Unsettled

If You Want To Talk About Climate, You Need To Read This Book First. Seriously, it is that important and that illuminating. Here, Koonin lays bare what the science actually says - and what “the science” that so many claim is “settled” want to make you think. Chapter 4 alone, where Koonin - who helped create some of the first computer based climate models and literally wrote a textbook on the subject - discusses climate models and how reliable - or not - they are is worth the price of the book.

Ultimately this is a book that no partisan will be happy with. Koonin eviscerates positions on both the left and the right of American politics with equal aplomb, sticking to the facts of the matter at hand as the science itself dictates them and refraining from veering into political recommendations. Thus, where the science genuinely is clear that humans are having some impact or another, Koonin points this out in precise detail - precise enough for the purposes of this text anyway, while citing the studies that show the more scientific level precision. Where the science is more muddled, Koonin points this out too - and explains where we know what we don't know and even some of where we don't know what we don't know.

This book, per its very cover, sets out to uncover what we know, what we don't know, and why the distinction matters - and it does exactly this truly remarkably well. Very much recommended.

Unsettled by Steven E. Koonin

Please give a helpful vote to my Amazon review - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3U8A0RU5GBXU7?ref=pf_ov_at_pdctrvw_srp

The important take-away from this book is that an expert who should be parroting the Global Warming/Climate Change mantra we read in the newspapers is not. Instead, that expert is saying that quite a lot of the information we are told by the media is massaged, spun, taken out of context or distorted.

The author, Steven E. Koonin, is an environmental scientist, former undersecretary of science for Obama's Department of Energy. In 2014, he was asked by the American Physical Society to “stress test” the state of climate science. As part of this, Koonin determined that while humans play a small but growing warming influence on the climate, the science is unsettled and does not support the hysterical projections being used to scare the world. Koonin also notes that distinguished scientists are embarrassed by some media portrayals of the science (but, apparently, they hold their tongues.)

Here are some the major take-aways on specific issues:

“For example, both the research literature and government reports that summarize and assess the state of climate science say clearly that heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, and that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.”

Interestingly, the chief effect of global warming has been warming at the colder end of temperatures, not the upper end. Thus, it is getting less freezing, not more hot. One would think that this would be a good thing, not something to fear.

Other specific issues:

“•​Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century.
•​Greenland's ice sheet isn't shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.
•​The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.”

Another one on the ever-popular hurricane issue:

“This seemed directly at odds with the National Climate Assessment's alarming figure, so I went back and searched the NCA more thoroughly. On page 769, buried in the text of Appendix 3, I found this statement:
There has been no significant trend in the global number of tropical cyclones nor has any trend been identified in the number of US land-falling hurricanes.13
Wow! I thought to myself. That's surprising and pretty important. How come this isn't up front as a Key Message?”

I have been following climate news since global warming became a thing in the early 1990s. I have learned to debunk specific claims by paying attention to the data that is conveniently omitted from stories. Certainly, the Earth is getting warmer, but it has been coming out of a minor ice age since the mid-nineteenth century. Could CO2 play a role? Koonin says it does, and I think I will have to listen to him since he is an expert who may be telling the truth.

However, his expertise doesn't mean that I give up autonomy over reason. The last year (2020) has been an awful time for expertise. The public has been told so many lies about Covid-19 and experts have flip-flopped with regularity that the idea of expertise is fraying at the edges.

Koonin is nice - I should say “politic” - in his discussion of the role of scientific institutions in promoting global warming hysteria, but then he has to live with his academic colleagues. I don't. I've noticed that science is corrupt. Scientists do lie to the public for what they feel is the public's good. Bakunin might have been nuts, but he was right in saying that scientists can become tyrants just like any other interest group if they are given the opportunity. Koonin explains:

“Trust in scientific institutions underpins our ability—and the ability of the media and politicians as well—to trust what is presented to us as The Science. Yet when it comes to climate, those institutions frequently seem more concerned with making the science fit a narrative than with ensuring the narrative fits the science. We've already seen that the institutions that prepare the official assessment reports have a communication problem, often summarizing or describing the data in ways that are actively misleading.”

Koonin gently offers this explanation:

“Scientists not involved with climate research are also to be faulted. While they're in a unique position to evaluate climate science's claims, they're prone to a phenomenon I call “climate simple.” The phrase “blood simple,” first used by Dashiell Hammett in his 1929 novel Red Harvest, describes the deranged mindset of people after a prolonged immersion in violent situations; “climate simple” is an analogous ailment, in which otherwise rigorous and analytical scientists abandon their critical faculties when discussing climate and energy issues. For example, the diagnosis was climate simple when one of my senior scientific colleagues asked me to stop “the distraction” of pointing out inconvenient sections of an IPCC report. This was an eyes-shut-fingers-in-the-ears position I've never heard in any other scientific discussion.”

But then cuts to the chase:

“Whatever its cause, climate simple is a problem. Major changes in society are being advocated and trillions will be spent, all based on the findings of climate science. That science should be open to intense scrutiny and questioning, and scientists should approach it with their usual critical objectivity. And they shouldn't have to be afraid when they do.”

This book is a pretty tough read. Koonin offers the math, data, and graphs to support his points. I'm usually good with graphs and data, but a lot of this eluded me. Koonin's writing tends to the technical side, but there are nuggets that will interest those of us who want the big picture.