I thought this was interesting, especially this quote:
“I very specifically avoided that whole area [climate change] for two reasons. The first is that I thought I could create a compelling enough sense of urgency without going into that topic, and the second reason is that I had worked with this enough in various life settings to discover that there are people on both sides of that story that hold very strong beliefs around that material…”
That is the same decision I made about my own book, although, since ‘climategate’, I am wondering whether to say something more. It’s very difficult to have a conversation that doesn’t generate more heat than light – on which subject, an interesting guest post at Byron’s place today.
Thanks for the link to the interview (and the through link to the Crash Course, which looks like a good resource. I’m going to look at it more closely and then may use it with various people).
I actually somewhat agree about the possibly counterproductive nature of discussions of climate change within a larger discussion of a terminally ill society. However, since my current research work is primarily about responding to those who perceive society as terminally ill rather than proving that this is actually the case, I can sidestep some of these issues.
I think you are probably wise re blogging on AGW.
Though were there no truth in AGW (or GW itself) at all I believe it would make little difference to the steps we would still have to take re sustainablity and Peak Everything preparations.
One difference the presence or absence of AGW does make is to attitudes towards non-conventional fossil fuels (e.g. tars sands, oil shale and methane clathrates). Are they a very useful stay of peak oil execution to be developed ASAP in order to give a little more breathing space for transition or are they a poisoned chalice that will ensure we tip into even more dangerous climate change?
Though I agree that there is a large area of overlap in responses otherwise.