Recommendations for books on climate change?

[Sparrow]

I'm finding the 'Britannica Guide to Climate Change' pretty informative, haven't read it all yet though.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by garygibsonsf

I was reading this article on The Guardian about Copenhagen and started wondering if it was really time I got some serious reading done on the subject of climate change. I'm aware that George Monbiot has some books out on the subject, but I'm wondering if MobileRead.com readers have any suggestions for books that aren't too heavy on the statistics but give a good overall picture of the current state of play and degree of knowledge?

You may want to listen to this podcast from Scientific American for December 3, 2009. In it, John Rennie, former Scientific American Editor in Chief, discusses his November 30, 2009 article, "Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense."

This is the same fellow who, for the July 2002 issue of Scientific American, wrote an article entitled "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense." Unfortunately, to read that entire article, you must purchase that issue. The good news is that you can get it as an electronic download.

I realize that this isn't a book recommendation, but I'm sure that if you search through the book reviews at the Scientific American website, you'll find more than a few good leads.

[Billjr13]

An Appeal to Reason by Nigel Lawson and Scared to Death by Christopher Booker and Richard North

[TC Beacham]

Hot, Flat, and Crowded: Why We Need a Green Revolution - and How It Can Renew America by Thomas L. Friedman

Here's the book and an interview...

[kjk]

not a book, but I love the graphic, and you can find links to his sources on that page too.

http://www.informationisbeautiful.ne...the-consensus/

[hapax legomenon]

Al Gore's recent book provides an excellent up-to-date introduction about green technology. It's really not that political. http://www.amazon.com/Our-Choice-Sol.../dp/1594867348

Global Warming and Climate change demystified is also an excellent introduction to the basic science
http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming.../dp/0071502408

The problem with Climate change is that the best reading material are in glossy PDFs and unreadable on most ebook readers.

also, this free ebook would help
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

But let me reiterate. Gore's Our Choice has the most up-to-date information.

Copenhagen Diagnosis also provides a good synopsis of the latest research.
http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/d...d/default.html

[orwell2k]

Originally Posted by AlbertaCowboy

The Lorax by Dr. Seuess. I found it to have about the same amount of hard irrefutable scientific data as most climate change papers.

Probably the most useful recommendation in this thread... but seriously, the only honest review you'll get is if you read some opposing books for yourself and make up your own mind.

True believers in man-made climate change will soak up the hysteria and ignore any objective questioning of the 'facts' - so much for science. And equally, die-hard sceptics will look for any excuse to ignore scientific data regardless of what it shows, for or against the hypothesis.

And so far I'm yet to find a really objective book or web-page that tries to look at all the issues, assess the opposing arguments, and highlight where we should be looking to commit valuable research resources to finding some semblance of the 'truth' - the goal of science after all...

Originally Posted by cassidym

State of Fear by Michael Crichton. This is fiction but very interesting and hard to put down, like most of his books

An excellent read, and food for thought as his point in writing the book was to trigger objective questioning of the honesty and fidelity of any 'science' done under irresistible political and financial pressures. His lesson - consensus is not scientific fact - it is a large number of people who believe they know the truth - a significant and fundamental difference...

In Crichton's outspoken speeches and essays on this issue, he is not pretending to be a climatologist, but rather questioning the quality and fidelity of the (rather inconclusive) science and the use of a 'consensus' in place of proven scientific fact. There has been far too much made of that all-important phrase 'consensus of mainstream science', as opposed to scientific fact.

As an aside, for an interesting discussion of the danger of interchanging the words 'Believe' and 'Know' I can recommend this article:

http://americaneditor.wordpress.com/...and-knowledge/

[Waba]

[QUOTE=hapax legomenon;709020]Al Gore's recent book provides an excellent up-to-date introduction about green technology. It's really not that political. http://www.amazon.com/Our-Choice-Sol.../dp/1594867348

Actually it is highly political... I was in a book store with my Dad who is a nuclear PhD... He said the section on nuclear power was politically motivated, dated nonsense.

I paged through to a section I'm experienced with, wildfire, and A.G. said recent large forest fires in NA are due primarily to climate change... Absolute nonsense, the large fires are due almost exclusively with stupid humans putting them out for 100 years. Fuel loads and dead trees have been increasing for 100 years due to human intervention.

Whether or AGW is real or not I don't know... I've worked with building models or natural phenomena my entire career. And I know for a fact anyone who says they can model something as complex as the global climate is full of it.

And I have ZERO trust in our glorious leaders to be able to do anything but tax and wage [ridiculous] wars.

[hapax legomenon]

Orwell2K, Michael Crichton isn't taken seriously either by climate change scientists or by literary critics. If you want to read genuine thoughtpieces about the interactions between science and belief, check out Steven Dutsch's Pseudoscience essays. He is a professor of earth science and quite eloquent and witty.

So Waba, let me ask you a few things:

did you actually read Gore's book?

You said "section I'm experienced with, wildfire". Define "experienced." Define why your credentials allow you to override the opinions of the experts Al Gore cited.
You did look at the footnotes, didn't you?
I assume you were looking near page 188. I am not a scientist, so I am not really qualified to engage in a fruitful discussion. But your statements do not appear meaningful to me.

RE: the nuclear section, I remember that section well. Al Gore did not make very many controversial statements there. I don't even think he particularly oppose or support nuclear (but he did go on about next-gen plants).

You said that according to your father, it was "was politically motivated, dated nonsense." This is an empty statement. What does it mean? How do you know what Gore's political motivations are? Where did you acquire those superpowers? "Dated nonsense"? I don't expect Al Gore to be an expert on EVERYTHING, but explain which reference he cited was factually incorrect. http://ourchoicethebook.com/chapter8/endnotes/

It is so easy to throw meaningless barbs at the book (especially when your own statements have such little accountability). Al Gore's book is a brief and handy summary of the latest projects and research into global warming. That's all. Nothing you said here has contradicted this statement. In my opinion, you are letting YOUR political biases cloud your judgment.

[hapax legomenon]

To clarify: I do not dispute Crichton's right to imagine an alternate future where the dangerous people are the ecologists. I'm sure he writes glibly. If he has a point to make, fine, let him make it. I'm sure it's easy reading and interesting. If he raises questions, fine. Let's ask those questions.

But I think a science historian might provide better insight into how consensus form and what they mean. Naomi Oreskes 80 minute lecture on climate change might provide more informed insights into those very same questions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXyTpY0NCp0

[Waba]

Originally Posted by hapax legomenon

So Waba, let me ask you a few things:

did you actually read Gore's book?

You said "section I'm experienced with, wildfire". Define "experienced." Define why your credentials allow you to override the opinions of the experts Al Gore cited.
You did look at the footnotes, didn't you?
I assume you were looking near page 188. I am not a scientist, so I am not really qualified to engage in a fruitful discussion. But your statements do not appear meaningful to me.

RE: the nuclear section, I remember that section well. Al Gore did not make very many controversial statements there. I don't even think he particularly oppose or support nuclear (but he did go on about next-gen plants).

You said that according to your father, it was "was politically motivated, dated nonsense." This is an empty statement. What does it mean? How do you know what Gore's political motivations are? Where did you acquire those superpowers? "Dated nonsense"? I don't expect Al Gore to be an expert on EVERYTHING, but explain which reference he cited was factually incorrect. http://ourchoicethebook.com/chapter8/endnotes/

It is so easy to throw meaningless barbs at the book (especially when your own statements have such little accountability). Al Gore's book is a brief and handy summary of the latest projects and research into global warming. That's all. Nothing you said here has contradicted this statement. In my opinion, you are letting YOUR political biases cloud your judgment.

I did not read the book, I read the section relevant to my experience and formulated my opinion... My experience is 8 years in forestry + BS. Most of his footnotes are about beetle infestation... Virtually everyone with forestry experience knows that these problems are due to crowding thanks to 100 yrs of fire suppression. NOT TEMPERATURES... There were massive insect infestations in the 70s when the world was freaking out about global cooling.

FYI, fires are needed for NA forests west of the Mississippi. Putting them out for so many decades has led to dense, overpopulated stands much more susceptible to disease and infestation... Fire is required for many species to reproduce. Again, anyone with even a baseline knowledge of forestry knows this. So either he ignored these obvious facts or is ignorant of them.

Look at the footnotes for logic's sake, half the sources quoted are out of the UN the rest seem to be from newspaper articles. This is a book about politics, not science.

... My Dad is well respected in the nuclear field, if he says Gore's book was garbage, I take his word for it. Especially when my own professional opinion backs it up.

However, if more people desire I can ask for a write up from him. It shouldn't be too difficult to shred Gore's nonsense. Then I can put it into an Amazon review warning environmental science students that Gore is a complete hack.

[orwell2k]

Originally Posted by hapax legomenon

Orwell2K, Michael Crichton isn't taken seriously either by climate change scientists or by literary critics. If you want to read genuine thoughtpieces about the interactions between science and belief, check out Steven Dutsch's Pseudoscience essays. He is a professor of earth science and quite eloquent and witty.

I'm not sure what Steven Dutch smokes for breakfast, but it certainly makes his writing entertaining. Although I find it hard to take his absolutist arguments too much to heart, such as statements like:

With a few exceptions, mostly Holland and the Scandinavian countries, most of the signatories of the Kyoto Accords are posers. They have no more intention of actually living up to the Kyoto Accords than the U.S. does, but they have one clear advantage over the U.S. They lie. We consider implications and don't sign treaties we can't support or fulfill; other countries merrily sign treaties they have no real intention of living up to.

Apparently his axiomatic patriotism makes this statement one of clear, undisputed fact (at least in his universe). Alas, I hate to tell you Stevie, but all governments lie, manipulate, cheat, mislead, exploit equally as well as each other - I can only guess he made such claims prior to the Iraq invasion fiasco (you do remember there was a little issue of less-than-truthfulness involved there)? Although that doesn't explain his apparent ignorance of other great moments in history.

