Steven Koonin, liar for hire. A bibliographic collection - Student Resource

Let’s start with a couple short informed observations of why Steven Koonin’s “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, is nonsensical claptrap.

There is no development of the arguments, no counter-points, no constructive back and forth, just the same arguments that they appear to have thought up once and never examined.

Personally, I like taking on smart criticisms. They help hone the science, clarify the arguments and point to areas of needed research. But there isn’t a single thing here worth taking on.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, PhD

Director of GISS 

Climate scientist Ben Santer, (with appropriate links added by myself):

“It is simply untrue that Prof. Koonin is confronting climate scientists with unpleasant facts they ignored or failed to understand.” 

Dr. Ben Santer wrote in his resignation letter to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: “The climate science community treats uncertainties in an open and transparent way. It has done so for decades. 

At LLNL, we routinely consider whether uncertainties in models, observations, and natural climatic variability call into question findings of a large human influence on global climate. They do not.”

 My question: Why has Koonin rejected honesty, learning and self-skepticism, which are the foundations of serious science?

========================

Time to finally get “Steven Koonin’s liar for hire, a bibliographic collection” posted and behind me.  I need to complete this, rather than simply blowing it off, because I’m driven by my utter incomprehension at the success of Koonin’s 2021 stale rerun of the same one dimensional anti-science rhetorical campaign strategy pioneered by the Father of Science By Slander, Fred Seitz back in the tobacco war days.

“Steven Koonin’s Liar for Hire, a Bibliographic Collection”

A Student Resource

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

Steve Koonin Coasts On ‘09-’11 Obama Gig, Pens 'Unsettled,' a Pre-Re-Debunked Climate Denial Book

ClimateDenierRoundup for Climate Hawks and Kos, 2021,05,06

Five statements author Steven Koonin makes that do not comport with the evidence.   

Marianne Lavelle, May 4, 2021, ClimateNews.org

Koonin’s case for yet another review of climate science

Gavin Schmidt @ 15 June 2019, RealClimate.org

EPA - Here's the Obama energy guy that Pruitt might hire

Robin Bravender, E&E News reporter, August 7, 2017, eenews.net

Climate Science Is Settled Enough - The Wall Street Journal’s fresh face of climate inaction.

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, slate.com/technology

A New Book Feeds Climate Doubters, but Scientists Say the Conclusions are Misleading and Out of Date

Marianne Lavelle, May 4, 2021, InsideClimateNews.org

Steven Koonin to Step Down as DOE Science Honcho

Adrian ChoNov. 9, 2011, ScienceMag.org

Ben Santer: Climate Denialism has no place at Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab

Ben Santer, May 25, 2021, SkepticalScience.com and Union of Concerned Scientists

A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’

Mark Boslough, June 1, 2021, SkepticalScience.com and Yale Climate Connections

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

What's Natural about Jim Steele's Safe Space? Pacifica Tribune

https://nationalpost.com/news/so-many-bears-draft-plan-says-nunavut-polar-bear-numbers-unsafe

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

My intention is a review of 'libertarian' deception in action.

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

Steele never explains that "safe space", instead he used his soapbox to praise Nunavut’s Inuit hunters for their superior wildlife observation skills that, according to Steele, put scientists to shame.

This column was so lacking in anything to do with climate science, that I have to change my approach again, this time simply dissect and comment.

The column’s title proclaims: “Can We Kappiananngittuq?” - subtitled, “We need a safe place to discuss global climate topics.” - and the center-piece quote reads: “I suggest we all could benefit by debating kappiananngittuq style.” 

         

Begs the question, what would a public “safe space to discuss” climate science look like Jim? 

What guidelines would you expect us to follow?  

Would honesty be important?

When I’m discussing facts I’ve gathered, would there be an expectation that I be truthful?  That I honesty and accurately represent the information I’ve collected?

When I’m describing the data and work of an ‘opponent’ would there be an expectation that I honesty represent my adversary’s data?

Would it be a general betrayal to substitute a dishonest argument that prop up false assertions, while hiding my opponent’s facts?

In a kappiananngittuq, is there an expectation to respect the experience, knowledge and merits of each individual, even your opponents?

In a kappiananngittuq, if it’s explained to you, how you are mistaken about something, do you sit there striving to listen, understand and absorb the lesson?

In a kappiananngittuq, is learning and a better communal understanding of our collective real world situation the goal?  

These are important questions.  I believe the answers are self evident: YES on all counts.  I wonder how Jim Steele would answer?  

Explaining why Dr. Trenberth owes CBC meteorologist an apology.

