What do you think?
Rate this book
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 world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud*
*And those who are too fearful to do so
*And those who are too fearful to do so
239 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2008
3 people are currently reading
119 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
August 30, 2009
An unfortunate book that, if approached differently could have delivered something of value.
I approached this book with an open mind, I think. In fact, for all that I have been persuaded of global warming over the last ten years or so, I'd love to be wrong; I have kids, I have a general hope for a techno-utopia, and that's going to be an awful lot harder in a world with global warming.
The central thesis of the book is that there is a conspiracy amongst politicians, scientists and the media to present climate change as fact, when the science is very complex and in many parts undecided and in fact we should all be much more suspicious of claims of climate change.
Of course, the conspiracy does not extend to the various eminent scientists he quotes in this book, some of whom has suffered mysterious losses of funding, and other incidents that might be attributed to said conspiracy.
The book is structured with one eminent scientist per chapter, each one of who disagrees with something associated with the climate change. The author says in the introduction:
First, clearly, the author isn't seeking to play "the numbers game" because he'd lose. The vast majority of scientists, if asked, will say they think that the client is changing due to the effect of humans.
Second, If you've been around science much, one of the things that becomes apparent is that the more eminent a scientist the less actual science they do. If you want a really good view of what's actually going on, you need to speak to some mediocrities.
Especially, of course, if there is a world-spanning conspiracy that you are courageously battling against - it's those eminent scientists who are always in on the conspiracy, not the brave researchers out on the arctic snows, right? See, I do pay attention to TV.
I have to admit to only reading the first half of this book in detail, and skimming the rest, since it became quite repetitive. Each chapter has something of the form:
Show some claim from the media that is overblown and poorly presented.
Claim the media's interpretation is what "science" thinks.
Find a scientist who disagrees, often for very good reasons.
Imply that this undermines the entire basis for global warming.
Imply that the fact this is never talked about in the media is because of a conspiracy, perhaps led by the UN.
Rinse and repeat.
The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) comes in for specific criticism throughout the book. According to the author, and some of his scientists, it is rabidly pro-climate change, ignoring dissenting voices and treating them as enemies of the system.
This is so at odds to my own understanding of the IPCC that I don't really know what to think about this claim. My own understanding (admittedly rather superficial) is that the IPCC tries to extract some sort of consensus from a huge number of scientists. Since the only way you get consensus from a group of experts is to say the least controversial things, backed up by the most evidence, that the IPCCs reports are amazingly conservative. The idea of the IPCC as some hot-headed climate warrior is just weird.
The basic points that the author makes are self-evidently true. Climate change is an evolving subject, involving large amounts of questionable science. Questionable does not mean it is not true - it just means it hasn't had a few centuries to bed in. Unfortunately we cannot wait a few hundred years to make sure our science works well, we must use questionable science. This means there is little consensus amongst scientists (getting scientists to agree is like herding cats anyway).
But the "consensus" argument is one not made by science itself - it is something claimed in the media. And the author is absolutely correct here - the media is incapable of presenting science in a way that truly reflects it's complexity. News at 11. This is no conspiracy - if journalists were capable of understanding the nuances of climate change, they wouldn't be journalists would they?
None of the results in the book really dispute that humans are responsible for climate, change, and the author makes no actual direct claim that they do. He even admits that many of his subjects object to his efforts:
I have a different explanation for their hatred, and it's not because of the prevailing "orthodoxy" - it's because their words have been spun with such innuendo that it completely misrepresents them.
If I were to use the same technique, I could claim that the Mr Solomon is a prominent anti-nuclear activist, and that nuclear power is likely to be one of the greatest beneficiaries of the attempt to reduce CO2 production. Ergo, Mr Solomon is part of a world-spanning anti-nuclear conspiracy attempting to rubbish global warming, to ensure no more plants get built. But to make this claim on the basis of no evidence other than this book would be a pretty poor show, wouldn't it.
