Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn\'t, and Why It Matters...

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:37:34 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:59:37 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.

No, it doesn\'t.
Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you\'ve just mistaken
which group \'we\' are in?
The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
more.

Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat?

Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others).

John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned.

Hey Sloman, Hansen wasn\'t talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.

That\'s what the reporter may have thought, but Hansen is rather too good at his job to have said anything that silly, though jdiots like you and John Larkin may chose to believe otherwise.

Hansen has - much more recently - suggested that the IPCC is being a little too optimistic about sea level rise there is something like ten metres of sea level rise tied up in the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, and when they sllde off into the sea this may happen quite fast, but there\'s no sigh that it has started happening yet.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[John Doe]

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote:
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:
jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.

No, it doesn\'t.

\"US shivered through its coldest February in more than 30 years\" (USA
Today, March 2021).

What\'s different from 30 years ago, and from 100 years ago, is pervasive
24/7 instrumentation everywhere. Of course we set records.

They are talking about same-place records in over 30 years.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:20:55 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:

Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:

I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.

The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:

.<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653

<snip>

Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:

.<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1

\"Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn\'t, and Why It Matters\", BenBella Books, Hardcover \" April 27, 2021, by Steve E. Koonin, 320 pages.

The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from those claims.

From the Amazon reviews

\"As more scientists look at Koonin\'s work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing.. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. \"

It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.

You are actually making Koonin\'s point.

Far from it.

While it\'s true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted:

There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and

2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating.

Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine.

Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning.

I\'m not saying anything about Koonin. I\'m talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings..


And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.

What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary left much context and perspective out.

But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It\'s easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.

Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin\'s take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.

A heroic task. Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn\'t really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.

Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn\'t get under way until the 1990\'s.

<snipped John Doe\'s usual irrelevancies>

> A chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...

Not that John has ever made a specific c;aim about where I might have lied, or tried to reason with me - not a task for which he is well-equipped.

He\'s just a nasty example of the right-wing lunatic troll, without anything useful to say.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:20:49 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <so9l3g$ve9$4@dont-email.me>.

gHxlyeyWQOEW

 

[whit3rd]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:20:19 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
more.

Lucrative? In Earth sciences, other than prospecting, nothing
of the sort is seen on this planet. Where are you from?

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.

The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:

.<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653

\"‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate\", WSJ, By Mark P.
Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.


Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:

.<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1

\"Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn\'t, and Why It
Matters\", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E.
Koonin, 320 pages.

The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original
literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from
those claims.

From the Amazon reviews

\"As more scientists look at Koonin\'s work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. \"

It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.

You are actually making Koonin\'s point.

Far from it.

While it\'s true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted:

There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and
2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating.

Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine.

Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning.

I\'m not saying anything about Koonin. I\'m talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it\'s all ad hominem.

The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.

And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.

Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin\'s
claims.

What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
left much context and perspective out.

But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It\'s easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.

Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.

Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin\'s take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.

A heroic task.

Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is
immense, which makes such an approach impossible.

One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the
cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all
that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC
as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every
five years or so.

Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn\'t really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.

Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks.

Arrhenius solved it:

..<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>


>Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn\'t get under way until the 1990\'s.

Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later
gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.


Joe Gwinn

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:37:57 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.

The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:

.<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653

\"‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate\", WSJ, By Mark P.
Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.


Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:

.<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1

\"Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn\'t, and Why It
Matters\", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E.
Koonin, 320 pages.

The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original
literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from
those claims.

From the Amazon reviews

\"As more scientists look at Koonin\'s work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing.. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. \"

It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.

You are actually making Koonin\'s point.

Far from it.

While it\'s true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted:

There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and
2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating.

Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine.

Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning.

I\'m not saying anything about Koonin. I\'m talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500 reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it\'s all ad hominem.

Clijmate change denial is well known, well documented, and entirely predictable. The logical fallacy here is to deny it\'s existence, and take it\'s predictable manifestation seriously.

The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings..

And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.

Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin\'s claims.

And you ignored the specific ciriticism that I pulled out of the Amazon reviews, on the basis that it was a minority opinion - not on the bais that it was wrong. That\'s ad hominem.

