Koonin's "Unsettled"? Ill-advised, or liar for hire? (reviewing Boslough's review)

 I’ve been haphazardly collecting and reading some articles regarding the latest media darling of the climate science denial crowd, Steven (he’s a real, if dishonest, scientist) Koonin.  It’s to be a followup to Ben Santer’s article and intended to be a bibliographic Student Resource for those curious about the disingenuous game Koonin has been playing for years.

Then a couple days ago I read the following “critical review” - at SkepticalScience.com, it was reposted from Yale Climate Connections and written by the respected Mark Boslough - and it’s been haunting me since, so I’ve decided to purge it from my system by posting Boslough’s unedited article, with a few additional thoughts of my own.

Boslough, admits to being a good friend of Koonin.  Indeed his review, is more about understanding and forgiveness for Koonin’s unfortunate excesses, along with K’s failures in judgement and character.  Rather than an critical examination of the malicious lies Koonin repeats like a wind up doll.  

Where Boslough sees an unfortunate, to be pitied, I see a malicious liar for hire.  

Someone who should be exposed and shamed for his wanton disregard for honesty and our children’s futures.  Instead, we get yet another example of dancing by the contrarian’s drum beat.

I share the article as written thanks to their generous CreativeCommons repost permission.  I did add bold and red highlights to single out specifics.  I also share a few thoughts of my own in green print.

This is intended for students who are sick and tired of old white guys getting away with this sort wanton deception.  Students who are already busy trying to figure out how to confront the fire hose of disinformation … (continued after Boslough’s article) (edited June 5th, PM)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’

Posted on 1 June 2021 by Guest Author at SkepticalScience.com

This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Mark Boslough

I would normally ignore a book by a non-climate scientist promising “the truth about climate science that you aren’t getting elsewhere.” Such language is a red flag. 

But I’ve known the author of “Unsettled” since I took his quantum mechanics course as a Ph.D. student at Caltech in the 1970s. He’s smart and I like him, so I’m inclined to give his book a chance.

But smart scientists aren’t always right, and nice guys are still prone to biases – especially if they listen to the wrong people. 

#6 Debating Republican Disconnect From Climate Science - Model substance + contrarian scientists

After my dialogue with EM I share links to information relating to the substance of climate models, then a hard look at some renowned scientists who have become climate science contrarians for hire, Seitz, Singer, Lindzen, Spencer, Christy.  

_____________________________________________________________ 

EM writes:  I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time.  I’m sure you’ll give me the “bull shit!” response, but this is not at all a bullshit statement.

___________________________________________

What you have proffered is feigned agreement with the obvious.  What makes it feel disingenuous is your “we don’t fully understand” - That argument can be applied to anything and everything (except religion with it’s blinding self-certainties, although that’s about the landscape of the human mind and ego rather than physical realities.  -  Or would you disagree?).

To retain a bit of added truthiness, you toss in “long period of time” - What’s that mean?  How long?  What uncertainties?  EM, can you explain why do those uncertainties concern you more than what’s known for certain?  Simply implying that there might be game changing uncertainties out there without offering anything is what could politely be called disingenuous.

_____________________________________________________________

EM writes:  Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new and we certainly can and will improve our holistic knowledge in the subject in the coming months, years, and decades. 

___________________________________________

Nearly two centuries is not relatively new!  I’ve already addressed this misleading Republican meme with a list of climate science milestones: 

4. Debating Republican Disconnect From - Climate Science History

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/01/4-gop-disconnect-climate-science-history.html

Beyond that, I don’t think EM appreciates how consistent the long development of climate science has been.  I learned about the fundamentals more than forty years ago and nothing has changed radically.  Refinements of understand, sure, non-stop, and sometimes startling “why didn’t I think of that” surprises.  But, at the end of the day, it’s all been amazingly consistent and new pieces keep fitting into the whole of our understanding with logical consistency and even harmony.  

If I’m mistaken, or you think I’m misleading, show me.

_____________________________________________________________