And, while we’re at it, what are your favorite comments?
I am seriously entertaining the idea of collecting my best posts and trying to publish them as a book.
I’d be interested in any thoughts you have on the general topic, as well as specific recommendations for posts to reprint. If comments are an indication of interest in a post, then I have a good starting list here:
I also collected several of what I thought were some of my better introductory posts here:
The other introductory posts on the side bar also are key starting points.
I think I might also reprint some of the better comments since they help make this blog what it is. A key point of the book would be to give readers a flavor for what they can expect here. And much as CP’s Terms of Use allow anyone to reprint one of my columns, they also give us the right to reprint any comment in any other media.
I have no idea whether this attempt to bridge very different media will work. Obviously certain features of the blog, like the hyperlinks, are hard to capture in a book — but then I would simply direct people in the book who were interested in the original sources to the blog (where I’d have them all in one place). I’m quite certain such a book would not be a big moneymaker since none of my books have been — [Note to self: Get over it!] — indeed, on a income per hour basis, book-writing doesn’t pay close to the minimum wage.
Anyway, the goal would be to create something that is permanent and desirable — and that serves as a vehicle for getting the word out on the blog to a different audience.
Suggestions are welcome!
RSS
Subscribe by Email
Follow Climate Progress on Twitter
No time to go through all, but I (as an activist) need and appreciate PRACTICAL SOLUTIONS applicable to real life, e.g., why we need much more locally grown food and how that will save on greenhouse gases.
Also, simple, brief, dummy statistics which can be used for Neanderthal politicians and others who make our decisions for us. Thanks for all this good stuff…………………
Based on what Yahoo Babel Fish told me, Ferinannnd’s Russian sentence translates (loosely) as “Thanks, I read it in one sitting.”
Just don’t ask me what “it” refers to. Maybe this is a case of posting in the wrong blog.
My favorite post, the one that first brought climateprogess to my attention, is “Global Warming Imperils 4th of July” from July 3rd, 2007. Been a daily reader ever since.
Um. Very hard to pick just one or two, I’ll spend a bit of time reviewing the archives and get back to you. The books seems like a good idea, though. While I’m here, let me make a suggestion:
I can understand why you don’t make your email address available, but perhaps you could institute some method whereby readers could draw your attention to a new story in a timely manner? Like this one:
Dust storms speed snowmelt in the West — An unusually high number of the storms has left a film of dust on the Rocky Mountain snowpack, causing it to melt earlier and forcing farmers to adjust. This could be the new normal, scientists say:
http://www.latimes.com/ news/ la-na-pink-snow24-2009may24,0,1566955.story?
tiny URL for the story: http://tinyurl.com/oty5y8
[JR: This comment and the next ended up in SPAM folder. Very rare. Didn’t happen to anyone else. Can’t explain it.
If you read, About Climate Progress, you’ll see “You can send us e-mail at climate@americanprogressaction.org”
Also, the daily news update post (on weekdays) is the place to post other stories.
Finally, I did blog on that story here.
I promise to buy the book. I come here to get real information when I’m trying to find out “what’s wrong with” (which it turns, out, works perfectly using Google combined with such lovelies as Monckton, Pielke, et al.
Leland Palmer has recently grabbed my attention with his ability to uncover the nasty underbelly of denialist sources.
In general, I feel that in prolonging the argument into its fourth decade those guys are accomplishing their masters’ wish, and are dangerous beyond the level our tendency to hope for the best can fathom.
After cruising the archives, I think some of the best posts are in the Uncharacteristically Blunt Scientists category, but I still couldn’t pick out “the best” couple of articles. The real meaning and import is in the collective impact the archives contain. Perhaps the book could open with stuff from Blunt Scientists and then have sections based on a few other of the most important categories, like Solutions, Economics, Science and International. You could adopt a denier technique and cherry-pick from the other categories to flesh it out.
In general I’d stick with the factual stuff (particularly the new facts, there are still way too many people on both sides citing outdated data). While the rants and condemnations on mass media for pushing denier propaganda are understandable and important in real time, they are probably not the best stuff for a book (although certainly there should be a section about the denier strategy and techniques and some debunking of them). Most of the political reporting/commentary probably won’t age well enough for a book as that stuff is changing too fast right now, but naturally there should be some posts on the general political outlook at this critical moment in history. Good luck!
Joe:
I’d do chapters — one on the science; one on deniers; one on the MSM; one on technical solutions; one on policy solutions; and one on why it’s been so hard to get action (messaging and special interests). You’ve got excellent postys in each.
14 Wedges
Whoops, 14 Wedges is my name for it. Your title was “Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 2: The Solution”
The update is important, too. While well-linked, I personally found it too choppy, as if there was much more to be said, but you kept losing the thread because there was so much more to say. KISC (Keep It Simple, Charlie)
Hard to pick winners, but this one should definitely be in there…
Is the global economy a Ponzi scheme?
http://climateprogress.org/ 2009/ 03/ 08/ ponzi-scheme-madoff-friedman-natural-capital-renewable-resources/
and some of its followups. Of course it could be titles along the lines of
Are human values a Ponzi scheme.
tricky since so much has changed from
launch to now
“Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 2: The Solution”
So few people realise that there is a solution to the energy problem, requiring only rapid deployment of existing technology. Even the conservative IEA agrees. The media just hasn’t communicated this.
