In the latest issue of New Scientist, I've got a review of climate change journo Mark Bowen's new book, Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming. I have to say, this book is right up my presumed alley, and yet I had a hard time getting through it. You can't read the entire New Scientist review online, but here are a few parts:
Unfortunately, while Bowen gives play-by-play details - who emailed whom, who sat in on what meeting - Hansen remains curiously distant, or just plain absent, from much of the narrative. The story of his past is given only in a brief interlude in the book's early chapters, and Hansen's central intellectual history - how he became the most influential climate scientist in the US, the discoveries that increasingly frightened him - is held at bay until the third-to-last chapter of the book, where Bowen finally hits his stride....
In the end, I believe we should think of James Hansen as an exceedingly reluctant hero, and an uncomfortable one to boot - the Bilbo Baggins of climate politics. Here's a guy who really just wanted to get back to the hobbit hole of his research, but who was forced by the political situation in which he found himself - and the failures of others to step up and do the job - to march off and confront the dragon. But Hansen seized the moment and took the risk when many others did not, and for that he deserves to be celebrated.
Anyways, as I think you can see, I feel pretty strongly that Bowen should have given us James Hansen first, and a "war on science" narrative second. But that didn't happen.
Too bad...
- Log in to post comments
Chris, wonder if you have ever heard about or considered "polar cities" for survivors of global warming in the year 2500 or so, if worst comes to worst? Have you heard the term or seen the blog images? Look here. Or google the term "polar cities" and see for yourself. Wonder how you would see polar cities, as a non-threatening thought experiment, pro or con? Can you email me or blog about polar cities here? Thanks
Danny Bloom
Taiwan
http://pcillu101.blogspot.com
I get the feeling that this book by Mark Bowen was put together hastily, or at least, had a weak editor. For example, there are a times where stories or "facts" are needlessly repeated in different chapters, and the chronological story seems disjointed. I think his earlier climate change book, "Thin Ice", about Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State (and Marshall) was a better organized book. But both stories are understandable, and both tell great stories about how science is done. Both books provide uplifting stories of smart people who succeed in the face of criticism and political obstruction.
We don't yet know if all good science by Thompson and Hansen (and many others) will be enough to drive good policies. I can only imagine where the political discussion would be without the courage and honesty of Bowen's subjects.
Having interacted with Hansen at a discussion he led with graduate students here at Caltech, just a few months ago, I have to agree with you characterization of him as "extremely reluctant". I had the impression that he would have rather discussed hard science than the policy questions that inevitably arose.
I can hear the cacophony of the "skeptics" now:
"Did Bilbo Baggins do 1500 press interviews?"
I found Bowen's book "Thin Ice" hard to get through as well, for a lot of the same reasons that you cited in your review. It's too bad, because both books are on fascinating topics.
Does this mean Leonard Nimoy will sing a wacky song about James Hansen while women with elf ears frolic around him?
Terry Gross talked to them yesterday on "Fresh Air", mostly to Hansen. Jim and Terry were both at their best. I think you might like the result.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926941
Nice pre-emptive self-immolation Dark Tent. I might have thrown in something about "death trains...headed for crematoria" to illustrate his nonscientific alarmism.
Characterizing Hansen as a reluctant and stoic hero is either charmingly naïve or purposely deceptive. I'll give Chris the benefit of the doubt and assume it was the former.
My review of the book is in near agreement with Chris', but it is not yet posted on my review archive (The Science Shelf, click my name) pending its publication in the Dallas Morning News, probably on 1/20.
If someone else runs it this weekend, then I can post online then.
I was truly disappointed that Bowen missed a great opportunity. This was a book by a scientist, but it needed a journalist with strong narrative skills and an appreciation for the subject matter. One Mr. Mooney would have been perfect.
Here are two of the three closing paragraphs:
"This is an important and dramatic story, but Bowen's journalism is weak. He could have woven a strong narrative about political bull-headedness and dangerous disregard of scientific reality on one side; and on the other, the recent transformation of Jim Hansen to someone who saw it as his duty to speak out on policy as well as science....
"The book's greatest failing is that it feels like a paean to Jim Hansen. This is disappointing to readers who pick up the book looking for an in-depth probe 'inside the political attack' on global warming science."