|Edition description:||First Edition|
|Product dimensions:||5.80(w) x 8.20(h) x 0.65(d)|
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
FIELD NOTES FROM A CATASTROPHEMAN, NATURE, AND CLIMATE CHANGE
By Elizabeth Kolbert
BLOOMSBURYCopyright © 2006 Elizabeth Kolbert
All right reserved.
Chapter OneSHISHMAREF, ALASKA
THE ALASKAN VILLAGE of Shishmaref sits on an island known as Sarichef, five miles off the coast of the Seward Peninsula. Sarichef is a small island-no more than a quarter of a mile across and two and a half miles long-and Shishmaref is basically the only thing on it. To the north is the Chukchi Sea, and in every other direction lies the Bering Land Bridge National Preserve, which probably ranks as one of the least visited national parks in the country. During the last ice age, the land bridge-exposed by a drop in sea levels of more than three hundred feet-grew to be nearly a thousand miles wide. The preserve occupies that part of it which, after more than ten thousand years of warmth, still remains above water.
Shishmaref (population 591) is an Inupiat village, and it has been inhabited, at least on a seasonal basis, for several centuries. As in many native villages in Alaska, life there combines-often disconcertingly-the very ancient and the totally modern. Almost everyone in Shishmaref still lives off subsistence hunting, primarily for bearded seals but also for walrus, moose, rabbits, and migrating birds. When Ivisited the village one day in April, the spring thaw was under way, and the seal-hunting season was about to begin. (Wandering around, I almost tripped over the remnants of the previous year's catch emerging from storage under the snow.) At noon, the village's transportation planner, Tony Weyiouanna, invited me to his house for lunch. In the living room, an enormous television set tuned to the local public-access station was playing a rock soundtrack. Messages like "Happy Birthday to the following elders ..." kept scrolling across the screen.
Traditionally, the men in Shishmaref hunted for seals by driving out over the sea ice with dogsleds or, more recently, on snowmobiles. After they hauled the seals back to the village, the women would skin and cure them, a process that takes several weeks. In the early 1990s, the hunters began to notice that the sea ice was changing. (Although the claim that the Eskimos have hundreds of words for snow is an exaggeration, the Inupiat make distinctions among many different types of ice, including sikuliag, "young ice," sarri, "pack ice," and tuvag, "land-locked ice.") The ice was starting to form later in the fall, and also to break up earlier in the spring. Once, it had been possible to drive out twenty miles; now, by the time the seals arrived, the ice was mushy half that distance from shore. Weyiouanna described it as having the consistency of a "slush puppy." When you encounter it, he said, "your hair starts sticking up. Your eyes are wide open. You can't even blink." It became too dangerous to hunt using snowmobiles, and the men switched to boats.
Soon, the changes in the sea ice brought other problems. At its highest point, Shishmaref is only twenty-two feet above sea level, and the houses, most of which were built by the U.S. government, are small, boxy, and not particularly sturdy-looking. When the Chukchi Sea froze early, the layer of ice protected the village, the way a tarp prevents a swimming pool from getting roiled by the wind. When the sea started to freeze later, Shishmaref became more vulnerable to storm surges. A storm in October 1997 scoured away a hundred-and-twenty-five-foot-wide strip from the town's northern edge; several houses were destroyed, and more than a dozen had to be relocated. During another storm, in October 2001, the village was threatened by twelve-foot waves. In the summer of 2002, residents of Shishmaref voted, a hundred and sixty-one to twenty, to move the entire village to the mainland. In 2004, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a survey of possible sites. Most of the spots that are being considered for a new village are in areas nearly as remote as Sarichef, with no roads or nearby cities or even settlements. It is estimated that a full relocation would cost the U.S. government $180 million.
People I spoke to in Shishmaref expressed divided emotions about the proposed move. Some worried that, by leaving the tiny island, they would give up their connection to the sea and become lost. "It makes me feel lonely," one woman said. Others seemed excited by the prospect of gaining certain conveniences, like running water, that Shishmaref lacks. Everyone seemed to agree, though, that the village's situation, already dire, was only going to get worse.
