What do you think?
Rate this book
Why We Disagree About Climate Change: Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity
Climate change is not 'a problem' waiting for 'a solution'. It is an environmental, cultural and political phenomenon which is re-shaping the way we think about ourselves, our societies and humanity's place on Earth. Drawing upon twenty-five years of professional work as an international climate change scientist and public commentator, Mike Hulme provides a unique insider's account of the emergence of this phenomenon and the diverse ways in which it is understood. He uses different standpoints from science, economics, faith, psychology, communication, sociology, politics and development to explain why we disagree about climate change. In this way he shows that climate change, far from being simply an 'issue' or a 'threat', can act as a catalyst to revise our perception of our place in the world. Why We Disagree About Climate Change is an important contribution to the ongoing debate over climate change and its likely impact on our lives.
434 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2009
31 people are currently reading
602 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 33 reviews
July 2, 2016
Why I Disagree about “Post-Normal” Science
Is scientific method the only way we can understand the climate change issue? Or do we also need the help of idealistic and spiritual thinking? This book, written by a climate scientist, comes up with a few surprising and dubious answers.
The author, like most informed scientists, thinks that climate change will have a significant negative impact, with the uncertainty only about how much. If you personally have some doubts, remember for a moment that is what the author believes. Now consider the great revelation of this book:
“Climate change is not a problem, it is an opportunity to alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals.”
There are two ways to interpret this statement. The first that may come to mind is: This is an opportunity to force our collectivist social ideology onto society using the pretext of a climate crisis (as in Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate). After reading the book, I think the author inclines toward something a little different that I will paraphrase as: A drought that kills millions in Africa will inspire some of us in the affluent West to rethink our materialistic ways. After the Age of Aquarius dawns and we have achieved our personal aspirations, then maybe we can get around to doing something about the climate.
A third option might be that studying the climate change issue can give us insight into how science works and how different people in society react to it. That was my hope, but I was disappointed. The thesis of this book is profoundly offensive. There is nothing good about a problem that might do us harm, unless you hate humanity.
Perhaps the root of the problem can be seen in his discussion on the nature of scientific knowledge. He prefers to lift his ideas from modern philosophers rather than tell us about his personal experience as a working scientist, which does not make for productive reading.
He helpfully starts with the fundamental question of the nature of reality. Positivism holds that reality is independent of human consciousness and is external, material and objective. Constructivism claims reality is subjective, and truth is a construction that is located within our own personal experience. In plain language, one is science and the other is fantasy, believing what you want to believe. The confusion comes from the fact that of course science is done by fallible people, who perceive the world through their preconceptions. The point of scientific method is to overcome these biases to arrive at an ever-improving approximation of the truth. The point of constructivism is the kind of self indulgence this book is guilty of.
Our author does not see it that way, saying, “It is no longer possible to see scientific knowledge as the neutral outcome of a steadily advancing pursuit of an objective and universal truth.” He cites Thomas Kuhn’s work on scientific revolutions as evidence. In fact, Kuhn showed that science advances at an uneven rate, individual scientists can be resistant to change, and science as a whole would advance more quickly if every scientist were perfectly rational. The existence of imperfect scientists does not invalidate the concept of an objective and universal truth.
He is setting up the demise of so-called Normal Science, defined as “skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness.” I assume that “communalism” here means there is a single reality we observe in common, and “disinterestedness” is a clumsy word for objective (unless scientists really are a bunch of bored communists). But now he tells us we are entering the brave new world of Post-Normal Science, where facts are uncertain, the stakes are high, and decisions urgent. Does this sound like part of the post-modern project to replace objective reality with the subjective (or constructivist) fantasies of an intellectual elite?
Uncertainty is nothing new. High stakes and urgent decisions should not affect how the physical sciences are practiced. The results of this science should be fed into the political process. It is advocating influence in the other direction that amounts to a celebration of the politicization of science.
There is more. He says science must concede ground to ‘other ways’ of knowing. An example he gives is indigenous knowledge of drought management. Such local knowledge is said to challenge scientific universalism. Nonsense. If that knowledge is based on centuries of observation, and can be confirmed by modern scientific method, then it is a legitimate part of a single universal science. There is no valid ‘other way’. On the question of the authority of science, he even asks, “Does it matter if Al Gore gets some aspects of the science wrong?” Yes, it does matter to those of us still stuck in the old fashioned world of Normal Science.
But he also says that scientists should strive to eliminate bias and prejudice, the process and data must be open to public scrutiny, and uncertainty must be clearly communicated. Maybe he simply cannot distinguish the boundary between science and politics. I suggest he is trying to create an opening for the idealistic thinking that comes next in the book. But an opening in the integrity of science is a gaping wound subject to all kinds of infection.
Much of the book is taken up with the idealistic thinking he seems to favor over “our science-saturated but spiritually impoverished wisdom.” He presents a number of ways the philosophers use to categorize the different ways people think, including the myths by which we understand climate change. I think it can be boiled down to two main categories.
One is the sanctity of nature, whether because it is God’s creation or the modern environmentalist substitute. Michael Creighton describes the latter more succinctly (and cynically): We started with the paradise of Eden, a state of grace and unity with nature. Then we fell from grace into a state of pollution, by eating from the tree of technology. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die in the Apocalypse, unless we seek salvation in the sustainability of the church of the environment. Our author is much nicer, and uses a lot more words to arrive at what amounts to the same conclusion. He reports that some of these people object to a carbon tax because it treats atmosphere as a commodity that can be sold to private interests. So these idealists would prefer it to have zero value?
The other notion is that of equity, or ‘distributional justice’. “All techno-fixes will create the next generation of crisis, because they ignore the fundamental problems of capitalism as a system that ignores injustice and promotes inequity.” Again, don’t bother doing anything real until we achieve somebody’s fantasy of a perfect world. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of this kind of thinking, where the goal of ‘distributional justice’ undermined the reasonable emission reductions it proposed.
This book was written just before the so-called “Climategate” controversy erupted, when e-mail correspondence between climate scientists was stolen from the University of East Anglia. Still, it is surprising that the “we” who disagree about climate change does not address those who question the science itself. Skeptics such as Michael Creighton and Bjørn Lomborg are only briefly mentioned as if they were academic curiosities. I would have liked more insight into the many different reasons people have for being suspicious of what climate science tells us. In short, I would have liked a better book.
Perhaps I am being too negative. I was put off by what I see as undermining the integrity of science, and the notion that the climate change problem is somehow good for our souls. I can never tell when he is simply reporting the news, or feeding us his beliefs. Even a relatively good chapter on “The Discovery of Global Warming” gives the impression that science ended in 1987, and then degenerates into the sociology of public opinion.
Those skeptical of global warming are going to have their beliefs about the politicization of science confirmed by what they read here. But just because this one guy thought he had to write this book does not mean he represents all climate scientists. One could just as well conclude that being a believing Christian (which the author is) interferes with the ability to practice good science. Perhaps the best insight in the book is that people will select their favorite climate change myth so they can believe what they want to believe. Which is probably what you, the reader, are doing right now.
There is some worthwhile information and analysis in this book, and certainly a lot to think about. The best I can say is that it provided plenty of material that needs to be subjected to critical thinking. I suggest you skip this book, and instead read George Marshall’s Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.
Is scientific method the only way we can understand the climate change issue? Or do we also need the help of idealistic and spiritual thinking? This book, written by a climate scientist, comes up with a few surprising and dubious answers.
The author, like most informed scientists, thinks that climate change will have a significant negative impact, with the uncertainty only about how much. If you personally have some doubts, remember for a moment that is what the author believes. Now consider the great revelation of this book:
“Climate change is not a problem, it is an opportunity to alter the way we arrive at and achieve our personal aspirations and our collective social goals.”
There are two ways to interpret this statement. The first that may come to mind is: This is an opportunity to force our collectivist social ideology onto society using the pretext of a climate crisis (as in Naomi Klein's This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate). After reading the book, I think the author inclines toward something a little different that I will paraphrase as: A drought that kills millions in Africa will inspire some of us in the affluent West to rethink our materialistic ways. After the Age of Aquarius dawns and we have achieved our personal aspirations, then maybe we can get around to doing something about the climate.
A third option might be that studying the climate change issue can give us insight into how science works and how different people in society react to it. That was my hope, but I was disappointed. The thesis of this book is profoundly offensive. There is nothing good about a problem that might do us harm, unless you hate humanity.
Perhaps the root of the problem can be seen in his discussion on the nature of scientific knowledge. He prefers to lift his ideas from modern philosophers rather than tell us about his personal experience as a working scientist, which does not make for productive reading.
