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

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

Prof. Mike Hulme gets lost in his Mindscape. An examination.

Yesterday I read an ATTP post about Mike Hulme’s controversial May 27th article, "Am I a denier, a human extinction denier?" I did a double take.  

Weren't they just saying, “No Manmade Global Warming” - then it was “No Catastrophic Warming” - now we’re up to, “No Human Extinction” - anyone else notice a disturbing pattern here?  It made me curious so I read it and found myself recalling the Missing Key, the magisteria of Physical Reality vs the magisteria of our Human Mindscape.  

I don’t know Hulme.  I do know his article did nothing to recommend him.  It was a contrived piece of…, of…, I don’t know, manipulative nothing.  A waste of time if constructive learning was one’s goal. 

However, it offers a great case study in getting lost within one’s own Mindscape and forgetting all about the Physical Reality ‘out there’.  That’s why I decided to dissect Hulme's article and add it to my collection.

In truth, I don’t know if Hulme considers himself a libertarian or not, I do know his words parrot libertarian arguments and logic so I’m comfortable assuming he is until told otherwise.

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

Am I a denier, a human extinction denier?

@ mikehulme.org  |  27/05/2019

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS. 

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

¶1  There has been a lot of talk recently about climate change and extinction.

¶2  It is undoubtedly the case that species go extinct.  And sometimes large numbers of species disappear together in mass events caused by the same physical stresses.  It is also true that at some point in the future the human species will go extinct, or at the least evolve into a new species partly of our own making.  

#A) Examining Investors Business Daily’s malicious libel against Dr. Mann (1,2,3)

Investors Business Daily: “No, Michael Mann, Global Warming Didn't Cause Hurricane Harvey's Devastation”  (8/31/2017) Written by someone unwilling to put their name on this libelous cowardly act of defamation.

Sometimes it seems that scientists still haven’t figured out that the world is not filled with curious interested students wanting to understand our Earth’s climate engine’s geophysics better.  Tragically most people couldn’t care less and it seems an increasingly large portion are getting hostile and actually do not want to know.  Add to the horror, there are a few who are willing to do very ruthless things to make sure others don’t get a chance to learn about climate science.

An excellent example of this mentality is www Investors.com recent character assassination hit on Dr. Michael Mann, via an outrageous, I’m claiming criminally libelous editorial at their Investors Business Daily.  Fortunately Dr. Mann has escaped this latest attempt on his character and continues to do world class science.   

I have no idea who's behind Investors Business Daily, but I know fraud when I see it and I will be spending the next few days dissecting this particular example of malicious wordsmithing in an effort to make my case.  

A preliminary review gives me 24 specific Points of Contention, final turned out to be 36 points of contention.  I will be quoting the entire (nothing deleted, nothing added) editorial, talking point by talking point, in chronological order, though broken down into bite-sized chunks.  Often I'll be speaking first person to the writers, so don't take the "you" personally, well unless you agree their GOP view of the world.  

My first three Points Of Contention.

Investor's Business Daily POC#1 - “Global Warming: When a controversial climatologist (Michael Mann)…”

Controversial?  Hmmm, who is calling Dr. Mann controversial?

Sure Dr. Mann has been targeted by ruthless coordinated attacks from EXXON and Koch industry forces along with the powers of the Murdoch media octopus, and GOP luminaries - parties who’s main interest is to slanderize, ridicule and dismiss serious climate science using whatever tactic is required at the moment.

The thing to remember is that Dr. Mann has continued doing serious science and as such the people most qualified to judge him are his peers, namely the community of scientists and experts who understand the extremely complex subject he’s put his mind to.

Google can offer us some idea of their collective opinion of Dr. Mann’s competence and integrity.  Take a look, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_E._Mann,

Message to interested readers, I'm just an outside life long observer and my writing is done in fits and starts with constant short and long interrupts, thus it never surpasses the 'grandma moses' level.  But, my information is solid and my reasoning is solid and I welcome anyone with more time and focus, to take anything at WUWTW and use it as a starting point for better efforts that reach more people.  