Morris Kiyutelluk, who is sixty-five, has lived in Shishmaref almost all his life. (His last name, he told me, means "without a wooden spoon.") I spoke to him while I was hanging around the basement of the village church, which also serves as the unofficial headquarters for a group called the Shishmaref Erosion and Relocation Coalition. "The first time I heard about global warming, I thought, I don't believe those Japanese," Kiyutelluk told me. "Well, they had some good scientists, and it's become true."
The National Academy of Sciences undertook its first major study of global warming in 1979. At that point, climate modeling was still in its infancy, and only a few groups, one led by Syukuro Manabe at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and another by James Hansen at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, had considered in any detail the effects of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Still, the results of their work were alarming enough that President Jimmy Carter called on the academy to investigate. A nine-member panel was appointed. It was led by the distinguished meteorologist Jule Charney, of MIT, who, in the 1940s, had been the first meteorologist to demonstrate that numerical weather forecasting was feasible.
The Ad Hoc Study Group on Carbon Dioxide and Climate, or the Charney panel, as it became known, met for five days at the National Academy of Sciences' summer study center, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Its conclusions were unequivocal. Panel members had looked for flaws in the modelers' work but had been unable to find any. "If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible," the scientists wrote. For a doubling of C[O.sub.2] from preindustrial levels, they put the likely global temperature rise at between two and a half and eight degrees Fahrenheit. The panel members weren't sure how long it would take for changes already set in motion to become manifest, mainly because the climate system has a built-in time delay. The effect of adding C[O.sub.2] to the atmosphere is to throw the earth out of "energy balance." In order for balance to be restored-as, according to the laws of physics, it eventually must be-the entire planet has to heat up, including the oceans, a process, the Charney panel noted, that could take "several decades." Thus, what might seem like the most conservative approach-waiting for evidence of warming to make sure the models were accurate-actually amounted to the riskiest possible strategy: "We may not be given a warning until the C[O.sub.2] loading is such that an appreciable climate change is inevitable."
It is now more than twenty-five years since the Charney panel issued its report, and, in that period, Americans have been alerted to the dangers of global warming so many times that reproducing even a small fraction of these warnings would fill several volumes; indeed, entire books have been written just on the history of efforts to draw attention to the problem. (Since the Charney report, the National Academy of Sciences alone has produced nearly two hundred more studies on the subject, including, to name just a few, "Radiative Forcing of Climate Change," "Understanding Climate Change Feedbacks," and "Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming.") During this same period, worldwide carbon-dioxide emissions have continued to increase, from five billion to seven billion metric tons a year, and the earth's temperature, much as predicted by Manabe's and Hansen's models, has steadily risen. The year 1990 was the warmest year on record until 1991, which was equally hot. Almost every subsequent year has been warmer still. As of this writing, 1998 ranks as the hottest year since the instrumental temperature record began, but it is closely followed by 2002 and 2003, which are tied for second; 2001, which is third; and 2004, which is fourth. Since climate is innately changeable, it's difficult to say when, exactly, in this sequence natural variation could be ruled out as the sole cause. The American Geophysical Union, one of the nation's largest and most respected scientific organizations, decided in 2003 that the matter had been settled. At the group's annual meeting that year, it issued a consensus statement declaring, "Natural influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface temperatures." As best as can be determined, the world is now warmer than it has been at any point in the last two millennia, and, if current trends continue, by the end of the century it will likely be hotter than at any point in the last two million years.
In the same way that global warming has gradually ceased to be merely a theory, so, too, its impacts are no longer just hypothetical. Nearly every major glacier in the world is shrinking; those in Glacier National Park are retreating so quickly it has been estimated that they will vanish entirely by 2030. The oceans are becoming not just warmer but more acidic; the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures is diminishing; animals are shifting their ranges poleward; and plants are blooming days, and in some cases weeks, earlier than they used to. These are the warning signs that the Charney panel cautioned against waiting for, and while in many parts of the globe they are still subtle enough to be overlooked, in others they can no longer be ignored. As it happens, the most dramatic changes are occurring in those places, like Shishmaref, where the fewest people tend to live. This disproportionate effect of global warming in the far north was also predicted by early climate models, which forecast, in column after column of FOR TRAN-generated figures, what today can be measured and observed directly: the Arctic is melting.
