The Deniers by Lawrence Solomon, Richard Vigilante Books, 2008, 239 pp., hardback.
A Book Review
by Tom Gow, FFS VP
In our research of the global warming topic we came across a gem of a book, The Deniers, written by Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon. Solomon forthrightly subtitled his book: “The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud* *And those who are fearful to do so.”
When your pro-nuclear power reviewer began reading The Deniers, he was initially quite skeptical of the book’s value, for Lawrence Solomon proudly acknowledges strong environmentalist credentials. Indeed, Solomon works for an environmental group called Energy Probe, which in 1974 began opposing Canada’s nuclear power establishment. In the late 1980s, Energy Probe was “also among the first organizations in Canada to sound the alarm on global warming.”
Get the latest news and updates from Freedom First Society.
But as we read further, we were pleased to discover the intellectual honesty and quality of research Solomon brings to the topic of his very readable book. Although Solomon refuses to take a position in areas of disputed or uncertain science, he very strongly disputes the global warming doomsayers’ claim that the science is settled.
Solomon argues that the intelligent layman must look to scientific authority for guidance in this technical area. And he insists that, contrary to media reports, the exaggerated claims regarding global warming simply do not responsibly reflect the opinion of the most competent scientific authorities. And he has absolutely no truck with Al Gore.
Indeed, playing off the title of Al Gore’s irresponsible “documentary,” Solomon includes a chapter in his book entitled “Some Inconvenient Persons.” In that chapter, he highlights several scientists who had huge reputations in the environmentalist movement prior to coming out against the global warming scare and who were subsequently maligned or pushed down the memory hole.
As the title and subtitle indicate, The Deniers is largely about people — the scientists who defend their science against political orthodoxy, their impressive credentials, and the expert opinions they offer. And Solomon has assembled a sterling cast of characters to dispute the science-is-settled claim. Virtually every chapter introduces the reader to internationally recognized authorities at the top of their fields who dispute elements of the global warming crisis case.
As The Deniers overwhelmingly demonstrates: “Only by pretending that serious theorists don’t exist can Al Gore get away with quips about how global warming deniers ‘get together on a Saturday night and party with’ people who believe the Earth is flat and that the moon landing was staged on a movie lot.”
Even though The Deniers started out as a series of newspaper columns, the book is very well organized, turning the spotlight on each of the major building blocks for the global warming scare.
As Solomon points out, the thesis that we are facing catastrophic manmade global warming rests on a number of independent foundations. Although he discovered top scientists who credibly disputed each of these foundations individually, he also found that many were not ready to take on the entire theory, as the other building blocks were outside their particular area of expertise, and so they resisted being described as deniers:
Like other smart people, and like most everyone, scientists accept the conventional wisdom in areas they know little about. Put another way, people are predisposed to accept what they believe to be a consensus.
Readers of The Deniers will quickly recognize that what the public has been told bears little resemblance to what Solomon’s experts tell us. Let’s take a brief look at several of the topics Solomon examines.
Improper Manipulation of the Data
Solomon titles his second chapter “The Case of the Disappearing Hockey-Stick.” The famous “hockey-stick chart,” included in the Summary for Policymakers of the 2001 UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, purports to show an unusual correlation between rising industrial CO2 and historical warming.
The Energy and Commerce Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives asked Dr. Edward Wegman to assess the chart. Dr. Edward Wegman is a past president of the International Association of Statistical Computing and past chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences. Likely due to Dr. Wegman’s persistence in exposing the errors in composing the chart, the IPCC dropped the hockey-stick chart from the Summary for Policymakers for its 2007 Report.
Solomon regards this omission as “fairly damning” but notes that “the hockey stick did its main work years ago and is still widely cited by advocates of the science-is-settled position.”
The Search for CO2
As the story in The Deniers unfolds, one discovers that many forces interact to impact our climate. But the global warming scare has focused largely on CO2 and the greenhouse effect as the principal drivers of climate change. Solomon’s authorities reveal the danger in such oversimplification of nature’s complexity.
