Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate

This is a science book especially a climate science book unlike any other. The reader gets not just the outcome of the scientific debate nor the "two sides," rather Schneider immerses us in the process of science. If science is a contact sport, and from all accounts (not just this one) it is, then climate science is the Superbowl. Following Schneider on his long journey through the science left me with the following impressions. 1) It is amazing that a science that, in any organized sense, is only about forty years old has accomplished so much in such a short time span. It has involved tens of thousands of scientists from dozens of disciplines and sub-disciplines inventing a "science" in an effort to comprehend one of the most complex phenomenon ever studied (or created) by humans. 2) Climate science is a science that by its very nature involves the amassing of mountains of evidence that point towards the elimination of uncertainties and the statement of probabilities--and not to exact formulas or equations. It has to consider non-linear events, thresholds and tipping points as basic components of its understanding of the complex phenomenon we call climate. 3) Climate science has undertaken these investigations while under attack by the largest and best-funded corporations and economic interests in human history. Where there is not opposition from the fossil fuel industry and its allies, there are an untold number of economic players whose fortunes will be affected by any rearrangement of the rules of the market required by the desperate straits we have put ourselves in. 4) Climate science has been expected to come up with definitive answers as to the probability of humans changing the planet into a totally unfamiliar place in order that an international assemblage of policymakers and political leaders can arrive at a solution to this unprecedented problem and enforce it across the boundaries of 190 nations before time runs out. The goals of social justice must be matched against those of keeping the warming of the climate in check--all within a process that has imposed on itself the requirement of 100% consensus. It is truly amazing that this gang of climate scientists has accomplished so much in such a short time-span within the political pressure cooker they operate. We owe these scientists, and Steven Schneider as their note-taker, a deep debt of gratitude for all they have done to make the world a better place. Schneider gives us an insider's view into how to compete in "extreme science."

Stephen Schneider is a physicist at Stanford University who studies the patterns and processes associated with global climate change. He comes to the table with credentials and experience that few others in the world possess, and I found his inside view of the current global climate change debate to be nothing less than amazing. He was a co-recipient of the Nobel Prize with Al Gore, and a section leader in the IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change). Who better to write a book about the fight regarding global climate change? I found the most fascinating part of the book to be the section on "Mediaology" (i.e., news media, and dealing with the media). He has been the subject of numerous personal attacks carried out in the form of quotes taken out of context, partial and inaccurate reporting, etc. He has valuable lessons to teach about being a scientist and speaking out in the public forum. Schneider also does a good job of explaining what science is and how good science is done. I also found the sections where he discussed the procedures for the generation of IPCC reports to be enlightening. The book is readable and is much more than a memoire, though there is a significant amount of autobiographical information in the book. This is not a book about global warming, but about what it takes to be involved in dialog associated with an issue where many special interest entities work to to deliberately discredit people that speak out, muddy the waters on the issues and data associated with the issues, and even refute the existence of global climate change, regradless of the data. One thing this book helped clarify in my mind is the difference between climate change skeptics and climate change denialists. Skeptics (and I hope we all have a healthy dose of skepticism) are people that are reluctant to accept a particular conclusion or position until sufficient evidence is presented to demonstrate the validity of a position, and they then accept it, whether they personally like it or not. Denialists, on the other hand, don't care how overwhelming the evidence may be, they are committed to a position and course of action that they will pursue even in light of overwhelming consensus and agreement among professionals that work in the field in question. May we all be skeptics, not denialists. The sad thing is that the vast majority of climate change denialists may never read this book. Thanks for the great insights! It gave me plenty to think about. 5 stars!

I must admit to having been a fence-sitter on the whole global warming/climate change controversy, not knowing which side to believe. However, this book has moved me firmly into the believer camp as it very logically lays out what's been discovered, why it's important and what it means to the future of our increasingly fragile planet. Highly recommended for anyone willing to take a serious, open-minded look at what is a very serious issue. It's well-written and makes its point(s) without the rhetoric and emotionalism that's so often present.

Read this book. Seriously. Read it. Those who are familiar with the IPCC and with the climate change discussions will have heard of Stephen H. Schneider. Not only did he receive the collective 2007 Nobel Peace Prize as a member of the IPCC (along with Al Gore), Schneider has played an important and often pivotal role in the development of the science over the last four decades. He has also been the focus of much of the climate denialist attacks. In Science as a Contact Sport, published in late 2009, Schneider gives us a reasoned, informative and insightful look into both the history of climate change science and the inner workings of the IPCC process in developing the first four Assessment Reports. Essentially this is a memoir, and through his personal experiences from the center of the scientific debate Schneider opens a window into how the scientific consensus was developed over more than forty years of focused research, as well as glimpses into the initial discovery of the role of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases in causing a warming of the earth. In a writing style that mirrors his real-life tendency of being both in-your-face and humorous, his use of anecdote and metaphor are instrumental in getting the point across and tunneling into the real issues. Climate deniers, as he calls them, have used his earlier work on the cooling of the atmosphere due to aerosol releases to suggest that he is a scientist for any temperature. This is just one example of the way denialists misrepresent his work and the work of others to push their free market agendas. He addresses some of these willful distortions in chapters on how the companies who are most affected by possible policy options "heat up" the debate and in a chapter called "Media Wars: The Stories Behind Persistent Distortion." He coins the term "mediarology" to define how difficult it is to communicate honestly complex science through the media. And he talks about other tactics used to distort the discussion, where the deniers goal isn't to inform the truth but to be victorious (defined as "delaying" action). Schneider notes that even though such obvious denier fraud as the "Great Global Warming Swindle," which was thoroughly debunked as garbage at the time it was released (hundreds of errors and a willful attempt to mislead), is still used by denialists to "support" their charade. But the main benefit of the book is the "history-in-the-making" aspect of the process. From the inside Schneider relates how scientists first came to suspect that the world was getting warmer, the investigations that were undertaken, the honest disagreements between scientists as they tried to understand what they were observing, how increasing technological and computing capability from the 1970s through the present day allowed greater and more accurate modeling, and how the IPCC process works to develop a consensus. This last part is particularly revealing, as the IPCC insists that t

1) This is fine, first-hand book on the evolution of climate science over the last 30 years or so with nuanced descriptions of the science arguments and the difficulties in explaining science to policymakers and the public. Thank Stephen especially for the long campaign to regularize the uncertainty descriptions used in the IPCC 3rd and 4th Reviews. Other reviews have covered many of the topics I might have, so I won't repeat, but will offer something different. 2) If you want more history, start with: Spencer Weart, The Discovery of Global Warming (New Histories of Science, Technology, and Medicine), which also has an equivalent website at the American Institute of Physics. Then, read two of Stephen's earlier books: Global Warming: Are We Entering the Greenhouse Century?, 1989. andLaboratory Earth the Planetary Gamble We (Science Masters), 1996. This sequence offers a good look into what was known or not *at the time, not just by hindsight*, how real science works, and how scientists weigh data and competing hypotheses. Much of real science is trying to bound uncertainty, and good scientists change their minds. Some things that were theoretically very likely in 1989, but had not yet emerged from the noise into statistical significance, have long since done so. 3) If you want tutorials, here are my favorites, for 3 levels of background in ascending order General audience, easily including high school, and inexpensive. David Archer,The Long Thaw: How Humans Are Changing the Next 100,000 Years of Earth's Climate (Science Essentials), 2009. 180 easy pages. See my review over there for advice on figuring out whether or not someone might be an expert [like Archer] or not. College undergrad textbook, for non-science majors, i.e., a little more math and science: David Archer, Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, 2008. Not so cheap, but good. 194 (denser) pages. Serious, but the Real Stuff: Search: ipcc wg i technical summary for the ~70-page Technical Summary, what the scientists *really* think. Free. Anyone who has read SaaCS should understand why the Summary for Policy Makers is almost always weakened and uses obscure language compared to the TS. I hear this quite consistently from other IPCC authors, who are often amazed *anything* makes it into the SPM. Consider reading the TS for WG's II and III as well. 4) Bottom line: So, SaaCS is a good book to read. Even better is to attend live talks by good climate scientists. Stephen is especially adept at giving talks for various backgrounds. There is no real substitute for listening to a real expert, watch them answer questions, and maybe even talk to them. In some places, that may be hard, but many good research universities offer public talks, and speakers may do outreach talks elsewhere. Here in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, there must be at least 30+ IPCC authors around, and so many talks they sometimes have schedule conflicts. Among Stanford U, SLAC, UC Berkeley, LBNL, LL