He helpfully starts with the fundamental question of the nature of reality. Positivism holds that reality is independent of human consciousness and is external, material and objective. Constructivism claims reality is subjective, and truth is a construction that is located within our own personal experience. In plain language, one is science and the other is fantasy, believing what you want to believe. The confusion comes from the fact that of course science is done by fallible people, who perceive the world through their preconceptions. The point of scientific method is to overcome these biases to arrive at an ever-improving approximation of the truth. The point of constructivism is the kind of self indulgence this book is guilty of.
Our author does not see it that way, saying, “It is no longer possible to see scientific knowledge as the neutral outcome of a steadily advancing pursuit of an objective and universal truth.” He cites Thomas Kuhn’s work on scientific revolutions as evidence. In fact, Kuhn showed that science advances at an uneven rate, individual scientists can be resistant to change, and science as a whole would advance more quickly if every scientist were perfectly rational. The existence of imperfect scientists does not invalidate the concept of an objective and universal truth.
He is setting up the demise of so-called Normal Science, defined as “skepticism, universalism, communalism, and disinterestedness.” I assume that “communalism” here means there is a single reality we observe in common, and “disinterestedness” is a clumsy word for objective (unless scientists really are a bunch of bored communists). But now he tells us we are entering the brave new world of Post-Normal Science, where facts are uncertain, the stakes are high, and decisions urgent. Does this sound like part of the post-modern project to replace objective reality with the subjective (or constructivist) fantasies of an intellectual elite?
Uncertainty is nothing new. High stakes and urgent decisions should not affect how the physical sciences are practiced. The results of this science should be fed into the political process. It is advocating influence in the other direction that amounts to a celebration of the politicization of science.
There is more. He says science must concede ground to ‘other ways’ of knowing. An example he gives is indigenous knowledge of drought management. Such local knowledge is said to challenge scientific universalism. Nonsense. If that knowledge is based on centuries of observation, and can be confirmed by modern scientific method, then it is a legitimate part of a single universal science. There is no valid ‘other way’. On the question of the authority of science, he even asks, “Does it matter if Al Gore gets some aspects of the science wrong?” Yes, it does matter to those of us still stuck in the old fashioned world of Normal Science.
But he also says that scientists should strive to eliminate bias and prejudice, the process and data must be open to public scrutiny, and uncertainty must be clearly communicated. Maybe he simply cannot distinguish the boundary between science and politics. I suggest he is trying to create an opening for the idealistic thinking that comes next in the book. But an opening in the integrity of science is a gaping wound subject to all kinds of infection.
Much of the book is taken up with the idealistic thinking he seems to favor over “our science-saturated but spiritually impoverished wisdom.” He presents a number of ways the philosophers use to categorize the different ways people think, including the myths by which we understand climate change. I think it can be boiled down to two main categories.
One is the sanctity of nature, whether because it is God’s creation or the modern environmentalist substitute. Michael Creighton describes the latter more succinctly (and cynically): We started with the paradise of Eden, a state of grace and unity with nature. Then we fell from grace into a state of pollution, by eating from the tree of technology. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die in the Apocalypse, unless we seek salvation in the sustainability of the church of the environment. Our author is much nicer, and uses a lot more words to arrive at what amounts to the same conclusion. He reports that some of these people object to a carbon tax because it treats atmosphere as a commodity that can be sold to private interests. So these idealists would prefer it to have zero value?
The other notion is that of equity, or ‘distributional justice’. “All techno-fixes will create the next generation of crisis, because they ignore the fundamental problems of capitalism as a system that ignores injustice and promotes inequity.” Again, don’t bother doing anything real until we achieve somebody’s fantasy of a perfect world. The Kyoto Protocol is an example of this kind of thinking, where the goal of ‘distributional justice’ undermined the reasonable emission reductions it proposed.
This book was written just before the so-called “Climategate” controversy erupted, when e-mail correspondence between climate scientists was stolen from the University of East Anglia. Still, it is surprising that the “we” who disagree about climate change does not address those who question the science itself. Skeptics such as Michael Creighton and Bjørn Lomborg are only briefly mentioned as if they were academic curiosities. I would have liked more insight into the many different reasons people have for being suspicious of what climate science tells us. In short, I would have liked a better book.
Perhaps I am being too negative. I was put off by what I see as undermining the integrity of science, and the notion that the climate change problem is somehow good for our souls. I can never tell when he is simply reporting the news, or feeding us his beliefs. Even a relatively good chapter on “The Discovery of Global Warming” gives the impression that science ended in 1987, and then degenerates into the sociology of public opinion.
Those skeptical of global warming are going to have their beliefs about the politicization of science confirmed by what they read here. But just because this one guy thought he had to write this book does not mean he represents all climate scientists. One could just as well conclude that being a believing Christian (which the author is) interferes with the ability to practice good science. Perhaps the best insight in the book is that people will select their favorite climate change myth so they can believe what they want to believe. Which is probably what you, the reader, are doing right now.
There is some worthwhile information and analysis in this book, and certainly a lot to think about. The best I can say is that it provided plenty of material that needs to be subjected to critical thinking. I suggest you skip this book, and instead read George Marshall’s Don't Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change.
April 8, 2015
Seven ways in which we disagree about climate change
1. Science
Three limits to science that we must recognize. First, scientific knowledge about climate change will always be incomplete. Second, what counts as scientific knowledge for public decision making is not necessarily the same knowledge that first emerged in the laboratory. It is translated, negotiated, and reshaped by social forces as it moves into the public policy realm.
2. Economics
GDP is limited to goods and services that have a market value. As an overall indicator of wealth, human well-being, and environmental health, GDP is completely inadequate. Using it as the sole measure of economic growth or as a proxy for "social progress" distorts public policy.
3. Religion
Even if we agree that we have a moral obligation to care for creation, that doesn't tell us who is most responsible and what the appropriate collective actions should be.
4. Psychology
One of the reasons we disagree about climate change is because we evaluate risks differently. Why it's tough to convey the danger we face-- While climate change may kill millions, it will be on the death certificate of no one.
5. Media
One of the reasons we deisagree about climate change is that we receive multiple and conflicting messages about climate change and we interpret them in different ways.
6. Development
One of the reasons we deisagree about climate change is that we understand development differently.
7. Governance
One of the reasons we deisagree about climate change is that we seek to govern differently.
Our notion of "climate" is a constructed idea
p3 Climate cannot be experienced directly through our senses. Neither can climate be measured directly by our instruments.
Morality of climate
p13 The relationship between God and climate, especially drought, portrayed in the early Jewish scriptures, for example, reveals a particular reading of weather extremes.
p14 Although the theological language may have changed, Western societies continue to be attrcated to the idea of moralizing the performance of climate.
p15 El Nino was named after the Christ child.
Controlling and modifying nature is an enduring idea
p25 The idea that our climate can be modified and controlled ('conquered') is one of the major prevailing themes of the past 2000 years.
p38 Enlightenment discourses about climate change from the 17th century onwards frequently concentrated on the effects of deforestation.
"I am terrified by the hubris, conceit, the arrogance implied by words like "managing the planet" and "stabilizing the climate." Who are we to claim that we can manage the planet? We cannot even manage ourselves!"
What is the ultimate performance metric for the human species, what is it that we are seeking to optimise?
Metaphors for understanding climate change
1. Lamenting Eden (nostalgia)
The myth of Eden, born of nostalgia, tells us of our desire-- even yearning-- to return to some simpler era. In the lament for Eden we are telling ourselves that in theactive shaping of our climate we have appropriated god-like powers, yet they are powers we are uncomfortable with.
2. Presaging Apocalypse (fear)
The myth of Apocalypse, born of fear, tells us of our worry about the future. No longer is it the capricious climate gods whom we need to respect and appease, but it is ourselves and our voracious appetite for material consumption that we now fear. We have lost the sense of transcendence and gratitude that once offered restraint, and we do not know where to re-locate it.
3. Constructing Babel (pride)
"Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we might make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the Earth." Excessive self-confidence and the desire to dominate.
The myth of Babel, born of pride, tells us of our desire for mastery and control. We have always exercised this instinct over our fellow human beins and our fellow creatures. Climate change now offers us a global domain over which we can create new instruments and institutions of control, but it is a domain and a project in which we will never reach our hubristic goal of the ideal state.
4. Celibrating Jubilee (justice)
In the Old Testament that every fifty years, soil, slaves and debtors should be liberated from their oppression. "In this way you shall set the 50th year apart and proclaim freedom to all the inhabitants of the land." Leviticus 25:10
The myth of Julibilee, born of justice, tells us of the inescapable call for humans to respond to injustice. Climate change opens out for us new ways of understanding the wilful and structural causes of inequality and injustice in the world, and challenges our instinct to respond.
The emphasis on consumption, economics, and policy usually fails to engage people at any deep level because it does not address the narrative, the mythological, the metaphorical or the existence of memories of past disasters and the way out.