Dr. Nir Shaviv is an accomplished astrophysicist. “The Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System credits his works with a total of 613 citations.” Shaviv argues that CO2 plays only a subordinate role in global warming. He further insists that, whereas the impact of CO2 in a simple system is apparent, the factors determining Earth’s climate do not form such a simple system. And those other factors are much less understood. Or in Solomon’s words: “A climate scientist focusing on CO2 is a bit like the man who lost his keys half a block away but looks under the light post because that is where he can see.” (See “Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing?” by Nir J. Shaviv).
In bringing forth the opinions of informed authorities, unknown to most of the public, Solomon directs our attention to Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks. Akasofu has twice been named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists.” In telephone and email exchanges with Solomon, Akasofu concluded: “Indeed, there is so far no definitive proof that ‘most’ of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect, as is stated in the recently published IPCC report (2007).”
However scientifically invalid, the campaign to brand manmade CO2 as the culprit in global warming requires some evidence that CO2 levels in the atmosphere during the past several decades are historically unusual. To reconstruct the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere over millennia, the UN’s IPCC has relied on data from ice-core samples.
For an evaluation of the ice-core record, Solomon turns to Zbigniew Jaworowski. Jaworowski is “past chairman of the Scientific Committee of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, past chairman of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and a participant or chairman of some 20 Advisory Groups of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program.”
These are hardly the credentials you would expect to find of someone in the pocket of industry. The story that for millennia prior to the Industrial Revolution, CO2 levels were low and stable is a fable says Zbigniew Jaworowski: “The IPCC relies on ice-core data — on air that has been trapped for hundreds or thousands of years deep below the surface,” Dr. Jaworowski explains. “These ice cores are the foundation of the global warming hypothesis, but the foundation is groundless — the IPCC has based its global warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.”
As Jaworowski points out, the ice does not preserve the ancient air with sufficient precision to allow historical reconstruction of the composition of the atmosphere. In fact, he says, the samples are fraught with errors.
The Myth of Scientific ConsensusThe Deniers very capably exposes the myth that the overwhelming majority of informed scientists believes we face catastrophic manmade global warming. But Solomon goes even further in illuminating the state of the infant science of climate. To that end he cites several very insightful statements by Dr. Robert Carter, a research professor at the University of Adelaide. Dr. Carter “has published more than a hundred papers in international science journals and received numerous awards and prizes….” In a paper entitled “The Myth of Dangerous Human-Caused Climate Change” (presented to The 2007 AusIMM New Leader’s Conference in Brisbane, QLD, May 2-3, 2007), Dr. Carter points out:
Much public discussion on global-warming is underpinned by two partly self-contradictory assumptions. The first is that there is a “consensus” of qualified scientists that dangerous human-caused global warming is upon us; and the second is that although there are “two sides to the debate,” the dangerous-warming side is overwhelmingly the stronger. Both assertions are unsustainable. The first because science is not, nor ever has been, about consensus, but about experimental and observational data and testable hypotheses. Second, regarding the number of sides to the debate, the reality is that small parts of the immensely complex climate system are better or less understood — depending on the subject — by many different groups of experts. No one scientist, however brilliant, “understands” climate change, and there is no general theory of climate nor likely to be one in the near future. In effect, there are nearly as many sides to the climate-change debate as there are expert scientists who consider it.
Those Pesky Martians
After discussing scientific research into other potential causes of climate change (such as the Sun), Solomon begins a new chapter with this thought:
The cosmic ray/cloud connection is complex and intriguing, but there may be a less complex and more intuitive way to tell that the Sun is responsible for global warming. Consider this: Mars has been warming too. Its polar ice cap is shrinking, deep gullies in its landscape are now laid bare, and the Martian climate is the warmest it has been in decades or centuries.
One of the scientists, Solomon cites to develop this idea is Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of the Space Research Laboratory at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory: “To … Abdussamatov … the evidence from Mars destroys in terms the layman can understand the notion that humans are responsible for warming Earth. ‘Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians,’ he states matter-of-factly.”
Solomon proceeds to explore some of the complications climate scientists face in analyzing cause and effect: “The oceans — whose upper regions contain many times the CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere — are also responsible for confusing climate scientists about the role that CO2 plays in the warming of the planet.” And he defers again to Abdussamatov:
If the temperature of the ocean rises even a little, gigantic amounts of CO2 are released into the atmosphere through evaporation of water…. It’s no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth’s oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause-and-effect relations.
