There was a problem loading this item
Staying happy despite the "Dire Predictions" on global warming
by greenlagirl

Doom and gloom titles make me avoid the books and films that have them, but I think I must be an exception because green books and films sure do like those fear-inducing names. Do you like scary books? Or at least scary-sounding ones?

Then pick up the latest enviro-book with a forbidding title: Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming -- The illustrated guide to the findings of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Written by science professors Michael E. Mann and Lee R. Kump, Dire Predictions is intended for the layperson who wants to understand the wonky science behind climate change without going back to college for a science degree. Basically, the book takes the findings of the IPCC -- you know, the United Nations panel that won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore -- about global climate change and puts it in a language the average person has a chance at following.

For those who belatedly wish you listened during high school science classes, Dire Predictions can help you catch up on the basic stuff! The basic principles of atmospheric circulation, the reason for the four seasons, and many other basic scientific stuff's all covered -- and illustrated! -- in this book.

That said, Dire Predictions at times reads like a dry textbook -- so you may find your eyes glazing over from time to time. Despite the authors' efforts to make the book easy-to-read and engaging, Dire Predictions, while readable, is still loaded with rather dense, wonky prose and geek speak.

Still, read the book and you'll have excellent science-based rebuttals to the arguments brought up by the few remaining climate change skeptics. Just don't get too depressed by the gruesome and dire consequences that'll result if we don't work to combat climate change now. Some tips from the blogosphere on keeping positive in the face of climate change:

>> Shannon Moore, aka smoo, at Local Warming urges you not to get depressed about global warming: "Global warming is depressing. But here's the paradox- I can't afford to get depressed about it. Once I get depressed I feel overwhelmed and hopeless and do nothing. The reality is that we people can only take so much bummer before we start breaking down. So regardless of the reality of the situation I choose optimisim because I function better on it. "

>> Umbra of Grist recommends a coping strategy she calls "selective caring": "It's the way we all keep positive. How can we eat breakfast every day, given what's happening in Darfur? Through deciding where we can make a difference, and understanding that there are other areas that we can know about, but not act upon, whether through choice or circumstance."

What is your emotional coping strategy when scary thoughts about global warming pop up?
______

BlogHer Contributing Editor Siel also blogs at greenLAgirl.com.

Comments

 

Climate Change Catch 22

Thanks for the heads up - I hadn't seen that book yet. 

I find it ironic. I've heard people at meetings say, "Take the doom and gloom out of communications because it's too depressing..." Yet those same people are in the room because of that message. T

hose who aren't afraid of the facts, will lead us out of this problem. They are the leaders we need right now. Would we be talking about this now if that red line Al painted, wasn't off the charts? Fear works. Fear mixed with viable solutions works even better.

Mary

www.inwomenwetrust.com / www.sustainableproductsblog.com

 

 

Probably not the best source for your
"science".

"...you'll have excellent science-based rebuttals to the arguments brought up by the few remaining climate change skeptics."

Well, probably not.

If you look in on page 8 of Mann & Kump's book, the IPCC mandate (of which Mann is a contributing member) openly proclaims an open and shut bias regarding the cause of global warming:

"...assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical, and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adeptations and mitigation."

Awkwards and ham-handed as this statement is, it is clear from their own mandate that the cause for "climate change" is human induced. Is that clear? Its not whether or not humans are the cause of climate change, it is a straight-up assertion that humans are the cause. Objectivity is already compromised in this statement.

The IPCC exists for the sole purpose of fostering a preconcieved notion that "climate change" is human induced, so why would you expect them to tell you anything diffrent from what they are admittedly geared to tell you? If the "climate change" was either shown to be non-existant or a result of a normal cyclic trend, the IPCC would be out of a job.  This is why the book doesnt mention what sources say observed temperature trends match Hansen's "senario B" when they had more closely matched "senario C" and are currently trending downwards (GISS, NOAA) or that deforestation, and not carbon is more likey the cause of Mt Kilimanjaro's vanishing ice cap, or that Dr. Micheal Mann has a reputation of being less that "objective" or "open and transparent" when explaining how his "hockey-stick" graph tends to report alarming temperature trends even when red noise is plugged into the algorhitym.

Maybe its time to add some of those "few remaining skeptics" and dissenting voices for some balance. I suggest Drs. Freeman Dyson, Fred Singer, Richard Linzen to name a few.  Keep current with climateaudit.org for the check on the validity of the science being reported. We all want to be open minded right?