Paul Bryan on Steven Koonin: Cancel Culture at Work

From MasterResource

By Robert Bradley Jr. — October 6, 2021

“Koonin is … not REMOTELY qualified to dispute the conclusions of thousands of working scientists…. Koonin will say whatever he is paid to say.” (Paul Bryan, below)

“Bryan offers only  ad hominem attacks. Sadly, so characteristic of the public conversation about climate science.  If he’d made a specific criticism of what I said about climate science, it might be worth responding to.” (Koonin, below)

Emotions run high in the climate debate between the ‘settled-science’ alarmists and cautious, data-driven critics. There is every reason to listen and learn in a quite unsettled area (climate models?) and not be crude and offensive, much less engage in angry hate speech.

“Fossil fuel troll” … “You are simply shilling for the addiction model of energy and the dealers that profit from it” … “Your arguments are tired, old, oft-debunked pages from the Denier’s Playbook. Goebbels would be proud….” The public insults just would not stop from Paul Bryan … until I shared them last week on MasterResource. He scrubbed his answers in his exchanges with me (you see just my answers here) and has otherwise gone incognito.

Bryan below represents the mentality behind climate alarmism (Malthusianism, nature-is-optimal deep ecology), as well as fire-ready-aim policy activism. He traffics in ad hominem and argument from authority …. He wants to cancel his opponents.

In this part of the exchange (below), the targets are the prominent skeptics of climate alarm, and in particular Steven Koonin, who Bryant claims to know and have insider information about. Bryan needs to give us more details, not go into hiding.

What about humility in the face of the “wicked problem” of understanding global climate? Mid-course corrections? Respect for consumers? Respect for taxpayers? Recognition of government failure and analytic failure along side ‘market failure’? All this is just road kill on the road to energy serfdom to members of the Church of Climate.

The exchange follows:

Bradley: On climate science being ‘settled’, nice try. Please study Steven Koonin and follow Judith Curry.

Paul Bryan: Koonin will say whatever he is paid to say. You know how? We were both at the DOE at the same time, we had a number of conversations on these very issues, and he didn’t say anything like what he says now. Why? His bosses then (Chu & Obama) weren’t paying him to contradict science. Now, they are. As you yourself obviously know, that can be a good gig….

Bradley: What are you saying? Sounds like he had some views during Chu/Obama that were his own and different from the narrative. Then after, he comes out.

Are you saying (“As you yourself obviously know, that can be a good gig”) that he was bought off to come out? Something doesn’t add up….

Bryan: Can’t believe you think it’s even worth debating Koonin’s credibility. He worked for BP, he had BP’s POV. Worked for the Obama Admin, he took on their views. He then went to work for Trump, and guess what??? He was deeply committed to Trump’s views. Hi WSJ Editorial and his more recent book have been roundly criticized and scientifically debunked by actual climate scientists. Koonin’s own background, as well as the last actual scientific work he did, is in theoretical physics. He has no qualification to dispute findings in the climate science field, no ACTUAL work of his own, just cherry-picked nuggets, and no consistent history of “beliefs” except for their connection to his paycheck.

Bradley: … Koonin is good on [ed., the problems of climate models], and The Economist explained it well, See here: …

Bryan: … Stop trying to pretend there is a debate that doesn’t exist except among those who are PAID to make it. Koonin is NOT “good” on this, and he is not REMOTELY qualified to dispute the conclusions of thousands of working scientists…. If cell phones were designed by people with as much expertise in electronics as Koonin has in climate science, we’d still be using two tin cans with a string tied between them for mobile communications.

I then emailed Professor Koonin for his reaction to Bryan’s comments. He said simply (September 28, 2021):

Bryan offers only  ad hominem attacks.  Sadly, so characteristic of the public conversation about climate science. If he’d made a specific criticism of what I said about climate science, it might be worth responding to.


4.8 20 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 7, 2021 2:13 pm

Bryan has the typical “everyone who opposes my position is a vendido, a sellout” of the hard greens. Perhaps he is projecting.What financial interests do Bryan have that dictate his current positions?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 7, 2021 3:06 pm

Bryan has experience at DOE labs and taught at Berkley. He currently consults on renewables.

Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2021 4:50 pm

So, a liar and a charlatan? Not good references.

Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2021 5:05 pm

Consults, as in for money, for pay? Huh. Guess that money is somehow different from Koonin’s pay.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Felix
October 7, 2021 5:54 pm

My guess is he specializes in biofuels.

Paul Nevins
Reply to  Felix
October 8, 2021 10:48 am

Interesting how anyone who opposes the narrative is slammed as being in the pay of “big Oil” But anyone who follows the narrative and ignores the data can be paid millions to support the narrative and their integrity is never questioned.

Ron Long
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 7, 2021 4:15 pm

Looks like I fit in the “sellout” category, I wonder if Bryan could tell me where my payoff is (it has never appeared in my bank account)?

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Ron Long
October 7, 2021 7:14 pm

Anthony, Willis, Eric Worrell, and Bob Tisdale are long over for their fat checks from Big Oil

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 8, 2021 10:14 am

And remember, even fatter checks from the government/institution/NGO are perfectly fine.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
October 9, 2021 8:33 am


I’m assuming you meant to insert the word “due” after the word “over” in your post.

Last edited 1 year ago by ToldYouSo
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 8, 2021 10:13 am

Projecting is exactly right. One can see the projection of something nasty (which means that’s what THEY do) in practically anything said, typed or printed.

October 7, 2021 2:16 pm

Not surprised at all, the debate doesn’t really exist.

I posted Willis Eschenbauch’s blog post at a FORUM this article,

Where Is The “Climate Emergency”? and the first 4 warmist/alarmists replies were of the following:

This is a link to a blogger whose main if not only purpose is to debunk anthropomorphic climate change. Not quite a reliable source for fact based science. I know this because I did not stop at the link, I went quite a bit farther. Sometimes the danger of relying on one unchecked,, un fact checked link leaves you open to unwisely relying on some ones deranged notion as defensible facts. Sorry you fell for this one.


What in the hell leads you to the conclusion that I did not read the article? I see that you offer no rebuttal. I’ve done my research, do yours!


You have done what many posters on this forum have done. You cherry pick data that fits in with your mind set, ignoring literally mountains of data in opposition. You present it as proof of your position. All I did was determine that the poster is agenda driven, much as Fox is, and everything reported by Fox, or this blogger must be taken with a huge grain of salt. Having repudiated the site it self, it would be redundant to repudiate the article. Find a better source if you can. This one is garbage.


Awe, c’mon! We just went through this in another thread. The source is johnny one note agenda driven blogger. I would no more trust it let alone read it. Give me a reliable source and I will be happy to read it. Bet you can’t do that!


Those replies and more are from the same person in reply to my replies saying he isn’t addressing the content of the post Will wrote at all.

I posted it at another forum with similar results of their not addressing the content of the post, they instead employ the usual childish fallacies and personal attacks instead.

M Courtney
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 7, 2021 2:36 pm

They say it’s a legend that Cremonini wouldn’t look through Galileo’s telescope. But it seems quite plausible.
Unless we’ve regressed further back than the 17th century.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  M Courtney
October 7, 2021 9:10 pm

We’re at least to 17th Century witch trials level.

John Larson
Reply to  M Courtney
October 8, 2021 2:46 pm

Who is this “we” you guys are talking about? Regressing back to before the 17th century? Guys, it’s the 21st century, and I suggest we’re moving forward in time, from the twentieth century (when over a hundred million people were murdered by atheistic regimes).

Science, in the institutional/establishment sense, is strictly atheistic now. For those now in control of the “experimental philosophy”, there is no God, no Judgment, no Later . . and humans are just another variation of a purely materialistic process. They just think in terms of the few decades we all get to exist.

