Dear Sabine Hossenfelder, why blame climate scientists for the politicization?

 

Dear Sabina Hossenfelder, 

I’ve been watching your YouTube videos for a while and for the most part, I enjoy them, because I love the topics, your informative sharp style, and you were refreshingly free of red flags. As I became a fan, I’ll admit I got some weird vicarious kick at discovering you were born in Frankfurt am Main during the time I was living there, during my 3 years in BRD & CH.

Then you started talking about climate scientists, people I’ve enthusiastically followed and learned from since my high school science classes (grad of ’73), and a topic I have closely followed for over a half century since.  Now, listening to you harp on climate scientists, I do see red flags cropping up, which I feel obligated to share as far and wide as my meager efforts will afford, via an email and posting at my blogs.

Your July 20th, “Fossil Fuels Don’t Come From Fossils? Tucker Carlson Fact Check” brought my feelings to a boil.  Now I want to do a little fact checking of your attitude and words, along with their unfortunate implications, in a society where determined willful ignorance runs rampant.

Fossil Fuels Don’t Come From Fossils? Tucker Carlson Fact Check

Sabine Hossenfelder - July 20, 2024 

5:44

“The world is full of untruth and half truth, right that's the whole problem right.”

8:14

"… Dr. Soon then goes on to complain about how climate scientists reacted to the opening statement from Al Jaber at the COP meeting earlier this year.

In the beginning of this cop 28 meeting,  the chairman, …  was saying that ‘there's no scientific reasoning to say that we should phase out fossil fuels.’ “

“He’s right. But then he backed off because of all this, baa-baa. …”

“There's no scientific reasoning to say that we should phase out fossil fuel.”

This isn’t an academic argument.  This is the stuff of rhetorical gamesmanship.    

No parameters, no nuances.  Give it a think Sabina. 

 

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

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

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. 

Steven Koonin Lecturing Climate Scientists at Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab? Seriously? Who's in Charge?

It is simply untrue that Prof. Steven Koonin is confronting climate scientists with unpleasant facts they ignored or failed to understand.   Atmospheric Scientist, Ben Santer PhD

I haven't done much on the climate science denial front lately, since it's gotten too depressing, especially for those of us who pay attention to the increasing imbalance and the ongoing and unsustainable degradation of our Earth's biosphere.  

Besides, seems to me it's not a problem with climate sciences, or the scientists who do it, we have achieved a plenty good at understanding the mechanisms unfolding within our global heat and moisture distribution engine and biosphere.  (Just need to be willing to do your homework and honestly learn about it.)

The problem is with the delusional thinking people love to wrap themselves within.  

Which is why I've move on a bit and why I undertook: Donald Hoffman Playing Basketball In Zero-gravity, my book review and student resource building project.

Interestingly, lately I've been thinking about Ben Santer and how he's been doing these days - since his case, seemed to me, one of the first where climate science denialists showed their complete willingness to engage in no holds barred, malicious, ruthless misrepresentations, character assassinations, and dirty tricks.  Then I read the following and figured why not give it a little more web presence, it's worth reading and thinking about.   

This is why I'm sharing this important PSA that I read at SkepticalScience.com.  For more on Ben Santer: My Climate Story - Ben Santer, also:

IPCC: the dirty tricks climate scientists faced in three decades since first report

August 27, 2020 - TheConversation.com

The Relentless Attack on Climate Scientist Ben Santer

May 16, 2014 - BillMoyers.com

The consensus-building process of the IPCC

February 12, 2012 - SkepticalScience.com

Close Encounters of the Absurd Kind

February 24, 2010 - RealClimate.org

Dr. Ben Santer: 'Climate Denialism Has No Place at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory'

Posted on 25 May 2021 by Guest Author, Ben Santer

This is a repost of Dr. Santer's statement via the Union of Concerned Scientists blog and we thank UCS for this permission.   (As I thank Skeptical Science and Union of Concerned Scientists for making my reposting possible!  Cc)

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has invited Professor Steven Koonin to give a seminar on May 27, 2021. Professor Koonin’s seminar will cover material contained in a book he published on May 4. His book is entitled “Unsettled”. Its basic thesis is that climate science is not trustworthy.

Professor Koonin is not a climate scientist. I am. I have worked at LLNL since 1992. My primary job is to evaluate computer models of the climate system. I also seek to improve understanding of human and natural influences on climate.

In collaboration with scientific colleagues around the world, our research group at LLNL has identified human “fingerprints” in temperature changes at Earth’s surface, in the atmosphere, and in the oceans. We have also found human fingerprints in rainfall and moisture. LLNL’s fingerprint research is one small part of a large body of evidence that contributed to scientific findings of a “discernible human influence on global climate”.

I have interacted with Professor Koonin since late 2013. Back then, he argued that uncertainties in climate science were large and were not fully acknowledged by climatescientists. In his view, climate science was not sufficiently “mature” to be useful to policymakers. Similar claims are advanced in his new book.

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

SkepticalScience.com Archive - August, 2007 to December 31, 2011

A long long time ago John Cook envisioned an internet website dedicated to bringing authentic climate science to an interested lay-public along with publicly archiving easily accessible climate studies.  It took tons of networking and creative effort and determination to realize his dream.  Starting in August, 2007 SkepticalScience.com realized his vision and SkS has been delivering ever since and building up an impressive Archive (for the rest of this introduction link here)

This is part two of SkepticalScience.com Archives

2011

• 2011 Year in Review (part 1)
• 31 December 2011 by MarkR
• Michael Mann, hounded researcher
• 30 December 2011 by Andy Skuce
• A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
• 29 December 2011 by Tom Smerling
• UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 2 - Of Cherries and Volcanoes
• 28 December 2011 by dana1981
• UAH Misrepresentation Anniversary, Part 1 - Overconfidence
• 27 December 2011 by dana1981

SkepticalScience.com Archive 2012, 2013, 2014

A long long time ago John Cook envisioned an internet website dedicated to bringing authentic climate science to an interested lay-public along with publicly archiving easily accessible climate studies.  It took tons of networking and creative effort and determination to realize his dream.  Starting in August, 2007 SkepticalScience.com realized his vision and SkS has been delivering ever since and building up an impressive Archive (for the rest of this introduction link here)

This is part two of SkepticalScience.com Archives Dec 31, 2014 to Jan 1, 2012. 

2014

• Another year and glaciers are another metre thinner
• 31 December 2014 by MarkR
• Time is running out on climate denial
• 30 December 2014 by dana1981

SkepticalScience.com Archives - January 1, 1015, February 19, 2020

A long long time ago John Cook envisioned an internet website dedicated to bringing authentic climate science to an interested lay-public along with publicly archiving easily accessible climate studies.  It took tons of networking and creative effort and determination to realize his dream.  Starting in August, 2007 SkepticalScience.com realized his vision and SkS has been delivering ever since and building up an impressive Archive (which I’ve taken the liberty of copying and pasting into the end of this article for your convenience.).  

Supplement - What's Natural about Steele's Conundrum? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/19

A supplement to "What's Natural about Steele's Greenland conundrum? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019."  Since I found way more information than I had room for I've decided to add this appendix of valuable science information about Greenland and our global heat and moisture distribution engine.

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

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

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

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

#A) Wrote about this in a previous post.

MARCH 29, 2019

Steele, what’s unnatural about the Glacier Girl? Pacifica Tribune 3/20/2019

Here I want to focus on the first couple paragraphs in March 20th, Pacifica Tribune’s What’s Natural? column.  It contains a melodramatic lead in with a curious narrative built around the P-38 dug out of a Greenland glacier.  Since this back story turned into such a fascinating fun, if oh so time consuming project, I figure it’s worth posting all this stuff on it’s own stage.

https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2019/03/steele-glacier-girl-pacificatribune.html

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

#B)   Steele’s confusion about CarbonDioxide,

On the causal structure between CO2 and global temperature

Adolf Stips, Diego Macias, Clare Coughlan, Elisa Garcia-Gorriz & X. San Liang

Scientific Reports, volume 6, Article number: 21691 (2016)

https://www.nature.com/articles/srep21691

… Our study unambiguously shows one-way causality between the total Greenhouse Gases and GMTA. Specifically, it is confirmed that the former, especially CO2, are the main causal drivers of the recent warming.  …

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

#C)  Steele continues, 

“But (ice loss) is rapidly reversing.”  

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

September 2017

Guest post: How the Greenland ice sheet fared in 2017

https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-greenland-ice-sheet-2017

Dr Ruth Mottram, Dr Peter Langen and Dr Martin Stendel are climate scientists at the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) in Copenhagen, which is part of the Polar Portal.

(Sd3) Mr.GOP don't buy Jim Steele's Fraud - Steele debate #3

My upcoming column at the Four Corners Free Press is a response to a Letter to the Editor that complained about my "one-sided" approach to telling the climate science story.  The writer, whom I’ll refer to as Mr. GOP, then steps into a steaming pile when his suggested alternative expert turned out to be my old pal Jim Steele.  

As it happens I’ll bet I’m as familiar with Jim Steele’s LandscapesandCycles fantasy as anyone.  Having spent easily a couple hundred hours studying his words and working on nearly fifty posts unraveling and exposing Jim’s many malicious deceptions regarding honest competent wildlife biologists the world over.   

My FourCornersFreePress column wasn’t the place for a line by line response, but I did want to write one up to help me gather my thoughts before composing my column.  I’m sharing it here, because this version gives me another opportunity to share all sorts of valuable supporting evidence.  I’ll be posting the FCFP column itself in a week or so.

Climate Science isn’t Settled, by Mr. GOP 

Four Corners Free Press - Letters to the Editor, March, 2018 

Mr.GOP takes issue with “We need real dialogue about climate” by Peter Miesler. 

1. It seems that the "science" is settled.  

Damned straight, the fundamentals are as settled as the promise of tomorrow morning's sunrise!  I wonder what the scare-quotes are for?

The fundamentals of our global heat and moisture distribution engine and society’s influence are well understood!  The explainable known physical certainties far outweigh the remaining uncertainties!  

Tragically the well understood certainties are constantly being deliberately ignored or lied about by contrarian types, thus our Mr. GOP winds up profoundly ignorant of down to Earth physical processes. Here’s a sampling of that climate science.

‘Climate models are unproven’ ?    

Actually, GCM’s (Global Circulation Models) have many confirmed successes under their belts.  

By Coby Beck on Nov 20, 2006

Rising to the Red Team - Blue Team Challenge. Get Strategy.

“Scott Pruitt, the deeply mistrusted head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, confirmed ... his plans to launch a “red team-blue team” exercise on the subject on climate change could reach fruition as early as next month. …”

“Scott Pruitt’s call for a ‘Red Team, Blue Team’ debate on climate change is a farce and a distraction,” said Peter Frumhoff from the UCS after Pruitt’s hearing. “If he has questions about climate science, he should turn to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, not hacks from the Heartland Institute. …”

Scott Pruitt Confirms “Red Team–Blue Team” Climate Exercise Could Launch As Early As January  |  December 11th, 2017 by Joshua S Hill  

______________________________________________________________

The internet is abuzz with handwringing over the prospect of Pruitt's "red team - blue team" competition to "establish" the validity of the scientific understanding of human caused global warming, (see the recent SkepticalScience.com article I’ve reposted below.)

Trump Administration is looking forward to making a theater out of climate science and scientists are rightfully upset.  

Yet, it seems to me this exercise provides a wonderful opportunity for some savvy science and history communicators with the right stuff  to stand up and turn the table on these fraudsters.  

Reject their script and use this opportunity to expose the contrarian mishmash of inconsistent nonsense, lies and slander.

Use the moment to expose their dishonest rotten underbelly!

(originally posted at my new ConfrontingScienceContrarians blog)

#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

Unauthorized annotated Fyfe coauthors letter to US Rep. Lamar Smith

The Fyfe et al 2016 clarifying letter to US Representative Lamar Smith is well written.  There's nothing to complain about and I don't.  Still at 1000 word there's only so much it can say, and I'm going to use this opportunity to make my point using the words of other scientists.  Remember my beef is about communication, not the science.

I’ve borrowed from about a dozen climate studies, along with some other info and let their quotes speak for themselves.  I apologize for some of the hard feeling.  I do not apologize pushing for better recognition of our* failures to communicate, how else can we learn, how else can we improve?  (slight edit, I realized Josh Willis' quote belongs at the start of this reading, not at the end.)

Best Wishes.  

For the background to this, link here

* Climate science communicators big and little.

“One way to think about it is that global warming continued, but the oceans just juggled a bit of heat around and made the surface seem cooler for a while” 
Joshua Willis Ph.D. - JPL

Source for the text:

http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2017/letter-to-lamar-smith/

Letter to Lamar Smith

March 28, 2017    communication   Ed Hawkins  Climate Lab Book

The Committee on Science, Space & Technology of the US House of Representatives conducts regular evidence hearings on various science topics. On Wednesday 29th March, there is a hearing on “Climate science: assumptions, policy implications, and the scientific method”. The following letter, summarising the scientific findings of Fyfe et al. (2016) and Karl et al. (2015), has been submitted as evidence to this hearing.

The broader context is that the Committee Chairman, Mr. Lamar Smith, has previously discussed the findings of Fyfe et al. (of which I was a co-author), claiming: “A new peer-reviewed study, published in the journal Nature, confirms the halt in global warming”. 

This statement is incorrect, and motivated the clarification on what Fyfe et al. actually says.

Dear Mr. Smith,

We are coauthors of the Fyfe et al. paper published in 2016 in Nature Climate Change [1]. You recently referenced this paper at a Subcommittee hearing on March 16, 2016 [2]. We are writing to clarify what the Fyfe et al. paper actually finds and claims. We also want to ensure that the conclusions of the Fyfe et al. paper are not misconstrued as a criticism of Thomas Karl, of the Karl et al. paper published in Science in 2015 [3], or of the valuable research that Dr. Karl and his team have performed over many years.