Of course, if anyone were interested in helping me focus more on this, my obvious passion, to see what I could accomplish with the luxury of full-time focus on my side, please do let know.  

Citizenschallenge - P.O.Box 56 - Durango, Colorado, 81302 - citizenschallenge at gmail

{8} Atmospheric Insulation Explained - appreciating our climate engine

In this installment of "Appreciating our Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine" I focus on videos about our atmosphere's life sustaining insulating abilities and the molecules that make it possible.  This won't be as pretty as my previous installment, which had those gorgeous NASA data driven animations to look at and ponder.

This is a bit more along the lines of classroom work, particularly my first video featuring the high school teacher Mr. Kemp who does a nice job of describing the various layers of our atmosphere using a cool space station photo of our planet's horizon.  Then a 9 min video by Professor Richard Alley explaining how we know CO2 is responsible for current global warming.  Followed by an 8 min video by PICSClimateInsights reviewing aspects of greenhouse molecules. 

Then comes Ricardo Esplugas's visualization of greenhouse molecules in action, followed by Iain Stewart's demonstrating CO2's infrared capturing abilities and finishing up with Dan Miller demonstrating what 280 ppm looks like.

_____________________________________________________________

Layers of the Atmosphere 

Mr. Kemp - MSHS Science  |  Published on Dec 17, 2012  |  13:26 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlDqJUjh38Q

0:00 -  Describing the various layers of the atmosphere using a profile picture taken from the Space Station of Earth's atmosphere.

2:00  -  diagram

2:15  -  Stratosphere, Ozone layer, ultra-violet radiation absorption

3:50  -  Troposphere, surface warming

4:50  -  Temperature profile through the atmosphere

5:20  -  Troposphere, mixing layer, air circulation, convection

7:00  -  Stratosphere, temperature gradient, 

7:45  -  ozone absorbing ultraviolet light leading to temperature inversion

8:30  -  Mesosphere, "shooting stars" burn up here

8:45  -  Thermosphere, air very thin, feels cold, but individual atoms extremely hot (high kinetic energy).

10:35  -  Ionosphere, overlaps Mesosphere and Thermosphere, where auroras happen

___________________________________________________________

Check out this power point.  

It could be the best summation for someone at my level I've seen:

Greenhouse Gas and Climate Science Measurements

The SIM Metrology School October 28 – November 1, 2013

James Whetstone

Special Assistant to the Director for Greenhouse Gas Measurements
National Institute of Standards and Technology, USA

http://www.nist.gov/iaao/upload/SIM_School_Climate_Final_James_Whetstone.pdf

___________________________________________________________

Who says it's settled physics?  

Our Air Force, that's who!
and
Australia's Air Force, that's who!

CO2 & the Atmosphere

Earth: The Operators' Manual  |  Published on Apr 9, 2012  |  9:03 min

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9eGzPxA1Dg

Air Force research on missiles and the story of Ice Ages both reveal the effects of carbon dioxide.

Considering the faith-based mind. What is science's sin?

I would suggest an argument could be made that at the core of much of the emotionality of Republican resistance to scientific understanding, and climate science in particular, is their submersion in the ego-centric Bible and the accompanying presumption that they are gifted enough to know ultimate truth.  

Don't get me wrong, it's not just the Bible, it's the entire Abrahamic Family of self-obsessive "holy" books.  That faith system may have worked great for humanity when it existed on an infinitely large planet, with scattered warring tribes running around - but, lordie, lordie is it a disaster in today's over crowded planet of diminishing resources, rising populations, anger and rapidly transitioning weather systems.

In younger decades I spent a lot of time wrestling with and thinking about god, evolution, my/our place in creation (that is, our wonderful planet and beyond) and such lofty musings.  That period culminated in three essays that I still feel good having written.  I want to share two (the third is ripe for a serious rewrite) before getting into trying to explain this Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine I keep going on about. 

This is important because good communication demands understanding your audience and tailoring your message to what they are capable of comprehending.  Thus we need to spend more time considering, and hopefully starting to understand, the mind of the faith-based reality denying beholder.

