What do you think?
Rate this book
The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy
The award-winning climate scientist Michael E. Mann and the Pulitzer Prize-winning political cartoonist Tom Toles have been on the front lines of the fight against climate denialism for most of their careers. They have witnessed the manipulation of the media by business and political interests and the unconscionable play to partisanship on issues that affect the well-being of billions. The lessons they have learned have been invaluable, inspiring this brilliant, colorful escape hatch from the madhouse of the climate wars.
The Madhouse Effect portrays the intellectual pretzels into which denialists must twist logic to explain away the clear evidence that human activity has changed Earth's climate. Toles's cartoons collapse counter-scientific strategies into their biased components, helping readers see how to best strike at these fallacies. Mann's expert skills at science communication aim to restore sanity to a debate that continues to rage against widely acknowledged scientific consensus. The synergy of these two climate science crusaders enlivens the gloom and doom of so many climate-themed books--and may even convert die-hard doubters to the side of sound science.
The Madhouse Effect portrays the intellectual pretzels into which denialists must twist logic to explain away the clear evidence that human activity has changed Earth's climate. Toles's cartoons collapse counter-scientific strategies into their biased components, helping readers see how to best strike at these fallacies. Mann's expert skills at science communication aim to restore sanity to a debate that continues to rage against widely acknowledged scientific consensus. The synergy of these two climate science crusaders enlivens the gloom and doom of so many climate-themed books--and may even convert die-hard doubters to the side of sound science.
240 pages, Paperback
First published September 27, 2016
150 people are currently reading
1528 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews
September 11, 2016
There is a built-in problem with books like The Madhouse Effect by Michael E. Mann and Tom Toles. The people who need to read this book won’t and the people who do read the book, don’t really need it. If you want to know what an utter failure the American media is, consider that only 27% of Americans believe that human activity is the main cause of climate change. Essentially 3 out of 4 Americans believe absolute bunkum about the most important issue, one that determines what kind of future our children, grandchildren and great-grandchild will have or whether they have a future at all.
Michael E. Mann explains the basics of climate change, a scientific theory explaining the facts on the ground. As with evolution, people who are not scientists think theory means uncertainty, but in science, once something is called a theory, it’s as near certainty as anything in science can be. Remember, in science, gravity is a theory. In fact, there are scientists who argue that gravity does not exist and with more evidence than those who argue against man-made climate change. Mann emphasizes that science is self-correcting and that is constantly challenged and picked apart by other scientists.
The Madhouse Effect is an overview of the problem, not just the climate change problem of future flooding, droughts, famines and severe storms, but the political problem created by merchants of doubt, disgraceful and deplorable scientists who sell their “research” to corporate campaigns on behalf of tobacco, toxic chemicals and fossil fuels. Their ethical and scientific rigor is exemplified by their willingness to shill for any market without regard to field of study or expertise. That the same scientist will assure that second hand smoke won’t harm you, that DDT is perfectly safe, acid rain does not exist and global warming is good for you, gives you a helpful clue to that scientist’s knowledge and integrity. Mann chronicles the careers of several of these people who have mortgaged their children’s futures for a buck. Sadly, it’s not just their children who will pay the price.
Perhaps the most usual chapter for people concerned about climate change and the public ignorance and inertia around the issue is Chapter 3, “Why Should I Give a Damn” that explains the damage, the danger and the cost of continued inaction. One of the reason so many in the public choose to disbelieve climate change is because they fear the cost is too high, that their industry might be affected. It’s true that a financial investment in believing something makes it easier to believe it, but people are wrong about the cost. They think it costs too much to invest in alternative energies, but they are not counting the cost of doing nothing. Costs like the $8 billion in additional damage from SuperStorm Sandy or the drought in Texas or the years-long super drought in California. Then there is Syria, an ongoing humanitarian crisis and terrorist threat precipitated by drought, by climate change.
The mouthpieces for climate denial pretend they are concerned about consumer costs, insisting alternative energy will cost so much more. But then they lobby for passage of laws that add a $50/month surcharge to the electric bills of people with solar energy panels. That’s how concerned they are about consumer costs. Mann does a good job providing an overview of the many organizations that destroy our future while pretending to care about our present.
For those of us who are actively concerned about the certainty of global climate change, we know it is happening, we know that lying liars are lying about it and that the media is failing in its obligation to present factual, honest news to the public. Unfortunately, while 70% of Americans believe climate change is happening, only 27% of them believe human activity is the main cause of climate change. This number is not representative of the science on climate change. It is reflective of the efficacy of propaganda. It reflects the efficacy of investing in fake think tanks and phony research institutes. It also reflects the efficacy of what Eric Alderman calls “working the refs”, the constant complaining and attacking of good journalism by insisting that facts be balanced by propaganda. There is no excuse for any reputable news organization to give any air time to climate change deniers, but they are given equal time even though they represent fraudulent “research institutes” and dishonest science. If there were a serious challenge to climate change theory, it would be published widely. It’s indicative of the quality of climate science denialism that they will distribute fake research formatted to suggest publication in reputable journals.
Imagine if the blacksmith and horse and buggy industries had a propaganda machine as effective as that of the fossil fuel industry. If they had been able to forestall the auto industry for decades through lying spokespeople, a compliant and feckless media and corrupt politicians. Think of the economic costs, the jobs, the inventions, the progress they would have prevented. (They might have avoided some of the damage from CO², but they had no way of knowing that.) When the merchants of doubt make economic arguments against doing what we need to do to protect our planet and future generations, I think how short-sighted they are, unable to imagine the many industries and innovations that a shift toward sustainable and renewable energy would bring. These people are not just just anti-science, they are anti-innovation, anti-creativity, and anti-progress. They want to doom us to the status quo for fear they will make less money in a better future.
I was excited to read this book and certainly think there is a real need for evangelizing on behalf of science-centric public policy on climate change. We have all these politicians who say “I’m not a scientist…”, so many the phrase has its own wikipedia entry. They end that sentence incorrectly. The right ending would be, “I will defer to the recommendations of the scientific consensus.” They should try it, half the climate scientists in the world might keel over in shock. I wish the book had more ammunition to refute the deniers, though Mann suggests people move on and not bother arguing with folks that deny the science. That’s hard to do when three out of four Americans deny the science, though. They must be persuaded somehow and we clearly cannot count on the media to stop its malpractice. All the trends in the media suggest it will only get worse as newsrooms are decimated and reporters are forced to write multiple stories per day optimized for search engines and social media viral transmission.
Tom Toles’ cartoons are a delight, bring a bit of humor to the book and providing a visual expression of the ludicrous idiocy that is climate change denial. I am glad the book ends with the good news, the things we can do, because reality is very depressing. Our greatest hope lies in other countries with better journalism and better politicians. The Republican Party in the United States is the only political party in the world that denies climate science and Americans are the only entire country willfully choosing to deny science. We have to count on the rest of the world to save us, we won’t be saving ourselves.
The Madhouse Effect will be published on October 4th. I received an e-galley from the publisher through NetGalley
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
Michael E. Mann explains the basics of climate change, a scientific theory explaining the facts on the ground. As with evolution, people who are not scientists think theory means uncertainty, but in science, once something is called a theory, it’s as near certainty as anything in science can be. Remember, in science, gravity is a theory. In fact, there are scientists who argue that gravity does not exist and with more evidence than those who argue against man-made climate change. Mann emphasizes that science is self-correcting and that is constantly challenged and picked apart by other scientists.
The Madhouse Effect is an overview of the problem, not just the climate change problem of future flooding, droughts, famines and severe storms, but the political problem created by merchants of doubt, disgraceful and deplorable scientists who sell their “research” to corporate campaigns on behalf of tobacco, toxic chemicals and fossil fuels. Their ethical and scientific rigor is exemplified by their willingness to shill for any market without regard to field of study or expertise. That the same scientist will assure that second hand smoke won’t harm you, that DDT is perfectly safe, acid rain does not exist and global warming is good for you, gives you a helpful clue to that scientist’s knowledge and integrity. Mann chronicles the careers of several of these people who have mortgaged their children’s futures for a buck. Sadly, it’s not just their children who will pay the price.
Perhaps the most usual chapter for people concerned about climate change and the public ignorance and inertia around the issue is Chapter 3, “Why Should I Give a Damn” that explains the damage, the danger and the cost of continued inaction. One of the reason so many in the public choose to disbelieve climate change is because they fear the cost is too high, that their industry might be affected. It’s true that a financial investment in believing something makes it easier to believe it, but people are wrong about the cost. They think it costs too much to invest in alternative energies, but they are not counting the cost of doing nothing. Costs like the $8 billion in additional damage from SuperStorm Sandy or the drought in Texas or the years-long super drought in California. Then there is Syria, an ongoing humanitarian crisis and terrorist threat precipitated by drought, by climate change.
The mouthpieces for climate denial pretend they are concerned about consumer costs, insisting alternative energy will cost so much more. But then they lobby for passage of laws that add a $50/month surcharge to the electric bills of people with solar energy panels. That’s how concerned they are about consumer costs. Mann does a good job providing an overview of the many organizations that destroy our future while pretending to care about our present.
For those of us who are actively concerned about the certainty of global climate change, we know it is happening, we know that lying liars are lying about it and that the media is failing in its obligation to present factual, honest news to the public. Unfortunately, while 70% of Americans believe climate change is happening, only 27% of them believe human activity is the main cause of climate change. This number is not representative of the science on climate change. It is reflective of the efficacy of propaganda. It reflects the efficacy of investing in fake think tanks and phony research institutes. It also reflects the efficacy of what Eric Alderman calls “working the refs”, the constant complaining and attacking of good journalism by insisting that facts be balanced by propaganda. There is no excuse for any reputable news organization to give any air time to climate change deniers, but they are given equal time even though they represent fraudulent “research institutes” and dishonest science. If there were a serious challenge to climate change theory, it would be published widely. It’s indicative of the quality of climate science denialism that they will distribute fake research formatted to suggest publication in reputable journals.
Imagine if the blacksmith and horse and buggy industries had a propaganda machine as effective as that of the fossil fuel industry. If they had been able to forestall the auto industry for decades through lying spokespeople, a compliant and feckless media and corrupt politicians. Think of the economic costs, the jobs, the inventions, the progress they would have prevented. (They might have avoided some of the damage from CO², but they had no way of knowing that.) When the merchants of doubt make economic arguments against doing what we need to do to protect our planet and future generations, I think how short-sighted they are, unable to imagine the many industries and innovations that a shift toward sustainable and renewable energy would bring. These people are not just just anti-science, they are anti-innovation, anti-creativity, and anti-progress. They want to doom us to the status quo for fear they will make less money in a better future.
I was excited to read this book and certainly think there is a real need for evangelizing on behalf of science-centric public policy on climate change. We have all these politicians who say “I’m not a scientist…”, so many the phrase has its own wikipedia entry. They end that sentence incorrectly. The right ending would be, “I will defer to the recommendations of the scientific consensus.” They should try it, half the climate scientists in the world might keel over in shock. I wish the book had more ammunition to refute the deniers, though Mann suggests people move on and not bother arguing with folks that deny the science. That’s hard to do when three out of four Americans deny the science, though. They must be persuaded somehow and we clearly cannot count on the media to stop its malpractice. All the trends in the media suggest it will only get worse as newsrooms are decimated and reporters are forced to write multiple stories per day optimized for search engines and social media viral transmission.
Tom Toles’ cartoons are a delight, bring a bit of humor to the book and providing a visual expression of the ludicrous idiocy that is climate change denial. I am glad the book ends with the good news, the things we can do, because reality is very depressing. Our greatest hope lies in other countries with better journalism and better politicians. The Republican Party in the United States is the only political party in the world that denies climate science and Americans are the only entire country willfully choosing to deny science. We have to count on the rest of the world to save us, we won’t be saving ourselves.
The Madhouse Effect will be published on October 4th. I received an e-galley from the publisher through NetGalley
https://tonstantweaderreviews.wordpre...
February 8, 2017
I didn't expect this book to be too intriguing to me as I'd presumed the book would be full of facts, causes and effects. But I could get a real clear picture of what's actually happening in our hometown. Having watched the presentation of Elon Musk revealing Tesla Solar Roofs and his plans for a sustainable future recently, kind of motivated me to start this book sooner.
Broader notions on how and why people support climate change denialism. The conspiratorial ideas propagandized by fellow politicians, businessmen, industrialists and all makes sense now after reading the work. Got a lot of understanding about politics rather than science from the book which is quite surprising work from a scientist. Tom's illustrations are worth commending as well.
Felt the real hypocrisy literally with the case among such billionaires and many lobbied agencies and politicians(mostly Republicans it seems, sadly).
The side effects of Alternate concepts like geo engineering which are supported by People like Bill Gates make me more skeptical about the world.
Highly recommended to all human beings who can read.
"Human beings currently emit more than 30 gigatons (30 billion tons) of CO2 pollution a year. That number is difficult to fathom, so try this instead: Take all the elephants in the world. Although poaching has sadly led to a substantial decline in their numbers, about 500,000 of them are still left. Combining juveniles and adults, let’s assume an average weight of 4 tons per elephant. That gives a total of 2 million tons. So the amount of CO2 we emit per year is equivalent in weight to the total sum of the worlds’ elephants multiplied by 15,000. You get it— we emit a lot of CO2."
I'm grateful to Netgalley and the Columbia University press for this opportunity to review this work.
April 17, 2018
On one hand, I appreciated THE MADHOUSE EFFECT, and am glad it was written. On the other, there’s the frustration of the book’s willful blindness that is just as glaring and inexcusable as that of the individuals, politicians and lobby groups it is dedicated to criticizing.
The author discusses the science behind climate change, the history and motivations behind its denial in popular culture and media, and why it’s so essential to reduce emissions now and stop hiding our heads in the sand. MADHOUSE adds a splash of dark-tinged humor here and there, thanks to political cartoons sprinkled throughout the text.
However, the book focuses on one single source of greenhouse gases, and that’s the use of fossil fuels. And it is true, industry is the top worldwide contributor to climate change. But guess what’s number two? Not transportation—all of those big trucks and SUVs everyone loves to hate. It’s animal agriculture.
Yet despite its being one of the few climate change issues that everyday people actually have a say in making better or worse each and every day, THE MADHOUSE EFFECT doesn’t make a peep about it. (In fact, the only point at which animal ag is even mentioned is in a small section on climate change's effect of food security, in which the author recounts that heat stress on livestock is causing more animals to die before they reach slaughter.) This widespread neglect among the environmental community to even mention this extremely important issue just because it makes people uncomfortable is getting ridiculous and inexcusable.
The author extensively compares climate deniers to the tobacco industry. And that makes sense, because their obfuscating tactics are quite similar, and indeed, many of the fossil fuel lobbyists of today honed their craft as tobacco lobbyists a generation ago. However, the argument for eating an animal product-based diet is essentially the same as using tobacco products: "I like it." Liking something doesn’t immediately make it bad, of course, but if it causes a ton of widespread senseless destruction, the activity can and should go from “personal choice” to “public debate.”
Yet, not even in the “What You Can Do” section at the book’s conclusion does the author mention choosing food with a less severe carbon footprint.
It’s not hard to imagine why MADHOUSE and countless other environmental materials won’t talk about the meat/dairy/egg industries. We can all feel good about putting down money-hungry politicians and fossil fuel industry barons in their ivory towers. If we make a radical change in how we create energy, which we obviously need to do, those most affected will be the minority of people who work in these plants and mines, and will need to be retrained in the production of clean energy. However, the food industry hits far closer to home, with each one of us making the choice at every meal regarding various industries’ futures. It may make us uncomfortable or even defensive, but now is not the time for the world’s environmental defenders to turn away from an inconvenient truth.
The author discusses the science behind climate change, the history and motivations behind its denial in popular culture and media, and why it’s so essential to reduce emissions now and stop hiding our heads in the sand. MADHOUSE adds a splash of dark-tinged humor here and there, thanks to political cartoons sprinkled throughout the text.
However, the book focuses on one single source of greenhouse gases, and that’s the use of fossil fuels. And it is true, industry is the top worldwide contributor to climate change. But guess what’s number two? Not transportation—all of those big trucks and SUVs everyone loves to hate. It’s animal agriculture.
Yet despite its being one of the few climate change issues that everyday people actually have a say in making better or worse each and every day, THE MADHOUSE EFFECT doesn’t make a peep about it. (In fact, the only point at which animal ag is even mentioned is in a small section on climate change's effect of food security, in which the author recounts that heat stress on livestock is causing more animals to die before they reach slaughter.) This widespread neglect among the environmental community to even mention this extremely important issue just because it makes people uncomfortable is getting ridiculous and inexcusable.
The author extensively compares climate deniers to the tobacco industry. And that makes sense, because their obfuscating tactics are quite similar, and indeed, many of the fossil fuel lobbyists of today honed their craft as tobacco lobbyists a generation ago. However, the argument for eating an animal product-based diet is essentially the same as using tobacco products: "I like it." Liking something doesn’t immediately make it bad, of course, but if it causes a ton of widespread senseless destruction, the activity can and should go from “personal choice” to “public debate.”
Yet, not even in the “What You Can Do” section at the book’s conclusion does the author mention choosing food with a less severe carbon footprint.
It’s not hard to imagine why MADHOUSE and countless other environmental materials won’t talk about the meat/dairy/egg industries. We can all feel good about putting down money-hungry politicians and fossil fuel industry barons in their ivory towers. If we make a radical change in how we create energy, which we obviously need to do, those most affected will be the minority of people who work in these plants and mines, and will need to be retrained in the production of clean energy. However, the food industry hits far closer to home, with each one of us making the choice at every meal regarding various industries’ futures. It may make us uncomfortable or even defensive, but now is not the time for the world’s environmental defenders to turn away from an inconvenient truth.
February 28, 2018
Written by a scientist, a with a outstanding acid humor illustrated by a famous cartoonist,this book is one of the best popular books about global warming,it is vwey well written,structured,cristal clear and touchs all related subjects.
Explains the science method,the physic basis of global warming and it dangerous or catastrophics consequeces on international security,food,water,health,ecosystems,economy...
The book follows with the several stages of global warming denialism: It is not happen,OK it is happen but it is natural,the problem is self correcting anyway,and it will be good for us,its too late and expensive to act and we will find some simple tecnofix.
Then the climate war of denialists,for example says the autor :
"Consider Steven J. Milloy,the self-avowed "junk man" who rails agaist wha he calls "junk science" on DDT,ozone depletion and all matters of "environemental extremism " on his website junkscience.com and in interviews and op-eds in conservative-leaning media outlets"
"Milloy is not a scientist but he is darned good at playing one on the televisión Fox News,to be specific-where he is presented as a environemental science expert"
"What Milloy has failed to disclose while busy presenting himself as an independent "junk science " expert on Fox News is that as noted earlier,he has accepted payments from Philips Morris,Exon Mobil and Syngenta for his advocacy efforts"
"Hisory will judge the actors in this debate,and mani will be judged harsly.By that time,unfortunately,it will be too late.The grat gears of climate change,once set in motio,will inexorably be grinded to the planet demise.By then,the bad actors will have already accumulated their short term personal gain,died and passed it along to their children and granchildren "
The book also touchs the geoingeniering subject,dangerous potentially catastrophic and unuseful.And end with the common sense recomendatins of : renovable energies and a change in our hiperconsumist way of life.
The book ends with this wise paragraph :
"Now we need a whole-planet environmentalism because the threat is to every livig thing on Earth.The era of space exploration has taught us many things.It is time to pay attention to what we have learned.We have learned how extraordinary rare a planet like Earth is and what a narrow,delicaterange of conditions sustain life.Although we can dream of someday finding other worlds like ours,we know that they are unfathomable far away.The future of humanity is right here on Earth.
We will not ,we cannot,wreck this planet.There not is planet B.Earth is a rarity of literally cosmic proportions.It is an overflowing treasure chest of life-forms of unimaginable variety and beauty.It is perfectly fitted to us as humans because we evolved to fit it.It would amount to the gravest criminal act of irresponsability in human history were we to throw it into fatal inbalance because of a wanton adiction to carbón.
So we have our work before us.We have our task.We have the oceans to preserve.We have the rain forests to protect.We have farmlands and coasts to defend.We have the panoply of spectacular species with which we evolved to shepherd.This is our home.It is time to start acting like it."
A imprescindible must to read to everybody,specially to those with a minimun of sensitivity to the beauty of our unique planet.
Explains the science method,the physic basis of global warming and it dangerous or catastrophics consequeces on international security,food,water,health,ecosystems,economy...
The book follows with the several stages of global warming denialism: It is not happen,OK it is happen but it is natural,the problem is self correcting anyway,and it will be good for us,its too late and expensive to act and we will find some simple tecnofix.
Then the climate war of denialists,for example says the autor :
"Consider Steven J. Milloy,the self-avowed "junk man" who rails agaist wha he calls "junk science" on DDT,ozone depletion and all matters of "environemental extremism " on his website junkscience.com and in interviews and op-eds in conservative-leaning media outlets"
"Milloy is not a scientist but he is darned good at playing one on the televisión Fox News,to be specific-where he is presented as a environemental science expert"
"What Milloy has failed to disclose while busy presenting himself as an independent "junk science " expert on Fox News is that as noted earlier,he has accepted payments from Philips Morris,Exon Mobil and Syngenta for his advocacy efforts"
"Hisory will judge the actors in this debate,and mani will be judged harsly.By that time,unfortunately,it will be too late.The grat gears of climate change,once set in motio,will inexorably be grinded to the planet demise.By then,the bad actors will have already accumulated their short term personal gain,died and passed it along to their children and granchildren "
The book also touchs the geoingeniering subject,dangerous potentially catastrophic and unuseful.And end with the common sense recomendatins of : renovable energies and a change in our hiperconsumist way of life.
The book ends with this wise paragraph :
"Now we need a whole-planet environmentalism because the threat is to every livig thing on Earth.The era of space exploration has taught us many things.It is time to pay attention to what we have learned.We have learned how extraordinary rare a planet like Earth is and what a narrow,delicaterange of conditions sustain life.Although we can dream of someday finding other worlds like ours,we know that they are unfathomable far away.The future of humanity is right here on Earth.
We will not ,we cannot,wreck this planet.There not is planet B.Earth is a rarity of literally cosmic proportions.It is an overflowing treasure chest of life-forms of unimaginable variety and beauty.It is perfectly fitted to us as humans because we evolved to fit it.It would amount to the gravest criminal act of irresponsability in human history were we to throw it into fatal inbalance because of a wanton adiction to carbón.
So we have our work before us.We have our task.We have the oceans to preserve.We have the rain forests to protect.We have farmlands and coasts to defend.We have the panoply of spectacular species with which we evolved to shepherd.This is our home.It is time to start acting like it."
A imprescindible must to read to everybody,specially to those with a minimun of sensitivity to the beauty of our unique planet.
May 10, 2017
A splendid, expert and reader-friendly primer on the basic science behind climate change and on the politics, corruption and delusion underlying (primarily US) climate-change denial. Of particular note is the adroit skewering of the false arguments advanced by the denialists and the fossil-fuel funded "merchants of doubt."
As I read, I became more and more amazed at the complete bloody childishness and idiocy of our current political leaders as they conduct their pretend investigations of climate science, their charades of debate . . . and at the fact that any member of the public is so underinformed or falsely informed as to be fooled by them for more than a moment. I was also amazed all over again that these cretins in the House, Senate and White House should so willingly sacrifice the lives of their grandchildren and even quite likely their children for the sake of pocketing a few bucks -- er, accepting "campaign contributions" -- in the short term.
This book was published last year. In the context of its timing, one paragraph stands out:
Well, we all know how that turned out, don't we? The future does not look good.
Perhaps even more poignant is this remark:
Other books for the general reader cover this material in more detail, and I'd recommend those if you want to delve more seriously into the subjects of climate science and the public corruption of science. However, for a bracing quick review this is about as good as you could hope to find.
As I read, I became more and more amazed at the complete bloody childishness and idiocy of our current political leaders as they conduct their pretend investigations of climate science, their charades of debate . . . and at the fact that any member of the public is so underinformed or falsely informed as to be fooled by them for more than a moment. I was also amazed all over again that these cretins in the House, Senate and White House should so willingly sacrifice the lives of their grandchildren and even quite likely their children for the sake of pocketing a few bucks -- er, accepting "campaign contributions" -- in the short term.
This book was published last year. In the context of its timing, one paragraph stands out:
The next election is arguably a make-or-break election for the climate. If we are to avert the worst impacts of climate change, we will have to act in the next few years. We will need both the president and Congress on board if we're going to work with other nations of the world to achieve the sorts of carbon reductions necessary to achieve this goal.
Well, we all know how that turned out, don't we? The future does not look good.
Perhaps even more poignant is this remark:
The Kochs are planning to spend the better part of $1 billion in the 2016 election. Perhaps that amount can even buy them a president. [page 109]
Other books for the general reader cover this material in more detail, and I'd recommend those if you want to delve more seriously into the subjects of climate science and the public corruption of science. However, for a bracing quick review this is about as good as you could hope to find.
Want to read
September 27, 2016There is an excellent review of this work in The Guardian. It looks a good companion piece to Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
May 10, 2020
Surprised to see science and politics seamlessly packed into a book in an intriguing and engaging manner. This book is a must-read. I wish schools could make it required reading.
Note - I received a free copy of the book from the publisher. This has not influenced my review in any way.
Note - I received a free copy of the book from the publisher. This has not influenced my review in any way.
November 22, 2017
Another Mann-made Warming: Bending the Truth for Climate.
First, let me get few things stated straight:
1. I am not a climatologist. I am not writing this on behalf of any organization. I have not received any payment for this review.
2. I do not like “scientists”, who are just making up “facts”, and equally don't like scientists and politicians hiding the truth.
3. I do trust the UN demographers, who stated that the Earth population grew from 3.5±0.1 billion in 1966 to 7.4±0.1 billion in 2016, or 2.1 times in 50 years.
4. Equally, I trust British Petroleum, which stated that the world consumption of fossil fuels has increased from 3.8±0.1 billion metric ton of oil equivalent (toe) in 1966 to 11.3±0.1 billion toe in 2016 {1}.
5. I can do basic math. In 1966, an average earthling consumed 1100 kg of fossil fuel per year, in 2016 – 1600 kg; not a double increase, by any means, but it helped to lift a billion or two out of total poverty. Still, 1.2 billion people on this planet have no electricity and rely on kerosine and wood for heating, light, and cooking. Eight hundred million are undernourished {2}.
6. The CO₂ concentration in atmosphere has increased from 320±5 parts per million (ppm) in 1966 to 405±5 ppm in 2016 {3}. This carbon dioxide dissolves in the oceans and does terrible things to corals and fish. It also helps on-land vegetation.
7. There is no doubt, the increase of CO₂ concentration is due to the fossil fuel usage, which can be confirmed independently by the isotope studies, such as {4}.
8. By the confirmed direct observation, meteorological balloon data, and satellite data, the average surface temperature on Earth from 1979 to 2016 has increased anywhere between 0.07 and 0.25⁰K per decade. We simply don't know any better, as measuring an average temperature over 0.51 billion square kilometers is no easy task.
9. The number of major weather events, as officially recorded by NOAA from 1970, has increased in Atlantic and decreased in Pacific {5}. Adding two together produces no significant trend.
10. And yes, if the Americans replace the goddamn SUVs with something more economical, the planet will feel better.
As you see, I am not a “global warming skeptic”, but most firmly belong to those “97%”, who “believe”. But wait a sec! In science, we don't believe. We prove and check. Constantly.
On page 54 of the Michael Mann's book we read:
[Quote] In the 1990s, climate change contrarians pointed to one apparent discrepancy in the observations: satellite-based estimates of atmospheric temperatures produced by a pair of researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The data produced by a Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) appeared to show no warming recorded in surface observations. For more than a decade, critics pointed to the MSU data set as evidence that the globe is not in fact warming and celebrated the two scientists, John Christy and Roy Spencer, who themselves were climate change critics.
Although problems with Christy and Spencer's procedures had been suspected for some time, it was not until 2005 that other scientists were able to independently analyze the MSU data and expose the glaring errors. Among other problems, there was a sign error (that is, a minus sign where there is supposed to be a plus sign) in their algorithm that turned warming into cooling. The mystery was finally solved. There never was any cooling — that conclusion was an artifact of a botched analysis. In the meantime, however, fossil fuel industry groups and politicians and front groups had used this “evidence” in their bid to justify an agenda of climate inaction for more than a decade².[Unquote]
There is a little number ² after the author's text. A scientist would expect a reference to a peer-reviewed paper in a trusted magazine. Alas, the link on page 157 is to Mann's own book:
[Quote]²The matter is discussed in detail in Mann, Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, 181-183.[Unquote]
Well, let me check.
For starters, John Christy never worked in UAB. He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. This is 100 miles away from Birmingham, Alabama; but at least Michael E. Mann got the state right. Professor Christy was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
Roy Warren Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He also served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Not in Birmingham, hey!
Michael E. Mann may not know Christy and Spenser personally. After all, doctor Mann works as Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University (which happens to be an exact equivalent of professor Christy's position), and Pennsylvania is not Alabama. However, Dr. Mann should know, or at least check, the bio of his former co-author! Both Mann and Christy participated in writing of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) report of 2001. Something Dr. Mann would love to forget, but people remember{12}.
But “Birminham” could be a typo (Mann did not read his pre-print?) Let's come to the factual part of the statement. The MSU (and it's advanced version, AMSU) is not a thermometer. It measures radio waves produced by warm oxygen. The satellite data require some complicated computer processing {6}. Equivalently, M.Mann uses a “temperature proxy” — tree-ring data — measurements of the patterns of the tree rings, including the ones of the fallen trees from hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Not a thermometer by any means, it also relies on complicated statistical methods. In some cold years, for instance, some trees may not develop rings at all{7}. Besides the rings, Mann later used other proxies: ice cores and ancient historical records, and such.
One may disagree with Christy and Spenser on political views, but these men have been doing proper science. They pioneered the Earth temperature measurements from space back in 1970s — the NASA medal is not for nothing! Year after year, their mathematical model has been refined: the engineers included such corrections as the “orbital decay” and the “diurnal shift”{13}. The raw satellite data — currently 16 in orbit, unfortunately 4 of them have failed, — as well as the FORTRAN code, written by a professional programmer. Yes, their temperature trends' estimates changed over time: from minor cooling in 1990 paper {6} to a warming of 0.14±.3 K/decade in UAH record version 5 and back down to 0.11±.3 K/decade in the version 6.{9} That's what real scientist do: publish results honestly and ask the others to check. If a problem found, honest people redo the study.
This science is repeatable! An independent research of RSS also comes with data tables and verifiable code.{10} Their best estimate for the present warming trend is 0.14 K/decade (down from the former 0.158).
I diligently tried to find the aforementioned “sign error” in literature – and could not. In reality “a minus sign where there is supposed to be a plus sign” may have existed only in Mann's vivid imagination. Why is he hiding the finding under a fake reference?
Surprisingly the basic web search revealed that Dr. Cristy has rather strong opinion about Dr. Mann's own scientific ethic:
Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.{11}
I believe Dr. Mann is fighting for a better world. Unfortunately, he is using methods that stink. Talking of which, the cartoons of Tom Toles in the book stink even more. Their humor is as flat as a week-old roadkill.
Dr. Mann probably will call this review “yet another attack of a global warming contrarian” (didn't I state I am not?) But hey, did I place my former colleague Dr. Cristy to Birmingham???
{1} BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017, Data Supplement.
{2} The State of Food Security in the World 2015 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf
{3} Mauna Loa Observation, direct measurements, https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr...
{4} Australia Bureau of Meteorology, direct measurements at Cape Grim, Tasmania.
{5} NOAA https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropic...
{6} Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites
Science 30 Mar 1990: Vol. 247, Issue 4950, pp. 1558-1562 DOI: 10.1126/science.247.4950.1558
{7} Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Missing tree rings and the AD 774-775 radiocarbon event, Nature Climate Change, 4, 648-649, 2014.
{8} Qiang Fu et al, Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Letters to Nature (not peer-reviewed), Nature, 429, 55-58 (2004).
{9} Global Temperature Report https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
{10} Remote Sensing Systems http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
{11} https://www.steynonline.com/6310/life...
{12} The Climategate Emails, edited and annotated by John Costella, 2010.
{13} Stephen Po-Chedley et al, Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies, AMS 2015.
First, let me get few things stated straight:
1. I am not a climatologist. I am not writing this on behalf of any organization. I have not received any payment for this review.
2. I do not like “scientists”, who are just making up “facts”, and equally don't like scientists and politicians hiding the truth.
3. I do trust the UN demographers, who stated that the Earth population grew from 3.5±0.1 billion in 1966 to 7.4±0.1 billion in 2016, or 2.1 times in 50 years.
4. Equally, I trust British Petroleum, which stated that the world consumption of fossil fuels has increased from 3.8±0.1 billion metric ton of oil equivalent (toe) in 1966 to 11.3±0.1 billion toe in 2016 {1}.
5. I can do basic math. In 1966, an average earthling consumed 1100 kg of fossil fuel per year, in 2016 – 1600 kg; not a double increase, by any means, but it helped to lift a billion or two out of total poverty. Still, 1.2 billion people on this planet have no electricity and rely on kerosine and wood for heating, light, and cooking. Eight hundred million are undernourished {2}.
6. The CO₂ concentration in atmosphere has increased from 320±5 parts per million (ppm) in 1966 to 405±5 ppm in 2016 {3}. This carbon dioxide dissolves in the oceans and does terrible things to corals and fish. It also helps on-land vegetation.
7. There is no doubt, the increase of CO₂ concentration is due to the fossil fuel usage, which can be confirmed independently by the isotope studies, such as {4}.
8. By the confirmed direct observation, meteorological balloon data, and satellite data, the average surface temperature on Earth from 1979 to 2016 has increased anywhere between 0.07 and 0.25⁰K per decade. We simply don't know any better, as measuring an average temperature over 0.51 billion square kilometers is no easy task.
9. The number of major weather events, as officially recorded by NOAA from 1970, has increased in Atlantic and decreased in Pacific {5}. Adding two together produces no significant trend.
10. And yes, if the Americans replace the goddamn SUVs with something more economical, the planet will feel better.
As you see, I am not a “global warming skeptic”, but most firmly belong to those “97%”, who “believe”. But wait a sec! In science, we don't believe. We prove and check. Constantly.
On page 54 of the Michael Mann's book we read:
[Quote] In the 1990s, climate change contrarians pointed to one apparent discrepancy in the observations: satellite-based estimates of atmospheric temperatures produced by a pair of researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham. The data produced by a Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) appeared to show no warming recorded in surface observations. For more than a decade, critics pointed to the MSU data set as evidence that the globe is not in fact warming and celebrated the two scientists, John Christy and Roy Spencer, who themselves were climate change critics.
Although problems with Christy and Spencer's procedures had been suspected for some time, it was not until 2005 that other scientists were able to independently analyze the MSU data and expose the glaring errors. Among other problems, there was a sign error (that is, a minus sign where there is supposed to be a plus sign) in their algorithm that turned warming into cooling. The mystery was finally solved. There never was any cooling — that conclusion was an artifact of a botched analysis. In the meantime, however, fossil fuel industry groups and politicians and front groups had used this “evidence” in their bid to justify an agenda of climate inaction for more than a decade².[Unquote]
There is a little number ² after the author's text. A scientist would expect a reference to a peer-reviewed paper in a trusted magazine. Alas, the link on page 157 is to Mann's own book:
[Quote]²The matter is discussed in detail in Mann, Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, 181-183.[Unquote]
Well, let me check.
For starters, John Christy never worked in UAB. He is the Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. This is 100 miles away from Birmingham, Alabama; but at least Michael E. Mann got the state right. Professor Christy was appointed Alabama's state climatologist in 2000. For his development of a global temperature data set from satellites he was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement, and the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. In 2002, Christy was elected Fellow of the American Meteorological Society.
Roy Warren Spencer is a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. He also served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Not in Birmingham, hey!
Michael E. Mann may not know Christy and Spenser personally. After all, doctor Mann works as Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University (which happens to be an exact equivalent of professor Christy's position), and Pennsylvania is not Alabama. However, Dr. Mann should know, or at least check, the bio of his former co-author! Both Mann and Christy participated in writing of the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) report of 2001. Something Dr. Mann would love to forget, but people remember{12}.
But “Birminham” could be a typo (Mann did not read his pre-print?) Let's come to the factual part of the statement. The MSU (and it's advanced version, AMSU) is not a thermometer. It measures radio waves produced by warm oxygen. The satellite data require some complicated computer processing {6}. Equivalently, M.Mann uses a “temperature proxy” — tree-ring data — measurements of the patterns of the tree rings, including the ones of the fallen trees from hundreds or even thousands of years ago. Not a thermometer by any means, it also relies on complicated statistical methods. In some cold years, for instance, some trees may not develop rings at all{7}. Besides the rings, Mann later used other proxies: ice cores and ancient historical records, and such.
One may disagree with Christy and Spenser on political views, but these men have been doing proper science. They pioneered the Earth temperature measurements from space back in 1970s — the NASA medal is not for nothing! Year after year, their mathematical model has been refined: the engineers included such corrections as the “orbital decay” and the “diurnal shift”{13}. The raw satellite data — currently 16 in orbit, unfortunately 4 of them have failed, — as well as the FORTRAN code, written by a professional programmer. Yes, their temperature trends' estimates changed over time: from minor cooling in 1990 paper {6} to a warming of 0.14±.3 K/decade in UAH record version 5 and back down to 0.11±.3 K/decade in the version 6.{9} That's what real scientist do: publish results honestly and ask the others to check. If a problem found, honest people redo the study.
This science is repeatable! An independent research of RSS also comes with data tables and verifiable code.{10} Their best estimate for the present warming trend is 0.14 K/decade (down from the former 0.158).
I diligently tried to find the aforementioned “sign error” in literature – and could not. In reality “a minus sign where there is supposed to be a plus sign” may have existed only in Mann's vivid imagination. Why is he hiding the finding under a fake reference?
Surprisingly the basic web search revealed that Dr. Cristy has rather strong opinion about Dr. Mann's own scientific ethic:
Regarding the Hockey Stick of IPCC 2001 evidence now indicates, in my view, that an IPCC Lead Author working with a small cohort of scientists, misrepresented the temperature record of the past 1000 years by (a) promoting his own result as the best estimate, (b) neglecting studies that contradicted his, and (c) amputating another's result so as to eliminate conflicting data and limit any serious attempt to expose the real uncertainties of these data.{11}
I believe Dr. Mann is fighting for a better world. Unfortunately, he is using methods that stink. Talking of which, the cartoons of Tom Toles in the book stink even more. Their humor is as flat as a week-old roadkill.
