I've studied science since I was a child, and what still amazes me is how people with little or no science education find some science topics offensive. When I was young, evolution concerned some religious people. The theory of evolution wasn't intended to affront religion, as many scientists have religious beliefs, but the idea our world could be older than 6000 years angered some that calculate the age of the Earth using the Bible. Scientists weren't trying to disprove religion. They were trying to understand why things on our planet changed to what we see today.
Another topic scientists studied when I was young was the dangers of smoking. Smoking was socially acceptable, long after scientific studies showed smoking increased the risk of cancer. Powerful special interests (the tobacco industry) did not want these scientific studies about the dangers of smoking to affect their sales, so they had others publish conflicting studies that tobacco was safe. The tobacco industry's fight against scientific studies lasted decades, until the tobacco industry finally ceased their war and settled huge lawsuits from people affected by smoking. These days, some people smoke, but people no longer argue about the dangers of using tobacco.
The current scientific topic under attack by special interests is climate change. The science concerning climate change is accepted by 97% of scientists trained in this area, but special interests that have products (coal, gas, oil) that contribute to global warming and have declared war on science. These special interests pay politicians and hire their own experts to try to create doubt in the minds of the public. Why? So they can continue to sell products that are endangering our world.
I believe when you see something troubling, you need to learn more about it so you can discuss the topic intelligently. No one of ordinary intelligence should want others to provide their own talking points, as that restricts how much is really known about the subject. People should read this book because it was written by a scientist trained in climate change, and it is illustrated by an award winning illustrator that shows the issues with people attacking the science of climate change. Let's get into this fascinating book.
Book Chapters
Ch 1: Science: How it Works
Ch 2: Climate Change: The Basics
Ch 3: Why Should I Give a Damn?
Ch 4: The Stages of Denial
Ch 5: The War on Climate Science
Ch 6: Hypocrisy - Thy Name is Climate Change Denial
Ch 7: Geoengineering, or "What Could Possibly Go Wrong?"
Ch 8: A Path Forward
Science: How it Works
The first chapter of this book explains science, so people without formal education in science understand how science works. Why was this needed in a book on climate change? Because many people believe there is some global conspiracy by scientists to promote climate change - completely wrong. Some believe scientists gets rich researching climate change - ridiculous. Let's look at Dr. Mann's explanation of science.
"Science is unique among human endeavors in the "self-correcting" machinery (to quote the famous Carl Sagan) by which it is governed."
The Madhouse Effect, page 1
Self-correcting means science continues to study topics, trying to learn more and making corrections when it is mistaken. Science embraces skepticism, as it strives to improve what it understands. Dr. Mann points out a truth known by people that accept scientific consensus on global warming.
"Unfortunately, the term skeptic has been hijacked, especially in the climate change debate, to mean something entirely different. It is used as a way to dodge evidence that one simply doesn't like. That, however, is not skepticism but rather contrarianism or denialism, the wholesale rejection of validated, widely accepted scientific principles on the basis of opinion, ideology, financial interest, self-interest, or all of these together."
The Madhouse Effect, pages 1&2
It's one thing to dislike something you hear. It's wrong to insist on new or alternate facts (a term used by Kellyanne Conway) that attack something you disagree with. A professor at my college had an excellent sign on his wall, addressing this issue:
"You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts."
But these climate change deniers don't only want their own facts; they also attack the motives of scientists studying climate change. These "skeptics" lack a college education, or never took a science course in an accredited college, and they believe that scientists have an economic advantage to promote global warming. Poppycock! I studied science in college (biology, microbiology, chemistry, biochemistry) and I never met a wealthy science professor. The people I met in college studying or teaching science were motivated by learning and helping solve scientific questions and peer recognition, not money. And climate science is far from the best paying fields these days. I do not doubt there are some scientists that are wealthy, but people that study science are not in it for the money.
There is another misconception about science that is covered in chapter one: the belief that scientists are motivated to work together to promote something so they get research funds. Baloney! Scientists that find and reveal something different than what is widely accepted are the ones that get research funds and peer recognition. Scientists are looking for issues with global warming, and it is to the benefit of any scientist to publish any studies that show if they find problems with the consensus belief. And the mythological "super scientist" that tells all other scientists around the world what to say or teach or publish on climate change is rubbish. Anyone suggesting a super scientist calls the shots in any field demonstrates they never took a science class in their life.
Special interests with an agenda affected by global warming use the same tool the tobacco industry used to counter studies that tobacco was dangerous: doubt. They try to counter scientific evidence any way that causes the public to doubt the science. This war on science is not new, but it is disappointing that many forget the tobacco industry attacks on science and how they parallel those used today against climate change.
Climate Change: The Basics
"The basics of climate science are actually very simple and always have been. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat, and we are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. The rest is details."
The Madhouse Effect, page 15
I heard Senator James Inhofe (of Oklahoma in senate meetings) deny Carbon dioxide is involved in global warming. Senator Inhofe is not a scientist, does not have education in climate studies, and is 100% wrong about carbon dioxide. Senator Inhofe also brought a snowball to the senate and tossed it on the floor and proclaimed it proved that global warming was not an issue - rubbish!
There are other factors that impact global warming, but those factors do not change the fact that carbon dioxide is increasing in our atmosphere and carbon dioxide traps heat and so it contributes to global warming.
"Next time that cantankerous uncle of yours whom you see every Thanksgiving tells you that the greenhouse effect is "controversial new science," remind him that it's actually basic physics and chemistry that go back nearly two centuries."
The Madhouse Effect, page 16
Scientists have studied climate change for nearly two centuries, and have known that carbon dioxide has a heat trapping property since the days of Joseph Fourier. As Dr. Mann points out, Svante Arrhenius recognized the correlation that burning fossil fuels cause the earth temperature to increase. That is enough evidence that climate study is a mature science.
We have ice cores dating back thousands of years, and scientists can use them to determine how much carbon dioxide was in the air in earlier periods, and are adding carbon dioxide at an alarming rate!
Global warming is indicated by more than regular heat waves, like we have been experiencing, especially in Senator Inhofe's state of Oklahoma. Climate scientists warn that wind patterns will start to change which can produce dry spells like those recently experienced in Texas and Senator Inhofe's state of Oklahoma. Other warning signs of global warming are increased flooding in same areas that have dry spells, such have also occurred in California.
A major reason for concern about global warming: rising sea levels, as they impact our coastal cities. Dr. Mann's book mentions the antarctic ice sheet melting as a problem, and a major part of that ice sheet broke off on July 18, 2017. This trillion ton iceberg will be a navigation hazard until it melts, which will result in increased sea levels.
Dr. Mann points out global warming doesn't necessarily mean that tornadoes will increase in frequency or intensity, but hurricanes should get worse. Do we really want another Katrina? Dr. Mann also points out that we can't say for certain that global warming causes a specific heat wave or storm or flood, but global warming should increase how often these three events occur - increased events means increased damage.
Some of the dangers of global warming already are affecting us, but that doesn't mean we should give up. Decreasing carbon dioxide output by reduced dependence on burning fossil fuels will slow down changes we may not be able to recover from, but we still need to deal with too much carbon dioxide in the environment if we want to reduce the impact of this danger to our world.
Why Should I Give a Damn?
If you want a wake-up call to the seriousness of global warming, check out Tole's illustration on page 30. Not looking good right now.
"And if you think the effects <of global warming> will be felt only in some far away corner of the globe where only polar bears and penguins live, think again. The consequences of a changing climate are occurring everywhere and, yes, likely right near you, affecting you, your family, your friends, your community."
The Madhouse Effect, page 31
That's right. We are not alone in the world; we are all in this together. Global warming doesn't change based on politics, country borders (with and without walls), or fervent religious beliefs. Everyone on Earth has a stake in global warming - some more so than others, but still we are all at risk. This next quote of Dr. Mann should get your attention:
"Dreams of slowly adapting to climate change will have to be replaced with the hard reality of an ever-escalating pace of of disruption and unpredictability.
In what ways will the effects of climate change be felt? In nearly every way."
The Madhouse Effect, page 32
Do you want to know what will be effected by climate change? This is a list:
Security - national and alliance security will be affected by changing shorelines; people losing homes to rising seas need to go somewhere, and other countries as destinations will happen when the arable land of a country is gone.
Food - likely less food due to changing weather patterns, increasing temperatures affecting crop production rates and viability; increasing population and decreasing food supplies is a sure recipe for conflict.
Water - more sea water, less fresh water, so another reason for water and land conflicts between haves and have nots; the Keystone pipeline rejected by the Obama administration could potentially polute freshwater sources for millions of Americans, and that pipeline was approved by the Trump administration. Ocean acidification is a very serious threat to the creatures living in it and to those of us dependent on the bounties of the ocean: food.
The Food-Water-Energy Nexus - using food sources like corn as energy source (ethanol) will be more problematic when more people need food.
Land - 33% of the population live within 60 miles of the ocean coastline, and 10% live within 30' above sea level, and with rising seas and increasingly dangerous hurricanes, those people need to move inland - competing with agriculture and livestock for living space; we have a finite amount of land, so this is a problem when the population continues to grow.
Health - heat stroke, malnutrition, flooding and droughts affecting nutrition availability, mosquito-born diseases and water-born diseases, and asthma and allergies will kill a lot more than currently die.
Ecosystems - the Arctic, great barrier reef, and snow-covered mountains will be impacted by the rate of climate warming - shouldn't we want these wonders to be around for our children and grandchildren to enjoy? As ecosystems disappear, so will other species, and some reports show global warming could kill up to 1/3 of all living species within 50 years - that is a tragedy.
Economy - it will cost a lot to move food and water to areas lacking them, and it will cost money to pay for increasing health issues, and relocating people means increasing infrastructure costs as well as transportation and food costs; people making insurance claims to cover their losses mean insurance companies will raise rates to cover their losses, also affecting the economy.
Ethics - the current Trump administration is intent on rolling back changes made during the Obama administration that were intended to fight global warming. The worse thing President Trump did was withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord. This president's cabinet is an assembly of people from the very industries (coal, oil and gas) that have a vested interest in keeping us dependent on fossil fuels, so we have President Trump to thafor vastly increasing carbon dioxide emissions, causing even more global warming than was forecast during the Obama administration. The ethics of letting the very industries impacting global warming have control of the EPA and other government agencies intended to help and not harm Americans cannot be whitewashed - President Trump's only legacy is that he did everything wrong climate-wise to help America and the world.
If you aren't concerned after reading this chapter, you either plan on dying soon without an heir or are in denial. In either case, this problem is the legacy of our generation if we do nothing to address it, or if we let politicians with a personal economic agenda destroy our chances for a better world in the future.
The Stages of Denial
"climate change is (1) real, (2) caused by humans, and (3) a grave threat, one might rightfully ask how it is that some of our most prominent elected officials can still deny that climate change is even happening.
The answer, of course, is that climate change denial isn't really about the science; it is instead about the politics."
The Madhouse Effect, page 53
The stages of climate change denial:
It's not happening - I do not understand why non-scientists believe they can reject the findings of scientists. If you lack the education and background, why believe you know better than trained and educated professionals? Of all stages, this one is the most puzzling one to me. I've heard US senators deny carbon dioxide levels in the air has increased at all - EVEN THOUGH SCIENTISTS CAN PROVE IT HAS!Sometimes deniers cherry-pick data to use time ranges that don't show temperatures rising, while ignoring long term trends that clearly show our planet is getting warmer. It's sad that some of these deniers rely on sites promoting inaccurate date or falsified data analysis sources, and worse that some of them state that organizations like NASA and NOAA would stoop to falsifying data to show warming trends.
OK. It's happening...but its natural - this approach tries to claim that temperatures were warming in the past, like the medieval times, but science has show the overall temperature of the Earth was cooler in the medieval times. Essentially, this line of denial promotes the view that, since the Earth was warmer in the past, humans cannot be the source of current warming trends - poppycock!
The problem is self-correcting anyway - WRONG!! To believe that self-correcting environmental mechanisms will handle the unprecedented increase in carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere is wishful thinking or it is still trying to deny we need to make changes now to address carbon dioxide buildup. The Tole illustration on page 60 covers this form of denial in a humorous manner.
And it will be good for us - proposing that plants love carbon dioxide and will flourish with more, ignores the fact that regions of the world already borderline on high temperatures will reach conditions where plant production will decrease or cease completely. How can rising sea levels be good for people living in coastal regions? Two prominent deniers (Bjorn Lomborg and Roger Pielke Jr, both with background in political science, not climate science) use this approach to argue against global warming or against the need to make changes to address global warming. I doubt that people who listen to political scientists instead of climate scientists on climate change are probably not interested in scientific facts.
It's too late or too expensive to act - when you consider the costs to transport food and water to places unable to provide them, when you consider infrastructure changes needed to adapt to the loss of food or water, and the costs to provide medicine to those impacted by global warming, it doesn't seem to be cheaper than developing and promoting technologies besides fossil fuel-driven systems.
We'll find some simple techno fix anyway - that's optimistic but it may be inaccurate, and would you really want to try nothing now and make the problem worse for your children and grandchildren?
The truth about these forms of denial, per Dr. Mann:
"There is no simple way out. Ultimately, we're left with one real solution: reducing our collective carbon footprint."
The Madhouse Effect, page 67
The War on Climate Science
Tole's illustration on page 68 (at the start of chapter 5) does sum up denier mentality about their war on climate science.
"The war on science can be traced back more than half a century, beginning with the activities of the tobacco industry in the 1950s."
The Madhouse Effect, page 69
Considering the current republican view on global warming (they deny it), it is amusing when Dr. Mann points out that President Richard Nixon (republican) created the EPA, considering the irony that current US President Donald Trump assigned former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the administrator to the EPA.
What I find interesting, is that republican presidents Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Ronald Reagan signed legislation that was pro-environment and regulated industries that caused environmental problems, whereas President Trump seems intent on siding with industries like the coal, oil and gas industries against legislation protecting the environment. Tom Toles illustration on page 73 is appropriate, and humorous.
What could motivate people to attack climate science? Would an answer of "money" surprise anyone? Industries producing coal and oil and gas generate a lot of money, and in turn can pay people to provide ways to attack climate science. A quote from Upton Sinclair is appropriate:
"As for money, the famous Upton Sinclair quip "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it" is once again relevant."
The Madhouse Effect, page 75
While climate change deniers charge that real climate scientists have a motive to promote global warming, industry-financed think tanks actually paid people, providing a motive to deny climate change. In this case, the people making the charge of money-driven-motives were actually guilty of that themselves. This is similar to the approach of modern republican politicians that attack democrats and them decry the anger in modern politics. Very hypocritical, to anyone being honest about the situation.
This chapter includes a list of prominent climate change deniers, as well as groups that promote climate change denial, and is a must read the next time you see someone claim that 'climate science doesn't prove global warming.' Speaking of hypocrisy ...
Hypocrisy - Thy Name is Climate Change Denial
Tom Toles' illustration on page 90 sums up the concept in chapter 9: hypocrisy.
"The best examples of hypocrisy can, of course, be found in the words and actions of politicians who deny climate change. Many have quite literally buried their heads in the sand when it comes to the threat of climate change."
The Madhouse Effect, page 91
Politicians are supposed to put the good of their constituents ahead of party or special interests, but many do not when it comes to climate change. Why? YOU should ask them at town halls, by writing letters and sending emails, and show up at their offices and ask why they disagree with educated professionals that know the subject of climate change better than any politician. If you like poetic justice, you need to read about the attack on Dr. Mann (for the horrible sin of studying - are you ready? - climate change!) by Virgnia's former attorney general (and now oyster farmer) Cuccinelli, who lost his bid for Virginia's governor in 2013. Cuccinelli lost to Govenor Terry McAuliffe, who is a politician that accepts scientists appraisal on climate change.
I am a native Floridian, and follow the news (and Dolphins) whenever possible. I am unhappy to see how Gov. Rick Scott has done everything he could to fight climate change, even though most models show Florida will be devastated by rising sea levels. I saw the news that Dr. Mann mentions: Gov. Scott banning the words 'climate change' and 'global warming' in all Florida state official communications. Talk about putting special interests ahead of your own people!
I have family that live in Oklahoma, so I follow the weather there. I've seen when their senator James Inhofe attacks climate change whenever possible. I saw on CNN when he brought a snowball to the floor of the US Senate, dropped it, and proclaimed it was proof global warming was not real (Tom Toles' illustration on page 96 is probably aimed at Inhofe). Dr. Mann mentions two times he testified in congress about global warming, when Sen. Inhofe was trying to attack it, and the second time was interesting as Sen. Inhofe had invited science fiction writer Michael Crichton to testify. Wow. Why doesn't he ask David Brin, a science fiction writer as well as a real scientist? Because David Brin isn't a climate change denier and I doubt he'd agree with Sen. Inhofe at all.
Joe Barton, representative from Texas, also is a climate change denier, and is well known for telling one of his constituents to 'shut up' during a town hall meeting. He not only tries attacking climate science. He also apologized to British Petroleum when they were called in to explain an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico that did a lot of damage to the creatures in the area. How can any politician apologize for asking a company to explain what happened during an ecological disaster? And don't forget that Texas lost a lot of cattle recently to a drought (yes, caused by climate change). If Joe is your rep, you probably should be asking him why he doesn't accept scientific consensus on climate change.
Texas Senator 'Lyin' Ted Cruz (President Trump gave him that nickname, not me) also embraces climate change denial as a way to get support for his political aspirations. He ran once for president and will probably do so again. Sen. Cruz is not the most popular man in the senate, with his fellow senators, and Senator John McCain once famously called him a 'wacko bird'.
Then there is Lamar Smith, another Texas republican representative, who uses his position as chair of the house committee on Science, Space, and Technology to attack science itself by redefining the science peer review process, issued subpoenas to NOAA asking for personal emails because they published a study disputing that global warming stopped, and he tried to cut NASA's earth science budget to depress climate change study. Rep. Smith is vocal and actively opposing climate change, and someone that prefers Breitbart News' stance on climate change over scientists at NASA and NOAA.
Climategate was a contrived attack on climate science itself, and the people behind it cooked emails stolen from a server in the UK to make it appear that climate scientists themselves did not believe in global warming. After numerous studies in the US and UK, it was proven that emails stolen from scientists were cherry picked for anything that cast a doubt on climate change. The next time you see a reporter or politician rage about some issue on TV, maybe you should email or tweet and ask why no one is looking for the people behind Climategate? Could that be An Inconvenient Truth?
The press, in an attempt to be fair, has given deniers an equal chance to state their opposition to climate change. The problem with that, is that deniers don't use valid science, they use contrived facts or situations to make their point, so the press has helped the deniers raise more doubt instead of showing them for being tools of special interests. And Dr. Mann points out something I hope every denier hears and remembers:
"History will judge the actors in this debate, and many will be judged harshly. By that time, unfortunately, it will be too late."
The Madhouse Effect, page 115
The important thing to take away from this chapter, is that politicians have evidence of climate change - storms, hurricanes, droughts - and they still fight efforts to address it. Isn't it time to vote for people that care what kind of world we leave our children and grandchildren?
Geoengineering, or "What could possibly go wrong?"
Some climate change denialists promote that we will just make changes to our environment instead of needing to curtail use of fossil fuel. Our climate is complex, so this 'simple answer' deludes people into thinking we can easily fix the problem down the road. The danger of this is two-fold.
One - we stop trying to fix things now, with the hope of some tech advance in the future, which means our temperatures and seas continue to rise until that happens. Two - that we come up with some tech solution but it has unintended side effects. If you saw Chris Evans' movie Snowpiercer, you understand how this can be dangerous.
A possible solution, using artificial trees to remove carbon dioxide, is something I'd considered as viable, but the costs to implement as well as the development costs and implementation mechanism are still a too much to consider viable.
Some of the things proposed have never been done, have huge engineering issues to overcome, will not make the changes we need with any certainty, and will probably be outrageously expensive (which will cause politicians to again rage and say no). It would be far less expensive, have faster results, and make life better for everyone, if we just deal with our excess carbon dioxide right now? Wouldn't it be safer and more responsible to use the means we have now - reduce use of fossil fuels and increase energy sources like solar and wind energy - than to risk the lives and health of our children and grandchildren?
The Path Forward
"The time for wishing for climate policy action has long passed. The time for demanding it has come."
The Madhouse Effect, page 131
Now for some scary facts:
"Human beings currently emit more than 30 gigatons (30 billion tons) of carbon dioxide pollution ever year.
If we want to avoid planetary warming of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C)- or what many observers consider "dangerous warming", though, as we have noted, others might reasonably argue that's already too much - we have a very limited "carbon budget" left to work with. No more than 1 trillion tons or so of carbon dioxide.
At the current rate of 30 gigatons per year, we will burn through our budget in about three decades. To remain within the budget, we have to reduce emissions by several percent a year, bringing them down to 33 percent of current levels within twenty years."
The Madhouse Effect, page 132
Why is this scary? Because one way we could reduce our carbon output was negotiated through the Paris Climate Accord, which President Obama signed us up for, and President Trump removed us from this year.
The concerted effort of the Trump administration to remove all climate and ecological bills and rules implemented by the Obama administration is nothing short of blind trust in special interests and absolute blindness in trusting science. The effects will be catastrophic, and we have President Trump to thank for causing incredible harm to our planet. And our allies in countries that actually understand we need to make a change to save our world? Well, they are shocked and appalled that the US would not lead the efforts to save our planet, and that our current administration is intent on making climate change even worse.
It shouldn't matter what your political party is, as this affects everyone on our planet. Removing the US from an agreement that all but two countries signed, which addressed climate change, is inexcusable. That was no reason to do so, except that special interests in fossil fuel industry didn't want us to cut back on using fossil fuel.
If you want to help save our world, stop accepting that politicians are more honest than scientists. Stop accepting false statements from special interests, and start studying climate change from real sources, not shock jocks or people with agendas. Write and email your congressman and let them know you care about your world. Stop remaining silent.
Loading your book clubs
There was a problem loading your book clubs. Please try again.
Not in a club? Learn more
Join or create book clubs
Choose books together
Track your books
Bring your club to Amazon Book Clubs, start a new book club and invite your friends to join, or find a club that’s right for you for free.
Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required. Learn more
Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.
Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.
Flip to back Flip to front
Follow the Author
Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.
| Price | New from | Used from |
|
Audible Audiobook, Unabridged
"Please retry" |
$0.00
| Free with your Audible trial | |
|
Digital
"Please retry" |
—
| — | — |
- Read with Our Free App
-
Audiobook
$0.00 - 79 Used from $1.18 29 New from $10.77 1 Collectible from $14.95
- 53 Used from $1.83 29 New from $7.32
Browse the latest deals and special offers on digital comics and graphic novels from Marvel, DC Comics, Dark Horse, Image, and many more. See more
Frequently bought together
$15.47
Get it as soon as Wednesday, May 31
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Total price:
To see our price, add these items to your cart.
Choose items to buy together.
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Page 1 of 1 Start overPage 1 of 1
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
I was pretty surprised when I received my book. Because I ordered used one, and the one I received looks like literally never used before.Happy with my purchase!! I’ll buy again from this seller!
Images in this review
Top reviews from other countries
Marchespie
The search for a credible alarmist book continues
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on September 1, 2019
Shaolin_monkey
Essential eye-opening reading
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on May 27, 2019
Shaolin_monkey
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on May 27, 2019
As well as reinforcing the settled science around climate change (the world is warming, CO2 is the main culprit, and our fossil fuel use is driving it ever upwards), the book shows the lengths various interests have gone to deny, lie, obfuscate, or deride the science around it.
As well as discussing the main players in this (Koch brothers/ExxonMobil, Heartland Institute, Murdoch, Republicans and other politicians in their pocket etc) it also goes into the psychology of the climate denier and dissects the arguments they use.
It is an immensely useful book for this last reason, as anyone who has encountered a Denier will see. It helps recognise the same tactics used over and again, such as Deniers citing ‘facts’ that have already been disproved and dismissed, or recognising propaganda put out by the remaining scientists being paid to disprove climate change.
It is both a call to arms and a toolkit by which you can speedily step around those in the way of defending the environment. Also, despite the horrifying facts about those who would see the world burn in favour of a good financial quarter, it offers hope.
It is worth noting that at the time of writing this review the CO2 parts per million in the atmosphere has just hit a record high of 415.
For context:
- Pre-industrial CO2 PPM: 280
- Sept 2016 ‘red line’ CO2 PPM: 400
- 3rd May 2019 CO2 PPM: 415
May 3rd - highest CO2 PPM in the atmosphere in since the mid-Pliocene, 3 million yrs ago.
Meaning:
- Rising faster then expected
- 3 degree temp rise in less than 50 years
- Bad news for our civilisation
- Bad news for all life
This book is thoroughly recommended in our fight to get this under control, and limit the damage we have already caused.
Images in this review
Yolo Minneapolis
Brilliant Book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on March 15, 2019Jim
Everyone should know what’s in this book
Reviewed in the United Kingdom 🇬🇧 on May 18, 2019