Most of the land in the Arctic, and nearly a quarter of all the land in the Northern Hemisphere-some five and a half billion acres-is underlaid by zones of permafrost. A few months after I visited Shishmaref, I went back to Alaska to take a trip through the interior of the state with Vladimir Romanovsky, a geophysicist and permafrost expert. I flew into Fairbanks-Romanovsky teaches at the University of Alaska, which has its main campus there-and when I arrived, the whole city was enveloped in a dense haze that looked like fog but smelled like burning rubber. People kept telling me that I was lucky I hadn't come a couple of weeks earlier, when it had been much worse. "Even the dogs were wearing masks," one woman I met said. I must have smiled. "I am not joking," she told me.
Fairbanks, Alaska's second-largest city, is surrounded on all sides by forest, and virtually every summer lightning sets off fires in these forests, which fill the air with smoke for a few days or, in bad years, weeks. In the summer of 2004, the fires started early, in June, and were still burning two and a half months later; by the time of my visit, in late August, a record 6.3 million acres-an area roughly the size of New Hampshire-had been incinerated. The severity of the fires was clearly linked to the weather, which had been exceptionally hot and dry; the average summertime temperature in Fairbanks was the highest on record, and the amount of rainfall was the third lowest.
On my second day in Fairbanks, Romanovsky picked me up at my hotel for an underground tour of the city. Like most permafrost experts, he is from Russia. (The Soviets more or less invented the study of permafrost when they decided to build their gulags in Siberia.) A broad man with shaggy brown hair and a square jaw, Romanovsky as a student had had to choose between playing professional hockey and becoming a geophysicist. He had opted for the latter, he told me, because "I was little bit better scientist than hockey player." He went on to earn two master's degrees and two Ph.D.s. Romanovsky came to get me at ten A.M.; owing to all the smoke, it looked like dawn.
Any piece of ground that has remained frozen for at least two years is, by definition, permafrost. In some places, like eastern Siberia, permafrost runs nearly a mile deep; in Alaska, it varies from a couple of hundred feet to a couple of thousand feet deep. Fairbanks, which is just below the Arctic Circle, is situated in a region of discontinuous permafrost, meaning that the city is pocked with regions of frozen ground. One of the first stops on Romanovsky's tour was a hole that had opened up in a patch of permafrost not far from his house. It was about six feet wide and five feet deep. Nearby were the outlines of other, even bigger holes, which, Romanovsky told me, had been filled with gravel by the local public-works department. The holes, known as thermokarsts, had appeared suddenly when the permafrost gave way, like a rotting floorboard. (The technical term for thawed permafrost is "talik," from a Russian word meaning "not frozen.") Across the road, Romanovsky pointed out a long trench running into the woods. The trench, he explained, had been formed when a wedge of underground ice had melted. The spruce trees that had been growing next to it, or perhaps on top of it, were now listing at odd angles, as if in a gale. Locally, such trees are called "drunken." A few of the spruces had fallen over. "These are very drunk," Romanovsky said.
In Alaska, the ground is riddled with ice wedges that were created during the last glaciation, when the cold earth cracked and the cracks filled with water. The wedges, which can be dozens or even hundreds of feet deep, tended to form in networks, so when they melt, they leave behind connecting diamond- or hexagon-shaped depressions. A few blocks beyond the drunken forest, we came to a house where the front yard showed clear signs of ice-wedge melt-off. The owner, trying to make the best of things, had turned the yard into a miniature-golf course. Around the corner, Romanovsky pointed out a house-no longer occupied-that basically had split in two; the main part was leaning to the right and the garage toward the left. The house had been built in the sixties or early seventies; it had survived until almost a decade ago, when the permafrost under it started to degrade. Romanovsky's mother-in-law used to own two houses on the same block. He had urged her to sell them both. He pointed out one, now under new ownership; its roof had developed an ominous-looking ripple. (When Romanovsky went to buy his own house, he looked only in permafrost-free areas.)