Dr. Mann probably will call this review “yet another attack of a global warming contrarian” (didn't I state I am not?) But hey, did I place my former colleague Dr. Cristy to Birmingham???
{1} BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2017, Data Supplement.
{2} The State of Food Security in the World 2015 http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf
{3} Mauna Loa Observation, direct measurements, https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/tr...
{4} Australia Bureau of Meteorology, direct measurements at Cape Grim, Tasmania.
{5} NOAA https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/tropic...
{6} Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy Precise Monitoring of Global Temperature Trends from Satellites
Science 30 Mar 1990: Vol. 247, Issue 4950, pp. 1558-1562 DOI: 10.1126/science.247.4950.1558
{7} Rutherford, S., Mann, M.E., Missing tree rings and the AD 774-775 radiocarbon event, Nature Climate Change, 4, 648-649, 2014.
{8} Qiang Fu et al, Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Letters to Nature (not peer-reviewed), Nature, 429, 55-58 (2004).
{9} Global Temperature Report https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/
{10} Remote Sensing Systems http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
{11} https://www.steynonline.com/6310/life...
{12} The Climategate Emails, edited and annotated by John Costella, 2010.
{13} Stephen Po-Chedley et al, Removing Diurnal Cycle Contamination in Satellite-Derived Tropospheric Temperatures: Understanding Tropical Tropospheric Trend Discrepancies, AMS 2015.
March 1, 2019
Michael Mann wastes no time getting to the heart of the climate change debate. In language that is clear and cogent and doesn't talk down to readers, he boils many complex issues down to the basics, beginning with the fact that "Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat, and we are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. The rest is details."
He goes on to clarify the difference between good skepticism—"attempts to hold science to the highest possible standard through independent scrutiny and questioning of every minute detail"—and bad skepticism—"the wholesale rejection of validated widely accepted scientific principles on the basis of opinion, ideology, financial interest, self-interest, or all of these things together." And it is simple formulas and simple definitions like these that go a long way toward elucidating what this pseudo-debate is all about: not genuine disagreement but greed and ideology.
The entirety of the book consists of scientific clarifications, reasons climate change is important to everyone (national security, food and water shortages, less arable land, more health concerns, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, economic downturns), and refutations of the most common arguments against climate science.
In most cases, Mann's explanations are spot on and much more insightful than Toles' well-meaning but often mediocre satirical cartoons. However, every once in a while Toles is able to get to the point much more succinctly. His panel that explains the different stages of climate denial spells out in one page what it takes Mann an entire chapter to explain. First, deniers reject that the earth is warming. Then, they reject that this is a bad thing. Then, they reject that it can be confirmed. And on and on. Once one angle has gotten shot down, they move right on to the next without missing a beat.
Now I'd be lying if I said I understood every single scientific concept the book contains. But I'll follow the advice Mann gives to politicians who like to say, "I am not a scientist" by finishing that statement up with "so I will defer to the consensus of people who are scientists." That is, those who settled this matter decades ago.
He goes on to clarify the difference between good skepticism—"attempts to hold science to the highest possible standard through independent scrutiny and questioning of every minute detail"—and bad skepticism—"the wholesale rejection of validated widely accepted scientific principles on the basis of opinion, ideology, financial interest, self-interest, or all of these things together." And it is simple formulas and simple definitions like these that go a long way toward elucidating what this pseudo-debate is all about: not genuine disagreement but greed and ideology.
The entirety of the book consists of scientific clarifications, reasons climate change is important to everyone (national security, food and water shortages, less arable land, more health concerns, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, economic downturns), and refutations of the most common arguments against climate science.
In most cases, Mann's explanations are spot on and much more insightful than Toles' well-meaning but often mediocre satirical cartoons. However, every once in a while Toles is able to get to the point much more succinctly. His panel that explains the different stages of climate denial spells out in one page what it takes Mann an entire chapter to explain. First, deniers reject that the earth is warming. Then, they reject that this is a bad thing. Then, they reject that it can be confirmed. And on and on. Once one angle has gotten shot down, they move right on to the next without missing a beat.
Now I'd be lying if I said I understood every single scientific concept the book contains. But I'll follow the advice Mann gives to politicians who like to say, "I am not a scientist" by finishing that statement up with "so I will defer to the consensus of people who are scientists." That is, those who settled this matter decades ago.
May 23, 2021
Madhouse Effect is a quick guide to climate change arguments, focused on what denialists and critics have been saying. I wrote "quick" because it's short and written in a very approachable, concise, nearly verbal style.
It also contains many cartoons by Tom Toles, which are appropriate and might speed some readers along.
Ultimately I didn't find it that useful. To explain: its descriptions of climate change are remarkably concise and accessible, which is fine. That's about two short chapters, and could be excerpted for purpose. Yet I wanted more, such as more on methane, which the book just touches on. After that... I admire Mann and Toles for deeply wading into climate denial, which they do with gusto and detail, perhaps most energetically in a chapter about Trump. But it's awful to work through, a catalog of failure and malice. And it's not too practical, as ultimately the authors advise us to bow out of conversations with deniers, to "leave the madhouse." (146) Madhouse Effect ends up feeling like a primer on a period of history, useful as pointers for future historians who wish to dig into the climate skeptic movement.
It also contains many cartoons by Tom Toles, which are appropriate and might speed some readers along.
Ultimately I didn't find it that useful. To explain: its descriptions of climate change are remarkably concise and accessible, which is fine. That's about two short chapters, and could be excerpted for purpose. Yet I wanted more, such as more on methane, which the book just touches on. After that... I admire Mann and Toles for deeply wading into climate denial, which they do with gusto and detail, perhaps most energetically in a chapter about Trump. But it's awful to work through, a catalog of failure and malice. And it's not too practical, as ultimately the authors advise us to bow out of conversations with deniers, to "leave the madhouse." (146) Madhouse Effect ends up feeling like a primer on a period of history, useful as pointers for future historians who wish to dig into the climate skeptic movement.
May 21, 2017
Overall a fine book. Others have commented here that those who would learn the most from it will not be the ones to pick it up. It provides an overview of the scientific process, the science of climate and a brief history of how we got to where we are today (American's opposition to acting on climate science). I was very disappointed that there was not more discussion about solutions throughout the book. It's a quick read at 150 pages and only 3 pages are devoted to 'what you can do'. Research has shown that people respond more positively to climate science and the changing climate if they are given clear solutions along with the problem.
I did appreciate the frequent cartoons throughout!
I did appreciate the frequent cartoons throughout!
October 15, 2016
Essential, important reading if you care about the planet.
January 4, 2020
This is such a heroine piece of literature. The scientist Michael E. Man starts by succinctly explaining the method of scientific discourse, demonstrates that human driven activities are pushing CO2 levels to a tipping point, and explains the negative events of climate change - increased frequency and intensity of natural disasters.
Michael argues that the cost of climate action is way less than the cost of comfortable inaction. He attributes bottlenecks to climate change action to:
1.Climate change disinformation and denialism especially from tycoons and industries whose very existence hinges on frustrating clean-energy policies.
2. Mainstream media. Journalism 101 teaches fair and balanced coverage. However, this is a problem when objective observable scientific truths such as a climate change, evolution and a spherical earth get equal attention to the anti-scientific alternatives. This is especially a big problem as the vast majority of the general public get their science lessons from such channels.
Michael is not convinced that geoengineering - the practice of meddling with earth systems - is the best approach to tackle climate change. He argues that geoengineering borders on science fiction(Most of the technology is currently non-existent), is cost prohibitive and may have severe unintended consequences.
Climate change discourse is ultimately an ethical question.
Michael argues that the cost of climate action is way less than the cost of comfortable inaction. He attributes bottlenecks to climate change action to:
1.Climate change disinformation and denialism especially from tycoons and industries whose very existence hinges on frustrating clean-energy policies.
2. Mainstream media. Journalism 101 teaches fair and balanced coverage. However, this is a problem when objective observable scientific truths such as a climate change, evolution and a spherical earth get equal attention to the anti-scientific alternatives. This is especially a big problem as the vast majority of the general public get their science lessons from such channels.
Michael is not convinced that geoengineering - the practice of meddling with earth systems - is the best approach to tackle climate change. He argues that geoengineering borders on science fiction(Most of the technology is currently non-existent), is cost prohibitive and may have severe unintended consequences.
Climate change discourse is ultimately an ethical question.
April 9, 2020
This book is climate science primer for the non-scientist but entertaining and cool. It goes through what the problem is, the terrifying way deniers have systematically flipped truth, then the merits or otherwise of different solutions. For me it brought together all the disparate threads of the hundreds, maybe thousands of media articles I've read on climate science.
I enjoyed getting my outrage on at the evil extent to which the denier industry has gone to to discredit science. Also loved hearing a climate science guru weigh up the solutions and merits (or not.)
One of the things I took away was the notion of just how rigorous peer-reviewed science is (and the stakes in it.) And also the notion that if you're not a scientist...really, seriously, DO defer to the experts.
And lastly...follow Michael on Twitter because he's funny, great, generous and interacts a lot with his readers/fans. 😃
I enjoyed getting my outrage on at the evil extent to which the denier industry has gone to to discredit science. Also loved hearing a climate science guru weigh up the solutions and merits (or not.)
One of the things I took away was the notion of just how rigorous peer-reviewed science is (and the stakes in it.) And also the notion that if you're not a scientist...really, seriously, DO defer to the experts.
And lastly...follow Michael on Twitter because he's funny, great, generous and interacts a lot with his readers/fans. 😃
July 12, 2017
This is a very interesting, easy to read book - including great acerbic cartoons - about the looming danger of climate change, and the political forces lined up to deny it, much like the monumental effort by the tobacco industry to cast doubt on the danger of tobacco to public health.
The campaign to derail action on climate change by the oil industry, and figures like the Koch Brothers, follows the same basic pattern the tobacco industry followed in the last century - create doubt about climate change by starting think tanks, sponsoring conferences, funding scientists, planting articles (strategic propaganda) seemingly telling "both sides" of the climate change "controversy" although 99% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is real and a real danger. As long as people are beguiled into thinking there's "another side to the issue" then denial can seem to be a plausible position. This is excellent win, since continuing the carbon energy economy is key to oil/gas/coal business profits.
The book first examines how science works, and goes on to the basics about climate change. Later, the book examines the war on climate science, and how hypocritical the climate change denial lobby is. Finally, the authors examine some way-out ideas that have been floated to deal with climate change, such as suspending millions of mirrors in space to deflect sun light away from Earth (so that Earth doesn't warm as quickly). The evidence though is compelling that if we stay on the current path, disaster will enfold Earth - with weather extremes, rising sea levels, huge storms magnified by warming oceans, and so forth. We are already seeing the effects of climate change - Sandy was just on example. Unfortunately, Trump refuses to take the reality of man-made climate change seriously and has pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement. However, he is being ignored by the rest of the world and many States and cities in the US are going to continue to adhere to the promise to bring emissions under control, work toward a less carbon-energy-based future.
Some good quotes from the book:
From the Chapter "Why Should I Give a Damn?"
"And let's not forget the foreign wars we are fighting to keep oil flowing from dangerous regions of the world such as the Middle East. Think of these wars as a $100 billion subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, courtesy of you and us, the American taxpayers."
From the Chapter "The Stages of Denial"
"There is an even more fundamental fallacy at work here, however... so fundamental, in fact, that it even has a name: post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). The fallacy is that because some factor may have been responsible for changes in the past, any changes today must be caused by that very same factor. It is akin to arguing that because wildfires happen naturally, the suspected arsonist found with matches and lighter fluid isn't guilty of starting the raging wildfire and should walk free."
and
"Another prevalent fallacy used to bolster this position is that "you can't chew gum and walk at the same time" or, to be more specific, that acting on climate change will somehow divert resources from our efforts to address otehr pressing problems. One particularly egregious form of this argument involves the invented concept of "energy poverty" pushed by folks such as Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobile, who once posed, without any apparent sense of irony, the question "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?"
From the Chapter "The War on Climate Science"
"By the 1970s, the scientific community well understood the mechanisms behind acid rain. And in 1970, President Richard Nixon both established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and signed the Clean Air Act, which granted the EPA the mandate to regulate industrial emissions. Yet as late as the mid-1980s, S. Fred Singer, a physicist whom we discuss more fully later, teamed up with conservative media outlets such as the National Review to dispute any human role in the acid rain problem, blaming it instead on natural factors such as volcanoes. This industry opposition and manufactured controversy were adequate for the time being to prevent further policy action.
In the 1990s, however, George H.W. Bush -- Ronald Reagan's vice president and now president -- led by a proactive, pro-environment EPA administrator named William K. Reilly, went on to sign into law an innovative, market-based "capt-and-trade" system, thus putting in place financial incentives for polluters to cap their emissions. The effort, which was opposed by industry groups with noble-sounding names such as Citizens for a Sound Economy (Who isn't for a sound economy, after all? But in actuality it is a front group, now known as FreedomWorks, founded by Charles and David Koch to block governmental regulations), was a dramatic success. Forests, streams, and lakes have largely recovered over the past several decades."