1. Science
Three limits to science that we must recognize. First, scientific knowledge about climate change will always be incomplete. Second, what counts as scientific knowledge for public decision making is not necessarily the same knowledge that first emerged in the laboratory. It is translated, negotiated, and reshaped by social forces as it moves into the public policy realm.
2. Economics
GDP is limited to goods and services that have a market value. As an overall indicator of wealth, human well-being, and environmental health, GDP is completely inadequate. Using it as the sole measure of economic growth or as a proxy for "social progress" distorts public policy.
3. Religion
Even if we agree that we have a moral obligation to care for creation, that doesn't tell us who is most responsible and what the appropriate collective actions should be.
4. Psychology
One of the reasons we disagree about climate change is because we evaluate risks differently. Why it's tough to convey the danger we face-- While climate change may kill millions, it will be on the death certificate of no one.
5. Media
One of the reasons we deisagree about climate change is that we receive multiple and conflicting messages about climate change and we interpret them in different ways.
6. Development
One of the reasons we deisagree about climate change is that we understand development differently.
7. Governance
One of the reasons we deisagree about climate change is that we seek to govern differently.
Our notion of "climate" is a constructed idea
p3 Climate cannot be experienced directly through our senses. Neither can climate be measured directly by our instruments.
Morality of climate
p13 The relationship between God and climate, especially drought, portrayed in the early Jewish scriptures, for example, reveals a particular reading of weather extremes.
p14 Although the theological language may have changed, Western societies continue to be attrcated to the idea of moralizing the performance of climate.
p15 El Nino was named after the Christ child.
Controlling and modifying nature is an enduring idea
p25 The idea that our climate can be modified and controlled ('conquered') is one of the major prevailing themes of the past 2000 years.
p38 Enlightenment discourses about climate change from the 17th century onwards frequently concentrated on the effects of deforestation.
"I am terrified by the hubris, conceit, the arrogance implied by words like "managing the planet" and "stabilizing the climate." Who are we to claim that we can manage the planet? We cannot even manage ourselves!"
What is the ultimate performance metric for the human species, what is it that we are seeking to optimise?
Metaphors for understanding climate change
1. Lamenting Eden (nostalgia)
The myth of Eden, born of nostalgia, tells us of our desire-- even yearning-- to return to some simpler era. In the lament for Eden we are telling ourselves that in theactive shaping of our climate we have appropriated god-like powers, yet they are powers we are uncomfortable with.
2. Presaging Apocalypse (fear)
The myth of Apocalypse, born of fear, tells us of our worry about the future. No longer is it the capricious climate gods whom we need to respect and appease, but it is ourselves and our voracious appetite for material consumption that we now fear. We have lost the sense of transcendence and gratitude that once offered restraint, and we do not know where to re-locate it.
3. Constructing Babel (pride)
"Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we might make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the Earth." Excessive self-confidence and the desire to dominate.
The myth of Babel, born of pride, tells us of our desire for mastery and control. We have always exercised this instinct over our fellow human beins and our fellow creatures. Climate change now offers us a global domain over which we can create new instruments and institutions of control, but it is a domain and a project in which we will never reach our hubristic goal of the ideal state.
4. Celibrating Jubilee (justice)
In the Old Testament that every fifty years, soil, slaves and debtors should be liberated from their oppression. "In this way you shall set the 50th year apart and proclaim freedom to all the inhabitants of the land." Leviticus 25:10
The myth of Julibilee, born of justice, tells us of the inescapable call for humans to respond to injustice. Climate change opens out for us new ways of understanding the wilful and structural causes of inequality and injustice in the world, and challenges our instinct to respond.
The emphasis on consumption, economics, and policy usually fails to engage people at any deep level because it does not address the narrative, the mythological, the metaphorical or the existence of memories of past disasters and the way out.
January 20, 2026
Well, I could just say 'We' can't agree on literally anything, why would something as complex as 'climate change' be any different? Doctor, can a 'man' get pregnant? I dunno! Even widely viewed videos yield astoundingly divergent 'narratives' about what was just seen. And that is just two recent examples. In almost every significant arena of human inquiry-- disagreement even on what seem to be incontrovertible 'facts', (much less what to 'do; about them) is increasingly the norm.
I wrote a bunch below before I got tired of it all. Overall the book is slightly dated (2009) but still a highly worthwhile, thoughtful and generally even-handed deep dive into just how complex the answer to the question posed actually is. You could just say it all come down to 'depends on whose ox is gored' and move on I guess, but you'd miss a diverting (though frustrating) journey. Read on for details you may or may not care about.
A whole lot to unpack here! I find some real common ground with Mike Hulme, he's just a few years older than me so we both went through this almost unfathomable transition with respect to a key component of our scientific discipline, climatology. What was once an obscure and almost unknown corner of the atmospheric sciences was transitioned into THE defining issue of our time. As he puts it (p. 333) it climate change has become |the greatest/defining/most serious|* long term |problem|challenge|threat|* (* delete as desired) to humanity. Climatologists are at the forefront of the debate and while my career took me out of climate research I retained a growing and sometimes incredulous fascination with the increasingly existential threat posed by something I though I 'knew' and we all sort of took for granted. There are now entire Departments of Climate Studies' (over 400 higher education institutions are part of the Climate Leadership Network) in perhaps hundreds (or more) universities and under a variety of disciplines. As Hulme points out it is lot more than the weather!
I enjoyed the chapter on the 'Discovery of Global Warming' which features six scientists who played in influential role in bringing this issue to light:
John Tyndall - The 19th-century Irish physicist who first experimentally demonstrated the absorptive properties of greenhouse gases (specifically water vapor and CO2) in 1859.
Svante Arrhenius - The Swedish chemist who, in 1896, calculated how much a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase global temperatures—the first quantitative estimate of climate sensitivity.
Guy Callendar - English engineer who, in 1938, revived interest in the greenhouse effect by linking rising industrial CO2 emissions to a measured upward trend in global temperature.
Charles Keeling - American geochemist who established the Mauna Loa Observatory in 1957, providing the first continuous, high-precision record of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (the 'Keeling Curve').
Syukuro Manabe - A Japanese-American physicist-meteorologist at Princeton in climate modeling who in the late 1960s early 70s developed the some of the first atmospheric models simulating the climate response to changing CO2.
Wally Broecker - American geochemist at Columbia U. often credited with popularizing the term "global warming" in the mid-1970s and identifying the potential for abrupt, non-linear climate shifts.
Obviously, some big names are omitted from this list (Joseph Fourier, Roger Revelle, James Hansen, et al.) but interesting nonetheless.
Later chapters include discussion on numerous topics that 'intersect' the climate change issue in ways that I had really thought about much or internalized.
Science - (how knowledge is constructed, uncertainties, and the role of the IPCC)
Economics -(cost-benefit analyses, discounting the future, and the Stern Review)
Ethics - religion, and philosophy (questions of justice, stewardship, and meaning)
Psychology and sociology - (risk perception, fear, denial, and cultural framing)
Politics and development - (global North-South divides, power dynamics, and international negotiations)
Media and communication - (how narratives are shaped)
The good thing about Mike Hulme's book is that he looks at seemingly every side of this 'issue' (it is often way more than a single issue as he points out) but that also becomes a bit of a problem. Every idea or proposition is sort of viewed as equally valid or useful which I do not believe is the case. See? We already disagree! I was especially irritated with his explanation on how science should be performed. Specifically the section on 'post-normal' strategies for understanding these complex problems. Indigenous or traditional knowledge (p. 81) on such things as weather forecasting? Please. Yet Hulme refuses to say 'no we cannot rely the ____ tribe' for giving answers to these complex problems, or even guidance. Sure they can say 'our forefathers knew when it was going to be dry that year due to the bark on the trees' or other such nonsense but none of it can be verified in any known way, or at least using the methods of science that got us to here. Perhaps that is the problem as many would certainly aver. Or the reliance on people's 'feelings' to guide critical policy decisions. A substantial portion of the U.S. population is demonstrably mentally ill if you use drug prescriptions as a proxy for that. We are supposed to follow their dictates? Or his apparent embrace (or at least refusal to condemn or dismiss) using the legal system (Kivalina, AK v. ExxonMobil Corp. 2008, p. 306) to solve these problems. Our legal system is particularly ill-suited to finding answers to complex scientific questions with it's binary 'winner/loser' paradigm and guaranteed to create a resistance among whoever loses. In addition, numerous judges have proven themselves nothing less than political activists in this country. And the 'losers' in any judgement may be in the millions or even billions. Exxon may make a nice fat target but it employs tens of thousands, has a large retiree class and millions of stockholders. All will become losers if lawsuits to blame climate change on them succeed. And that is just the tip of the (melting) iceberg! We might as well sue ourselves, which actually makes more sense since everyone (including the lawyers getting filthy rich off class-action lawsuits) is complicit in the 'crime'.