"Ten years ago, nobody cared about permafrost," he told me. "Now everybody wants to know." Measurements that Romanovsky and his colleagues at the University of Alaska have made around Fairbanks show that the temperature of the permafrost in many places has risen to the point where it is now less than one degree below freezing. In places where the permafrost has been disturbed, by roads or houses or lawns, much of it is already thawing. Romanovsky has also been monitoring the permafrost on the North Slope and has found that there, too, are regions where the permafrost is very nearly thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit. While thermokarsts in the roadbeds and talik under the basement are the sort of problems that really only affect the people right near-or above-them, warming permafrost is significant in ways that go far beyond local real estate losses. For one thing, permafrost represents a unique record of long-term temperature trends. For another, it acts, in effect, as a repository for greenhouse gases. As the climate warms, there is a good chance that these gases will be released into the atmosphere, further contributing to global warming. Although the age of permafrost is difficult to determine, Romanovsky estimates that most of it in Alaska probably dates back to the beginning of the last glacial cycle. This means that if it thaws, it will be doing so for the first time in more than a hundred and twenty thousand years. "It's really a very interesting time," Romanovsky told me.
Excerpted from FIELD NOTES FROM A CATASTROPHE by Elizabeth Kolbert Copyright © 2006 by Elizabeth Kolbert. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
Table of Contents
Shishmaref, Alaska 7
A Warmer Sky 35
Under the Glacier 45
The Butterfly and the Toad 67
The Curse of Akkad 93
Floating Houses 122
Business as Usual 133
The Day After Kyoto 150
Burlington, Vermont 173
Man in the Anthropocene 183
Selected Bibliography and Notes 207
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Welcome to the future caused by our past. There is something about the way this wonderful author writes that makes the whole depressing mess of our impact on this beautiful planet something you WANT to read. So well researched and written. I suggest this and her THE SIXTH EXTINCTION whole heartedly.
In Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change by Elizabeth Colbert, many different topics pertaining to climate change are discussed with Colbert’s persuasive reporting that bring the reader to a sobering clarity on the climate change that surrounds us. The way she reports on climate change brings the reader to a realization that an apocalypse is already upon us. She lets the facts tell the story through a narrative that is engaging due to its storytelling like qualities that draw the reader into the situations that she is describing first hand. Some readers may find her style abrasive and short but I found her writing style very to the point and informative. She provides an unbiased written overview about the urgency of addressing climate change and provides examples of not only what is physically happening on earth but also what man is doing to cause these changes and correct, while sometimes not correct, the changes we have already caused through industrialization. This book is a great overview of the many issues regarding climate change and the human impact on the earth’s climate. Therefore, this book provides a great resource to those interested in climate change within the political and biological fields.
The book Field Notes from a Catastrophe by Elizabeth Kolbert talks about the growing problem of climate change and global warming going on today in the world that could potentially be a huge issue for mankind. The book is like a diary, that one may keep while traveling the world and keeping record of the various things that are seen through observation, and guidance from natives. She starts in Alaska, where the effects of global warming seem to have taken their toll on a small island where the population is small, but fairly active, active enough to notice that the world around them is changing drastically. She then continues to move around the world in many different places, including Greenland, the Netherlands, Japan, and Vermont, to learn from the experts of global warming, and related topics. The evidence that is gathered on the effects and causes of global warming are truly amazing. She talks about the permafrost in Alaska, greenhouse gas emissions, glaciations, endemic species, and various measures that are being taken to help the issue of global warming today. One of the most inspirational pieces of her work, one could argue, comes near the end where she starts her conclusion: "Luck and resourcefulness are, of course, essential human qualities. People are always imagining new ways to live, and then figuring out ways top remake the world to suit what they've imagined" (185). Basically, she is saying that people are affecting the world to their liking, and they are making the world more hospitable to them, but at the same time, it is also destroying the natural environment of the world which is a big problem. The message that she conveys to readers is that she wants us to stop our bad habits before it is too late. The climate is getting worse, and if we do not change our ways soon, we will all be in trouble. The book is a good read if one is interested in these topics. The facts and information brought up in the book has obviously been hard to obtain and provides insights to the future of the earth. All in all this was a great read, and if one is interested in these topics, he/she should definitely read it.
The title of this excellent, frightening book tells us where Elizabeth Kolbert thinks global warming's taking the world, but her tone's measured as she builds the case. Originally offered as articles in 'The New Yorker', here she fine-tunes and fleshes out the presentation, but core facts and conclusions remain the same. The book's a kind of travelogue of danger as she moves around the northern world, from Alaska to Greenland to Iceland to Northern Europe, also stopping to get detailed and dark news from experts in New York City, the Netherlands and other places, with everything from the most arcane studies to the evidence of her own eyes ('drunken' Alaskan trees tilted over by melting permafrost) clinching the case that global warming's here and mankind's largely responsible. But as she moves from expert to expert, each of whom plays a variation on the same unfortunate theme, you get a sense of the disconnect that still exists between those who truly know and the laymen and leaders who go about business-as-usual. The book, in its brevity, with its clean style, in its studied restraint (though panic's just below the surface), its care not to overload the science while still intelligently covering all the basics, in the way it tries to humanize the story with vignettes, is offered as, and succeeds as, a true service to a general public that still doesn't really understand. It's a quick, easy, accessible read that never panders or oversimplifies. She makes a couple of scientific statements that could be contested-- for instance (pg. 126) that combined melting of West Antarctica and Greenland might take just centuries and raise sea level 35 feet, where other scientists would say a millenium or more and 45 to 50 feet-- but there's nothing that detracts from the truth and authority of her overall conclusions. And her account of the fall of some previous civilizations is sometimes not exactly apposite to her story, since some of these disasters came after cooling, not warming, though such events do illustrate the vulnerability of civilization to extreme climate change of any kind. This book is published at the same time as Tim Flannery's superb 'The Weather Makers', but the two complement each other, Flannery putting a greater emphasis on ecological change, especially in the tropics and subtropics, Kolbert concentrating more on pure climatic change and northern realms. Flannery succeeds in synthesizing all the science. Kolbert goes more lightly and her book will be the easier one for laypeople to handle. Read both. Each makes a somewhat half-hearted presentation of possible 'solutions', and like most writings on the subject do not question the political/economic/religious fundamentals of the modern civilization responsible. But Kolbert's last sentence, perhaps to become a classic one, finally tells all: 'It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing.'
Elizabeth Kolbert, an intuitive and compelling writer, most known for her political journalism, takes on the growing concern of global warming. What started as just an article in the New Yorker, ends as her two part book, Field Notes from a Catastrophe. Kolbert digs through all the scientific information that she gathers to explain what is really going on with the environment and what we can do. Despite the smaller size of the book Kolbert really is thorough in her search, covering everything from the politics involved, to the history that humans have had with global warming.
Field Notes from a Catastrophe is the literary equivalent of taking a photo of a power plant on a snowless winter's day to enhance the heated air rising from the cooling stacks to exaggerate "global warming." Kolbert, is a journalist and relies on the emotional aspects of changes in our world to promote her belief. The only thing seemingly out of place in the book, besides the Rolling Stone magazine-style one or two sentence description of her interviewee's physical appearances, is the fossil fuel she consumed to research the stories covered in this book. From trucks, to snowmobiles, to flying, she travels the world and apologetically writes about cruising the landscape with her hosts. I still don't fully understand her inclusion of the demise of Mesopotamian civilization of Akkadians. They suffered loss of fertile and arable land via droughts, heat and sandstorms over a century. Yet, if we are hurtling towards the same fate through coal burning, gas guzzling and tree falling, what did the Akkadians do to suffer the same downfall? My copy has been marked with margin comments on nearly every page. One thing that became apparent was an occasional quick toss of a bone to "global warming deniers" and acknowledgement of arguments, possibly to suggest plausibility as being evenhanded, but she just as swiftly follows-up with a caveat by order of a counter-argument. This book was not science based, it was written to persuade those who are concerned but maybe not "on the bandwagon" yet. From a sorrowful Native Alaskan and sinking homes in thawing permafrost, to horrified Scandinavian children subjected to public service announcements threatening doom in a deluge of flood water, to awe of Dr. James Hansen and his computer models which take a month of processing to predict the end of the world, Elizabeth Kolbert pleads a case more and more people are believing less and less in.