From the Chapter "Hypocrisy - Thy Name is Climate Change Denial"
"Then there is Virginia's former attorney general Ken Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli, also a "Tea Party Republican," attempted to sue the University of Virginia a few yeas ago because the government funded one of its professors (coauthor of this book, Michael Mann) to study the issue of climate change (of course, nearly all research in the natural science sis funded by the government).
Issuing a so-called civil investigative demand -- a civil subpoena originally designed to ferret out Medicare fraud (reasoning that climate change research itself constitutes a fraud) -- Cuccinelli demanded all the professor's personal e-mail exchanges with more than thirty climate scientists around the world. Major scientific and academic groups and organizations throughout the country insisted that he University of Virginia stand up to what they viewed as a transparent effort by Cuccinelli to intimidate a researcher whose findings had proved inconvenient to Cuccinelli's funders.
The university subsequently hired outside counsel and challenged the legality of the subpoena. Prominent media outlets such as the Washington Post and its cartoonist, Tom Toles (the other coauthor of this book), covered the affair, criticizing and mocking Cuccinelli's "witch hunt."
Cuccinelli lost in the lower court, which rejected his case: the court found that his forty-plus-page filing, Cuccinelli had failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing. So Cuccinelli took the matter to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ultimately reaffirmed the lower court's finding and rejected the case with prejudice. In other words, the justices really didn't want to see this sort of attempted abuse of power ever again."
and
"When is it the right time to talk about climate change? If you listen to the critics and cynics, apparently never.
The Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire in 1969. That event was a tipping point in the public consciousness regarding air and water pollution. There was a sudden, widespread awareness of the growing level of pollutants in our air and water, a recognition that it had reached crisis proportions. Within just a few years, we saw passage of both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The people spoke, and policy makers listened"
and
"There was much hope among advocates for climate action heading into the international Climate change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. ...
"Opponents of climate action dug in their heels and orchestrated the most well-organized, cynical, and effective disinformation campaign yet. In an effort to undermine the public's confidence in the scientific basis for concern about climate change, they manufactured a fake "scandal" in the weeks leading up to the summit, seeking to distract the public and the politicians at this critical moment. Even the name attached to the affair -- "Climategate" -- was the product of a carefully crafted narrative invented and then foisted on an unknowing public through a collaboration among industry front groups, paid attack dogs, and conservative media outlets.
Thousands of e-mails between climate scientists around the world were stolen from a university computer server in Great Britain late that summer. The e-mails were carefully combed through over several months and organized into an easily accessible archive. Individual words and phrases, harmless in context (for example, trick as in "trick of the trade"), were plucked from among the many thousands o e-mails and removed from their original context. Having been cherry-picked and taken out of context, they were then used to misrepresent what the scientists were actually communicating to one another. Finally, climate change deniers had the smoking gun -- the scientists themselves were admitting that climate change was a massive hoax! The climate scients were conspiring to pull a fast one on the public!
Front groups connected with the Koch brothers and industry-funded critics such as Steve Milloy helped promote these outrageous untruths, while right =wing media outlets -- especially those owned by Rupert Murdoch, such as Fox News that the Wall Street Journal, as well as somewhat less-sanitary sources such as the Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh -- readily served as a megaphone, filling the airwaves and television screens with false allegations, smears, and untruths about climate change.
At least nine different investigations in the United State and the United Kingdom ultimately determined, however, that there had been no impropriety on the part of the scientists, no fudging of data, no attempt to fool the public about the scientific evidence for climate change. In the end, the only wrongdoing that could be found was the criminal theft of the e-mails in the first place -- bitter irony, given that the Watergate scandal, the origin of the moniker "Climategate," was about the theft of documents, not their content."
and
"A Koch and a Smile
Fred C. Koch was an American entrepreneur who made his fortune in oil refining in the early twentieth century. After being sued for patent infringement in the United States, he built oil-distillation plants int eh Soviet Union, which had no intellectual-property rights. As Jane Mayer of the New Yorker puts it, "Unable to succeed at home, Koch found work in the Soviet Union." Koch proceeded to help the Stalin regime construct fifteen oil refineries. Subsequently, however as Mayer explains, "Stalin brutally purged several of Koch's Soviet colleagues. Koch was deeply affected by the experience, and regretted his collaboration."
Koch took the fortune he had earned in the Soviet Union back to the United States, where he subsequently founded the Wood River Oil and Refining Company in 1940. It would go to become Koch Industries, a major American oil-refining interest. Embittered by his experiences in the Soviet Union, Koch grew into a staunch anti-Communist and Cold War hawk. (Where have we heard this story before?) He went on to found the ultraconservative John birch Society, dedicated to limited government.
Fred Koch's sons, Charles and David, inherited both their father's company and his ideology. With anti-government leanings and a personal stake in the continued exploitation of fossil fuels, the Koch brothers were perfectly positioned to become champions of climate change denial-ism. And they have lived up to that potential.
Having diversified into a major global conglomerate, Koch Industries is now the second-largest privately help corporation in the United States and equally important, the largest privately held fossil fuel interest. The Koch brothers are the greatest potential beneficiaries from construction of the Keystone XL pipeline through Canada and the United States, profiting by ans much as $100 billion from delivering the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive petroleum to the open market, a scenario that climate scientist James Hansen has declared "game over for the climate," though the pipeline is now looking somewhat less likely with the rejection of the project (at least for now) by the Obama administration."
and
"With the advent of "dark money" -- thanks to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporate entities (a decision that hinged on the votes of two justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who regularly attended the Koch brothers' annual retreats) -- it is impossible to determine just how much the Koch brothers have spent. But the spending that can be traced amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars -- enough over the past several election cycles to purchase the U.S. Congress for all intents and purposes. The Kochs are planning to spend the better part of $1 billion in the 2016 election. Perhaps that amount can even buy them a president.
The Koch brothers have used their immense financial resources to support groups that advocate delay and inaction on climate change, giving, for example, more than $100 million since 1997 to groups denying climate change. Indeed, most of the residents in the "Potemkin village" of climate change denial have received or currently receive Koch funding. Prominent among them is Americans for Prosperity, which, in addition to spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts for climate change-denying politicians over the past several election cycles, sponsored the Hot Air Tour during the 2008 election year with the slogan "Global Warming Alarm-ism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom." Its website explains its mission: "Americans for Prosperity is working hard to bring you the missing half of the global warming debate. What will the impacts of reactionary legislation be for you, your family and our economy?
The Kochs fund the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which readers may recall was involved in early attacks on scientists such as Rachel Carson, fronted for big tobacco in the early 1990s, played a critical role in blocking regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Bill Clinton and George W. bush administrations, and was instrumental in helping manufacture the Climategate scandal in 2009. In 2006, CEI ran the widely ridiculed national campaign singing the virtues of fossil fuel carbon emissions: "They Call It Pollution. We Call It Life." And no, you can't make this stuff up."
And in the Chapter "A Path Forward"
"We will not, we cannot, wreck this planet. There is no Planet B. Earth is a rarity of literally cosmic proportions. It is an overflowing treasure chest of life-forms of unimaginable variety and beauty. It is perfectly fitted to us as humans because we evolved to fit it. It would amount to the gravest criminal act of irresponsibility in human history were we to throw it into fatal imbalance because of a wanton addiction to carbon.
So we have our work before us. We have our task. We have the oceans to preserve. We have the rain forests to protect. We have farmlands and coasts to defend. We have the panoply of spectacular species with which we evolved to shepherd. This is our home. It's time to start acting like it."
Although we are now at the brink of catastrophe given the Trump administration's reversal of progressive climate change policy, all is not lost, as localities can continue to push back, as they are already doing with respect to promising to meet the Paris Agreement goals. It is quite sad though that after decades of working to try to protect the environment and progress under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the anti progressive anti government tendency in the Republican party, represented by Trump, won the 2016 presidential election and is now set to undo decades of progress. Already, for example, the XL pipeline has been OK'd, and environmental regulations protecting streams lifted. No doubt many more anti progressive policies will be unleashed in the coming years, and they must all be opposed in court, as no doubt they will be. The hope is that the poison unleashed by these retrograde Trump policies will spur community action throughout the country, to organize against Trumpism, and instead replace anti progressive (oftentimes Koch-funded) Congressmen with true progressive representatives of the people, and defenders of the environment.
The campaign to derail action on climate change by the oil industry, and figures like the Koch Brothers, follows the same basic pattern the tobacco industry followed in the last century - create doubt about climate change by starting think tanks, sponsoring conferences, funding scientists, planting articles (strategic propaganda) seemingly telling "both sides" of the climate change "controversy" although 99% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is real and a real danger. As long as people are beguiled into thinking there's "another side to the issue" then denial can seem to be a plausible position. This is excellent win, since continuing the carbon energy economy is key to oil/gas/coal business profits.
The book first examines how science works, and goes on to the basics about climate change. Later, the book examines the war on climate science, and how hypocritical the climate change denial lobby is. Finally, the authors examine some way-out ideas that have been floated to deal with climate change, such as suspending millions of mirrors in space to deflect sun light away from Earth (so that Earth doesn't warm as quickly). The evidence though is compelling that if we stay on the current path, disaster will enfold Earth - with weather extremes, rising sea levels, huge storms magnified by warming oceans, and so forth. We are already seeing the effects of climate change - Sandy was just on example. Unfortunately, Trump refuses to take the reality of man-made climate change seriously and has pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement. However, he is being ignored by the rest of the world and many States and cities in the US are going to continue to adhere to the promise to bring emissions under control, work toward a less carbon-energy-based future.
Some good quotes from the book:
From the Chapter "Why Should I Give a Damn?"
"And let's not forget the foreign wars we are fighting to keep oil flowing from dangerous regions of the world such as the Middle East. Think of these wars as a $100 billion subsidy to the fossil fuel industry, courtesy of you and us, the American taxpayers."
From the Chapter "The Stages of Denial"
"There is an even more fundamental fallacy at work here, however... so fundamental, in fact, that it even has a name: post hoc, ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this). The fallacy is that because some factor may have been responsible for changes in the past, any changes today must be caused by that very same factor. It is akin to arguing that because wildfires happen naturally, the suspected arsonist found with matches and lighter fluid isn't guilty of starting the raging wildfire and should walk free."
and
"Another prevalent fallacy used to bolster this position is that "you can't chew gum and walk at the same time" or, to be more specific, that acting on climate change will somehow divert resources from our efforts to address otehr pressing problems. One particularly egregious form of this argument involves the invented concept of "energy poverty" pushed by folks such as Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobile, who once posed, without any apparent sense of irony, the question "What good is it to save the planet if humanity suffers?"
From the Chapter "The War on Climate Science"
"By the 1970s, the scientific community well understood the mechanisms behind acid rain. And in 1970, President Richard Nixon both established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and signed the Clean Air Act, which granted the EPA the mandate to regulate industrial emissions. Yet as late as the mid-1980s, S. Fred Singer, a physicist whom we discuss more fully later, teamed up with conservative media outlets such as the National Review to dispute any human role in the acid rain problem, blaming it instead on natural factors such as volcanoes. This industry opposition and manufactured controversy were adequate for the time being to prevent further policy action.
In the 1990s, however, George H.W. Bush -- Ronald Reagan's vice president and now president -- led by a proactive, pro-environment EPA administrator named William K. Reilly, went on to sign into law an innovative, market-based "capt-and-trade" system, thus putting in place financial incentives for polluters to cap their emissions. The effort, which was opposed by industry groups with noble-sounding names such as Citizens for a Sound Economy (Who isn't for a sound economy, after all? But in actuality it is a front group, now known as FreedomWorks, founded by Charles and David Koch to block governmental regulations), was a dramatic success. Forests, streams, and lakes have largely recovered over the past several decades."
From the Chapter "Hypocrisy - Thy Name is Climate Change Denial"
"Then there is Virginia's former attorney general Ken Cuccinelli. Cuccinelli, also a "Tea Party Republican," attempted to sue the University of Virginia a few yeas ago because the government funded one of its professors (coauthor of this book, Michael Mann) to study the issue of climate change (of course, nearly all research in the natural science sis funded by the government).
Issuing a so-called civil investigative demand -- a civil subpoena originally designed to ferret out Medicare fraud (reasoning that climate change research itself constitutes a fraud) -- Cuccinelli demanded all the professor's personal e-mail exchanges with more than thirty climate scientists around the world. Major scientific and academic groups and organizations throughout the country insisted that he University of Virginia stand up to what they viewed as a transparent effort by Cuccinelli to intimidate a researcher whose findings had proved inconvenient to Cuccinelli's funders.
The university subsequently hired outside counsel and challenged the legality of the subpoena. Prominent media outlets such as the Washington Post and its cartoonist, Tom Toles (the other coauthor of this book), covered the affair, criticizing and mocking Cuccinelli's "witch hunt."
Cuccinelli lost in the lower court, which rejected his case: the court found that his forty-plus-page filing, Cuccinelli had failed to provide any evidence of wrongdoing. So Cuccinelli took the matter to the Virginia Supreme Court, which ultimately reaffirmed the lower court's finding and rejected the case with prejudice. In other words, the justices really didn't want to see this sort of attempted abuse of power ever again."
and
"When is it the right time to talk about climate change? If you listen to the critics and cynics, apparently never.
The Cuyahoga River in Ohio caught fire in 1969. That event was a tipping point in the public consciousness regarding air and water pollution. There was a sudden, widespread awareness of the growing level of pollutants in our air and water, a recognition that it had reached crisis proportions. Within just a few years, we saw passage of both the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The people spoke, and policy makers listened"
and
"There was much hope among advocates for climate action heading into the international Climate change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009. ...
"Opponents of climate action dug in their heels and orchestrated the most well-organized, cynical, and effective disinformation campaign yet. In an effort to undermine the public's confidence in the scientific basis for concern about climate change, they manufactured a fake "scandal" in the weeks leading up to the summit, seeking to distract the public and the politicians at this critical moment. Even the name attached to the affair -- "Climategate" -- was the product of a carefully crafted narrative invented and then foisted on an unknowing public through a collaboration among industry front groups, paid attack dogs, and conservative media outlets.
Thousands of e-mails between climate scientists around the world were stolen from a university computer server in Great Britain late that summer. The e-mails were carefully combed through over several months and organized into an easily accessible archive. Individual words and phrases, harmless in context (for example, trick as in "trick of the trade"), were plucked from among the many thousands o e-mails and removed from their original context. Having been cherry-picked and taken out of context, they were then used to misrepresent what the scientists were actually communicating to one another. Finally, climate change deniers had the smoking gun -- the scientists themselves were admitting that climate change was a massive hoax! The climate scients were conspiring to pull a fast one on the public!
Front groups connected with the Koch brothers and industry-funded critics such as Steve Milloy helped promote these outrageous untruths, while right =wing media outlets -- especially those owned by Rupert Murdoch, such as Fox News that the Wall Street Journal, as well as somewhat less-sanitary sources such as the Drudge Report and Rush Limbaugh -- readily served as a megaphone, filling the airwaves and television screens with false allegations, smears, and untruths about climate change.
At least nine different investigations in the United State and the United Kingdom ultimately determined, however, that there had been no impropriety on the part of the scientists, no fudging of data, no attempt to fool the public about the scientific evidence for climate change. In the end, the only wrongdoing that could be found was the criminal theft of the e-mails in the first place -- bitter irony, given that the Watergate scandal, the origin of the moniker "Climategate," was about the theft of documents, not their content."
and
"A Koch and a Smile
Fred C. Koch was an American entrepreneur who made his fortune in oil refining in the early twentieth century. After being sued for patent infringement in the United States, he built oil-distillation plants int eh Soviet Union, which had no intellectual-property rights. As Jane Mayer of the New Yorker puts it, "Unable to succeed at home, Koch found work in the Soviet Union." Koch proceeded to help the Stalin regime construct fifteen oil refineries. Subsequently, however as Mayer explains, "Stalin brutally purged several of Koch's Soviet colleagues. Koch was deeply affected by the experience, and regretted his collaboration."
Koch took the fortune he had earned in the Soviet Union back to the United States, where he subsequently founded the Wood River Oil and Refining Company in 1940. It would go to become Koch Industries, a major American oil-refining interest. Embittered by his experiences in the Soviet Union, Koch grew into a staunch anti-Communist and Cold War hawk. (Where have we heard this story before?) He went on to found the ultraconservative John birch Society, dedicated to limited government.
Fred Koch's sons, Charles and David, inherited both their father's company and his ideology. With anti-government leanings and a personal stake in the continued exploitation of fossil fuels, the Koch brothers were perfectly positioned to become champions of climate change denial-ism. And they have lived up to that potential.
Having diversified into a major global conglomerate, Koch Industries is now the second-largest privately help corporation in the United States and equally important, the largest privately held fossil fuel interest. The Koch brothers are the greatest potential beneficiaries from construction of the Keystone XL pipeline through Canada and the United States, profiting by ans much as $100 billion from delivering the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive petroleum to the open market, a scenario that climate scientist James Hansen has declared "game over for the climate," though the pipeline is now looking somewhat less likely with the rejection of the project (at least for now) by the Obama administration."
and
"With the advent of "dark money" -- thanks to the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, allowing unlimited campaign spending by corporate entities (a decision that hinged on the votes of two justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who regularly attended the Koch brothers' annual retreats) -- it is impossible to determine just how much the Koch brothers have spent. But the spending that can be traced amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars -- enough over the past several election cycles to purchase the U.S. Congress for all intents and purposes. The Kochs are planning to spend the better part of $1 billion in the 2016 election. Perhaps that amount can even buy them a president.
The Koch brothers have used their immense financial resources to support groups that advocate delay and inaction on climate change, giving, for example, more than $100 million since 1997 to groups denying climate change. Indeed, most of the residents in the "Potemkin village" of climate change denial have received or currently receive Koch funding. Prominent among them is Americans for Prosperity, which, in addition to spending hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts for climate change-denying politicians over the past several election cycles, sponsored the Hot Air Tour during the 2008 election year with the slogan "Global Warming Alarm-ism: Lost Jobs, Higher Taxes, Less Freedom." Its website explains its mission: "Americans for Prosperity is working hard to bring you the missing half of the global warming debate. What will the impacts of reactionary legislation be for you, your family and our economy?
The Kochs fund the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which readers may recall was involved in early attacks on scientists such as Rachel Carson, fronted for big tobacco in the early 1990s, played a critical role in blocking regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Bill Clinton and George W. bush administrations, and was instrumental in helping manufacture the Climategate scandal in 2009. In 2006, CEI ran the widely ridiculed national campaign singing the virtues of fossil fuel carbon emissions: "They Call It Pollution. We Call It Life." And no, you can't make this stuff up."
And in the Chapter "A Path Forward"
"We will not, we cannot, wreck this planet. There is no Planet B. Earth is a rarity of literally cosmic proportions. It is an overflowing treasure chest of life-forms of unimaginable variety and beauty. It is perfectly fitted to us as humans because we evolved to fit it. It would amount to the gravest criminal act of irresponsibility in human history were we to throw it into fatal imbalance because of a wanton addiction to carbon.
So we have our work before us. We have our task. We have the oceans to preserve. We have the rain forests to protect. We have farmlands and coasts to defend. We have the panoply of spectacular species with which we evolved to shepherd. This is our home. It's time to start acting like it."
Although we are now at the brink of catastrophe given the Trump administration's reversal of progressive climate change policy, all is not lost, as localities can continue to push back, as they are already doing with respect to promising to meet the Paris Agreement goals. It is quite sad though that after decades of working to try to protect the environment and progress under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the anti progressive anti government tendency in the Republican party, represented by Trump, won the 2016 presidential election and is now set to undo decades of progress. Already, for example, the XL pipeline has been OK'd, and environmental regulations protecting streams lifted. No doubt many more anti progressive policies will be unleashed in the coming years, and they must all be opposed in court, as no doubt they will be. The hope is that the poison unleashed by these retrograde Trump policies will spur community action throughout the country, to organize against Trumpism, and instead replace anti progressive (oftentimes Koch-funded) Congressmen with true progressive representatives of the people, and defenders of the environment.
March 29, 2017
Oh, dear. What a day to finish reading this book with its cautiously optimistic ending from last summer. Ending the "war on coal" and eliminating the EPA and all...
My library didn't have this book so I bought the kindle edition for a climate-change bookclub, but I would rather not have bought it. But it's a pretty good read. I learned some things, many of which I should have known already. Now I'm more anxious than before; the situation seems pretty dire. Last night I saw the sequel to An Inconvenient Truth 2, which is scary.
I could use more reminders like this to consider the environment and my carbon footprint. Better to simplify my life and minimize consumption and be aware where all my resources are coming from. Admittedly this is an appealing part of life in the Peace Corps, as I see it now. Also hiding from all the terrible Trump news. We'll see...
My library didn't have this book so I bought the kindle edition for a climate-change bookclub, but I would rather not have bought it. But it's a pretty good read. I learned some things, many of which I should have known already. Now I'm more anxious than before; the situation seems pretty dire. Last night I saw the sequel to An Inconvenient Truth 2, which is scary.
I could use more reminders like this to consider the environment and my carbon footprint. Better to simplify my life and minimize consumption and be aware where all my resources are coming from. Admittedly this is an appealing part of life in the Peace Corps, as I see it now. Also hiding from all the terrible Trump news. We'll see...
November 21, 2016
“I dream of a world where the truth is what shapes people’s politics. Rather than politics shaping what people think is true.”
- Neil DeGrasse Tyson
”Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere traps heat; and we are adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. The rest is details.”
- Michael Mann (The Madhouse Effect)
If you deny that anthropogenic climate change exists, chances are you are doing so for ideological reasons (in fact > 97% chance) and not because you’ve performed a thorough review of the available evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion. That’s because accumulating evidence points to climate change as fact and an overwhelming scientific consensus has formed around this position. Sadly, because of confirmation bias (an inclination to seek out evidence that confirms pre-existing beliefs), it’s unlikely that climate deniers would read this book and consider the merits of the evidence impartially. This is unfortunate because the effects of climate change are already being felt in the form of warmer average global temperatures, shifting patterns of drought, disappearing glaciers and sea ice, and rising sea levels.
Of course the denialists have been abetted by ideologically-driven think tanks and fossil fuel interests who have deliberately sewn disinformation in an effort to forestall regulation. You know the routine - it’s the same tried-and-true approach that was used in the cases of leaded gasoline, asbestos, cigarettes, ozone depletion and acid rain:
- It’s not happening.
- If it’s happening it’s a good thing.
- If it’s not a good thing the science is uncertain.
- If the science is certain, it’s not caused by humans.
- If it’s caused by humans, it will fix itself.
- If it won’t fix itself, there’s nothing that can be done.
- If there are things that can be done, they are too expensive.
- If they’re not too expensive, we can postpone them.
- If we can’t postpone them, I’ll need a minute to think of another excuse.
- And so it goes.
- … ad nauseam.
You would think the public would cease to appreciate being played for suckers, but they fall for it every time, confirming the old truism … there’s one born every minute (every 30 seconds in red states).
The Madhouse Effect, by climatologist and Penn State professor Michael Mann and political cartoonist Tom Toles, provides an overview of the climate change debate and is basically the lay-persons version of Mann’s excellent book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars. The book is illustrated with Toles’ cartoons, which serves to lighten the tone somewhat, despite the fact that the outlook is grim and becoming ever more so by the day.
You already know what the solutions are … reduce fossil fuel use and replace it with renewable energy … but the political will isn’t there, particularly in the U.S. and even more so after the 2016 elections. Even the Paris Climate Agreement, while a good first step, doesn’t sufficiently reduce CO2 emissions enough to solve the problem and it looks like even this modest approach will be rejected by the next administration.
The dithering and arguing will continue, but ‘reality’ is impervious to ideology and the warming will also continue until an unmitigated disaster occurs that makes it impossible to ignore. Given that conservative models place the rise in sea level at 1 to 2 meters by century’s end, our coastal areas won’t have long to wait.
November 21, 2016
Much of it was not new to me, and I frankly admit I have never been much for cartoons (the second author is a famous climate cartoonist). That said, it's a short read that runs through the history of climate denial (lots of money pushing this!) and how many of the same actors (they don't get to call themselves scientists when they sell their souls) who insisted that cigarettes do not cause cancer are now renting themselves out for this cause.
They take apart each of the iterations of climate denial and connect the dots from the statements, and from the fossil fuel funded foundations etc. to the money financing them. They also explain aspects of the science of climate change in an easy to understand manner.
This was a book club read, and perhaps would not have been my selection-but if you don't have time for this short book, read the last chapter. That to me got to the crux of the matter.
They take apart each of the iterations of climate denial and connect the dots from the statements, and from the fossil fuel funded foundations etc. to the money financing them. They also explain aspects of the science of climate change in an easy to understand manner.
This was a book club read, and perhaps would not have been my selection-but if you don't have time for this short book, read the last chapter. That to me got to the crux of the matter.
February 4, 2021
If, like me, you’ve spent a good deal of time researching the issue of climate change - including all the deceit and obfuscation perpetrated by the denial machine - you’ll not really find new information in this book.
If, on the other hand, you are looking for a good, basic introduction to the biggest challenge ever faced by humanity - the current state of play, the mindbogglingly high stakes, and the extent of the ideologically as well as financially motivated attacks on science and scientists - this is an excellent choice: Well-written and credible.
It adds a nice twist that one of the authors, Michael Mann, has been on the receiving end of all the worst that The Denial Horde can throw at a person - luckily, Mann is still standing proud and tall!
As pointed out by Mann: It important that we remember who aided the forces of darkness when the consequences of our fossil excesses become clear to all.
If, on the other hand, you are looking for a good, basic introduction to the biggest challenge ever faced by humanity - the current state of play, the mindbogglingly high stakes, and the extent of the ideologically as well as financially motivated attacks on science and scientists - this is an excellent choice: Well-written and credible.
It adds a nice twist that one of the authors, Michael Mann, has been on the receiving end of all the worst that The Denial Horde can throw at a person - luckily, Mann is still standing proud and tall!
As pointed out by Mann: It important that we remember who aided the forces of darkness when the consequences of our fossil excesses become clear to all.
January 19, 2018
Michael E Mann is a brilliant climate scientist, speaker and author. He's passionate about helping people understand climate change and what we can all do about it. The Madhouse Effect explains clearly what climate change is and is not, who and why people deny it, the individuals and companies that funds the denialists, think tanks and fake news sites, and the implications for us and future generations should the denialists win.
I have met Michael and I was truly inspired by his integrity and determination not to be let personal attacks on him as well as his science sway him from his path.
The illustrations/cartoons in this book by Tom Toles add a wonderful touch of levity and incisive wit to the book.
This book is a must read for everyone. Our future depends on it.
I have met Michael and I was truly inspired by his integrity and determination not to be let personal attacks on him as well as his science sway him from his path.
The illustrations/cartoons in this book by Tom Toles add a wonderful touch of levity and incisive wit to the book.
This book is a must read for everyone. Our future depends on it.
March 18, 2020
This book written & published in during the 2016 Presidential campaign season presents the facts on the reality of climate change & how special interest climate deniers are delaying action. Since it's publication the USA has taken steps backwards in it's environmental policy instead of being a world leader.
The last chapter contains a excerpt from a New York Times article by Heather Rogers who quotes Thomas Edison as saying in 1931 "I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."
If he had forseen the environmental effects of burning fossil fuels he may have changed the last line to "before we destroy the planet"!
The last chapter contains a excerpt from a New York Times article by Heather Rogers who quotes Thomas Edison as saying in 1931 "I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait until oil and coal run out before we tackle that."
If he had forseen the environmental effects of burning fossil fuels he may have changed the last line to "before we destroy the planet"!
May 27, 2019
Should be required reading for everybody. Written in 2016, however, I feel like it needs a substantial epilogue with what has happened since that year’s election. From the book: “The next election is arguably a make or break election for the climate. We will need both the president and Congress on board if we’re going to work with other nations of the world to achieve this sorts of carbon reductions necessary to achieve this goal.” It’s a painful slap of reality to read this book, but so full of facts and easy to understand details about climate change, I feel like we all need this slap and a thousand more.
November 24, 2019
Michael E Mann is a climate scientist well known for his leading role in the research that in 1999 produced the “hockey-stick graph” of the past 1000 years of global mean temperatures, so called because like a hockey-stick the graph curves sharply at one end, a feature which represents rapidly climbing global mean temperatures since the mid-19th century. The book is evidently written to appeal to a wide audience, and to that end Mann has collaborated with an engagé Washington Post cartoonist, Tom Toles. I particularly liked Toles’ cartoon on the page facing the chapter heading “The stages of denial”, because it illustrates so much better than mere words the ludicrousness of the typical litany of pretexts for inaction (It isn’t happening. Maybe it’s a good thing. It can’t be confirmed. And so on.) in the face of the clear and present danger of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).
I found this book much more satisfactory than Ross Gelbspan’s (admittedly outdated) 2004 book Boiling Point, which I reviewed recently. I particularly liked chapters 5 (The War on climate science) and 6 (Hypocrisy - thy name is climate change denial) which introduce many of the most prominent scientists, politicians, and organisations systematically attacking the science in the public sphere for the purpose of undermining effective action. I absolutely do not say that scientists should not be held to account, but there is a huge difference between scientific method and peer review which clarify and correct, and the obfuscation by disinformation, character assassination, and ridicule which are so often practiced by the agents of vested interests. Just as the Church was able to enlist the support of some very well credentialed scientists to oppose Darwin and his supporters, so has industry enlisted similar allies. The fact that an opponent of the AGW hypothesis is a distinguished professor and past winner of an important science prize does not guarantee motivation by the disinterested pursuit of truth. Pharaohs’ sorcerers could turn their staffs into snakes just as well as Moses’ brother Aaron, but Aaron’s snake devoured them all (the snakes) as I hope the arguments of people such as Mann will ultimately destroy the sophistry and lies of the agents and useful idiots of the vested interests.
Readers must make up their minds where they stand on the issue of climate science. As laymen we follow the debate and try to understand the science, but in such a complex matter we are deluding ourselves if we lose sight of the distinction between knowledge and opinion. Scientists must work by observation, hypothesis, experiment, refinement (or elimination) of hypothesis, and further experiment, and submit their results to rigorous scrutiny by their peers. Scientific knowledge is acquired with infinite pains, but non-scientists share in that knowledge to some extent as an act of trust - we may read accounts of how knowledge was acquired, but we don’t usually repeat the experiments to assure ourselves of their validity. I am of the opinion that the scientists who say that AGW is a clear and present danger are more to be trusted than those who say otherwise. That’s an opinion based largely on a character judgement. There are just too many conspiracy theorists, vested interests, political opportunists, hustlers, and snake-oil salesmen among the climate change deniers. I’ve been told that AGW is a George Soros scam to bring about global socialism, or alternatively to corner the fossil fuel market, that there is a shortage of CO2 which it is necessary to remedy by burning fossil fuels, that the motive for “climate change alarmism” is the pursuit of lucrative government research funding, and more besides. Some would say I’m just loyal to my political tribe, but I think that is an oversimplification. I know enough good people to be utterly convinced that science is more often done in good faith than not, and I have very little patience with allegations of global conspiracy. Hilary Clinton was pilloried for her phrase “basket of deplorables”, but it has stuck with me for a very long time as a very apt description of a class of people for whom truth has very little meaning.
I found this book much more satisfactory than Ross Gelbspan’s (admittedly outdated) 2004 book Boiling Point, which I reviewed recently. I particularly liked chapters 5 (The War on climate science) and 6 (Hypocrisy - thy name is climate change denial) which introduce many of the most prominent scientists, politicians, and organisations systematically attacking the science in the public sphere for the purpose of undermining effective action. I absolutely do not say that scientists should not be held to account, but there is a huge difference between scientific method and peer review which clarify and correct, and the obfuscation by disinformation, character assassination, and ridicule which are so often practiced by the agents of vested interests. Just as the Church was able to enlist the support of some very well credentialed scientists to oppose Darwin and his supporters, so has industry enlisted similar allies. The fact that an opponent of the AGW hypothesis is a distinguished professor and past winner of an important science prize does not guarantee motivation by the disinterested pursuit of truth. Pharaohs’ sorcerers could turn their staffs into snakes just as well as Moses’ brother Aaron, but Aaron’s snake devoured them all (the snakes) as I hope the arguments of people such as Mann will ultimately destroy the sophistry and lies of the agents and useful idiots of the vested interests.
Readers must make up their minds where they stand on the issue of climate science. As laymen we follow the debate and try to understand the science, but in such a complex matter we are deluding ourselves if we lose sight of the distinction between knowledge and opinion. Scientists must work by observation, hypothesis, experiment, refinement (or elimination) of hypothesis, and further experiment, and submit their results to rigorous scrutiny by their peers. Scientific knowledge is acquired with infinite pains, but non-scientists share in that knowledge to some extent as an act of trust - we may read accounts of how knowledge was acquired, but we don’t usually repeat the experiments to assure ourselves of their validity. I am of the opinion that the scientists who say that AGW is a clear and present danger are more to be trusted than those who say otherwise. That’s an opinion based largely on a character judgement. There are just too many conspiracy theorists, vested interests, political opportunists, hustlers, and snake-oil salesmen among the climate change deniers. I’ve been told that AGW is a George Soros scam to bring about global socialism, or alternatively to corner the fossil fuel market, that there is a shortage of CO2 which it is necessary to remedy by burning fossil fuels, that the motive for “climate change alarmism” is the pursuit of lucrative government research funding, and more besides. Some would say I’m just loyal to my political tribe, but I think that is an oversimplification. I know enough good people to be utterly convinced that science is more often done in good faith than not, and I have very little patience with allegations of global conspiracy. Hilary Clinton was pilloried for her phrase “basket of deplorables”, but it has stuck with me for a very long time as a very apt description of a class of people for whom truth has very little meaning.
November 1, 2021
There’s no reasonable doubt, climate change is happening, it is potentially devastating, and the reason for it is us. Luckily mitigation is in general not very harmful to the economy but we need to act sooner than later. Unfortunately, we are living in a political madhouse. There is a political war on climate science and climate scientists. Speaking the truth about climate crisis will get you some nasty enemies.
Science is a self-correcting process used for acquiring knowledge, and yet Climate Science has become very controversial in the political arena. This book explains why. The light hearted cartoons provided by Tom Toles help make this important book entertaining.
The book starts out by briefly explaining how science works and the basics of Climate Science. A lot of people with strong opinions on Climate Science do not know anything about it, so this is a very important section of the book. The book only covers the necessary basics of the science and the explanations are easy to understand, so not being science minded is not a reason not to read this book. In addition to explaining why it is happening it describes what the various effects of climate change are, such as sea level rise, ocean acidification and droughts.
Next the book discusses the background of what could be described as a war on climate science. This includes, misrepresentation of the science, deception, manufactured fake scandals such as “climate-gate”, the slandering of climate scientists, campaigns seeking to discredit climate science and climate scientist in the eyes of the public, intimidation of climate scientists, and the fossil fuel money behind it. This part may make the book seem “political”, but remember the politics was thrust onto the climate scientists. Towards the end of the book the author discusses potential solutions and mitigation schemes, including the risks related to suggested Geo-Engineering schemes.
This book should be very informative for readers who have picked up most of what they know about climate science from the main stream media (or worse from political blogs and shows). The author explains the difference between good-faith skepticism and denialism. He explains why any assertion of climate change being a “hoax” is entirely untenable. He discusses the science, the evidence, the 200-year long history of climate science, the hockey-stick controversy, and some common fallacious arguments against climate change. He includes a very substantial list of footnotes for reference and further reading.
As a short introduction to climate change and the unfortunate political controversy around it, this is an excellent book. It is well written, well organized, entertaining, short, and easy to read. The author, Michael Mann, has personal experience of harassment by politicians and other public figures, which gives him some interesting insights. At the same time, he is not indulging in petty revenge attacks but instead taking the high road, with humor. It is a great book for anyone with the slightest interest in the topic.
Science is a self-correcting process used for acquiring knowledge, and yet Climate Science has become very controversial in the political arena. This book explains why. The light hearted cartoons provided by Tom Toles help make this important book entertaining.
The book starts out by briefly explaining how science works and the basics of Climate Science. A lot of people with strong opinions on Climate Science do not know anything about it, so this is a very important section of the book. The book only covers the necessary basics of the science and the explanations are easy to understand, so not being science minded is not a reason not to read this book. In addition to explaining why it is happening it describes what the various effects of climate change are, such as sea level rise, ocean acidification and droughts.
Next the book discusses the background of what could be described as a war on climate science. This includes, misrepresentation of the science, deception, manufactured fake scandals such as “climate-gate”, the slandering of climate scientists, campaigns seeking to discredit climate science and climate scientist in the eyes of the public, intimidation of climate scientists, and the fossil fuel money behind it. This part may make the book seem “political”, but remember the politics was thrust onto the climate scientists. Towards the end of the book the author discusses potential solutions and mitigation schemes, including the risks related to suggested Geo-Engineering schemes.
This book should be very informative for readers who have picked up most of what they know about climate science from the main stream media (or worse from political blogs and shows). The author explains the difference between good-faith skepticism and denialism. He explains why any assertion of climate change being a “hoax” is entirely untenable. He discusses the science, the evidence, the 200-year long history of climate science, the hockey-stick controversy, and some common fallacious arguments against climate change. He includes a very substantial list of footnotes for reference and further reading.
As a short introduction to climate change and the unfortunate political controversy around it, this is an excellent book. It is well written, well organized, entertaining, short, and easy to read. The author, Michael Mann, has personal experience of harassment by politicians and other public figures, which gives him some interesting insights. At the same time, he is not indulging in petty revenge attacks but instead taking the high road, with humor. It is a great book for anyone with the slightest interest in the topic.
December 31, 2021
A book of modest length (which is why I chose it to close out the year), The Madhouse Effect is a decent introduction into climate change, the political discourse around it, and the denialism that has emerged in the last decades.
The prose is accessible, and even when wonky, usually compensated with excellent analogies or asides that clear up any necessary jargon. That said, this is a pretty elementary introduction. Books that go further in depth, including Merchants of Doubt or Don’t Even Think About It, offer much more expansive dialogues on the sociology and roots of climate denial.
The chapters on climate change science are mostly review to those who spend any time in the climate space — impacts on food, water, health, land, ecosystems and the converging, feedback loops of different climate impacts — and while it does spend time on the impacts on vulnerable countries, for the most part glosses over climate justice concerns.
The meat of the book, and what is probably makes this book worthwhile, is the explanations of how U.S. policy has been paralyzed by campaigns of deliberate climate misinformation. He history of misinformation through Koch and Murdoch, as well as key political figures like Inhofe and Barton, is helpful context for how we got here.
