What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate
List Price: $14.95 Our Price: $10.17 You Save: $4.78 (32%) Availability: | Usually ships in 24 hours |
ISBN13: 9780399535017Condition: NEWNotes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
Product Description
7.2 million YouTube viewers can't be wrong: A provocative new way to look at the global warming debate.
Based on a series of viral videos that have garnered more than 7.2 million views, this visually appealing book gives readers-be they global warming activists, soccer moms, or NASCAR dads-a way to decide on the best course of action, by asking them to consider, "What's the worst that could happen?" And for those who decide that action is needed, Craven provides a solution that is not only powerful but also happens to be stunningly easy. Not just another "change your light bulb" book, this intriguing and provocative guide is the first to help readers make sense-for themselves-of the contradictory statements about global climate change.
The globe is warming! or The globe is not warming.
We're the ones doing it! or It's a natural cycle.
It's gonna be a catastrophe! or It'll be harmless.
This is the biggest threat to humankind! or This is the biggest hoax in history.
Spotlight Customer Reviews:
Summary:
The man that want to anounce WW3
|
Comment:
Mr. Craven said in a YouTube video (channel wonderingmind42) at 'Utopia Konferenz' in Germany we should announce WW3. Other interesting statements are that WW2 was helping the economy and advancements in technology like nothing else, not even a single critical remark. He goes on with, and I quote here: "You don't even have to believe in global warming but you should better do something about it." In the web videos, there is no single measure though of how to tackle the problem of CO2, if it was one. He is referencing a Prof. Hansen from NASA who is highly controversial and of whom colleagues say that he is exaggerating and lobbying.
Same thing goes for the IPCC and it's falsification of climate data which as it came out struck the Copenhagen clime conference. Also noteworthy is that Mr. Al Gore and Mr. Pachauri (head of the IPCC) are both heavily invested in companies which will profit massively from the CO2 'trading scheme' that they propagate. I do not say that Mr. Craven is a mouthpiece of those individuals but I think he clearly has been fed with wrong data and actively fears the masses with the doom and gloom scenarios we know all to well from Hollywood movies. To be a bit scientific here, think of this: If CO2 was responsible for 'global warming' how can it be than that in 1000 A.D. it was on average one degree Celsius warmer on the planet. What about other planets like Mars that are heating up and 'ice caps melting' there. Could it not be the sun and it's cycles which are mainly responsible for 'our climate' considering also that the sun has 99 per cent of all the mass in the solar system. Just think for yourself and then consider if you want to buy the book or not.
|
Summary:
Great for the person who doesn't know where they stand.
|
Comment:
Plan and simple, this is the an excellent book for those who don't know where they stand or know much what how to make an educated decision about the matter at hand. There are plenty of great lengthy reviews of the book, so I'll keep it brief. It's WELL worth the money! If anything, it give you the tools to evaluate any topic. That's well worth the price of the book. Being a life-long student of science and our planet, I can say with certainty, this is the general feeling of the science community. If you are still doubting what's being said, I recommend you study other science related topics. It will make you a better informed person and will help you understand the world we live in better.
Some people choose to read/watch fiction in their free time, but I go for what's real. The world is far too interesting to waste time on what is made up in the recesses of our minds--although creativity is very important! For me science is far more interesting....
Last point, Greg is doing this for others, not himself. This doesn't happen very often in our world today. Know that what you are getting is heartfelt and bigger than one person.
Enjoy!
|
Summary:
Give in to fear
|
Comment:
The argument can be summed up in a single sentence. Give in to fear.
Mr. Craven's claim: You can make a rational choice about whether to support political action on global warming without considering whether there's really a problem to address. Make no mistake about it; he expects you to support political action even if you're not convinced that climate change is a problem. It defies common sense, obviously. But once again, we're asked to ignore the obvious for a little more compost in place of reason.
He puts his political action argument in the form of a "risk analysis;" one that I'm sure would not survive a cursory review in a first year business course. The bottom line is that if you feel confused by the global warming debate, then you should definitely favor draining trillions of dollars from the world economy even if it causes a world-wide depression and you starve to death as a result. It doesn't matter whether the trillions spent address any real problem or whether political action could do any good even if a real problem exists. You don't need to think about that.
You don't need to think about that because Mr. Craven does it for you, replacing your uncertainty with the fear that we'll face dire consequences if political action is not taken. Here's the trick. He says if you are not certain either way, then you must accept that the alarmists' view "might be" true. If it "might be" true, then he asserts that you must treat it in your analysis as if it is true. In other words, if you don't know that it's true, then it's true. And by the way; even if you are absolutely certain that global warming is not a problem requiring political action, you're still instructed to act as if it is. After all, you're not infallible (like the warmers are); which equates to uncertainty and by his default reasoning tips the analysis in favor of political action.
Real-world risk assessment does in fact require that you understand what you're talking about. The point is to understand risks and assess their impact. There is no magic that transforms not having a clue into "a rational response" to anything.
Bottom line: Mr. Craven is preaching fear of the unknown: telling you to forget about knowledge and reason and to allow yourself to be driven by global warming fear-mongering without question. Be afraid of what "might be" imagined as true - even if it's not. It makes you wonder what other compost he might be stuffing into the heads of high school students in place of reason.
|
Summary:
Read this book now or don't whatever
|
Comment:
This book is fantastic. Don't read it if you live by the "ignorance is bliss" modo. It will open your eyes and your mind and probably freak you out.
|
Summary:
What's the worst that could happen? You ignore the issues.
|
Comment:
You may have heard of Greg Craven. He's a high-school science teacher who made the viral YouTube video, "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See." In the video he employed game theory, or risk management, to discuss what is the best response to climate change. He made a grid with two columns- climate change real or not real, and two rows- action or no action. The gist of the grid was that strong action and climate change not being real was better than the alternative, climate change being real with inaction. But as he admits in the book, viewers discovered a hole in the argument so big that you can drive a pickup truck through it. Basically, you can apply any far-fetched scenario to argue that action and the threat not being real is better than inaction, such as an invasion of giant mutant hamsters from outer space. The book "What's the Worst That Could Happen?" is Craven's response to the comment threads that followed his video, and an elaboration on the original argument.
The huge social/political debate on global warming makes it difficult for laymen to discern the evidence and the proper course of action. With such a politicized public debate, the issues are so clouded that unless you practice telling good claims from bad, it's difficult to know what to do. Craven's aim is to help the readers to cut through the noise and decide what the best course of action regarding climate change is. He makes clear that his aim is not to convince you that he is right, but to show the reader how to think about the issue. He makes an overview of the claims of the warmers and skeptics, and precedes to give the readers the tool for sorting them out. First, our brains are flawed. Craven gives the example of the blindspot to show that we don't take in as much of the world as we think we do- change blindness is another good example. In addition, we all have confirmation bias- we look for evidence that confirms what we already think is true. So what to do with this? We look for evidence from the profession that is specifically trained to eliminate confirmation bias and to look for flaws in reasoning- science. Of course, that's not the end of it, because you can find folks with scientific credentials on either side of just about any issue. Google "evidence for geocentrism" Seriously, it's out there. Further, in science, strictly speaking, nothing is proven. Craven points out that we're still testing our understanding of gravity. We don't have to have something proven in a mathematical or abstract logical sense for us to have reliable knowledge. Craven constructs a credibility spectrum, with lay individuals at the bottom, and professional organizations at the top. The reason being that with the peer review process in journals, scientists are constantly checking and re-checking each other's work, and a professional organization cannot make a strong statement without individual members being certain that they support it.
So that changes the grid. The box of a potential bad scenario becomes bigger once it gets more credibility within the scientific community. Craven saves his conclusion for the end, but you probably could have guessed it by now- all the major professional scientific organizations that have anything to do with climate science agree that the climate is warming, that carbon emissions are a major cause of it, and the impact of it is potentially catastrophic. Meaning, civilization could either be gone or unrecognizable. Some of the scenarios are terrifying. Craven thinks that we are so late in the game that only a World War II-style mobilization will fix the problem. But Craven doesn't want to preach. He has an appendix- "Reader's Conclusion, Some Assembly Required," that instructs the reader how to construct a credibility spectrum, decision grid, etc.
The worst that can happen is truly for us to ignore this issue. We are seeing lots of noise in the news lately on this topic, such as the so-called "Climategate" scandal (which I think is a non-issue), the Copenhagen agreement, and a potential Cap-and-Trade bill in congress. All of it can be a bit overwhelming, but if you know how to think about the issue, you'll be alright, and reading Craven's book is an excellent start.
|
|