Customer Reviews

The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change: A Guide to the Debate

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is an excellent way into the subject for the beginner. There's some very sound science, most of which is agreed upon and a good understanding of how policy making works, or doesn't. The two ideas are brought together along with a discussion as to how we might proceed. One of the strengths of the book is the frequent use of boxes to put alternative viewpoints and summaries to show where we are in the debate. The overall effect is one of the most lucid and readable introductory accounts of the topic that has been published in some while. As such it should be seen as a 'must-buy' and an essential addition to the library.

How does science work? And how do politics work? How does it all fit together with the data that has come from various sources all over the planet - and is climate change real? All these questions are addressed in an easy read, very neutral. The authors take a firm stand on the issue finally, from a scientific perspective, and the result is clear: Yes, it is real, and it is coming at us, while politicans are incapable and totally overwhelmed by the problem. It is a new kind of threat nobody can deal with, thus we ignore it. Too much for us. Surprising to read from two high profile, Ex-NASA scientists from the US themselves. Alerting at the same time. A must read to be up to date with the debate or quickly get an overview. Stefan Klose - University of Ulm - Germany

In my effort to learn about climate change, I found it admittedly very difficult to read the lengthy IPCC reports (e.g. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis), so it's wonderful to have Dessler's and Parson's short, inexpensive book to give a guide to the findings of the IPCC, as well as to explain some of the politics in a calm, rational way. I think that any citizen genuinely interested in this topic should try to become familiar with the actual IPCC findings.

What is the IPCC ? What have they concluded ? How uncertain are the conclusions ? How have the policy makers reacted ? What are the scientific criticisms ? These issues are explained in this nice compact book. A very good aspect of this book is that it conforms to the standard practice of scientific argument: it shows data, describes theories (models), discusses how the theory fits data, explains the uncertainties, and (importantly) cites references. When looking into this subject, I suggest the reader beware of books or articles that are primarily "expert opinion" with no, or very little, reference to actual data.

The only reasons I didn't give 5 stars are: a) I would have liked it if the book could have covered the 2007 edition of IPCC report (maybe they will update it ?), and b) The book has a somewhat dry, academic style which probably will not make it very popular with a mass audience, hence limiting it's impact. At least it's short, though. Perhaps when they update it they can bring in a science writer to improve the style.

This is a good very good review of science and policy of Global Climate Change without bias esotheric science or paragraphs going nowhere.

Recomended to the reader who wants to make up their own mind. The book will find a use in introductory survey coures in High School and College.

More graphs and diagrams would have been helpful, although they are available to those scanning the internet.

Dessler and Parson have provided a welcome contribution on the subject of climate change. It is, of course, a nightmare for the climate change denial folks. Clearly written and making the critical distinction between science and political decision making, the authors lay out the case for a rapid response to a looming disaster. The book provides a counter balance for the nonsense being spewed forth by the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Joanne Nova and Senator Orrin Hatch. It will not change the minds of politicians whose campaigns are funded by the energy industry, but it should sway the opinion of a literate public with its compelling arguments: 'We have met the enemy and he is us.'

I was disappointed in the writing. The book reads like a scientific treatise. The authors write, "This tangling of positive with normative claims, and of explicit arguments with unstated assumptions, obstructs reasoned deliberations on public policy." (p. 22.) OK. No doubt this is true. It borders on common sense and needs to be said. The problem is that, for the non-scientific person to whom this book is addressed, such language obstructs understanding. We don't talk that way. I gather that the authors are keen to be as objective and sound in their discussion as possible. Certainly this is commendable. Do they need to speak in these kinds of terms in order to be objective? Do they need to speak in such language in order to convey these basic concepts? Not to the degree they have done so. I give the book only four stars because I was anxious to learn more about this topic, and I was annoyed when an "accessible primer" is made unnecessarily difficult. I'm not planning in taking a degree in the subject.

The book takes a logical stance from the development of observations in science to a political conclusion and what to do about climate change. This is two books. One is the science of global warming and climate change. The other is about politics.

The science side is abbreviated. The authors avoid an in-depth discussion and rely mostly on correlations for explanation. A graph on page 74 is stunning. It is a better match than Gore's correlation from An Inconvenient Truth. I had only hoped that the authors had talked about laboratory results of experiments on greenhouse gases.

The politics side is wordy and a bit predictable, although Dessler and Parson do a good job in making a very logical and well-developed case.

What if CO2 emissions from 6,000 older inefficient PCs in Duluth could be reduced by half by replacing them with one big 5-acre computer in Des Moines run by just 88 people? Think of what we'd save in CO2 emissions!
We'll establish another UN bureaucracy with green jobbers to monitor this mitigation plan! And we'll finance it all - and a make a ton of money - with an annual fee per ton of CO2 emissions saved - paid by New Yorkers required by law to pony up - every year for the life of the computer in Des Moines, estimated at 20 years. We'll charge fees for any files printed in Des Moines and delivered to Duluth (but ignore the CO2 emissions generated in transit).
Along with the Teamsters, NGOs and bureaucrats, New Yorkers will be thrilled by this plan since these are green jobs and, after all, we're saving the planet!
And what could possibly be better than that?

[...]

Ludicrous right wing baloney. There have now been thousands of peer-reviewed professional papers published by seasoned relevant researchers demonstrating, not only historically out of bounds global climate CHANGE (not all of it will be warming), but statistically driven proof of human causality. How many peer reviewed studies have been published demonstrating a LACK of human causality? Anyone? Oh, that's right. It is zero, zip, nada. Right wingers lie about climate change but scientists go by the results, even if they contradict their possible pre-existing beliefs. I have seen quite a few professionals who have abandoned their prior skepticism about climate CHANGE (not all of it will be warming). Why is the British government leading the global effort to deal with the issue. Because they are scared spitless by the increasingly rapid loss of the Greenland icecap. NASA satellite measurements have recently shown that the loss rate has been twice that predicted only about 5 years ago. This leads to a great increase in 'bergs' being calved off of the edge of the icecap. These bergs float out into the northern Atlantic and slowly melt when they get in the warm current coming across from the Gulf. This influx of cold fresh water decreases the salinity of the so-called 'Atlantic conveyor' which carries heat from the warmer southern waters up to the area of the British Isles. The heat is released there, often in the form of warm precipitation, and the cooler resulting water sinks to the bottom due to its high salinity and flows back towards the south. Seabed deposits show that the Atlantic conveyor has totally stopped several times (at least) in the last 100,000 years. That is very much not a good thing. The loss of the added heat from the Atlantic conveyer basically makes the British Isles and much of western Europe almost uninhabitable and destroys any form of agriculture. Only the most incompetent leader would stand back and watch that sad fate developing without taking immediate strong action. I firmly believe that Tony Blair tried to maintain close ties with the current administration to get more influence over U.S. climate change policy. It remains to be seen whether that worked. And, yes, there have been numerous warming and cooling periods on Earth historically. Primarily driven by the increasing well understood Milankovitch cycles. The cycles run the earth's climate system with a little help (!) from the sun. The statistical variance in a cycle comes from other influences including human intervention.