This appears to be from a new book
www.google.com
But his points are still valid, and yes we continue to learn more about things that cause the climate to warm.“Scientists who have spent their careers studying climate science said that Koonin’s critiques are superficial, misleading and marred by overgeneralization. The science at the core of “Unsettled” is fatally out of date, they say, and is based on the 2013 physical science report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since then, climate scientists have continued to learn more about the intensity and potentially catastrophic disruption of a warming climate. And while a decade ago, the effects of climate change still seemed a future threat, its impacts—sea level rise; shrinking glaciers; more extreme and frequent storms; drought and wildfire—already are being felt around the world.
The most recent scientific evidence, which will be covered in the IPCC update due out in August, has increased researchers’ confidence that human activity is the driving force in the current warming. Climate attribution studies in the last five years have shown that recent heat waves would have been all but impossible without the effect of greenhouse gas pollution. Other new research suggests that global warming has intensified extreme rainfall over parts of North America, and that overheated oceans are increasing the intensity of the tropical storms. Koonin’s book does not take these studies into account, and when he does cite recent studies, stresses their uncertainties rather than the findings, which affirm humanity’s role in the planet’s changes.
“The bottom line is that despite uncertainties in the magnitude and patterns of natural climate variability, human-caused climate change fingerprints have been identified in pretty much every aspect of climate change scientists have looked at,” said Benjamin Santer, an atmospheric scientist and leading climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “
A New Book Feeds Climate Doubters, but Scientists Say the Conclusions are Misleading and Out of Date - Inside Climate News
The most ardent foes of climate policy in the Trump administration dreamed of staging a grand climate science debate. They called it a “red team/blue team” exercise, a term borrowed from military strategy games, and it was designed to test the proposition that fossil fuel pollution put the...
From your WiKi citation,Well folks, there's yet another opportunity for people with no training and experience in the field to pretend that their ignorance is not merely as good as but is in fact better than knowledge of those who have devoted their careers to this subject.
le sigh
And, apparently, theoretical physicists who teaches at a school of engineering. What the hell does he know about climate science? At least Dyson guy admitted that he does not know much of anything about the technical details in the field.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
I wonder how he would feel if an animal husbandry expert wrote him to let him know that physicists have gotten their math all wrong for decades and he, the animal husbandry expert, *just knows* how math should really work.
Christ, I'd love to see one of you require a lifesaving bit of brain surgery which could be pulled off just fine, but instead you refuse to go through with it on the ground that you have personally figured out that neuroscience has got it all wrong, and you *just know* that the proper remedy is to drink a glass of cranberry juice soaked in rose petals every night before bed. Then maybe I'd believe you actually do think this AGW denier crap is valid, rather than just slinging it for partisan ends.
insideclimatenews.org
Yes, we are learning more. And that’s exactly why his points aren’t valid.
Except that he has worked in the field, and done plenty of modeling of systems.If you mean you just posted more words, yes, but what you posted doesn't do a damned thing to affect my point: he's not a climate scientist in the field. Being "a scientist" doesn't mean a person is suddenly an expert in every scientific field. Neither does working on renewable energy technology. Neither does being an undersecretary of science in general.
Hell, publishing a book doesn't do the trick either. The only legitimate way to debunk it is to be in the field doing the research and getting papers published. (And don't bother with the conspiracy theory that dissenters are being 'hushed'. Their papers get rejected when their papers are crap).
I can see why he's cited here:
“What he does is he just takes potshots,” said Don Wuebbles, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Illinois, who has helped lead the National Climate Assessment, which Koonin’s book criticizes roundly. “He pulls one figure out of context, and then makes a whole chapter on it.”
A New Book Feeds Climate Doubters, but Scientists Say the Conclusions are Misleading and Out of Date - Inside Climate News
The most ardent foes of climate policy in the Trump administration dreamed of staging a grand climate science debate. They called it a “red team/blue team” exercise, a term borrowed from military strategy games, and it was designed to test the proposition that fossil fuel pollution put the...
A perfect description of just about every AGW denying thread here, all of which are more or less exactly like what I saw back when 9/11 truthing was a big thing..... people circling some falling debris and insisting it was falling "too fast", or bloviating about the melting point of steel.
Not at all. Where do you get this nonsense? Name me one scientific organization anywhere in the planet which, in its public statements on the matter, has denied that this is a potentially catastrophic problem?
Why would the opinions of scientific organizations have any merit?
I am guessing that you do not understand that the positions taken by scientific organizations, do not have to pass any type of peer review,
But they do. If they start spouting nonsense, the firestorm from their membership would destroy them. Ditto for all the standardized textbooks currently on the subject.
They can make "if", "then", statements without much pushback.
Nothing is untrue, they are conditional statements.
See you later then!
Of course that do. They make a living from producing the climate extreme literature for the left wing. There is plenty of contridictory evidence by scientist on the causes, effects and overall results of the claimed climate evidence.“Scientists who have spent their careers studying climate science said that Koonin’s critiques are superficial, misleading and marred by overgeneralization. The science at the core of “Unsettled” is fatally out of date, they say, and is based on the 2013 physical science report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since then, climate scientists have continued to learn more about the intensity and potentially catastrophic disruption of a warming climate. And while a decade ago, the effects of climate change still seemed a future threat, its impacts—sea level rise; shrinking glaciers; more extreme and frequent storms; drought and wildfire—already are being felt around the world.
The most recent scientific evidence, which will be covered in the IPCC update due out in August, has increased researchers’ confidence that human activity is the driving force in the current warming. Climate attribution studies in the last five years have shown that recent heat waves would have been all but impossible without the effect of greenhouse gas pollution. Other new research suggests that global warming has intensified extreme rainfall over parts of North America, and that overheated oceans are increasing the intensity of the tropical storms. Koonin’s book does not take these studies into account, and when he does cite recent studies, stresses their uncertainties rather than the findings, which affirm humanity’s role in the planet’s changes.
“The bottom line is that despite uncertainties in the magnitude and patterns of natural climate variability, human-caused climate change fingerprints have been identified in pretty much every aspect of climate change scientists have looked at,” said Benjamin Santer, an atmospheric scientist and leading climate modeler at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. “
A New Book Feeds Climate Doubters, but Scientists Say the Conclusions are Misleading and Out of Date - Inside Climate News
The most ardent foes of climate policy in the Trump administration dreamed of staging a grand climate science debate. They called it a “red team/blue team” exercise, a term borrowed from military strategy games, and it was designed to test the proposition that fossil fuel pollution put the...
No. This doesn’t happen in any other kind of science. Hasn’t in the history of science. It would be weird if the entire scientific community was now engaged in some massive conspiracy to do it now.
You should read up on eugenics! Quite a few top Universities had eugenics programs.No. This doesn’t happen in any other kind of science. Hasn’t in the history of science. It would be weird if the entire scientific community was now engaged in some massive conspiracy to do it now.
All the apparent contradictions have been explained and straightened out too now.
“Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[3]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[4][5] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.[2]”
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Well folks, there's yet another opportunity for people with no training and experience in the field to pretend that their ignorance is not merely as good as but is in fact better than knowledge of those who have devoted their careers to this subject.
le sigh
And, apparently, theoretical physicists who teaches at a school of engineering. What the hell does he know about climate science? At least Dyson guy admitted that he does not know much of anything about the technical details in the field.
Steven E. Koonin - Wikipedia
I wonder how he would feel if an animal husbandry expert wrote him to let him know that physicists have gotten their math all wrong for decades and he, the animal husbandry expert, *just knows* how math should really work.
Christ, I'd love to see one of you require a lifesaving bit of brain surgery which could be pulled off just fine, but instead you refuse to go through with it on the ground that you have personally figured out that neuroscience has got it all wrong, and you *just know* that the proper remedy is to drink a glass of cranberry juice soaked in rose petals every night before bed. Then maybe I'd believe you actually do think this AGW denier crap is valid, rather than just slinging it for partisan ends.
No. This doesn’t happen in any other kind of science. Hasn’t in the history of science. It would be weird if the entire scientific community was now engaged in some massive conspiracy to do it now.
All the apparent contradictions have been explained and straightened out too now.
“Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–98%[3]) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change,[4][5] and the remaining 2% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6] A 2019 study found scientific consensus to be at 100%.[2]”
Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia
