**********************************EXCERPT****************************
Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.
**********************************AMAZON INFO*****************************
************************************One Review ****************************************
|
120 of 132 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars Review of Deniers,
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. |
fyi
Review of Deniers, April 6, 2008
******************************EXCERPT*****************************
James Safranek says:
So how much risk are you willing to take with carbon? In other words, as carbon emissions continue to grow yearly, how much research are YOU going to need to before you have 100% proof that carbon plays a big part in modifying climate? You want to wait 10-20 yearsfor confirmation? Longer? Rather than abide by the precautionary principle and lower carbon, you're willing to take that risk? What if the minority is wrong?
*******************
Dennis Baker says:
The amount of carbon in the atmosphere takes up, if you represent entire atmosphere as a football field, 3 inches, a 3-inch line. The growth is from 1 inch. Waiting 20 years isn't going to make much of a difference. Maybe someone else can give a more precise representation of the carbon currently in the atmosphere.
***************************************
James Safranek says:
First you state --with much confidence-- that there's not much carbon in the atmosphere to begin with, so 20 more years of increase will not matter (you provide no evidence to support this claim). Then you ask for a precise representation of the carbon currently in the atmosphere. You sound clueless to me.
In 150 years, man-made C in the atmosphere (actually tropospheric C) has risen from 280 to 377 ppm.
(Source: google CDIAC--"Recent Greenhouse Gas Concentrations")
If you spent around 4 to 6 hours of your life REALLY trying to understand what a doubling of current C levels will result in, you'd be alarmed. Not an 'alarmist', just alarmed. The best paleoclimatic analog we have for a doubling of C (which our kids will probably experience) existed in the Eocene. I'll let you discover for yourself what went down at this point in geologic time. Try UNDER A GREEN SKY by Ward for a primer.
Good luck.