So it’s not about burning “witches”, I strongly suggest, but about eliminating threats to experiencing things like fame and fortune (and all that can bring) to enhance the chances of experiencing mostly pleasant times, and minimizing the chances of experiencing mostly unpleasant times, during the few decades those in the scientific “establishment” believe they have to experiencing anything at all.

Aynsley Kellow
Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 7, 2021 8:51 pm

I love the howler of ‘anthropomorhic climate change’!

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Aynsley Kellow
October 9, 2021 8:42 am

Me, I’m still waiting for someone—anyone!—to objectively and quantitatively define what the phrase “climate change” actually means, including its root cause.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 8, 2021 1:44 am

It’s always great when the warmist cretin brigade surfaces. Does that first respondent not know the difference between ‘anthropomorphic’ and ‘anthropogenic’? It renders all the rest of what he says meaningless.

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 8, 2021 7:42 am

Having repudiated the site it self, it would be redundant to repudiate the article. 

One has to wonder how the author would respond to defense attorney who made the claim: “Having repudiated the victim, it would be redundant to repudiate the charges of this alleged s. assault.”

What I find so amazing is that there is no attempt to obscure… the author comes right out and says it. (sigh)

Reply to  Sunsettommy
October 9, 2021 8:40 pm

This (guy at the other forum, the one you had your debate) is simply pointing out that when you against science, the odds are against you by far. WUWT is a pseudo-scientific blog, if a post here arrives to a conclusion that is the opposite what science says, this is you who has to prove it.

Reply to  nyolci
October 10, 2021 10:36 am

You are just the latest one who likes to babble like a child over this stuff, it seems that the material in the article is too difficult for you to handle which is why the inner child in you comes to the surface to gurgle instead.

The article remains unchallenged.

John Bell
October 7, 2021 2:20 pm

I would love to hear the howls and screams of alarmists if they had to give up their own fossil fuel use. HA! they do a little virtue signalling, then back to normal, while they want us little people to sacrifice. they almost NEVER have solar panels on their roofs.

October 7, 2021 2:30 pm

Who is Paul Bryan?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Bernie1815
October 7, 2021 2:50 pm

He appears to be just another self important nobody with no real understanding of science, let alone “climate” science.

Reply to  Bernie1815
October 7, 2021 3:00 pm

OK, I found out who he is. He worked at Chevron in their Biomass area and subsequently left to join DoE and work in that same area. He apparently is an independent consultant now. Critics call Chevron’s program greenwashing. Currently they seem to be busy trying to turn soybeans in to some form of diesel-like bio-fuel.

I observed one of these types of programs (making solar cells) many years ago now as a paid management consultant. The oil company was investing substantial money in the program – but my opinion was that it was going nowhere because the scientists and researchers had no idea how to run a business or a product development effort. The parent company, a major oil company, also seemed to be happy to let these play in their sand box. This $100 million project seemed to be primarily a PR effort. It was going nowhere and was killed shortly thereafter. In other words, companies do greenwash.

All in all it is not clear to me that Dr. Bryan has any expertise in the area of climate models.

Others may have more specifics on Dr. Bryan’s areas of expertise.

Reply to  Bernie1815
October 7, 2021 3:34 pm
Dr. Bob
Reply to  Bernie1815
October 7, 2021 3:45 pm

Paul Bryan didn’t last long at DOE due to his high level of incompetence. Everyone that had to deal with the DOE EERE( or what every unit he was in) cheered when he was forced out. I wish I knew more about why he was forced to leave, but didn’t pursue it as it was such a relief. No wonder he left Chevron.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Dr. Bob
October 7, 2021 6:04 pm

From his interactions with others, especially concerning Koonin, arrogance was probably the reason he was booted. Teaching probably doesn’t help in that regard.

October 7, 2021 2:41 pm

A useless discussion after all. Just learn to understand the physics, and the “science” will be settled for good. Models are all build on the same mistake, that is denial of the existing overlaps of GHGs like CO2 or vapor with each other and clouds. That is next to denying real surface emissivity. Once this denial is overcome, ECS falls apart like a house of cards. This is how it works out for 2xCO2 forcing alone:

comment image

It is far “worse” with vapor feedback, as overlaps and surface emissivity impair it even more (next to the feedback loop). More to come..

Dave Fair
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 7, 2021 2:52 pm


Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2021 5:39 pm

Well, there’s a constructive criticism.

Nicely illustrates the points made in the article and following comments.

Dave Fair
Reply to  HotScot
October 7, 2021 6:09 pm

He and his like-minded “no GHE” brethren have polluted WUWT with their bullshit for years. No matter how many times their pet theories have been demonstrated as false by real science, they continue their Thread-bombing tactics. Bullshit is all I have for them anymore.

Why don’t you make a try at educating them?

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2021 8:30 pm

Dave, it isn’t as simple as you see it. GHGs can absorb and re-emit LWIR causing delay in exit to space. This is trivial. But there is a lot more going on that greatly dilutes the effect of heating from any source (let alone the logarithmic diminishing effect of increasing CO2). I won’t go further except to say if you’ve read and understood Willis E’s emergent phenomena (climate thermostat) articles and called them BS, then there is no point talking to you.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 9, 2021 9:07 am

Gary Pearse,

You posted:

“GHGs can absorb and re-emit LWIR causing delay in exit to space. This is trivial.”

Not so trivial. If one digs into the details of the physics of the “GHG effect”, one discovers that the basic process is that GHGs absorb LWIR and then overwhelmingly “thermalize” that absorbed energy (stored as molecular vibrational energy, NOT as excited electron energy levels) via rapid collisions with other atmospheric molecular constituent gases, 99% of which is N2 and O2. The rate of collisions (on the order of nanoseconds) is phenomenally faster than the “relaxation time” required for a CO2 molecule (or other GHG molecule) to emit a photon as a result of being in its higher vibrational energy state (on the order of 0.1 to 1 seconds).

Earth’s surface radiated LWIR energy reaches space via the total emission from all gases in the atmosphere at their integrated thermal radiation spectrums as a function of their individual optical depths from TOA.

Last edited 1 year ago by ToldYouSo
Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2021 9:16 pm

I don’t think he’s claiming no GHE. I think he’s asserting that water vapor feedback cancels a lot of the CO2 downwelling in the troposphere. Not sure he’s right, b/c then w/v is condensing. The fallacy the Climate models make, and I think E Shaffer is making, one of a blue sky Earth. Clouds are the true bug-a-boo that do lots of things in a very complex manner depending on latitude, altitude of cloud layers, and optical depth of the water droplet layer. There are so many degrees of freedom in clouds on our planet and climate-weather-radiation feedbacks, there is no way to ever model it in a computer.

Reply to  Dave Fair
October 8, 2021 3:30 am

He and his like-minded “no GHE” brethren have polluted WUWT with their bullshit for years. “

Do you mean those GHE sceptics who ask lukewarmists to provide evidence that the GHE is a real forcing and that it can raise the planet’s surface temperature?

I would also put the same request to climate alarmists because their belief has the same basis as that of lukewarmists.

Lukewarmists are like those people who say Extinction Rebellion or Insulate Britain are thoroughly disruptive and not making any friends with their actions. But then they spoil it all by adding ” … but they do have a point”.

No matter how many times their pet theories have been demonstrated as false by real science”

Sorry, Dave Unfair, I must have missed that bit. When did you or any of your lukewarmist bretheren ever do that. When did you ever offer evidence that the GHE is a real forcing and has the ability to raise the surface temperature.

Typical lukewarmist sophistry.

Dave Fair
Reply to  leitmotif
October 8, 2021 9:07 am

Look, people, don’t blame me or “lukewarmers” for the corruption of CliSciFi by politicians, profiteers and ideological socialists of all stripes. If nothing else, the failure of the UN IPCC CliSciFi models proves CO2 does not have the claimed impact on global temperatures.

If you can’t accept the physics of radiative gases as demonstrated by real physicists, go complain to them. I’m sure that Dr. Lindzen and others like him would appreciate your putting them straight.

I’m done commenting on this non-science. It is all bullshit and imaginative math.

Reply to  Dave Fair
October 8, 2021 5:58 pm

If you can’t accept the physics of radiative gases as demonstrated by real physicists”

I’m trying to work out what sort of idiot you are Dave Unfair.

Why do you refer to Dr Lindzen when you are at liberty to supply us all with evidence that the GHE is a real forcing and that it can raise the planet’s surface temperature?

I’m done commenting on this non-science. It is all bullshit and imaginative math.”

You’ve said this before then appeared next day saying the same weird sentences.

Put up or shut up, Dave Unfair.

Reply to  Dave Fair
October 8, 2021 11:33 am

So Dave what is the emissivity of CO2? I say it has, per Hoyt Hottel, an emissivity of near zero. I have posted the graph showing what experimental data showed. Peta of Newark post a chart showing emissivity of about .0035.

I further say that if dry air was sensitive to IR then there would be a need to have two columns for specific heat tables. One column for IR and the other for with out.

The forcing equation is stupid as it does not account for the increase in mass. It takes twice as much energy to raise temperature of 2 kg of CO2 as 1.

Gregory Woods
October 7, 2021 2:42 pm

Bryan below represents the mentality behind climate alarmism

I thought the text was going to read ‘represents the mentally ill behind climate alarmism’….

Peter W
Reply to  Gregory Woods
October 7, 2021 2:59 pm

Probably a typographical error.

October 7, 2021 2:43 pm

“Stop treating it (i.e., AGW…human-CO2-caused global warming/climate change] as a worthy opponent. Do not ascribe reasonabless to the other side. It is not reasonable, not true, not even plausible.”

~ Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (31 March 2021. Zoom call Clintel Foundation)

Last edited 1 year ago by budbromley
Mickey Reno
Reply to  Bud Bromley
October 8, 2021 10:14 am

Exactly right. Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt are arguing, via their mathematical magic, that ALL water vapor in the atmosphere exists ONLY because there is a smidgen of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is akin to arguing that NO liquid water would exist anywhere on the surface of the Earth (it would all be frozen solid) AND that no water would ever evaporate or sublimate off the frozen surface of that water. These are patently ridiculous arguments, made shamelessly, albeit somewhat tacitly, obuscatorily and duplicitously, by these two high priests of the CAGW(CO2) Climate Scientology.

In Climate Scientology, instead of an E-meter, one uses CMIP models and bogus dendroclimatology statistical prestidigitation in order to self-hypnotize / propagandize.

October 7, 2021 2:44 pm

Of course Mr Bryan could have actually discussed the facts, but that is so passee!

Nick Schroeder
October 7, 2021 2:49 pm

The WUWT kettles are hardly in a place to be calling out the pot models.

Speaking of which:

Fact 1 – The Earth is cooler from the atmosphere/albedo not warmer. If this is correct, the greenhouse effect model is not. If you disagree ‘splain how and why w/o handwavium or unicorn facts.
Fact 2a – According to Radiative GreenHouse Effect theory model, GreenHouseGases must absorb/emit “extra” energy upwelling from the surface radiating as a black body. (TFK_bams09)
Fact 2b – which as demonstrated by experiment, gold standard of classical science, is not possible. If this is correct, greenhouse theory is not. If you disagree ‘splain how and why w/o handwavium or unicorn facts.
For the experiment write up see:
“The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth.””
Richard P. Feynman, “Six Easy Pieces”
No RGHE, no GHG warming, no CAGW or man caused climate change.
Concede or refute or change subject to some esoteric topic with authoritative links you don’t understand and call me names.

K-T Budget solar & calcd.jpg
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
October 7, 2021 3:03 pm

More bullshit.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 8, 2021 9:35 am

Yep, option three.

Reply to  Dave Fair
October 8, 2021 6:05 pm

Dave Unfair gives his well thought out opinion once again.

Must have taken him hours to come up with it.

What a talent!

Smart Rock
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
October 7, 2021 5:48 pm

Take it to Alex Jones.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Smart Rock
October 8, 2021 9:36 am


Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
October 8, 2021 1:13 pm

The ISR of 1,368 W/m^2 carries a S-B equivalent temperature of 394 K, 121 C, 250 F.
Barring extenuating circumstances any molecular stuff caught in this solar wind would be heated to that temperature as is evident in lunar surface temperatures measured by UCLA Diviner mission, the lit side of the ISS considered in its HVAC design and as would be the surface of a naked Earth.

Extenuating circumstance = albedo.
The 30% albedo allows only 70% of the ISR to enter the terrestrial system.
The equilibrium OLR would be: 1,368 * .7 = 957.6/4 = 239.4 plus S-B = 255 K aka -18 C.

288 K w – 255 K w/o = 33 C cooler is garbage.

288 K, 15 C, was pulled from WMO’s/IPCC’s butt.
The K-T diagram uses 289 K, 16 C.
UCLA Diviner says 294 K, 21 C.
HadCrut 4 say 13.69 C, 286.69 K.
NOAA/GISS, RSS, UAH and JAXA speak only of anomalies, variations from some 30 year baseline average, yet never mention just what that number is.

255 K assumes the w/o atmosphere Earth keeps the 30% albedo.
I consider that assumption tantamount to criminal fraud.

Albedo & Heat & Cool 081921 Penn state.jpg
Robert of Texas
October 7, 2021 2:58 pm

It is far easier to dismiss than to disprove. You can’t have a debate based on logic when one side is being emotional about the subject. This is why I refer to the belief in AGW as Climentology – it is a religious belief based in pseudo-science.

John Bell
October 7, 2021 3:01 pm

I simply can NOT believe that a tiny bit more C02 would make a difference when 3/4 of the earth is covered with water which is the MOST IMPORTANT greenhouse gas.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  John Bell
October 8, 2021 9:39 am

No greenhouse effect, no greenhouse gas.

Albedo & Heat & Cool 081921 Penn state.jpg
Rud Istvan
October 7, 2021 3:15 pm

Just more proof that Koonin was over the climate target. Bradley got called on his ad homs and nonsense, and ‘disappears’. An appropriate subject for ridicule.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rud Istvan
October 7, 2021 3:21 pm


Dave Fair
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2021 6:14 pm

Bradley is the author of the Bryan critique (for the downvoter). Rud does sometimes make mistakes, as improbable as that may seem to some.

Last edited 1 year ago by Charlie Skeptic
Gary Pearse
October 7, 2021 3:23 pm

So what are Brian’s
REMOTE or otherwise qualifications to defend the conclusions of thousands of working scientists…. who will conclude exactly what they are paid to conclude.

Robert, did you know that Gavin Schmidt recently admitted that models are running a way too hot, and R. Hansen, father of global warming opined that an imminent 30yr cooling period is ‘plausible’. These are the kind of things one might share with doctrinaire know nothings like Mr. Brian and ask him what he thinks about that.

Can’t find link on Hansen’s (2016?) statement on plausibility of a coming 30 year cooling.This very newsworthy item from the father of CAGW has likely been buried by Google totalitarians.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2021 4:08 pm

Money does have allure.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2021 6:44 pm

R. Hansen, father of global warming

Nope. That distinction should go to Dr. Roger Revelle (Harvard scholar and Al Gore’s supposed mentor). Gore threw Revelle under the bus when he repudiated his original position of AGW. “His 1957 paper with Hans Suess is now widely regarded as the opening shot in the global warming debates.”

BTW … the other guy is James E. Hansen (Predecessor to Gavin Schmidt) … not R. Hansen

Last edited 1 year ago by Rory Forbes
Gary Pearse
Reply to  Rory Forbes
October 7, 2021 8:00 pm

Thanks Rory. The Jim Hansen mistake is a typo. I knew about Revelle – a member of my family did a post Doc at Scripps. I’ve been commenting here at WUWT since 2007!

Revelle stated in 1982 (in an interview) that there was no sign of global warming yet showing above the noise and that we would likely know in 15 years or so if rising CO2 in the atmosphere will cause significant warming OR NOT! Al Gore was furious over this assessment (earlier claiming Revelle was his mentor!). Being an alarmist, Al couldn’t wait. He wanted climate disaster to be already well advanced, as did Jim Hansen.

Revelle was a thorough scientist, and hadn’t committed himself on the warming. He obviously knew that feedback effects could possibly override warming effects. He was the first to explain the resistance to pH reduction in the ocean by the buffering effect of carbonic acid dissociation when CO2 is added to the seawater. It is also known as the Revelle effect (check out the Le Châtelier Principle from the 19th C – it’s this gentleman’s effect, too). Today’s chemically illiterate consensus scientists still don’t get this.

Revelle obviously proved to be wise about the topic as we now no that the effect of CO2 is marginal as a warming factor. By the time his 15years was up, we had entered the “Dreaded Pause” if 18 yrs.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Gary Pearse
October 7, 2021 10:15 pm

Wow … that’s what I like about this place. Make a small input and get rewarded with a large return. Thanks for taking the time to refresh my memory and even fill in some blanks I didn’t know. Clearly you know your way around the story … and then some. It saddened me when such a remarkable scientist like Revelle was cancelled by a corpulent windbag like Gore … suggesting he was suffering from dementia.

I too have been enjoying this site almost from the start … mostly just soaking up the articles and comments. I’ve only been contributing a short while. I do recognize your name though.

October 7, 2021 3:47 pm

I do wish writers would check their spelling and grammar. The content of the piece referred to above is excellent but it’s full of typos, which demonstrate carelessness and completely undermine the arguments being made. This isn’t trivial — proper science demands strong communication and these things matter. Don’t leave anything for the critics to jump on — as this piece shows any excuse will be used to discredit an otherwise sound argument.

Smart Rock
October 7, 2021 5:46 pm

I love it when Bryan uses the term “anthropomorphic climate change“.

He appears to be illiterate as well as ignorant of what science is about.

Or possibly it was a Freudian slip? Perhaps he feels that climate change really is a sentient being, hiding in the clouds, full of malice towards Gaia and the human race! Requiring human sacrifice to appease its anger? He could take that idea to Extinction Rebellion – they would lap it up.

I’ve cheered up already, I feel a lengthy comment brewing inside, full of incisive wit. Later!

October 7, 2021 7:04 pm

It is not my field of expertise and I hate to say something that I could fully discuss. At first I thought it was the mass media like CNN who was making a hyperbole that the three Nobel prize awarded this year made accurate prediction of climate change. I went to the official Nobel Prize website and it says the same thing as the mass media. In this blog there are lots of discussions that the science is not settled as the misanthropic crowd would to claim about anthropogenic climate change. Most of the world’s population does not understand the science especially higher math and physics but they have heard a lot how Einstein, Planck and other nobel prize winners in Physics have been proven to be correct and how those principles have affected his life by providing him with our present technology and gadgets. The Nobel prize on how climate change is accurately predicted because of the work of the three nobel prize winners needs to be elaborated otherwise, the nobel prize and the nobel committee pronouncement will have a bigger impact than the IPCC reports, books written by the misanthropic crowd, and all the mass media reports for the last 30 years on the Anthropocene.

I know somebody in this blog has the expertise to analyze and dissect it for me or us who are very knowledgeable on the works of those three nobel prize in physics for 2021. Thanks

October 7, 2021 8:19 pm

What is interesting about these kerfuffles is that they follow a predetermined script. I pretty much know what Paul Bryan is going to say and how he will react before he even opens his mouth:

A Conflict of Visions, by Thomas Sowell

In addition to these changing asymmetric relationships between the two visions, there is an enduring asymmetric relationship based on how they see each other as adversaries.

Each must regard other as mistaken, but the reasons for the “mistake” are different. In the unconstrained vision, in which man can master social complexities sufficiently to apply directly the logic and morality of the common good, the presence of highly educated and intelligent people diametrically opposed to policies aimed at that common good is either an intellectual puzzle or a moral outrage, or both. Implications of bad faith, venality, or other moral intellectual deficiencies have been much more common in the unconstrained vision’s criticisms of the constrained vision than vice versa. 

In the constrained vision. where the individual’s capacity for direct social decision-making is quite limited. it is far less surprising that those who attempt it should fail—and therefore far less necessary to regard the “mistaken” adversary as having less morality or intelligence than others. Those with the constrained vision tend to refer to their adversaries as well-meaning but mistaken, or unrealistic in their assumptions, with seldom a suggestion that they deliberately opposing the common good or are too stupid to recognize it.

How to Spot an Ideologue

So how do we recognize the language of “ideology” and distinguish it from a “principled position”? One common clue is that those who hold a principled position welcome arguments; they welcome having their position tested and possibly corrected. A principled position always has room for increased subtlety and greater complexity.

Holders of an “ideology,” on the other hand, will tend to eschew argument or any examination of the ideology’s underlying presuppositions or premises, often refusing to concede that greater subtlety may be required to apply the principles to real-life situations. Ideology disdains argument; people with principled positions embrace it warmly and engage in it gladly.

Koonin does not have a vision here but is an obstacle to Bryan’s “vision”, and is thus disposed of in a robotic predetermined manner, that I don’t even think Bryan is aware of it, he just says it automatically as a “default response”.

How people like Bryan get “captured” by these visions is explained in Thomas Sowell’s other book: “Intellectuals & Society“.

Last edited 1 year ago by Anon
October 7, 2021 10:21 pm

Bryan presents as an unhinged lunatic who really has no place in any valid discussion. He appears incapable of discussing anything to do with facts and reality..I know nothing about the man other than the above blog posts but they suggest an academic who has never had to generate his own paycheck, create anything or employ others, never had to answer to the people and therefore lives in a fantasy world of unicorns and fairys where justification and the economic realities/outcomes of actions and thoughts/ ideas are irrelevant.

Deleting his posts would be the smartest thing he has done so far..

October 8, 2021 12:07 am

Who is Paul Bryan – seems to be a nobody – why are we wasting time on this guy?

To bed B
October 8, 2021 12:53 am

We need to remove from science those who are repulsed by the thought of picking to pieces their own work. Instead, we entrench a culture of feeling defiled if someone else does it.

Science is now a waste of resources.

Matthew Sykes
October 8, 2021 1:25 am

It doesnt matter who is paying who, the warming from CO2 is beneficial, last time it was 2-3C warmer the Sahara was green.

Deserts going green is good climate change. CO2 is good, climate change is good. And thats all there is to it.

October 8, 2021 2:43 am

It is about restoring part of one of THE building block of carbon based life on earth to where it came from. It is about helping plants. And for those fanatic alarmists it is about, obsession and religious beliefs..

Danley Wolfe
October 8, 2021 4:58 am

Not very relevant … & generally background ‘noise’ Mark a flag to not prohibit / delete from your device and simply avoid or send to spam folders. Acknowledging and talking about it serves their purpose of distorting and muddying up the true state verifiable scientific knowledge … a.k.a. scientific method which is not what climate models are about.

October 8, 2021 6:55 am

Nor just climate

Stock’s book is moderate and humane. But anything less than enthusiastic total endorsement of the Party Line is grounds for being purged.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights