What we're reading III

Photo by az
Oct 2013
4

Part three of our regular round-up of things we've enjoyed reading.

From the media

“There is no valuable thinking now that is not planetary thinking”

Alex Steffen on how he sees the future against the background of climate change.

“Climate change deniers seem divided in their preferred contrarian narrative”

Michael Mann considers varied intepretations of the new IPCC report in the Guardian.

“Communicating climate change requires more than explaining the science”

Adam Corner explains why, and why this idea is often resisted, in New Scientist.

“Both Left and Right reject a more pragmatic approach to the climate issue out of fear that doing so might conflict with their idealized visions for the future”

Nordhaus and Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute on why energy sources only climate “sceptics” favour are good for greenhouse gas emissions.

“Climate science is all about which clouds matter and where they are”

The Economist on how understanding of clouds – and aerosols – has improved since the last IPCC report.

“The IPCC has kicked away the ‘best estimate’ crutch”

Warren Pearce reflects on the allure of a single number, and the, er, sensitivity of climate sensitivity.

“We are constantly trying to improve our modeling to capture the full range of extreme events”

Joseph Stromberg investigates how the insurance industry is dealing with climate change for the Smithsonian.

“No single person or group has enough knowledge or experience to solve all of the problems afflicting a complex system at once”

Kevin J Noone considers how to tackle the Anthropocene for Project Syndicate.

“Unfortunately there’s really nothing more we can do for Earth at this point”

The satire experts at the Onion explain why scientists recommend the planet should be put down.

“Our product really complements what Monsanto’s product set is today”

Katie Valentine explains why Monsanto is getting into the climate data business.

Health of oceans 'declining fast'

The BBC's IUCN report.

"The report is science meets policy. I'm on the science side"

Future Earth Science Committee member Corinne Le Quere in the Guardian on her experiences working on the IPCC Working Group I report.

From peer-reviewed journals

“A less monolithic approach may well be more efficient”

Nature Geoscience reflects the future of the IPCC.

“Deliberate persecution of the new — just because it is new — is no longer sustainable in a world of rapid global change”

Our attitude to invasive species is often irrational, says Chris Thomas in Nature.

Comments