The Map vs Territory problem.

Why does the quest for numerical certainty trump acknowledging the fundamental physics unfolding in front of us?  I understand scientists need to be dedicated to numerically “Mapping” out physical reality with exacting precision.  No detail can be left unexplored.  Still, in the end all this effort is so we can better understand our physical world, the “Territory” if you will.

Please consider, when it comes to explaining climate science understanding to an under-informed collection of leaders and citizens, is it a service or disservice to constantly return the discussion to uncertainties rather than focus on all we do know and the conclusions that can be drawn with great certainty?  

Minutia that in itself requires additional background knowledge to appreciate.  What good does it do? What sort of abuses has it opened scientists up to?  Consider the case of Dr. Mann, one simply needs to read the caveats within those early papers and all the contrived charges made against him and the work of his team evaporate.  But, did anyone take notice?  

Nope, the contrarians fabricated a fantastical storyline, which has dominated the public discussion on both sides ever since. Exploding trivia into a show stopper.  That was a result of a failure of imagination and failure to convey all you do know in a way that presents folks with a fundamental understanding and the critical thinking skills to see through the contrarian deceptions.  

Instead, in the public arena, soberly learning about climate understanding has been left behind for preoccupations with endlessly playing defense against a repetition of contrived childish politicized nonsensical fabrications that have been embraced by all too many.

What about the sins of omission?   By that I mean not acknowledging fundamental physics, which we know act according to their own exacting and unchanging laws, whether we understand every detail of their behaviors or not.

Part 4 - Debating ClimateDepot fan re GHG physics and models

This is the forth in a series debating Will H. who I met at ClimateDepot.  Here I look at the closing sentence of his comment featured in part 3 of our dialogue.

I admit that in a way this is all rhetorical - l'll inform him of these 2 blogposts, but I don't know, nor do I care much if Will shows up again, as he did for my first post.  His comments would be welcome and I'll post them and respond, if he chooses to submit any.  

However, I'm actually writing this for me and folks like me who are trying to figure out the mind-scape of contrarians types and their faith-based certitude.  This is my exploration and sharing of ideas, hoping to find a few receptive minds interested in thinking about these matters.
________________

Will Haas  at 5:00 PM, Oct 26, 2015

Will H writes:  ... (first portion of this comment can be found in the previous post)  "There is no real evidence that the additional CO2 adds to the warming and the models that they generated do not provide that evidence."  

After my lecture, I list resources that provide the information proving how wrong that belief is.
______________

It's a ludicrous statement on every level.  But, just the sort of disconnected nonsense we've come to expect from the Republican/libertarian crowd.

The supporting evidence that scientists do indeed have a thorough understanding of the physics of greenhouse gases begins with pioneering Air Force atmospheric studies during the 1940s/50s/60s.  Not just the United States Air Force but also the Australian, and Russian (though the Reds weren't sharing their information.).  Without an accurate understanding, air to air heat seeking missiles would be impossible.  

The point being it's unassailable physics that we better learn to live with - not pretend we can wish away.   

As for folks and their armchair insights, attacking and rejected the established scientific understanding because of personal convictions, that's a bit over the top and worth looking at.

Explaining how the "greenhouse effect" is calculated. repost Gavin Schmidt Jan, 2006 article

I'm taking the liberty of reposting this detailed description of how real world scientists calculate the greenhouse effect.  It's a follow up to my previous post and my conversation with another character who thinks climate scientists have their calculations all wrong.

Calculating the greenhouse effect

By Gavin Schmidt  (Gavin who? link here) @ 21 January 2006  @  RealClimate.org 

Filed under:  Climate Science  Greenhouse gases 

In another forum (on a planet far, far away), the following quote recently came up:

{And get's regurgitated ad nauseam to this day, thus the need to repost this authoritative and most informative article.}

….the combined effect of these greenhouse gases is to warm Earth’s atmosphere by about 33 ºC, from a chilly -18 ºC in their absence to a pleasant +15 ºC in their presence. 95% (31.35 ºC) of this warming is produced by water vapour, which is far and away the most important greenhouse gas. The other trace gases contribute 5% (1.65 ºC) of the greenhouse warming, amongst which carbon dioxide corresponds to 3.65% (1.19 ºC). The human-caused contribution corresponds to about 3% of the total carbon dioxide in the present atmosphere, the great majority of which is derived from natural sources. Therefore, the probable effect of human-injected carbon dioxide is a miniscule 0.12% of the greenhouse warming, that is a temperature rise of 0.036 ºC. Put another way, 99.88% of the greenhouse effect has nothing to do with carbon dioxide emissions from human activity⁸.

We’ve discussed the magnitude of the greenhouse effect before, but it might be helpful to step through this ‘back-of-the-agenda’ calculation and see what the numbers really give. (Deltoid has also had a go at some of these mis-statements). 

Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" considered, a collection

I've been loaded up with work and other commitments that keep me from getting to some WUWTW projects, but I still have time for checking out what's happening on the internet and I do keep looking for good documentaries and such on YouTube, where I've noticed the stepped up right-wing astro-turfing of ridiculous climate science denying videos repeating the same old discredited arguments.  Lately there seems to be a surge in Michele Crichton "State of Fear" related videos yelling at me from the sidebar, so I figure this may be timely.

It's another example of how your typical Republican/libertarian state of mind is happy to be satisfied with a science-fiction writer (who's interest is in selling block busters that liberally mangle science in order to keep his thrillers moving forward) rather than experts who understand their field and can teach us something. 

Crichton never studied climate science, but he was popular as heck, spoke 'sciency' and said what they wanted to hear.  Here again we see the fundamental problem - that arrogant disregard for learning about how our global heat and moisture distribution engine operates and how human society has been altering it. 

In any event, I'm posting this collection of informative sources for those who want to understand Crichton's "State of Fear" PR game and thus be better prepared for the next time someone tries blowing this bit smoke up yours.

______________________________________________

Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion

Gavin Schmidt @ 13 December 2004 -

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/langswitch_lang/en/

In a departure from normal practice on this site, this post is a commentary on a piece of out-and-out fiction (unlike most of the other posts which deal with a more subtle kind). Michael Crichton’s new novel “State of Fear” is about a self-important NGO hyping the science of the global warming to further the ends of evil eco-terrorists. The inevitable conclusion of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times maybe? Unfortunately, I think not.

Like the recent movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, the novel addresses real scientific issues and controversies, but is similarly selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science. I will discuss a selection of the global warming-related issues that are raised in between the car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites and assorted derring-do. The champion of Crichton’s scientific view is a MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who clearly runs intellectual rings around other characters. The issues are raised as conversations and Q and A sessions between him (and other ‘good guys’) and two characters; an actor (not a very clever chap) and a lawyer (a previously duped innocent), neither of whom know much about the science.

So for actors and lawyers everywhere, I will try and help out.

The issues Crichton raises are familiar to those of us in the field, and come up often in discussions. Some are real and well appreciated while some are red herrings and are used to confuse rather than enlighten. 

The first set of comments relate to the attribution of the recent warming trend to increasing CO₂. One character suggests that “if CO₂ didn’t cause the global cooling between 1940 and 1970, how can you be sure it is responsible for the recent warming?” (paraphrased from p86) . ...

Secondly, through the copious use of station weather data, a number of single station records with long term cooling trends are shown. ... Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature. It does not imply that the whole globe is warming uniformly (which of course it isn’t). ...

Next, and slightly more troubling, we have some rather misleading and selective recollection regarding Jim Hansen’s testimony to congress in 1988. ...

Another issue that often comes up in discussion about the surface temperature record is the impact of the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHIE), and here it appears on p370. ...

A central issue in the book concerns sea-level rise. Vanuatu is singled out for special attention since the islanders there are understandably concerned about their low-lying islands eventually being swamped. Sea level however is a surprisingly difficult thing to measure. ...

There are only a few out-and-out errors, but to be generous, they probably just slipped through the editing process. ...

In summary, I am a little disappointed, not least because while researching this book, Crichton actually visited our lab and discussed some of these issues with me and a few of my colleagues. I guess we didn’t do a very good job. Judging from his reading list, the rather dry prose of the IPCC reports did not match up to the some of the racier contrarian texts. Had RealClimate been up and running a few years back, maybe it would’ve all worked out differently… - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion/langswitch_lang/en/#sthash.RR6tr3uf.dpuf

__________________________________________

Review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear

By Jeffrey Masters, Ph.D. — Director of Meteorology, Weather Underground, Inc.

http://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/stateoffear.asp?MR=1

Masters finishes and extensive review with the following:

In a conversation about trying to educate an ignorant environmentalist about the realities of Global Warming, Kenner sums up for me the essence of Crichton's presentation of science in State of Fear:

"Her intentions are good," she said.

"And her information is bad," Kenner said. "A prescription for disaster."

The excessive interruptions of an otherwise good story by Crichton's bad science make State of Fear a bad buy.

