This book may be judging from the "quotes" the author uses to publicize it.
They are all easy to google, but start with this one. here is his version of David Bromwich:

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."

Here's what Bromwich actually said:

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."
Uh.....

Putting the sceintists aside, anyone who claims that human activity involving the release of carbon-based energy and CO2 has no role is claiming that there is a cause which has no effect.
You can argue "how much" within a pretty narrow range. But it is not possible to argue "no effect."

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."

I really could have cared less about "Global Warming" until Al 'Creater of the Internet' Gore won a Nobel prize for passing on this messege. There is no doubt the climate changes as Gore points out. The cause however is not, has not, and will not be by man-kind. Even the "Great Myans" pointed out several thousands of years ago climate changes drastically due to a myriad of circumstances, most of which still have not been taken into consideration by this group at the UN.

Why is it that everything, absolutely everything, those clowns at the UN have to do with turns into an extreme fiasco? Mr. Solomon really drove that point home whether it was his intention or not. Nice job Lawrence, whatever you write next I am definately buying it.

Holocaust Revisionists and Global Warming Skeptics...have a lot in common. They are a threat to the special interest groups. From reading this book you will learn that some global warming alarmists think you should go to jail if you don't follow the party line.

A very important book. Up there with Germar Rudolf's important work and book titled "The Lectures on the Holocaust" the book that caused the scientist Rudolf to be in jailed. Both books can be ordered from AMAZON.

Holocaust Revisionists and Global Warm Skeptics...have a lot in common. They are a threat to special interest groups. From reading this book you will learn that some global warm alarmists think you should go to jail if you don't follow the party line.

A very important book. Up there with Germar Rudolf's important work and book titled "The Lectures on the Holocaust" the book that caused him to be in jailed. Both books can be ordered from AMAZON.

Laurence Solomon tells the sober side of the story of the global warming challenge confronting humanity. Solomon has brought together ten "eminent" scientists who put the case for truthful debate on the issue, debunking statistics that have created much distorted information...BGP

This book is excellent in shining the light of day onto the scam of claims that fossil fuel combustion is causing warming of the Earth. This scam was primarily perpetrated in this country by the Hollywood movie "An Inconvenient Truth", earning one of it's Producers, A. Gore, millions of dollars by his dealings in "carbon credits" through his brokerage firm. It reveals how if the US signs the Kyoto Treaty (setting worldwide allotments on carbon emissions) it could raise our taxes by 1000%. The many world reknown scientists (the "Deniers") interviewed for the book by its author, Lawrence Solomon, discuss their verified scientific data showing, among other things, that: carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion only accounts for less than 1% of Global Warming Greenhouse Gases . . . the oceans absorb and release most of the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere to maintain a ratio of 50 to 1 of carbon dioxide in the oceans to that in the atmosphere . . . the method used to determine the "movie" historical atmospheric carbon dioxide content was seriously flawed . . . historical records properly analyzed show rises in atmospheric carbon dioxide following rises in temperature . . . our present apparent warming cycle is quite natural and caused by an increased Sun energy output . . . and, warmer temperatures are much more beneficial to mankind than cooler temperatures, by decreasing mortality and increasing food production. These are only some of the conclusions presented in the book, which on the surface perhaps appears too complex and scientific for the non-technical reader, but through a clean narrative manner and a few simple, clear, tables and graphical presentations, it is quite a compelling book for most readers. For the technically oriented who are interested in exploring the facts and proofs of the books conclusions, Mr. Solomon presents an amazing 377 clarifying Endnotes, containing hundreds of sources for substansiating and explanatory data . . . as well as an Index of the Global Warming "Players".

L. Solomon's pleadings for a rational approach to global warming should really be a must for every citizen and, especially, for all teachers and their pupils. A well written, scientifically backed summary of the recent knowledge about climate change (if there is any...).

This book is written by a Canadian Environmental Activist who wanted to know why leading scientists kept denying man-made global warming so he interview a number of them for his column. In every case, they have good solid reasons why the IPCC ignores the lack of science that they address in the fields in which they are the very top experts in the world. For example, the "Hockey Stick" graph showing dramatic warming recently is based upon statistical formulas that do not stand up to analysis by a real statistics expert. They produce the same result 99% of the time with random data. Good, easy read and well documented.

There are such a lot of strong opinions about global warming. It is refreshing to get an alternate viewpoint - the author is an involved environmental advocate who is at the same time concerned about the science and objectivity. He does a good job of presenting credible dissenting views from the now popular storyline - where man being the main cause of global warming - is presented as a certainty, in spite of substantial evidence questioning this certainty. The scientists whose views are presented are leaders in their respective fields and acknowledged experts in various aspects of the global warming debate. Their basic appeal is for honesty and forthrightness in looking at the facts and the whole question of global warming, so that we can properly address the issues. No one benefits from either stridency or twisting scientific analysis to support a personal or political agenda - the very nature of the scientific effort is to seek to understand the processes, and to help assess what impacts may be. When analysis is twisted to present a skewed picture of what is taking place, it helps no one. Instead we should be attempting to assemble an accurate picture of what environmental forces are at work, and to determine both what the risks actually are, and what options we may have to address them. Much of current activism seems to be driven by the fear (of the not so distant future effects) of man-caused global warming. The feeling is that if we will only take immediate and strong action, we can prevent the worst from happening (sea levels rising, increasing disruptions of weather patterns, and continued poisoning of our natural resources). But what if the global warming that we are currently experiencing is just a natural phenomenon, and the linkage of CO2 accumulation with global warming is not true? If we knew that to be the case, how would that affect our current actions? The fact that our energy supplies are limited, and that we face an incredible growth of demand is a real challenge that we must address with vision and courage. The need to responsibly manage our global resources, including reducing pollution and creating a sustainable approach to all that we do is needed and commendable. It is really just in the area of the global warming debate where it is important for us to figure out whether we really have a problem, so that we can muster public opinion and resources behind a clear plan of action (if one is needed).
The book is very readable and credible, and is well worth being read, no matter what side of the global warming debate you may be on. Highly recommended.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too to do so

