countdown boutiques-francophones Learn more vpcflyout Furniture All-New Kindle Music Deals Store sports Tools Registry

Customer Reviews

4.2 out of 5 stars
4.2 out of 5 stars
Your rating(Clear)Rate this item

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

on December 16, 2015
Everyone should read this. All the talk about global warming from fossil fuels, loses credibility when the politics is exposed and the views of dissenting scientists is considered. -Not to mention the exposed cases of fraud by so-called climate sciences.
Wouldn't it be great if science could be presented honestly?
0Comment|Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on April 1, 2012
Published in 2008, The Deniers is now some four years old. And like all hollow ideas that are short-lived and don't stand the test of time, these four short years may as well have been eternity.

Since 2008 so much more incontrovertible proof of climate change due to human activity has been amassed. Today I just finished reading The Deniers and it feels as if I read more of a lark than anything else. It reads as some weird piece of fiction that some day might be a collectable or perhaps a conversation piece if spotted on some one's bookshelf.

How embarrassing it must be for Lawrence Solomon to know that his shrill screams to stop our environmental awareness and compassion for the sake of oil and gas now seems not just outdated, but barbaric.
0Comment| 5 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on November 7, 2009
Wow. I've read 6 books on global warming. I've thoroughly read both sides of the debate and I have to tell you, although climate change is inevitable and perennial, it doesn't seem to be caused by the mechanisms promoted by the UNIPCC and the media.
0Comment| 4 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on September 19, 2009
I work in the Sustainabilty sector. It is a must read for anyone who thinks they already know it all when it comes to sustainability.
0Comment| 2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on June 7, 2009
Lawrence Solomon provides a lucid and engrossing series of sketches on the views of eminent scientists who question the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). His presentation is measured and even handed. Cheap shots, imputations of nefarious motives and ad hominen attacks are not Solomon's style.

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".
0Comment| 8 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on January 16, 2009
I love this book because it gives the public a look at the complexity of the science involved in tracking, modeling, and predicting global warming. Every politician should read it before they make public policy decisions about the environment. Every teacher should read it before they show Al Gore's movie to their students.

The case for human-caused global warming has been hugely overstated. We must ask, "To what purpose?", "Who benefits from the hysteria?", "How many careers are being trashed because of the politics of global warming?" I want clean air and clean water. I want us to be better caretakers of the planet. But I don't want to be manipulated by bad science massaged for political purposes. The scientists more interested in furthering their careers than in finding truth will be the ones left teaching and hiring at our universities. That is a sad, unintended consequence of jumping on the this particular band wagon. It will have repercussions for our children's education.
0Comment| 17 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on August 5, 2008
What value is this counter-argument? Given that many of the scientists in the book don't deny that planetary changes are happening, what is the point of rehashing this age-old argument about whether or not it is a human or naturally created problem? The large majority of the professional scientific community considers it a slam-dunk that there is a human link to the changes in our climate. However, as everyone knows this is an inexact and incredibly complicated science. While it may not be possible to ever satisfy every critic, what is clear is that the earth's delicate equilibrium is being radically transformed. This is a situation that doesn't bode well in an era that already boasts food shortages, dwindling water supplies and failing ecosystems. The bottom line is that even if there wasn't any tangible link between humanity and the warming planet, there is still an argument for behaving as if there was. The precautionary principle calls for action on an issue (despite lack of one hundred percent certainty), if the costs of inaction outweigh those of action. It is this approach that is needed here. Implementing tax shifting, significantly improving fuel efficiency standards, investing in renewables, and renewing urban centers will provide significant benefits to the economy. These are all good policy goals for many reasons, one of which is that we have either hit or will shortly hit peak oil. The result is that a new and green economy will have to evolve to meet the needs of our societies. This is reason enough to end the childish argument about who's responsible and develop a model that will ensure a robust economy while doing everything we can for the natural world. Failure to do so will end up costing far more in the end. These talented scientists could be far better used to provide solutions to the problems that exist rather than to continue to delay the inevitable actions that must occur.
0Comment| 18 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
In this eye-opening book on global warming issues, the author presents some of the scientific arguments of those scientists who are known as "deniers" of global warming. However, what becomes very clear in short order is that they are not deniers at all. In fact they freely admit that the earth has indeed warmed over the past decades/centuries. Their main point of contention, as clearly elaborated upon in this book, is that the science is not that simple and not at all settled, as many of their adversaries in this matter profess. The author's approach is to give a brief resume of the selected scientists and quote their respective scientific views. From their resumes, it is clear that these scientists are world class in their scientific fields with extremely impressive credentials and numerous peer-reviewed research publications to their names. They are scientific specialists in disciplines that are directly related to the environmental concerns under debate. Based on their extensive work, they believe that it is much too early to sound the alarm on climate change and that, most likely, the observed warming is mainly natural - possibly the continuation of a process that began at the end of the last ice age. The writing style is clear, friendly, engaging and very accessible. The many quotes from the scientists are very clear and authoritative yet free of unnecessary scientific jargon; they express their views in a plain English that any reader can understand, whatever his/her background. Consequently, this is a book that can be enjoyed by anyone. If anything, this book makes clear that scientists on both sides of this issue should get together to objectively discuss the scientific evidence and their respective interpretations with the ultimate objective of, hopefully, reaching some sort of consensus that world leaders can more reliably work with, as deemed necessary.
0Comment| 47 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse
on May 8, 2008
The credentials of the critics of manmade global warming and the connection to CO2 are impeccable. These are not the cranks (like some might have seen on the CBC). I have no doubts after this book that the science is "not settled" in any sense, and that we'd all benefit from an open & honest dialogue on this important issue.
Personally, at the end he loses me a little - I see nuclear power as the only realistic way to cut down our burning of fossil fuels and meet the energy needs of tomorrow.
0Comment| 42 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?YesNoReport abuse

Need customer service? Click here