Computer Climate Models
In his research into the global warming controversy, Solomon discovered that “no aspect of the doomsday case came in for so much criticism as the immensely complex and comprehensive computer models with which the IPCC and others claim to be able to predict climate change hundreds of years into the future.” Yet, as Solomon points out, “the case for manmade catastrophic global warming overwhelmingly depends on these models.”
Assessing the criticism, Solomon writes: “In blunt layman’s terms, the criticism of models that I encountered again and again comes down to this: global-climate models bite off more than they can chew…. Rather, as Hendrik Tennekes explains, the problem is that global-climate models reach a level of complexity so great that the predictions they issue can no longer be called scientific propositions.”
Solomon details several of Tennekes’ impressive achievements, noting that he “has touched an extraordinary number of lives in his own distinquished career, among academics and laymen alike.” In particular, Tennekes was formerly “director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and later chairman of the august Scientific Advisory Committee of the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts….”
However, Solomon informs us that:
Because [Tennekes’] critiques of climate science ran afoul of the orthodoxy required by the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, he was forced to leave. Lesser scientists, seeing that even a man of Tenneke’s reputation was not free to dissent, learned their lesson. Those who harbor doubts about climate science do better to bite their tongues and keep their heads down.
Solomon writes extensively about specific scientists and their accomplisments to establish their credentials in support of his thesis that in highly technical matters the intelligent layman should listen to the top people in any discipline. One of the impressive scientists Solomon cites is Physicist Freeman Dyson:
As a mathematician and physicist, Dyson is known for the unification of three versions of quantum electrodynamics, for his work on the Orion project, which proposed space flight using nuclear pulse propulsion, and for developing the TRIGA, a small, inherently safe nuclear reactor used by hospitals and universities worldwide for the production of isotopes.
As a theoretician, he is known for the Dyson sphere …, the Dyson transform … and the Dyson tree….
As an activist and visionary, [Dyson] is known for his concern for global poverty, for his promotion of international cooperation, and for his work in furtherance of nuclear disarmament….
But Dyson’s stature has not allowed him to dissent freely when it comes to global warming. As Solomon reports: “[T]hese days the Renaissance man is known as a scientific heretic, chiefly for disagreeing with, as he puts it, ‘all the fluff about global warming.'” In particular, Dyson dismisses the computer models: “They do not begin to describe the real world we live in.”
As Solomon further notes: “Professor Dyson argues that the many components of climate models reflect a poor understanding of first principles and thus cannot capture the effects of change in complex interactive systems.”
Another impressive critic of the computer models is Dr. Antonio Zichichi, whom Solomon describes as “Italy’s most renowned scientist” and publisher of “more than 800 scientific papers, opening new avenues in Subnuclear Physics at High Energies….”
As Solomon discovered, Dr. Zichichi has argued “that models used by the [UN’s] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are incoherent and invalid from a scientific point of view…. On the basis of actual scientific fact ‘it is not possible to exclude the idea that climate changes can be due to natural causes,’ and that it is plausible that ‘man is not to blame.'”
Readers should ask, why don’t we hear these stories on the nightly news?
The United Nations Connection
Of particular interest to this reviewer are the authoritative comments Solomon has assembled universally critical of the UN’s IPCC. As we will discuss in a moment, the UN was founded to evolve into an unchallengeable supranational authority possessing eventually even a monopoly on military force.
The architects of giving such authority to the UN recognize that this revolution in political arrangements is best driven though crises and by concealing their real agenda. Although Solomon makes no such connection to the global warming scare, those who value freedom and national independence should welcome any reality check on the hype that so often glorifies the UN and argues for giving it more authority to solve “global problems.”
One of the IPCC’s most persistent critics is Dr. Vincent Gray. Dr. Gray’s criticism is not so easily dismissed. As Solomon points out, Dr. Gray “has published more than a hundred scientific papers … and has participated in all of the science reviews of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…. [The IPCC] has used Dr. Gray as an expert reviewer for many years…. [In which role he has logged] roughly 1,900 comments on the IPCC’s final draft of its most recent report alone…. [Gray is] aghast at what he sees as an appalling absence of scientific rigor in the IPCC’s review process.”