Mr Solomon's reporting of the shenanigans that go on in the name of science should give pause to all of us who depend on the supposed dispassionate arbiters of TRUTH to form our opinions. His chronicling of the manipulation of the facts and the sheer mendacity of those men and women of science who shape public policy should send all of us into tailspins of doubt as to what we believe vis a vis global warming. Scientists are not colorless beings devoid of feeling rather thier worldviews can and do influence their use of data. They also know which hand not to bite if they want to keep eating and receive funding. In this case, they should not bite the hand of the powerful green lobby, and their syncophants in the media. Read this book with eyes wide open and then get busy alerting your public officials as to the fraud and scare-mongering that threatens our capitalistic society and the material well-being it has bestowed on mankind.

The author has done a scholarly job of interviewing many highly qualified scientists who refute the claims of Al Gore and his disciples. He makes a distinction between normal global warming and man-made global warming. I highly recommend the book.

Self-promoters like Al Gore have used global warming hysteria to gain fame and fortune for themselves. Millions of people who have abandoned religion need something to believe in, so they become ardent "environmentalists". The scenario is a familiar one: those who gain by stirring up fear and hysteria become the leaders of the gullible masses. Those who stand in the way of the promoters are demonized. It was no different in Medieval Europe when the self-aggrandizers led literal witch hunts.

Today's witch hunts are promoted by Al Gore, the self-serving bureaucrats of the UN's IPPC, academics living off taxpayer government grants and the functionaries who award them, the entrepreneurs and charlarans peddling various conservation and energy schemes.

A lot of people have vested interests in promoting global warming alarmism.

Lawrence Solomon is also an environmentalist, but he has not succmubed to the imaginary "scientific consensus" on global warming pronounced by Al Gore.

Instead Solomon seeks the truth. He began a series of columns in Toronto's National Post featuring highly qualified and usually eminent scientists who disagreed with the "scientific consensus". These disturbers of the peace were villified for daring to question the accepted truths of the global warming alarmists - but they were not silenced.

Solomon went on to write more than 40 instsallments of his "The Deniers" column. A natural outgrowth was this meticulously researched book explaining the work and opinions of some truly qualified scientists who may not dispute global warming, but do reject the hysterical and unfounded claims that it is caused by industrial activity or that the result is catastrophe.

Solomon is a skilled writer. In describing the work of "The Deniers", he breaks down very complex and sophisticated areas of science into understandable lay terms. He provides an abbreviated CV of each of the scientists, making it clear that they are accomplished in their fields. Some of them, by the way, are well known to the public, such as Freeman Dyson.

But most are dedicated, responsible scientists who do not seek fame and glory: they seek scientific truth, something Al Gore and company are not interested in.

Solomon takes no position on any of the theories he writes about. Rather he is a chronicler. He opens the book with the well known "hockey stick" showing dramtic increases in global temperatures in just the past few decades. We are introduced to Dr. Edward J. Wegman who demolished the inexperienced, young Nichael Mann's "hockey stick". While Al Gore still touts Mann's nonsense, the UN's IPPC, without fanfare, stopped citing it.

Solomon's neutrality truly helps. The work of the dissenting scientists and their words make a compelling case without need for editorializing.

The alarmists, of course, have demonized Solomon as they have the scientists whose work he presents. Deniers cannot be tolerated in the world of alarmists who have declared "scientific consensus' and, thus, the impossibility of anyone, much less highly qualified and well respected, scientists dissenting.

It is unfortunate that the only people who read this book are those intelligent enough not to blindly follow the dictates of Al Gore, the Sierra Club and the millions of gullible people. For those who have the intelligence to understand that science is not proven by "consensus", Solomon provides much food for serious thought.

What is truly inspiring is that more and more of the "denying" scientists are being spoken of in the public sphere and their dissenting views are becoming known. While the truly committe global alarmists aren't open to actually assessing their views, many others are and that perhaps will lead to the triumph of reason.

Jerry

I have a PhD in Physics from UC Berkeley and have done some code modeling. The codes calculate some things well and other things (e.g. Temperature) not very well. I learned to be very suspicious of the results. I think the current Global Circulation Model code people have lost their objectivity and want to bend the hard data to fit their predictions. If their predictions are correct, why do they want to kill any research that might prove them wrong? What are they afraid of? Their attempts to punish any researcher who disagrees with them should have no place in science. This is probably the best book on the subject that I have read. In a recent development the American Physical Society's Forum on Physics and Society has opened a 'paper debate' for people to submit scientific articles on either side of the issue. I think that is a very healthy development. Polemics will not be published. Senator Barbara Boxer has made the idiotic statement that anyone who disagrees with the politically correct view is a 'flat-earth nut', but then she is famous for her arrogance.

Lawrence Solomon performs a calm, rational analysis of why we should avoid the "Chicken Little" warnings by Al Gore and the manmade global warming fanatics. His assertion is that we simply don't have enough solid data to charge down the path they have chosen to take.

Quoting prominent scientists in the global warming field who have changed their minds about the threat of MGW, he lends credibility to the concept that we need a lot more information before we jump off a hugely expensive cliff.