As he points out rightly I think, 'climate change may prove ultimately a crisis of governance'. That could not be worse news as the political systems in this country and others I am pretty familiar with (UK, France, Germany) are fragmented almost beyond hope, with political parties (people) unable or unwilling to even look at very basic facts with anything like a common point of view and some political parties are effectively banned from public discourse. Frankly however his political analysis (p. 308) on the failures of democracy to make effective decisions about these profoundly difficult issues was probably correct. Only authoritarian governments seems able to make big decisions (good or bad), He quotes British historian Eric Hobsbawm 'Democracy, however desirable, is not an effective device for solving transnational or global problems'. He is exactly correct which is why the ruling elites in the West (e.g. the EU) would love to suppress all dissent and rule as a one-party technocratic 'state'. Technocratic rule by a ruling oligarchy (i.e. the China model) is the example that much of the West seems wont to emulate.
The fact that the book is closing in on 20 years (2009) is both a weakness and a strength. There is considerable analysis of the pros and cons of 2005 Kyoto Protocol but it would be interesting to see how it compares with the 2015 Paris Agreement. A lot has changed since the Paris 'Agreement' and of course Trump's two withdrawls from it. The deindustrialization of Europe, namely Germany (CO2 emissions down ~50% since 1990 and now 1.6% of global total) has accelerated to the point that Europe will soon be close to a non-factor in the global arithmetic. The rise of the global South has continues apace and the impact of China is clear--in several areas. China is now easily #1 in global CO2 emissions (32% of global total in 2023, per IEA) and is now 2nd in the world in per capita CO2 production passing the entire EU but there are indications that it may be nearing a peak in 2025-2030 (15.1-15.2 GtCO2e). However, total emission China is still 3 times higher than the US. So the problem is not going away and never mind India.
Conflicting goals when it come to climate change (policy targets, carbon markets, social revolution, poverty reduction, R&D conflicts, environmental goals, population control, global government, geoengineering). Four 'myths' of climate change-1) nostalgia, the lament of Lost Eden. 'saving' the climate; 2) Presaging Apocalypse, fragility of nature, doomsday scenarios proliferate, generate fear by turning the 'volume up louder'; 3) Constructing Babel, man's control of Nature John Von Neumann, 1955; man's desire for control and mastery of the climate (with a subplot of geoengineering control). 4) Celebrating Jubilee (from Jewish Torah concept) environmental/social movement centered around climate change; demand for 'climate justice' and climate change becoming opportunity to bring about justice and equality (regardless of whether it is 'true' or not).
His conclusion that we cannot 'solve' climate change has some traction--he cites numerous inflection points (Kyoto, 2005, Stern Report, 2006, 4th IPCC 2007, Nobel Peace Prize for Al Gore, 2007) where it seemed that the alarm bells would be now sufficient to generate some grand solutions, To that list we can add two more IPCCs completed in 2014 and 2023, which now run to almost 2,500 pages (not including 'special reports), Likely almost no one reads them.
His conclusions on p. 333 are worth repeating but I won't bother. But he asserts that by sweeping all or most of the intractable problems of the world (unsustainable energy, endemic poverty, climatic hazards (i.e. weather), food security, structural adjustment, hyper-consumption, deforestation, biodiversity loss, etc.) under the single term 'climate change' we have created the 'Mother of all problems' such that it defies solution.
If Hulme set out to prove his title, he did a pretty good job! 4.5 stars, rounded down partly due to being a bit out of date.
I wrote a bunch below before I got tired of it all. Overall the book is slightly dated (2009) but still a highly worthwhile, thoughtful and generally even-handed deep dive into just how complex the answer to the question posed actually is. You could just say it all come down to 'depends on whose ox is gored' and move on I guess, but you'd miss a diverting (though frustrating) journey. Read on for details you may or may not care about.
A whole lot to unpack here! I find some real common ground with Mike Hulme, he's just a few years older than me so we both went through this almost unfathomable transition with respect to a key component of our scientific discipline, climatology. What was once an obscure and almost unknown corner of the atmospheric sciences was transitioned into THE defining issue of our time. As he puts it (p. 333) it climate change has become |the greatest/defining/most serious|* long term |problem|challenge|threat|* (* delete as desired) to humanity. Climatologists are at the forefront of the debate and while my career took me out of climate research I retained a growing and sometimes incredulous fascination with the increasingly existential threat posed by something I though I 'knew' and we all sort of took for granted. There are now entire Departments of Climate Studies' (over 400 higher education institutions are part of the Climate Leadership Network) in perhaps hundreds (or more) universities and under a variety of disciplines. As Hulme points out it is lot more than the weather!
I enjoyed the chapter on the 'Discovery of Global Warming' which features six scientists who played in influential role in bringing this issue to light:
John Tyndall - The 19th-century Irish physicist who first experimentally demonstrated the absorptive properties of greenhouse gases (specifically water vapor and CO2) in 1859.
Svante Arrhenius - The Swedish chemist who, in 1896, calculated how much a doubling of atmospheric CO2 would increase global temperatures—the first quantitative estimate of climate sensitivity.
Guy Callendar - English engineer who, in 1938, revived interest in the greenhouse effect by linking rising industrial CO2 emissions to a measured upward trend in global temperature.
Charles Keeling - American geochemist who established the Mauna Loa Observatory in 1957, providing the first continuous, high-precision record of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (the 'Keeling Curve').
Syukuro Manabe - A Japanese-American physicist-meteorologist at Princeton in climate modeling who in the late 1960s early 70s developed the some of the first atmospheric models simulating the climate response to changing CO2.
Wally Broecker - American geochemist at Columbia U. often credited with popularizing the term "global warming" in the mid-1970s and identifying the potential for abrupt, non-linear climate shifts.
Obviously, some big names are omitted from this list (Joseph Fourier, Roger Revelle, James Hansen, et al.) but interesting nonetheless.
Later chapters include discussion on numerous topics that 'intersect' the climate change issue in ways that I had really thought about much or internalized.
Science - (how knowledge is constructed, uncertainties, and the role of the IPCC)
Economics -(cost-benefit analyses, discounting the future, and the Stern Review)
Ethics - religion, and philosophy (questions of justice, stewardship, and meaning)
Psychology and sociology - (risk perception, fear, denial, and cultural framing)
Politics and development - (global North-South divides, power dynamics, and international negotiations)
Media and communication - (how narratives are shaped)
The good thing about Mike Hulme's book is that he looks at seemingly every side of this 'issue' (it is often way more than a single issue as he points out) but that also becomes a bit of a problem. Every idea or proposition is sort of viewed as equally valid or useful which I do not believe is the case. See? We already disagree! I was especially irritated with his explanation on how science should be performed. Specifically the section on 'post-normal' strategies for understanding these complex problems. Indigenous or traditional knowledge (p. 81) on such things as weather forecasting? Please. Yet Hulme refuses to say 'no we cannot rely the ____ tribe' for giving answers to these complex problems, or even guidance. Sure they can say 'our forefathers knew when it was going to be dry that year due to the bark on the trees' or other such nonsense but none of it can be verified in any known way, or at least using the methods of science that got us to here. Perhaps that is the problem as many would certainly aver. Or the reliance on people's 'feelings' to guide critical policy decisions. A substantial portion of the U.S. population is demonstrably mentally ill if you use drug prescriptions as a proxy for that. We are supposed to follow their dictates? Or his apparent embrace (or at least refusal to condemn or dismiss) using the legal system (Kivalina, AK v. ExxonMobil Corp. 2008, p. 306) to solve these problems. Our legal system is particularly ill-suited to finding answers to complex scientific questions with it's binary 'winner/loser' paradigm and guaranteed to create a resistance among whoever loses. In addition, numerous judges have proven themselves nothing less than political activists in this country. And the 'losers' in any judgement may be in the millions or even billions. Exxon may make a nice fat target but it employs tens of thousands, has a large retiree class and millions of stockholders. All will become losers if lawsuits to blame climate change on them succeed. And that is just the tip of the (melting) iceberg! We might as well sue ourselves, which actually makes more sense since everyone (including the lawyers getting filthy rich off class-action lawsuits) is complicit in the 'crime'.
As he points out rightly I think, 'climate change may prove ultimately a crisis of governance'. That could not be worse news as the political systems in this country and others I am pretty familiar with (UK, France, Germany) are fragmented almost beyond hope, with political parties (people) unable or unwilling to even look at very basic facts with anything like a common point of view and some political parties are effectively banned from public discourse. Frankly however his political analysis (p. 308) on the failures of democracy to make effective decisions about these profoundly difficult issues was probably correct. Only authoritarian governments seems able to make big decisions (good or bad), He quotes British historian Eric Hobsbawm 'Democracy, however desirable, is not an effective device for solving transnational or global problems'. He is exactly correct which is why the ruling elites in the West (e.g. the EU) would love to suppress all dissent and rule as a one-party technocratic 'state'. Technocratic rule by a ruling oligarchy (i.e. the China model) is the example that much of the West seems wont to emulate.
