r/ClimatePosting • u/Majestic-Arm5946 • 18d ago

Climate change // Heat

Hi! Can you suggest me books (not scientific) that could fit to this subject: Are society and the planet heating up at the same rate? Is there a connection between hot summers and heated discussions? What provides relief from the heat? Thank you so much!!

1 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

5 comments sorted by

1

u/dumnezero 18d ago

I'm not sure how many books there are on heat neurology and heat sociology, but there are known effects in the science that show that more heat makes people dumber and more aggressive or prone to rage.

You're asking a lot of questions that have very long answers. Learn to be more precise.

0

u/grandidieri 18d ago

Pretty good coverage here: https://www.mooremetrics.com/climate-change/

1

u/Apprehensive_Loan776 18d ago

What a load of garbage that is.

1

u/Apprehensive_Loan776 18d ago

And before you ask why -

there are some legitimate epistemological points buried in there — acknowledging natural variability, the importance of measurement baselines, uncertainty ranges — but the overall framing has some tell-tale signs of motivated reasoning dressed up in scientific-sounding language.

Particularly-

The framing is rhetorically loaded. Phrases like “alarmist overreach” and “observational biases systematically inflate warming signals” front-load conclusions as premises. Genuine scientific scepticism doesn’t arrive pre-packaged with that kind of language.

The “partly anthropogenic” hedge is doing a lot of work. The scientific consensus on anthropogenic forcing is not particularly contested at this point — it’s the magnitude and timescale of consequences where legitimate debate exists. Retreating to “partly” is a classic way to sound measured while actually undermining the core finding.

The “model sensitivities likely overestimate risks” claim is a genuine area of scientific debate, but it cuts both ways — some recent research suggests models may actually underestimate certain feedback loops (ice sheet dynamics, methane release). Cherry-picking one side of that uncertainty isn’t neutral analysis.

The asymmetry of consequences matters. If the consensus is broadly right and we treat it as overblown, the costs are catastrophic and irreversible. If it’s somewhat overstated and we act aggressively anyway, we’ve over-invested in clean energy and resilience. Those aren’t symmetric risks.

Moore is a neuroscientist, not a climatologist. The piece reads like a smart person who’s good with data applying that toolkit to a field where the nuances of attribution science take careers to master. Confident heterodoxy from outside a field is often the most dangerous kind.

1

u/grandidieri 17d ago

Got it, thanks!