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: Amazon.co.uk: Lawrence Solomon: Books

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 that the scientists who dispute Gore's doomsday scenario have far more credibility than those who support Gore's theories.

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.

From the Publisher

Al Gore says any scientist who disagrees with him on Global Warming is a kook, or a crook.

Guess he never met these guys

Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.

Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says "there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity."

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says "most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible."

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station's Astrometria project says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time "preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent."

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world's most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun's behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2.

And many more, all in Lawrence Solomon's devastating new book, The Deniers

See all Product Description

Customer Reviews

2 star

4.2 out of 5 stars

Write a customer review

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

42 of 43 people found the following review helpful

Excellent presentation of the scientific debate on the climate 31 Oct 2008

By William Podmore

Format:Hardcover

Lawrence Solomon, the noted environmentalist, has written a most useful book on the debate over global warming. He shows that scientific opinions still differ across the whole field.
He cites Edward Wegman, former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences, who demolished the famous `hockey stick' graph which supposedly proved that the 20th century was the hottest ever. His team of expert statisticians also disproved the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report's assessments, "the assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade in a millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year in a millennium cannot be supported."
Solomon criticises Dr Nicholas Stern, once the World Bank's chief economist, whose 2006 review has become the most influential global warming report, embraced by the Blair and Brown governments. Stern seemed to bring hard economic facts into the world of scientific forecasts and guesses.
Yet his review is now wholly discredited. Dr. Richard Tol, Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls it `preposterous'. Crucially, Stern estimated the cost of additional carbon emissions as $29 a ton, as against Tol's conclusion that the costs were `likely to be substantially smaller' than $14 a ton.
Tol said, "In sum, the Stern Review is very selective in the studies it quotes on the impacts of climate change. The selection bias is not random, but emphasises the most pessimistic studies ... Results are occasionally misinterpreted. The report claims that a cost-benefit analysis was done, but none was carried out. The Stern Review can therefore be dismissed as alarmist and incompetent."
Solomon also cites Roger Revelle, who led the President's Science Advisory Committee Panel on Environmental Pollution in 1965 which first identified CO2 from fossil fuels as a possible problem. Yet in 1992, he wrote, "Drastic, precipitous, and especially, unilateral steps to delay the putative greenhouse impacts can cost jobs and prosperity and increase the human costs of global poverty, without being effective. Stringent controls enacted now would be economically devastating, particularly for developing countries for whom reduced energy consumption would mean slower rates of economic growth without being able to delay greatly the growth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere."

Comment |

Was this review helpful to you?

Yes

41 of 43 people found the following review helpful

Welcome cracks in the Global Warming fortress 26 Sep 2008

By A. Stallybrass

This book is a milestone. It's people giving testimony, it's starting to crack open the veritable fortress of "rebuttals to skeptics" that "Anthropogenic Global Warming" science has built around itself. It's written by an environmentalist with a long and well-proven track record of committment to the same green issues I'd like to support again myself - and will, as soon as Environmentalism drops its Global Warming "religion" with its intolerance, its sheer bad science, and its conviction of the wrong culprit.

CO2 is not guilty and neither are our emissions, in fact, taking action against CO2 is harmful in all ways and helpful in none. We're probably due for cooling not warming. And cooling is far harder to cope with than warming. I've written a whole primer "Curious About Climate Science" which is about my own U-turn from AGW believer, with clear science and evidence. It is very important that people can see the evidence for themselves, plus the unbelievable evidence of cover-ups and falsifications and ad hom attacks. Sceptics used to be supported by big oil etc, but now the exact opposite is the case. Nobody wants to fund sceptics. Meanwhile, Al Gore is raking in the shekels from his scare-based industries, and getting money from the oil company in which he is involved (one with a particularly bad environmental record too).

Peak Oil, Peak All, overpopulation, environmental degradation, and a host of other issues connected with rebuilding sustainability, are all vitally important. We just don't need the bad climate science to hide these vital issues from view.

Now the book. I like Lawrence Solomon, he is open and direct - he does not practice "sleight of hand". He talks about how he himself came to change his own position during the course of collecting scientists' statements, and he talks a lot about the use of the unfortunate word "denier" - unfortunate because no-one here is in denial of anything. People state their positions quite clearly, and Solomon reports those positions quite clearly.

What is interesting is the pattern. Several world experts and prominent scientists here say, in effect "I believe in general in the hypothesis of Anthropogenic Global Warming. However, in my particular discipline, I can see that the evidence does not hang together". Solomon is simply reporting people's stories as they are, no more than that. He is not writing an activists' manual here. Probably he would never have been able to publish, had he gone beyond the simple stories - the people he writes about would not have allowed him to use them.

However, it is very suggestive, to think about joining up the dots. If every single aspect of the manmade global warming thesis, and the IPCC practice, has been seriously criticised or accused of key misrepresentation, then the whole edifice does indeed become questionable.

77 of 83 people found the following review helpful

A first step on the road back to sanity from the madness of the Global Warming Religion 8 Jun 2008

By Martin A

Recently, I started to wonder where I could learn more about "Global Warming" and the temperature rises that were predicted. There must surely be books or magazine articles that explained the observations and the models. How had the models been tested and verified? What were the formulas and equations the models were based on? What were the confidence limits on the predictions?

From my own experience more than twenty years ago, in making and using computer models of automatic control systems, I know only too well that a model that has not been validated is worth very little. Only when a model has been shown to make accurate predictions, for example, by comparing its predictions with physical measurements under a variety of conditions, can it be used with confidence. Even then, its predictions can never be taken as certainty.

My search for information made me feel disquieted. I came across statements about how there is "a concensus" among climate scientists that man-made global warming exists. OK, there is "a concensus" - but where are the details of the physical models used? What assumptions are they based on? If the assumptions turn out to be invalid, does this invalidate the predicitions?

More and more, I began to feel that "man made global warming" had the appearance of a new and intolerant religion. Man-made Global Warming will lead to the Destruction of The Planet. And it is YOUR FAULT.

This book confirms my impression. It does not use these words but, in effect, belief in Man Made Global Warming is a new religion, with its own Priesthood, who tolerate no dissent. A scientist who questions it is deranged, incompetent, senile - or has simply been corrupted.

Eventually, truth will out. The Global Warming Religion will merit a chapter in a future edition of the book "Extraordinary Popular Delusions & the Madness of Crowds". "The Deniers" will have been one of the first steps on the road back to sanity. I recommend it to anyone who wants to form a blanced view.

5 Comments |