The fact that the book is closing in on 20 years (2009) is both a weakness and a strength. There is considerable analysis of the pros and cons of 2005 Kyoto Protocol but it would be interesting to see how it compares with the 2015 Paris Agreement. A lot has changed since the Paris 'Agreement' and of course Trump's two withdrawls from it. The deindustrialization of Europe, namely Germany (CO2 emissions down ~50% since 1990 and now 1.6% of global total) has accelerated to the point that Europe will soon be close to a non-factor in the global arithmetic. The rise of the global South has continues apace and the impact of China is clear--in several areas. China is now easily #1 in global CO2 emissions (32% of global total in 2023, per IEA) and is now 2nd in the world in per capita CO2 production passing the entire EU but there are indications that it may be nearing a peak in 2025-2030 (15.1-15.2 GtCO2e). However, total emission China is still 3 times higher than the US. So the problem is not going away and never mind India.
Conflicting goals when it come to climate change (policy targets, carbon markets, social revolution, poverty reduction, R&D conflicts, environmental goals, population control, global government, geoengineering). Four 'myths' of climate change-1) nostalgia, the lament of Lost Eden. 'saving' the climate; 2) Presaging Apocalypse, fragility of nature, doomsday scenarios proliferate, generate fear by turning the 'volume up louder'; 3) Constructing Babel, man's control of Nature John Von Neumann, 1955; man's desire for control and mastery of the climate (with a subplot of geoengineering control). 4) Celebrating Jubilee (from Jewish Torah concept) environmental/social movement centered around climate change; demand for 'climate justice' and climate change becoming opportunity to bring about justice and equality (regardless of whether it is 'true' or not).
His conclusion that we cannot 'solve' climate change has some traction--he cites numerous inflection points (Kyoto, 2005, Stern Report, 2006, 4th IPCC 2007, Nobel Peace Prize for Al Gore, 2007) where it seemed that the alarm bells would be now sufficient to generate some grand solutions, To that list we can add two more IPCCs completed in 2014 and 2023, which now run to almost 2,500 pages (not including 'special reports), Likely almost no one reads them.
His conclusions on p. 333 are worth repeating but I won't bother. But he asserts that by sweeping all or most of the intractable problems of the world (unsustainable energy, endemic poverty, climatic hazards (i.e. weather), food security, structural adjustment, hyper-consumption, deforestation, biodiversity loss, etc.) under the single term 'climate change' we have created the 'Mother of all problems' such that it defies solution.
If Hulme set out to prove his title, he did a pretty good job! 4.5 stars, rounded down partly due to being a bit out of date.
July 16, 2015
This is a perfect example of a book that I often didn't agree with and had quite a few criticisms for but still found very worthwhile and enjoyable to read. As a way of complicating the narrative of climate change it does a very good job and provided a lot of food for thought. However, as other reviewers have pointed out, it should be read with a critical eye. I feel that in trying to complicate the narrative he struck out too far from climate change as a challenge (or network of challenges) to which science is the best available method for humans to rise. Of course we have to understand the sociological, economic, moral and other dimensions of the problem in a more nuanced way, but there are discreet problems to meet and science and technology attuned to sociological needs are already meeting some of them. I was left in some doubt whether the author was willing to acknowledge that point. All the same, it was a very interesting read and I will seek out some of the recommended reading from each chapter.
January 19, 2025
Excellent book, Hulme investigates how climate change is constructed as a social object and imaginative exercise.
Instead of being a purely physical phenomenon or problem that can be solved, he sees climate change as a poly crisis that is matched to a whole host of pre existing problems and deep emotional and cultural instincts.
Instead of being a purely physical phenomenon or problem that can be solved, he sees climate change as a poly crisis that is matched to a whole host of pre existing problems and deep emotional and cultural instincts.
December 17, 2021
It’s a humongous topic to address in one book. But Hulme does a decent job of touching on the various answers to the question “why do we disagree about climate change”. Of course, he is limited by his personal perspective and situation in life, which he seems to acknowledge in the preface. But what he lacks in diversity of perspective he makes up for in clarity, depth of research, transparency (with regards to his personal experiences and motivations), and approachable writing style. Although it is over 10 years old though by now (and you can definitely tell it’s dated in places), it’s still a worthwhile read for the 2020s.
Hulme’s central argument is that climate change is a problem that cannot be ‘solved’ through the mobilisation of technical or political resources alone, as the “hole in the ozone layer” was solved. Instead, Hulme opines, ‘we need to reveal the creative psychological, spiritual and ethical work that climate change can do and is doing for us’ (32). To underline how climate change cannot be solved, each chapter addresses a different factor to take into account when wondering why we disagree about climate change. We attribute meaning to the idea of climate in different ways (Chapter 1), we judge the performance of science in different ways (Chapter 3), we value climate in different ways (Chapter 4), we represent climate in different ways (Chapter 7), we govern in different ways (Chapter 9). Ultimately, it is this complexity which makes climate change “unsolvable” in the traditional, technocratic or political sense. For his conclusion he suggests a potential way forward.
I liked the chapter on the endowment of value (4), which argues that it’s impossible to think of climate change in purely economic terms. How can you put a price tag on the potentially huge but potentially unlikely effects of current irreversible change? ‘Or if snowy winters in a mid-latitude country no longer occurred because of climate change, what would be the (lost) monetary value of the experience of children playing in the snow?’ (129). In fact, improved scientific or economic understanding of climate change may make us even blinder to the role social values play. I couldn’t agree more that appeals to the authority of the IPCC or the Stern review (a bit of a dated example now) ‘are, in themselves, far from an adequate basis for agreeing individual, communal, national or global actions’ (144).
Chapter five, on faith and the religious aspects of climate change, is also surprisingly good, although I couldn’t find myself to agree with James Lovelock that we need a ‘holy book’ which outlines the constraints on human behaviour on the basis of planetary health (155). I’m not sure why you would still want to create a kind of Eco-Bible (as if this was even possible in a meaningful way) given the track-record of the actual Bible. But I do like the summary of theological and moral language in climate change discourse: ‘Those in the West hear of ‘penances’ being paid for ‘carbon sins’ through the purchase of emissions offsets, read of the personal ‘guilt’ associated with flying, and are challenged to ‘repent’ of their profligate consumption and to ‘convert’ to low-carbon lifestyles. There is even a new missionary movement of communicators and advocates commissioned on the back of Al Gore’s evangelical movie An Inconvenient Truth’ (172-3).
Also really agree with the statement that climate change, which is often an abstract danger to people (for now), ranks lower on the list of things we fear than it probably deserves to be. ‘While many people believe that climate change is occurring and that this is a bad thing, the issue isn’t as important to them as job security, health care or local environmental issues […] while climate change may kill millions, it will be on the death certificate of no-one’ (195). I would, however, love to have seen a more developed overview of the different visual representations of climate change (there isn’t much more than some remarks about Pieter Bruegel, polar bears and the advertising industry).
The final chapter is, helpfully, very clearly put together and definitely worth being read on its own. Having summarised how many different factors there are in conceptualising climate change, Hulme suggests we shouldn’t think of it as the big, existential problem it has become. ‘Perhaps this particular way of framing climate change (as a mega-problem awaiting, demanding, a mega-solution) has led us down the wrong road. By constructing climate change as the ‘mother of all problems’ […] perhaps we have out-manoeuvred ourselves’ (303). It now stands for much more than just rising greenhouse gases and their effects on the global climate. We've made it into a huge political log jam. A lot of the solutions outlined throughout the book, from establishing a carbon market, to a bottom-up social revolution, to creating global climate policies, to geoengineering, are all reliant on assumptions about how the world works which ultimately do not translate to reality (305).
If climate change is not “a problem” that can be “solved”, how then should we frame it? Hulme provides four ways we can make climate change “work for us”, framed as four “myths”. The first, the myth of “Eden”, is rooted in nostalgia, and tells us of our yearning for a simpler time when the boundaries of the natural and unnatural were clearer to identify. We have found ourselves uncomfortable with our god-like powers to shape the earth. The second, the myth of “Apocalypse”, is rooted in fear, and tells us of our worries about the future, of what our insatiable hunger for material consumption will mean for humanity’s fate. The third, the myth of “Babel”, is rooted in pride, and sees climate change as the reason for which we seek to create new instruments and institutions of control over nature (which we ultimately never fully achieve). The final one, the myth of “Jubilee”, is rooted in justice, and reminds us of our inescapable call to fight injustice. Climate change is yet another catalyst in this struggle (321-22). [Can you tell Hulme is a devout Christian?]. The purpose of these myths is to understand what kinds of opportunities to affect social, political, technological, cultural change climate change is affording us.