We have to hope his other arguments are a little more thought out and based on scientific reasoning. But can we? Try this one on for size:

...we have a clear record of carbon dioxide increasing in the last couple of centuries and pretty solid evidence the climate is actually getting warmer

Blistering scientific 'fact' put forward again in support of the theory - I especially like the 'pretty solid evidence the climate is actually getting warmer' part of the statement.

Using the 'Dutch Method' of scientific resoning we can group the 'accepted facts' (stated so eloquently above) of CO2 increase and warmer climate into tha same basket as the sun rising every morning - i.e. don't bother getting me to prove the sun will rise tomorrow, but come and see me, if and only if, it does not.

He tries to (quite wittily) turn the tables of the burden of proof onto the sceptics rather than the theorists. I thought the scientifc process was to form a hypothesis that explains observation, then either prove or disprove that hypothesis. But I guess in the best Orwellian traditions where War is Peace and Freedom is Slavery, we must add Hypothesis is Fact (or some such - maybe Global Warming is Cool would be more hip?). We have a lot of theories and hypotheses, but the burden of proof seems yet to be satisfied.

As entertaining as the Dutch page is, as well as so many others, I'm not really looking for yet another extremist crackpot using his scientifc 'objectivity' to make aximoatic statements that 'prove' anthropogenic global warming claims. Nor am I looking for conspiracy nuts claiming suppression of data or other 'evangelical environmentalists' are creating the global warming hyteria.

What I would like is a truly impartial look at the evidence and the reasoning behind the theories. But the issue seems too divisive to have any neutral observers, or at least any neutral observers with real knowledge of the science.

I'll keep looking...

[hapax legomenon]

Waba, I'm not really going to engage with you about the questions of forestry/global warming (I will defer to your experience), but I wish to make a rhetorical point.

You really haven't made a meaningful statement about the book. A meaningful statement is one which can be proven or disproved.

I would expect you to phrase your point like this:

"Al Gore claimed in his book that ....
But other foresters/my experience says that this claim is not correct because...
Therefore, Al gore's book is not worth reading.

orwell2k: probably the Oreskes video is what you were seeking. "Extremist crackpot?" Turn the table on the skeptics? The problem with your characterization is that denialists haven't offered a convincing explanation about why global mean temperatures have been increasing. (Sunspots, water vapor, volcanoes account for a portion of it, but certainly not all of it).

Again, I'll say that you seem to be exhibiting all of the logical inconsistencies that Oreskes mentioned in her video.

You picked random quotes from Dutsch without providing citations. Any statement could be taken out of context. Your use of the word "proof" here is suspect. Climatologists don't talk about proof; they talk about theories and argue about which one is most persuasive. (again your embrace of Michael Crichton for climate change answers is not reassuring).


Finally, let's talk about probability. I would be willing to bet anyone that the mean global temperature between 2010-2019 is greater than the mean global temperature between 2000 and 2009. If anyone is foolish to take that bet, I will bet up to 1000$ and give 2 to 1 odds (requiring some sort of legal promissory note of course). If global warming is a hoax (as many people seem to believe), then you should take that bet. If you are not willing to take that bet, please explain why.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by hapax legomenon

Waba, I'm not really going to engage with you about the questions of forestry/global warming (I will defer to your experience), but I wish to make a rhetorical point.

You really haven't made a meaningful statement about the book. A meaningful statement is one which can be proven or disproved.

I would expect you to phrase your point like this:

"Al Gore claimed in his book that ....
But other foresters/my experience says that this claim is not correct because...
Therefore, Al gore's book is not worth reading.

orwell2k: probably the Oreskes video is what you were seeking. "Extremist crackpot?" Turn the table on the skeptics? The problem with your characterization is that denialists haven't offered a convincing explanation about why global mean temperatures have been increasing. (Sunspots, water vapor, volcanoes account for a portion of it, but certainly not all of it).

Again, I'll say that you seem to be exhibiting all of the logical inconsistencies that Oreskes mentioned in her video.

You picked random quotes from Dutsch without providing citations. Any statement could be taken out of context. Your use of the word "proof" here is suspect. Climatologists don't talk about proof; they talk about theories and argue about which one is most persuasive. (again your embrace of Michael Crichton for climate change answers is not reassuring).


Finally, let's talk about probability. I would be willing to bet anyone that the mean global temperature between 2010-2019 is greater than the mean global temperature between 2000 and 2009. If anyone is foolish to take that bet, I will bet up to 1000$ and give 2 to 1 odds (requiring some sort of legal promissory note of course).

If you are so sure of yourself then why limit it to $1000? Oh, and by what method will the mean be determined and what measurements will be used?

BOb

[yekim54]

Originally Posted by hapax legomenon

If you are not willing to take that bet, please explain why.

If Al Gore is going to continue to expel his hot air into the atmosphere from 2010-2019, then I won't be willing to take that bet.