I personally think that the fundamentals of a blog or a book are so radically different because of the difference in time frames (constantly updated, interactive vs. longer lead time and then fixed). I’d be afraid that it would be out of date by the time it was in print.
When I logged on this evening (figuring that Sunday is a slow day for media and the blogosphere) I’d just finished reading an excellent article in (I think the lates issue) National Geographic Magazine about population and resource limits and degradation and India’s “Green Revolution” (actually very agribusiness model) which has now plateaued. It made me think about the study of how humanity has already emitted x amount of the carbon we can emit to retain a livable climate.
That’s where I want to take my stand and make my starting point. I have learned a lot from reading Climate Progress but sometimes you have to step back and look at the bigger picture. That I think is true for a book that would survive the timeline, even if it uses the blog. But then I haven’t read your first book yet, so I don’t have that perspective.
No false modesty here, I guess, or any of the real stuff for that matter.
I am most afraid when criers on the left or right start suggesting that certain ideas and/or speakers or writers should not be published, listened to, read, etc. I’m scared too when scientists claim to have found the truth. When these sorts of things start to happen, even a great cause will lose credibility and perhaps the necessary support to be addressed seriously by societies and governments – all because the chicken littles are running about trying to shut up those who disagree with them.
I view the militancy of the climate change criers to be a rational, but misled, response to the Bush administration’s foolish anti-science stances. It is further to be excused because it is youth-driven, and therefore for the most part ill-informed and emotional. Other Influences: for young scientists, it is a field rich with intellectual challenges, and the possibility of lucrative careers (but sorely lacking in historical data – the basis upon which the theorizing must be built); these are the children of the sixties generation who’ve been recycling for years, and they can finally have a cause to call their own. Also many no doubt regard themselves and their cohort as having single-handedly put Obama into office. They are thus chosen and unstoppable.
So rather than throwing appellations like “denier” and “crank” around, I suggest the GW criers spend their time advocating their position rather than undermining it.
Now, will you post this? If not, I understand. Too well.
The 14 wedges is a good idea. Think there’s a whole book to be written on Solar Thermal? Always thinking solutions, though a grave, somewhat apocalyptic (realist) thriller would sell more copies…
“How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution (updated)”
“The best stimulus, Part 1: What is geo-engineering and adaptation and CO2 mitigation all in one?”
“Geoengineering, adaptation and mitigation, Part 2: White roofs are the trillion-dollar solution”
Casey,
I am 51 and so hardly driven by the fervor of youth and I used to feel about this exactly as you do. And I still fell that way when it comes to people who disagree and debate on what should be done regarding the genuine facts of the situation (and there are such things when it comes to science).
But the real deniers (not merely the uniformed who have made the mistake of believing everything they see posted on a web site somewhere without fact-checking it) deserve that name, and much worse in my experienced opinion. Because they are the ones who, for economic reasons or because of their political philosophy, continue to deny those genuine facts are “right” (although they’ve been scientifically verified over and over again for the past 30 years) or that those facts are being interpreted correctly (in other words, the denier’s cherry-picking, twisted and politically-inspired interpretation/opinion of the facts somehow trumps the considered and well-researched evaluation and consensus of tens of thousands of experienced climate scientists who have been working in this field honestly and diligently for the last 10 to 30 years).
What’s worse is that these hard-core deniers have organizations, publications and web sites funded by corporate and political interests which continually and deliberately flat-out *lie* about the scientific facts or twist them around into falsehoods and then spread the lies around the internet. They even manage to get their propaganda into the mainstream mass media (whose reporters and editors should know better but either don’t bother or simply do not care, because all they want is a good story with some controversy, with both sides even equal time regardless of their sound bites’ factual merits).
For decades these professional deniers and their dupes have so successfully confused the public and corrupted the politics that desperately needed action on addressing human-accelerated global warming has been completely stalled for the last 20 years at least, getting absolutely nowhere, even though the doomsday clock kept on ticking the whole time. We are only just now starting to get some practical traction on addressing the situation and only now because the physical world has started demonstrating for everyone in a big way the truth of what is happening — demonstrating it in ways even relatively uninformed people can see and feel in their personal lives.
And yet the career denialists continue their calculated and well-funded campaigns of confusion and delay, although they know they are condemning their children and grand children to a devastated world. I’m sorry, but they do not deserve and can no longer be granted any courteous acquiescence and or shrugged off with the application of the “it’s all good” rationale common to modern discussion. The stakes are too high and time is rapidly running out.
Here’s a suggestion: Spend some time really checking out the denier websites and then come back and tell us you still think these deliberate liars and no-conscience propagandists are entitled to any kind of respect or courtesy whatsoever.
It would be good for this website to get more exposure. I like this website and I’ve learned alot from it. But. But why pay for something when you can get it for free, ( as my old girlfriend would say her Dad told her about whether her boyfriend would marry her if . . well you know what I mean)
Isn’t that the problem that newspapers have now, ad revenue, because why buy a paper when a person can just read it off the internet. (or why read at all if you got cell phone and video games) I saw a book a few years ago that published Website/Blog chatter and I didn’t think it transfered well from the computer to a book. I expect different things from a book to a website.
Should this website get more exposure, sure. IMO a book might not work. But then if you think you can do it, great. But there should be other easier cheaper ways.
Perhaps you could organize your material as:
Reality vs Myth,
Example, a section for each of the wedges with the true cost and capacity compared to what the media keeps reporting.
A section on George Wills would be grand.
if you’re looking for specifics, I think it’s hard to pick, but the of two best are the updated wedges (is 450ppm possible? I bhink was the title) and the Global Ponzi Scheme.
You know what I would read? You teaming up with Bill McKibben to address the economy as it is right now, post ponzi, post affluence-oriented Deep Economy, published 2007. But that would mean writing an actual book.
Collections of posts? I vote Updated Wedges (440ppm). It’s hopeful and specific and a target.
Casey Chapple — Then you simply do not understand the science. I suggest you inform yourself. I suggest starting with climatologist W.F. Ruddiman’s “Plows, Plagues and Petroleum” and continuing with climatolgist David Archer’s “The Long Thaw”.
As for views of the future, Joe Romm’s “Hell and High Water” and Mark Lynas’s “Six Degrees” are both recommended.
For the history of climatology (and actually much else), “The Discovery of Global Warming” by Spencer Weart:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
I love ‘The Action Distraction’ – I always use it to show how, even if climate change were a myth, we should still act.
Thanks for your reply, Pat Richards.
But if one substitutes “affirmers” for “deniers” in your post, it reads very plausibly. And this: “And yet the career denialists continue their calculated and well-funded campaigns of confusion and delay, although they know they are condemning their children and grand children to a devastated world” is the worst kind of grandiose slandermongering.
The only way to arrive at the truth about anything is for the believers to present convincing arguments for their own sides, and supportable refutations of the others’. Calling names and hurling slanders is for children who lack resources for existing civilly in the world. Resorting to that behavior is a de-evolution of who we are or hope to be. Were we all to do that, the world would be better without us, and so, perhaps, it will be.
Hope you weren’t just heeding the master’s command for the elders to deal with the trolls. Some blogs eat themselves.
Mr. Benson? If I read those things, then I, too, will feel obliged to hurl insults at those who disagree with the positions stated there?
My complaint is that you who do so are clearly hotheads whose opinions must be regarded with deep suspicion. You cannot be taken seriously. I am looking for the serious positions, and am disinclined to accept yours since they issue from a neurotic, defensive, paranoid place. See?
Sorry. That was me above.
Casey Chappelle makes an interesting point. Credibility is a function of delivery, and it is true that much climate change rhetoric is hard to swallow because of its essentialism and emotional tenor.
I understand why this is true. It’s such a large and serious problem, and it scares a lot of people here. It scares me too. But part of being a good leader in an actual crisis like this one is being non-reactive, calm and sane.
If you ask me, people like Casey are worth reaching out to, and I think the first step is being much less shrill and partisan. The stakes are really high. The rhetoric of environmentalism has got to become a rhetoric of positive leadership that does more than preach to the choir.
I would recommend that, in lieu of a book, you work to get your fine messages onto Op-Ed pages in newspapers across the country. That is one influential place where these messages are now almost absent.
I think published commentaries would do much more to move the country to climate action, than would a book.
I thought this post was very good:
http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 05/ 02/ nature-article-on-cooling-confuses-revkin-media-deniers-next-decade-may-see-rapid-warming/
I read this blog mainly for expert opinion on policy and solutions. For science, I tend to go to RealClimate – a site put together by active climatologists, as their discussion is very detailed. But they don’t have time to debunk every piece of media spin. The above post does this nicely, and reveals the key graph from the study in question.
I also liked the following post:
http://climateprogress.org/ 2009/ 04/ 26/ the-green-fdr-obama-first-100-days/
I want to see more “summary” posts like this – how far we’ve come this year in creating a sustainable future.
Casey Chapple — Huh?
I don’t hurl insults.
January 25, 2009
http://climateprogress.org/ 2009/ 01/ 25/ eric-pooley-media-coverage-climate-economics-harvard-stenographer/
This post was important enough for Joe to republish recently and I’m glad he did because the situation with the MSM has only gotten worse as so many of the best reporters, researchers, editors and writers are now out of work and no longer on the case.
Pooley’s piece on the media’s acquiescence and abandonment of their traditional investigative and disseminate-the-facts role should be the subject of a one hour Frontline piece on PBS.
Meanwhile I continue to quote this piece on my own blog and see daily evidence of its truth and insight as I read the morning newspapers and monitor the network and cable news channel nightly broadcasts. The pictures are in high def but the information is fuzzy and out of focus.