Oreskes and the climate gang penned a smear in Scientific American @sciam refuses to print response by Koonin

Foreword: I was sent this by email, apparently “Scientific American” doesn’t believe in fairness. I stopped subscribing to SciAm years ago because they’ve turned into a socialist cesspool of opinion, with science as an afterthought. Steve Koonin writes:

I attach a response that I submitted yesterday to Scientific American.  Not surprisingly, they declined to publish it.  
Please do distribute my response freely among your contacts or websites.
Steve Koonin


Koonin responds to a Scientific American article by Oreskes et al.

Scientific American has published a criticism of me and my recent book, Unsettled.  Most of that article’s 1,000 words are scurrilous ad hominem and guilt-by-association aspersions from the twelve co-authors.    Only three scientific criticisms are buried within their spluttering; here is my response to each them.

The first criticism concerns rising temperatures: 

A recent Washington Post column by conservative contributor Marc Thiessen repeats several points Koonin makes. The first is citing the 2017

National Climate Assessment to downplay rising temperatures—but the report’s very first key finding on the topic says temperatures have risen, rapidly since 1979, and are the warmest in 1,500 years. 

In fact, Unsettled explicitly acknowledges a warming globe, but also the problems in comparing instrumental and proxy temperatures that weaken confidence in the “warmest in 1,500 years”.    The book’s Chapter 5 criticizes in detail the 2017 report’s misleading and inaccurate representation of a different temperature metric, US extreme temperatures.  To the surprise of many, the country’s warmest temperatures have not increased since 1960 and are no higher in recent years than they were in 1900.    

The authors go on to offer:

The second is Thiessen quoting Koonin’s use of an outdated 2014 assessment on hurricanes to downplay climate concerns. But the newer 2017 report finds that human activity has “contributed to the observed upward trend in North Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1970s.” 

In fact, Unsettled’s Chapter 6 discusses the description of hurricanes in the 2014 report, in the 2017 report, and in more recent research papers through 2020, including an authoritative 2019 assessment by eleven hurricane experts.  None of those studies claim any detectable human influences on hurricanes. 

Finally, we’re given:

A third point downplays sea level rise by portraying it as steady over time, cherry-picking reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the rate of sea-level rise has quadrupled since the industrial revolution, as climate scientists pointed out years ago when Koonin made this same argument. 

In no sense does Unsettled  portray sea level rise as “steady over time”.  Rather, the book’s Chapter 8 does quite the opposite, describing the full decadal variability as portrayed in the IPCC reports and subsequent research literature, but somehow omitted in the 2017 National Climate Assessment. The IPCC statement that rates of rise between 1920 and 1950 were likely similar to those of recent decades complicates attribution of recent trends. 

It is telling that these three criticisms cite Thiessen’s column rather than what I’ve written in Unsettled.  That they are readily countered suggests the authors haven’t read the book or, if they have, they aren’t acting in good faith.  That’s precisely the same unprofessional behavior found in the easily rebutted “fact check” of, again, a review of Unsettled, not the book itself.  

To paraphrase a statement attributed to Einstein, “If I were wrong, it wouldn’t take a dozen scientists to disprove me – one would be sufficient.”  As I write in Unsettled, I welcome serious, informed discussion of any of the points I raise in the book.  Unfortunately, the article by Oreskes et al. falls well short of that standard.

Steven E. Koonin is the author of the bestselling book Unsettled: What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters.


Interestingly, while Oreskes and her gang of slimers stooped really low, and SciAm even lower for not allowing a rebuttal, one climate scientist decided to ask the question on Twitter:

Steve McIntyre had the perfect response.

Peer reviewed science welcomes rebuttal, smear review, not so much.

4.9 47 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
182 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dave Yaussy
June 3, 2021 9:08 am

The greatest danger posed by the left isn’t their ideas, it’s the attempt to silence all dissent. That, and their corruption of science from a rigorous system of investigation and inquiry into a religion which requires mindless acceptance of certain tropes, like catastrophic global warming, is a real danger to the advancements that we’ve made as a civilization.

It would be easier to fight if most media outlets weren’t willing collaborators. Today on NPR they discussed the failure of the media to inquire into the possibility that the Wuhan lab was the originator of the COVID-19 virus. They missed the obvious answer that the mainstream media works as a mindless horde that does little or no real inquiry into the subjects they cover, once a theme has been established by flagship organizations like NPR, WaPo and NYTimes.

griff
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 3, 2021 9:48 am

Scientific American and scientists accepting the science of climate change, or researching it, or even rebutting Skeptic positions on climate change are NOT ‘of the left’, motivated by left wing viewpoints and concerns.

They just have a different view on climate science – one based on robust observed evidence.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 11:08 am

Re. your description of CliSciFi practitioners: “They just have a different view on climate science – one based on robust observed evidence.” They routinely deny observed evidence in writing articles/reports and attacking other viewpoints. They also spout Leftist and Marxist ideology when suggesting responses to the benign increase in CO2 atmospheric concentrations.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 11:14 am

There can be no such thing as; “the science of climate change”. The term itself is a logical fallacy … appeal to ambiguity and blatant equivocation. Your entire belief is founded on fallacies, from the bandwagon fallacy of “consensus” to your constantly moving goal posts, causal fallacies, straw man arguments and cherry picking. For the most part you don’t appear to understand the scientific method.

Don Newkirk
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 11:26 am

Giggle..snort. nope, didn’t pass the giggle test.

George Daddis
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 12:31 pm

You had to ruin your response with the last phrase.
“Observed Science” refers to actual data, not observations of model runs.

john harmsworth
Reply to  George Daddis
June 3, 2021 3:08 pm

What is your argument with that statement? You believe models are data?

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 12:48 pm

– one based on robust observed evidence.”

Which, of course you never provide, because the other half of your cognitive dissonance knows that there isn’t any.

DrEd
Reply to  philincalifornia
June 3, 2021 2:56 pm

Yes, griff. SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!!!!

Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
Reply to  philincalifornia
June 4, 2021 6:33 am

It is interesting – even fascinating – not to mention disturbing, that those holding Griff’s “other view” is rooted in childish misrepresentations of the data they have on hand. There is no better exemplar of that than M Mann and his suppression of contra-indicating data archived in the “CENSORED” subfolder. The claim that “observed science” sees CO2 as the temperature control knob of the planet but that perception is moulded around “not observing” most of the science and keeping one eye shut.

Climate believer
Reply to  philincalifornia
June 5, 2021 3:59 am

Hope you don’t mind Phil using your post to squeeze in a Tony Heller video on the subject. Please people go leave a comment over there or at least give him a thumbs up and send that youtube algo nuts!

garboard
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 12:59 pm

I’m a congenital lefty who is a “sceptic ” and one of the main reasons why is because of all the dishonest , underhanded , authoritarian tactics perpetrated by the ” consensus ” . their treatment of Koonin is a perfect example . I’m proud as a liberal to stand against the McCarthyesque bullying tactics used against people who question the ruling elite

Last edited 13 days ago by garboard
john harmsworth
Reply to  garboard
June 3, 2021 3:14 pm

Same tactics they use in the political sphere. Hell, same in entertainment1 As if that was something worth destroying people over. Socialism is inherently coercive. They have to attack to keep human beings in line with a philosophy that doesn’t like humans.

MarkW
Reply to  john harmsworth
June 3, 2021 3:38 pm

In the long run, the only people who have ever benefited from socialism, are those who are in charge.

Lrp
Reply to  garboard
June 3, 2021 4:25 pm

Socialists have elites too! If you lived in such society, you’d learn quickly that is far from classless, but on the contrary, stratified not on meritocratic principles.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 1:07 pm

Your entire response is rendered laughable by the claim, “Scientific American and scientists … are NOT ‘of the left’, motivated by left wing viewpoints and concerns”

Even a simple reading of SciAm and many of the papers and letters written by those “scientists” rebuts the claim.

“They just have a different view on climate science – one based on robust observed evidence.” there is only one appropriate reply to that: ROFL!!!

Dave Yaussy
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 1:20 pm

I think you’re wrong, Griff. I have no window into another person’s soul, but this work by Oreskes is emblematic of the sort of leftist groupthink that rushes to quash any suggestion that there are different data to consider, or an alternative way to view the facts. They can’t allow a conversation, because doing so is a tacit admission that there is a debate. So they furiously attack anything they see as heretical. And the MSM, including SciAm, is their mindless amplifier.

The right has its own problems, but on the whole it doesn’t try to shut down all debate the way the left does. That’s a fundamental disagreement that I have with progressives. I frankly share many of their aims, but the willingness, even eagerness, to silence dissent is a fundamental problem that prevents me from ever joining their ranks. Climate science in general, and their pernicious treatment of Koonin, Lomborg and Shellenberger in particular, are perfect examples of this.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 3, 2021 3:17 pm

Oreskes is a disgusting human being. Driving force behind the Bogus 97% “consensus” Typical Lefty disinformation. They believe they are chosen to rule over the rest of us and we better damn well accept it!

Lrp
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 3, 2021 4:29 pm

Socialism has to silence and punish dissent because reality always diverges from their idealised world view.

Peter K
Reply to  Lrp
June 3, 2021 5:40 pm

“Socialism ends when you run out of other peoples money”. Margaret Thatcher, I think.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Peter K
June 5, 2021 2:06 pm

The way I heard Margaret Thatcher say it was, “Socialists have just one problem… sooner or later you run out of other peoples’ money.” But then I looked it up, and what she really said was,

Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people’s money.

Funny, our brain remembers what it thinks it heard.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
June 5, 2021 2:39 pm

More precisely: society rephrases true statements into more easily remembered but just as true forms.

Last edited 11 days ago by Jim Whelan
MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 1:29 pm

That they are leftist is proved by their other articles and positions.
The fact that most alarmists are leftist to far leftist is also proven by the sum of their positions and words.

There is no real world evidence to back the belief that CO2 is a major climate driver.
More hurricanes? Not happening.
More heat waves? Not happening.
More wild fires? Not happening.

Models are not science and they are not evidence.

Last edited 13 days ago by MarkW
4 Eyes
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2021 3:19 pm

Come on Griff, Mark has given you a perfect opportunity to push back with evidence. Are you such a weasel that you won’t?

philincalifornia
Reply to  4 Eyes
June 3, 2021 3:27 pm

My money would be on weasel, except that since he has no evidence, he’ll just be the usual no-show.

john harmsworth
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2021 3:24 pm

The left decides its science on the basis of emotion, women in particular. It has been shown that Leftists are more emotionally unstable as well. First, they have trouble managing their lives, then they imagine that mysterious, powerful and nefarious forces are ruining the world and that’s why they can’t manage their lives. They struggle to be productive and therefore struggle financially, Also the fault of powerful forces. It starts to feel personal. Next thing you know they are batshit crazy with gross misunderstandings.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  john harmsworth
June 3, 2021 6:21 pm

“It has been shown that Leftists are more emotionally unstable as well.”

I think it requires at least a certain level of emotional instability/impaired thought process to even be a Leftist.

Socialism is a delusion and those who believe in it are delusional, some more so that others, but all delusional to a certain degree, imo.

Self-destructive socialism is a mental illness. And all socialism is self-destructive.

I’m talking about radical Leftists here. I imagine there are still some classic liberals around, but we don’t hear much from them, and I wouldn’t include them in the mentally ill category necessarily.

Last edited 13 days ago by Tom Abbott
Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 3, 2021 7:49 pm

I think it requires at least a certain level of emotional instability/impaired thought process to even be a Leftist.”
Really? I think that is a bit cheeky at this time. Apparently three quarters of Republicans think Trump won the election. Surely you have to have a pretty loose grip on reality to believe that after all this time. And Trump himself thinks he’s getting back in by August.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 4:35 am

Trump’s daughter-in-law said yesterday that Trump is not planning on being reinstated as president in August.

That’s just another example of the Lying Leftwing Media lying to the People. And you sucked it right up, because that’s what you want to believe about Trump.

I would say that most Trump supporters think massive fraud was involved in the 2020 election, and it was, and so they question the results.

It’s hard to imagine that Trump got 10 million more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016, yet he still lost the election. Every other Republican metric improved during the 2020 election except for president.

We won’t be able to prove that Trump won the election over Biden because we have a secret vote in the United States, so even if we show that there was fraud that took place and people voted, who should not have voted, we still don’t know which way those votes went.

The only way to prove Trump won is if the MyPillow Guy, Mike Lindell, can make good on his claim that he *can* tell which way the votes went using computer forensics. But the providing of this proof seems less and less likely as time goes along. Lindell promised to produce proof weeks ago, yet no proof has been put forth.

We’ll have a better handle on the level of voting fraud in the near future as audits of the votes are going on in several States right now, with more to come.

What the coming discovery of this voting fraud should do is spur State legislators to tighten up their voting laws and prevent illegal voters from participating in the future.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2021 11:00 am

Tom,

Not sure if you caught the news: Lindell has filed suit against Dominion to “stop them from weaponizing litigation against critics”.

Simon
Reply to  TonyG
June 4, 2021 6:49 pm

It is fine to criticise if a company has been in error or deliberately mislead. But there is zero evidence Dominion did any of that stuff. I would very much “not” want to be Sidney Powell at the moment. Her only defence being “no normal person could possibly have believed the nonsense I was saying.”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 5, 2021 3:51 am

Yes, Sidney Powell has turned into a disappointment. I wouldn’t want to be her, either.

TonyG
Reply to  Simon
June 5, 2021 7:42 am

Simon, it is fine to criticize a company, period. It is NOT fine for a company to use the courts to attack not only those making the criticism, but also those around the criticizers. My understanding of Lindell’s lawsuit was that it was to stop THIS practice.

I also offered the information without comment because I don’t have sufficient information to have a position on it. I simply haven’t been following it. Frankly, even if all the accusations turn out to be true, I expect nothing to come of it, so it’s just not worth my while. I passed along to Tom some Information that I had read, that’s all.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Simon
June 5, 2021 2:14 pm

It is fine to criticise if a company has been in error or deliberately mislead. But there is zero evidence Dominion did any of that stuff.

How do we know? Dominion will not allow examination of any of their machines, nor present audit data for the voting that took place. So far, their ONLY response has been to file suit against anyone who criticizes them that makes a headline. Which they may not realize is counterproductive, at least to people like me who have logical minds, when I see the response of Dominion, my first thought is: They just proved they have something to hide.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
June 5, 2021 3:48 am

I saw yesterday where Lindell’s chief lawyer resigned because this lawsuit was filed behind his back.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2021 7:44 am

I had not heard that, Tom, thanks for sharing.

Side note: the way WP orders the replies in the bottom level of the thread is really annoying – makes it hard to follow!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyG
June 6, 2021 3:16 am

That’s why it is ususally good to put a quote in the comment, so it is clear who one is addressing, although the “Reply to” ought to give people a hint.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 7:11 am

Tom, I use quotes a lot for exactly that purpose 🙂

I THINK “reply to” ends up sorting things in conversation order, but I’m not sure, especially with the new format. And the email updates don’t include the reply context anymore.

Annoying, but I eventually figure it out. I got this one right!

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2021 12:59 pm

“I would say that most Trump supporters think massive fraud was involved in the 2020 election, and it was, and so they question the results…..”
As I recall Biden was ahead in all the polls, so the only real surprise was that Trump did as well as he did.

“It’s hard to imagine that Trump got 10 million more votes in 2020 than he got in 2016, yet he still lost the election.”
Not really, I’d say that is very understandable. This was the most polarising election in history. More voted than ever before so of course numbers would be up, even for the loser.

“Every other Republican metric improved during the 2020 election except for president.”
That’s not true though is it Tom? In fact soon after the election we saw two republicans loose the senate election in Georgia.

We’ll have a better handle on the level of voting fraud in the near future as audits of the votes are going on in several States right now, “
Come on Tom. That circus audit in Arizona is an embarrassment. Run by a vocal Trump supporter who has zero experience in the field. Hell they were using blue pens on the first day. But let’s say they find nothing (or nothing significant). Will you accept the result then?

“What the coming discovery of this voting fraud should do is spur State legislators to tighten up their voting laws and prevent illegal voters from participating in the future.”
I’m good with that, but what you don’t want is for all legal voters to be dissuaded from voting because it is made too difficult. In a democracy voting should be as easy as possible so the most people possible have their say.

TonyG
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 5:42 pm

“I’m good with that, but what you don’t want is for all legal voters to be dissuaded from voting because it is made too difficult. In a democracy voting should be as easy as possible so the most people possible have their say.”

Is asking that they provide identification too difficult?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 5, 2021 3:54 am

““Every other Republican metric improved during the 2020 election except for president.”
That’s not true though is it Tom? In fact soon after the election we saw two republicans loose the senate election in Georgia.”

It is true, despite the losses in Georgia. Republicans gained in every other area of politics, local, State, and National.

Oh! Here’s some news for you. Trump kind of likes the idea of being elected to the Speaker of the House job after the 2022 elections. He said that was “very interesting” when it was suggested in an interview yesterday.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2021 5:52 pm

Oh and Tom it is not just the left who are saying Trump thinks he will be back in by August. National review are confirming the story it seems
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/maggie-haberman-is-right/

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 5, 2021 3:57 am

I think this story about Trump being reinstated as president by August originated with the My Pillow Guy, Mike Lindell. All the other sources are just repeating what he said.

Trump’s daughter-in-law, Laura, says Trump is not thinking that way. We’ll know a lot more about what Trump is thinking after tonight’s political rally where he will be speaking.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2021 3:49 am

Btw, Simon, Trump will be holding his first public political rally tonight, so he will probably give us a lot to talk about.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 3:20 am

Trump did hold the rally, and he laid out a path for success for Republicans in the future, and he did not make any claims about being reinstated in the White House in August.

He did hint that he might run again for president in 2024.

He hit Biden pretty hard. I imagine he is going to do that at every rally from now until Biden is no longer in office.

Last edited 10 days ago by Tom Abbott
Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 8:29 am

Did you miss your AL Anon meeting, Simple?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 4, 2021 1:00 pm

Did you miss your AL Anon meeting, Simple?” Can’t you make your point without name calling?

Graemethecat
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 11:58 am

A question for you, Simon: If you needed to recruit tough, stoic, and resourceful people for a long, dangerous expedition to, say, the Amazon or the Antarctic, would you hire a Guardian reader/Leftist?

Simon
Reply to  Graemethecat
June 4, 2021 1:02 pm

Are you saying all tough explorers vote right? If so please supply data on this, otherwise they are just words.

Derg
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 4:33 pm

You really are a human turd.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
June 3, 2021 7:45 pm

You really are a human turd.”
Another childish put down…. Oh well.

ATheoK
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 5:42 pm

They just have a different view on climate science – one based on robust observed evidence.”

Hahahaha Hahahahaha! Guffaw! Hahahahaha…

giffiepoo flounders spouting bafflegab while pretending sciam and climastrologists use “observed evidence”.

Once again, giffie, preselected data, models and dodgy statistics are never considered observations

Tom Abbott
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 5:55 pm

“They just have a different view on climate science – one based on robust observed evidence.”

You wish!

if you had any “observed” evidence, you would have produced it long ago, seeing as how you have been invited to do so on numerous occasions over the years.

The truth is you nor your alarmist heroes have the evidence you claim to have.

You could prove me wrong by producing this so-called “observed” evidence. But you won’t because you don’t have what you claim you have.

So silence will come from your corner as it always does when you are asked for evidence of Human-cause Climate Change.

You are not alone though, all the other alarmist behave the same way: All of you run for the hills when evidence is requested. It’s understandable. What else are you going to do?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2021 4:18 am

See, Griff and the other alarmists who hang around here have nothing to say. That’s because they don’t have the evidence for Human-caused Climate Change, they claim they have.

They are all just blowing smoke.

The way to shut up an alarmist is to ask them for evidence.

posa
Reply to  griff
June 4, 2021 1:37 pm

You’re right on this one Griff. The Global Warming- Climate Change propaganda originated with the haute capitalists of the David Rockefeller – Agnelli – Maurice Strong strata… all of whom the Maga-faction seem to think are “communists” … So lame.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  griff
June 8, 2021 8:23 am

one based on robust observed evidence

And what “robust evidence” would that be?! LMFAO – there IS NO “evidence” that atmospheric CO2 drives the Earth’s climate – that is nothing more than “hypothetical bullshit” and endless extrapolations thereof.

On the other hand, there is plenty of “robust evidence” that CO2 is incapable of “driving” the Earth’s climate – you need just take the blinders off.

Mandobob
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 3, 2021 1:00 pm

Real journalism is dead. Has been for almost 20 years.

MarkW
Reply to  Mandobob
June 3, 2021 1:32 pm

It’s been dead for a lot longer than that. The only difference is that in the last 20 years they no longer feel the need to hide it.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2021 6:24 pm

MarkW has it correct.

Mandobob
Reply to  MarkW
June 4, 2021 6:49 am

You are right!

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 3, 2021 4:09 pm

It is both their ideas and the fact that they and various of their handmaidens are in fact silencing other points of view.

James Charles
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 4, 2021 1:50 am

Look, look over there, it’s the ‘wicked left’.
Don’t look over there at the plutocrats and the M.I.C., there is nothing to see!

Edmund Ball
Reply to  Dave Yaussy
June 4, 2021 1:09 pm

Forgive the naivete of a Brit who knows little about modern American journalism. I read an article (online from “Scientific American) contemptuously attacking Koonin’s book ,This was May the 13th. I had read in a newspaper article that Koonin is a professional physicist (with real academic credibility in his background) with specialist knowledge of climate issues and especially computer modelling, and was interested in reviews of his book. And out from the google genie lamp popped out this May 13th article. I was dumfounded to find out that “Scientific American” had published an article by an economist(!!!), criticising a physicist in a most patronising (nay, moronic way). Of course there were disavowals “this is an opinion and an analysis article”), but how could a rag calling itself “Scientific American”, publish this ill-informed, insulting and abusive article from a non-scientist who specialises in the “economics of climate change. The answer is clear…”Scientific American” is edited by unscientific Americans. Therefore it is not surprising that they should have continued with their slanderous attacks on Koonin, This time using scientists who have deserted the cause of conjecture , refutation and probability for the

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Edmund Ball
June 5, 2021 4:22 am

“the answer is clear…”Scientific American” is edited by unscientific Americans.”

That’s right, and they may not even be Americans. A German company bought Scientific American some years ago.

Last edited 11 days ago by Tom Abbott
Tim Spence
June 3, 2021 9:16 am

What else could Oreskes do for a living? All her endeavours are hit pieces.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Tim Spence
June 3, 2021 9:24 am

I was trying to think of a response, but couldn’t come up with anything. Even homemaker seems implausible. Homeless panhandler ?? Consultant to Facebook? I’m struggling here.

DonM
Reply to  philincalifornia
June 3, 2021 9:58 am

public school teacher … maybe 8th grade.

Rick C
Reply to  DonM
June 3, 2021 11:09 am

NO, why would you want to frighten the children?

MarkW
Reply to  Rick C
June 3, 2021 1:33 pm

If she taught a class on celibacy, it would end the teen pregnancy crisis over night.

john harmsworth
Reply to  DonM
June 3, 2021 3:28 pm

Activist coach and soul destroyer for autistic teenagers?

alastair gray
Reply to  Tim Spence
June 3, 2021 11:23 am

Inquisitor, Witchfinder General, Fill the boots of Rosa Klebb of SKERSH and From Russia With Love fame, Chatelaine of Castle Dracula in Rumania with the Ceacescus. The ayatollahs could use her talents in prisoner rehabilitation as could any left wing tyranny -or right for that matter . People like Naomi will always thrive.

Tim Spence
Reply to  alastair gray
June 3, 2021 11:38 am

Alastair, Rosa Klebb is the very essence. The knives are in the boots and she loves to stick the boot in.

alastair gray
Reply to  Tim Spence
June 3, 2021 12:21 pm

Did you have a teacher at school like that. My Bet noire was an english teacher and a blend of Rosa Klebb and Dolores Umbridge

ATheoK
Reply to  alastair gray
June 3, 2021 6:21 pm

Aren’t all of the Masters of English female English teachers Umbridge/Klebb combinations without heart, soul or imagination?

john harmsworth
Reply to  alastair gray
June 3, 2021 3:30 pm

Or a fine scarecrow for anybody’s garden.

ATheoK
Reply to  john harmsworth
June 3, 2021 6:23 pm

I wouldn’t go into my own garden! There is always next year’s planting and my orchids.

ATheoK
Reply to  alastair gray
June 3, 2021 6:19 pm

You mean Oreskes Torquemadlady inquisition agent at large?

Mandobob
Reply to  Tim Spence
June 3, 2021 1:03 pm

I will not read anything with her name attached. How she an keep her position must be due to diversity, equality, and inclusiveness mandates at Harvard. Well that and maybe they wanted someone who looks like Sesame Street’s Big Bird.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Mandobob
June 3, 2021 3:30 pm

Yeah, trying to be fair to lizards.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Mandobob
June 3, 2021 11:24 pm

And what do you look like? Such middle school responses. Pretty pitiful.

Mandobob
Reply to  Jeff Alberts
June 4, 2021 6:53 am

I guess sophomoric sarcasm is a bit above your level. Sorry I offended your snowflake view.

ATheoK
Reply to  Tim Spence
June 3, 2021 6:13 pm

What else could Oreskes do for a living? All her endeavours are hit pieces”

Polar bear chaser, crocodile wrestling, hippopotamus riding hippo driving cowgirl, Antarctic bottom of borehole inspector, etc. are all possibilities given her hatred of people and fossil fuels.

June 3, 2021 9:16 am

Koonin shows that debate is the state of climate science today. This makes alarmism an outlier.

Steve Case
June 3, 2021 9:20 am

Posted on another thread earlier today:

The notion that a warmer greener world with more rain, longer growing seasons and more arable land could be sold as the “Existential Crisis of Our Time” is testimony to the greatest propaganda triumph of all time.

Mandobob
Reply to  Steve Case
June 3, 2021 1:05 pm

I wouldn’t characterize it as a “triumph” maybe more of a muddle.

Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 9:23 am

The Oreskes article proves Koonin’s Unsettled was over the target. Andy May has eviscerated them here a few hours ago. Koonin holds his own, as expected.

Apparently what Oreskes and Mann simply cannot comprehend is how their shenanigans simply further expose them to ridicule outside their echo chamber.

As for SciAm, I cancelled over a decade ago when they published a Mann temperature piece that I showed false in essay Unsettling Science in ebook Blowing Smoke. SciAm had become unscientific. And after it was later sold to a German publisher, it became neither Scientific nor American—but perfect for Oreskes and her ilk.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 9:55 am

The ‘i’ is surplus to requirement in SciAm.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
June 3, 2021 10:22 am

+100

Smart Rock
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 10:02 am

Apparently what Oreskes and Mann simply cannot comprehend is how their shenanigans simply further expose them to ridicule outside their echo chamber.

This is true. Unfortunately, their echo chamber is a lot bigger than ours.

Reply to  Smart Rock
June 3, 2021 10:17 am

Maybe not. Skeptics dominate the blogosphere. The WUWT readership may be greater than sciAms for that matter.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  David Wojick
June 3, 2021 11:01 am

DW, you are likely right. I just checked the SciAm numbers via Mediakit. Their circulation is only 130k worldwide. But Mediakit boosts their ‘readership’ to 546k by assuming each copy is read by 4.2 people—dubious at best.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 12:30 pm

Why would anybody take the trouble to go into someone else’s bathroom to read their copy of SlyAndIffy American?

Mr.
Reply to  jorgekafkazar
June 3, 2021 12:57 pm

Are you suggesting that Scientific American is one of those magazines that people leave in their toilets just in case the toilet paper runs out?

Rick C
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 1:57 pm

Maybe it’s because most of their subscribers are dentist’s offices. Just a guess.

Lrp
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 4:37 pm

I wouldn’t waste my time picking even a free copy of it, and much less reading it. I used to but not is just to shallow promotion

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 11:11 am

SciFiStasi?

dk_
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 4:53 pm

Rud,
Out of curiosity, do you know who owns and/or operates the German publisher?

John Bell
June 3, 2021 9:27 am

Typical leftist projection, they are so predictable, blaming others for what they do every day, and then they use fossil fuels every day too, they are shameless, how dare they!

griff
Reply to  John Bell
June 3, 2021 9:49 am

There is nothing ‘leftist’ about their position. Left has nothing to do with climate research

Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 10:50 am

My side isn’t partisan…yours is!

Mr.
Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 3, 2021 12:58 pm

Charles, I’d be surprised if Griff got this.

MarkW
Reply to  Charles Rotter
June 3, 2021 1:43 pm

That has been the standard left wing line for generations.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 11:14 am

Gee, being paid and otherwise supported by Leftist/Marxist NGOs, governmental bodies and fellow travelers doesn’t affect their ideological outlook at all?

ATheoK
Reply to  Dave Fair
June 3, 2021 6:31 pm

Gee, being paid and otherwise supported by Leftist/Marxist NGOs, governmental bodies and fellow travelers doesn’t affect their ideological outlook at all?”

“Gee, being paid and otherwise supported by aggressively intolerant Leftist/Marxist NGOs, governmental bodies and fellow travelers doesn’t affect their ideological outlook at all?”

You missed a couple words. I added them for you.

hiskorr
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 11:18 am

Every policy supported by the GND advocates relies on government direction of economic activity, and government support of research and investigation. These are characteristics of a “leftist”, “socialist”, point of view as opposed to “right-wing” free-market policies and ideas.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 11:19 am

For once you’re right.

Left has nothing to do with climate research

Skeptical scientists do climate research, whereas the Leftist, AGW true believers do not.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2021 12:31 pm

“Left-wing Luckies?”

Mr.
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2021 1:01 pm

A more forensic question might be –
“Griff, what have you been smoking inhaling?”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Mr.
June 3, 2021 6:58 pm

I hope people remember to ascribe that to one of “Willie” Clinton’s more famous lies.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2021 1:44 pm

I heard that griff tried to use his brain the other day.
They almost had to call in the fire department to put out the blaze.

ATheoK
Reply to  Anthony Watts
June 3, 2021 6:46 pm

Wacky shroom tobacky with extra psilocybin.
The only way to interact with unicorns.

Latitude
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 1:02 pm

does your planet have an atmosphere?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Latitude
June 8, 2021 8:51 am

No oxygen in any event, apparently.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 1:42 pm

Science is not political, that is true.
However the vast majority of those who push climate alarmism are quite vocal about their leftist positions on pretty much every other subject.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  MarkW
June 3, 2021 2:22 pm

Science CAN BE politicized and politicized science is inevitably bad science. Climate Science is completely politicized (as is everything surrounding CoVid)

MarkW
Reply to  Jim Whelan
June 3, 2021 3:41 pm

Let me refine my statement.
GOOD science is not political.

LdB
Reply to  griff
June 3, 2021 2:07 pm

Griff says because I say I am right … I can’t be left 🙂

In the childrens version of the game you call out shotgun.

Last edited 13 days ago by LdB
philincalifornia
Reply to  John Bell
June 3, 2021 1:01 pm

I kind of agree with griff on this one. There isn’t much that is “left” about these phonies, fake libtards and mostly toadie virtue-signalers who all get their way of living directly or indirectly from the free-market system, with indirectly being either parasitizing the taxpayer, or having banked an inheritance from a free-market forebear.

Bubba Cow
June 3, 2021 9:47 am

SciAm is a founding partner of the extreme alarmist enviro group Covering Climate Now –

https://coveringclimatenow.org/partners/partner-list/#

No surprise that Oreskes would go low with that rag, formerly a decent amateur science mag and formerly American.

DMacKenzie,
June 3, 2021 9:55 am

SciAm became a rag 20 years ago.

Curious George
Reply to  DMacKenzie,
June 3, 2021 12:15 pm

“Any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just never thought I’d see the Scientific American in the role of mother church.” [Michael Crichton, 2003]

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Curious George
June 8, 2021 8:53 am

What a brilliant man Crichton was. The loss of his voice in this debate was profound.

Mandobob
Reply to  DMacKenzie,
June 3, 2021 1:09 pm

Actually make that over 30 yrs and you might be more on target.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  Mandobob
June 3, 2021 1:12 pm

That’s about when I gave up on them and allowed my subscription to expire.

lee riffee
Reply to  Jim Whelan
June 3, 2021 5:17 pm

Me too…that and also cancelled National Geographic for the same reason – it seemed that every issue had either a cover story or a very prominent article on “climate change”…got sick of wasting my hard earned money on repetitive garbage I had no interest in reading.

TonyG
Reply to  lee riffee
June 4, 2021 11:10 am

Netflix has a show, something about the “72 most dangerous places to live” – it was playing in the background for a while yesterday. Half of the places they listed during that time were “dangerous” because “one day” they were going to have problems (usually flooding) due to “climate change”.

Didn’t once hear them talk about high murder rates, despotic regimes, war zones, etc.

ATheoK
Reply to  DMacKenzie,
June 3, 2021 7:02 pm

More than 20 years ago.

I dropped reading SciAm during my train commute when SciAm started having more articles with conclusions without direct observations, without a control, without a null hypothesis. And their conclusions were utterly dependent upon the author’s unexplained assumptions, models and bizarre math.
At the same time, SciAm published fewer and fewer highly technical articles as their fake news articles increased.

That happened about 1994-1995.
Right about the same time the Smithsonian mag became completely derelict with science.

NatGeo went derelict science a decade or more beforehand when they were pushing rigged science and false data coupled with emotionally laden photographs.

Jim Whelan
Reply to  ATheoK
June 3, 2021 8:39 pm

For me it was earlier than that when they still had actual science in most of the magazine but the lead article was always some kind of “social science” socialist nonsense.

Coeur de Lion
June 3, 2021 10:16 am

Where stands Nature these days?

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
June 3, 2021 12:40 pm

Hip deep and on its head.

Editor
June 3, 2021 10:29 am

Twelve people publish a personal attack on a prominent physicist, whose papers have been cited 14,000 times (Google Scholar), and he is not allowed to respond in the same venue? Scientific American has lost all scientific credibility. It’s just another opinion rag, like the New York Times or the Washington Post.

Curious George
Reply to  Andy May
June 3, 2021 12:05 pm

They are building a tradition. From Michael Crichton’s 2003 article:
Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power, not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages, yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that the book was “rife with careless mistakes.” It was a poor display featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a Holocaust denier. The issue was captioned: “Science defends itself against the Skeptical Environmentalist.” Really. Science has to defend itself? Is this what we have come to?
 
When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a page and a half. When he said it wasn’t enough, he put the critics’ essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.”

Chris R.
Reply to  Curious George
June 3, 2021 2:58 pm

Curious George,

I was going to bring up SciAm’s behavior toward Lomborg, 20 years ago, but you bet me to it. Well done.

Jim
June 3, 2021 10:35 am

What happens to a society when its main institutions have rotted out and and become fully corrupt?

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Jim
June 3, 2021 11:03 am

We are in the process of finding out.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
June 3, 2021 11:37 am

World population by age and region 2020Published by M. Szmigiera, Mar 30, 2021
 This statistic shows the proportion of selected age groups of the world population in 2020, by region. As of mid-2020, about 26 percent of the world’s population were under 15 years old. … as of 2020, there were about 7.8 billion people.” So, out of an adult world population of 7.8 X 0.74 =~ 5.9 billion people, SicFiStasi has its circulation fall to only about 130 thousand.

That, Rud, is just a small part of what we are finding out. We will find out more after the U.S. Senate gets through with Biden’s new budget and when the Appropriations Committee actually gets down to his spending proposals.

Long live Gilet Jaune!

MarkW
Reply to  Jim
June 3, 2021 1:47 pm

You can look to the end of the Roman Empire for one example.

alastair gray
June 3, 2021 11:16 am

I know that this might be considered ad hominem or even in the case of Hooey and Oreskes ad feminam, just to be proper and inclusive y’know, but could any of the gang of the cult of AGW = The Manns and Santers and Mckibbens,etc be such that you might want to number any of them among your friends.

It may be just me, with a set of inbuilt prejudices but they all seem to be rather unlikeable human beings for all their hand wringing and supposed concern for the welfare of the planet.

I always think of the Wormtongue character in Lord of the Rings in the context of these harbingers of doom. or even as the dementors of the harry potter tale. They exist to suck the joy out of life, and of the living.

I may be wrong and some of them may be perfectly nice warm and affable, even loveable people but I doubt it.

On the other hand were I to meet some of the skeptics I just feel that I might meet warmer human beings

Is there anyone in the church of Climatology that I might look up to and say ” what a fine scientist and human being. I might disagree but I respect you” Cant think of one offhand. Suggestions please

H.R.
Reply to  alastair gray
June 3, 2021 6:27 pm

Suggestions?

Don’t look for friends among the Climastrologists. If you want a really good friend, go to the animal shelter and adopt a dog.

ThinkingScientist
Reply to  H.R.
June 4, 2021 1:52 am

Please note, dogs are available from other sources.

June 3, 2021 12:05 pm

Anytime it takes 12 top alarmists to crit a book review, you know it is dynamite.

alastair gray
Reply to  David Wojick
June 3, 2021 12:30 pm

cf 100 authors against Einstein. Why 100?said Einstein “If I am wrong One with a decent argument would be enough”

Klem
June 3, 2021 12:21 pm

I waited many years so I could afford a subscription to Scientific American, but I was so disappointed by all of the Leftist politics in it that I let the subscription expire.

I couldn’t tolerate paying one more penny for it. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Mandobob
Reply to  Klem
June 3, 2021 1:12 pm

Haven’t read an issue in over 30 yrs. Same as NAT GEO.

lee riffee
Reply to  Mandobob
June 3, 2021 8:37 pm

It’s too bad, Nat Geo had (and still has, at least the last time I saw an issue in a dr’s office) some excellent photography, but that’s like saying a restaurant has excellent coffee and terrible food! I can just go somewhere else to get good coffee and not have to put up with the bad food. Also used to get Pop Sci, but they are also poisoned by alarmism. The only science mag I get these days is Discover, not because they don’t pull the alarmist card, but when they do it tends to be no more than a blurb on a page, or maybe a full page at the most, and not even in every issue.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  lee riffee
June 8, 2021 9:06 am

I essentially won’t read any publication that publishes any of the alarmist claptrap. If they lack the journalistic integrity to vet the claims being made, their “publication” isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

Peter K
Reply to  Klem
June 3, 2021 10:22 pm

Unfortunately the same applies to our CSIRO here in Oz. Thirty years ago they were a very respected organization, employing scientists and engineers. WiFi was one their greatest invention along with a list of other humanitarian achievements. Those engineers and scientists have since been replaced by global warming journalists.

Robert of Texas
June 3, 2021 12:44 pm

Scientific American stopped being anything near scientific many years ago. I remember when I first started subscribing it was full of interesting articles; many of them industrial research, and most of them based on scientific principles. Now it is mostly full of ecology drivel and climate warming nonsense. I wouldn’t recommend that magazine on anyone. It seems apparent that you have to blame climate warming at least once in your paper to even get it published.

dk_
June 3, 2021 1:10 pm

The last paragraph of the Oreskas/Mann piece was unforgiveable, and in my inexpert opinion should be actionable, given the Mann lawsuit of Steyn for much less cause. Scientific American is well past the point of redemption, and based on this censorship of an opinion piece from Koonin, should also have to defend itself.

High Treason
June 3, 2021 1:50 pm

Scientific American has absolutely no credibility as a source of news. If they won’t allow a reply(and thus debate) they have shown clearly they can’t even obey the first rule of science. REAL science can never be settled. Ideally defamation proceedings find SA having their own reputation trashed because they have engaged in publishing pseudoscience.

Martin
June 3, 2021 1:51 pm

The denial of Koonan’s right to be heard on published criticism (if not defamation) is but the latest episode of cancel culture. It’s hardly the first.
 
https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored
 
Unless brought to a halt, it will not be the last. This practice will, however, destroy science by replacing intelligent discourse with propaganda.

TheLastDemocrat
June 3, 2021 2:11 pm

As a “liberal,” and one who would be a “democrat,” if we still had a “democrat” party, and having followed the “liberal” groupthink on many issues in these recent years, I recognize what is going on here:

The goal of th ebook review is not to review the book.. It is to insert a pat response into the minds of the Progressive fellow travelers.

The unthinking but morally superior hordes need to be able to say “that has been debunked.”
The review is merely that.

Chris R.
Reply to  TheLastDemocrat
June 3, 2021 3:01 pm

To TheLastDemocrat,

I propose that you change your name to “TheLastHonestDemocrat, merely based on this response alone.

john harmsworth
June 3, 2021 3:04 pm

Likewise, had a subscription for many years but it is a rag now. In the 70’s and into the 80’s it was very a high quality publication that I enjoyed a great deal. The writers and staff should go back and read some of those editions and see what real science writing should be. They would be traumatized with shame.

Reply to  john harmsworth
June 3, 2021 5:42 pm

John H:
I agree.
Sci Am has a history of similar beahvior. They did the same thing ~ 2001 to Bjorn Lomborg
after his “Skeptical Environmentalist” book came out. And they refused his reply to their
hit piece.
Just finished Koonin’s book (Kindle version). Highly recommended!
And the SciAm review of it is just a grab bag of ad hominem and accusations of “using old data” and “cherry picking”. To which I have to laugh since Koonin uses the alarmists own data [IPPC AR5, SREX, NCA,CSSR, etc]. They really don’t like being “hoisted by their own petard”!
The Alarmists only recourse is to continue trying to gaslight everyone. So sad.

H.R.
Reply to  john harmsworth
June 3, 2021 6:34 pm

“They would be traumatized with shame.”

That’s the problem, John. They wouldn’t understand those old articles and they have no shame.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  john harmsworth
June 3, 2021 6:53 pm

“had a subscription for many years but it is a rag now. In the 70’s and into the 80’s it was very a high quality publication that I enjoyed a great deal.”

I first subscribed to Scientific American in the early 1970’s, and it was a good magazine with lots of good articles and topics, and then in the middle 1970’s the Human-caused Global Cooling scare started to enter the pages of Scientific American. Climate scientist were wondering if the Earth was entering another Ice Age because the temperatures had been cooling for decades from the 1940’s, and climate scientists always think the trend will continue forever..

When this first got going, I didn’t have an opinion on it. I didn’t know if Human-caused Global Cooling was true or not, and I waited eagerly for evidence that might establish it as fact, or not. I was interested in what the climate scientists had to say.

And I waited, and waited and waited and waited. And they *never* did show evidence of Human-caused Global Cooling. Much to my irritation after all those empty claims.

So then we transition into the early 1980’s and the temperatures are starting to warm and Human-caused Global Warming comes into vogue.

Well, now, I’m skeptical of this “human-caused” business, having been burnt over the human-caused Global Cooling claims, so I’m skeptical now of climate scientists claiming human are causing the Earth to warm.

So I hung in there and waited and waited and waited for some evidence of Human-caused Global Warming and no evidence ever surfaced, then or now, and I got to the point where I would just look at the cover of Scientific American and see some new claim about Human-caused Global Warming and it would make me angry because I knew for sure if I read that article, I would be frustrated because they would not prove their case. They never did and have not done so to this very day.

So I eventually got tired of getting angry every month when I received the magazine so I let the subscription lapse.

I did the same thing at the same time with National Geographic and for the same reason. They were hyping a fake climate change crisis without evidence.

Michael in Dublin
June 3, 2021 4:42 pm

Five hundred years ago in Germany, Martin Luther was so confident in his arguments that he published the writings of those he wanted to refute together with his responses attached. This way there was no way to accuse him of misrepresenting them. However today, alarmists, the media and most politicians do not want to allow the public to be able to see and compare both sides because they know their case is so weak and flawed. This is also an insult to the intelligence of many ordinary people and their ability to see contradictions.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
June 3, 2021 7:10 pm

“However today, alarmists, the media and most politicians do not want to allow the public to be able to see and compare both sides because they know their case is so weak and flawed.”

That’s exactly right. The Alarmists don’t want to argue because they don’t have a case to make. If they had a case to make, they would be eager to take on the skeptics. They are not eager, which should tell us all something.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 3, 2021 7:43 pm

However today, “alarmists,” …” That’s name calling Tom.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 4:53 am

Alarmist is reality, Simon. A person that spreads climate alarm is a climate alarmist. Alarmist is the perfect description. Especially, when we are talking about a false alarm as we are doing here with Human-caused Climate Change.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 4, 2021 12:37 pm

Alarmist is reality, Simon. A person that spreads climate alarm is a climate alarmist. Alarmist is the perfect description.”

In my opinion it is derogatory. You are belittling what others consider to be a genuine fear. But ok let’s accept for a second you are right. Is it ok to call a person who denies the mainstream science a climate science denier? When the other side do it, there are howls of indignity from your team. See where this goes Tom? Both sides just end up calling each other names and no one is listening. Either you are ok with name calling or you are not in my book. Or are you just ok with tags that you approve of?

Michael in Dublin
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 2:55 pm

Simon

I have taken issue with the designation “climate science” because in reality it draws from a dozen different sciences which highlights the complexity of climate systems or climate zones.

It is impossible for someone who views himself as climate scientist to gain an in depth understanding of all the aspects of science involved in the climates of our world. This is why a scientist who has specialized in physics or chemistry or one of the other sciences may tell a climate scientist they are talking nonsense when pontificating on his area of science and how it relates to climate change.

Tom is correct but I would clarify that an alarmist is not someone who has justified fears. He is like a child who is scared of the dark – something that passes when the child grows. The alarmist should approach the subject as a rational adult and not an emotional child. However, calling someone a “climate science denier” is completely misleading. 99.9% do not deny various scientific facts about the climate zones and changes. They deny that there is scientific grounds for saying the changes and contribution of human activities are going to lead to a widespread human catastrophe.

Last edited 12 days ago by Michael in Dublin
Jim Whelan
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 3:10 pm

In your opinion it is “derogatory” but it is intended to be. It is not “belittling” those who have a fear but rather those who spread a false fear. Such people deserve “belittling”. And it is accurate since such people are spreading alarm. However the term “climate science denier” is inaccurate since the “deniers” are seldom denying science, but rather the apocalyptic human caused non-science.

Last edited 12 days ago by Jim Whelan
TonyG
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 5:37 pm

Would you prefer that he just hint at the name instead of stating it outright, Simon?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 5, 2021 4:26 am

“In my opinion it is derogatory”

I understand. I don’t agree. I will continue to use the term as I think it is the most descriptive term I can use in this circumstance.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 6, 2021 3:27 am

Let me add to that. Alarmist is derogatory, but it is also a correct description.

If I call a criminal out as being a criminal, that *is* derogatory, but it is also true. And sometimes there is no nice way to put things if you want to decribe things properly.

If a person constantly raises unfounded alarms about the Earth’s climate, then they are a climate alarmist.

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Simon
June 8, 2021 9:16 am

“Alarmist” is accurate (since the blather about what we “need to do” about so-called “climate change” [as in, caused by humans] is the equivalent of shouting “fire” in a crowded theater in which no fire exists); “denier” is not. There’s nothing to deny. And the “association” with denial of the Holocaust is insulting and pre-supposes a strong case for human-induced climate change has been made, when it has not.

Provide evidence that the “climate science” you support is anything more than “natural climate change denial.”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
June 4, 2021 12:13 pm

So you are a true believer in the CAGW scam?

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
June 4, 2021 12:48 pm

So you are a true believer in the CAGW scam?”
I believe that the world is warming and that releasing CO2 in to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels, is in part responsible for the warming. But so do Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer and Judith Curry. In fact, as I have said many times here and it is true, it is pretty hard to find anyone who knows anything about the science that would deny what I have just said. The difference lies in what people believe to be the level of possible harm/trouble that is in store for us if we continue on the present path. I believe that it is likely that in 100 years, the earth will be a very different place and it wont be for the better. Anyway thanks for asking, no one has ever bothered before.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
June 5, 2021 4:38 am

“The difference lies in what people believe to be the level of possible harm/trouble that is in store for us if we continue on the present path.”

That is correct. Most people don’t deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that absorbs and emits energy.

What we don’t know is how this affects the Earth’s climate because we don’t know whether CO2 is net warming or net cooling. There are a lot of things going on in our atmosphere that we don’t have a handle on.

What I see is a cyclical climate pattern that warms for a few decades and then cools for a few decades and then repeats this action.

What I see comes from historic surface temperature charts which shows it is no warmer today than it was in the Early Twentieth Century. Evidence, in other words.

According to the evidence, the temperatures are no warmer today than in the recent past despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are higher now than in the Early Twentieth Century.

So the evidence points to CO2 not affecting the temperatures much. Any CO2 affects to our atmosphere are below the radar and evidently do not materially affect the course of the Earth’s atmosphere.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Tom Abbott
June 5, 2021 10:48 am

The GISS and HadCRU temperature trends can be fit with a cosine function plus a linear trend. The residual is trendless.

The cosine period is about 60 years. This seems to track the PDO/AMO oscillation periods.

The linear trend is 0.058 C/decade, in each record.

Neither CO2 forcing nor radiative forcing were linear over the 20th century. So the linear trend component in air temperature contradicts the CO2-as-driver model.

After I posted this analysis in May 2011 at Jeffid’s tAV site, Carl Weiss wrote to say that he and others had been examining the power spectra of European spleothems.

They found the spleothem power to be dominated by a ~240 year cycle. He said that the 0.058 C/decade linear trend was consistent with the rising slope of their cycle.

Their work was published in 2013: doi:10.5194/cp-9-447-2013

The combination of a 60 year cycle plus a 240 year cycle is enough to explain the entire trend in air temperatures since 1850. No CO2 influence needed.

Figure01.jpg
Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat Frank
June 6, 2021 3:30 am

Thanks for that post, Frank, I had not seen that before.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Simon
June 5, 2021 10:19 am

I can demonstrate that you. Roy Spencer, and Judith Curry are speaking from ignorance. No one knows what, if anything, CO2 emissions might do.

The available evidence is that more CO2 release will make Earth a better place. It will have a more vigorous and healthy plant ecology, and we’ll have better crop yields. What’s not to like?

In view of the fact that not one smidgen of available evidence indicates CO2 as a driver of air temperature, where is the problem?

AGW is Not Science
Reply to  Pat Frank
June 8, 2021 9:47 am

I say this all the time. All the blather about “sensitivity” to CO2 is grounded in the assumption called “all other things held equal.” Those “other things” are not held equal, and no temperature driving ability of atmospheric CO2 has ever been demonstrated.

Tom Abbott
June 3, 2021 5:27 pm

From the article: “National Climate Assessment to downplay rising temperatures—but the report’s very first key finding on the topic says temperatures have risen, rapidly since 1979, and are the warmest in 1,500 years.”

Any unmodified, regional surface temperature chart from around the world will show this is not true. They all show it was just as warm in the Early Twentieth Century as it is today. So the claim that the Earth is at the hottest temperature in 1,500 years is a lie. It was just as hot in the very recent past, within the written, instrument record. This occurred during the lifetimes of people who are still alive. It’s not ancient history. It’s just inconvenient for the alarmists so they pretend regional surface temperature charts don’t exist, which allows them to pretend today is the hottest in 1,500 years.

Climate Alarmism is built on Lies and Distortions.

Here’s a couple of regional surface temperature charts to demonstrate the lie:

Today is not the hottest time in the last 1,500 years in China or Australia.

comment image

comment image

niceguy
June 3, 2021 6:56 pm

These words in the very first sentence:

served in the Trump administration and now regularly appears on Fox News and other conservative media thinks climate change is a hoax

could well have been written for TV talking heads like Rachel Maddow.

Doonman
June 3, 2021 7:17 pm

When you claim that there is a climate change emergency when there is none to be found and you also claim that you can control the weather for 30 years in order to change climate, there is something missing in your head.

My grandmother said it was common sense.

Ian W
June 4, 2021 12:28 pm

It is a very old tactic

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” 
Socrates

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Ian W
June 5, 2021 4:43 am

It’s human psychology.

posa
June 4, 2021 1:27 pm

Another sad story for US Big Science this week. Reading through Fauci’s email was eerily reminiscent of the Climategate emails. Flagrant deceit, cynical obfuscation; open collusion among a “pal review” mafia operating on the NIH teat; media enforcers and totally corrupt professional journals… it’s all there …stuff WUWT readers are familiar with for years.

%d bloggers like this: