After reading a slew of books on sustainability (some of them reviewed here), I was ready to take a break. Then, a colleague handed me Physics for Furture Presidents, The Science Behind The Headlines, and asked me for my opinion. I’m glad I read the book, but I can’t endorse it with the same enthusiasm I have for the others reviewed on CGBB. Physics for Future Presidents was written in 2008 by Dr. Richard A. Muller, a Professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley. The book is based on Dr. Muller’s wildly successful lectures that are popular on the Cal campus, and online. Think of it as physics for people who don’t know about math.
Dr. Muller’s writing style is fine (not great), but I found the consistent reference to “Mr. President” created disconnect. I will take an idea from the review on the back jacket, and state that the book should have addressed “fellow citizens” (or residents), not Presidents.
Regardless, the book contains more than a few biased interpretations and cherry-picked facts focused on creating shock-value, and support for Dr. Muller’s opinions. In this regard, it fails as a memorandum to the President of the United States, let alone a nationwide primer in physics. Whatever value can be rendered from the fascinating facts recited by Muller, is overshadowed by a question of doubt about the validity of the statements or the balance provided to the opposing opinion.
The book is worth a read only if you are well versed in the subject matter or you’re willing to do some fact-checking regarding some of Muller’s statements. Unfortunately, you can’t take the book at face value, and that was supposedly the whole reason for the book in the first place.
I stewed for a long time on how to respectfully refute some of Muller’s statements. After all, he is a MacArthur Fellow, and I’m . . . well, I’m not a nuclear physicist, that’s for sure. If you want to read more of my analysis, click the “more” button at the end of this post. If you want to read some quick science-based reviews by Earl Killian that dispute Dr. Muller, click here for part 1 and here for part 2.
Physics For Future Presidents starts interestingly enough with an analysis of nuclear weapons and nuclear energy. I am particularly interested in nuclear energy, and I found these sections helpful in understanding the basics of how nuclear reactors work. Muller is primarily a nuclear physicist, and it shows in the comfortable manner in which he treats this part of the book. I presume his statements in this area are all factually valid.
In the second half of Physics For Future Presidents, Dr. Muller addresses climate change. There are a few glaring omissions I noted in the book, and given my lack of physics credentials, I looked online to validate my other suspicions. It is clear Muller is a skeptic when it comes to climate change, and I’m not the first person to pick up on Muller’s apparent mission to discredit climate change science. (See links to other reviews below).
Here are just a few observations:
- Even taking into account the fact that the book was written in 2008, Dr. Muller’s assessment of battery capabilities significantly underestimates potential, and he gives lip service to the momentum of advances in battery technology. His battery analysis also does not take into account battery swap business models such as Better Place for cars (the company was founded in 2007)
- His cost/benefit analysis for implementing sustainable solutions to common problems is not thoroughly researched or thought out.
- Dr. Muller suggests climate issues should be first addressed by a very short and insufficient list of everyday measures we can do to help the environment. Not only is the list insufficient to curb CO2 emissions, it generally ignores other polluting particulates in the air.
- Dr. Muller is unnecessarily pessimistic about the possibility of advances in sustainable energy technology, particularly in the areas of solar, wind, and tide power generation. For a scientist, he does not seem to have much faith in his colleagues.
The most alarming suggestion by Muller is the assertion that because there is a 10% chance that climate change is not caused by humans, we should be cautious in our approach to sustainability. Muller suggests that climate change models are notoriously suspect (that is true), and therefore we should wait until we see what happens from increased CO2 levels before taking action. These suggestions can be convincing for those looking to be convinced, but they really don’t make much sense for humanity.
Indeed, Muller asserts that increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere may actually be reversing what would otherwise be an inevitable ice age. Maybe he’s right, but I’d be satisfied with keeping global temperatures where they are, not recording a streak of the last 14 years being the warmest on the planet in the past 130 (if not hundreds of years or millennia).
The fact is, CO2 levels are higher than at any time in the history of life on our planet, and CO2 levels are rising. We also know the CO2 is altering the pH of our oceans, and altering the climate. Further, we can measure the amount of CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere, so this is a solvable problem. Frankly, it doesn’t matter if the world gets significantly colder or significantly hotter, climate change itself will be catastrophic, and permanently wreck this planet for future generations.
Dr. Muller does not appear to share this sense of urgency, and his opinions will find favor with those looking for that opinion. Yes, there are some areas where sustainability needs to take a realistic approach to the lives of world citizens, but Muller ‘s passive/aggressive approach goes far beyond that. Perhaps he is trying to temper what he perceives as distortions in sustainability advocates’ arguments with his own weighed analysis, but his mix of truths with half-truths renders Physics For Future Presidents unreliable in some areas. For a book purporting to present scientific fact, unreliability is a significant flaw that undermines the work.
The beauty of America is everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Unfortunately, in the case of Physics For Future Presidents, that opinion appears, by consensus, to be wrong in many respects.
For a detailed scientific critique of Dr. Muller’s work, check out these articles by Earl Killian:
Confusing Future Presidents, Part 1
Confusing Future Presidents Part 2
