A few days ago I mentioned that I had been in College Park, Maryland, sitting on a panel to discuss the work of Mike Tidwell, author of The Ravaging Tide: Strange Weather, Future Katrinas, and the Coming Death of America's Coastal Cities. Tidwell's book has been assigned as the "first year book" for some 4,000 University of Maryland freshmen.
Over at DeSmogBlog, I've now posted the first installment of a two-part discussion about why I find this book so problematic, and why I felt that I had to speak out about the matter--especially after my visit to the UMD. I begin by posing the following questions:
What responsibility does an environmentalist and science defender have to criticize one of his or her political allies for inaccuracy and the incautious treatment of complex information?
Must we be equal opportunity critics in all cases, or should we blunt our barbs lest they injure our friends?
And I take it from there. Again, you can read the full post here. If you want an example of why Tidwell's approach to the hurricane-global warming issue is so different than my own, meanwhile, consider the following passage from his book--which is not, to my mind, exactly...er, nuanced:
As these future stressors pile up, running nonstop on so many different levels, even one Katrina disaster might be impossible for the nation to absorb in 2015 or 2025. Never mind two or three Katrinas every summer. I can't help but wonder what I will do in my own region. The Chesapeake Bay, warmed and greatly enlarged by sea-level rise, will be an enhanced landing strip for newly pumped-up Atlantic hurricanes. A storm like Wilma, with an unusually tight and compact eye wall, will be able to travel in the future to within a few miles of the Washington Beltway and my house, refueled all the way by the hot and wide open water of a bay no longer buffered by vast marshes and islands. Where will I go after fatigue sets in from the first rebuilding and then the second and the third?
- Log in to post comments
I have mixed feelings about Tidwell. I went to a community meeting about climate change co-organized by his group, The Chesapeake Climate Action Network. The meeting had a feeling of a revival, especially when Tidwell spoke. He got a roomful of middle class retirees and liberal intellectuals fired up like they had just witnessed a miraculous healing. Unfortunately, his presentation was filled with so many exaggerations and inaccuracies (rather like that previous sentence I just wrote) that I decided I would probably skip any future meetings of the group in my community.
On the other hand, a prominent Maryland state senator also got up to speak about how important their kind of grass roots community organizing is, particularly for the development of municipal and state environmental legislation. Tidwell's group works closely with sympathetic state legislators to draft and build support for statewide legislation on efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions. Maryland is now on track to join California at the forefront of state and municipal policies to address climate change. I think Tidwell's group can probably claim at least a small amount of credit for helping to make this true. Given that they are starting from a distorted view of climate science, however, I wonder whether this will lead to problems in the future.
I have not read the book and after reading your review, Chris, I don't think I will.
Good thing I'm not in the Freshman class at UMD, right?
Speaking of which... all I can say is that there are lots of books that they might have assigned (a book called "Storm World", for example. The author's name escapes me at this moment...).
There can be value in assigning a book that is factually incorrect (specifically because it is incorrect) and then picking it apart, but I somehow doubt that most of the professors and TA's at UMD would have the background needed to do so with scientific subjects like hurricanes. I also seriously doubt that is the reason why the book in question was assigned.
Also posted at DeSmogBlog (and inadvertently in the wrong place here):
If the object is to teach freshmen the importance of critical thinking and respect for the scientific process, wouldn't it be a good idea to use a book that makes a number of good points but oversteps the science?
I can imagine some absolutely wonderful classroom and dormitory debates that would result. Some of them might even read your book Storm World and compare its balanced, careful, and thorough approach to Tidwell's polemic.
(Click my name for my review of Storm World, which was published in several major metropolitan newspapers.)
At the risk of having an avalanche dropped on me from the framing arguement side - perhaps we need to worry less about nuance then whether this book, assigned or not, gets folks involved and active, questionsing and doing with regards to climate change. Coming from Hurricane Country on the Gulf Coast, I have interpreted several of the climate change-linked sea level rise models as possibly spelling the kind of disaster Tidwell highlights in yoru quote. Hurricanes are part of the Chesapeake's history afterall, and lest we forget, DC is built on a swamp. Even Al Gore, Nobel and all, didn't always get every fact right. But in the big picture, John Q Public perspective, how off is Tidwell? And whats wrong with a little tent revivalism in the fight to oppose global climate change? Maybe a little more fire in people's bellies would get more substantive action.
Philip - Climate scientists have already wrangled with the ethical dilemma of downplaying uncertainty and emphasizing worst-case scenarios in order to build public support. There is a strong case to be made that this ultimately weakens the scientific community's ability to positively influence policymaking. Now Tidwell is not a scientist (though he is a former journalist). He is an advocate on one extreme side of a political debate. Which is why I left his group's meeting accepting it for what it is - a mechanism for activating a vocal minority (I also left a somewhat awed by his ability to channel a bit of tent revivalism). Although Gore's "errors" are much more trivial than Tidwell's, I would argue that even Gore sacrificed some of his broader influence by stressing his "crisis" frame and emphasizing worst-case scenarios without clarifying probabilities and time-scales. Also, let's not forget that a groundswell of support for the invasion of Iraq was built on inferences, half-truths, and even some lies, all sold as iron-clad facts. The strategy was successful, but the resulting policy was not.
How different do climate change supporters (activists/scientists/the like) become when they use the same kind of misleading arguments that climate change denialists use?
There's so much factual information out there about realistic and disturbing impacts of climate change that it seems silly to shortchange the argument by sidestepping the truth. Gore used the science incredibly well to support the case and consequentially gave mass attention to the topic.
By crossing the line between alarmist and factual, science defenders give argument to the other side when worst-case scenario situations don't work out.
Worst case scenarios should only be cited when it's in hindsight. For instance, we're currently above the 2005 worst-case prognosis on CO2 emissions, and that in itself is a scary thought to think about. Why delve into the unknown when it's unnecessary?