Far from being a wild eyed kneejerk conservative reactionary, Mr Solomon works for a Canadian environmental group called Energy Probe.
[...]

Solomon demonstrates that in at least the cases he presents, Al Gore and the MGW crowd are playing fast and loose with global warming science in pursuit of their political goals.

In a manner more like a surgeon than an author, Mr Solomon removes one MGW supporting argument after another by discussing relevant areas with 28 highly qualified climate scientists from all parts of the world. Not only are these folks qualified, but many were responsible for groundbreaking research that contributed to the MGW argument in the first place, including Saint Al's original mentor, Dr. Richard Revelle. Many of these "Deniers" were highly placed IPCC participants and authors. In statements of true scientific consensus, each said that their work had either been misquoted, misused, over stated, or all three, by the MGW movement.

As a matter of interest, these scientists are careful to address only their concerns about how their work has been misrepresented, and remain within their defined areas of expertise. The fact that dozens of such arguments are made lends credibility to Solomon's call for caution in taking drastic action on MGW.

Solomon's inescapable conclusion is that in the areas where the original scientists have chosen to take leave of the MGW stampede, true scientific support is at best weak. Solomon also concludes that MGW has moved from the scientific world to the political one, so these "deniers'" voices are likely to be drowned out by the Gore-led stampede to "Save Humanity" from MGW.

As a fellow scientist with extensive statistical training & experience in multi-variable analysis, I have always questioned the certainty that the UN, Gore & others have expressed on manmade climate change. This book provides a healthy counterbalance to Gore, the UN, etc.; one that I appreciate. Scientific doubt is equally important to scientific certainty when there is conflicting data that does not support a theory.

Step by step, Lawrence Soloman examines the case made by the "Man-Made Global Warming crowd" which has been thrust upon the worldwide scientific community and the public of the Western World in particular. Soloman is no right winger and certainly shows no loyalty to any business interest cause. He lays out every claim of evidence used by the likes of Al Gore, and the UN's IPCC then assembles the opinions of world renowned experts in every field imaginable to challenge the so called "settled" science of man made global warming. Solomon shows us how these renowned dissenting scientists have been branded as "Qwacks" by by the Global Warming fanatics. Afterward I could not help but feel skeptical of the motives of these alarmist promoters of man made global warming. The book is a shocking indictment of the mechanism which funds basic scientific research in the US and elsewhere. I found it to be a remarkable book, one that should be required reading in high school science classes & political science classes if for no other reason than to promote critical thinking! Read this book!!

Don C
Highlands Ranch, CO

I found this book to be a very quick read, easily finishing the book in two cross country plane rides. This is true despite the fact that there were many occasions to re-read certain passages and credentials pertaining to the level of accomplishment of the scientists that are profiled within. The author painstakingly documents every important credential of the scientists and mathematicians whose work is the subject of this book and getting through all of this can be a bit of a slog for a layman. Other than credentials this book was easy for me to read and the subject matter was presented in a logical order that told a story of sorts. Each chapter of the book was originally presented as a separate newspaper column but the writing hung together for me throughout the book.

As a lifelong environmentalist, protector of wildlife and outdoor enthusiast, almost nothing is more important to me than the health of our planet. This book lays bare the horrible damage being done today by the Al Gore inspired, UN led effort to stifle scientific discovery across dozens of critical fields of study. We are living through a new, "Spanish Inquisition", and those being burned at the stake are the top scientific minds alive today. This book should be required reading in every political science class in America today, even though the subject is science. Anyone that truly cares about the future of our planet and about the generations to come should read this book.

I found this book a good counter argument to the "consensus view". Mr. Solomon provides a good list of authorative scientists and their work to counteract this charlatan religion.
The book provides a reasonable doubt to the most prevalent theories of AGW.
Whether you are a part of the cult of believers or the cult of deniers this is a most read.

The most powerful weapon that Al Gore has, in support of his theory that human use of fossil fuels is causing catastrophic global warming by releasing large amount of CO2, is his assertion that "the science is settled." According to Al, no serious scientists disagree with him; everyone who disagrees is a nutcase, or a kook or a whore who is bought and paid for by the oil industry.

This book demolishes that argument. Solomon is a Canadian environmentalist and journalist. In this book, he does not take a position for or against the Al Gore theory. What he does is more important that to give us his opinion. Instead, he gives us facts, about the actual state of scientific opinion. He presents a large number of profiles of prominent scientists who disagree with a significant part of the Al Gore/IPCC theory. In each case, the scientists disagree with Gore, regarding a question within their own expertise. Thus, Gore's claim that no credible scientists disagree with him is a lie.

It is actually more than a lie. It is a threat. When a major politician, such as Gore, with the support he has on the issue says "no one disagrees" what he means is, if you dare to disagree with him you risk having your funding cut off and your career ended. As this book shows in spades, the actual science community is quite divided on the many issues presented by this complex set of questions. There is, however, EXTREMELY heavy political interference in the science. Funding is cut off, tenure is denied and slander campaigns launched against any who dare disagree.

The purpose of this intimidation campaign, of course, is to isolate those who disagree, make them afraid and make them keep their head down. The net result is that, although hundreds, if not thousands, of prominent scientists disagree with Al, Al is able to get away with this brazen lie that "the science is settled" and only kooks disagree.

Solomon is careful not to take a position on the underlying issue. Two things come out loud and clear, however. First, a great deal of the hysteria around this issue is utterly unfounded. There is absolutely no reason to believe, for example, that global warming causes hurricanes. That whole claim is, and always has been, unscientific nonsense. Second, the IPCC -- the UN panel of global warming -- does not follow anything resembling ordinary scientific methods. It does not publish its underlying data. It does not describe its methodology. Thus, none can check its results. It also has a long history of making wild and unfounded claims, which it has later had to quietly retreat from after the "nutcases" pounded it so hard with the facts that it was forced to retreat.

