What we’re reading III
From the media
Alex Steffen on how he sees the future against the background of climate change.
Michael Mann considers varied intepretations of the new IPCC report in the Guardian.
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.
The Economist on how understanding of clouds – and aerosols – has improved since the last IPCC report.
Warren Pearce reflects on the allure of a single number, and the, er, sensitivity of climate sensitivity.
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.
The satire experts at the Onion explain why scientists recommend the planet should be put down.
Katie Valentine explains why Monsanto is getting into the climate data business.
The BBC'sIUCN report.
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
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.