Book review: 'Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years On Earth'

Conservatives sometimes enjoy deriding global warming as the "religion" of enviro lefties, which is a bizarre logical leap. Based on empirical evidence compiled by researchers the world over, it’s completely rational to conclude that mankind would be wise to do everything possible to avoid the dire consequences of climate change –- denying this evidence based purely on faith that everything will work out for the best represents a far more "religious" approach.

Yet global warming activists do bear some resemblance to their evangelical counterparts in two ways: Both often describe a sort of conversion experience in which they become powerfully convinced of the need for personal change, and once converted they can bring a missionary zeal to spreading the word.

That’s certainly true of Mark Hertsgaard, author of "Hot: Living Through the Next Fifty Years on Earth." His conversion experience happened in 2005 during a reporting trip to London, when he interviewed David King, the chief science advisor to the British government. King pointed out that climate change wasn’t some theoretical future event –- it was already happening, and even in 2005 it was too late to stop it.

It so happened that Hertsgaard’s daughter, Chiara, had been born that year, and the discussion with King got him thinking about what kind of world Chiara would grow up in. The book is his response.

And make no mistake, Hertsgaard is a global-warming missionary. At times, his IPCC-assessment-thumping gets a little tiresome even for fellow believers like me, especially the section devoted to refuting the claims of climate deniers. Pointing out that tobacco companies are now being sued for deceptive marketing practices of past decades, he suggests that the fossil fuel industry might similarly be held liable someday for trying to refute the scientific evidence of climate change. That’s quite a stretch; reports from conservative think tanks, fact-free though they may be, aren’t really the same thing as deceptive ads.

Hertsgaard, who has written five other books in addition to writing for such magazines as the New Yorker and Vanity Fair, also brings to his book what I think of as the New Yorker approach to foreign-policy writing: Visit as many hamlets around the world as you can, take copious notes, and empty your notebook onto the page. There’s certainly value in learning the perspectives of people in far-flung places and it adds a human perspective to what would otherwise come off as a purely technical problem, but the book would have better lived up to the promise of its title if it included more information from climate modelers about what the globe will be like to live on in 2060, and less mucking through the mud in sinking Bangladesh.

But these are minor quibbles. Hertsgaard is a journalist, not a climate scientist, and I may be biased but I think that’s actually a bonus. He has a way of making problems and solutions understandable in a way that scientists typically lack, and he’s a compelling storyteller. Those who aren’t already grounded in the climate problem will find few better primers. And for some, reading his book might even produce a conversion experience.

-- Dan Turner

Comments

[Bob White]

Dan Turner:
Thanks for revealing to us why you are so uninformed and biased. You may find the story of the inception of the Climate Change movement worthwhile. Ever hear of Margaret Meade?
http://inthesenewtimes.com/2009/11/29/1975-endangered-atmosphere-conference-where-the-global-warming-hoax-was-born/

Continue here;
http://www.climateaudit.info/pdf/mcintyre-scitech.pdf

[Bob White]

@berribrand
Before winging an obviously uninformed, unfounded opinion, you should do a little bit of research to avoid revealing yourself as too lazy or incompetent to do research.
The US Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) has monitored the eviornment for the DOE for decades. The DOE, EPA, IPCC and researchers use their data and their Global Warming Potentials (GWP).
The GWP for water vapor is 95%; for green house gases GHG, 5%. The GWP for man made GHG is 0.28%. Therefore 99.72% of GW is natural. Man-made CO2 produces 0.117% of GW; CH4, 0.066%.
Therefore manmade CO2 is responsible for 0.117/0.28 or 41.8% of man-made global warming and methane is responsible for 23.6%.
HR 2454 was meant to reduce US man-made CO2 by 17%. This would have reduced GW by 0.01% or one part in ten thousand at a cost ov hundreds of billions of dollars.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[berribrand]

@Scott Free:
I'm not sure where you live, but California has plans in place and is already capturing methane from landfills, farms, and is requiring manufacturers to reduce or eliminate CFCs from various products. It's all part of the State's plan to reduce emissions by the 2020 and 2050 timelines. They are not just looking at CO2, but also at methane, nitrous oxide, PFCs, CFCs, and SF6. But, the science shows us that CO2 is something like 80% of the warming associated with human emitted greenhouse gases. Even though CFCs and methane are more potent, we emit far more Co2. Again, its not my words, its the science that tells us this.

[nakedempire]

Peak Oil and the coming famine, video

http://nakedempire.wordpress.com/2011/03/11/peak-oil-the-coming-famine/

[John Dingler, artist]

An ad hominem article written by a conservative.

[peaches]

Does it really matter if climate change is real or not? The golden rule will still be in effect. Those with the gold will make the rules.

The rich will always have air conditioning and clean water. The poor will always dream that one day they will be rich.

The rest is just dinner conversation and academic hair splitting.

[Scott Free]

The envrio-mentalists keep pushing for impossible solutions that they admit themselves will not work (co2 50–85 per cent below 2000 levels by 2050). Yet you are considered a gw "denier" if you point out that reductions in methane, cfc's and soot are not only more practical, but are tens to hundreds of times more effective per unit removed than removing co2. As long gw evangelists are more concerned about their co2 or bust agenda, and less concerned about actually preventing gw, until that happens the "denial" will continue.