It is possible that some global warming is happening, and it is possible that CO2 emissions have some connection to it. On this issue, however, Al Gore and the IPCC are utterly unreliable; they have permitted science to be so polluted with politics, that their science has no objectivity and should have no credibility.

THE DENIERS is a calm, thoughtful, and highly informative consideration of many of the flaws in the man-made Global Warming "scientific consensus" and "settled science" that Al Gore and David Suzuki and the Environmental Movement keep hammering us with. It is presented in the work of leading scientists who have challenged the near-religious dogma and zealous claims of the True Believers. The counter-evidence is revealing, overwhelming. The book even explains in quiet, cogent terms why the Kyoto Accords and their successor requirements would be damaging to the world, particularly the Third World.
I consider this book a must-read for anyone who wants to think for him/herself.

The Deniers is an excellent and invaluable book, showing readers the other side of the global warming debate. Without editorializing, author Lawrence Solomon, a journalist and environmentalist, presents the views of many prestigious scientists who do not believe global warming is the dire threat to civilization we have been pressured to believe. I don't like the title much; many of the dissenting scientists are not actually deniers that C02 influences climate- many of them simply believe that other factors are equally or more important. But this is a quibble- please read the book. It is a much-needed counterpoint to the daily propaganda given to us by the mass media. It's not the final word, but it's an important point of view.

I should preface my review by saying that at one time in my life, I wholeheartedly believed in the science of global warming -- as caused by man-made influences -- hook, line and sinker, dating back to my senior year in high school. However, Lawrence Solomon's book has opened my eyes to the fact that so much more science needs to be done on the subject, and that Gestapo-style tactics to undermine global warming "deniers" only prohibit the attainment of real facts. One thing is for sure, I now view Al Gore's movie and book, "An Inconvenient Truth," to be an utterly unscientific joke that has shammed millions of people and inexplicably earned the former vice president countless accolades that he does not deserve.

That said, I expected Solomon's book to be a relentlessly harsh diatribe on the pro-environment movement in the vain of conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh and the like, one that condescendingly embarrassed scientists and citizens who felt human doings here on Earth were steadily making the planet hotter. That wasn't the case at all, though. Although written for laymen like me, Solomon's book relies heavily on actual science about global warming by highly respected -- though sadly spurned -- scientists. So if you aren't up for reading about the seriously studied, potential causes of global warming as it relates to non-human entities, then don't even touch this book. Obviously the mainstream press and Al Gore opted for a shortcut to science by taking this route. But if you really want to get to the heart of the issue, I highly recommend "The Deniers." Here is just a sampling of why global warming is far from "settled science":

- The models used by the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to predict future weather are crude at best, and fail miserably to factor in such crucial elements as cloud cover, the ocean and the sun's solar energy.

- The Earth goes through natural and major climate changes all on its own, irregardless of how humans behave. It's believed by many scientists that, though temperatures have risen slightly into the start of the 21st century, a cooling period will begin as early as 2010.

- The idea that warmer weather causes more hurricanes -- and more violent hurricanes -- is completely unproven. The temperatures of the ocean fluctuates, as does its propensity to either absorb or release major amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

- Carbon dioxide does not linger in the upper regions of the atmosphere for as long as 50-200 years, as the global warming hype machine would lead the public to believe. Numerous studies indicate the number is closer to two to six years.

- Mosquito-born diseases are not caused or increased by an Earth that is steadily warming -- they're caused by poor economic conditions, chaotic governments and lack of resources to fight them.

The tact and style of this book are extremely evenhanded throughout. A working environmentalist himself, Solomon admits at the end of the book that he is not TOTALLY convinced by the global warming deniers, mainly because the deniers have disagreements among themselves. But that is the gist of Solomon's point: The science of studying the atmosphere is a severely messy, complicated business, not a two-hour movie that has all the answers.

Through Solomon's book, I've come to understand that the money used to fund global warming research, though extremely important, might be better directed toward ending world hunger, deforestation, disease and famine. Tackling those huge issues, in fact, as well as ending large subsidies for energy companies, would go a long way toward helping the environment and the economy.

Along those lines, I was also amazed to learn how the Kyoto Treaty has done more harm than good. It may be chic, for instance, for celebrities like Pearl Jam to purchase huge tracts of land and plant trees as a "carbon offset" for the jets the band flies in, but all that does is displace millions of people and perpetuate the "carbon into currency" practice that so many Brazilians are against, including its citizens, churches, NGOs, trade unions and the World Rainforest Movement itself.

In sum, if you're already recycling, reusing, conserving and doing your best not to pollute, good for you and keep it up. But in my newfound opinion, based on the science I read about in Solomon's book, the actions of humans play an infinitesimal part in the weather you view outside your window, and the science on global warming is hardly definitive as of right now. When thinking about the global warming issue, remember that lone and dissenting voices amid media hype are often looked back upon in later years as the most reasonable.

Lawrence Solomon is a columnist with the National Post of Toronto, author of other books, environmentalist and activist. In the latter role Solomon strives to save the world's rain forests and prevent nuclear power expansion. He works for an environmental group called Energy Probe. Despite these credentials, he has written an unusually accurate work about climate change.

The term "deniers" was coined by Al Gore et al. to discredit dissenters from his view on climate catastrophe, trying to place them in the same category as Holocaust deniers. Other forms of slander and intimidation are exposed by Solomon. The book was inspired by a bet by a climate "warmer" or alarmist that he could name three areas of climate science that were settled. Solomon showed that a credible dissenting scientist could be found to refute each one.

So one area of climate after another was discussed along with the findings of one or more experts in that area. The CVs of the experts showed that they were usually more qualified than than the alarmists making the doomsday claims. These CVs were in boxes, of which there were 29, nearly all on professors who were also authors of peer-reviewed papers or books as well as winners of scientific prizes. Several are or were members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) whose reports are normally revered as gospel by climate alarmists, but exposed as misleading or worse by some of these very reviewers, and also by entire books, such as Shattered Consensus, Prof. Patrick J. Michaels, Ed., 2005.

Examples are given of punishment of deniers, no matter how good their science was, just for disagreeing and thus threatening the alarmists. Loss of research funding, dismissal from expert panels, loss of office or status in scientific bodies as well as character assassination are all revealed.

Based on expert opinion, Solomon shows evidence that: (1) The 1990s were not the warmest decade in 1000 years, the period from 1100-1440 being warmer; and the evidence that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s was given for the Arctic region, utterly uncorrelated with industrial CO2 emissions. (2) Storms are not more frequent or more violent in the last 20 years, but were probably most so in the 1940s in the last 110 years. (3) The Antarctic peninsula (2% of the area of the continent) has lost ice, but the rest of Antarctica is cooler since 1957 and has gained ice. (4) Global warming of about 0.5°C in the 20th century followed equal warming in each of the previous three centuries, an utter disconnect with the claimed CO2 levels in the air, which are not correlated with warming -- the central dogma of climate alarmism. (5) Unusual even for climate realists, Solomon noted that CO2 levels were higher than now in pre-industrial times (p91), and mentioned Ernst-Georg Beck's 2007 review of 90,000 direct chemical assays, but without the solid findings that those levels were over 420 ppm in 1823 and 1942, and the same as now in 1858. (6) Solomon showed that the ice core data for CO2 levels used by warmers was hopelessly unreliable. (7) Climate modeling was shown to be badly flawed mostly because it does not model cloud behavior. (8) Several solar effects were shown to account for the warmings and coolings of the last 400 years. These include changes in the output of the sun, changes in the distance of the earth from the sun, and changes in the sun's ability to deflect cosmic rays from the earth. More cosmic rays, more clouds, and lower temperatures, as in the Little Ice Age of 1600-1800. There were other angles as well.

On the other hand, Al Gore is taken to task for misinformation on temperatures, CO2 levels, storm frequency and severity, warming as a spreader of infectious disease, and misinterpreting the positions of his Harvard Professor, Roger Revelle, are all there. An article in Cosmos in 1991 by Revelle and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Meteorologist, University of Virginia): "What To Do About Greenhouse Warming: Look Before You Leap" was seen by Gore as a threat to his intransigent climate positions. Gore tried to show that Revelle had become senile. Through another Harvard scientist, Justin Lancaster, Gore tried to have Revelle's name removed from a proposed reprinting of the article, and accused Singer of using Revelle's name over Revelle's objections.Singer sued Lancaster, and with overwhelming evidence, won. "Quite recently, Lancaster retracted his retraction, claiming he had only issued the retraction in the first place because of the financial strain of the lawsuit." (p197) Of course, this sort of fracas discredits many climate alarmist politicians and scientists. More important to me, it is smearing all of science, and shows why so many deniers are professors emeritus like me with not much to lose.

On the downside, while Solomon mentions water vapor as a greenhouse gas, but not that it is by far the most important one. Also, he does not seem to understand that the nuclear reactor that failed at Chernobyl, Ukraine, was an inherently unstable type never built outside of the former USSR or its satellites. He mentioned a reactor failure in Ontario, PA, which I could not locate. The only one I know of in PA was on Three Mile Island, which did not kill or injure anyone (p212). He calls hydroelectric dams and nuclear plants "grandiose govermnent-backed relics of yesteryear". On the other hand, Solomon sees environmental havoc from the new designation of "carbon" as a currency (p210).

On the whole, The Deniers is highly recommended for its unique approach, solid climate science and some astute environmental understandings. Very easy to read with mostly clear graphs. Has good citations and index.

First, don't be fooled by the title's lack of politeness, this is a serious book and I do highly recommend it for those interested in the global warming issue from an apolitical point of view, or with a genuine interest in the science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory. With a different approach from the typical GW skeptical literature, this is a real and earnest scientific counterbalance account to Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and above all, a tribute to free inquiry and the essential right to rational disagreement inherent to the scientific method, including questioning of the prevailing or mainstream paradigm, as any critical discussion is a fundamental element of scientific progress. As Karl Pooper brilliantly summarized this concept, "the game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."

This book is written by an experienced environmentalist advocate who believes in global warming, but decided to corroborate the claim of "scientific consensus", and discovered that the science is far from settled. The book is a collection of very interesting accounts and published materials from scientists in different fields with different degrees of skepticism and legitimate questions and criticism; most of them, believers of the anthropogenic global warming theory, but not of the exaggerations nor the alarmist or catastrophic predictions, and above all, who do not considered that the science is settled and concerned about the dogmatic position taken by most GW advocates. The book reads fast (just 213 pages) and all the materials are fully referenced, including web addresses for easier follow-up, allowing you to check the facts by yourself. Solomon left his opinion on this controversy for the final chapter, short and very sincere.