I approached this book with an open mind, I think. In fact, for all that I have been persuaded of global warming over the last ten years or so, I'd love to be wrong; I have kids, I have a general hope for a techno-utopia, and that's going to be an awful lot harder in a world with global warming.
The central thesis of the book is that there is a conspiracy amongst politicians, scientists and the media to present climate change as fact, when the science is very complex and in many parts undecided and in fact we should all be much more suspicious of claims of climate change.
Of course, the conspiracy does not extend to the various eminent scientists he quotes in this book, some of whom has suffered mysterious losses of funding, and other incidents that might be attributed to said conspiracy.
The book is structured with one eminent scientist per chapter, each one of who disagrees with something associated with the climate change. The author says in the introduction:
The question of credibility brings me to another rule I imposed on myself: I would not play the numbers game. I would not rely on claims that 14,000 scientists signed one petition saying the planet is toast or that 14,001 signed another saying that global warming is a hoax. There are a lot of scientists in the world. By definition most of them are mediocre. Getting thousands of mediocrities to sign a petition is an impressive work of political organizing; it is not science. No, I was looking for a relative handful of scientists of great eminence, whose credibility (unlike their equations) would be transparent to the lay reader.
First, clearly, the author isn't seeking to play "the numbers game" because he'd lose. The vast majority of scientists, if asked, will say they think that the client is changing due to the effect of humans.
Second, If you've been around science much, one of the things that becomes apparent is that the more eminent a scientist the less actual science they do. If you want a really good view of what's actually going on, you need to speak to some mediocrities.
Especially, of course, if there is a world-spanning conspiracy that you are courageously battling against - it's those eminent scientists who are always in on the conspiracy, not the brave researchers out on the arctic snows, right? See, I do pay attention to TV.
I have to admit to only reading the first half of this book in detail, and skimming the rest, since it became quite repetitive. Each chapter has something of the form:
Show some claim from the media that is overblown and poorly presented.
Claim the media's interpretation is what "science" thinks.
Find a scientist who disagrees, often for very good reasons.
Imply that this undermines the entire basis for global warming.
Imply that the fact this is never talked about in the media is because of a conspiracy, perhaps led by the UN.
Rinse and repeat.
The UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) comes in for specific criticism throughout the book. According to the author, and some of his scientists, it is rabidly pro-climate change, ignoring dissenting voices and treating them as enemies of the system.
This is so at odds to my own understanding of the IPCC that I don't really know what to think about this claim. My own understanding (admittedly rather superficial) is that the IPCC tries to extract some sort of consensus from a huge number of scientists. Since the only way you get consensus from a group of experts is to say the least controversial things, backed up by the most evidence, that the IPCCs reports are amazingly conservative. The idea of the IPCC as some hot-headed climate warrior is just weird.
The basic points that the author makes are self-evidently true. Climate change is an evolving subject, involving large amounts of questionable science. Questionable does not mean it is not true - it just means it hasn't had a few centuries to bed in. Unfortunately we cannot wait a few hundred years to make sure our science works well, we must use questionable science. This means there is little consensus amongst scientists (getting scientists to agree is like herding cats anyway).
But the "consensus" argument is one not made by science itself - it is something claimed in the media. And the author is absolutely correct here - the media is incapable of presenting science in a way that truly reflects it's complexity. News at 11. This is no conspiracy - if journalists were capable of understanding the nuances of climate change, they wouldn't be journalists would they?
None of the results in the book really dispute that humans are responsible for climate, change, and the author makes no actual direct claim that they do. He even admits that many of his subjects object to his efforts:
I naively imagined that all reputable scientists would be delighted to have their stories told. Some were. Some weren't, and spoke to me grudgingly. Many simply ignored me, perhaps hoping I would go away. And a few absolutely hated it and have never forgiven me for "outing" them.
How powerful must an orthodoxy be if men who are praised for questioning it try furiously to deny they have done such a thing?
I have a different explanation for their hatred, and it's not because of the prevailing "orthodoxy" - it's because their words have been spun with such innuendo that it completely misrepresents them.
If I were to use the same technique, I could claim that the Mr Solomon is a prominent anti-nuclear activist, and that nuclear power is likely to be one of the greatest beneficiaries of the attempt to reduce CO2 production. Ergo, Mr Solomon is part of a world-spanning anti-nuclear conspiracy attempting to rubbish global warming, to ensure no more plants get built. But to make this claim on the basis of no evidence other than this book would be a pretty poor show, wouldn't it.
October 4, 2008
This is a great starting point for the discussion on global climate change. The only concensus opinion that I see is that climate is an extremely complex issue and there are still many parts to the puzzle missing. If the only thing you take away from this book is the curiosity to take a closer look at the potential impacts of carbon credits and trading, then it has been worth the cover price.
August 17, 2009
This non-fiction book is about global warming. It is the other side of the debate as to how grim the future is and who/what was the cause. If you saw the movie, "Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore, you will find that this book aims to contradict every aspect of the movie. It succeeds by quoting dozens of prominent scientists who spent their lifetimes searching for the facts.
October 5, 2014
I got nothing but red flags from the clearly slanted and under-referenced argument made in this book, which left me with far more questions about the author than the topic discussed. Upon looking into the author it was no surprise to find out he was in fact a lobbyist for big oil and this book is nothing but a tool of propaganda for just such causes.
July 10, 2011
Very compelling evidence from important scientists casting doubt on the commonly held beliefs about global climate change.
January 25, 2020
THE DENIERS details the many legitimate scientists who seem to view the Cult of Anthropogenic Climate Alteration as a fraud. These real scientists have often been ostracized by the True Believers. One victim was my friend, Aksel Wiin-Nielsen of Denmark.
I read this book many years ago after reading the assessment by Vaclav Klaus who recognized the true objective of this fraudulent crusade as a "watermelon" -- "green" on the outside and red (communist) on the inside aimed at controlling people, not climate.
I read this book many years ago after reading the assessment by Vaclav Klaus who recognized the true objective of this fraudulent crusade as a "watermelon" -- "green" on the outside and red (communist) on the inside aimed at controlling people, not climate.
July 30, 2008
I'm a skeptic of those crying the sky is falling due to manmade global warming. I found this book interesting because of the number of individuals who question the alleged consensus, although I found the book truncated in its coverage of the material.
Want to read
January 4, 2009Only becuase my cousin asked me to read. He is a young scientist who doubts and fears to be seen doubting. Maybe he can take courage from such others. This is not the kind of persecution I usually study, but I will read.
May 12, 2010
This book provides great insight into "scientific" findings. Don't always believe what you read.
January 22, 2016
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 (Hardcover)
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.
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.
December 11, 2019
An interesting read into some of the alternative theories of global warming and various criticisms of the science, politics and policy. Published in 2008 there is a need to reassess some issues, however as a whole, there is not enough evidence to put the GHG hypothesis out of prominence as the main driver of global warming and climate change.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 30, 2022
Excellent book for those who want to read a counter opinion to the global warming hysteria. It shows how most scientists promoting global warming are not climate scientist and the climate scientist not funded by governments are not global warming doomsayers.
May 1, 2019
Easy reading; clear explanations
April 13, 2023
An outstanding book. Published in 2008 it is now still extremely relevant in 2022. I found this book only recently. Most of science quoted in this book has stood the test of time, while much of the science included in earlier IPCC (international Panel for Climate Change) assessment reports is slowly being proven wrong . The idea that man made emissions of CO2 can actually cause the climate to change was suspicious to begin with. The idea that natural causes are responsible for changes in the climate are never really discussed or researched into (by refusing funding) by the IPCC. This tell us that the IPCC is a United Nations political organization with a political agenda.
As a geologist I can tell you that the climate has always changed will always change and is changing now ....these changes are cyclic and are most likely caused by natural causes. Anybody truly interested in understanding the real causes of cyclic warming and cooling spells should read this book. Recommended and a keeper!!
As a geologist I can tell you that the climate has always changed will always change and is changing now ....these changes are cyclic and are most likely caused by natural causes. Anybody truly interested in understanding the real causes of cyclic warming and cooling spells should read this book. Recommended and a keeper!!
November 15, 2009
Interesting review of scientists from various fields who question the current orthodoxy that 'the science is settled'. I especially enjoyed the chapter that dismantled Al Gore's fatally flawed 'hockey stick' graph that purports to show current global temperature rises that are directly related to human activities on the planet in the last century. I've been skeptical of this whole theory from the beginning and I keep remembering early high school history classes where we were told that the Vikings grew barley on the west coast of Greenland 1000 years ago. Why, because the earth was 2C warmer then. I have seen no convincing argument that the current fluctuations in global temperatures are anything other than noise or normal variations due to causes outside of human influence. So, do I trust the author to be giving me the straight goods? Well, no, but he is playing to my bias. Worth reading.
July 1, 2010
This book made me feel a little ill. While it confirmed some suspicions regarding global warming I didn't expect to come away with the feeling that global warming (that is man-made CO2 emissions building up to dangerous levels) is complete bunk. By the end of the book I was thinking more about media / communications / politics than the global warming issue. I think colleges should cover critical thinking much more thoroughly than they do. Over and above a serious look at the underpinnings of a any kind of scientific basis for global warming Solomon's warnings regarding genuine environmental devastation and tragic loss of human life being accelerated through short-sighted global warming policy was also very alarming. If you have any opinion on global warming you should read this book.
June 27, 2011
An interesting book which mainly says many scientists remain unconvinced that CO2 is the primary culprit, and that we still have lots to learn about our planet and solar system, etc. before we can develop computer models that will give us good approximations.
I was disappointed to see, however, that he did not include a crucial simple experiment, that is very revealing.
The controlled experiment is measuring the temperature of earth's atmosphere as CO2 is increased...there is a straight line relationship until you reach about 350ppm CO2...after that the temperature levels off with further increase in CO2...
I was disappointed to see, however, that he did not include a crucial simple experiment, that is very revealing.
The controlled experiment is measuring the temperature of earth's atmosphere as CO2 is increased...there is a straight line relationship until you reach about 350ppm CO2...after that the temperature levels off with further increase in CO2...
Read
October 12, 2010The dismantling of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change is unconvincing. However, the book raises some interesting points about how funding priorities can stifle opposing views, and about the difficulty of translating science into policy or into material for general audiences. Certainties do not exist in science. Is it necessary to pretend otherwise in order to bring science to bear on policy and efforts toward lifestyle change?
April 12, 2012
This book is so educational. Science is not done by consensus. So says the author of this book, and he's right. The world is not flat and the sun does not revolve around the earth even though such were the consensuses at other times. I found this compilation of refutations by the most eminent scientists in their fields compelling. The author managed to make most of their points accessible to the layman.
If the climate change folks have you scared, you should definitely read this.
If the climate change folks have you scared, you should definitely read this.
February 19, 2010
The author by examining the positions of numerous scientists concludes that Al Gore and company are deceiving the public regarding climate change in their statments that the science is settled. Al Gore and company also act in a deceptivly political manner, disregarding any scientific findings that disagree with their predetermined position.
January 17, 2012
An excellent book for someone not afraid to think outside the politically correct box. Points out the problems that real scientists, who are not interested in the money or the politics, have with the issue. I well remember in the 70s being told by the same scientific community that we were headed for an apocalyptic ice age.
June 10, 2012
I was just before Christmas, and had to wait to read the books (that I had bought for myself) wrapped up and under the tree. So I read some of my dad's books. First I read a "believers" science-based global warming book. Then I read this one. It shocked the hell out of me! An amazing read.
You need a strong science background or understanding to appreciate this book.
You need a strong science background or understanding to appreciate this book.
December 2, 2009
Led to other research showing the poor science of AGW. Especially damning is the researche involving the residence of CO2 in the atmosphere. Which shows the impossibility of AGW. The hockey stick chapter reveals the breakdown of the peer review process of some well-known climate scientists.
March 29, 2012
Good book on why government funded research produces biased results.
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews