Steven Koonin, liar for hire. A bibliographic collection - Student Resource

Let’s start with a couple short informed observations of why Steven Koonin’s repetitive “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, is nonsensical claptrap.

There is no development of the arguments, no counter-points, no constructive back and forth, just the same arguments that they appear to have thought up once and never examined.

Personally, I like taking on smart criticisms. They help hone the science, clarify the arguments and point to areas of needed research. But there isn’t a single thing here worth taking on.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, PhD

Director of GISS 

Climate scientist Ben Santer, (with appropriate links added by myself):

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

Dr. Ben Santer wrote in his resignation letter to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: “The climate science community treats uncertainties in an open and transparent way. It has done so for decades. 

At LLNL, we routinely consider whether uncertainties in models, observations, and natural climatic variability call into question findings of a large human influence on global climate. They do not.”

 My question: Why has Koonin rejected honesty, learning and self-skepticism, which are the foundations of serious science?

========================

Time to finally get “Steven Koonin’s liar for hire, a bibliographic collection” posted and behind me.  I need to complete this, rather than simply blowing it off, because I’m driven by my utter incomprehension at the success of Koonin’s 2021 stale rerun of the same one dimensional anti-science rhetorical campaign strategy pioneered by the Father of Science By Slander, Fred Seitz back in the tobacco war days.

“Steven Koonin’s Liar for Hire, a Bibliographic Collection”

A Student Resource

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

Steve Koonin Coasts On ‘09-’11 Obama Gig, Pens 'Unsettled,' a Pre-Re-Debunked Climate Denial Book

ClimateDenierRoundup for Climate Hawks and Kos, 2021,05,06

Five statements author Steven Koonin makes that do not comport with the evidence.   

Marianne Lavelle, May 4, 2021, ClimateNews.org

Koonin’s case for yet another review of climate science

Gavin Schmidt @ 15 June 2019, RealClimate.org

EPA - Here's the Obama energy guy that Pruitt might hire

Robin Bravender, E&E News reporter, August 7, 2017, eenews.net

Climate Science Is Settled Enough - The Wall Street Journal’s fresh face of climate inaction.

Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, slate.com/technology

A New Book Feeds Climate Doubters, but Scientists Say the Conclusions are Misleading and Out of Date

Marianne Lavelle, May 4, 2021, InsideClimateNews.org

Steven Koonin to Step Down as DOE Science Honcho

Adrian ChoNov. 9, 2011, ScienceMag.org

Ben Santer: Climate Denialism has no place at Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab

Ben Santer, May 25, 2021, SkepticalScience.com and Union of Concerned Scientists

A critical review of Steven Koonin’s ‘Unsettled’

Mark Boslough, June 1, 2021, SkepticalScience.com and Yale Climate Connections

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

Part 2: Examining William Happer, Fraudster Against Humanity

The Depravity of Climate Science Denial

Global Warming: Happer’s Neglected Facts

Risking civilization for profit, ideology and ego.

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

Global Warming: Happer’s Neglected Facts

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

(Feb. 9th - Silly me.  I was actually expecting my bud Anonymous 12/12 (Veizer?) to check back the way he promised.  Ready to engage in some serious debate.  But alas, another self-certain loud mouth runs for cover - and since I'm very busy and to be honest literally sick of our current political situation in particular the Democrats continued utter ineptness, this exercise in futility is off the burner again.  The sense of abandonment and hopelessness, along with the terror of what's coming next - because it certainly will be uglier than anything America's white bread liberals can imagine, if current trends are allowed to continue - is getting too heavy.

And no one is out there trying to really engage and network, beyond boosting membership counts.  If we aren't changing minds, we are losing!

To inform and empower and engage, nothing, nothing, nothing, while the Trumpsters are running circles around us with their reality fabrication machine.  It's enough to drive an empathetic observant thoughtful person into the sick bed.  Thus I need to pull my focus in toward what I do have a little bit of control over, my day to day, the people and commitments in my life, and to savor the little time of peace and happiness we have left.)

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

First, Crucial Facts Republicans and Happer Neglect:

Climate change: Where we are in seven charts

By Nassos Stylianou, Clara Guibourg, Daniel Dunford, Lucy Rodgers, David Brown and Paul Rincon  |  January 14, 2020

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46384067

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

STATE OF THE CLIMATE

State of the climate: Heat across Earth’s surface and oceans mark early 2019

Zeke Hausfather   |  April 23, 2019 |

https://www.carbonbrief.org/state-of-the-climate-heat-across-earths-surface-and-oceans-mark-early-2019

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

The Trump administration says the climate will warm by a disastrous amount — and there are few plans to address it

Jeremy Berke Oct 1, 2018

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-administration-climate-will-warm-by-7-degrees-by-2100-2018-10

• A report released by the Trump Administration said the climate is going to warm by 7 degrees Farenheit by 2100.
• The report was written to justify President Trump's decision to freeze federal gas-mileage standards for cars and light trucks by 2020.
• The predicted effects of climate change, including increased flooding associated with hurricanes, wildfires, and heat waves are already becoming a reality.

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

A Grave Climate Warning, Buried on Black Friday

ROBINSON MEYER  |  NOVEMBER 23, 2018

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/national-climate-assessment-black-friday/576589/

In a massive new report, federal scientists contradict President Trump and assert that climate change is an intensifying danger to the United States. Too bad it came out on a holiday. …

________________________________________________

Happer says: Most research that tries to project future climate has focused on developing and applying complex computer models that attempt to simulate the Earth’s climate system. 

________________________________________________

Right.  Computer models are powerful.  Think about it, they can even build passenger jet planes.  All sorts of complex modern marvels are totally dependent on “computer modeling,” it’s not to be dismissed.

Those models are filled with increasingly precise information, precise enough to make air to air missiles a reality.  The experts really do know a thing or two that the likes of Happer simply disregard. 

"Who Says CO₂ Heats Up Our Planet?" 

Worse, Republicans don’t want to learn!

Examining William Happer, Fraudster Against Humanity

Anonymous12/12* (Veizer?) ignored the information I shared, instead he came at me with the following,

“CC wrote: “You can start here: The Band Saturation Effect - New Modtran Model 1 http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/preview/partner_id/1090132/uiconf_id/20652192/entry_id/1_etyzlvw7/embed/auto?" 

*My reply. - Will Happer is far more qualified in this area and one of those annoying sceptics too.” 

I’ve even read claims that William Happer is ‘the authority’ that provides the scientific basis that could be used to challenge the EPA’s endangerment finding of the atmospheric pollutant CO₂.  

Curiously, this Republican “authority” on climate science, has never studied the topic, nor done any research in the ‘area’ of climate sciences, nor presented any serious scientific papers on any aspect of the topic!

William Happer used to be a recognized authority in the relatively simplistic area of atomic physics, optics and spectroscopy.  But, that’s the end of it!  

Happer’s education and experience is totally inadequate for understanding complex global system science!    As I detail in this review.

What Happer has is that astounding Republican amorality and chutzpah, he’s good at fighting dirty and rhetorical fancy dancing, not to mention he’s politically extremely right wing and proud of it.  Oh have I mentioned William Happer receives retirement income from the coal industry?  

Shhhh, it’s a secret:

https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/watch-industry-funded-climate-denier-goes-off-on-camera-lies-about-fossil-fuel-funding/

Someone with such passionate political interests can never be an unbiased reviewer of science.  But all that honesty integrity sort of thing seems out of fashion these days. 

Happer is a political advocate, a salesman for his product.  Truth and learning about this Earth is the last thing on his mind.  Yet they should have been the first things on ours.  

In the following I consider Happer’s own words and compare them to the backdrop of readily available current scientific understanding.  As usual you’ll find many links to further supporting information along with an appendix of relevant articles and videos at the end of this examination of Dr. Happer’s public claims.

Let's Debate William Happer's CO2 Delusion

Anonymous12/12  (Veizer?) inspired me to take on Mr. CO2 Coalition's Dr. William Happer by examining his "Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World - talking points”. 

As I was finishing my closing to part one of that review, it occurred to me this was turning into a good stand alone declaration and invitation, why bury it?  The review itself to be posted shorty:

Closing thoughts regarding Happer's Carbon Dioxide Benefits the World.

In the final analysis Dr. Happer and Republican climate science myths are deluded nonsense. 

Projecting a comic book image of our Earth, one driven by willful ignorance, corporate power-politics and self-interested avarice with a sociopathic disregard for humanity; this biosphere we depend on; and the future.  

Educationally, it’s pure garbage!  Nothing in it is serious science or objective information.

I defy any Dr. Happer fan to engage in an honest open constructive fact-based debate, that can intelligently dispute my claims.  

Bullying, threats, dirty tricks can shut down the discuss, but can you come up with serious honest arguments and evidence?  

Can you teach anything constructive? Can you learn anything from new information?

So, what is the deal with Earth and climate and CO₂ and current events?

Anonymous12/12 (Veizer?) drops by with more complaints.

I received some more comments from Anonymous12/12 yesterday.  Same games, so once again his comments get rejected.  Though, I’m certainly not going to ignore them because they so perfectly represent what rational people are up against and what I’m trying to write about.  

Anonymous12/12’s three comments offer another good vehicle for me to try to convey what I’ve learned from decades of listening to the disingenuous contrarian monologue.  Mostly I’m addressing Anonymous12/12, but occasionally I switch my attention to readers, all of it is food for thought.  The embedded images show that I haven’t changed any of his words.  

What's the point.

Dissect the debate, understand what they are going to come at you with.
  
Be prepared! 

(latest edit Jan 5, near midnight)

———————————————————————————————————

Unknown at 11:56 AM  (2/3)

(click on image)

Peter, Firstly happy new year to you. 

Hopefully less insults hypocrisy about insults 

when there have been many more from your side*. 

_______________________________________________

*I think not!

The irony of your type complaining about hypocrisy isn’t lost on me.  

Yes, I did say your previous comment typified the behavior of an Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent.  After reading these comments, I see nothing has changed. 

You continue exhibiting a certain thuggish behavior.  
Why not respect my rules?

I’m ready for a serious dialogue, but you aren’t offering one, you have games on your mind.

A good faith dialogue is upfront and with a free exchange of information and references done in plain english.  That said, I will share your comments on my terms and with appropriate commentary.

_______________________________________________

Can you please send a copy of the interaction between 14 scientists and the work of Drs Shaviv & Veizer the link isn’t working. 

_______________________________________________

Send a copy?  Sure, give me an email address.

Or you could look for yourself: https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Climate/Climate_Science/Contrarians.html  (the following is a fraction of what you can find over there.)

Examining an Intellectual Juvenile Delinquent, ‘Anonymous, Dec12, 2019

This video is dedicated to Moscow Mitch McConnell

I’m sick and tired, quite literally. Many decades of burning the candle at both ends adds up, now thee ol’body ain’t as tough as it used to be and the extreme stress of watching us destroying what hopes we had for an already guaranteed difficult future are manifesting themselves in physical illness.  

Thus rather than continuing with chores or getting back to working on my Black Tuesday videos and blog post, I wound up going down for the count Thursday afternoon.  Tough times for empathic people who appreciate what we are doing to our planet, all its creatures, not to mention our children’s futures.

Guess this is by way of explaining why I’m not pulling punches in the following virtual debate with Anonymous12/12.  

Why virtual debate?  Because the cowards always hide, it’s been the only way to have a constructive debate with the GOP science slandering contrarian types. 

This post is built around a comment I received Thursday (12/12/19) night.  

(click on images for better view)

I rejected the two part comment because I won’t be played and used as a propaganda billboard for liars.  If you have something to say, or a link to share, be upfront with it, don’t try sneaking in tricky-dick coding.  

If you gotta hide it, you reveal yourself to be a dishonest political operative rather than constructive thinker having a serious discussion.  

_____________________________________________________

Anonymous 12/12 starts out with:  

Peter, Having looked at some links your partner in crime here has links showing a clear political motive. 

I find it amusing you finish citing propaganda when that is actually what you represent. Let us try to be civil then and stick to the science.   {I added the highlight colors} c

______________________________________________

Interesting way to start a discussion. 

Robert Holmes 1000Frolly PhD slinks away.

An update for those who are curious, Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly, the character who jumped into the middle of my breakfast pounding his chest with all cap threats a couple weeks back, has slithered away back into the night.  

Refusing to let me know, the case number, name of alleged court or date of his supposed filling, or even what his alleged suit against one Bob Trenwith is about.  Nor what the heck it has to do with me.  

Seems to me if a normal person were to have actually filed a suit and then threaten others with it, they would be willing to share the particulars.  Or at least explain why one is being contacted and threatened.  Seems only decent.  Not to mention civil and legal.

But, instead of simple civil adult information, Dr Frolly Holmes followed up with an email sporting the official Federation University Australia letterhead, with its oaths of confidentiality, etc, etc,  along with a lot of condescending avoidance of my questions and the issues - So typical, these people always feel more comfortable keeping it within their own fantasy projections, rather than reality and the issues at hand.

Dr.Holmes aka 1000Frolly sends me an email (updated June 17, 9pm)

This morning I received this from Dr. Robert Ian Holmes:

clink on images for better viewing

Dr. Robert Holmes,

Let’s be clear, you are the malicious YouTube slandering liar Frolly1000.  Your letter arrived unsolicited and I’m not bound to any confidentiality with you, in fact you can be sure my dialogue with you will be carried out in public.  

I’m curious, was your letter written on University time?  How would the Federation University of Australia feel about you using their logo as a shield to impress and intimidate?

Dr. Robert Holmes aka 1000Frolly why are you threatening me?

Though I was given the tip years ago, it wasn't until this morning that I'm able to confirm that the prodigious YouTube liar and AGW science slandering 1000Frolly is in fact one Dr. Robert Ian Holmes from Australia.  (not to be mistaken with Hulme!)  

A 'scientist' with rather tarnished credentials thanks to his efforts to convince folks that CO2 science is mistaken.  Writing that's so disconnected, even climate science contrarians dismiss him.   

Welcome to the Age of Trumpkins - where truth is despised and bullying is everything.  This is what decades of liberal intellectual complacency has achieved for our complex global society.

Right now I really need to focus on a more important writing project, so can’t let this sidetrack me more than it already has.  Besides it would be good to let this steep awhile, since I have a number of responses and questions for this Dr. Robert Ian Holmes, whom I actually had not had time for in years, but who seems scintillatingly upset at a couple confusing comments Bob Trenwith recently dropped at WUWTW.

“Inciting mob violence”?  Seriously Dr Holmes?  What are you talking about?  Please.  Or are we simply dealing with another frantic drama queen, . . . or what?  Can you explain yourself?

For now I'm going to settle for a trip down memory lane and a look at my tenuous involvement in this Dr. Holmes/1000frolly/Monckton distraction.

What's Natural about Polar Bear Habitat Destruction?

Steele Which Narrative to Believe?

This review of May 1st What’s Natural? will take the form of a direct letter to Mr. Steele.

Jim Steele,

I thought your title “Polar Bears. Which narrative to believe?” was apropos considering your freewheeling narrative. You ask which narrative to believe?  Indeed, that is the question.  So, lets get on with it.  Why should we believe your’s?

In the first column (4/17/18) of this double-bill, you use an Inuit word in a way, which I found out, locals of Nunavut found foreign.  Yes, I shared your column with a few.  That got me to thinking that perhaps your usage was simply a gratuitous prop to impress your audience.  Or what?

Then you drag a scientist from the middle of New York City into the middle of the Nunavut Polar Bear controversy - though said scientist has never spoken on the topic in any way.  He’ll tell you frankly: “I know nothing about it.” 

Why did you need to fabricate words to put into Gavin Schmidt’s mouth?  Simply to set him up as the straight-guy for your zinger punchline:  

“If you dare disagree with models of gloom and doom, you are attacked as an ignorant denier.” 

What's Natural about Jim Steele's Safe Space?

https://nationalpost.com/news/so-many-bears-draft-plan-says-nunavut-polar-bear-numbers-unsafe

REPRINTED UNDER PROTECTION OF FAIR USE COPYRIGHT LAWS.  

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

Click on image for better viewing and comparing.

Steele never explains that "safe space", instead he used his soapbox to praise Nunavut’s Inuit hunters for their superior wildlife observation skills that, according to Steele, put scientists to shame.

This column was so lacking in anything to do with climate science, that I have to change my approach again, this time simply dissect and comment.

The column’s title proclaims: “Can We Kappiananngittuq?” - subtitled, “We need a safe place to discuss global climate topics.” - and the center-piece quote reads: “I suggest we all could benefit by debating kappiananngittuq style.” 

         

Begs the question, what would a public “safe space to discuss” climate science look like Jim? 

What guidelines would you expect us to follow?  

Would honesty be important?

When I’m discussing facts I’ve gathered, would there be an expectation that I be truthful?  That I honesty and accurately represent the information I’ve collected?

When I’m describing the data and work of an ‘opponent’ would there be an expectation that I honesty represent my adversary’s data?

Would it be a general betrayal to substitute a dishonest argument that prop up false assertions, while hiding my opponent’s facts?

In a kappiananngittuq, is there an expectation to respect the experience, knowledge and merits of each individual, even your opponents?

In a kappiananngittuq, if it’s explained to you, how you are mistaken about something, do you sit there striving to listen, understand and absorb the lesson?

In a kappiananngittuq, is learning and a better communal understanding of our collective real world situation the goal?  

These are important questions.  I believe the answers are self evident: YES on all counts.  I wonder how Jim Steele would answer?  

No More Excuses by George Monbiot

No one is coming to save us.  Only rebellion will prevent an environmental apocalypse

{ George Monbiot writes eloquently about the despair that comes with climate science awareness in the face of today’s political situation along with the need to resist succumbing to hopelessness and inaction.  He suggests, IT AIN’T OVER TILL IT’S OVER!  Although much destruction is already in the pipeline and heading our way so we’ll see few immediate benefits of our actions.  Still, immediate action is required because every failure will only make the down stream destruction even more horrendous.  I provide some quotes from his recent article and encourage you to link to the full version to read all of it, much is missing from this summary. }

No More Excuses

By GEORGE MONBIOT

published in the Guardian April 15^th, 2019, posted online April 20^th.

Had we put as much effort into preventing environmental catastrophe as we’ve spent on making excuses for inaction, we would have solved it by now. Everywhere I look, I see people engaged in furious attempts to fend off the moral challenge it presents.

Considering Sagan's actual Baloney Detection Kit

A couple weeks back when I reviewed Steele's What’s Natural? column regarding Carl Sagan’s advice, I took Steele’s quotes at face value, though I had some doubts.  Since then I've done some checking and the differences are striking and worth sharing.

One thing worth pointing out is that Jim ignores that the Baloney Detection Kit was about how scientists view problems and that laypeople could learn from that.  One thing that bothers me about Steele's take, is that he's always implying spectators and dilettantes are as smart as actual trained experienced experts. 

Here I simply want to allow Carl Sagan's own words to speak for him, though with an introduction from Maria Popova:

Through their training, scientists are equipped with what Sagan calls a “baloney detection kit” — a set of cognitive tools and techniques that fortify the mind against penetration by falsehoods:

The kit is brought out as a matter of course whenever new ideas are offered for consideration. If the new idea survives examination by the tools in our kit, we grant it warm, although tentative, acceptance. …

The Baloney Detection Kit: Carl Sagan’s Rules for Bullshit-Busting and Critical Thinking     -      

BY MARIA POPOVA

https://www.brainpickings.org/2014/01/03/baloney-detection-kit-carl-sagan/

… But the kit, Sagan argues, isn’t merely a tool of science — rather, it contains invaluable tools of healthy skepticism that apply just as elegantly, and just as necessarily, to everyday life. By adopting the kit, we can all shield ourselves against clueless guile and deliberate manipulation. Sagan shares nine of these tools:

1. Wherever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts.”