Among the so called "deniers", Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, and Eigils Friis-Christensen are known from their part in the controversial The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD) documentary, but quite a big difference does it make when the approach is serious as Mr. Solomon did. These and other respectable scientists show several of the weaknesses and prevailing uncertainties of the "consensus" theory. Among the most reputable scientists cited by Solomon, renowned physicists Freeman Dyson and Antonino Zichichi stand out, their point of view is presented in Chapter 8: Models and the Limits of Predictability, summarizing the most solid criticism presented in the book. Both scientists question the validity and confidence of the forecasts produced with climate simulation models, particularly regarding the "fudge factors". Also they are strongly opposed to the intolerant scientific consensus, as such consensus is not part of the scientific method, and in practice is just a device to thwart any rebuttal, thus endangering the freedom and the objectivity of what would have been a normal scientific discussion. This is a main criticism to the consensus, as not many scientists want to risk or can afford to be labeled a "heretic", a luxury they can afford because of their age and brilliant carriers. As Karl Pooper said "only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff".

Among the several weaknesses identified in the book, there are two fundamental flaws that are worth mentioning, and both have to do with the crucial role the climate simulation models play in the anthropogenic global warming theory: (i) attribution of the causes for the observed warming, as criticized and highlighted by both Dyson and Zichichi; and (ii) the lack of falsifiability of a theory based on simulation modeling, as raised by Hendrik Tennekes, also in Chapter 8. The latter refers to the possibility of demonstrating that a theory can be proven false by experiment of by observation, a basic requirement of any valid scientific theory. In the case of man-made GW, such ability of being falsified is hindered by the fact that simulation models use parametrization to compensate for the climate physical effects not directly simulated or when lacking enough data, and mainly because the models are calibrated to adjust for historical trends and available measurements, then, by tweaking the models, the goodness of fit for the past is guaranteed, and the reliability of the prediction might be even good for short term forecasts, but as time goes by, the models are calibrated again, so the mid and long term predictions always get adjusted. This permanent fine tuning can be confirmed by anyone simply by looking at the evolution of the predictions in consecutive IPCC Reports for the past 17 years. A good summary is presented in Figure 1.1 of the IPPC's 2007 Report (AR4) Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Climate Change 2007) (a PDF version is available for free through the web). The first IPPC predictions from 1990 (FAR) were completely off target by 2000, and significantly overestimating what is now a historical record, even without considering the fact that mean global temperature stopped increasing since 2001 (the recent and now controversial cooling trend). Thus, when forecasts do not fit reality, climate modelers can always claim that the data fed into the model was faulty or insufficient; or that the modeling has since been significantly improved; or that their predictions are good for the long term, or any other excuses, and in the end, they continue building more complex models but always avoiding fasifiability, just as have witnessed for the last 20 years. The transcription of Popper's ideas presented in the book makes clear that this approach is "not only false but dangerous, leading to undisciplined, arrogant, and worst of all unfasifiable predictions masquerading as science."

The second major flaw is related with attribution or establishing the most likely causes for the detected warming. As explained in the book, and in more detail in Section 1.3.3, Chapter 1 of the IPCC's AR4, the theory of anthropogenic global warming or climate change established this fundamental cause and effect relationship exclusively on the basis of the results obtained with climate models, through simulations with and without man-made greenhouse emissions. Chapter 8 explains at length why these models are not reliable for this purpose, and so, you are left without proof of attribution. "There exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies."

For a deeper understanding on the limitations and the real confidence we can put on the global climate simulation models and any long term prediction, I strongly recommend reading The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. For an honest and detailed account on how the anthropogenic global warming theory evolved to its present state, I recommend reading The Discovery of Global Warming (New Histories of Science, Technology, and Medicine). For a serious but still work in progress alternate theory for GW read The Chilling Stars, 2nd Edition: A Cosmic View of Climate Change.

PS: For the latest contribution to this debate by Freeman Dyson see his piece entitled "The Question of Global Warming", at the website of the New York Review of Books, June, 12, 2008.

First, don't be fooled by the title's lack of politeness, this is a serious book and I do highly recommend it for those interested in the global warming issue from an apolitical point of view, or with a genuine interest in the science behind the anthropogenic global warming theory. With a different approach from the typical GW skeptical literature, this is a real and earnest scientific counterbalance account to Gore's An Inconvenient Truth, and above all, a tribute to free inquiry and the essential right to rational disagreement inherent to the scientific method, including questioning of the prevailing or mainstream paradigm, as any critical discussion is a fundamental element of scientific progress. As Karl Pooper brilliantly summarized this concept, "the game of science is, in principle, without end. He who decides one day that scientific statements do not call for any further test, and that they can be regarded as finally verified, retires from the game."

This book is written by an experienced environmentalist advocate who believes in global warming, but decided to corroborate the claim of "scientific consensus", and discovered that the science is far from settled. The book is a collection of very interesting accounts and published materials from scientists in different fields with different degrees of skepticism and legitimate questions and criticism; most of them, believers of the anthropogenic global warming theory, but not of the exaggerations nor the alarmist or catastrophic predictions, and above all, who do not considered that the science is settled and concerned about the dogmatic position taken by most GW advocates.

Among the so called "deniers", Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, and Eigils Friis-Christensen are known from their part in the controversial The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD) documentary, but quite a big difference does it make when the approach is serious as Mr. Solomon did. These and other respectable scientists show several of the weaknesses and prevailing uncertainties of the "consensus" theory. Among the most reputable scientists cited by Solomon, renowned physicists Freeman Dyson and Antonino Zichichi stand out. Both scientists question the validity and confidence of the forecasts produced with climate simulation models, particularly regarding the "fudge factors". Also they are strongly opposed to the intolerant scientific consensus, as such consensus is not part of the scientific method, and in practice is just a device to thwart any rebuttal, thus endangering the freedom and the objectivity of what would have been a normal scientific discussion. This is a main criticism to the consensus, as not many scientists want to risk or can afford to be labeled a "heretic", a luxury they can afford because of their age and brilliant carriers. As Karl Pooper said "only critical discussion can help us sort the wheat from the chaff".

Among the several weaknesses identified in the book, there are two fundamental flaws that are worth mentioning. As criticized and highlighted by both Dyson and Zichichi, these flaws have to do with the crucial role the climate simulation models play in the anthropogenic global warming theory: attribution of the causes for the observed warming and the lack of falsifiability of a theory based on simulation modeling. The latter refers to the possibility of demonstrating that a theory can be proven false by experiment of by observation, a basic requirement of any valid scientific theory. In the case of man-made GW, such ability of being falsified is hindered by the fact that simulation models use parametrization to compensate for the climate physical effects not directly simulated or when lacking enough data, and mainly because the models are calibrated to adjust for historical trends and available measurements, then, by tweaking the models, the goodness of fit for the past is guaranteed, and the reliability of the prediction might be even good for short term forecasts, but as time goes by, the models are calibrated again, so the mid and long term predictions always get adjusted. This permanent fine tuning can be confirmed by anyone simply by looking at the evolution of the predictions in consecutive IPCC Reports for the past 17 years. A good summary is presented in Figure 1.1 of the IPPC's 2007 Report (AR4) Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Climate Change 2007) (a PDF version is available for free through the web). The first IPPC predictions from 1990 (FAR) were completely off target by 2000, and significantly overestimating what is now a historical record, even without considering the fact that mean global temperature stopped increasing since 2001 (the recent and now controversial cooling trend). Thus, when forecasts do not fit reality, climate modelers can always claim the modeling has since been significantly improved and their predictions are good for the long term, always avoiding fasifiability, just as we are witnessing today.

The second major flaw is related with attribution or establishing the most likely causes for the detected warming. As explained in detail in Section 1.3.3, Chapter 1 of the IPCC's AR4, the theory of anthropogenic global warming or climate change established this fundamental cause and effect relationship exclusively on the basis of the results obtained with climate models, through simulations with and without man-made greenhouse emissions.

For a deeper understanding on the limitations and the real confidence we can put on the global climate simulation models and any long term prediction, I strongly recommend reading The Future of Everything: The Science of Prediction. For an honest and detailed account on how the anthropogenic global warming theory evolved to its present state, I recommend reading The Discovery of Global Warming (New Histories of Science, Technology, and Medicine). For a serious but still work in progress alternate theory for GW read The Chilling Stars, 2nd Edition: A Cosmic View of Climate Change.

Can there be a weaker standard than "Scientific Concensus?" First of all, the very term is undefined. There is no formal vote, no long list of supporters, just the frequently-repeated statement and a movie by the slippery Al Gore. What about "Peer Review?" A clique of people who had the same professors and know each other personally sign off on each other's papers - often without reading them. Is that science?

This book shatters the myths of peer review and concensus and shows what important scientists really believe about the subject, based on knowledge of their own field. It clearly makes the point that while man-made global warming may be true, it is not scientifically proven in any way. "The Deniers" is written for the lay person and is an eye-opening read.

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.

I have never thought that being "alarmist" over global warming is a good idea, and see no reason to begin that trend now. And, some dissent among scientists is reasonable on any subject, especially one that could have implications for the entire world population. However, to properly show that there is dissent within the scientific community, it is essential to compare apples to apples, which was done well in some places in the book, but which failed to happen in others.

I agree that the hockey stick is gone as a useful tool, but questioned it all along. I am always very leery of any sort of graph that uses statistics as a measurement...they are just too easy to adjust. Lengthen the time frame and you get one picture, shorten it and you get another. It is also easy to dismiss the work of Stern, who is an extremist and has few followers in the climate change debate that I am aware of.

There are places in the book where I noted problems. To contradict current glacier science, the author produced a nuclear physicist who has worked on some glacier issues. The key is, however, that he is not a specialist in glacier science. That is roughly equivalent to going to your internist when you are having heart attack. He may know some of the science, but is hardly the expert that you would want.

Finally, I think it is important to look at the author's biases. As a foe of nuclear energy, it is in his best interests to deny the problem exists. If global warming does exists, it will require, almost certainly, the use of nuclear power to bring an end to coal and oil usage. Overall, the book was a good read despite some problems and I think it has a place on the shelf of anyone who is concerned about the problem of global warming, be it man made or natural.

The Deniers was an excellent review of another or hidden side of the global warming or climate change issue. It highlights the research being done by others in field that we would otherwise not hear from. This outstanding climate change understanding has been relegated as irrelavent by the IPCC "managed information" community for political reasons. "The Deniers" are asking and answering questions that need to be raised and deserve answers, with the intent of understanding the cause and effect of the broad range climate change influencers or phenomena. Solomon's work suggests that it is not as simple as the IPCC/others wants us to believe. Duh!

More importantly, what is frightening about all of this is that the IPCC, sanctioned and supported by global liberal media and political interests, is successfully driving their "human caused global warming with dire consequences" program and weeding out the other qualified thinkers that are developing a more complete picture of what is happening to our climate. The latter provides future options with more reasonable and balanced strategies. The IPCC and Democratic platform's purpose of control/allocation of energy, would likely cripple our national development and economy.

A well researched study of some of the renowned scientists who do not support Gore's hysterical propaganda, and why.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

This is an objective and very informative review of salient global warming issues. While the book stands alone on it's own merits, the various specific topics covered are easily verifiable by the interested reader who wants to understand on a deeper level. Each issue is honestly discussed without the emotional drive so often found in global warming advocates.

The Deniers is an example of how the global warming debate should proceed: data based and without ideological agenda. I recommend this book to anyone who actually wants to know what the issues are and who desires to make their own conclusions regarding climate change.

Mr. Solomon has presented a large number of very credentialed and dsitinguished scientists who dispute all or part of the anthropogenic global warming theory. Mr. Solomon devotes a single chapter to an aspect or claim of the global warming hypothesis and describes how one or more leading scientists have demolished it. Mr. Solomon thus continues for eleven chapters and thus effectively refutes most if not all of the human caused global warming hoax.

It should be mentioned that Mr. Solomon writes very clearly so any layman can understand the position and critique of each scientist refuting anthropogenic global warming. Mr. Solomon also provides detailed descriptions of the background of the scientists whose work and position is described by the book.

Mr. Solomon's book is a must read.

If you are a "believer" or "denier" in humankind causing global changes in
temperature, "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon will compare and contrast both sides of the argument. The "natural" processes continually evolving on Earth and within the solar system are explained. Ask yourself if you feel warmer on a sunny day or a cloudy day; what can this question have to do with global change?

At a time when many media figures speak of man-made global warming as an indisputable fact, this book is refreshing. As an economist, I can speak to the fact that professional opinion rarely reaches a consensus. The same is true of any other science (though perhaps not as true as in economics).

Solomon demonstrates serious problems with the popular view of global warming. Contrary to what some would have us believe, there are legitimate reasons to doubt the proposition that modern industry is causing climate change, to the extent that it exists. There is a reasonable counter hypothesis regarding solar activity.

Given the actual lack of certainty on climate change, one has to wonder why so many people are so thoroughly convinced about greenhouse gases. Worse still, you have to wonder what will break the current trend in popular opinion. I have heard reasons to doubt the greenhouse effect for decades, and I do not really study these matters. Global temps fell last year. If last year's trend in temps continues, the trend in public opinion will reverse course. Otherwise we will have to depend on books like this one, and I'm afraid that too few people will actually read it...

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.

This is a book that was needed several years ago to counter the "Global Warming Culture" that is not based on good science. It is a thorough, compelling read that documents scientists and thinkers from various academic areas to "weigh-in" on the debate. They ALL dispute strongly the Al Gore's of the world. They have all had their voices "silenced" by the politics of this debate.

Unfortunately, the author is still not revealing the full truth about what the energy needs are going to be of a World that is growing and rapidly requiring ALL types of energy to keep the World more healthy and more financially secure. A good follow-up might be What are WE Going to do?? The truth, lots of everything!!

I am all for conservation and reducing the pollution we contribute to our planet, however, I cannot stand people who are ignorant to the fact that the science of climate change and global warming has in no way been settled. Solomon's book does a great job of not refuting global warming or calling it a hoax, but he did a great job of raising valid, SCIENTIFICALLY BACKED points to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the science behind climate change is nowhere near settled. I beg every one who is sure climate change is a crisis to read this book with an open mind. If nothing else it will only educate you further and that is never a bad thing.

There once was a time when the scientists' consensus was that Earth was flat....how did that one turn out?

Excellent oversight on the observations, data, and credentials of renown scientists in different fields and areas of expertise on the data being used by those promoting man caused global warming. Does not deny global warming but rather exposes information that appears to be either irrevalant or wrong. Excellent book.

talk about a bubble.....

well compared to the substance of this work, a bubble looks pretty heavy.

especially heart rendering is the terrible pressure on denialists to stay silent, lest their careers be damaged.

the fact that postulation by scientists commenting outside their expertise has never been popular or respected, seems to not to justly apply when it comes to AGW.

in the author's view, the true "concensus" is skeptical of AGW.

if specious cherry picking is to your taste, you will love this work.

The review of politics of global warming science is excellent, as could be expected from a book that focuses on interviews with various scientists who have questioned certain conclusions in the global warming orthodoxy. The author admits that "The Deniers" is a rather provocative title. Indeed, on page 45, after a a review of four "deniers", we are told "None of them are deniers". This is one of the most fascinating aspects of this book: these experts, with exceptional credentials, find serious faults in the orthodoxy that is within their own area of expertise. But they are quite willing to accept the "consensus" conclusions that are not within their area.

The misrepresentations of global warming by the media, which then encourages distorted statements by politicians and Nobel Prize winners, is familiar to some of us. The more noteworthy presentation in the book is the review of the shifting, and now diminishing, IPCC alarmism about hurricanes, malaria and sea-level rise.

The weakness of the book is that the author is not a climate physicist. For example, a verbatim quote from a paper by Prof. Robert Carter is given on page 92, where the quote references Prof. Richard Lindzen to support a claim that the current CO2 concentration of 380 ppm is "75%" on the logarithmic scale in doubling from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. The article by Lindzen is available on the web, and Lindzen makes no such blunder. The Carter quote also includes a statement about "arbitrary adjustments to the lambda value in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation" A more savvy author might not have passed on this incorrect attribution to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.

On page 111 we read "Clearly, the prospects of success for a model that claims to predict the next hundred years are nothing close to the prospects of a model predicting the next 48 hours". This is not clear, and is not true. The skill in predicting a time-average quantity (climate) in far future can exceed the skill in forecasting an instantaneous value (weather) in the near future, even with the same model. Weather forecasting itself provides an example: a forecast for instantaneous wind at certain anemometer 2 minutes hence may be less skillful than the a forecast for the hour-averaged wind two days hence. (Skill meaning skill beyond a mere persistence forecast). An extreme example: if the sun were to instantaneously turn off, a model ca