Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth’s Climate

5 Comments

1. John Mashey says:

   June 27, 2010 at 3:17 am

   1) This is fine, first-hand book on the evolution of climate science over the last 30 years or so with nuanced descriptions of the science arguments and the difficulties in explaining science to policymakers and the public. Thank Stephen especially for the long campaign to regularize the uncertainty descriptions used in the IPCC 3rd and 4th Reviews. Other reviews have covered many of the topics I might have, so I won’t repeat, but will offer something different.

   2) If you want more history, start with:
   
   Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming (New Histories of Science, Technology, and Medicine), which also has an equivalent website at the American Institute of Physics.
   
   Then, read two of Stephen’s earlier books:
   
   Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century?, 1989. andLaboratory Earth the Planetary Gamble We (Science Masters), 1996.
   
   This sequence offers a good look into what was known or not *at the time, not just by hindsight*, how real science works, and how scientists weigh data and competing hypotheses. Much of real science is trying to bound uncertainty, and good scientists change their minds. Some things that were theoretically very likely in 1989, but had not yet emerged from the noise into statistical significance, have long since done so.

   3) If you want tutorials, here are my favorites, for 3 levels of background in ascending order

   General audience, easily including high school, and inexpensive.
   
   David Archer,The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth’s Climate (Science Essentials), 2009. 180 easy pages. See my review over there for advice on figuring out whether or not someone might be an expert [like Archer] or not.

   College undergrad textbook, for non-science majors, i.e., a little more math and science:
   
   David Archer, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, 2008. Not so cheap, but good. 194 (denser) pages.

   Serious, but the Real Stuff:
   
   Search: ipcc wg i technical summary
   
   for the ~70-page Technical Summary, what the scientists *really* think. Free. Anyone who has read SaaCS should understand why the Summary for Policy Makers is almost always weakened and uses obscure language compared to the TS. I hear this quite consistently from other IPCC authors, who are often amazed *anything* makes it into the SPM. Consider reading the TS for WG’s II and III as well.

   4) Bottom line:
   
   So, SaaCS is a good book to read. Even better is to attend live talks by good climate scientists. Stephen is especially adept at giving talks for various backgrounds. There is no real substitute for listening to a real expert, watch them answer questions, and maybe even talk to them. In some places, that may be hard, but many good research universities offer public talks, and speakers may do outreach talks elsewhere.
   
   Here in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, there must be at least 30+ IPCC authors around, and so many talks they sometimes have schedule conflicts. Among Stanford U, SLAC, UC Berkeley, LBNL, LLNL, various government groups, business organizations, and NGOs, anyone should be able to find a few good ones, *if they want to*.

   Rating: 5 / 5
2. Sreeram Ramakrishnan says:

   June 27, 2010 at 3:54 am

   if one were to trust the marketing of the book, (marketed as answering key questions such as “Why, if we knew of the threats way back in the Carter Administration, can’t we act decisively to limit greenhouse gases, deforestation, and catastrophic warming trends? Why are we still addicted to fossil fuels? Have we all just been fiddling for 40 years as the world burns around us?”), it does a remarkably poor job.

   Schneider, however, succeeds in providing an engaging account of his own growth and glimpses of various key personalities in this field such as Gore, Crutzen, Broeker, etc. Written mostly in a first-person narrative style, Schneider takes us through his rationale on some of his public statements which helps define a broader viewpoint regarding the initial (heated) public discussions that formed the genesis of the “global warming movement”. For a reader curious about the personalities involved in this critical topic, this book will be of great value. For someone who was looking to get a rigorous treatment of the controversies on data, evidence etc will have to be satisfied with mostly a very well-thought-out chapter on “media wars”. Overall, a good, rare look at the key personalities, but unfortunately, the book may not advance the debate on potential solutions to global warming significantly.
   Rating: 4 / 5
3. MoosePond says:

   June 27, 2010 at 4:12 am

   I must admit to having been a fence-sitter on the whole global warming/climate change controversy, not knowing which side to believe. However, this book has moved me firmly into the believer camp as it very logically lays out what’s been discovered, why it’s important and what it means to the future of our increasingly fragile planet. Highly recommended for anyone willing to take a serious, open-minded look at what is a very serious issue. It’s well-written and makes its point(s) without the rhetoric and emotionalism that’s so often present.
   Rating: 5 / 5
4. S. Al-Amri says:

   June 27, 2010 at 4:14 am

   The advertising for this book was perhaps written by someone who had not actually read the book. This might result in the book not being read by those who would like it and, instead, not liked by those who were expecting something else.

   This is a narrative of the climate warming fight waged by various scientists over the years. Most of the drama comes in differences of opinion between politicians and scientists. Sometimes it is conflicts among the scientists themselves, for reasons of research or personality conflicts.

   The main story seems to be the ongoing struggle of politicians, mostly from the Republican party, to deny and cover up all evidence of climate change, for various reasons. This “close your eyes/plug your ears” approach to science is rather shockingly detailed during various administrations.

   The writing style is awkward, styled almost like a diary of the events of various days and weeks, and who said what to whom during those times. This isn’t a book you would read for pleasure but might be one that would be interesting if you want to know what was happening and who was fighting reality at times. It gives inside stories from various meetings and events that many will find enlightening.

   This book isn’t footnoted/authoritative enough for college research projects but could work quite well for high school students to use. It will acquaint the reader with facts about most of the leading scientists in these fields and might influence students who are interested in these fields of study.

   Rating: 3 / 5
5. Alan Holyoak says:

   June 27, 2010 at 6:40 am

   Stephen Schneider is a physicist at Stanford University who studies the patterns and processes associated with global climate change. He comes to the table with credentials and experience that few others in the world possess, and I found his inside view of the current global climate change debate to be nothing less than amazing. He was a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, and a section leader in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). Who better to write a book about the fight regarding global climate change?

   I found the most fascinating part of the book to be the section on “Mediaology” (i.e., news media, and dealing with the media). He has been the subject of numerous personal attacks carried out in the form of quotes taken out of context, partial and inaccurate reporting, etc. He has valuable lessons to teach about being a scientist and speaking out in the public forum. Schneider also does a good job of explaining what science is and how good science is done.

   I also found the sections where he discussed the procedures for the generation of IPCC reports to be enlightening.

   The book is readable and is much more than a memoire, though there is a significant amount of autobiographical information in the book. This is not a book about global warming, but about what it takes to be involved in dialog associated with an issue where many special interest entities work to to deliberately discredit people that speak out, muddy the waters on the issues and data associated with the issues, and even refute the existence of global climate change, regradless of the data.

   One thing this book helped clarify in my mind is the difference between climate change skeptics and climate change denialists. Skeptics (and I hope we all have a healthy dose of skepticism) are people that are reluctant to accept a particular conclusion or position until sufficient evidence is presented to demonstrate the validity of a position, and they then accept it, whether they personally like it or not. Denialists, on the other hand, don’t care how overwhelming the evidence may be, they are committed to a position and course of action that they will pursue even in light of overwhelming consensus and agreement among professionals that work in the field in question. May we all be skeptics, not denialists. The sad thing is that the vast majority of climate change denialists may never read this book.

   Thanks for the great insights! It gave me plenty to think about.

   5 stars!
   Rating: 5 / 5

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.