What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
left much context and perspective out.

But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It\'s easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.

Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.

More work than the subject deserves.

Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin\'s take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.

A heroic task.

Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is immense, which makes such an approach impossible.

Climate scientists do have to read the entire literature, or at least a representative sample. Getting a Ph.D. in a subject involves writing a literature review, which takes a lot of work - mine certainly did,

One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC , as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every
five years or so.

But first I\'d have to read the book, and the critical Amazon review makes it fairly clear what I\'d find.

Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn\'t really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks.

Arrhenius solved it:

.<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

And if you had read a bit more, you\'d realise that Arrhenius came up with a correct hypothesis, but not one that was supported by what was known about the infra-red absorbtion spectrum of CO2 in the gas phase at the time, which wasn\'t up to resolving the rotational fine structure of the spectrum - each vibrational absorbtion line can be resolved into a series of sharp lines - the P, Q and R branches - and those sharp lines have much higher extinction coefficients than the unressolved vibrational absorbtion appear s to have at lower resolution. Arrhenius\'s hypothesis didn\'t fit the data that was available at the time.

Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn\'t get under way until the 1990\'s.

Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.

Global Cooling wasn\'t a \"worry\". It was just something journalists - and occasional scientists looking for attention - speculated about.

Global Warming superseded it as more data began to accumulate. Even in the 1980\'s it was more a speculation than any kind of warning, but as the data built up it got to the point where Al Gore could put together the story he was getting from his scientific acquaintances and publish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance

in 1992. You want to equate the occasional speculations about global cooling with what we now know about anthropogenic global warming, which is a typical denialist device to minimise the extent of our current knowledge, not to mention the seriousness of the problem.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[whit3rd]

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

I\'m not saying anything about Koonin. I\'m talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it\'s all ad hominem.

Oh, no, that\'s an unacceptable slur; the \'2500 reviewers\' claim is clearly snake-oil,
on a par with the famous \'Hundred Authors Against Einstein\'; if the
book\'s claims were really sound, it\'d convince experts rather than volunteer reviewers.
Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.

The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.

And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.
Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin\'s
claims.

Not at all. Koonin didn\'t do any of the research, he just collected it.

What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited

while not coming to the conclusions that IPCC reached? Then either a large international
conclave, or a lonely individual, has missed something. I\'d distrust the individual first.

Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn\'t get under way until the 1990\'s.

Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later
gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.

False claim, there. In the 1970\'s, cooling was an hypothesis, not trusted nor a prediction, just
a reasonable place to put some prove-or-disprove resources. By the early 90s, climate change
basically stopped having any scientific holes, was a solid prediction. Warming versus Change are
just distinction in labels, not differences.

 

[Tom Gardner]

On 03/12/21 07:09, whit3rd wrote:

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it\'s all ad hominem.

Oh, no, that\'s an unacceptable slur; the \'2500 reviewers\' claim is clearly snake-oil,
on a par with the famous \'Hundred Authors Against Einstein\'; if the
book\'s claims were really sound, it\'d convince experts rather than volunteer reviewers.
Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.


Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later
gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.

False claim, there. In the 1970\'s, cooling was an hypothesis, not trusted nor a prediction, just
a reasonable place to put some prove-or-disprove resources. By the early 90s, climate change
basically stopped having any scientific holes, was a solid prediction. Warming versus Change are
just distinction in labels, not differences.

Those are three solid observations.

Of course they won\'t convince someone whose beliefs are base
on emotions and/or their pay packet.

 

[Joe Gwinn]

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 18:02:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:37:57 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest.

The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book:

.<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653

\"‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate\", WSJ, By Mark P.
Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET.


Which led me to buy the book on Amazon:

.<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1

\"Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn\'t, and Why It
Matters\", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E.
Koonin, 320 pages.

The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original
literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from
those claims.

From the Amazon reviews

\"As more scientists look at Koonin\'s work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. \"

It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well.

You are actually making Koonin\'s point.

Far from it.

While it\'s true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted:

There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and
2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating.

Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine.

Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning.

I\'m not saying anything about Koonin. I\'m talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500 reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it\'s all ad hominem.

Clijmate change denial is well known, well documented, and entirely predictable. The logical fallacy here is to deny it\'s existence, and take it\'s predictable manifestation seriously.

The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.

And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.

Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin\'s claims.

And you ignored the specific ciriticism that I pulled out of the Amazon reviews, on the basis that it was a minority opinion - not on the bais that it was wrong. That\'s ad hominem.

Koonin\'s claims are about how accurately and completely the IPCC\'s
summaries reflect the peer-reviewed articles cited by the IPCC. Koonin
makes no claim about the accuracy of this cited articles.

What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source
for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary
left much context and perspective out.

But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It\'s easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.

Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.

More work than the subject deserves.

Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin\'s take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles.

A heroic task.

Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is immense, which makes such an approach impossible.

Climate scientists do have to read the entire literature, or at least a representative sample. Getting a Ph.D. in a subject involves writing a literature review, which takes a lot of work - mine certainly did,

As they may well have done. But the issue here is how an ordinary
citizen can cross check the claims made in the IPCC summaries.

One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC , as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every
five years or so.

But first I\'d have to read the book, and the critical Amazon review makes it fairly clear what I\'d find.

What a terrible burden.

Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now

https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm

starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn\'t really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.
Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks.

Arrhenius solved it:

.<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

And if you had read a bit more, you\'d realise that Arrhenius came up with a correct hypothesis, but not one that was supported by what was known about the infra-red absorbtion spectrum of CO2 in the gas phase at the time, which wasn\'t up to resolving the rotational fine structure of the spectrum - each vibrational absorbtion line can be resolved into a series of sharp lines - the P, Q and R branches - and those sharp lines have much higher extinction coefficients than the unressolved vibrational absorbtion appear s to have at lower resolution. Arrhenius\'s hypothesis didn\'t fit the data that was available at the time.

He solved the long-standing problem of why the Earth was not an ice
ball from what was then known, causing the IR transmission spectrum to
become the focus of scientific effort, and his predictions were
ultimately borne out.

Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn\'t get under way until the 1990\'s.

Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.

Global Cooling wasn\'t a \"worry\". It was just something journalists - and occasional scientists looking for attention - speculated about.

Nahh. Global Cooling was being thundered from the rooftops in the
1970s, and the journalists echoed the thunder. There was talk about
Great Britain being reduced to the climate of Siberia. Opinion was
divided on if this would be a good thing or bad thing.

But, time for original sources. The NYT published a summary on 21 May
1975 titled \"Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing\". Global
Cooling was a real scientific theory, but was being superseded.

..<https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/05/21/80043535.html?pageNumber=45>

Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing - Major Cooling May Be
Ahead - Scientists Ponder Why World\'s Climate Is Changing - a Major
Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable

Global Warming superseded it as more data began to accumulate. Even in the 1980\'s it was more a speculation than any kind of warning, but as the data built up it got to the point where Al Gore could put together the story he was getting from his scientific acquaintances and publish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance

in 1992. You want to equate the occasional speculations about global cooling with what we now know about anthropogenic global warming, which is a typical denialist device to minimise the extent of our current knowledge, not to mention the seriousness of the problem.

Actually, Koonin has better scientific credentials than Al Gore, by a
country mile.

Well, we have achieved our usual cycle.

Joe Gwinn

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 9:03:24 AM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:

On Thu, 2 Dec 2021 18:02:40 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:37:57 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:

Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.

Global Cooling wasn\'t a \"worry\". It was just something journalists - and occasional scientists looking for attention - speculated about.
Nahh. Global Cooling was being thundered from the rooftops in the
1970s, and the journalists echoed the thunder. There was talk about ...

The \'global cooling\' thunder isn\'t science, it\'s popular press. Science comes from
observations, not journalists.

But, time for original sources. The NYT published a summary on 21 May
1975 titled \"Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing\". Global
Cooling was a real scientific theory, but was being superseded.

.<https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1975/05/21/80043535.html?pageNumber=45

NY times is not \'original source\' on the science, it\'s a source on the journalism history.

Didn\'t read far before I found that... there was no agreement, dozens of things that might
be changing climate, in any and all directions, without any clear trend or prediction.

That\'s not a prediction scenario, it\'s the familiar \'we need more research\' open question
discussion.

So, \"global cooling\" at that time wasn\'t a rational worry; it wasn\'t a prediction on a trusted base of knowledge.

 

[John Doe]

Idiot...

--
whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

X-Received: by 2002:ac8:5510:: with SMTP id j16mr18326693qtq.664.1638515359657; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 2002:a25:aa14:: with SMTP id s20mr20914433ybi.7.1638515359466; Thu, 02 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 2021 23:09:19 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <4joiqgdggi5n3gr30k49cltq2gvoafvdjc@4ax.com
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=209.221.140.126; posting-account=vKQm_QoAAADOaDCYsqOFDAW8NJ8sFHoE
NNTP-Posting-Host: 209.221.140.126
References: <mf6aqglflu5p82tes7o9okm5f24c0dcpna@4ax.com> <e4021b5b-7ddf-4433-a1a4-f52db4b547een@googlegroups.com> <evbdqgtbekp55jap43pdknpp7pa377r5te@4ax.com> <34bd9b74-d38c-41f7-bc97-84ec89b9c936n@googlegroups.com> <fosfqg967q60iiuvmsruoi2hr1mp1a9sg7@4ax.com> <ff6ee458-3eb5-4680-9f66-30c1b31747f8n@googlegroups.com> <4joiqgdggi5n3gr30k49cltq2gvoafvdjc@4ax.com
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9fbd7053-5edc-4608-ba1b-f7ab61e83598n@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn\'t, and Why It Matters
From: whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com
Injection-Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2021 07:09:19 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=\"UTF-8\"
Lines: 37
Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654130

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

I\'m not saying anything about Koonin. I\'m talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt
The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it\'s all ad hominem.

Oh, no, that\'s an unacceptable slur; the \'2500 reviewers\' claim is clearly snake-oil,
on a par with the famous \'Hundred Authors Against Einstein\'; if the
book\'s claims were really sound, it\'d convince experts rather than volunteer reviewers.
Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.

The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings.

And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.
Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin\'s
claims.

Not at all. Koonin didn\'t do any of the research, he just collected it.

What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the
same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited

while not coming to the conclusions that IPCC reached? Then either a large international
conclave, or a lonely individual, has missed something. I\'d distrust the individual first.

Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn\'t get under way until the 1990\'s.

Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later
gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.

False claim, there. In the 1970\'s, cooling was an hypothesis, not trusted nor a prediction, just
a reasonable place to put some prove-or-disprove resources. By the early 90s, climate change
basically stopped having any scientific holes, was a solid prediction. Warming versus Change are
just distinction in labels, not differences.

 

[John Doe]

Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

whit3rd wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote:

The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it\'s all ad hominem.

Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.

Of course they won\'t convince someone whose beliefs are base on emotions
and/or their pay packet.

Or someone who makes money from \"global warming\" while flying around in a
MONSTROUSLY POLLUTING private jet...

Then there are your Globalist Propaganda Masters, like this one spewing
the climate change garbage and hiding behind staffers while exiting her
private jet, to fool you. Some people are so easily duped. Others are just
trolls...

 

[John Doe]

whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote:

jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
more.

Lucrative? In Earth sciences, other than prospecting, nothing
of the sort is seen on this planet. Where are you from?

Sure. Lots of political careers based on spewing such garbage. Half of
California politicians depend on that.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Saturday, December 4, 2021 at 10:48:05 AM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:

Tom Gardner <spam...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
whit3rd wrote:
Joe Gwinn wrote:

The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500
reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it\'s all ad hominem.

Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.
Of course they won\'t convince someone whose beliefs are base on emotions
and/or their pay packet.

Or someone who makes money from \"global warming\" while flying around in a
MONSTROUSLY POLLUTING private jet...

Strictly speaking, CO2 emissions aren\'t pollution - CO2 is a perfectly normal components of the atmosphere, though the current level is higher than we\'d like

Then there are your Globalist Propaganda Masters, like this one spewing
the climate change garbage and hiding behind staffers while exiting her
private jet, to fool you. Some people are so easily duped. Others are just
trolls...

Sadly for creeps like John Doe, climate change is real and progressing inconveniently rapidly. There are politicians who exploit it - like every other issue, but that doesn\'t alter the facts of the matter. Right wing lunatics do see m to be easily duped by climate change denial - their basic idea is that change is bad, which makes it difficult for them to deal with real change which is actually happening, and sympathetic to all those people who have made a lot of money out of digging up fossil carbon and selling it as fuel, and want to keep on doing for as long as possible despite the unfortunate consequences.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:33:13 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <soe9fp$rv6$1@dont-email.me>.

kg99FjHm0Be5

 

[Edward Hernandez]

The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:

> The troll doesn\'t even know how to format a USENET post...

And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id
<sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:

The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from
breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is
CLUELESS...

And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another
incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Fri, 3 Dec 2021 23:53:13 -0000
(UTC) in message-id <soeal9$rv6$4@dont-email.me>.

This posting is a public service announcement for any google groups
readers who happen by to point out that the John Doe troll does not even
follow it\'s own rules that it uses to troll other posters.

LKcEjgCejT6j

 

[whit3rd]

On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 3:51:46 PM UTC-8, John Doe wrote:

Sure. Lots of political careers based on spewing such garbage. Half of
California politicians depend on that.

Oh, yeah, that\'ll fly on a newsgroup that isn\'t followed by California politicians.
You could have filled in Newfoundland fishers, or Mississippi Baptists, or
Detroit beer-drinkers, with just as little thought.

The \'such garbage\' is equally generic, vague, dismissive.

Scorn for others is a sentiment that has many expressions, but no positive
value.

 

[Flyguy]

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:

On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:37:34 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:59:37 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.

No, it doesn\'t.
Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you\'ve just mistaken
which group \'we\' are in?
The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but
still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot
more.

Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat?

Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others).

John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned.

Hey Sloman, Hansen wasn\'t talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.

That\'s what the reporter may have thought, but Hansen is rather too good at his job to have said anything that silly, though jdiots like you and John Larkin may chose to believe otherwise.

Hansen has - much more recently - suggested that the IPCC is being a little too optimistic about sea level rise there is something like ten metres of sea level rise tied up in the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, and when they sllde off into the sea this may happen quite fast, but there\'s no sigh that it has started happening yet.

--
SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, a broken water main can flood a highway - this is not a particularly insightful prediction. So, NO, Hansen was talking flooding by sea-level rise.

BTW, you are such an \"idiot\" that you can\'t even SPELL THE FUCKING WORD, imbecile!

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Sunday, December 5, 2021 at 11:48:36 AM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 8:00:45 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:37:34 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:59:37 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote:
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:

<snip>

Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat?

Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others).

John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned.

Hey Sloman, Hansen wasn\'t talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.

That\'s what the reporter may have thought, but Hansen is rather too good at his job to have said anything that silly, though jdiots like you and John Larkin may chose to believe otherwise.

Hansen has - much more recently - suggested that the IPCC is being a little too optimistic about sea level rise there is something like ten metres of sea level rise tied up in the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, and when they sllde off into the sea this may happen quite fast, but there\'s no sigh that it has started happening yet.


Hey Sloman, a broken water main can flood a highway - this is not a particularly insightful prediction. So, NO, Hansen was talking flooding by sea-level rise.

Hurricane Sandy did raise the local sea level quire a bit - enough to submerge bits of the west side highway in Manhattan. That\'s a lot more water than a burst water main.
It;s called a \"storm surge\".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Sea_flood_of_1953

is and example. It killed 1836 people in the Netherlands, 307 in England, 28 in Belgium and 19 in Scotland. Sandy only killed 233.

> BTW, you are such an \"idiot\" that you can\'t even SPELL THE FUCKING WORD, imbecile!

And Flyguy is a such an idiot that he thinks it worth his while to sound off about typos. He may even be right. He can\'t post anything of substance, so he\'s reduced to quibbling about typos. The fact that he is outing himself as a trivial troll has escaped him.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney