What's the Worst That Could Happen?: A Rational Response to the Climate Change Debate,   ISBN:9780399535017

Customer Rating: 

This is an easy to read book for most adults and high-school students and does an honest job at attempting to do what the author claims he wishes to do. That is, provide an argument for addressing climate change regardless of "what the science eventually concludes". The reason I give just three stars is that Craven does a disservice to all by even keeping alive the idea that the science is unsettled and such a debate even exists. The science has been clear for several decades now. One need merely read the Charney Report from 1979 which concludes "our best estimate is that changes in global temperature of the order of 3°C will occur and that these will be accompanied by significant changes in regional climatic patterns."
The 1979 JASON technical report entitled "The Long Term Impact of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Climate" also predicted that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere would double from their pre-industrial levels by about 2035. Today it is expected this will happen by about 2050. They suggested that this doubling of carbon dioxide would lead to an average warming across the planet of 2-3C, an estimate in line with the most current IPCC findings. They further warned that polar regions would warm by much more than the average, perhaps by as much as 10C or 12C. That prediction is already coming true and was also predicted by the IPCC in 1995.
In other words there is no debate. The scientific predictions from 30 years ago, made from assessments gathered during the 1960's and 1970's, told us what ALL peer-reviewed assessments since then have told us. All we have essentially done in the last 25 years is further refine the predictions on the regional effects.
We need to stop pretending that a handful of fossil fuel industry funded opportunists doing 3rd rate science is the equivalent of a meaningful debate. The scientists who first began publishing doubts on climate change in the popular press were the very same scientists who also published similar reports to cast doubt on the link between cancer and tobacco, CFC's and the ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen emissions to acid rain. They have, in internal communications, admitted their reports are only intended to give the impression a debate exists to delay action. They have never been "correct" in their findings because that is not their intention.
While this author's heart is in the right place he is aiding those who deceive the public for their own political and economic benefit at the expense of the public good.
The science is settled, there is NO debate. It is time to give climate change deniers the same level of attention we give to those who promulgate perpetual motion machines since their "science" is roughly equally valid.
I'm sorry if this seems harsh since the author admits he "believes" in climate change but the "debate" has already cost us 30 years. One no more "believes" in climate change than one "believes" in gravity or electro-magnetism. We cannot afford to molly-coddle our societies scientifically illiterate. They are the minority and the time to act has already passed.

Customer Rating: 

If we ought to mitigate against any imaginable risk, then any possible disaster anyone imagines - asteroids, evil crystals, spontaneous combustion, alien invasion, etc all ought to be mitigated. We would have to stop living and bunker up permanently shivering in fear in fallout shelters. Human life comes with benefits and costs - there is no magic loophole from a genuine cost/benefit analysis of all possible alternatives.

Customer Rating: 

We've all been inundated with the pros and cons of the global warming and climate change debate. And probably most of us are inclined to believe that the world will warm, polar bears will suffer, lawns will turn brown, and cars will get smaller. The breezy hillsides will become populated with windmills, the southwest desert will host large solar-thermal farms, our utilities will watch our energy use through smart meters, and new power transmission lines will link wind and solar power to our population centers. All this change will happen to run our electric cars, our virtual meetings, our air conditioning, our refrigerators, and our wide-screen televisions. That doesn't sound particularly disrupting, just a little expensive. Between that and a health care solution, we will be set for the 21st Century.

Not so fast Bubba. Have you really taken a look at the assumptions you are making and how you arrived at you conclusion? For most of us, I suspect our thinking is,

`Yeah, we may get warmer but the jury is still out on how bad the impact might be even if we could do much about it. And I can hardly afford my mortgage, my health insurance, my car payment, the college tuition, my tax bill, my (taxpayer) share of all of these under-funded pension plans, and the occasional vacation to Yosemite or the Grand Canyon the way it is. I think I'll pass on most of these expensive carbon-footprint reducing actions.'

Global warming is not yet `in our face' - real, ugly, and frightening - so it is easy to discount the need to `really' do something about it. Something that takes conscious decisions that reduce the choices we thought we would be able to make like buying that useful SUV, acquiring that 52" LED flat panel HDTV, investing in that continuing education tuition, or expanding out of our cramped home as the kids start arriving. It's all due to a biological fault in this phase of our evolution. In the last 10,000 years our `fight or flight' quick reaction mechanism has become less and less essential to our survival. Instead, it is becoming more important to exercise longer-term planning skills that have emerged over the last thirty years. These skills include scenario planning, risk-reward analysis (expected value), real options, and systems thinking. Unfortunately, these are not nearly as natural and persuasive and suffer unexpected `long tail' effects as opposed to clear `in your face - fight or flight' decision-making.

Greg Craven addresses our shortcomings for effective long term planning to protect ourselves and, more importantly, our children and their children. He has used his own experience in teaching students about physics and chemistry to engage them in refining his `rational decision' process. How to sort through all of the contrary points-of-view, focusing not on searching for what is the right answer about the extent and degree of global warming risk, but rather on what we risk if we make the wrong bet. His approach is to focus on what we control - our choices - and how to bolster our ability to think longer term by framing the arguments from pro-con advocates, weighing the credibility of various spokespersons, creating a decision matrix (what Nature does vs. what We choose to do), assessing the risk-reward, and making your choice for action or not. This approach is applicable to a wide variety of widely debated issues so becoming comfortable with Mr. Craven's approach has benefits well beyond your global warming thinking and decision making.

Of course, what we as individuals do on these global community issues only has a significant impact if all of us join in. So ultimately there is the need for a social movement to create a `tipping point' for effective action. This is necessary to develop enough support to reach that "angle of repose' in which a small additional nudge creates the positive social feedback to generate self-sustaining behavioral change to deal with global warming risk - in time - to anticipate and overcome the inherent delayed responses, massive momentums, non-linear tipping points, and feedbacks in the global climate system. Mr. Craven's framework will help the proactive reader create their own story on what to believe and how to respond to these real challenges that shape our future.

Customer Rating: 

I have just bought the book and placed it on an urgent delivery date, because I am excited to read the book that the auther Greg Craven has spent 2 years of thorough research. I have watched all of Greg's videos on YouTube, including the series "How it all ends", which is like the first version to this book. So take a look at those videos and see for yourself. Irregardless of your position on climate change, this book is not ment to bash any side. But to ultimately ask the question, "Is it worth the gamble to do nothing?". This book will be my loaner...Ya, know that book or DVD that you always loan out to everyone to help better explain your views. Anyways great job to Greg and I hope this review helps.

Customer Rating: 

At times, our passions can mask "inconvenient truths" and, as far as I can tell, Craven's passion quickly degrades into nonsense since change isn't free; For example, it takes energy to create new cars; thus, it's not obvious that getting rid of a bunch of clunkers-- and replacing them with something else, is truly beneficial.

Hence, I view folks like Craven in a similar way as I do James Cramer (of "mad money") since, as a scientist, Craven doesn't have to take responsibility for his mistakes since science is about learning from mistakes. So, like James Cramer, he'll focus on the positive outcomes (when people make money) and ignore the negative outcomes (when people lose money) in order to make himself look good.

i.e. at one point, people thought the world was flat but then they learned that the world was round and religious leaders started to look dumb and that's why scientific thought doesn't mean much since scientists could destroy the world during their attempts to make things a little better; that's a possibility that Craven ignores.

additionally, since science believes that the natural world was created without rational thought (the underling belief of Darwinism), why does the natural world suddenly need rationalism to survive? so perhaps Craven's ego is two sizes two big?

in fact, I'm became an atheist since I decided that "if God exists," he'll tell me: "you're one of the few who understood that I was beyond human understanding."