Another list for your reading, gift-giving and collection development pleasure.
Every year for the last bunch of years I’ve been linking to and posting about all the “year’s best sciencey books” lists that appear in various media outlets and shining a bit of light on the best of the year.
All the previous 2012 lists are here.
This post includes the following: Greg Laden: Top (mostly climate change related) Science Denialist Books.
- Before the Lights Go Out: Conquering the Energy Crisis Before It Conquers Us by Maggie Koerth-Baker
- Deep Water: As Polar Ice Melts, Scientists Debate How High Our Oceans Will Rise by Daniel Grossman
- Rising Sea Levels: An Introduction to Cause and Impact by Hunt Janin and Scott Mandia
- The Aviator by Gareth Renowden
- The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines by Michael Mann
- The Inquisition of Climate Science by James Lawrence Powell
- The Republican Brain: The Science of Why They Deny Science- and Reality by Chris Mooney
I'm always looking for recommendations and notifications of book lists as they appear in various media outlets. If you see one that I haven't covered, please let me know at jdupuis at yorku dot ca or in the comments.
I am picking up most of my lists from Largehearted Boy.
For my purposes, I define science books pretty broadly to include science, engineering, computing, history & philosophy of science & technology, environment, social aspects of science and even business books about technology trends or technology innovation. Deciding what is and isn’t a science book is squishy at best, especially at the margins, but in the end I pick books that seem broadly about science and technology rather than something else completely. Lists of business, history or nature books are among the tricky ones.
Chris Mooneys book sounds like a fascinating read , I've been curious why republicans seem so blind to empirical evidence and why they seem to just make stuff up extemporaneously without any regard to facts.
I'm looking for a factual biography on Charles Darwin - the last one I read by Robert Johnson seemed biased against Charlie because the author perceived him as an atheist and assumed a lack of "morality" on Darwin's part. Any suggestions from anyone?