After striving arduously to help the IPCC correct its reports, Dr. Gray concludes:
Resistance to all efforts to try and discuss or rectify these problems has convinced me that normal scientific procedures are not only rejected by the IPCC, but that this practice is endemic, and was part of the organization from the very beginning.
Another critic of the IPCC highlighted in The Deniers is Dr. Paul Reiter, professor at the Pasteur Institute in Paris and chief of its Insects and Infectious Diseases Unit. As Solomon points out, “[Dr. Reiter] has worked for the World Health Organization … and other agencies in the investigations of outbreaks of mosquito-borne diseases” and “was also a contributory author for the IPCC Third Assessment Report.” Reiter is dismayed at the attempts to attribute outbreaks in malaria to global warming:
I know of no major scientist with any long record in this field [the control of mosquito-borne diseases] who agrees with the pronouncements of the alarmists at the IPCC…. On the contrary, all of us who work in the field are repeatedly stunned by the IPCC pronouncements. We protest, but are rarely quoted, and if so, usually as a codicil to the scary stuff.
Solomon suggests: “One problem appears to be that the doomsayers either do not read the [malaria] research in detail, or if they do, they distort it.” And he provides an example of their reference to the findings in a World Health Organization report, which in fact contradicts their claims.
Solomon asks, “How can this happen? How could the UN have issued such dangerously amateurish advice on such a crucial issue, one that threatens hundreds of millions?” In answer to his question, he offers Dr. Reiter’s opinion that the IPCC, as an organization of governments, is covering up for the failures of governments. But Solomon also notes:
Moreover, the IPCC has twisted the peer-review process — essential to ensuring rigorous science…. In effect, the science is spun, disagreements purged, and results predetermined.
The IPCC is not the only group that draws repeated criticism in The Deniers. The media receives its share of the blame for misleading the public. In his previously referenced paper, Dr. Robert Carter charges: “It is plain that the press have failed in their role as public ‘watchdog’ against the specious pleadings of contemporary climate alarmists; indeed, the media itself is a self-interested party to the debate.” And Solomon provides examples of outrageous media spins, where the media itself is the problem.
Solomon regards “the June 2007 ‘Big Thaw’ issue of National Geographic, with its awesome account of the sudden, rapid disappearance of the world’s glaciers” as an anecdote masquerading as evidence:
“Brilliantly illustrated with the stunning photography for which the Geographic is famous, it prompted headlines around the world…. Unfortunately, the story as told by the Geographic is simply nonsense, claims [Dr. Cliff] Ollier [a geologist with the University of Western Australia].”
“‘Rapid melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets’ in the manner described by the article and constantly repeated in the popular press, ‘is impossible’ [Ollier] declares…. ‘In reality, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins and cannot slide down a plane.’”
The Pressure to Conform
Another revealing theme of The Deniers is the enormous pressure repeatedly brought upon those scientists who would even appear to threaten the global warming orthodoxy. Solomon refers to M.I.T. Professor Richard Lindzen for one explanation: “So how is it that we don’t have more scientists speaking up about this junk science?” [Lindzen] asks. His grim answer: carrots and sticks. Those who toe the partly line are publicly praised and have grants ladled out to them from a funding pot that overflows with more than $1.7 billion per year in the United States alone.
Since then, Lindzen says, scientists “who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks, or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
One of several specific examples of pressure Solomon cites involves scientists who sought to investigate the influence of the Sun on climate change. Two eminent scientists in that category were Dr. Egil Friis-Christensen, director of the Danish National Space Center and his colleague, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Space Center. Solomon writes:
When the IPCC was created, Dr. Friis-Christensen hoped its work would spur interest in the Sun’s influence on climate change…. To his surprise, the IPCC refused to consider the Sun’s influence on Earth’s climate as a topic worthy of investigation. The IPCC conceived its task as investigating manmade causes of climate change….
At a 1996 conference in Birmingham, England, Friis-Christensen in an invited paper included some results from a recently completed paper of Svensmark and Friis-Christensen tentatively suggesting that cosmic ray flux, regular variations in the Sun’s magnetic field, might be influencing cloud formation and thus temperature…. Bert Bolin, then chairman of the United Nations IPCC, castigated them in the press, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” They were castigated for casting doubt on the greenhouse theory, “though [Svensmark maintained] we did not say at that time that there was no CO2 effect, just that the Sun is also important.”
A common argument you hear from the doomsayers in response to doubts expressed about their projections is that it is still better to act on the assumption we face serious global warming and possibly be wrong than to risk acting too late.
But as Solomon points out, “The problem with the better-safe-than-sorry approach to headline horrors is that the headlines so often finger the wrong culprit.” As one example, he argues that “[f]ollowing Gore’s advice rather than addressing the real causes [of the resurgence of malaria] could mean grave illness or death for millions.”
In fact, Solomon argues that there is already a serious cost to the global warming scare. He is particularly dismayed that the doomsayers have not only managed to divert significant resources away from more evident problems, but that in addressing the global warming scare they are actually doing damage to the environment. And he singles out the Kyoto treaty:
But Kyoto is not an insurance policy. Just the opposite, it is the single, greatest threat today to the global environment, because it makes carbon into currency. Carbon is the element upon which all living things are built. With carbon a kind of currency — which is what all carbon taxes and carbon trading and similar schemes do — all ecosystems suddenly have a commercial value that makes them subject to manipulation for gain.
This is not some abstract theoretical concern. We are already seeing environmental havoc from the new economic order that Kyoto has spawned.
True to his determination not to arbitrate genuinely disputed scientific issues, Solomon concludes his investigation with cautious restraint:
“Global warming may be a problem, but it’s not a certain problem, and it’s certainly not one of epic proportions, as Al Gore would have us believe. It is one environmental concern among many whose science is far from settled.”
Given his green credentials, Solomon’s book should be very effective at convincing sincere policymakers that the hysteria is without merit. The Deniers also serves any layman well who wants to understand enough about what scientific authority can tell us about climate change so as to responsibly evaluate sensational stories in the media.
Although a few concepts presented in The Deniers may be more readily grasped by the technically inclined, in general Solomon keeps the book’s narrative very friendly and readable as befits a newspaper column. And for those who want to dig deeper, Solomon provides numerous references to excellent original material posted on the Internet.
We highly recommend The Deniers both for self-education and for influencing others.
The Rest of the Story
Where The Deniers falls short is in explaining, more than superficially, why the global warming scare has been so influential and in identifying the conspiratorial agenda it serves. And that is the critical part of the story, which desperately needs to be understood.
For example, Solomon quotes Dr. Richard Lindzen as suggesting that the momentum behind the global warming scare originates because that is where the research money lies. But that just begs the further question as to why the money is there. The answer to that question is crucial.
But what Solomon sets out to do, he accomplishes with excellence. And indirectly, his book sets the stage for a larger wake-up call, because it demonstrates that the leaders of public opinion and especially the politicians cannot be trusted.
Because we regard the rest of the story as so important to the defense of freedom, we take a moment here to outline some of that story (interested readers can find a more in-depth summary with specific references in our book, Organize for Victory!):
• Big money and influence support global warming research and the doomsayers’ movement because “crises” support the ambitions of a well-organized group of high-level Insiders engaged in an unprecedented power grab.
• At the end of World War II, a group of long-range planners, many associated with the Council on Foreign Relations, managed to manipulate public revulsion over the horrors and devastation of war into launching the United Nations. Although never advertised as such, the UN was intended to evolve into a world government controlled by these Insiders from behind the scenes. The UN continues to be a tool of the Insiders, particularly those at the Council on Foreign Relations, for subverting national independence and authority and accumulating global power.
• But many steps would be needed to complete their revolutionary scheme, and, as revolutionary leaders know, these Insiders would need crises or the appearance of crises to gain public acceptance for revolutionary changes.
• Initially, the Cold War and the threat of a nuclear holocaust drove their plans. But with the apparent demise of the Communist threat new threats were needed, and the Insiders of this Conspiracy were ready with several candidates: one was terrorism, another was international crime, and still another was environmental crises.
(See, for example, A World Effectively Controlled by the United Nations written by MIT Professor Lincoln P. Bloomfield, a secret study prepared under contract with the State Department by the private Institute for Defense Analyses in 1962.)
• Of course, everyone is familiar with the UN’s involvement with the environmental movement. For example, the UN sponsored the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. That same year, the Security Council sought to enlarge its mandate by declaring that “non-military sources of instability in the economic, social, humanitarian, and ecological fields” also constitute “threats to peace and security.” [Emphasis added.] And then there was the UN’s Kyoto Conference on climate change.
• But few appreciate the power behind this charade. The image of the UN as a democracy of nations, eager for input from an independent “civil society” is just that — a charade. The principal outcomes of the 1992 Earth Summit, for example, were pre-programmed, mostly by Insiders through the Council on Foreign Relations, and given a semblance of give-and-take democracy in action at Rio.
• Following Rio, so-called civil society has played an increasingly larger role at UN conferences. But the independence of this civil society is a sham. Here it is important to follow the money. Where do these groups get their funding? Who pays for aborigines to travel to a UN conference? Even a shallow investigation will disclose that Insider foundations fund many of these groups, who can then be expected to feed back publicly the line the Insiders want the public to hear, while leading the public to believe they are listening to the opinions of representatives of independent grassroots interests.
• As the reader may recall, Senator Gore led the U.S. Senate delegation to the UN’s Earth Summit in Rio. A principal outcome of the Rio conference was Agenda 21, an 800-page blueprint for governmental action to set in motion a continuously evolving process of environmental policy formation.
An abbreviated 300-page edition of Agenda 21 was prepared by Daniel Sitarz and endorsed by Earth Summit chief Maurice Strong. Sitarz enthusiastically asserts, in 1984 totalitarian fashion:
Agenda 21 proposes an array of actions which are intended to be implemented by every person on Earth…. Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has every experienced … a major shift in the priorities of both governments and indivdiuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.
Admittedly, much more documentation would have to be supplied to make this outline convincing to those unfamiliar with the story. But this brief outline suggests what we are alleging is at stake with the manmade global warming scare.
• In particular, we recommend reading and sharing The Deniers and its insights with other concerned Americans and with policymakers. Emailing links to this review may interest some in reading Solomon’s book.
• Several significant examples in Solomon’s research come from expert testimony provided to committees of Congress. This demonstrates that pressure rules in Washington, not the facts. The public needs to understand where the predominant pressure is coming from and realize its obligation to apply its own pressure and thereby compete for control of our government. It’s all about self-government — use it or lose it.
• In corresponding with congressmen, point them to expert testimony presented to their own committees. (See, for example, p. 104 regarding the statement of Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski written for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, March 19, 2004.) Congress may just be going through the motions with some of these hearings, but our elected officials, through their staffs, have no excuse for not knowing the substance of what is presented there and recorded at taxpayer expense.
• Follow up to help some of those you contact understand the revolutionary objectives that drive the global warming scare. Although The Deniers provides a good start, citizens and policymakers need more than Solomon gives us in order to make responsible decisions regarding the global warming debate. We highly recommend our own book, Organize for Victory!, as a follow-up introduction to the bigger picture of which the global warming scare is a part.
• As readers of Organize for Victory! will discover, the larger problem cannot be solved through the efforts of a few individuals acting alone. We must help some individuals see the bigger picture so they will then organize to fight the Conspiracy that would use these ruses to rob us of our freedoms.
• Many readers of The Deniers will, we think, be amazed to realize how slanted the news is that constantly bombards Americans. This misinformation is not a trivial issue. If Americans continue to rely on such sources for their information, it is difficult to see how freedom can survive. In support of that contention, we conclude our “review” by pointing readers to some wisdom of James Madison, father of the Constitution:
Although all men are born free, and all nations might be so, yet too true it is, that slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant — they have been cheated; asleep — they have been surprised; divided — the yoke has been forced upon them.
But what is the lesson? That because the people may betray themselves, they ought to give themselves up, blindfolded, to those who have an interest in betraying them? Rather conclude that the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government they should watch over it, as well as obey it.