  

Here's some food for thought, no doubt with gaps and in need of improvement, have at it, make it yours.  I sure don't have any answers, I'm just wrestling with the problem and sharing my experiences.

Note: As for gaps in my essay I want to acknowledge two worthy comments.  In one Victor, in Germany, argues that this brand of self-induced Christian-blindness is unique to Americans and that internationally Christians are far more accepting of scientific observations and facts.  

The second one, from Kevin, exposes an important omission in my essay, he makes an argument that Fear more than religion itself is at the root of today's mass disconnect from our planet's physical reality.  I agree with him, but on the other hand, people have always framed their religions around their own expectations rather than some holy constant - their religions act as a justification and shield for their own innate attitudes. Still, Kevin is correct in shining the spotlight on our Fear of not being in control, Fear of losing what we have, Fear of our threatening unknown future.

Kevin writes: I think a better explanation than religion is laid out in Robert Altemeyer's The Authoritarians. Their brand of religion is more a symptom of their personality traits than a driving force. ...

____________________________________________________

What is Science's Sin?

August 2008

Recently, I discussed Creationism with a bright young student.  She challenged me with remarks about the Earth's "true" short age; Grand Canyon being evidence of Noah's Flood; even claimed evidence that coal can be produced in a matter of months.  She went on to explain God's plan included an imminent Armageddon - that is, destroying his own Creation.  When I countered with facts and observations debunking these notions she became defensive, saying that attacking someone's faith was a horrible thing to do.

It made me wonder:  Why do so many feel compelled to embrace willful ignorance? By this I mean willful ignoring masses of real, verifiable and available evidence simply because it conflicts with one's own preconceptions and challenges one's fears.

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.

Considering Steve Goreham's clueless "climatism" in a mad, mad, mad world

Even when I try to get away from the climate science contrarian campaign it seems like there's no escape.  I was looking for a few sites that shared good information about our planet's hydrologic cycle and how a warming world is impacting that.  I came across "Earth’s water cycle, over Carbon Dioxide, cause of Global Warming" by one Steve Goreham at Communities Digital News.  When I first opened it I went straight for the article so missed the first red flag, or more accurately small banner: "Climatism: A Mad, Mad, Mad World."  In any event, I started reading it and it's pretty good, sticking to basic facts, but then the thing goes right off the tracks.

It's appalling the crap these people keep recycling so I'm going to share my observations regarding Mr. Goreham's piece of disconnected nonsense.  I welcome his response.

http://www.commdiginews.com/health-science/earths-water-cycle-over-carbon-dioxide-cause-of-global-warming-26603/

Goreham writes: "But for the last 16 years, Earth’s surface temperatures have failed to rise, despite rising atmospheric carbon dioxide." ~~~

- WRONG - to begin with the rise continued, but at a slower pace then some expected.  But, more importantly, an incomplete (it left out polar regions among others) surface temperature data set comprises about 8/9% of the heat within our global heat and moisture distribution engine. Ignoring what's been happening in the ocean (90%) is dishonest in the extreme and not at all helpful if you're interested in understanding global patterns.

http://earthsky.org/earth/global-warming-hiatus-never-happened-study-says
____________________________________

Goreham writes:"All climate models predicted a rapid rise in global temperatures, in conflict with actual measured data." ~~~ That's a totally bogus claim. It's not backed up by a serious review of the available information.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jul/21/realistic-climate-models-accurately-predicted-global-warming

http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2013/climate-modeling.html#.Vhoao-lyHww

http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/models_are_reliable.asp
____________________________________

Writing: "Today’s models are often unable to predict weather conditions for a single season, let alone long-term climate trends." ~~~

What Motivate$ Scientists?

I've been looking forward to sharing this short video for a while.  Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_WLArrksB4

Published on Aug 24, 2015  |  UQx Denial101x Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Prof Alley gets passionate about the motivation of scientists. 

Climate change is real, so why the controversy and debate? 

Learn to make sense of the science and to respond to climate change denial in Denial101x, a MOOC from UQx and edX.

To register and learn more: http://edx.org/understanding-climate-denial

______________________________________________

18:20  Richard Alley:  We scientists do know where our funding comes from. We try to do research, which is responding to the desires of our funding agencies. If the government says, we, as the federal government, would like to know about x, we try to do the research to tell them. Just in terms of total money, if one were to compare, the biggest corporations tend to be fossil fuel things. Often they are not poor. Our impression as scientist is that if we were really, really interested in money, there would probably be other ways to do it.  

The structure of science—think for a minute about Newton and Einstein. Suppose that Einstein had stood up and said, "I have worked very hard. I have discovered that Newton got everything right and I have nothing to add." Would anyone ever know who Einstein was? 

Scientists, at some level, have to have a little bit of ego. The job description is very clear; It is learn what nobody else knows.

If you look at that and say, "All I want to do is cheer for other people," you're probably not going into that field. If you go in that field, there is a little bit of ego to learn what nobody else knows.  We've all got it however well we've tamped it down.  

The idea that we wouldn't want to be Einstein—if we could overturn global warming, if we could prove that CO2 was not a greenhouse gas, if we could prove that we can burn all we want and not worry about it, how exciting would that be? How wonderful? How many prizes? How many people would invite me out to give talks if I could prove that you didn't have to worry about this? 

Is there any possibility that tens of thousands of scientist, there isn't one of them that's got the ego to do that? It's absurd. It's absolutely, unequivocally absurd. We're people. We've got it in us, the way people do.

The fact is that nature pushes us to the reality that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, it's real. …

____________________________

Here's a look at the basic science lesson 

that our profits-obsessed right-wing crowd refuses to understand

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu39RlT4FTA

George Morrison

What's the scientist's ethic? What motivates scientists? Professor Alley

A digression, the Piers Corbyn Story

I'm active on the internet, commenting and responding to responses.  Once in a while a dialogue comes along I feel needs to be shared over here because of it's text book quality example of disconnect and climate science denial.

Although I didn't have time for this, especially not today, I'm a sucker for chasing such bones and since the name Piers Corbyn rang a bell but I couldn't place him.  I found myself googling him.  Oh yeah, that guy, Mr. the CO2 story is over Corbyn and his mini ice age machinations.  Eventually, I found myself listening to his YouTube "Weather Action Meeting 27/2/12" video which turned out to be an epic example of Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

Since I wasted so much precious time on this joker I'm going to get something constructive out of it by posting my findings over here.  I'll begin with P.M.'s phenomenal 700 word gish gallop dodge of the Earth observation sources I was sharing, such as NASA's summation of the evidence.  Following that I look at Piers' "Weather Action Meeting 27/2/12." 

Then I share a most excellent documentary that looks at our global heat and moisture distribution engine's various components and how they interact, followed by a couple video shorts from a real expert on greenhouse gases Professor Richard Alley as he explains the reality of CO2.

This in turn is followed by a score of links spanning 2005 to a couple months ago - for those who are interested in learning more about this example of Unidirectional Skepticism Piers Corbyn.
  
M.P. wrote:

Global Warming "Hiatus" and the Global Heat Distribution Engine

Over at SkepticForum I continue hearing echo's of David Rose's erroneous claim that 'global warming stopped 16 years ago' and it makes no sense to me how such a disingenuous hoax lives on and on.

When I hear someone write or say there's been a pause in global warming, or some hiatus, I know I'm dealing with someone who doesn't have any conception of our planet's dynamic multi-layered climate system, it's sad. Worst is when they refuse to look at genuine information and learn from it.

If these types had a conception of heat and energy moving throughout our planet, they would appreciate that the global ocean plays a huge roll in heat absorption and circulation.  That's why I've collected this series of excellent educational videos to share.

It would be wonderful imagining skeptical folks giving this information a chance to soak in.  Understanding that scientific measurements do the best they can with what they have and they'll never be perfect.  But, that shouldn't stop us from learning what we can from the information they can gather.   Maybe then they'd realize that setting impossibly high expectations harms us all.