The Deniers Hardcover – April 1 2008
|
Lawrence Solomon
(Author)
Find all the books, read about the author and more.
search results for this author
|
|
Amazon Price
|
New from | Used from |
|
Hardcover
"Please retry"
|
CDN$ 37.36 | CDN$ 16.27 |
| Hardcover, April 1 2008 |
CDN$ 40.98
|
CDN$ 40.98 | CDN$ 10.45 |
Frequently bought together
Customers who bought this item also bought
No Kindle device required. Download one of the Free Kindle apps to start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, and computer.
-
Apple
-
Android
-
Windows Phone
-
Android
I'd like to read this book on Kindle
Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.
Product details
- Publisher : Richard Vigilante Books; First edition (April 1 2008)
- Language: : English
- Hardcover : 239 pages
- ISBN-10 : 0980076315
- ISBN-13 : 978-0980076318
- Item Weight : 454 g
- Dimensions : 16.23 x 2.49 x 23.77 cm
-
Best Sellers Rank:
#445,582 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
- #280 in Meteorology Books
- #287 in Meteorology
- #400 in Environmental Studies Textbooks
- Customer Reviews:
Product description
From the Publisher
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
About the Author
Customer reviews
Top reviews from Canada
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Wouldn't it be great if science could be presented honestly?
It is true that we should find alternative energy sources, but not for the reasons the alarmists claim. We should, simply because petroleum assets are much too valuable to burn as fuel. But we should do this in a progressive, evolutionary manner, not revolutionary. Some say that even if AGW is a hoax, so what - as long as it accomplishes the reduction in fossil fuel consumption?? Well - my answer is "at least drive this issue with honest reasons, don't torque it up with some myth that insults our collective intelligence." I refuse to be led like a sheep against my own better judgement by an army of pin-headed bureaucrats employed by the nanny-state. Solomon's book should be required reading for anyone who has swallowed this cock-swaddle hook, line and sinker, and is in desperate need of being deprogrammed!
That said, the cumulative impact of so many first rank scientists' profound problems with the IPCC's global warming theory compels one to reassess the credibilty of those who claim that "the science is settled".
Top reviews from other countries
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.
1. the world is warming
2. this is caused by humans
3. it's bad for us
4. it's bad for all of us
5. agreement is possible that something should be done
6. what gets done works
parts 1-3 are the subject, and it appears that even if item one is a fact and not just an assertion, items 2, 3 are much more dubious. iem 4 is beyond the scope of a book (very easy to read) aimed (perhaps) at the undecided layman (if such a creature still exists).
item 5, for all the hot air of the UN, is far away. and item 6 is utterly redundant if the conditions of item 2,3,4 are unfulfilled.
so much money will be spent... for what?
nice to see "the science" progressing by confrontation (or what popper would call falsification), dispiriting to see the UN gagging all unbelievers (but not surprising in view of the logrolling opportunities). truly alarming to read (in only one paragraph) about the monetisation of carbon and the probable environmental disasters this will engender.
but to repeat: is there a single voter left who hasn't made up his mind already about this, the most complex international issue of our times?
I only wish there were an updated version, as this is over 10 years old. .

