What do you think?
Rate this book
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters
“Surging sea levels are inundating the coasts.”
“Hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming fiercer and more frequent.”
“Climate change will be an economic disaster.”
You’ve heard all this presented as fact. But according to science, all of these statements are profoundly misleading.
When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that “the science is settled.” In reality, the long game of telephone from research to reports to the popular media is corrupted by misunderstanding and misinformation. Core questions—about the way the climate is responding to our influence, and what the impacts will be—remain largely unanswered. The climate is changing, but the why and how aren’t as clear as you’ve probably been led to believe.
Now, one of America’s most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn’t say) about our changing climate. In What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
Fascinating, clear-headed, and full of surprises, this book gives readers the tools to both understand the climate issue and be savvier consumers of science media in general. Koonin takes readers behind the headlines to the more nuanced science itself, showing us where it comes from and guiding us through the implications of the evidence. He dispels popular myths and unveils little-known despite a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1970. What’s more, the models we use to predict the future aren’t able to accurately describe the climate of the past, suggesting they are deeply flawed.
Koonin also tackles society’s response to a changing climate, using data-driven analysis to explain why many proposed “solutions” would be ineffective, and discussing how alternatives like adaptation and, if necessary, geoengineering will ensure humanity continues to prosper. Unsettled is a reality check buoyed by hope, offering the truth about climate science that you aren’t getting elsewhere—what we know, what we don’t, and what it all means for our future.
“Hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming fiercer and more frequent.”
“Climate change will be an economic disaster.”
You’ve heard all this presented as fact. But according to science, all of these statements are profoundly misleading.
When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that “the science is settled.” In reality, the long game of telephone from research to reports to the popular media is corrupted by misunderstanding and misinformation. Core questions—about the way the climate is responding to our influence, and what the impacts will be—remain largely unanswered. The climate is changing, but the why and how aren’t as clear as you’ve probably been led to believe.
Now, one of America’s most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn’t say) about our changing climate. In What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.
Fascinating, clear-headed, and full of surprises, this book gives readers the tools to both understand the climate issue and be savvier consumers of science media in general. Koonin takes readers behind the headlines to the more nuanced science itself, showing us where it comes from and guiding us through the implications of the evidence. He dispels popular myths and unveils little-known despite a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1970. What’s more, the models we use to predict the future aren’t able to accurately describe the climate of the past, suggesting they are deeply flawed.
Koonin also tackles society’s response to a changing climate, using data-driven analysis to explain why many proposed “solutions” would be ineffective, and discussing how alternatives like adaptation and, if necessary, geoengineering will ensure humanity continues to prosper. Unsettled is a reality check buoyed by hope, offering the truth about climate science that you aren’t getting elsewhere—what we know, what we don’t, and what it all means for our future.
320 pages, Kindle Edition
First published April 27, 2021
1993 people are currently reading
10087 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 523 reviews
June 8, 2021
Steven Koonin’s Unsettled is an unsettling book. I learned about it via a Facebook post, clicked my way over to Goodreads, and listened to the reader comment jungle drums. Folks seemed to like it. A few climate deniers wrote that the book had convinced them that the climate was actually warming. Wow! What could a book say that might communicate with them? I promptly downloaded a copy of the Kindle version.
Koonin is a physicist who has worked for BP, Obama’s Department of Energy, and in academia. He enjoys an unblemished reputation as a contrarian. For him, climate change is “a possible future problem.” The mainstream mindset constantly tells us that the science on climate change is settled (huge threat!). Koonin insists that “The Science” is unsettled — reputable climate science has been highjacked by doom mongerers (but he does acknowledge that the climate is indeed warming). The Trump administration once wanted to use him in a proposed media campaign to challenge mainstream perceptions about climate change.
Koonin is an expert at computer modelling, and he’s very interested in climate science. Models are given a set of rules, and then selected data is fed into them for processing. If significant trends appear, they can provide a basis for projections of the future. Armed with compelling graphs, and a blizzard of statistics, he shines a spotlight on little known truths. For example, “The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.”
Actual reality is more complex than a collection of data points. In the Arctic, bright white surfaces, like snow and ice, are very reflective (high albedo). Earth is bathed with incoming solar heat every day, but albedo bounces about 30 percent of the heat back into outer space, so we don’t bake. Darker surfaces, like forests or open water, reflect much less heat (low albedo). The 70 percent of solar heat that reaches the planet surface helps to keep the climate at temperatures that enable life as we know it. This is an amazing balancing act.
Because the climate is warming, especially in the Arctic, the glaciers, ice pack, and sea ice are busy melting and retreating — exposing darker surfaces, like dry ground and seawater. So, less heat is bounced away, and more is absorbed, leading to rising temps. The warmer it gets, the faster the melting, which raises the warming, which speeds the melting — a vicious circle.
The atmosphere also plays a starring role in the balancing act. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2) methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and water vapor (H2O). In the atmosphere, they provide a comfortable insulating blanket that retains much of the heat radiating upward from the Earth’s surface. This process beneficially contributed to the balancing act until the industrial era, when greenhouse gas emissions intensified, and heat retention began increasing.
Warming affected permafrost. Consider the area of the 48 U.S. states that lie between Canada and Mexico. In the Northern Hemisphere, permafrost underlies an area almost 2.5 times as large as the 48 states. In the Arctic, vast deposits of it, which can be many thousands of years old, exist beneath both dry ground and offshore waters. Permafrost is a mix of frozen soil and organic material (plant and animal). When it warms, it thaws (not melts).
With thawing, land that was once strong and solid becomes more pudding-like. Towns decompose, villages slide into the sea, pipelines fall apart, and hills release landslides (exposing mammoth bones). Microbes feast on the defrosted organic matter, and then emit methane. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, it survives for 7 to 10 years before breaking down into CO2, which is less potent, but can remain airborne for many centuries.
On the bottom of northern seas, permafrost lies beneath layers of sediment. Sediments contain frozen crystals of methane hydrates (or clathrates), which look like ice, but can burn. Seabed hydrate deposits in the Arctic are estimated to contain 13 times the amount of carbon that’s currently present in the atmosphere. As rising temps melt the bright surface of sea ice, darker seawater becomes exposed to daylight, and absorbs heat. When seabed waters warm, the crystals melt, and methane gas is released. In deeper waters, the plumes of methane bubbles dissolve while rising. In shallow waters, methane bubbles make it to the surface, and enter the atmosphere.
As the Arctic climate continues warming, it’s possible that a catastrophic release of methane could be triggered. Folks who pay attention to this stuff are nervous. They are monitoring the East Siberian Arctic Shelf — 810,000 square miles (2.1 million km2) of shallow waters in methane country. The shelf covers an area more than five times larger than California.
So, why don’t we just slow down greenhouse gas emissions? Here, we collide head-on with a monumental bummer. Koonin wrote (2020) that in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are 415 parts per million (ppm). Each year, about 37 billion tons of CO2 are emitted. At this rate, the concentration in the atmosphere would increase by about 2 ppm in a year. Year after year, more is added. These emissions remain in the atmosphere for centuries (!) — so their concentration continuously grows. He calculated the trajectory of current greenhouse gas emissions, and concluded that they would double by 2075.
In his book, The Great Acceleration, environmental historian J. R. McNeill said it differently, “Some proportion, perhaps as much as a quarter, of the roughly 300 billion tons of carbon released to the atmosphere between 1945 and 2015 will remain aloft for a few hundred thousand years.” By 2008, concentrations had grown by 25 percent in just 50 years. Of the emissions caused by humans, about 85 percent was related to fossil fuels.
Koonin contemplated where the path of continuous accumulation would lead. He reflected on humankind’s massive addiction to fossil fuels. Would we ever willingly back away from our high impact way of life, as long as it’s still possible? No! We’ll bet heavily on hope, and patiently wait for technological miracles, until the lights go out. Suddenly, a divine revelation arrived. The notion that we could stabilize current CO2 emissions in the coming decades was simply not plausible — and forget actually reducing them.
“Modest reductions in emissions will only delay, but not prevent, the rise in concentration.” If greenhouse gases continue their out of control accumulation, less heat will escape, the climate keeps warming, the Arctic keeps melting, albedo keeps decreasing, and the climate keeps getting warmer and warmer. We’ve started something we can’t stop. Yikes! Never fear! Koonin pulls three “solutions” out of his magic hat.
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) would artificially increase albedo by frequently dispersing tons reflective substances high in the sky, year after year, forever. The Artic would quit melting, and humankind could live happily ever after.
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) uses technology to extract the surplus CO2 from the atmosphere, and put it somewhere secure, where it will cause no mischief for a million years. A few small pilot projects are underway, and they have serious limitations so far.
Geoengineering is a word used to describe processes like SRM and CDR. If one or both turn out to be miraculously successful, humans could, in their wildest dreams, continue burning fossil energy, and living like there’s no tomorrow. In reality, neither is a proven success, nor cheap, easy, or sustainable. Both ideas make lots of people nervous, for a wide variety of intelligent reasons. Unintended consequences are guaranteed.
Luckily, there is one tried and true, all-purpose solution that humans have relied on for countless thousands of years — adaptation. Courage! Migrate to a region where you won’t starve, turn to ice, roast alive, or drown in rising seas. Learn how to walk. Become a great forager. And so on.
Doom mongerers warn that human influences will eventually push the climate beyond a tipping point, at which time catastrophe will ring our doorbell. Koonin writes that it’s unlikely that human influences will push the climate over a tipping point. “The most likely societal response will be to adapt to a changing climate, and that adaptation will very likely be effective.” If adaptation isn’t enough, we can always throw all caution to the wind, and fool around with geoengineering.
So, Koonin introduced readers to the notion of albedo, rising temperatures, melting Arctic, less albedo. Great! He came extremely close to the powerful punch line, but then suddenly swerved off into a head spinning whiteout blizzard of statistics and graphs. His viewpoint is based on data collections — statistics on temperatures, precipitation, storms, etc. — stuff that computers can process (36 red dots, 55 blue dots…).
A great benefit of Kindle books is that they are searchable. I searched the book for a number of essential climate science keywords, and discovered zero hits for: Peter Wadhams (Arctic researcher), permafrost, methane hydrate, methane clathrate, methane craters, ocean acidification, ocean deoxygenation, East Siberian Arctic Shelf, pine beetles, tree death, threshold temperatures (too hot for agriculture), etc. A whole bunch of essential information is absent in the book, and it may be an invisible elephant in the room. Could doom mongerers actually be reality mongerers?
Reading this book was an interesting experience for me. It made me question my views (all survived). I learned a few new things. Koonin is a purebred scientist, absolutely dedicated to the holy quest for truth. The long and winding upward path to sacred certainty passes through numerous challenges and arguments that eventually weed out the dodgy ideas. The Steven Koonin article in Wikipedia [HERE] provides ringside seats to the debate — links to commentaries by some of his critics who also have respectable credentials.
Koonin is a physicist who has worked for BP, Obama’s Department of Energy, and in academia. He enjoys an unblemished reputation as a contrarian. For him, climate change is “a possible future problem.” The mainstream mindset constantly tells us that the science on climate change is settled (huge threat!). Koonin insists that “The Science” is unsettled — reputable climate science has been highjacked by doom mongerers (but he does acknowledge that the climate is indeed warming). The Trump administration once wanted to use him in a proposed media campaign to challenge mainstream perceptions about climate change.
Koonin is an expert at computer modelling, and he’s very interested in climate science. Models are given a set of rules, and then selected data is fed into them for processing. If significant trends appear, they can provide a basis for projections of the future. Armed with compelling graphs, and a blizzard of statistics, he shines a spotlight on little known truths. For example, “The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.”
Actual reality is more complex than a collection of data points. In the Arctic, bright white surfaces, like snow and ice, are very reflective (high albedo). Earth is bathed with incoming solar heat every day, but albedo bounces about 30 percent of the heat back into outer space, so we don’t bake. Darker surfaces, like forests or open water, reflect much less heat (low albedo). The 70 percent of solar heat that reaches the planet surface helps to keep the climate at temperatures that enable life as we know it. This is an amazing balancing act.
Because the climate is warming, especially in the Arctic, the glaciers, ice pack, and sea ice are busy melting and retreating — exposing darker surfaces, like dry ground and seawater. So, less heat is bounced away, and more is absorbed, leading to rising temps. The warmer it gets, the faster the melting, which raises the warming, which speeds the melting — a vicious circle.
The atmosphere also plays a starring role in the balancing act. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2) methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and water vapor (H2O). In the atmosphere, they provide a comfortable insulating blanket that retains much of the heat radiating upward from the Earth’s surface. This process beneficially contributed to the balancing act until the industrial era, when greenhouse gas emissions intensified, and heat retention began increasing.
Warming affected permafrost. Consider the area of the 48 U.S. states that lie between Canada and Mexico. In the Northern Hemisphere, permafrost underlies an area almost 2.5 times as large as the 48 states. In the Arctic, vast deposits of it, which can be many thousands of years old, exist beneath both dry ground and offshore waters. Permafrost is a mix of frozen soil and organic material (plant and animal). When it warms, it thaws (not melts).
With thawing, land that was once strong and solid becomes more pudding-like. Towns decompose, villages slide into the sea, pipelines fall apart, and hills release landslides (exposing mammoth bones). Microbes feast on the defrosted organic matter, and then emit methane. Methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere, it survives for 7 to 10 years before breaking down into CO2, which is less potent, but can remain airborne for many centuries.
On the bottom of northern seas, permafrost lies beneath layers of sediment. Sediments contain frozen crystals of methane hydrates (or clathrates), which look like ice, but can burn. Seabed hydrate deposits in the Arctic are estimated to contain 13 times the amount of carbon that’s currently present in the atmosphere. As rising temps melt the bright surface of sea ice, darker seawater becomes exposed to daylight, and absorbs heat. When seabed waters warm, the crystals melt, and methane gas is released. In deeper waters, the plumes of methane bubbles dissolve while rising. In shallow waters, methane bubbles make it to the surface, and enter the atmosphere.
As the Arctic climate continues warming, it’s possible that a catastrophic release of methane could be triggered. Folks who pay attention to this stuff are nervous. They are monitoring the East Siberian Arctic Shelf — 810,000 square miles (2.1 million km2) of shallow waters in methane country. The shelf covers an area more than five times larger than California.
So, why don’t we just slow down greenhouse gas emissions? Here, we collide head-on with a monumental bummer. Koonin wrote (2020) that in the atmosphere, CO2 levels are 415 parts per million (ppm). Each year, about 37 billion tons of CO2 are emitted. At this rate, the concentration in the atmosphere would increase by about 2 ppm in a year. Year after year, more is added. These emissions remain in the atmosphere for centuries (!) — so their concentration continuously grows. He calculated the trajectory of current greenhouse gas emissions, and concluded that they would double by 2075.
In his book, The Great Acceleration, environmental historian J. R. McNeill said it differently, “Some proportion, perhaps as much as a quarter, of the roughly 300 billion tons of carbon released to the atmosphere between 1945 and 2015 will remain aloft for a few hundred thousand years.” By 2008, concentrations had grown by 25 percent in just 50 years. Of the emissions caused by humans, about 85 percent was related to fossil fuels.
Koonin contemplated where the path of continuous accumulation would lead. He reflected on humankind’s massive addiction to fossil fuels. Would we ever willingly back away from our high impact way of life, as long as it’s still possible? No! We’ll bet heavily on hope, and patiently wait for technological miracles, until the lights go out. Suddenly, a divine revelation arrived. The notion that we could stabilize current CO2 emissions in the coming decades was simply not plausible — and forget actually reducing them.
“Modest reductions in emissions will only delay, but not prevent, the rise in concentration.” If greenhouse gases continue their out of control accumulation, less heat will escape, the climate keeps warming, the Arctic keeps melting, albedo keeps decreasing, and the climate keeps getting warmer and warmer. We’ve started something we can’t stop. Yikes! Never fear! Koonin pulls three “solutions” out of his magic hat.
Solar Radiation Management (SRM) would artificially increase albedo by frequently dispersing tons reflective substances high in the sky, year after year, forever. The Artic would quit melting, and humankind could live happily ever after.
Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) uses technology to extract the surplus CO2 from the atmosphere, and put it somewhere secure, where it will cause no mischief for a million years. A few small pilot projects are underway, and they have serious limitations so far.
Geoengineering is a word used to describe processes like SRM and CDR. If one or both turn out to be miraculously successful, humans could, in their wildest dreams, continue burning fossil energy, and living like there’s no tomorrow. In reality, neither is a proven success, nor cheap, easy, or sustainable. Both ideas make lots of people nervous, for a wide variety of intelligent reasons. Unintended consequences are guaranteed.
Luckily, there is one tried and true, all-purpose solution that humans have relied on for countless thousands of years — adaptation. Courage! Migrate to a region where you won’t starve, turn to ice, roast alive, or drown in rising seas. Learn how to walk. Become a great forager. And so on.
Doom mongerers warn that human influences will eventually push the climate beyond a tipping point, at which time catastrophe will ring our doorbell. Koonin writes that it’s unlikely that human influences will push the climate over a tipping point. “The most likely societal response will be to adapt to a changing climate, and that adaptation will very likely be effective.” If adaptation isn’t enough, we can always throw all caution to the wind, and fool around with geoengineering.
So, Koonin introduced readers to the notion of albedo, rising temperatures, melting Arctic, less albedo. Great! He came extremely close to the powerful punch line, but then suddenly swerved off into a head spinning whiteout blizzard of statistics and graphs. His viewpoint is based on data collections — statistics on temperatures, precipitation, storms, etc. — stuff that computers can process (36 red dots, 55 blue dots…).
A great benefit of Kindle books is that they are searchable. I searched the book for a number of essential climate science keywords, and discovered zero hits for: Peter Wadhams (Arctic researcher), permafrost, methane hydrate, methane clathrate, methane craters, ocean acidification, ocean deoxygenation, East Siberian Arctic Shelf, pine beetles, tree death, threshold temperatures (too hot for agriculture), etc. A whole bunch of essential information is absent in the book, and it may be an invisible elephant in the room. Could doom mongerers actually be reality mongerers?
Reading this book was an interesting experience for me. It made me question my views (all survived). I learned a few new things. Koonin is a purebred scientist, absolutely dedicated to the holy quest for truth. The long and winding upward path to sacred certainty passes through numerous challenges and arguments that eventually weed out the dodgy ideas. The Steven Koonin article in Wikipedia [HERE] provides ringside seats to the debate — links to commentaries by some of his critics who also have respectable credentials.
May 5, 2021
Koonin explains the sorry state of climate science today. What the IPCC and U.S. government tell us about climate science is usually true, but in their effort “to persuade, rather than inform,” they leave out what doesn’t fit their narrative. They tell us enough to be alarmed, not enough to educate. It is this loss of scientific integrity that is alarming, not the climate.
Much of the book is spent dispelling the myth that extreme weather events are increasing due to human-caused climate change. He relates that heat waves are not more common today than they were in 1900, tornados are not trending up, nor are droughts, hurricanes, or flooding. Koonin criticizes the media for claiming that extreme weather is somehow related to human activities when there is no evidence to support this.