For further reading...

For one of the more balanced and up-to-date views of the controversies surrounding the Global Warming issue, see Dr. Stephen Schneider's web site. Dr. Schneider, one of the world's foremost climate experts, has testified frequently before Congress on environmental issues and is one of the lead authors of the IPCC scientific reports. He has criticized both industry-funded skeptics and environmental groups on their biased treatment of the Global Warming issue.

Skeptics have routinely called global warming "a hoax", and attacked the credibility of scientists promoting the idea. Are the skeptics right? To shed light on the issue, it is helpful to review how the same skeptics treated the ozone hole issue. Read the 

Weather Underground special feature, The Skeptics vs. The Ozone.

The latest IPCC summary has an excellent summary of what the best scientists in the field figure we know and don't know about Global Warming.

For the more recent IPCC summary: http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2013/09/ipcc-report-highlights-summary-for.html

__________________________________________

New York Times Sunday Book Review

'State of Fear': Not So Hot

By Bruce Barcott  -  Jan. 30, 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/30/books/review/state-of-fear-not-so-hot.html?_r=0

There's a problem with Michael Crichton's new thriller, and it shows up before the narrative even begins. In a disclaimer that follows the copyright page, Crichton writes: "This is a work of fiction. Characters, corporations, institutions and organizations in this novel are the product of the author's imagination, or, if real, are used fictitiously without any intent to describe their actual conduct. However, references to real people, institutions and organizations that are documented in footnotes are accurate. Footnotes are real."

Footnotes?

Yes, there will be footnotes. Although "State of Fear" comes dressed as an airport-bookstore thriller, Crichton's readers will discover halfway through their flight that the novel more closely resembles one of those Ann Coulter "Liberals Are Stupid" jobs. Liberals, environmentalists and many other straw men endure a stern thrashing in "State of Fear," but Crichton's primary target is the theory of global warming, which he believes is a scientific delusion. In his zeal to expose the emperor's nudity the author cites, ad nauseam, actual studies that seem to contradict the conventional wisdom on global warming. Hence, footnotes.

Scholarly trappings aside, "State of Fear" does follow the basic conventions of the mass-market thriller. There are villains, there are heroes and there is an evil plot to be foiled. ...

__________________________________________

A review of the distorted science in Michael Crichton’s State of Fear

By Gavin Schmidt on February 2, 2005 

http://grist.org/article/schmidt-fear/

__________________________________________

Book Review: Bad fiction, worse science

by Alan Miller

http://issues.org/22-2/br_miller/

Michael Crichton has achieved celebrity status as a novelist, film director, and television producer/series creator. Trained as a doctor, Crichton never pursued a medical career but instead successfully combined his interest in science with a talent for storytelling. His novels and other productions frequently begin with some scientific underpinning—dangerous organisms brought to earth by space capsules in The Andromeda Strain; dinosaurs restored to life from fossilized DNA in Jurassic Park. In most of his novels, he envelops this scientific content in the now-classic formula of a modern technothriller: starkly defined heroes and villains; Earth or some large part of it at risk of destruction; and beautiful, intelligent, available women saved from death by even more able and heroic men. Crichton’s novels attract many readers who take pleasure in reading understandable explanations of cutting-edge science and technology in the sugarcoating of a mass-market thriller.

In his new novel State of Fear, Crichton retains most of the formula while adding a heavy-handed political message. ...

_______________________

Crichton Thriller State of Fear

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/crichton-thriller-state-of.html#.VgzGkelyHww

Michael Crichton's book State of Fear has characters debating data (complete with graphs and footnotes) and concepts that cast doubt on the validity of global warming evidence. This doubt is echoed in the author's message at the end of the novel and in public interviews. 

Readers may understandably take away some misconceptions from his book. To clear up these misconceptions, we have selected some representative cases to discuss; the list below, however, is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the errors in Crichton's book.

1. How was Michael Crichton able to take the same data that climate scientists use and come to the conclusion that global warming isn't a real threat? 
2. State of Fear uses graphs that don't show a warming trend. How can specific locations show cooling if global warming is happening?
3. What is the "urban heat island effect" and is it contributing to warming?
4. Crichton argues that C02 in the atmosphere is not closely correlated with warming trends. So why is C02 blamed as a greenhouse gas?
5. Several times Crichton notes that glaciers are expanding not retreating. Is this accurate or only part of the story?
6. Michael Crichton says we can't predict the future. Does this preclude our taking steps to reduce heat trapping gas emissions?
7. Why do we have to act now to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels?