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. 

Kerry v Massie, A Study in Democratic Party Failure. April 9, 2019

Considering John Kerry’s Failure to Communicate with and Confront GOP.

I made these remarks after finishing a review of some deceptive opining by Mike Hulme.  

It occurs to me I'd like to share the same message over here

since I seriously am looking for someone to work for.

citizenschallenge - at - gmail com

We must learn from our failures!  Case in point John Kerry’s implosion under Congressman Massie’s deliberately cynical and distracting questioning on April 9, 2019.  Here I propose an alternative version of how that exchange could have been turned into a winning moment for rationalism, constructive learning and honest science, rather than descending into the waste of precious time it turned into.

It takes more than superficially knowing climate science bullet points.  You need to internalize the understanding behind those bullet points.  This is impossible without a deep appreciation for our climate engine’s evolutionary story.  

You must also anticipate the GOP’s repetitive juvenile misdirection and the rhetorical dirty tricks they have honed to perfection over the decades.

{This is also an open letter that I sent off on May 3rd to 

GOP Massie’s three offices.  It begins with the following.}

Honorable US Representative Thomas Massie, 

I am an engaged student of Earth Sciences and since our global heat and moisture distribution engine, read climate system, dictates global environments, climate sciences has become central to my pursuit of understanding our beautiful magnificent Earth and her life story.  I’m simply a student, but I’ve been at it five decades now, so I know a thing or two.

I believe in constructive honest debate as opposed to theatrical political debate.  This exercise is a combination of sincere letter to you where I answer the questions you raised, in the hope you learn something;   > a direct challenge and examination of your malicious rhetorical games;   > along with an examination of Secretary John Kerry’s text book example of why Democrats keep losing;  > and of course, as always, a personal learning project.

Incidentally, it’s worth pointing out that it requires a serious appreciation for our planet’s deep-time evolution, a prerequisite, before any true understanding of our global heat and moisture distribution engine is possible.  I build my presentation around the video of your April 9th performance. 

A response would be appreciated.

Sincerely, 

Peter Miesler

aka Citizenschallenge

near Durango, Colorado

{I suspect GOP's Congressman Massie will hide, they aways do, but should I get a response I’ll be sure to share it here.}

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DSi2gzIkHM

#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.

_____________________________________________________________

Another climate science skeptic dodges another challenge

More interesting times with climate science denialists over at 

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/is-climate-science-falsifiable/#comment-26712

1. citizenschallenge Says:
   August 1, 2014 at 15:38
   krischel writes, August 1, 2014 at 07:48:
   If you can still defend the fraud Michael Mann with a straight face, then obviously you’re immune to any critique of your chosen saviors :)
   

   ~ ~ ~
   Write up your list of specific charges defining Dr. Mann’s alleged fraud. Let’s take a closer look at them.
   {not surprisingly K never offered any follow up with specifics re Dr. Mann, just as he never supplied the list of stolen emails he claims prove fraud.  
   Typical contrarian behavior}
   

Null Hypothesis101 #3 drifting off topic

{last edit evening 8/5/14, as usual, damn those typos.}

Here's the latest installment in my dialogue with K over at the "Climate Science Falsifiability" comments thread at OurChangingClimate, though he's drifted quite far from his alleged interest in examining his take on the "null hypothesis" and it's use in climate science.  

It seems to be the one thing I can depend on when dialoguing with such characters, they will try every trick in the book to distract the attention away from the question at hand and waste our time and available space with off-track extraneous nonsense.

Skim through this to see how it works.

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

citizenschallenge Says: 

July 31, 2014 at 19:56

Krischel claims that ” In the case of AGW, our null hypothesis is natural climate change”.

K still hasn't faced the fact that there is nothing “unnatural” about current climate change. Huge increases of CO2 has always warmed our planet!

CO2 has always had it’s insulating properties, nothing has changed about those physics!

Today’s “climate change” is a natural result of greatly enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations.

A look at the world of climate change denial

I came across an article at The Conversation that fits right into my little virtual dialogue.  It gives a good overview of the cord of disingenuous manipulation that runs through the economic/politically motivated attacks on climate science.  

Since, the following essay doesn't attempt to look at the root causes for the crazy-making they describe, I'll venture some thoughts.

The underhanded attacks on climate science's credibility started within the Reaganomics machine/mindset.  The people that inhabit that machine were/are addicted to a notion that too much is never enough (for example).  It embraces a notion of maximizing profits, minimizing liabilities.  It openly rejects responsibility for environmental stewardship,  abhors the notion of limits or regulation, and behaves as if resources are endless and tomorrow doesn't matter.  

Worse they possess outright contempt for the "environment" and can't seem to fathom the difference between the 60s planet of three billion people and today's world of over seven billion hungry souls and a warming global climate system.

Their disregard for the lessons of history and seeming contempt for the future can be seen in everything from their rejection of responsibility for externalities such as clean (read healthy) soil, water and air, to the way our nation's proudly built infrastructure has been allowed to degenerate.

It's like a nation invited a charismatic Hollywood pretty boy into the halls of power and the halls of power started to believe their own Hollywood fairytale of endless milk and honey and no responsibility (read taxes) maintaining infrastructure nor preparing for our children's future.

Yes, these are generalities - perhaps a starting point for further discussion.


With thanks to The Conversation and their generous sharing policy here is their full article - I have highlighted some paragraphs.

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

A journey into the weird and wacky world of climate change denial

By Stephan Lewandowsky, University of Bristol and Michael Ashley

A conversation with "Real" Science's "stevengoddard"

My previous Lindzen post was inspired by a video a commenter shared over at a blog that fancies itself "Real Science" - it's put together by someone who goes by "stevengoddard" but who really isn't Steven Goddard.  {But, it sure sounds great if you're going to try and impress people.}

In any event, this exchange does such a good job of underscoring the point I'm making, namely that the "Global Warming Science Denial Community" is dependent on rhetoric over science ~ as opposed to a constructive rational dialogue with learning as the main objective ~ 
that I've decided to share it.