Koonin was President Obama’s Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy. Later in 2020, Obama declared we are in an “epistemological crisis.” Whether we agree with Obama on the issues or not, we agree that the U.S. is in a crisis with respect to truth and knowledge. Science is all about determining the truth in an objective and reproducible way. One’s feelings don’t matter, excuses don’t matter, consensus opinions don’t matter, what you call it (“global warming” or “climate change”) doesn’t matter, only what you present that can be reproduced independently matters. Unsettled is about getting science back on track, scientists should report what they know, what they don’t know, what they modeled, and what they observed. Nothing more, nothing less.
Much of the book is spent dispelling the myth that extreme weather events are increasing due to human-caused climate change. He relates that heat waves are not more common today than they were in 1900, tornados are not trending up, nor are droughts, hurricanes, or flooding. Koonin criticizes the media for claiming that extreme weather is somehow related to human activities when there is no evidence to support this.
Koonin was President Obama’s Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy. Later in 2020, Obama declared we are in an “epistemological crisis.” Whether we agree with Obama on the issues or not, we agree that the U.S. is in a crisis with respect to truth and knowledge. Science is all about determining the truth in an objective and reproducible way. One’s feelings don’t matter, excuses don’t matter, consensus opinions don’t matter, what you call it (“global warming” or “climate change”) doesn’t matter, only what you present that can be reproduced independently matters. Unsettled is about getting science back on track, scientists should report what they know, what they don’t know, what they modeled, and what they observed. Nothing more, nothing less.
April 2, 2021
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.
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.
October 18, 2021
Dr. Steven E. Koonin served as Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy under President Obama (who was often quoted as saying that climate change is the greatest long-term threat facing the world). Koonin is a leader in science policy in the United States, he has more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in the fields of physics and astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy, as well as climate science and he is currently a University Professor at New York University. So, with his impeccable scientific credentials, you’d think he would know what he is talking about when he delves into the science behind what is loosely referred to as climate change.
Despite what politicians, academics and the media are telling us, in Koonin’s view there is in fact, no looming climate catastrophe. In his excellent book, "Unsettled", he exposes the problems of computer modelling, as well as flaws he has found in reports from such organisations as the UN and IPCC. He gives an entirely plausible reason for the distortion and misinformation. He does make it clear that the world’s climate is warming and that humanity has had an influence on it but he demonstrates this without the hysteria that we see in the world’s media, with data, diagrams, graphs, charts and…facts. Koonin presents a well-balanced view, without the hype, of why certain propositions merit serious consideration and why some do not. Despite Koonin’s academic background, "Unsettled" is quite easy to read and understand, although some eyes might tend to glaze over with the plethora of graphs and diagrams which the author uses to support his propositions. Koonin is not a climate change denier, nor a sceptic (and, he notes for the record, not even a Trump supporter!). But he does demonstrate how the evidence does not justify the trillions of dollars being spent on trying to control the climate, destroying industries, destroying jobs, and creating an energy crisis in the process. According to UNICEF, in this world of plenty, 354 children die from malnutrition every hour of every day. With that sobering fact staring us in the face, perhaps we could think of a better way to spend those trillions.
Despite what politicians, academics and the media are telling us, in Koonin’s view there is in fact, no looming climate catastrophe. In his excellent book, "Unsettled", he exposes the problems of computer modelling, as well as flaws he has found in reports from such organisations as the UN and IPCC. He gives an entirely plausible reason for the distortion and misinformation. He does make it clear that the world’s climate is warming and that humanity has had an influence on it but he demonstrates this without the hysteria that we see in the world’s media, with data, diagrams, graphs, charts and…facts. Koonin presents a well-balanced view, without the hype, of why certain propositions merit serious consideration and why some do not. Despite Koonin’s academic background, "Unsettled" is quite easy to read and understand, although some eyes might tend to glaze over with the plethora of graphs and diagrams which the author uses to support his propositions. Koonin is not a climate change denier, nor a sceptic (and, he notes for the record, not even a Trump supporter!). But he does demonstrate how the evidence does not justify the trillions of dollars being spent on trying to control the climate, destroying industries, destroying jobs, and creating an energy crisis in the process. According to UNICEF, in this world of plenty, 354 children die from malnutrition every hour of every day. With that sobering fact staring us in the face, perhaps we could think of a better way to spend those trillions.
July 25, 2021
Were everything ‘settled’ that was presented here it would be a wonderful relief. Unfortunately, the bulk of what is presented here comes across as muddled with major points like “the models are more uncertain now than they were in MY day back in the 60’s”, and “there are fewer hotter days now that we have longer records”. Really? What just happened in the Pacific NW? Why did June just break the hottest nighttime temperature across the US? Towards the end when he compares himself to Galileo it just becomes farce at that point. Look, if one wants to take their climate science from a dude who likes to talk up his educational credentials in an unrelated field, is a paid ‘scientist’ for BP (wasn’t BP supposed to be aggressively looking to exit hydrocarbons?), and admits they didn’t study climate science, be my guest. This will play very well on the editorial pages of the WSJ and on Fox: but please bring better science and data to your printed works in the future. Like, shill harder next time.
May 14, 2021
He is a 5 star technical writer, but for me the science and dozens and dozens of graphing and charting stats were too far over my head to completely understand. This is a book in its core that is for the most erudite of that field, IMHO. It taught me a lot and also infused much that I knew from other lines of study to physics and physical or astronomical fields too. Especially how weather science is computed or how climate is studied in 100's of terms I never knew. And also the IPCC and all the other organizations who hype the warmth and drought trend hysteria. Or have all these sea level warnings etc. as part of their reporting re "climate".
The earth's albedo (sun reflection term that can be measured off of surfaces)- was the most intriguing thing I learned from this book read. Changing any degree of that could be far, far more cause/effect/outcome than most other factors. It seems that way to me. Weather control always has its huge downsides too. Even cloud seeding does.
The entire PART 2 of the book is THE RESPONSE because you have to fix what is broken, not just use vast rhetoric about issues that are not even part of the whole picture and are political. He has alternatives to this, as well.
C02 doesn't even seem to be a strongly determinant factor as far as I can see after reading all of this. The charting on sea levels, rainfalls, snow etc.- plus hurricane lies and much else listed as "true" in our current media were just some of the interesting parts of this book. A whole picture that has 1000's of inputs and for which the Earth has gone through many, many times before in great numbers of those inputs. C02 has been in huge proportion larger in our atmosphere in past ages than it is now.
But the best part of this book was not the geography or mappings or graphs or all the definitions explained but in the second part of this title. WHAT CLIMATE SCIENCE TELLS US, WHAT IT DOESN'T, AND WHY IT MATTERS
If you want to take this book on, you'd better get all your math and science skill eyes and brain cells working full time. It is not easy to digest the 100's of inputs or outputs equivalencies alone- let alone to follow all his studies for dozens and dozens of world science groups and their true interpretations of who or what they interpret and who for, as well.
It's probably the hardest book to digest that I've read in at least 10 years. Emissions from humans is a pittance compared to other factors.
Steven Koonin has the mind of an actuary mixed with the writing abilities that are evident in the Introduction. He can define exactly while organizing material into larger scopes for which they are intricate pieces of the puzzle. He is CalTech and elsewhere prof but as also former Undersecretary for Science and U.S. Department of Energy under the Obama administration.
Climate change has been made into a political movement that is on a par with past religious influences. Humans are not that important to most any Earth viabilities, IMHO. It took him over 3 years to write this book and there are pages of notes/research/sources for each chapter at the ending.
The earth's albedo (sun reflection term that can be measured off of surfaces)- was the most intriguing thing I learned from this book read. Changing any degree of that could be far, far more cause/effect/outcome than most other factors. It seems that way to me. Weather control always has its huge downsides too. Even cloud seeding does.
The entire PART 2 of the book is THE RESPONSE because you have to fix what is broken, not just use vast rhetoric about issues that are not even part of the whole picture and are political. He has alternatives to this, as well.
C02 doesn't even seem to be a strongly determinant factor as far as I can see after reading all of this. The charting on sea levels, rainfalls, snow etc.- plus hurricane lies and much else listed as "true" in our current media were just some of the interesting parts of this book. A whole picture that has 1000's of inputs and for which the Earth has gone through many, many times before in great numbers of those inputs. C02 has been in huge proportion larger in our atmosphere in past ages than it is now.
But the best part of this book was not the geography or mappings or graphs or all the definitions explained but in the second part of this title. WHAT CLIMATE SCIENCE TELLS US, WHAT IT DOESN'T, AND WHY IT MATTERS
If you want to take this book on, you'd better get all your math and science skill eyes and brain cells working full time. It is not easy to digest the 100's of inputs or outputs equivalencies alone- let alone to follow all his studies for dozens and dozens of world science groups and their true interpretations of who or what they interpret and who for, as well.
It's probably the hardest book to digest that I've read in at least 10 years. Emissions from humans is a pittance compared to other factors.
Steven Koonin has the mind of an actuary mixed with the writing abilities that are evident in the Introduction. He can define exactly while organizing material into larger scopes for which they are intricate pieces of the puzzle. He is CalTech and elsewhere prof but as also former Undersecretary for Science and U.S. Department of Energy under the Obama administration.
Climate change has been made into a political movement that is on a par with past religious influences. Humans are not that important to most any Earth viabilities, IMHO. It took him over 3 years to write this book and there are pages of notes/research/sources for each chapter at the ending.
September 4, 2021
This is a book I think everybody should read, but you won't like it. :) It's not that he's not probably right on a lot of things, it's that it's so hard to follow the endless trudge through complex math and science, and it's very technical. It's a lot like reading a 300 page company report. Koonin did convince me that a lot of the data has been manipulated. One of the most eye-opening pieces of this was his use of graphs that showed very well how people have precisely graphed the data to show what they want to show (by starting at an exact year after extremes, for instance). It was reassuring in a way, as I am someone who has been very concerned about climate change for quite some time. It's not that reassuring though, since he doesn't really argue a lot of the points. He says climate is changing but it's not necessarily for the same reasons or at the same levels that others say. He also offers really disappointing answers -- basically we need to either do expensive, difficult things for eternity or we need to learn to just adapt to the changes that are coming. He thinks we're good at adapting and we'll just manage that. As a parent, I'm not satisfied with leaving that kind of hope for my kids.
I am constantly disappointed that the media and our governments seem so committed to giving us incomplete and misleading information "for the greater good." We've seen that throughout the pandemic and Koonin does a good job of showing that it's going on with climate science, too. The takeaway is that we've been misled but not in ways that really matter, and that Koonin ultimately really doesn't know how this is going to end or what could save us.
I read a digital ARC of this book via net gally.
I am constantly disappointed that the media and our governments seem so committed to giving us incomplete and misleading information "for the greater good." We've seen that throughout the pandemic and Koonin does a good job of showing that it's going on with climate science, too. The takeaway is that we've been misled but not in ways that really matter, and that Koonin ultimately really doesn't know how this is going to end or what could save us.
I read a digital ARC of this book via net gally.
February 15, 2022
"The late Stephen Schneider, a prominent climate researcher, said it explicitly as early as 1989:
'On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.'"
Unsettled was a refreshing investigation into climate change. It is an empirical look at the data and science, without all the tiresome politics that almost inevitably accompany this discussion.
Climate change; specifically - man-made climate change - is one of the biggest stories of the last few decades. Politicians, media pundits, scientists, and other public commentators constantly drill the danger of climate change into the minds of the public. Are these fears overblown? How much climate change is man-made? How worried should we be? What should be done to combat this?
These are all questions that the author attempts to answer with this book.
Author Steven E. Koonin is an American theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He is also a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU's Tandon School of Engineering.
He has served on numerous advisory bodies for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy and its various national laboratories, such as the JASON defense advisory group, which he has chaired. Koonin's research interests have included theoretical nuclear, many-body, and computational physics, nuclear astrophysics, and global environmental science.
Steven E. Koonin:
Unsettled is a data-driven look into the science of climate change. The author includes many graphs and data sets to analyze and crunch the large numbers inherent to this field of inquiry.
Koonin has an effective writing style; he writes in a clear, concise, matter-of-fact manner that should be accessible even to the layperson; something that is fairly hit-or-miss in a science book, in my experience. It's always nice when the author can produce science writing in a readable fashion.
The formatting of the book was also well done. Koonin opens the book with a decent introduction, where he mentions the scientific orthodoxy surrounding climate change. He mentions that the aim of this book is to provide a careful, nuanced, and accurate look into the science involved; in order to give the reader a realistic picture of the impact of a changing climate.
He notes that his research has made him a target of the more zealous climate alarmists, writing:
Also in the books' intro, Koonin writes that he was a colleague of Richard Feynman. He mentions Feynman's famous speech at the 1974 Caltech commencement titled “Cargo Cult Science,” where Feynman talked about scientific integrity; following the evidence to where it leads, and not placing intuition and ideology above empiricism.
Koonin talks about the difficulties of modeling the Earth's climate in one of the early chapters. Although not mentioned directly by the author, this has to do with chaos theory, and the sheer volume of data required to produce an accurate model. Chaos theory is the reason that we don't have accurate weather reports longer than a few days in advance. Basically: minute errors in data inputs early on lead to huge differences in outcomes when the data are extrapolated.
So how did alarmism and apocalyptic fear-mongering manage to displace nuanced, reasoned, and careful science in the public discourse? Many factors contributed. Koonin identifies the culprits:
The media:
"Whatever its noble intentions, news is ultimately a business, one that in this digital era increasingly depends upon eyeballs in the form of clicks and shares. Reporting on the scientific reality that there’s been hardly any long-term change in extreme weather doesn’t fit the ethos of If it bleeds it leads. On the other hand, there is always an extreme weather story somewhere in the world to support a sensational headline."
Politicians:
"The threat of climate catastrophe—whether storms, droughts, rising seas, failed crops, or economic collapse—resonates with everyone. And this threat can be portrayed as both urgent (by invoking a recent deadly weather event, for instance) and yet distant enough so that a politician’s dire predictions will be tested only decades after they’ve left office. Unfortunately, while climate science and associated energy issues are complicated, complexity and nuance don’t lend themselves at all well to political messaging."
Scientific instituions:
"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."
Scientists:
"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 Who Broke “The Science ” and Why 193 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.
What causes climate simple? Perhaps it is a lack of knowledge of the subject, or fear of speaking out, particularly against scientific peers. Or perhaps it is simple conviction born more of faith in the proclaimed consensus than of the evidence presented."
Activists and NGOs:
"If you believe there is a “climate emergency,” have built an organization on that premise, and rely upon your donors’ continuing commitment to the cause, projecting urgency is crucial. Hence statements like “The climate crisis is immense—we must be daring and courageous in response” (from the 350.org website15) or “Climate change is one of the most devastating problems that humanity has ever faced—and the clock is running out” (from the UCS website16). It’s hardly in your best interest to tell your donors that the climate shows no sign of being broken or that projections of future disasters rely on models of dubious validity. The media tend to accord NGOs an authoritative stance. But these are also interest groups, with their own climate and energy agendas. And they are powerful political actors, who mobilize supporters, raise money, run campaigns, and wield political power. For many, the “climate crisis” is their entire raison d’etre. They also have to worry about being outflanked by more militant groups."
The public:
"As around the world, most citizens in America are not scientists, and the educational system does not deliver much in the way of scientific literacy to the wider public. Most people do not have the ability to examine the science themselves, and they have neither time nor the inclination to do so. Many increasingly get their information from social media, where it is far too easy to promote misinformation or disinformation. And in my experience, people tend to believe—and trust—their chosen media in areas outside their expertise."
Koonin also mentions that the developing world is responsible for most global emmissions; something that Steven Pinker discusses in Enlightenment Now. Michael Shellenberger also talks about this in his book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. Basically; the advanced nations of the world have had their industrial revolutions, where they emitted copious amounts of CO2. If poor nations are to escape the entropy that conspires to hold them down, Pinker writes, they will need to use much more energy going forward, not less. Should these developing nations not have the right to advance themselves the way that the now-developed ones have historically done?
Koonin lays out possible solutions in the latter part of the book. Namely; a combination of reduction in emissions, combined with possible geoengineering technologies. "Solar Radiation Management", and "Carbon Dioxide Removal" (carbon capture) technologies are briefly covered here.
He also mentions "adaptation strategies" that can be used in conjunction with the above geoengineering technologies.
He ties a knot in the book with this quote:
*******************
Unsettled was a very well researched, written, and delivered book. It is also a timely and important work that aims to counterbalance much of the recent climate hysteria.
I would recommend it to anyone interested.
5 stars.
'On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.'"
Unsettled was a refreshing investigation into climate change. It is an empirical look at the data and science, without all the tiresome politics that almost inevitably accompany this discussion.
Climate change; specifically - man-made climate change - is one of the biggest stories of the last few decades. Politicians, media pundits, scientists, and other public commentators constantly drill the danger of climate change into the minds of the public. Are these fears overblown? How much climate change is man-made? How worried should we be? What should be done to combat this?
These are all questions that the author attempts to answer with this book.
Author Steven E. Koonin is an American theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University. He is also a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU's Tandon School of Engineering.
He has served on numerous advisory bodies for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy and its various national laboratories, such as the JASON defense advisory group, which he has chaired. Koonin's research interests have included theoretical nuclear, many-body, and computational physics, nuclear astrophysics, and global environmental science.
Steven E. Koonin:
Unsettled is a data-driven look into the science of climate change. The author includes many graphs and data sets to analyze and crunch the large numbers inherent to this field of inquiry.
Koonin has an effective writing style; he writes in a clear, concise, matter-of-fact manner that should be accessible even to the layperson; something that is fairly hit-or-miss in a science book, in my experience. It's always nice when the author can produce science writing in a readable fashion.
The formatting of the book was also well done. Koonin opens the book with a decent introduction, where he mentions the scientific orthodoxy surrounding climate change. He mentions that the aim of this book is to provide a careful, nuanced, and accurate look into the science involved; in order to give the reader a realistic picture of the impact of a changing climate.
He notes that his research has made him a target of the more zealous climate alarmists, writing:
"Others will say I’m a “climate denier.” An actual “climate denier” would be, say, an antiscience politician who refuses to accept the evidence of the data—quite the opposite of my position. How can I be denying the science if what I’m saying is straight out of the official data and reports?"
Also in the books' intro, Koonin writes that he was a colleague of Richard Feynman. He mentions Feynman's famous speech at the 1974 Caltech commencement titled “Cargo Cult Science,” where Feynman talked about scientific integrity; following the evidence to where it leads, and not placing intuition and ideology above empiricism.
Koonin talks about the difficulties of modeling the Earth's climate in one of the early chapters. Although not mentioned directly by the author, this has to do with chaos theory, and the sheer volume of data required to produce an accurate model. Chaos theory is the reason that we don't have accurate weather reports longer than a few days in advance. Basically: minute errors in data inputs early on lead to huge differences in outcomes when the data are extrapolated.
So how did alarmism and apocalyptic fear-mongering manage to displace nuanced, reasoned, and careful science in the public discourse? Many factors contributed. Koonin identifies the culprits:
The media:
"Whatever its noble intentions, news is ultimately a business, one that in this digital era increasingly depends upon eyeballs in the form of clicks and shares. Reporting on the scientific reality that there’s been hardly any long-term change in extreme weather doesn’t fit the ethos of If it bleeds it leads. On the other hand, there is always an extreme weather story somewhere in the world to support a sensational headline."
Politicians:
"The threat of climate catastrophe—whether storms, droughts, rising seas, failed crops, or economic collapse—resonates with everyone. And this threat can be portrayed as both urgent (by invoking a recent deadly weather event, for instance) and yet distant enough so that a politician’s dire predictions will be tested only decades after they’ve left office. Unfortunately, while climate science and associated energy issues are complicated, complexity and nuance don’t lend themselves at all well to political messaging."
Scientific instituions:
"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."
Scientists:
"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 Who Broke “The Science ” and Why 193 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.
What causes climate simple? Perhaps it is a lack of knowledge of the subject, or fear of speaking out, particularly against scientific peers. Or perhaps it is simple conviction born more of faith in the proclaimed consensus than of the evidence presented."
Activists and NGOs:
"If you believe there is a “climate emergency,” have built an organization on that premise, and rely upon your donors’ continuing commitment to the cause, projecting urgency is crucial. Hence statements like “The climate crisis is immense—we must be daring and courageous in response” (from the 350.org website15) or “Climate change is one of the most devastating problems that humanity has ever faced—and the clock is running out” (from the UCS website16). It’s hardly in your best interest to tell your donors that the climate shows no sign of being broken or that projections of future disasters rely on models of dubious validity. The media tend to accord NGOs an authoritative stance. But these are also interest groups, with their own climate and energy agendas. And they are powerful political actors, who mobilize supporters, raise money, run campaigns, and wield political power. For many, the “climate crisis” is their entire raison d’etre. They also have to worry about being outflanked by more militant groups."
The public:
"As around the world, most citizens in America are not scientists, and the educational system does not deliver much in the way of scientific literacy to the wider public. Most people do not have the ability to examine the science themselves, and they have neither time nor the inclination to do so. Many increasingly get their information from social media, where it is far too easy to promote misinformation or disinformation. And in my experience, people tend to believe—and trust—their chosen media in areas outside their expertise."
Koonin also mentions that the developing world is responsible for most global emmissions; something that Steven Pinker discusses in Enlightenment Now. Michael Shellenberger also talks about this in his book Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All. Basically; the advanced nations of the world have had their industrial revolutions, where they emitted copious amounts of CO2. If poor nations are to escape the entropy that conspires to hold them down, Pinker writes, they will need to use much more energy going forward, not less. Should these developing nations not have the right to advance themselves the way that the now-developed ones have historically done?
Koonin lays out possible solutions in the latter part of the book. Namely; a combination of reduction in emissions, combined with possible geoengineering technologies. "Solar Radiation Management", and "Carbon Dioxide Removal" (carbon capture) technologies are briefly covered here.
He also mentions "adaptation strategies" that can be used in conjunction with the above geoengineering technologies.
He ties a knot in the book with this quote:
"We need to improve the science itself, and this begins with open and honest discussion that goes beyond slogans and polemics, and is free of accusations of skullduggery. Scientists should be welcoming of debate, challenges, and opportunities for clarification. Science starts with questions; it’s hard to encourage new research if we insist they’ve all been answered. In fact, as I’ve shown in this book, there are still plenty of important, even crucial, questions about climate that are as yet unsettled.
The truth is that real science is never entirely settled—that’s how we make progress; it’s what science is all about. Let’s further our understanding, rather than repeating orthodoxy..."
*******************
Unsettled was a very well researched, written, and delivered book. It is also a timely and important work that aims to counterbalance much of the recent climate hysteria.
I would recommend it to anyone interested.
5 stars.
June 7, 2021
I won a copy in a Goodreads giveaway.
A theoretical physicist explains climate science by overgeneralizing climatology and speaking over climatologists. Based on IPCC 2014 rather than waiting a year and using the IPCC 2021 (https://www.ipcc.ch/).
Disappointing.
A theoretical physicist explains climate science by overgeneralizing climatology and speaking over climatologists. Based on IPCC 2014 rather than waiting a year and using the IPCC 2021 (https://www.ipcc.ch/).
Disappointing.
August 18, 2021
Science. Not propaganda. Not media hype or religious exclamation. Not "denier" or "alarmist". Science.
May 23, 2021
Unsettled earns a coveted 5-star rating from me (being among the top 5.2% of books I've read). It does this because it is neither climate denying nor doomsday prophesying, but a well written exposition of what is known and what is not known. In it, he repeatedly points to places where the summaries of scientific works are unsupported by the works they are summarizing. He attempts to restore the integrity of scientific community by separating what is known from what is believed. "It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends" (Rowling, 1997)
He also discusses what alternatives humanity has, what can be done and what cannot; what humans will do and not on what they should do but will not. Spending money on programs chasing after wishful thinking improve neither the future climate nor the welfare of the population; pragmatism is more beneficial, and unfortunately, this quotation rings true:
"bringing about energy change at scale--that is, reducing emissions enough to make a difference--would be a process of slow transition, more like orthodontia than tooth extraction"
And, finally, he quotes from Tolstoy:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
He also discusses what alternatives humanity has, what can be done and what cannot; what humans will do and not on what they should do but will not. Spending money on programs chasing after wishful thinking improve neither the future climate nor the welfare of the population; pragmatism is more beneficial, and unfortunately, this quotation rings true:
"bringing about energy change at scale--that is, reducing emissions enough to make a difference--would be a process of slow transition, more like orthodontia than tooth extraction"
And, finally, he quotes from Tolstoy:
"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
May 23, 2021
Learned a lot from this book. Apparently it's not really true the standard things they say about extreme weather events increasing.
June 20, 2021
I agree with all the superlatives for the book. I give four stars because, as a retired professor of meteorology, I was already acquainted with many of the issues, and I did not require lengthy explanations.
But five stars for all of you out there! It should be read by everybody in Congress and the White House ... and many other too. Alas, it won't be.
Chapter 10 is titled "Who broke 'The Science' and why". Briefly, some very powerful entities need to keep "The Science" broken. Koonin is gentle and diplomatic in his accusations. I might have been more harsh.
I did notice one mistake. In the last sentence on page 232, in an otherwise accurate paragraph about a carbon tax, we read: "So reductions in emissions from power (and, as it turns out, heat) are much easier to encourage than reductions from transportation, fundamentally because oil packs a lot more energy per carbon atom than does coal." No. Gasoline packs only about 30% more energy per carbon atom than does coal. The rest of the paragraph has the correct explanation, and explains how the higher price of gasoline, relative to coal, is because of the versatility (and essentiality ) of gasoline as an energy source.
Also, a minor omission on page 244: Forests remove carbon dioxide (CDR) from the atmosphere only for the time that the wood is prevented from rotting. So there is more of problem than just growing forests and waiting for trees to grow.
But five stars for all of you out there! It should be read by everybody in Congress and the White House ... and many other too. Alas, it won't be.
Chapter 10 is titled "Who broke 'The Science' and why". Briefly, some very powerful entities need to keep "The Science" broken. Koonin is gentle and diplomatic in his accusations. I might have been more harsh.
I did notice one mistake. In the last sentence on page 232, in an otherwise accurate paragraph about a carbon tax, we read: "So reductions in emissions from power (and, as it turns out, heat) are much easier to encourage than reductions from transportation, fundamentally because oil packs a lot more energy per carbon atom than does coal." No. Gasoline packs only about 30% more energy per carbon atom than does coal. The rest of the paragraph has the correct explanation, and explains how the higher price of gasoline, relative to coal, is because of the versatility (and essentiality ) of gasoline as an energy source.
Also, a minor omission on page 244: Forests remove carbon dioxide (CDR) from the atmosphere only for the time that the wood is prevented from rotting. So there is more of problem than just growing forests and waiting for trees to grow.
July 5, 2022
Highly, highly recommended. Essential reading for energy/policy/environmental pros.
After all the mega-hype and hysteria around climate and the "trillions of dollars that absolutely must be spent ASAP," Koonin's measured, scientific analysis and factual presentation is the first recent work I've found convincing on the subject of emissions--that actually changed my mind. Based on what I am seeing re carbon capture projects, it appears he has also made a strong case to other scientists and engineers who also are not swayed by the dominant (let's use euphemisms) extreme, simplistic rhetoric.
Be aware the book's early going is tough as Koonin expertly picks apart inaccurate (including non-back-tested) climate models and crazy extrapolations derived (and heavily publicized) therefrom.
The building of the factual foundation is all worthwhile for the options he presents in the last part of the book.
A fantastic and rare example of true scientific (and thus, skeptical) process melded with the search for pragmatic answers to important questions.
After all the mega-hype and hysteria around climate and the "trillions of dollars that absolutely must be spent ASAP," Koonin's measured, scientific analysis and factual presentation is the first recent work I've found convincing on the subject of emissions--that actually changed my mind. Based on what I am seeing re carbon capture projects, it appears he has also made a strong case to other scientists and engineers who also are not swayed by the dominant (let's use euphemisms) extreme, simplistic rhetoric.
Be aware the book's early going is tough as Koonin expertly picks apart inaccurate (including non-back-tested) climate models and crazy extrapolations derived (and heavily publicized) therefrom.
The building of the factual foundation is all worthwhile for the options he presents in the last part of the book.
A fantastic and rare example of true scientific (and thus, skeptical) process melded with the search for pragmatic answers to important questions.
September 12, 2021
I’ve read 3 books about climate change so far this year (one by Bill Gates, one by Lomborg, and this one), so clearly I am now an expert on the topic. Obviously, this isn’t true. Like almost everyone else, I have to rely on the actual experts to learn what is true. Unfortunately, what we learn from those experts usually comes to us through the filter of government reports, and then through the selective editing and translation by the media. Koonin demonstrates that this “Telephone Game” significantly distorts the findings of climate science in ways that are very misleading.
Here’s just one of his many examples: The US government’s most recent Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) states that “there have been marked changes in temperature extremes across the contiguous US. The number of high temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low temperature records.” They offer a graph showing the ratio of daily high temp records vs low temp records, which is clearly increasing over time. This is intended to give the impression that we are experiencing progressively more record hot days. But this just isn’t the case. The trend in record hot days is flat, but the trend in record cold days is declining, therefore the ratio is increasing over time. Not because temperatures are becoming more extreme, but because they are actually becoming more moderate. Record daily high temperatures are no more frequent than they were a century ago.
In fact, the scientific data similarly demonstrate no increase in the frequency or severity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, forest fires, or floods over the past century, despite the headlines we read.
This doesn’t mean that there is no man-made climate change. Koonin shows there is solid evidence that average global temperatures have increased over the past century, and increasing greenhouse gases are very likely to be a significant factor. However, he stresses that if you want the public to “trust the science,” then science needs to very open about what it knows and what it doesn’t know, and the UN and US agencies responsible for analyzing and summarizing climate studies need to be much more careful that they don’t misrepresent what the science actually says. Instead, they seem to be more interested in advocating for a particular mindset than accurately interpreting the relevant climate studies.
I probably should mention that Koonin is not some right-wing anti-science hack journalist. He is a Caltech physicist and professor who is a leading expert in creating climate computer models, and served in the Obama administration as Undersecretary for Science in the US Dept of Energy. The book is loaded with graphs and stats, and readers without a science background may find some of this daunting.
Here’s the review from WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettle...
Here’s just one of his many examples: The US government’s most recent Climate Science Special Report (CSSR) states that “there have been marked changes in temperature extremes across the contiguous US. The number of high temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low temperature records.” They offer a graph showing the ratio of daily high temp records vs low temp records, which is clearly increasing over time. This is intended to give the impression that we are experiencing progressively more record hot days. But this just isn’t the case. The trend in record hot days is flat, but the trend in record cold days is declining, therefore the ratio is increasing over time. Not because temperatures are becoming more extreme, but because they are actually becoming more moderate. Record daily high temperatures are no more frequent than they were a century ago.
In fact, the scientific data similarly demonstrate no increase in the frequency or severity of extreme weather events such as hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, forest fires, or floods over the past century, despite the headlines we read.
This doesn’t mean that there is no man-made climate change. Koonin shows there is solid evidence that average global temperatures have increased over the past century, and increasing greenhouse gases are very likely to be a significant factor. However, he stresses that if you want the public to “trust the science,” then science needs to very open about what it knows and what it doesn’t know, and the UN and US agencies responsible for analyzing and summarizing climate studies need to be much more careful that they don’t misrepresent what the science actually says. Instead, they seem to be more interested in advocating for a particular mindset than accurately interpreting the relevant climate studies.
I probably should mention that Koonin is not some right-wing anti-science hack journalist. He is a Caltech physicist and professor who is a leading expert in creating climate computer models, and served in the Obama administration as Undersecretary for Science in the US Dept of Energy. The book is loaded with graphs and stats, and readers without a science background may find some of this daunting.
Here’s the review from WSJ:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettle...
May 9, 2021
The most needed contribution
This book provides the scientific sanity to bring people together and to learn. The science of climate change had been politicised and sensationalized to the point of extreme religion, which is not how science operates. I read this book as an anthropogenic climate change sceptic. I have learned much. One major takeaway for me is that I now believe some of the influence of rising carbon levels. On the other hand, it's refreshing to see, from the inside, some genuine honesty and even critique of how improperly the science had been and continues to be handled.
In short..... EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK!
This book provides the scientific sanity to bring people together and to learn. The science of climate change had been politicised and sensationalized to the point of extreme religion, which is not how science operates. I read this book as an anthropogenic climate change sceptic. I have learned much. One major takeaway for me is that I now believe some of the influence of rising carbon levels. On the other hand, it's refreshing to see, from the inside, some genuine honesty and even critique of how improperly the science had been and continues to be handled.
In short..... EVERYONE SHOULD READ THIS BOOK!
January 20, 2024
Koonin: I'm objective, pro-science and worked under the Obama administration.
Also Koonin: I was also the chief scientist for BP, but I won't state that bias myself. The power of omission itself is a bias.
Like a fossil fuel shiller, this partial and overtone review was written with unequivocal bias.
Also Koonin: I was also the chief scientist for BP, but I won't state that bias myself. The power of omission itself is a bias.
Like a fossil fuel shiller, this partial and overtone review was written with unequivocal bias.
July 30, 2021
An accessible discussion of the state of the science of climate change. Sadly, the people who should read this, won't.
March 2, 2022
Koonin begins this book with a quality message, that science ought to be conveyed in an appropriate manner, with as little bias as possible, data-driven, and honest of any significant shortcomings. I have no qualms with this whatsoever and if the book was mostly about this, I’m sure it would be quite a bit better than it is. Unfortunately, Koonin fails to follow his own philosophy by creating a narrative of obfuscation. He attacks the weaknesses of climate science while evading the multitude of observed human impacts that are well documented and agreed upon by the scientific community. This is a serious injustice to those scientists as well as fuel for ignorance.
Koonin’s thesis is as follows: Humans are in fact exerting measurable changes to the earth’s atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases. However, due to an inability to accurately model climate systems adequately, we cannot know the full extent to which these changes will deviate the future climate from its normal variations. This uncommunicated fact along with the media’s misrepresentation of scientific findings has generated misunderstanding of the state of climate science in the general population. He then goes on to extoll various scenarios in which apparently undisputed facts are brought up to what he considers appropriate scrutiny, with his new findings showing that perhaps humans are not doing so much to the climate after all.
Okay, so what’s important here is that yes, it is extremely difficult to predict the future, especially with complex systems such as the earth’s climate. What Koonin does is attack the degree of accuracy we have in these models while blatantly ignoring the highly agreed upon and simple fact that humans have altered the composition of the atmosphere at a faster rate than has been observed in the geologic record (predominantly with respect to CO2), which is empirically proven to cause warming, with observed deviation from standard climate cycling. It’s goes like this: CO2 causes warming, we’ve added a lot, climate changes are likely to result. It’s akin to the argument of cigarettes causing cancer, so smoking is bad for your health. And yet Koonin is trying to argue that since we don’t know exactly how many cigarettes it’ll take to kill you, we can’t reasonably deduce that you should stop. Shortcomings in the degree of accuracy of predicting how an entire planet will respond to something that hasn’t happened before should be a given, but to deny obvious potential impacts of such a rapid change is quite bold and could be irreversible, costly, and perilous.
It is also true that the gap between scientific study and public communication necessitate scrutiny and improvement. Distilling a lifetime of study into a headline will always have an intrinsic loss, though, like our efforts to model and predict, we must continue to work to diminish the degree of uncertainty and misrepresentation.
Let’s not forget that in weaving his own narrative of the incompleteness of climate science, Koonin has disregarded the many painfully obvious indications of the negative human impacts on the world around us. That he doesn’t mention ocean acidification as even an aside is astounding. That the potential for the onset of dramatically atmosphere-altering quantities of methane to be released through melting permafrost with significantly warming feedback loops isn’t mentioned is also baffling. And then there’s just the sheer havoc that we are wreaking on innumerable other habitats (see The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert). All of this is unmentioned for the sake of conveying his new narrative that all of the other scientists are wrong, biased, conclusion-jumping, self-supporting, eco-crisis-mongers, while he, the last objective mind left, knows the truth.
After his dismissal of climate science, Koonin goes on to say that humanity wouldn’t and maybe even shouldn’t do anything about climate change any time soon. This is just a self-assuring justification to not do anything at all, which again ignores the times that people have made changes that have in fact halted the negative impacts on our atmosphere (see the history of ozone depletion).
My takeaways are thus: Koonin has a good philosophy concerning the integrity of science. It is good to think about the ways in which data is presented critically; the more people that do this, the better the public understanding, hopefully resulting in more interest and positive changes. It is also important to know that science is a human endeavor, coming along with it human error, bias, emotion, etc. We will always fall short of truly objective, and, with regard to communication, the information must be distilled into a coherent synopsis. Incredible amounts of work go into these studies that need to be effectively communicated to the public so that we might hope for timely and positive action. Forcing scientists to explain every detail in which they’re synthesis and understanding fall short would paralyze and drastically prolong any meaningful discourse. These gaps in understanding are what compels a scientist to move forward through the mysterious, intriguing, challenging unknown.
Though Koonin has an agreeable philosophy, his tactics for dismantling the work of many dedicated scientists is at best distasteful and at worst, fuel for willful ignorance. He may admit that humans are having an impact, but he obfuscates any meaningful discussion by attacking the most incomplete areas of climate science, altogether leaving out more studied and agreed upon impacts. What should be a call to action often reads like a polemic on science and an alleviation of guilt.
My hope is that those who read this maintain a critical eye. The road to understanding is winding and complex; know the authors biases as well as your own; walk away having learned something, but not believing everything. Be cautious in reading Unsettled just as you ought to be while discussing scientific findings. After all, whomsoever hands you the food cannot eat it for you – that you’ll have to do on your own.
Koonin’s thesis is as follows: Humans are in fact exerting measurable changes to the earth’s atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide as well as other greenhouse gases. However, due to an inability to accurately model climate systems adequately, we cannot know the full extent to which these changes will deviate the future climate from its normal variations. This uncommunicated fact along with the media’s misrepresentation of scientific findings has generated misunderstanding of the state of climate science in the general population. He then goes on to extoll various scenarios in which apparently undisputed facts are brought up to what he considers appropriate scrutiny, with his new findings showing that perhaps humans are not doing so much to the climate after all.
Okay, so what’s important here is that yes, it is extremely difficult to predict the future, especially with complex systems such as the earth’s climate. What Koonin does is attack the degree of accuracy we have in these models while blatantly ignoring the highly agreed upon and simple fact that humans have altered the composition of the atmosphere at a faster rate than has been observed in the geologic record (predominantly with respect to CO2), which is empirically proven to cause warming, with observed deviation from standard climate cycling. It’s goes like this: CO2 causes warming, we’ve added a lot, climate changes are likely to result. It’s akin to the argument of cigarettes causing cancer, so smoking is bad for your health. And yet Koonin is trying to argue that since we don’t know exactly how many cigarettes it’ll take to kill you, we can’t reasonably deduce that you should stop. Shortcomings in the degree of accuracy of predicting how an entire planet will respond to something that hasn’t happened before should be a given, but to deny obvious potential impacts of such a rapid change is quite bold and could be irreversible, costly, and perilous.
It is also true that the gap between scientific study and public communication necessitate scrutiny and improvement. Distilling a lifetime of study into a headline will always have an intrinsic loss, though, like our efforts to model and predict, we must continue to work to diminish the degree of uncertainty and misrepresentation.
Let’s not forget that in weaving his own narrative of the incompleteness of climate science, Koonin has disregarded the many painfully obvious indications of the negative human impacts on the world around us. That he doesn’t mention ocean acidification as even an aside is astounding. That the potential for the onset of dramatically atmosphere-altering quantities of methane to be released through melting permafrost with significantly warming feedback loops isn’t mentioned is also baffling. And then there’s just the sheer havoc that we are wreaking on innumerable other habitats (see The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert). All of this is unmentioned for the sake of conveying his new narrative that all of the other scientists are wrong, biased, conclusion-jumping, self-supporting, eco-crisis-mongers, while he, the last objective mind left, knows the truth.
After his dismissal of climate science, Koonin goes on to say that humanity wouldn’t and maybe even shouldn’t do anything about climate change any time soon. This is just a self-assuring justification to not do anything at all, which again ignores the times that people have made changes that have in fact halted the negative impacts on our atmosphere (see the history of ozone depletion).
My takeaways are thus: Koonin has a good philosophy concerning the integrity of science. It is good to think about the ways in which data is presented critically; the more people that do this, the better the public understanding, hopefully resulting in more interest and positive changes. It is also important to know that science is a human endeavor, coming along with it human error, bias, emotion, etc. We will always fall short of truly objective, and, with regard to communication, the information must be distilled into a coherent synopsis. Incredible amounts of work go into these studies that need to be effectively communicated to the public so that we might hope for timely and positive action. Forcing scientists to explain every detail in which they’re synthesis and understanding fall short would paralyze and drastically prolong any meaningful discourse. These gaps in understanding are what compels a scientist to move forward through the mysterious, intriguing, challenging unknown.
Though Koonin has an agreeable philosophy, his tactics for dismantling the work of many dedicated scientists is at best distasteful and at worst, fuel for willful ignorance. He may admit that humans are having an impact, but he obfuscates any meaningful discussion by attacking the most incomplete areas of climate science, altogether leaving out more studied and agreed upon impacts. What should be a call to action often reads like a polemic on science and an alleviation of guilt.
My hope is that those who read this maintain a critical eye. The road to understanding is winding and complex; know the authors biases as well as your own; walk away having learned something, but not believing everything. Be cautious in reading Unsettled just as you ought to be while discussing scientific findings. After all, whomsoever hands you the food cannot eat it for you – that you’ll have to do on your own.
November 17, 2024
Si alguien piensa que ‘Clima: no toda la culpa es nuestra’ es un libro que duda o niega que el ser humano influye en el clima de la Tierra está equivocado. Dedica parte del texto a argumentar precisamente esa influencia y con, a mi modo de ver, unos argumentos bastante sólidos. Sin embargo, si me preguntan de qué va este libro diré que es un libro que defiende la ciencia de las manipulaciones a las que le somete por parte de políticos, medios de comunicación, instituciones medioambientalistas, algunos científicos que abjuran (esto lo digo yo) del método científico y apuestan por la política y otros que callan y miran hacia otro lado cuando se publican artículos y libros que ocultan, transforman o se inventan datos que sirven para objetivos más espurios: políticos, empresariales, ideológicos. Quizá la conclusión más triste que se deriva del texto, sobre todo para los que piensan en el peligro del cambio climático, es que esta forma de comportamiento evita medidas que puedan corregir/paliar/contrarrestar el propio cambio de una manera más sosegada, eficaz y menos traumática, mientras que los fines particulares de estas personas e instituciones se satisfacen en el corto plazo sin importar las consecuencias.
August 30, 2021
After the all too predictable "code red for humanity" hysteria following IPCC's most recent climate change report, Koonin's 2021 book is a timely read. Koonin's credentials are impeccable (former Undersecretary for Science in Energy Department under Obama, Chief Scientist for renewable energy at BP, member of countless NSF advisory boards, 200+ published papers etc), but that didn't prevent the smearing campaign against him after "Unsettled" was published.
Overall, I found the book to be quite measured especially the first half where Koonin goes over basic science of climate change, covering both anthropogenic effects, natural variability, and feedback loops. He also goes over successes and challenges of climate modeling, and relationship between Coupled Models Intercomparison Project (CMIP), "Representative Concentration Pathways" emission scenarios (RCPs) and IPCC Assessment Reports.
Of course he also discusses the hyperpolitisation of climate science in general, and in particular the relationship between the raw data describing extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, sea level rises, floods, wildfires, record temperatures) and the coverage of these events by the media. As you can imagine it is this part of the book that elicited paroxysms in some of the reviewers. Koonin is accused of cherry picking the data, but then again all the charts in the book are from assessment reports themselves, underlying scientific literature, and other official data sources.
Anyway, I fully recognize that at this point nobody will change their mind about salience, causes and implications of climate change. Critics will treat this book through the discomfirmatory "must I believe this" lens, while the so-called "skeptics" will pull out the confirmatory "can I believe it" frame. But the book does have the distinct advantage in that most charts are from the official reports, so one could just look at the charts, ignore the text and decide for himself. But let's face it - who would do such a thing?
Overall, I found the book to be quite measured especially the first half where Koonin goes over basic science of climate change, covering both anthropogenic effects, natural variability, and feedback loops. He also goes over successes and challenges of climate modeling, and relationship between Coupled Models Intercomparison Project (CMIP), "Representative Concentration Pathways" emission scenarios (RCPs) and IPCC Assessment Reports.
Of course he also discusses the hyperpolitisation of climate science in general, and in particular the relationship between the raw data describing extreme weather events (hurricanes, tornadoes, sea level rises, floods, wildfires, record temperatures) and the coverage of these events by the media. As you can imagine it is this part of the book that elicited paroxysms in some of the reviewers. Koonin is accused of cherry picking the data, but then again all the charts in the book are from assessment reports themselves, underlying scientific literature, and other official data sources.
Anyway, I fully recognize that at this point nobody will change their mind about salience, causes and implications of climate change. Critics will treat this book through the discomfirmatory "must I believe this" lens, while the so-called "skeptics" will pull out the confirmatory "can I believe it" frame. But the book does have the distinct advantage in that most charts are from the official reports, so one could just look at the charts, ignore the text and decide for himself. But let's face it - who would do such a thing?
May 30, 2021
I've got a climate scientist friend. He's considered a bit fringe by our social circle, as he goes further than we do in discounting mainstream media.
I've tried to debate him on climate models, I've dragged out the fact that Perth is now different (and screwed) due to changes in rainfall patterns. Which he concedes, but annoyingly always goes to his touchstone of long-term timelines.
... Which is a brief, and poor attempt to set the scene for this review.
This book is a distilled version of exactly what he has been saying. It is humbling and sobering, and after finishing it I'm still trying to figure out how to rework my worldview.
It _is_ fantastic. Short enough - no filler. It should be required reading - I'm thinking of trying to get my 15 year old kid to read.
I think that my takeaway is that humanity's impact on the planet (the climate) is not as large as we think - as the mainstream media reports, as certain political parties want to scare you into believing, but that doesn't stop us from being a problem for the planet and ultimately for ourselves. As I also think that The Sixth Extinction should be required reading.
I've tried to debate him on climate models, I've dragged out the fact that Perth is now different (and screwed) due to changes in rainfall patterns. Which he concedes, but annoyingly always goes to his touchstone of long-term timelines.
... Which is a brief, and poor attempt to set the scene for this review.
This book is a distilled version of exactly what he has been saying. It is humbling and sobering, and after finishing it I'm still trying to figure out how to rework my worldview.
It _is_ fantastic. Short enough - no filler. It should be required reading - I'm thinking of trying to get my 15 year old kid to read.
I think that my takeaway is that humanity's impact on the planet (the climate) is not as large as we think - as the mainstream media reports, as certain political parties want to scare you into believing, but that doesn't stop us from being a problem for the planet and ultimately for ourselves. As I also think that The Sixth Extinction should be required reading.
December 5, 2023
I wasn't expecting a lot from this book to be honest. However, I enjoyed a lot, and it gave me some insights.
I have to say that you should be an open-minded person to read this, since it challenges some of the most controversial topics about climate change, such as sea level rise, temperature increases, natural hazard phenomena, whether humans are the cause of these climate changes, and more; and support them with real data. The author also challenges science (he has been a scientist for quite long time in climate and energy related topics and has an extensive background, he knows how science world is managed) by arguing that it will be necessary to restore integrity on the way science informs society's decisions on climate change and energy.
We live in a changing world, and we don't completely yet understand it; the best option is an effective society adaptation, the real question is what are nations doing now that we are facing all this changes?
I have to say that you should be an open-minded person to read this, since it challenges some of the most controversial topics about climate change, such as sea level rise, temperature increases, natural hazard phenomena, whether humans are the cause of these climate changes, and more; and support them with real data. The author also challenges science (he has been a scientist for quite long time in climate and energy related topics and has an extensive background, he knows how science world is managed) by arguing that it will be necessary to restore integrity on the way science informs society's decisions on climate change and energy.
We live in a changing world, and we don't completely yet understand it; the best option is an effective society adaptation, the real question is what are nations doing now that we are facing all this changes?
May 25, 2021
An interesting and neutral look at the climate. What struck me was that modern humans emerged on the scene approximately 120K years ago when the temperature, according to proxies, was warmer than today and humans survived. I have read that the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval eras were about as warm or warmer than now and humans prospered. Humans are no doubt contributing something to the climate but the fact that these ancient times held prosperous humans when the planet was warm leads one to ask, does that mean that the overwhelming affect on the climate is caused by natural forces and today's humans have very small effects? I applaud the author's admonition to use science and not The Science, that science is never settled, and hysteria about a so-called "climate crisis" is unproductive. A worthy read.
May 12, 2021
My instinct is that you can't count yourself among the informed if you haven't read this book. It is well written, appears to me to be balanced, and mostly very accessible. Non scientist will occasionally have to read a sentence twice, but not very often. To quote:
"That the climate is changing? Absolutely, count me in! That humans are influencing the climate? Absolutely, I'm there! That we're already seeing disastrous weather impacts and face an even more catastrophic future? Not at all obvious...."
"That the climate is changing? Absolutely, count me in! That humans are influencing the climate? Absolutely, I'm there! That we're already seeing disastrous weather impacts and face an even more catastrophic future? Not at all obvious...."
May 29, 2021
Red meat to the climate crisis skeptics and denounced by the faithful, it's worth reading if only to see what all the fuss is about. Koonin readily agrees that the earth is warming; what he disputes is speed, significance and the models showing what's to come. If there is still a copy of this around in 2100 it will be good to read to see who was right. Until then, this will give you a solid understanding of "adaptation vs mitigation" arguments.
July 27, 2021
Should be required reading by all politicians and news media. If someone is pontificating on the science of man made climate change, I would ask them if they read this book and if they say no, I would advise you to walk away.
June 15, 2021
Unsettled by Steven E. Koonin
Please give a helpful vote to my Amazon review - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
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.
Please give a helpful vote to my Amazon review - https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-re...
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.
September 28, 2021
Wow, this book made me mad.
There's one point in the book where Koonin says something like "the thing about science is that it's never settled." Congrats, Steve, you've pedantically attacked applying science to making political and economic decisions.
And he criticizes one set of models because running the models doesn't properly predict recent data. But he criticizes another set of models because they DID factor in predicting recent data, in a way that is hard to understand and explain.
At one point, he says that weather isn't climate, and we won't truly know what changes are climate changes for another 20 years, we should just wait for "good" data. Congrats again, Steve, you've essentially claimed that science cannot be used to meaningfully guide our decisions.
He basically attacks all the modeling that people have done, but he provides no suggestions for reasonable solutions to his criticisms. Models aren't good enough to truly separate signal from noise, and there's no indication they ever will be... so, stop calling it science. Science involves experimentation and unambiguous results, and we don't have that for climate.
The really frustrating thing is that he's right, to some extent. The margin of error in our modeling is significant enough that we really can't be sure of our predictions. It _might_ take so long for climate change consequences to be serious that we might have time to counter them. They _might_ be cheaper to "fix" than to prevent (apparently he hasn't heard the idea that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure).
He's adamant that science should not persuade, it must be delivered without opinions or policies. He sees advocacy as polluting the science. And he is convinced that people are using hyperbole to generate a sense of urgency which he considers misplaced. Then, at the end, he says that he is convinced that adaptation will prove to be successful response to climate issues, because places that need to adapt will adapt, and other places that don't need to adapt won't need to worry about it. But he seems to fail to understand that it's specifically BECAUSE he has reached a personal conclusion that climate change DOESN'T need an urgent response that he opposes advocacies. My guess is that he would be all for advocacy if he weren't so committed to the idea that we haven't proven human influence on climate change is meaningful. This is part of who he is at this point, the guy who is known for not being convinced.
He is careful to agree that humans are contributing CO2 to the planet, and that this will contribute to climate change of some kind. But he says we cannot measure it reliably, since the climate system is so chaotic. All of which I agree with. I just am frustrated by his attacks on others, without anything truly constructive to contribute. Are our measurements inherently incapable of the accuracy we need to collect? Are our models inherently flawed, such that we cannot do any meaningful planning? Is there no hope of adequate information before making decisions? Frankly, this book almost is convincing that decisions about climate change CANNOT use scientific data, and I really don't think that was his intent. I do think he cares about science, and that he thinks science OUGHT to be used for decisionmaking. But boy does he suck at providing useful criticism!
After all, we've spewed sulfuric acid into our atmosphere, decided we didn't like acid rain, and legislated against it. We stopped destroying the ozone layer. We outlawed leaded gasoline, although "the science" probably didn't demonstrate that we were poisoning ourselves and our planet with lead. We can legislate against CO2 and methane by just identifying limits to the extent that companies can spew their wastes into our shared air. Want to burn gas, or coal? Collect the CO2 from the emissions and dispose of it in a "safe" way. We spend so much time and effort trying to predict the consequences of companies using our air to dispose of their waste, maybe ignoring the science would be better.
If this book was subtitled "What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, Why It Matters, And How To Fix It", and WRITTEN that way, I probably would have been less upset. As it stands, Koonin is the cranky Get Off My Lawn guy, who complained that the science is NOT settled, and then complained that someone predicted that California will get wetter rather than drier, as if 1 person with a contrary opinion poisoned the entire discussion. He says it ISN'T a 97% consensus... that it's lower than that... but, does that make it 94%?! When, and why, SHOULD we make decisions? Koonin's opinion, apparently, is "not yet"... but no idea when that should happen, or why, or what consequences we may face if we fail to take appropriate action. It's too bad. I really would have seen value in a book that intelligently grappled with the difficult question of how to fill in gaps in our knowledge and how to protect our planet. But this is not that book.
There's one point in the book where Koonin says something like "the thing about science is that it's never settled." Congrats, Steve, you've pedantically attacked applying science to making political and economic decisions.
And he criticizes one set of models because running the models doesn't properly predict recent data. But he criticizes another set of models because they DID factor in predicting recent data, in a way that is hard to understand and explain.
At one point, he says that weather isn't climate, and we won't truly know what changes are climate changes for another 20 years, we should just wait for "good" data. Congrats again, Steve, you've essentially claimed that science cannot be used to meaningfully guide our decisions.
He basically attacks all the modeling that people have done, but he provides no suggestions for reasonable solutions to his criticisms. Models aren't good enough to truly separate signal from noise, and there's no indication they ever will be... so, stop calling it science. Science involves experimentation and unambiguous results, and we don't have that for climate.
The really frustrating thing is that he's right, to some extent. The margin of error in our modeling is significant enough that we really can't be sure of our predictions. It _might_ take so long for climate change consequences to be serious that we might have time to counter them. They _might_ be cheaper to "fix" than to prevent (apparently he hasn't heard the idea that an ounce of prevention is better than a pound of cure).
He's adamant that science should not persuade, it must be delivered without opinions or policies. He sees advocacy as polluting the science. And he is convinced that people are using hyperbole to generate a sense of urgency which he considers misplaced. Then, at the end, he says that he is convinced that adaptation will prove to be successful response to climate issues, because places that need to adapt will adapt, and other places that don't need to adapt won't need to worry about it. But he seems to fail to understand that it's specifically BECAUSE he has reached a personal conclusion that climate change DOESN'T need an urgent response that he opposes advocacies. My guess is that he would be all for advocacy if he weren't so committed to the idea that we haven't proven human influence on climate change is meaningful. This is part of who he is at this point, the guy who is known for not being convinced.
He is careful to agree that humans are contributing CO2 to the planet, and that this will contribute to climate change of some kind. But he says we cannot measure it reliably, since the climate system is so chaotic. All of which I agree with. I just am frustrated by his attacks on others, without anything truly constructive to contribute. Are our measurements inherently incapable of the accuracy we need to collect? Are our models inherently flawed, such that we cannot do any meaningful planning? Is there no hope of adequate information before making decisions? Frankly, this book almost is convincing that decisions about climate change CANNOT use scientific data, and I really don't think that was his intent. I do think he cares about science, and that he thinks science OUGHT to be used for decisionmaking. But boy does he suck at providing useful criticism!
After all, we've spewed sulfuric acid into our atmosphere, decided we didn't like acid rain, and legislated against it. We stopped destroying the ozone layer. We outlawed leaded gasoline, although "the science" probably didn't demonstrate that we were poisoning ourselves and our planet with lead. We can legislate against CO2 and methane by just identifying limits to the extent that companies can spew their wastes into our shared air. Want to burn gas, or coal? Collect the CO2 from the emissions and dispose of it in a "safe" way. We spend so much time and effort trying to predict the consequences of companies using our air to dispose of their waste, maybe ignoring the science would be better.
If this book was subtitled "What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, Why It Matters, And How To Fix It", and WRITTEN that way, I probably would have been less upset. As it stands, Koonin is the cranky Get Off My Lawn guy, who complained that the science is NOT settled, and then complained that someone predicted that California will get wetter rather than drier, as if 1 person with a contrary opinion poisoned the entire discussion. He says it ISN'T a 97% consensus... that it's lower than that... but, does that make it 94%?! When, and why, SHOULD we make decisions? Koonin's opinion, apparently, is "not yet"... but no idea when that should happen, or why, or what consequences we may face if we fail to take appropriate action. It's too bad. I really would have seen value in a book that intelligently grappled with the difficult question of how to fill in gaps in our knowledge and how to protect our planet. But this is not that book.
June 7, 2023
"My grade school class visited the United Nations headquarters building on a field trip some sixty years ago. I remember being impressed by an enormous Iranian carpet hanging in the lobby and being told that the weavers had deliberately introduced a hard-to-notice imperfection in the elaborate design to signify that it was a product of humans."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 523 reviews