Grab a cup of your preferred hot beverage, snag a blanket and curl up because this one is going to be a doozy.
Thanks to this book I have formulated a completely unscientifically based theory about the categories of books that end up in the little free libraries scattered all over the United States. The first category is the loved books, the books that have been read to within an inch of their life. They are battered, covered in highlights and notes, a large proportion of the pages are dogeared, and the binding is questionable at best. These books have been read, and read again by someone who loved them and now, because of a move, or a need to downsize, or some such life event has decided to gift them to the greater community in the hopes that someone will love them as much as they did. The second category is the meh books. These are the books that have been read once, but didn't really move the heart, mind, or soul of the reader and are immediately consigned to the thrift store or the free little library. These are usually in good condition, one or two minor stains, a bit of wear on the covers. They in turn are read, and then returned to be passed on to another. Eventually they find their perfect match and stick with them to be read over and over again and eventually move to the first category. Then there is the third category, the category I like to call coffee table books. These are the books that people buy to display on their coffee tables or book shelves. The books that signal something socially positive to visitors and so they are left artistically in highly visible places and serve as conversation pieces where a bunch of people pretend to know more than they do about topics like climate change, micro-economics, and whatever buzzword is popular that year. These books are pristine, because they were never even cracked open. Or if they were, the owner read the first chapter, grew bored with it, and just left the bookmark there to demonstrate their own virtue. These books live on the coffee table, accumulating dust on their exterior, until the buzzword changes, and then they find their way to the thrift store or the free little library, their owners breathing a little sigh of relief that they no longer have that passe nod to last year's buzzword. There they stay. Someone picks them up, flips through them, realizes they are empty and puts them back until eventually they end up in a landfill.
This book is of the third category. The category of book that sits on a bookshelf in your local library and is never checked out for the tenure of its life there, because people have more valuable things to spend their time on.
This is a coffee table book. It's a book that people buy to impress each other. It's not a book that people buy to read. I don't blame them. It was a terrible experience to read it.
I am not a climatologist, nor a historian, nor a statistician, nor even an author, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. On the other hand, I do not underestimate the intelligence of your average consumer of the written word. Us insatiably curious consumers of the written word have a great deal of common sense and we can spot ridiculously unsubstantiated claims just fine. We can also tell when authors are demeaning or despising us. And that is exactly what the authors of this book are doing. In fact, they are not just demeaning their audience, they are demeaning their subjects!
When I do decide to write something, such as overly long reviews of terrible books, I do not demean or despise my audience. I assume that they are intelligent, erudite people. Why else would they be reading a review on a book of climatological history? But you see, the writers of this book do not make that assumption. Instead they assume that their readers are idiots and need to be pandered to. It seems as though they have no idea who their readership will be, or that they are pandering to two distinct groups of readers that are fairly mutually exclusive. The first group is that of meteorologists and climatologists. There is jargon thrown around without ever being defined, because why would it need to be? Afterall, meteorologists already know it. Sniff. Yes, but are meteorologists actually going to read this book? I don't think so. Why would they? They are usually more interested in their own niche research, at least they are so if they are like every other research driven community. Grants follow 'new' and 'cutting edge' research instead of paying people to verify the work that others have done.
So, if this book is written for meteorologists it fails, while there is jargon everywhere, there are also claims that are so broad that such scientists would probably roll their eyes and roll up their sleeves and immediately embark on a barbed diatribe about generalizations, correlation not being causation, lack of evidence, and all of those lovely things. But even the second group of readers, the average readers, can recognize the idiocy of some of the claims. I mean the guy makes the claim that tree rings showed evidence of a three degree change in weather. Seriously? I don't know anything about weather, and I can spot that as bogus. Tree ring reading is by no means so exact. Thermometers haven't been that exact until recently! I remember using mercury thermometers and those things varied by 5 degrees within the course of a day. Tree rings?!?!?
That's probably the most irritating aspect of this book, the authors are constantly demeaning people of the past for their 'ridiculous quasi-scientific claims', I mean, who could think that sunspots, the marching of troops, or the conniving of Satan could cause cooling? Okay, yeah, those theories seem pretty outlandish, considering what we know today, but they didn't know what we know today, and it's because of the work that those people did in the past that we have progressed to where we are today. And, furthermore, good sir, did you ever stop to consider that in two hundred years your theory about tree rings indicating temperature to within 3 degrees is going to be laughed off by the meteorologists of the 2400s? Because it probably will be. Now that we've been keeping fairly good temperature logs for the past 100 years, we can start to compare them with tree ring data and see if there is any correlation between them, we can finally test the tree ring theory! It may be accurate, but it may not be. Regardless, I'm hard pressed to think of a scientific theory from two hundred years ago that isn't laughed off now...except for geometry and Newtonian physics...oh wait, we've even edited those!
That's the nature of science. It's growing, it's changing, it's expanding. We realize what we have done wrong, and we make a new theory to account for the new information we have, then in a couple of years, decades, or centuries, we revamp it again. If you know that, it would behoove you to have a little bit of humility and not treat those on whose shoulders you stand as a bunch of idiots.
Especially when you are making some of the same mistakes that they made. As you make exquisitely sure to say that correlation is not causation, you are making the claim that because of the weather caused by a volcanic explosion, Mary Shelley was inspired to write Frankenstein? How do you know? It's an unfalsifiable claim! An interesting theory to be sure, but hardly gospel! How do you know that Mary Shelley wouldn't have been inspired by a perfectly normal lightning storm? Why did it have to be a lightning storm caused by the explosion of a particular volcano? And for all the title saying that the volcano changed history, it didn't really defend that position, it just accepted it a priori and went with it. I understand why they did that. History is not science. There is no way to check to see if things would have gone down the way they did if one event were to be changed. There are no historical experiments, so maybe it did change the world. But I still think that the only intellectually honest approach to make to it is the approach that literary critics take. This is what was happening at the time of the writing and perhaps it had an effect on the writing. Then people can nod their heads and be like, huh, now I understand that piece of writing better.
I just felt that everything was too cut and dried in this book. Maybe I'm too judgmental.
I suppose the one takeaway that I got from this book is that people are going to panic. People have always panicked, and people will always panic. People saw sunspots and the world was coming to an end. People saw acid rain and the world was coming to an end. People see changing weather patterns and the world is coming to an end. Maybe your individual world is ending. Maybe you will be one of the people who loses their lives, like the hundreds of thousands of people mentioned in this book who lost their lives to weather, famine, and plagues, but the rest of the world keeps on going.
I don't think that's such a bad thing.