 15, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
I should preface my review by saying that at one time in my life, I wholeheartedly believed in the science of global warming -- as caused by man-made influences -- hook, line and sinker, dating back to my senior year in high school. However, Lawrence Solomon's book has opened my eyes to the fact that so much more science needs to be done on the subject, and that Gestapo-style tactics to undermine global warming "deniers" only prohibit the attainment of real facts. One thing is for sure, I now view Al Gore's movie and book, "An Inconvenient Truth," to be an utterly unscientific joke that has shammed millions of people and inexplicably earned the former vice president countless accolades that he does not deserve.
That said, I expected Solomon's book to be a relentlessly harsh diatribe on the pro-environment movement in the vain of conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh and the like, one that condescendingly embarrassed scientists and citizens who felt human doings here on Earth were steadily making the planet hotter. That wasn't the case at all, though. Although written for laymen like me, Solomon's book relies heavily on actual science about global warming by highly respected -- though sadly spurned -- scientists. So if you aren't up for reading about the seriously studied, potential causes of global warming as it relates to non-human entities, then don't even touch this book. Obviously the mainstream press and Al Gore opted for a shortcut to science by taking this route. But if you really want to get to the heart of the issue, I highly recommend "The Deniers." Here is just a sampling of why global warming is far from "settled science":
- The models used by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to predict future weather are crude at best, and fail miserably to factor in such crucial elements as cloud cover, the ocean and the sun's solar energy.
- The Earth goes through natural and major climate changes all on its own, irregardless of how humans behave. It's believed by many scientists that, though temperatures have risen slightly into the start of the 21st century, a cooling period will begin as early as 2010.
- The idea that warmer weather causes more hurricanes -- and more violent hurricanes -- is completely unproven. The temperatures of the ocean fluctuates, as does its propensity to either absorb or release major amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
- Carbon dioxide does not linger in the upper regions of the atmosphere for as long as 50-200 years, as the global warming hype machine would lead the public to believe. Numerous studies indicate the number is closer to two to six years.
- Mosquito-born diseases are not caused or increased by an Earth that is steadily warming -- they're caused by poor economic conditions, chaotic governments and lack of resources to fight them.
The tact and style of this book are extremely evenhanded throughout. A working environmentalist himself, Solomon admits at the end of the book that he is not TOTALLY convinced by the global warming deniers, mainly because the deniers have disagreements among themselves. But that is the gist of Solomon's point: The science of studying the atmosphere is a severely messy, complicated business, not a two-hour movie that has all the answers.
Through Solomon's book, I've come to understand that the money used to fund global warming research, though extremely important, might be better directed toward ending world hunger, deforestation, disease and famine. Tackling those huge issues, in fact, as well as ending large subsidies for energy companies, would go a long way toward helping the environment and the economy.
Along those lines, I was also amazed to learn how the Kyoto Treaty has done more harm than good. It may be chic, for instance, for celebrities like Pearl Jam to purchase huge tracts of land and plant trees as a "carbon offset" for the jets the band flies in, but all that does is displace millions of people and perpetuate the "carbon into currency" practice that so many Brazilians are against, including its citizens, churches, NGOs, trade unions and the World Rainforest Movement itself.
In sum, if you're already recycling, reusing, conserving and doing your best not to pollute, good for you and keep it up. But in my newfound opinion, based on the science I read about in Solomon's book, the actions of humans play an infinitesimal part in the weather you view outside your window, and the science on global warming is hardly definitive as of right now. When thinking about the global warming issue, remember that lone and dissenting voices amid media hype are often looked back upon in later years as the most reasonable.
Climate Realism Indeed July 10, 2008
6 out of 7 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 0.5C 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
2 out of 4 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.
The weak standard of "Scientific Concensus" July 6, 2008
3 out of 6 found this review helpful
Can there be a weaker standard than "Scientific Concensus?" First of all, the very term is undefined. There is no formal vote, no long list of supporters, just the frequently-repeated statement and a movie by the slippery Al Gore. What about "Peer Review?" A clique of people who had the same professors and know each other personally sign off on each other's papers - often without reading them. Is that science?
This book shatters the myths of peer review and concensus and shows what important scientists really believe about the subject, based on knowledge of their own field. It clearly makes the point that while man-made global warming may be true, it is not scientifically proven in any way. "The Deniers" is written for the lay person and is an eye-opening read.
|
|
|
| |
News 
