Customer Reviews

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

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

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*.

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.

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.

This is a science book especially a climate science book unlike any other. The reader gets not just the outcome of the scientific debate nor the "two sides," rather Schneider immerses us in the process of science. If science is a contact sport, and from all accounts (not just this one) it is, then climate science is the Superbowl. Following Schneider on his long journey through the science left me with the following impressions.

1) It is amazing that a science that, in any organized sense, is only about forty years old has accomplished so much in such a short time span. It has involved tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of disciplines and sub-disciplines inventing a "science" in an effort to comprehend one of the most complex phenomenon ever studied (or created) by humans.

2) Climate science is a science that by its very nature involves the amassing of mountains of evidence that point towards the elimination of uncertainties and the statement of probabilities--and not to exact formulas or equations. It has to consider non-linear events, thresholds and tipping points as basic components of its understanding of the complex phenomenon we call climate.

3) Climate science has undertaken these investigations while under attack by the largest and best-funded corporations and economic interests in human history. Where there is not opposition from the fossil fuel industry and its allies, there are an untold number of economic players whose fortunes will be affected by any rearrangement of the rules of the market required by the desperate straits we have put ourselves in.

4) Climate science has been expected to come up with definitive answers as to the probability of humans changing the planet into a totally unfamiliar place in order that an international assemblage of policymakers and political leaders can arrive at a solution to this unprecedented problem and enforce it across the boundaries of 190 nations before time runs out. The goals of social justice must be matched against those of keeping the warming of the climate in check--all within a process that has imposed on itself the requirement of 100% consensus.

It is truly amazing that this gang of climate scientists has accomplished so much in such a short time-span within the political pressure cooker they operate. We owe these scientists, and Steven Schneider as their note-taker, a deep debt of gratitude for all they have done to make the world a better place. Schneider gives us an insider's view into how to compete in "extreme science."

Read this book. Seriously. Read it. Those who are familiar with the IPCC and with the climate change discussions will have heard of Stephen H. Schneider. Not only did he receive the collective 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as a member of the IPCC (along with Al Gore), Schneider has played an important and often pivotal role in the development of the science over the last four decades. He has also been the focus of much of the climate denialist attacks.

In Science as a Contact Sport, published in late 2009, Schneider gives us a reasoned, informative and insightful look into both the history of climate change science and the inner workings of the IPCC process in developing the first four Assessment Reports. Essentially this is a memoir, and through his personal experiences from the center of the scientific debate Schneider opens a window into how the scientific consensus was developed over more than forty years of focused research, as well as glimpses into the initial discovery of the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in causing a warming of the earth.

In a writing style that mirrors his real-life tendency of being both in-your-face and humorous, his use of anecdote and metaphor are instrumental in getting the point across and tunneling into the real issues. Climate deniers, as he calls them, have used his earlier work on the cooling of the atmosphere due to aerosol releases to suggest that he is a scientist for any temperature. This is just one example of the way denialists misrepresent his work and the work of others to push their free market agendas. He addresses some of these willful distortions in chapters on how the companies who are most affected by possible policy options "heat up" the debate and in a chapter called "Media Wars: The Stories Behind Persistent Distortion." He coins the term "mediarology" to define how difficult it is to communicate honestly complex science through the media. And he talks about other tactics used to distort the discussion, where the deniers goal isn't to inform the truth but to be victorious (defined as "delaying" action). Schneider notes that even though such obvious denier fraud as the "Great Global Warming Swindle," which was thoroughly debunked as garbage at the time it was released (hundreds of errors and a willful attempt to mislead), is still used by denialists to "support" their charade.

But the main benefit of the book is the "history-in-the-making" aspect of the process. From the inside Schneider relates how scientists first came to suspect that the world was getting warmer, the investigations that were undertaken, the honest disagreements between scientists as they tried to understand what they were observing, how increasing technological and computing capability from the 1970s through the present day allowed greater and more accurate modeling, and how the IPCC process works to develop a consensus. This last part is particularly revealing, as the IPCC insists that there be 100% consensus on the final work product. All parties argue for days to come up with just the right wording, and since the IPCC consists of representatives from the governments of all parts of the world, there were many cases where countries like Saudi Arabia, China, and Russia pushed for more moderate language than the scientists felt was warranted by their review of the scientific literature. The result is two-fold. First, that no one can claim their views went unheard. And second, the final conclusions in the IPCC reports are clearly much more moderated than the science would have predicted. In other words, the IPCC reports are more likely to be underestimating the problem rather than overestimating it. Having followed the process in Schneider's book, it is easy to see why more recent science tends to show the problem is getting worse, faster than the IPCC predicted.

I recommend this book to everyone looking to get an insider's view of the history and process of the development of our understanding of climate change.

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.

There is a huge amount of evidence that global warming is occurring. Although climate is not my field, I constantly see reports in Science, Nature, and other scientific journals of measurements on an incredible variety of things that indicate warming of our environment. Dr. Schneider performs a great service for us by interpreting and clarifying this mass of data and its meaning. Now, what does it mean? We can all agree, I hope, that continued temperature rise will, at some point, have dire consequences.
But how rapidly will warming occur? Will it continue at the same pace, or is it accelerating? How much will any further increase in temperature unexpectedly destroy some part of the ecosystem, a change that could set off a general destruction. As any scientist knows, prediction is difficult and dangerous, but again Dr. Schneider helps us understand models of future possibilities.
Obviously, the logical thing to do is act to reduce or even stop the warming, but accomplishing this runs up against industrial and business interests that do not want to spend the money needed to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, the chief cause of warming. Dr. Schneider gives us a nice picture of the battles in which he has been involved. He also gives some advice on needed action. Unfortunately, governments that are trying to reduce warming are often hindered by people who don't understand the problem and action to solve it.
Finally, I enjoyed the author's personal account of his work. Every scientist will recognize the research effort, the conferences, the debates, the international travel, the interviews by the media, and the interaction with government.
All in all, it is a wonderfully informative and wonderfully readable book.

It has got to be incredibly frustrating to be Stephen Schneider or James Hansen, leading climate scientists who have been trying to educate the public on the issue of climate change for decades.

Schneider, a recipient of the 2007 collective Nobel Peace Prize awarded to the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), has done us a service by sharing his experience over the years as an insider in the fight to educate the public about the need to reduce carbon emissions.

In light of the latest desperate attempt by the Carbon Lobby to obfuscate reality, the hacking of the climate research center in England, Schneider helps keep things in context -- this is but the latest little chapter in a battle that's been going on since Hansen's Congressional testimony of 1988.

Of course the Carbon Lobby is not going to roll over and stop promoting their right to profit from global warming. And neither can we do anything but keep fighting for the truth and for action to make possible a livable planet for future generations.

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!

An interesting look at the personal history behind the environmental movement. It is fascinating to see how the science of climate change, now presented as a nearly finished product--perhaps to its detriment--slowly took shape in fits and starts. For genuine skeptics of climate change (as opposed to professional skeptics), this book might really make a fine present. It is hard to read it and still think that evil scientists conspired against the good hard working folks of America in concocting a climate change scam. One popular idea, trumpeted by weirdos like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, is that climate change is an excuse for a massive wealth transfer from rich nations to poor nations. They would be surprised to read in "Science as a Contact Sport" that the 3rd world viewed climate change controls as a scam designed to thwart their countries' development.

Sometimes "and then, and then" but overall "Science as a Contact Sport" is a document of the environmental movement that is well worth reading. Recommended.