Overall, climate change deniers have successfully held onto the rare studies or scandals that are usually debunked to spread their lies. Still, these misguided studies have provided the little spark needed to fan the flames of denial for decades. Carefully debunking fallacy after fallacy, the book unpacks the system at work, funded by special interests who have money at stake.
They’ve used media platforms to further project misinformation, and donors have funded politicians to prevent serious climate policy from being passed, all while undertaking a head-in-the-sand approach to even the worst climate impacts that are already here.
Finally, we also get the stages of denial and how too debunk them: “The globe isn’t warming to it is, but it’s natural; it’s caused by humans, but it’s minimal; it’ll be good for us anyway; it’s too expensive to do anything about it; and finally, we’ll find a simple or inexpensive technological fix… ultimately, we’re left with one real solution: reducing our collective carbon footprint.”
The publication date of 2016, pre-Trump, makes much of the path forward section even more urgent.
The prose is accessible, and even when wonky, usually compensated with excellent analogies or asides that clear up any necessary jargon. That said, this is a pretty elementary introduction. Books that go further in depth, including Merchants of Doubt or Don’t Even Think About It, offer much more expansive dialogues on the sociology and roots of climate denial.
The chapters on climate change science are mostly review to those who spend any time in the climate space — impacts on food, water, health, land, ecosystems and the converging, feedback loops of different climate impacts — and while it does spend time on the impacts on vulnerable countries, for the most part glosses over climate justice concerns.
The meat of the book, and what is probably makes this book worthwhile, is the explanations of how U.S. policy has been paralyzed by campaigns of deliberate climate misinformation. He history of misinformation through Koch and Murdoch, as well as key political figures like Inhofe and Barton, is helpful context for how we got here.
Overall, climate change deniers have successfully held onto the rare studies or scandals that are usually debunked to spread their lies. Still, these misguided studies have provided the little spark needed to fan the flames of denial for decades. Carefully debunking fallacy after fallacy, the book unpacks the system at work, funded by special interests who have money at stake.
They’ve used media platforms to further project misinformation, and donors have funded politicians to prevent serious climate policy from being passed, all while undertaking a head-in-the-sand approach to even the worst climate impacts that are already here.
Finally, we also get the stages of denial and how too debunk them: “The globe isn’t warming to it is, but it’s natural; it’s caused by humans, but it’s minimal; it’ll be good for us anyway; it’s too expensive to do anything about it; and finally, we’ll find a simple or inexpensive technological fix… ultimately, we’re left with one real solution: reducing our collective carbon footprint.”
The publication date of 2016, pre-Trump, makes much of the path forward section even more urgent.
May 5, 2017
I began reading this book when I was faced with a research assignment on any controversial topic in English class, and of course, I picked something that is very important to me, lessening the carbon footprint of humans.
This book covers several topics related to climate change and global warming that it covers, including but no limited to how climate change effects our government, economy, the environment, and the humans who cause it. The book progressively explains climate change and global warming to the reader, so if the reader goes into not knowing one thing about it, they will slowly gather the basic information and then later in the book they will learn more complex concepts and gain a higher understanding of climate change and global warming. The book also explains why people deny climate change and global warming and discredits just about anything a denier can say, which just makes deniers look like fools. The book uses facts, but also comical illustrations to also help further engage the reader so that they don't get bored soaking up knowledge and believe it or not, it actually further helps the reader understand climate change by helping them make connections about how climate change and global warming work and also it pokes fun at deniers. The book also takes a more positive approach to resolving the issue of climate change and global warming rather than just making fun of the other side the whole time (even though it is quite entertaining to see their fallacies being ripped to shreds). They explain how cooperation can help us fight back and move forward in the battle against climate change and even though the odds seem to be against us now with the head of the EPA being a climate denier himself, that we can still fight back and achieve our goal. Despite the topic, this book isn't only meant for people who are advocating for the carbon footprint to be lessened, but also for those who do not believe in climate change and global warming. The book explains why the arguments that deniers make are false and does so in an effective manner. If you end up reading this book and actually enjoyed it as much as I did, then other books you may like to check out would be "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein and "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas.
This book covers several topics related to climate change and global warming that it covers, including but no limited to how climate change effects our government, economy, the environment, and the humans who cause it. The book progressively explains climate change and global warming to the reader, so if the reader goes into not knowing one thing about it, they will slowly gather the basic information and then later in the book they will learn more complex concepts and gain a higher understanding of climate change and global warming. The book also explains why people deny climate change and global warming and discredits just about anything a denier can say, which just makes deniers look like fools. The book uses facts, but also comical illustrations to also help further engage the reader so that they don't get bored soaking up knowledge and believe it or not, it actually further helps the reader understand climate change by helping them make connections about how climate change and global warming work and also it pokes fun at deniers. The book also takes a more positive approach to resolving the issue of climate change and global warming rather than just making fun of the other side the whole time (even though it is quite entertaining to see their fallacies being ripped to shreds). They explain how cooperation can help us fight back and move forward in the battle against climate change and even though the odds seem to be against us now with the head of the EPA being a climate denier himself, that we can still fight back and achieve our goal. Despite the topic, this book isn't only meant for people who are advocating for the carbon footprint to be lessened, but also for those who do not believe in climate change and global warming. The book explains why the arguments that deniers make are false and does so in an effective manner. If you end up reading this book and actually enjoyed it as much as I did, then other books you may like to check out would be "This Changes Everything" by Naomi Klein and "Six Degrees" by Mark Lynas.
October 2, 2016
A Funny And Serious Exploration on The Scientific Reality of Climate Change and Those Who Deny It
The best means of dealing with a science denialist, such as a climate change denialist, Intelligent Design creationist or vaccine denialist, may not be offering them ample facts based on years of well-established scientific research. No matter how passionately one argues on behalf of well-established science, committed science denialists will tend to ignore such evidence. Instead, another, more persuasive means may be humor, in the form of hysterically funny editorial cartoons. This is the approach taken by distinguished climatologist Michael Mann - in the interest of full disclosure, he serves on the advisory board of an organization I belong to, the National Center for Science Education - and noted Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Tom Toles in their book "The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy"; an approach which they outlined in a public presentation that I heard today at Columbia University Law School. It may be a very effective, and quite humorous, means of dealing with climate change denialists. Not by using humor as a means of offering ad hominem personal attacks on leading climate change denialists, but to use effectively, both humorous wit and satire in conveying to the public, what the real science behind climate change truly is.
"The Madhouse Effect" is a remarkably terse book that conveys with ample humor, not just the main scientific facts pointing out ongoing anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, but also delves into the ideological mindsets of those strongly committed to denying the reality of such change. Especially noteworthy is Chapter Three ("Why I Should Give A Damn? ) that briefly explains how anthropogenic global warming may have an adverse impact on national and international security - which, incidentally, is something that the Pentagon has recognized for years In planning future contingency plans for using United States military forces in a near future shaped by man-made climate change - and our ability to obtain food and water. Chapters Four ("The Stages of Denial" and Five ("The War on Climate Science") describe how climate change denialism works and describes who some of the key climate change denialists are and their modus operandi, noting that there are several stages of climate change denialism starting with outright refusal to acknowledge it and culminating with ill-founded assertions that it may be beneficial to humanity. In Chapter Six ("Hypocricsy-Thy Name Is Climate Change Denial") they condemn mainstream media for being too willing to grant equal time to climate change denialists - an observation noted elsewhere, most notably by Shawn Otto in his recently published "The War on Science" - and those organizations and individuals who have devoted substantial financial and political resources in efforts to cast doubt on the reality of man-made climate change and the well established science which points to it. In Chapter Seven, they offer well-reasoned arguments condemning the possibility of using untested geoengineering proposed by some notable climate change skeptics like Bjorn Lomberg as a means of dealing with the unintended consequences of man-made climate change, as a means of cooling our man-made warmed planet. "The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy" may be the most notable book I have read in dealing with science denialism, by effectively using humor in getting its key points across to the public; it is unquestionably, a book that deserves a very wide readership.
The best means of dealing with a science denialist, such as a climate change denialist, Intelligent Design creationist or vaccine denialist, may not be offering them ample facts based on years of well-established scientific research. No matter how passionately one argues on behalf of well-established science, committed science denialists will tend to ignore such evidence. Instead, another, more persuasive means may be humor, in the form of hysterically funny editorial cartoons. This is the approach taken by distinguished climatologist Michael Mann - in the interest of full disclosure, he serves on the advisory board of an organization I belong to, the National Center for Science Education - and noted Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist Tom Toles in their book "The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy"; an approach which they outlined in a public presentation that I heard today at Columbia University Law School. It may be a very effective, and quite humorous, means of dealing with climate change denialists. Not by using humor as a means of offering ad hominem personal attacks on leading climate change denialists, but to use effectively, both humorous wit and satire in conveying to the public, what the real science behind climate change truly is.
"The Madhouse Effect" is a remarkably terse book that conveys with ample humor, not just the main scientific facts pointing out ongoing anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, but also delves into the ideological mindsets of those strongly committed to denying the reality of such change. Especially noteworthy is Chapter Three ("Why I Should Give A Damn? ) that briefly explains how anthropogenic global warming may have an adverse impact on national and international security - which, incidentally, is something that the Pentagon has recognized for years In planning future contingency plans for using United States military forces in a near future shaped by man-made climate change - and our ability to obtain food and water. Chapters Four ("The Stages of Denial" and Five ("The War on Climate Science") describe how climate change denialism works and describes who some of the key climate change denialists are and their modus operandi, noting that there are several stages of climate change denialism starting with outright refusal to acknowledge it and culminating with ill-founded assertions that it may be beneficial to humanity. In Chapter Six ("Hypocricsy-Thy Name Is Climate Change Denial") they condemn mainstream media for being too willing to grant equal time to climate change denialists - an observation noted elsewhere, most notably by Shawn Otto in his recently published "The War on Science" - and those organizations and individuals who have devoted substantial financial and political resources in efforts to cast doubt on the reality of man-made climate change and the well established science which points to it. In Chapter Seven, they offer well-reasoned arguments condemning the possibility of using untested geoengineering proposed by some notable climate change skeptics like Bjorn Lomberg as a means of dealing with the unintended consequences of man-made climate change, as a means of cooling our man-made warmed planet. "The Madhouse Effect: How Climate Change Denial Is Threatening Our Planet, Destroying Our Politics, and Driving Us Crazy" may be the most notable book I have read in dealing with science denialism, by effectively using humor in getting its key points across to the public; it is unquestionably, a book that deserves a very wide readership.
January 22, 2024
I've read a pile of climate change books, including Mann's previous book the Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, and though it is clear that Mann has done much valuable research in his role as a scientist, the books he has produced for popular consumption just leave me wanting.
In the Madhouse Effect, he turns to Washington Post political cartoonist Tom Toles to supplement his writing and includes many Toles cartoons about climate change from over the years. It I guess is intended to be a sweetener for the reader and lighten things up a little but again I just don't think it is worth the price of admission.
Mann covers a lot of the usual ground about the actual science of climate change, industry lead efforts to forestall any meaningful action, and some of the likely consequences that we are already dealing with and will have to deal with to an even greater extent in the years to come. I agree with nearly everything he writes but his writing style just does not capture my attention. In a sense, it hardly matters since I am already part of the choir. But if you gave this book to someone whose beliefs were not well-formed about the issue, I'm not sure this book is going to do the trick in really getting them to feel emotionally engaged by the challenges in front of us. For better or for worse, emotional engagement is pretty key to getting humans to commit to particular beliefs.
In the Madhouse Effect, he turns to Washington Post political cartoonist Tom Toles to supplement his writing and includes many Toles cartoons about climate change from over the years. It I guess is intended to be a sweetener for the reader and lighten things up a little but again I just don't think it is worth the price of admission.
Mann covers a lot of the usual ground about the actual science of climate change, industry lead efforts to forestall any meaningful action, and some of the likely consequences that we are already dealing with and will have to deal with to an even greater extent in the years to come. I agree with nearly everything he writes but his writing style just does not capture my attention. In a sense, it hardly matters since I am already part of the choir. But if you gave this book to someone whose beliefs were not well-formed about the issue, I'm not sure this book is going to do the trick in really getting them to feel emotionally engaged by the challenges in front of us. For better or for worse, emotional engagement is pretty key to getting humans to commit to particular beliefs.
December 31, 2019
This is for those readers who have some doubts about the human contribution to climate change. It's also a good reference for those who need to muster their facts about the contribution of fossil fuel use to climate change. Anthropogenic climate change deniers really should read this book, but probably won't. Michael Mann is a hero among scientists as far as I'm concerned. I think he could have done an excellent job writing this book by himself, and I wish he had. So, despite the 5-star rating, please indulge my elucidation of problems I had with this book. I don't need cartoons in a nonfiction book. If you have to be entertained by cartoons when you're trying to learn something you have an actual interest in, you simply too dumb to learn anyway, so why bother? I don't need snark in nonfiction. I enjoy snark very much, but there's a time and place, children! This is a serious issue and should not be addressed through satire. Save satire for writing about religion. OK, that said, this is still well worth the read. Just ignore the cartoons. They have zero informative value.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 108 reviews