`Field Notes From a Catastrophe' is Elizabeth Kolbert's masterpiece of conciseness and clarity explaining current climate change science and the political obstacles (read the US, Republicans, and Bush Administration in ascending order) to getting serious about attacking the problem. Originally published in 2005, the paperback version has an afterword written in 2006. Kolbert takes a journalist's approach to explaining the climate change phenomenon (the book began as a series in the New Yorker). She takes the reader to Shishmaref, Alaska an island village rapidly becoming an untenable place to live due to climate-induced sea ice changes, to the North Slope, to the great Greenland ice shield and she brings the story down to a human scale. Kolbert also leads the reader through the science of global warming making understandable seemingly arcane topics like "dangerous anthropogenic interference" (DAI), which is basically the point where something truly major goes haywire. Kolbert brings the joy of learning to the reader, until one ponders the potential consequences of what she lays out for us. Perhaps most disturbing is the evidence she marshals that the climate has already changed. For example, the climate has warmed sufficiently to allow numerous butterfly species to migrate to new previously too cold locations and to cause the extinction of certain frog species. Scientists do not, of course, understand everything about climate change (indeed, it is in the very nature of science that an endpoint of total knowledge is never achieved). Those political and economic forces (primarily in the United States) that benefit from the status quo latch on to the uncertainties to create doubt among the public and forestall action. Her interviews with Bush administration officials strike an odd note - they stonewall with robotic incantations. While Europe and most of industrialized world has acted, the US has dithered, delayed, and denied. Kolbert explains why scientists conclude that it is virtually certain that under the current `business as usual' approach, greenhouse gas concentrations will reach a level that causes massive coastal flooding, large scale extinctions, and crop failures leading to starvation (DAI). These outcomes will not be evenly distributed and are likely to fall heaviest on the poorest countries. Scientists do not, however, know what level of greenhouse gas concentration will cause these impacts. The Bush administration uses that uncertainty as a reason to do essentially nothing and Congress too has failed to force any action. Kolbert's book inspires the reader to search out even more current information (NOAA's Arctic Change web site is one good source). And the news is alarming. This stuff is not just a tree hugger's paranoid delusion: global heating is happening, it is happening now, and it is getting worse faster than anticipated. Kolbert's book is a work of journalism (and given the rapidly changing reality, journalism is probably the best source of information) that informs on both the science and the politics of climate change without stridently hectoring the reader. Kolbert presents the facts. The reader would have to be a dim bulb indeed not to get the picture. Absolutely the very highest recommendation. Kolbert's Field Notes From a Catastrophe deserves more than 5 stars
Recent (March 2006) addition to the literature addressed to the mythical educated layman on the issue of anthrogenic climate change.Better than most, a bit more science, much more personal interest (partly i think because the author is female and partly because it began as a series in the NYT). It was an enjoyable and informative read, the best was the relationship of the science to several personal encounters with people, the chapter on Swiss camp. Makes the case for DAI (dangerous anthrogenic interference) kind of slowly, increased in not upsetting people so that they cease reading, interested in making the case scientifically and well structured. Is perhaps better than most in the genre, certainly i'd have no problems recommending it.Chapter 3, Under the Glacier is both the most interesting and the best written chapter. Her personality and observational abilities both make this an excellent place to start reading and a good introduction to the book. If you are looking for a nice read on the topic of global climate change, this is a suitable and interesting book.
It's a good introduction to the topic of global warming, but we shouldn't be needing just an introduction at this point. The urgency and immediacy of Kolbert's "field notes" (as opposed to lab reports) counter skeptics' claims that this problem was made up by simulation models.
Frankly, I'm a bit confused about all the hype over this book. I read any number of individuals, not scientists, who raved about this book, saying it totally changed their mind. When I read it, I could hardly see why, since it is one of the weakest entries in the genre, at least as far as evidence, using mostly anecdote to present a very weak case for the phenomenon of global warming. Read instead the Rough Guide to Climate Change or any of a dozen other books that do a much better job.
Kolbert is a science reporter for the New York Times. She wrote a series of human interest + science articles about the work various scientists around the world are doing to study global warming. This is the book version. The message is clear: we're in trouble. If you've never read a book on global warming, or are curious about what scientists are doing and how they know what they know, this is a great start. The real meat is in the last 4 or 5 chapters.
This book is objective, eye-opening,and alarming