Climate variability has become the primary environmental concern of the 21st Century. Yet, despite the scientific community's warnings of the imminent dangers of global warming, politicians world-wide have failed to agree on what to do about this potentially devastating environmental problem. This introductory primer informs scientists, policy makers and the general public by clarifying the conflicting claims of the debate.
Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.
To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.
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.
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.'
Outlines the uneducted arguments against the existence of climate change and disproves them with SCIENCE. Read this and you will not only understand the issue, but you can tell other people why they are wrong and have no idea what they're talking about.
There is a lot of good stuff in this book. The authors have covered the science well and answered the objections of the skeptics, all in 179 pages. The writing style is dense, as it would have to be to cover the subject in the depth this one does.
Where the book fails us is in solutions. They explain why all solutions except their favorite are unsatisfactory. They seem to have settled on policy as the only way out of this dilemma. Admitting that the Kyoto Protocol failed because only a few countries committed to reducing their carbon emissions and none of them met their commitments, the authors' only suggestion is another agreement that would be more restrictive and therefore less likely to succeed.
How countries would meet their commitments is left a mystery. The authors favor carbon taxes but not much else. Carbon taxes find favor with economists but not with politicians or voters. Even if politicians and voters could be persuaded to accept carbon taxes, such taxes would only be an incentivisation scheme to lower emissions. What are needed are practical replacements for fossil fuels; the authors propose to spend more on research and hope technological miracles will save us. The listing for the 2010 edition doesn't show that this deficiency has been corrected.
Since there are other books that cover the science and also describe and evaluate practical solutions, I don't see how this book contributes to the conversation.