Hulme’s final message is noteworthy: ‘Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and material flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come’ (325). Yes, it’s a variation on “we’re just going to have to live with it”, but with a more forward-looking and productive twist. Because Hulme doesn’t advocate letting go of the idea that we can fix what is wrong with the world. He just wants us to adjust our expectations of what “fixing” will entail.
Hulme’s central argument is that climate change is a problem that cannot be ‘solved’ through the mobilisation of technical or political resources alone, as the “hole in the ozone layer” was solved. Instead, Hulme opines, ‘we need to reveal the creative psychological, spiritual and ethical work that climate change can do and is doing for us’ (32). To underline how climate change cannot be solved, each chapter addresses a different factor to take into account when wondering why we disagree about climate change. We attribute meaning to the idea of climate in different ways (Chapter 1), we judge the performance of science in different ways (Chapter 3), we value climate in different ways (Chapter 4), we represent climate in different ways (Chapter 7), we govern in different ways (Chapter 9). Ultimately, it is this complexity which makes climate change “unsolvable” in the traditional, technocratic or political sense. For his conclusion he suggests a potential way forward.
I liked the chapter on the endowment of value (4), which argues that it’s impossible to think of climate change in purely economic terms. How can you put a price tag on the potentially huge but potentially unlikely effects of current irreversible change? ‘Or if snowy winters in a mid-latitude country no longer occurred because of climate change, what would be the (lost) monetary value of the experience of children playing in the snow?’ (129). In fact, improved scientific or economic understanding of climate change may make us even blinder to the role social values play. I couldn’t agree more that appeals to the authority of the IPCC or the Stern review (a bit of a dated example now) ‘are, in themselves, far from an adequate basis for agreeing individual, communal, national or global actions’ (144).
Chapter five, on faith and the religious aspects of climate change, is also surprisingly good, although I couldn’t find myself to agree with James Lovelock that we need a ‘holy book’ which outlines the constraints on human behaviour on the basis of planetary health (155). I’m not sure why you would still want to create a kind of Eco-Bible (as if this was even possible in a meaningful way) given the track-record of the actual Bible. But I do like the summary of theological and moral language in climate change discourse: ‘Those in the West hear of ‘penances’ being paid for ‘carbon sins’ through the purchase of emissions offsets, read of the personal ‘guilt’ associated with flying, and are challenged to ‘repent’ of their profligate consumption and to ‘convert’ to low-carbon lifestyles. There is even a new missionary movement of communicators and advocates commissioned on the back of Al Gore’s evangelical movie An Inconvenient Truth’ (172-3).
Also really agree with the statement that climate change, which is often an abstract danger to people (for now), ranks lower on the list of things we fear than it probably deserves to be. ‘While many people believe that climate change is occurring and that this is a bad thing, the issue isn’t as important to them as job security, health care or local environmental issues […] while climate change may kill millions, it will be on the death certificate of no-one’ (195). I would, however, love to have seen a more developed overview of the different visual representations of climate change (there isn’t much more than some remarks about Pieter Bruegel, polar bears and the advertising industry).
The final chapter is, helpfully, very clearly put together and definitely worth being read on its own. Having summarised how many different factors there are in conceptualising climate change, Hulme suggests we shouldn’t think of it as the big, existential problem it has become. ‘Perhaps this particular way of framing climate change (as a mega-problem awaiting, demanding, a mega-solution) has led us down the wrong road. By constructing climate change as the ‘mother of all problems’ […] perhaps we have out-manoeuvred ourselves’ (303). It now stands for much more than just rising greenhouse gases and their effects on the global climate. We've made it into a huge political log jam. A lot of the solutions outlined throughout the book, from establishing a carbon market, to a bottom-up social revolution, to creating global climate policies, to geoengineering, are all reliant on assumptions about how the world works which ultimately do not translate to reality (305).
If climate change is not “a problem” that can be “solved”, how then should we frame it? Hulme provides four ways we can make climate change “work for us”, framed as four “myths”. The first, the myth of “Eden”, is rooted in nostalgia, and tells us of our yearning for a simpler time when the boundaries of the natural and unnatural were clearer to identify. We have found ourselves uncomfortable with our god-like powers to shape the earth. The second, the myth of “Apocalypse”, is rooted in fear, and tells us of our worries about the future, of what our insatiable hunger for material consumption will mean for humanity’s fate. The third, the myth of “Babel”, is rooted in pride, and sees climate change as the reason for which we seek to create new instruments and institutions of control over nature (which we ultimately never fully achieve). The final one, the myth of “Jubilee”, is rooted in justice, and reminds us of our inescapable call to fight injustice. Climate change is yet another catalyst in this struggle (321-22). [Can you tell Hulme is a devout Christian?]. The purpose of these myths is to understand what kinds of opportunities to affect social, political, technological, cultural change climate change is affording us.
Hulme’s final message is noteworthy: ‘Solving climate change should not be the focus of our efforts any more than we should be ‘solving’ the idea of human rights or liberal democracy. It really is not about stopping climate chaos. Instead, we need to see how we can use the idea of climate change – the matrix of ecological functions, power relationships, cultural discourses and material flows that climate change reveals – to rethink how we take forward our political, social, economic and personal projects over the decades to come’ (325). Yes, it’s a variation on “we’re just going to have to live with it”, but with a more forward-looking and productive twist. Because Hulme doesn’t advocate letting go of the idea that we can fix what is wrong with the world. He just wants us to adjust our expectations of what “fixing” will entail.
May 29, 2020
İklim değişikliği konusunda geçmişten günümüze her şey.
Her şey.
H E R Ş E Y
Yazar ilkim değişikliğine ucundan kıyısından dokunan her meseleyi didik didik araştırmış, yazmış. Bilim, politika, ekonomi, kültür, din ve daha hatırlayamadığım nice konu çerçevesinden iklim değişikliğinin keşfini, ölçümünü, sebeplerini, insanların bu değişime verdikleri psikolojik tepkileri, siyasilerin kanıt niteliğindeki verilere karşı tutumu ve gösterdikleri tutumun sebeplerini, dünyanın farklı yerlerinde insanların neden iklim değişikliğine farklı gözlerde baktıkları, iklim değişiminin sağlık üzerindeki etkileri, tarım ve ekonominin bundan nasıl etkil- HER ŞEYİ AGA HER ŞEYİ!
Dolayısıyla okurken çoğunlukla sıkıntıdan fenalık geçirdim, yalan yok. Kitap, her bölümde her konuyu detaylarının da detaylarını vererek anlattıktan sonra, tüm bölümün özetini vererek bir sonraki bölüme geçiyor. Ben de bilim ile ilgili bölümleri baştan sona okuyup derin bir oh çektikten sonra, diğer bölümleri sadece özetlerini okuyarak atladım. Dürüstçe itiraf ediyorum. Ancak sırf ben sıkıldım diye de kitaba düşük puan verecek değilim. Kitap baştan sona zeka ve emek kokuyor. Bu emeğe saygısızlık edilemez.
Sonuç olarak, her ne kadar popüler bilim kategorisine soksalar da ben bu kitabı çevre mühendisliği üniversite son sınıf ders kitabı olarak sayıyorum. İşin içinde olmayanların kitaptan fayda sağlaması gerçekten zor. Buna rağmen ikim değişikliğinin biyolojisi konusunda çok şey öğrendim. Bazı ülkeler (Avrupa) karbon emisyonunu sıfıra indirecek çalışmaları yapar ve fosil yakıtları yasaklarken neden bazı ülkelerin (Amerika) ısrarla "küresel ısınma yalan basın gazı basın petrolü" düşüncesi ile hareket ettikleri konusunda farklı bakış açıları edindim. Fazla detaylı ama güzel bir kitaptı.
Her şey.
H E R Ş E Y
Yazar ilkim değişikliğine ucundan kıyısından dokunan her meseleyi didik didik araştırmış, yazmış. Bilim, politika, ekonomi, kültür, din ve daha hatırlayamadığım nice konu çerçevesinden iklim değişikliğinin keşfini, ölçümünü, sebeplerini, insanların bu değişime verdikleri psikolojik tepkileri, siyasilerin kanıt niteliğindeki verilere karşı tutumu ve gösterdikleri tutumun sebeplerini, dünyanın farklı yerlerinde insanların neden iklim değişikliğine farklı gözlerde baktıkları, iklim değişiminin sağlık üzerindeki etkileri, tarım ve ekonominin bundan nasıl etkil- HER ŞEYİ AGA HER ŞEYİ!
