What's the Worst That Could Happen? [Paperback]

... buy it for someone else.

Buy it for your children, or for your grandchildren.

I've given What's the Worst That Could Happen? five stars. Full marks. But, Greg's book itself advises me to critically analyze my sources: excellent advice. It follows that since you (almost certainly) don't know me, my opinion shouldn't influence your decision whether to buy this book. So, perhaps I should just stop here.

If you're swayed by numbers, then I should point out that there are currently 33 reviews of this book over on Amazon.COM (see http://www.amazon.com/Whats-Worst-That-Could-Happen/product-reviews/B0030EG0NY/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1).

Having read Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming it's clear that there are vested interests at work muddying the waters, discrediting science - as well as the scientists doing the science. It's hard work filtering out the sense from the nonsense. What's the Worst That Could Happen? has some very useful ideas in this regard.

If you do buy What's the Worst That Could Happen? for yourself, do us all a favour: don't let it sit on a bookshelf, time is too short for still more carbon to sit and slowly rot. Give it to someone else (and ask that person to read it -- or not -- but to pass it on in their turn, too).

If you do buy What's the Worst That Could Happen? for yourself, and you pass it on to someone else, and then a little later you feel like reading it again -- you could do worse than buying another copy...

... for someone else, naturally ;)

If you find the utter certainties of the two sides in the global warming debate confusing, this could be the book for you. Greg Craven is a science teacher in the USA so he knows a bit about his subject; more importantly, he doesn't harangue you or the various 'experts' on either side. He just takes you through a form of risk analysis in a humorous and highly readable way, asking the question that's on the front. Unlike one of the other reviews of this book you can read here, he doesn't set about rubbishing people's ideas but does apply a degree of varied weight to them, using a set of criteria he's chosen. You don't have to adopt the same criteria, and he's anxious you avoid some normal preconceptions humans fall for, so you get warned about 'red flags' - the first of which is our tendency to look only for evidence to support our own views.
I saw some of Greg Craven's rather whacky videos on You Tube so I was interested that he'd taken the debate he'd been having online into the full book field. This is thoughtfully argued and written in a light-hearted style, with some neat little asides in the margins. Considering the subject matter, it's an enormously enjoyable read; I'd have like to have Mr Craven as my teacher at school.

This short and readable book is a fresh approach to the very vexed and angry debate about this topic. Mr Craven sets out, not to find an answer to the question in the title, but to help us - the readers - to find our own answers. The thrust of his book is this: what criteria are we using to make up our minds between 'warmers' and 'skeptics'? And how can we use those criteria consistently, so that we think rationally rather than irrationally, and select evidence fairly rather than just to meet our own preconceptions?

What is particularly good about the book is the way the author forces us to confront our own prejudices and the biases inherent in our own thinking ('Assumptions training', pp 49-51 and 59-75). A particularly acute example is 'confirmation bias' - Peter Wason's 1960 experiment that shows our tendency to seek out views that support ours, instead of views that challenge or falsify our view. An even better example is his insistence that we actually write down the factors that make us believe a particular source (e.g. peer-reviewed paper, well respected scientist, someone you might expect NOT to hold that view) - so that when we come across a view, we have to assess it on the merits of its source, not just on whether it confirms our preconceptions.

By way of example, my own criteria for deciding who to believe are
1 - takes a reasoned, not a moral view of the issue: open-minded, not fanatical
2 - uses (and checks) primary sources, speaks with data
3 - argues rationally and follows that argument through
4 - has perspective, sets this issue in the widest possible context
5 - has a long view
6 - puts forward falsifiable views
7 - prepared if necessary to 'swim against the current'

The view taken by Mr Craven - and well argued - is that global warming is a real and present menace and a top priority for action. My current view (which has changed, and may change again) is a different one. However, I would certainly say that on his own criteria, and his own evidence, he justifies his position clearly, well, and without rubbishing his opponents. (A particularly noteworthy example of this is his treatment of Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg is usually dismissed out of hand by those who disagree with him; Craven assesses him and his credibility rationally and respectfully, as he does with all those he cites.)

My only criticism of his book - and it is one which certainly does not invalidate its basic method - is that his argument is rather closely tied to the United States and therefore misses some of the strongest sceptics. I would see it as a stronger book if he included Nigel Lawson's 'An appeal to reason' (particularly the second edition, 2009), Christopher Booker's 'Scared to death' (2007), Patrick Michael's 'Meltdown' (2004/2007, though this is published by the Cato Press), Dan Gardner's 'Risk: the science and politics of fear' (2008), and Svensmark and Calder's 'The chilling stars: a new theory of climate change' (2008). For this reason I'd give the book a 4 rather than 5. However, I should in all fairness note that although these authors meet all my criteria for influencing my opinion, they don't meet all Mr Craven's!

Overall the book offers a new and original way of looking at this very vexed, angry, debate - one which is too often a shouting match, and indeed a jihad. All power to Mr Craven for enabling us - as Nigel Lawson begs us - to take 'a cool look at global warming'.