Last week I published a detailed critique of Maryland-based climate activist and writer Mike Tidwell's book The Ravaging Tide. This week, I have followed up with Part II: My explanation of why it is that I'm going after Tidwell even though he's on my own "team," so to speak.
An excerpt:
In my view, what we need on global warming is not merely to energize the base of people who already agree with us, but to reach across the aisle and move conservatives as well. But the way that Tidwell frames the issue won't do that. To Tidwell, global warming is repeatedly depicted as a "Pandora's Box," set to unleash untold disasters upon the world. And so he tries to communicate on the issue by, in essence, scaring people--making them deathly afraid of devastating impacts like more intense hurricanes.
The "ravaging" tide. The "death" of coastal cities.
But there are at least two problems with this approach....
You can read the entire piece here. So far, no reply from Tidwell or his supporters.
- Log in to post comments
Uh, I actually agree with Chris on this one. But, I'm not sure he agrees with himself. To the left of this text box I see a book with a cover illustraion showing a raging ocean with the sensationalist and scary title "STORM WORLD". How exactly is that different than the "Ravaging Tide"?
Kettle/pot?
Lance -
Surely you're not just judging books by covers?
As Chris writes in the link above, overstating the certainty of the case, as The Ravaging Tide does in his view, is little better than understating it, as is done by the denialist faction. The mere fact someone appears to be 'on our side' does not give them a path clear from criticism.
DaveS.,
Chris specifically criticized the title of Tidwell's book, "The Ravaging Tide". I think that opens the title of his book to similar criticism.
I have read both of Chris' books. The biggest difference between his style and Tidwell's is that Chris presents a straw man approximation of the counter arguments to AGW and then makes it clear he is convinced that AGW is just as much a threat as Tidwell's book presents it to be.
In his above post Chris claims that he wants to bring conservatives over to his side. This "frames" the debate as a political one rather than a scientific one revealing Chris' true purpose, securing a progressive vision of the role of science. He cares little about indepedent scientific inquiry. His is a political mission.
Note that he focuses only on scientific issues that can be used to advance his political cause, AGW and stem cell research being his two favorites. Had it not been for the political advantage of Katrina as a bludgeon against Bush I doubt he would have had much interest in the study of tropical storms.
Lance, it seems to me that you have an axe to grind. Chris has made it clear that his goal is the depoliticalization of science, not the opposite. Regardless of which political party is involved.
I agree that framing the issue of AGW as non-political is the most rational and reality-based approach. While doing so, we should also defuse the folks on the left and the right who attempt to make scientific fact and evidence into propaganda.
I also think that it would be a relief to scientists to know that they can present to a rational public about environmental-welfare issues. So lets hop on the bandwagon of NOT having knee-jerk reactions.
We've discussed the title issue before, but it merits revisiting here.
As an author myself, I have had discussions about the titles/subtitles of my books and not always persuaded the publisher. The publisher rightly considers the cover and title part of the marketing of their product.
I don't know whether Chris had similar discussions about the title and subtitle of Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle Over Global Warming (click my name for my review), but I think the subtitle is an accurate description of the contents, and the title brings it attention in the marketplace.
His earlier The Republican War on Science also had an eye-catching title and made me challenge the author with "Oh, yeah? Prove it!" He did. See my review at http://www.scienceshelf.com/RepublicanWaronScience.htm for details.
As for reviewing books, I focus on the content and usually refrain from making statements about the author (like this from Lance: "He cares little about independent scientific inquiry. His is a political mission.") The only time that I choose to go after the author is when the publicity makes the book a personal piece or when the author makes him/herself an issue. Chris and his publishers keep the focus on content, and I do the same in my commentaries.
(Parentetical note: In the only review I submitted with an attack on the over-hyped author, my editor at Publisher's Weekly toned it down considerably. I'll be glad to share my original author-thrashing with anyone who e-mails me.)
In this case, judging from Chris' books, I see his mission as journalistic: to explore what happens when science and politics mix. Yes, he has a political bias that he makes clear, but he also researches his work exceptionally well.
His critique of Tidwell strengthens my impressions of Chris' journalistic excellence. He criticizes misrepresentation of science from allies and opponents alike. The need for effective policies in response to global warming is too great to allow political predilections to trump impartial scientific observations and analysis.
As my review notes, Storm World is not a partisan book. Those who see partisanship in it are probably those who see partisanship in any scientific paper that supports the conclusion that the present episode of global warming has clear human fingerprints.
Chris, It would seem that, to some extent, you agree with Nordhaus and Shellenberger, at least in their criticism of the selling of environmental action through the use apocalypse scenarios.
In an article this week in USA Today, we see that IMBY-ism wakes people up. But, other than that, so many seem to reason from myth, not fact.