Dolayısıyla okurken çoğunlukla sıkıntıdan fenalık geçirdim, yalan yok. Kitap, her bölümde her konuyu detaylarının da detaylarını vererek anlattıktan sonra, tüm bölümün özetini vererek bir sonraki bölüme geçiyor. Ben de bilim ile ilgili bölümleri baştan sona okuyup derin bir oh çektikten sonra, diğer bölümleri sadece özetlerini okuyarak atladım. Dürüstçe itiraf ediyorum. Ancak sırf ben sıkıldım diye de kitaba düşük puan verecek değilim. Kitap baştan sona zeka ve emek kokuyor. Bu emeğe saygısızlık edilemez.
Sonuç olarak, her ne kadar popüler bilim kategorisine soksalar da ben bu kitabı çevre mühendisliği üniversite son sınıf ders kitabı olarak sayıyorum. İşin içinde olmayanların kitaptan fayda sağlaması gerçekten zor. Buna rağmen ikim değişikliğinin biyolojisi konusunda çok şey öğrendim. Bazı ülkeler (Avrupa) karbon emisyonunu sıfıra indirecek çalışmaları yapar ve fosil yakıtları yasaklarken neden bazı ülkelerin (Amerika) ısrarla "küresel ısınma yalan basın gazı basın petrolü" düşüncesi ile hareket ettikleri konusunda farklı bakış açıları edindim. Fazla detaylı ama güzel bir kitaptı.
August 17, 2016
Read for class. Reads more like a cultural studies textbook than a non-fiction book. Especially since it is broken into sub chapters 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. I the the Hulme had quite a lot to say about the topic of climate change without talking much about the actual problems associated with climate change. That is a bit of a relief because I feel like I could recite a list of 1,000 things. 4/5 because it felt too long at times.
October 18, 2010
The big-picture lesson of Hulme's book is that climate change is not a "problem" people are going to be able to "solve," it's a reality we are going to have to figure out ways to live and survive with as a species, which has unavoidable moral and ethical implications for policymakers and all living beings affected by their policies.
December 1, 2013
This was a great book that brought up a lot of interesting ideas and perspectives. At the end though I found him to be talking in circles. Still. A great read if you want to understand why you'll never win those online arguments with others about climate change. :)
February 10, 2022
Es estupendo encontrarse de nuevo con un imprescindible de los debates del cambio climático. Es difícil decir que un libro sobre el cambio climático merezca la pena (teniendo en cuenta que sale uno cada dos horas o así) pero realmente creo que este lo merece. Porque no sólo habla de catastrofismos o cómo enfrentarse a este desafío; sino que desafía la manera en la que lo estamos analizando de arriba abajo, no sólo eso, sino que hace un análisis ontológico de por qué podríamos tener distintas opiniones sobre un evento tan machacado y parece que tan obvio.
Este libro va sobre cómo asignamos valores personales, grupales, culturales, nacionales..; sobre cómo esperamos que actúe la ciencia por nosotros y cómo creemos que las acciones sobre esos datos van de la mano; sobre cómo objetivamos un fenómeno completamente multi-causal, multi-problemático, lleno de matices, responsabilidades, debates éticos y de prioridades que no se pueden resolver con una acción global conjunta.
O así es cómo el autor lo concluye increíblemente en el último capítulo, dando una perspectiva respetable, honesta y abierta de mentes sobre lo que realmente supone el Cambio Climático para todos nosotros, una realidad que está aquí para quedarse, de muy largo plazo y que más que ofrecer un desafío a resolver, es un espejo en el que podamos vernos reflejados sobre lo que de verdad nos importa a la hora de la verdad. Si pudiésemos volver a cuando el clima era normal, ¿a cuál volveríamos? ¿Antes de la Revolución Industrial? ¿A época medieval? ¿Cuándo hemos tenido una relación estable y beneficiosa con el clima? Seamos sinceros, no queremos un clima "normal" sino que esta "madre de todos los problemas" nos ha mostrado todos los problemas que la humanidad ha estado confrontando toda la Historia: desde guerras y hambrunas hasta desafíos con el uso de los recursos o problemas sociales de todo tipo.
paused-progress
April 15, 2018so I started reading this book as it was recommended by a friend to be a good explanation of how humans caused global warming. Previously I had read Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years that made a pretty good case for the global warming is not man made. Unstoppable Global warming: Every 1,500 Years was stuffed with scientific studies conducted by respected scientists (prestigious prize winners from elite universities). So far not impressed with this book though. It's begun with a lengthy and as far as I can tell, pointless discussion of the definition of climate including things like how historically various cultures have felt about the concept of climate, or is climate really a sentient being like mother Gaia. Also I can't help but be wary the author is about to pull one of the philosopher's tricks where they spit out some conclusion that by normal peoples' definitions sounds like they reached some exciting revelation, but when you find out they redefined the terms, actually means nothing-- like saying "you can lose weight while still eating all the chocolate you want" then finding out they defined "eating chocolate as staring at pictures of chocolate but never ingesting any."
March 6, 2021
Animal fiction
What did you like about the book? A mouse in blue polka dot pants meets a squirrel with a red hat. In back and forth dialogue, they find that they disagree on everything – snacks, a favorite color, weather and more. Finally, the mouse decides that they can’t be friends, to which the squirrel replies, “Yes, I agree.” It is then that they discuss the reasons for their favorite things, and in so doing find that they both like friends, thus providing an ending that shows that people with different opinions can still be friends. It’s a hopeful and accessible model for kids learning social mores, and for maybe a few adults, too.
The vivid mixed media art combines india ink, paint and block printing with a digital finish, and keeps the focus on the two characters, opposite one another on facing pages, by showing them on just a white background. Speech bubbles are colored to match their preferred color, and even the endpapers signal the two sides, with blue polka dots facing red. It’s charming tale of acceptance.
What did you like about the book? A mouse in blue polka dot pants meets a squirrel with a red hat. In back and forth dialogue, they find that they disagree on everything – snacks, a favorite color, weather and more. Finally, the mouse decides that they can’t be friends, to which the squirrel replies, “Yes, I agree.” It is then that they discuss the reasons for their favorite things, and in so doing find that they both like friends, thus providing an ending that shows that people with different opinions can still be friends. It’s a hopeful and accessible model for kids learning social mores, and for maybe a few adults, too.
The vivid mixed media art combines india ink, paint and block printing with a digital finish, and keeps the focus on the two characters, opposite one another on facing pages, by showing them on just a white background. Speech bubbles are colored to match their preferred color, and even the endpapers signal the two sides, with blue polka dots facing red. It’s charming tale of acceptance.
June 18, 2017
Mike Hulme sees climate change as a wicked problem in a newly wicked web of communications, where experts are doubted and interaction between various publics and scientists is not always marked by cooperative dialogue. Hulme, who is himself convinced that human beings are reshaping the environment in a dangerous way, casts a wide intellectual net, examining the social meanings of climate change, differing values, beliefs, fears and how risk is communicated. Among his conclusions is a warning that it doesn’t help to talk about climate change to doubters in catastrophic terms. Why We Disagree About Climate Change was an education for a reader who is schooled to pursue what Hulme calls a “technocratic” approach to the relationship between science and public policy. The decision rule I would like to see applied to climate change is to minimize the probability of maximum loss. It’s not happening, and it’s worth reading the book to better understand why.
July 16, 2018
The author divides the world into four types of people as respects a perspective on climate change. Although originally skeptical of such generalizations, I found myself convinced by his typology and could assign most of my friends into the categories. The author does a better job of organizing his material than is typical for a treatise on such a large topic and I found his critique of international treaties and broad policy approaches well done though I didn't need convincing due to my own experience with these fora. I think that it would have been a stronger work if he had found something to lead up to that was relevant to REDUCING emissions rather than limiting himself to a broad argument about personalizing climate change.
December 11, 2022
It does what it says in the title.
Mike Hulme talks from the inside of the Climate Change Industry (School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia) but he provides a fair assessment of the arguments from all sides (there are more than two) of the climate change debate.
He looks at the social meaning of climate change, scientific discovery of the processes, what we believe/fear, why we believe it, how we communicate and how changes should be made in the future.
If you are interested in examining the subject from all sides it is a great book; if you want a polemic read something else
Mike Hulme talks from the inside of the Climate Change Industry (School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia) but he provides a fair assessment of the arguments from all sides (there are more than two) of the climate change debate.
He looks at the social meaning of climate change, scientific discovery of the processes, what we believe/fear, why we believe it, how we communicate and how changes should be made in the future.
If you are interested in examining the subject from all sides it is a great book; if you want a polemic read something else
January 25, 2022
This book gave me so many good ideas for my dissertation and reading, and gave such great insight into climate change as an ideology rather than a purely physical process! So so good, can’t wait to follow up on some of the suggested reading :)
April 2, 2016
There is no doubt that we disagree about climate change. There are many who think we shouldn't disagree, either because they are themselves convinced and can't see how others could not be, or in a moral sense, feel that the risk obligates us to put differences aside. And in the narrow literal sense, I don't think anyone believes that climate doesn't, and isn't, changing but the implied sense that humans are responsible and therefore need to respond, is far from settled. If it were, we would have international agreements in place, for starters.
The main concern, however, is not why we disagree about the science, although this is touched on of course. Hulme is not a 'denialist' or 'skeptic'. But rather than polarize groups into believers and heathen, he recognises that there are issues in the climate discussion which go beyond 'normal' science. Likewise, the debate implies science can be authoritatively governed, which to a large extent it can't be.
Moving on from purely physical aspects then, the remaining 7 of 10 chapters, deal with other aspects of disagreement. How we assess risk, how we model economics and how we assign value; how we govern ourselves, what we believe (morally and religiously) all come into consideration. As a result, deciding what to do is far from simple. An example of why this is given by the consideration of large scale geoengineering. If such measures were required because carbon could not be controlled, and even if we could guarantee their success (scary), whose climate would we optimize? The Russians and Canadians might enjoy a longer growing season, but I doubt Australians would be content with the risk of additional warmth that results.
There is an inevitability about disagreement that I found disappointing, but it is hard to refute Hulme's reasoning. In his concluding chapter, an 'optimistic' way forward is presented, saying that despite the near impossibility of universal agreement, we are at least placing environment in a prominent place in our discussions. If we can begin to see our place, humbly, within rather than above, our world, we will make progress. His conclusion many will find satisfactory I feel, as his arguments become more philosophical - I am not sure I did.
Apart from some repetition, the book is tightly written and we'll researched and argued. An important discussion which SES beyond some of the nitty gritty to give a bigger picture perspective.
The main concern, however, is not why we disagree about the science, although this is touched on of course. Hulme is not a 'denialist' or 'skeptic'. But rather than polarize groups into believers and heathen, he recognises that there are issues in the climate discussion which go beyond 'normal' science. Likewise, the debate implies science can be authoritatively governed, which to a large extent it can't be.
Moving on from purely physical aspects then, the remaining 7 of 10 chapters, deal with other aspects of disagreement. How we assess risk, how we model economics and how we assign value; how we govern ourselves, what we believe (morally and religiously) all come into consideration. As a result, deciding what to do is far from simple. An example of why this is given by the consideration of large scale geoengineering. If such measures were required because carbon could not be controlled, and even if we could guarantee their success (scary), whose climate would we optimize? The Russians and Canadians might enjoy a longer growing season, but I doubt Australians would be content with the risk of additional warmth that results.
There is an inevitability about disagreement that I found disappointing, but it is hard to refute Hulme's reasoning. In his concluding chapter, an 'optimistic' way forward is presented, saying that despite the near impossibility of universal agreement, we are at least placing environment in a prominent place in our discussions. If we can begin to see our place, humbly, within rather than above, our world, we will make progress. His conclusion many will find satisfactory I feel, as his arguments become more philosophical - I am not sure I did.
Apart from some repetition, the book is tightly written and we'll researched and argued. An important discussion which SES beyond some of the nitty gritty to give a bigger picture perspective.
April 20, 2013
Mike Hulme is climate scientists who in this book has approached the phenomenon of climate change from quite a different point of view: a cultural rather than natural one. He argues that in order to grapple with climate change it is not enough to perceive it as an empirical problem, discovered by climate scientists and to be solved by the political community. Instead we must bring resources from the philosophy of science, economics, psychology, sociology and religion among other subjects. We need to know how climate change (as an idea) figure in people's radically different world-views, how values influence (risk-)perception and decision-making. To understand the deadlock that persists over the political question on climate change abatement this is a most promising approach. Somewhat provocatively, Hulme also argues that climate change is not A problem in the first place, and thus naturally cannot be solved either. This is not to give up, or to give in to relativism/radically scepticism. He is merely reminding - scientists, politicians, and environmentalists in particular I would guess - of the obvious fact that the changing climate has always been our environment and that it plays various roles in our respective lives. Instead of setting up Climate Change (he uses capital letters to denote the idea of climate change rather than the physical phenomenon) as a clear-cut problem which must be solved with one big solution (we have tried and failed in doing that), Climate Change is something that each one of us must relate to in our individual lives. Depending on ones set of values and beliefs it will figure differently. From these individualised (or at least, particularised) point of views Climate Change abatement can be motivated by attaching its importance to cherished convictions. As such, we need "mobilising narratives" to motivate the concerted action that is much needed. Being a philosopher writing about climate change much of Hulme's spirit and approach is familiar to me. I agree with the major thrust of it too - with the reservation that I believe that his discussion of values and ethics would be better served without the religious overcoat. For a scholar in the humanities or social sciences this book may not be revolutionising, but it may be a needed shake up for others.
December 13, 2013
Hulme's exposition on the uses and confusions of climate change is valuable in as much as demonstrating that uncertainty is not just a tool of the sceptics. However, as a social constructivist and cultural theorist, the text veers into models and streams that provide little confidence or material on the development of this monster. There are useful insights on the development of the term, its deployment in policy and the ethical underpinnings of activists from anarchistic and authoritarian ends.
Whilst in disagreement with its conclusions, Hulme shows that the debate is wider and more nuanced than the media outbursts encouraged by the Left and the Right. But, at the end of the day, it still comes down to the science.
Whilst in disagreement with its conclusions, Hulme shows that the debate is wider and more nuanced than the media outbursts encouraged by the Left and the Right. But, at the end of the day, it still comes down to the science.
March 6, 2013
I was fortunate enough to take a course with Dr. Hulme during my Master's degree, and this book was the center of the course. It talks a lot about different framings of climate change and how we perceive risk in those different framings. The one thing that really stuck with me (I'm pretty sure its in the the book) is that many Americans don't believe in climate change because in the US we STILL call it global warming and so when temperatures drop all of a sudden global warming doesn't make sense. It's all about framing it correctly.
May 3, 2013
An incredible book that should be a template not for environmental books, but for books on almost any topic. This is one of the most important books I've ever read. Here's a summing up:
“Let us at least recognize that the sources of our disagreement about climate change lie deep within us, in our values and in our sense of identity and purpose. … Our disagreements should, at best, always lead us to learn more about ourselves – our lament for the past, our fear the future, our desire for control, and our instinct for justice."
“Let us at least recognize that the sources of our disagreement about climate change lie deep within us, in our values and in our sense of identity and purpose. … Our disagreements should, at best, always lead us to learn more about ourselves – our lament for the past, our fear the future, our desire for control, and our instinct for justice."
February 4, 2016
This book is well-written and fairly understandable. It's written for the intelligent public rather than targeted toward the academicians. It presents a new perspective on climate change by the phrase (not verbatim): "it's not about what climate change can do for you, it's about what climate change can do for us." Interesting, huh? His arguments are compelling, but I don't necessarily agree.
As a by-product of his argument, Hulme educates us about the definition of climate change through the eyes of different people, for example, politicians, scientists, the general public.
As a by-product of his argument, Hulme educates us about the definition of climate change through the eyes of different people, for example, politicians, scientists, the general public.
March 31, 2013
Hulme does exactly what he sets out to do: understand the reasons why people disagree about climate change. The book is highly readable, and, though written by a scientist, is not jargon-filled. Although I don't necessarily agree with his conclusions, his analysis of the issues surrounding climate change is quite good, and I would recommend it to any non-expert looking to understand why these issues aren't as simple as they occasionally appear to be.
September 28, 2013
I enjoyed this book. I come at climate change from a physical basis of facts and figures, so it made a change to read something which has a social perspective on the issue. I found it challenging at point to agree with the statements put forward on perspective of different groups. Was well written and bought up a lot of perspectives of climate change which I had not thought about before. Overall enjoyed a lot of this book.
December 1, 2011
This is a great and thought provoking book, bringing up such intricate cultural differences as how different societies value the life of, say, a cow - and how that effects our views on appropriate courses of action regarding climate change.
It is unfortunately a long and tedious read at times, however, even for sustainability buffs like myself.
It is unfortunately a long and tedious read at times, however, even for sustainability buffs like myself.
August 11, 2009
Excellent initial overview on the different standpoints of groups and organizations in the climate change debate, and notable personalities in the debate.
A welcome simplification for the beginner caught up in the rancor of debate.
A welcome simplification for the beginner caught up in the rancor of debate.
July 2, 2012
This is a slog of a read. It seems disconnected and lacking in any clear thesis. But important points are raised here and there, so I persevere. Not recommended to non-climate-professional readers.
June 29, 2013
Interesting but long-winded and for someone who likes ideas presented concisely, it does not really work for me asi lost interest about a third into the book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews