ISO Good Book to Clear Up Climate Change Debate

[Gary Childress]

Been watching things go back and forth on a couple forums over the past couple years regarding the global climate change debate and am not so sure what to make of it anymore. Does anyone have any recommendations on a good and reputable book for novices that weighs the arguments from both sides of the issue and can help clarify who really has the better arguments? I'm sort of tired of seeing each side pointing the finger and accusing the other of having some sort of "hidden agenda" or whatever. Let's just try to determine the facts. Is the climate changing and is it likely being caused by human activities or not?

Thanks for any book recommendations anyone may have.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Been watching things go back and forth on a couple forums over the past couple years regarding the global climate change debate and am not so sure what to make of it anymore. Does anyone have any recommendations on a good and reputable book for novices that weighs the arguments from both sides of the issue and can help clarify who really has the better arguments? I'm sort of tired of seeing each side pointing the finger and accusing the other of having some sort of "hidden agenda" or whatever. Let's just try to determine the facts. Is the climate changing and is it likely being caused by human activities or not?

Thanks for any book recommendations anyone may have.

From my own investigations books simply fall into one of two categories: for and against.
I've not yet seen a book that tries to unpack the hysterical arguments and exaggerated claims that exist on both sides.
There is finance available on both sides to support one or other of the basic claims that GW is a serious problem and that is is not such a serious problem. There seems to be no advantage or incentive for a balanced and considered approach.

[Walker]

What is the desired change? Stasis? Then by what baseline? Some imaginary hunky –dory?

Carbon credits is a scam. Pretty damn obvious. That drives the interest, along with self-congratulations.

[Dubious]

As long as there's debate in whatever medium nothing will be cleared up. Debate for the sake of consensus is fine up to a point but too long and its true purpose is better defined as procrastination. Having pumped millions of tons of greenhouse gases into the biosphere every year for nearly half a century is it reasonable to assume that there won't be consequences? How logical is that? We've long known what greenhouse gases do.

Based on everything the elites & leaders of the world have screwed up through corruption and a level of stupidity incapable of acknowledging limits the rest of us mindless peons are going to be left with the consequences much more than those who created it by not doing anything about it as it was happening. We act as if we can suspend nature from proceeding with its processes until we're ready to seriously do something and not merely have caviar, cheese and champagne parties in the interim while throwing a few carbon credits at the problem.

[Arising_uk]

Is the climate changing ...

Yes, it is getting warmer.

and is it likely being caused by human activities or not?

That is not the question that was originally raised by the climate scientists, what was raised was, 'Are our activities contributing or could they contribute to the warming and if so by how much'. This is where the issues and arguments have been.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What is the desired change? Stasis? Then by what baseline? Some imaginary hunky –dory?

Carbon credits is a scam. Pretty damn obvious. That drives the interest, along with self-congratulations.

When politics and the media get involved, truth is the first casualty, even if it has been established or not. SO much for short termism. As an Anarchaeologist I tend to think in longer time frames.

It will not be long before the fossil fuels are all spent, and the earth's oceans will soon after sequester the CO2 from the atmosphere. We have maybe 50 years. Unless, at the rate of increase of use,we see in China and elsewhere, it runs out sooner.
Then we had better hope that the ICE AGE, long predicted and long overdue will eventually come to pass, with the deeper natural cycles of change more profound than any human activity, that we are able to prepare for it.

And where London once stood we find a depth of crushing ice, others will wish for the global warming now no longer possible from digging up the earth.

[Walker]

It’s a religion. It’s a topic for the religion forum. Misplacement of the topic, not the topic, pollutes this environment.

From gobal cooling, to global warming, to global climate change. The name changes but each of these religion is the same, OT syle. The religion of fear.

Yoda reminds us that fear leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. The fear is too big. Current weather suffering isn’t large enough for that much fear. So turn to the endless future and utilitize the rigorous logic that someday, something might happen. Yes, that is undeniable.

All the future can hold that much fear, and this religion can’t turn to evidence. In this religion the past is not accountable to the present. The present is accountable to predictions of a religion with a weak track record.

Someone must be punished for causing this fear. Someone must pay and suffer for this fear in the noggins.

*

Most compassion for those who cling to the Holiness of their Wealthiness, who fall on their knees to worship at that alter, for they will know the most suffering. When they lose everything, they will lose more. So says Buddha.

[Impenitent]

Yoda - Do; or do not. There is no try

Mann - Do wha diddy diddy dum diddy do

-Imp