Well. Where do I begin.

On the plus side, Stager is obviously enormously qualified to discuss his own field of expertise, climates and ecosystems in the very distant past. These discussions were informative and fascinating and if he occassionally delved a bit too deeply into the minutia he can be forgiven for it.

However. "Too optimistic" does not really begin to describe the book's major failings, which is his utter failure to treat any global warming subject that didn't fit neatly into his "it's a big problem for sure but nothing to panic over" thesis. So, he's got two climate change scenarios: one where we see a further 2-3C warming, and one where we see another 5C or so. The first he calls "moderate," based on what will happen if we stop burning fossil fuels in the next few decades; the second he calls "extreme," based on what happens if we burn everything left in the ground. Except for one potential little problem, which is that every climate model I've seen recently concludes that we'll be lucky to only get another 2-3C of warming if we stop burning all fossil fuels TOMORROW, and if we continue on a business-as-usual path and burn everything left in the ground, we could see 8-10C.

So if you're going to read this, do keep in mind that the 5C path he describes is far the more likely one, and in itself will take a fair bit of work on the part of the human species in short order.

As well: Where are the Canfield Oceans? Where is desertification? Where are the agricultural problems brought on by declining aquifers, disappearing glaciers, changing growing seasons, issues with seed germination (already an issue in some countries, as seeds really only germinate in narrow temperature bands), etc.? Where in hell are the four previous mass extinction events caused by rapidly climbing carbon levels and the associated ocean acidification and global warming? Shouldn't a paleoecologist at least mention them in a book about long-term climate change, even if only to describe why he dismisses it as an option? Where is any even brief discussion of the positive feedback loops already being triggered, decades ahead of schedule at relatively low levels of atmospheric carbon? Where is any even brief discussion of how the rate of increase in carbon levels is unprecidented, so no one really knows how ecosystems will react? It doesn't even come up.

So: go ahead and read it, but don't think of it as a reliable guide to what we are actually facing. Having read the whole thing, my overall impression is that he went through his substantial data-sets and picked whatever scenarios and issues that best supported his wish to believe that global warming is not a catastrophe that can threaten the human species. He may or may not be right, but there are so many holes in his reportage that I am simply not convinced. ( )

Curt Stager is a professional palaeontologist and experienced science communicator. Regrettably this skill leads him to present some basic chemical and physical issues in a puerile manner. Nonetheless there is much good science reported here; although there is also confusion as he wrestles with the radical inconsistencies of his views and motives. He is certainly not a climate denier: he fully accepts all the predictions of climate science. What is more, he recognizes that humanity is causing the changes. However, he notes that nature has probably delivered similar climate shifts in the past. Furthermore the archaeological record shows that many species do survive such changes. So why worry? He struggles with this question throughout the book. He notes that the global climate is fickle and unreliable over the long time. CO2 pollution is cumulative and long lasting. Reasonably he concludes that we should not panic. Furthermore he is unconcerned with the inevitable death toll or societal collapses. Thus he argues that full-scale climate change is a likely problem not the apocalypse.

His reasoning is not reassuring. Disappointingly he finds it hard to acknowledge any responsibility for the unintended consequences – even when known – produced by actions such as carbon pollution. He takes comfort from his suspect beliefs that the rich (ie supposedly America) will always command most of the world’s resources, and North America will fair relatively well as climate changes occur. He explains how the acidification of the oceans will decimate important fish stocks for many nations, the rising sea level will inundate low-lying countries like Bangladesh; desertification will encroach on the productive Southern-most regions of Europe, Africa and Australia. Thus crop yields will fall in previously fertile areas, and many species will be driven to extinction. However, these changes happen gradually over human lifetimes. Meanwhile a hypothetical insular beef-eating America will have more sun and more rain to grow their corn.

Nevertheless he does acknowledge we should move away from the carbon economy. However, his primary reason is that we should lock up some easily accessible coal as a safeguard against future needs to manipulate the climate. Hence he sees no urgency; he advocates an aim of 600 ppm of CO2 – not the safer limit of 450 ppm (or lower) suggested by most climate scientists. He might think he is being a political realistic: actually he displays reckless naivety. Crises – war, famine, disease, financial, commercial, piracy and terrorism – will spread across borders. ( )

The title doesn't make it clear that this is actually an Earth-sciences book, written by a paleoecologist. Message: after anthropogenic warming peaks, the ebbing of its side effects will take tens or hundreds or thousands of centuries. (The next scheduled ice age, however, won't happen.)