One of our favorite Climate ScientistsTM, Andrew Dessler recently appeared on the Joe Rogan Experience. I believe it was the Katastraphic Klimate Konsensus’s response to the transgression of previously allowing Dr. Steve Koonin to appear.
Some reactions on non-climate Twitter may not be what he was hoping for.
And
And…
MasterResource has another excellent article on Dessler’s behavior
By Robert Bradley Jr. — February 17, 2022
[Andrew] Dessler said anyone arguing that the science is too uncertain isn’t arguing from a legitimate position…. “[Koonin]’s a climate flat earther.” (Quoted in Benjamin Thorp, October 18, 2021).
“Dumb arguments” is too harsh? He’s just a old white dude whose vast experience in the halls of power gives him a unique ability to point out the errors that other people make? Nope. (Andrew Dessler, October 14, 2021)
Andrew Dessler, a climatologist at Texas A&M University, will have nothing to do with any critics of climate alarm. This activist has pure scorn toward his intellectual and scientific doubters. “Angry Andy” is certain that climate science is settled and drop-everything alarming.
A deep ecologist (nature is optimal and fragile; human interference cannot be good), Dessler has long concluded that we are headed for (or already in) a climate dystopia. Any fair hearing of the less extreme view of global lukewarming/CO2 benefits would be a leak in the dike, one that could expand and take down the Wall of Climate Gloom.
But for now, the cancel culture is at work with climate science in particular. Michael Mann (Dessler’s colleague in arms) put it this way:
All of the noise right now from the climate change denial machine, the bots & trolls, the calls for fake ‘debates’, etc. Ignore it all. Deniers are desperate for oxygen in a mainstream media environment that thankfully is no longer giving it to them.
Report, block. Don’t engage.
Imagine an open-minded young person considering a career in climatology. He or she wants to really wants to probe the look-the-other-way areas of uncertainty with climate-feedback physics and with climate models. Seek and expand the frontiers of knowledge under the highest standards of the scientific method. Show professionalism and respect for the views of colleagues and others. Experience politeness and social skills, given and received.
That person best not enter into a profession where an Andrew Dessler or a Michael Mann or a John Holdren would sneer and blackball. Remember what Mann said about Judith Curry in Climategate: “I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she thinks she’s doing, but it’s not helping the cause, or her professional credibility.” Cancel Culture 101.
Steven Koonin
Enter Steven E. Koonin, University Professor at New York University. This noted theoretical physicist is author of the best-seller: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters (2021). Having taught theoretical physics at the California Institute of Technology for most of his career, Koonin went on to work for BP (new technologies) and then as Obama’s Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Department of Energy. In this position, Koonin oversaw climate research and energy technology work.
Koonin has a BS in Physics from Caltech and a PhD in Theoretical Physics from MIT. A specialist in modelling complexity, Koonin wrote the classic 1985 textbook Computational Physics.
Koonin is author of 200 peer-reviewed papers in the fields of physics and astrophysics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy, and climate science, as well as having been lead author on multiple book-length reports, including two National Academies studies.
In short, Steve Koonin is a leader in his field and well respected. And, it turns out, he is honest and of an age and tenure where he can speak truth to power.
Dessler’s Smears
Here is Dessler on Koonin:
I actually hate to weigh in on Koonin’s book …. Here are a few thoughts. First, Koonin has a track record of making dumb, over the top, exaggerated arguments.
Second, his facts are carefully cherry picked to present a specific narrative. For example, he says heat waves in the U.S. were more severe in the 1930s than today. OK, but the U.S. covers 2% of the planet. Globally, heat waves are more severe today.
Also, his belief in models is quite selective. We can’t trust climate models at all — the climate is too complicated!! — but we can have 100% confidence in absurd economic models of GDP growth.
And:
It is important to realize that virtually all experts in the area ARE convinced by the data that humans are ~100% responsible for modern warming. So you can believe Koonin or you can believe the 99.9% of scientists.
And:
Koonin’s arguments are 1) cherry picking of factoids and 2) value judgements about his interpretation of the data and his interpretation of risk. His judgements of the data disagree with virtually all expert scientific opinion. His risk assessment is based on his values.
And:
I typically don’t believe in conspiracy theories, but the fact that Steve Koonin continues to get high-profiles endorsements of his dumb arguments suggests that some powerful media agents have decided that he’s their best bet for trying to cast doubt on climate science. Thoughts?
Dessler likes to use other words against Koonin’s views such as “idiotic complaint” and “denier shuffle.”
Andrew Dessler pretty much embarrasses himself, his department, and his university with such vitriol. Why?
Part of it is Dessler’s certainty that the science has reached certainty on what is known and not known. No shades of grey on the very pessimistic, alarmist black-and-white conclusion: humankind is on the road to doom.
So hyper-emotionally invested. Anything less than alarm–even by a scientist every bit as credentialed as himself–and Dessler must turn emotional and angry.
Second is old-fashioned envy. Koonin’s Unsettled — with sales exceeding 100,000–has outsold all of Dessler’s books put together. Koonin, moreover, has a reputation that Dessler does not. And Koonin is a go-to for a lot of organizations that are trying to cut through a lot of politicized science.
Little wonder that Andrew Dessler will not dare debate Koonin at Texas A&M. (I have offered to underwrite such a campus-wide event to no avail.) The climate alarmist, arguing a speculative position, cannot get away with a lot with the bright lights on. [1]
Appendix: Wrong Again?
Regarding Koonin’s major points against settled, alarmist climate science, Dessler states:
I don’t see that these are the kinds of arguments that get traction with the broad public anymore…. Most people, they look out their window and they can see climate change is real. Given the fact that what’s happening is exactly what was predicted by scientists decades ago. I think that people understand that climate science is real, as described by the scientific community.
Really? Is this a ‘settled’ fact, Professor Dessler?
Actually, it is panic time for climate alarmism among the political and intellectual elite. Citizens are protesting, and voters are voting against the forced energy transformation, itself the flip side of climate exaggeration.
Better yet, with the problems of wind/solar out in the open (and at an early stage of the transition!), the open-minded are looking anew at the science and false climate prognostications of years and decades past. They are not very impressed. Expect sales of Koonin’s Unsettled to grow and another edition to appear in the next years.
——————-
[1] My email exchange with Professor Dessler (11/09/2021) follows. I stated:
Let’s have a debate between you and Steven Koonin or even David Friedman with a full house at Texas A&M to put you on record–will you consider that? I’ll make a $5,000 contribution to the university to help make it happen. Put the bright lights on where the statements will be on the record. Televise it. But it has to have a fair moderator and set-up.
He answered that day:
Add a zero ($50,000, donated to the Texas Center for Climate Studies at Texas A&M) and you have a deal. You can even moderate the event and handle all of the logistics. I’ll find a room on campus.
I answered (11/14/2021):
No thanks for the invitation to increase my contribution from $5,000 to $50,000. And for me to moderate, etc. I want a real debate with me in the audience or watching it on TV. It deserves prime time with physical climate science on trial.
No reason to relegate a climate discussion/debate to the ‘back of the bus,’ right? That is an insult to you, your opponent, and science itself.
So work on a serious budget, and let’s give it the attention it deserves. I will increase my donation appropriately….
A fair debate between the alarmists and the optimists is prime-time important. Why have it in some basement? Let’s put the lights on and have a marque event….
Professor Dessler did not respond….
Yuck. How this person is a university professor? The world deserve better. If this is the best we can have, we are doomed.
They are called thought leaders. You’re racist BTW. The thought leader Ashleigh Shackleford says so.
LOL 🙂
”food”
White people are racist because they are not FAT. Until you are as FAT as me you will always be racist.
This is the myth of Higher Education.
We believe the universities and collages are vast pools of global knowledge and we should be grateful they are willing to share with us small stupid people.
Yet who is telling us they are vast pools of knowledge? Well… they are actually.
They have become a vast circular reference. They tell us how good they are because only they are qualified enough to pass that sort of judgement.
In pragmatic terms the main role of higher education these days is to keep the unemployable out of the job market.
I think these people could work, just not in higher level jobs… They could do “the kind of work the French (American, whatever) people won’t do”.
Dirty, stupid jobs.
But they won’t so they support mass immigration.
He was kind of a joke. I could have talked circles around him
He did exactly what he criticized, leaving stuff out. He was only there as a token but the idea he is a professor…he’s no better than a casual reader of NYT.
I couldn’t even listen to the quack. I’ve heard it before, basically “climate science is as easy as arithmetic and scientific debate is off limits”.
The something (vaccine, climate, migration, political) science is as set as the shape of the Earth.
But…
Give me money to study it!
I stopped watching when Dessler tried to blame thermal expansion failures on Global Warming. He’s a prof. at a highly regarded engineering university. How could he be so ignorant? Is there not a single professor, grad student of even an engineering underclassman who will take Dessler aside and explain to him that design of thermal expansion joints is based on standards and principles that have no relationship to an insignificant change in global average air temperature? The Dean of the Texas A&M Engineering school should issue a public reprimand of Dessler and demand that he set the record straight. His interview with Rogan brings the reputation of a once great institution into question.
For the non-engineers out there, thermal expansion joint design is based on a material’s dimensions, thermal expansion coefficient (change in length per degree change in temperature of the material per length unit, usually in parts per million). The temperature used in the design calculations is based on the extremes known to occur plus a safety factor. The safety factor is always much larger than could conceivably occur in reality. Joint design parameters include both minimum and maximum temperature analysis. There are of course still failures in the real world due to thermal expansion. but they are usually the result of improper construction, deterioration due to age or lack of maintenance.
BTW, thermal expansion failures such as highway pavement buckling, rail road track bending and bridge issues are driven primarily by very high temperatures from direct solar heating. Think “fry an egg on the sidewalk”.
Including the fact that the temperature variations that occur every single day for which thermal expansion joints are designed (not to mention those throughout the year) wildly exceed any climate-driven changes expected by even the worst alarmists.
I stopped at the same point. 40mins of ad hominem attacks on Koonin and incredibly missleading statements on things like renewable energy. Then he started claiming localised weather events and yes the failed thermal expansion joint as evidence of global climate change that anyone can see. This is in direct opposition of what all experts say can be done. Weather is not climate. It was like watching a used car salesman work on an elderly lady. I saw no discussion of actual science at all.
He did admit that koonin’s facts were accurate and both climate models and economic models are unreliable though because they are so reliant on the human inputs that create them.
Absolutely. This was a stupid example and he obviously didn’t understand the issues with thermal expansion. Rogan was right on when he said that looks old. That was just something he found on the internet I guess.
As someone who has engaged in debating since being a teenager, you’d think that such a smart and certain professional like Dessler would be chomping at the bit to debate a dumb, cherry-picking denier like Koonin, just to embarrass him in front of one and all. But nope. There will always be a lame excuse not to.
Because in Progressivism, the best debate is the one that never happens.
“Because in Progressivism, the best debate is the one that never happens.”
Is it time to move beyond the proposal of a debate to settle this issue, to the Grand Jury model that Reiner Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer and their team are currently conducting?
https://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2022/02/grand-jury-corona-investigation-committee-dr-reiner-fuellmichs-closing-statements-qanon-must-video-3619532.html
He was a loser.
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts” Richard Feynman
This is the same Dessler who claimed in 2010 to prove observational positive cloud feedback (as modeled) using clear sky/all sky satellite observations. NASA‘s website gave it prime time at the time. Only problem was, Dessler’s paper posted a figure of his data and regression result. His positive correlation had an r^2 of 0.02–essentially zero. And he was too ignorant of basic statistics to realize it. Steve McIntyre hilariously posted on the goof at the time. It appears that he has not learned much since then. Much the same as Mann and many others of the ‘settled science’ ilk.
They all now have a very basic problem. Their predictions are now provably untrue after almost 40 years:
Sea level rise is not accelerating.
Arctic summer sea ice has not disappeared.
Modeled warming has not materialized.
CMIP6 ECS estimates diverge further from observational estimates, rather than converge.
It is a long list. Children still know snow. Polar bears thriving. Crop yields up thanks to greening. Pacific Islands net gaining surface area. Their favorite ruinable solutions are, in fact, ruining electricity cost and grid stability in CA, UK, and Germany. COP26 failed. China and India won’t play.
So of course Dessler won’t debate. If he does, he is toast.
Do you have a link?
I take it you mean the McIntyre takedown of the Dessler paper.
I did not find the original post, but this follow-on post has all the details.
https://climateaudit.org/2011/09/08/more-on-dessler-2010/
Enjoy.
That was the original I referred to. Thanks. Was a footnote in both ebooks 2 (Arts of Truth) and 3 (Blowing Smoke).
Pity the title has a clear typo in it, the ‘e-‘ clearly doesn’t belong there. The date at the end also seems rather optimistic.
So you don’t think it would be more appropriately “moron-dessler/”?
Even the IPCC doesn’t try to clam that more than 50% of warming is caused by humans.
Nope. They do. Since 1975, about 100% is anthropogenic. AR4,5,6 SPM all agree.
Exactly, and everything in Earth science is being reduced down to CO2; the cause of every major extinction, every climate perturbation, less nutritious vegetables, killing plants prematurely, and every storm.
Yes, their “Contra-Reality” –
Apparently, their brand of “science” is immune to logic and reason.
RWT,
I noticed that and have decided to discontinue donations to a university with the problem you note. The university claims to be one of the top three climate blah, blah, blah … but the research projects and assertions are uniformly group think, bandwagon CAGW.
CO2 turned me into a newt!
I got better…
What caused all the prior warmings of the earth then? And why did they stop when humans started burning fossil fuel.
People did not crawl under glaciers to die only to be exposed with modern human caused warming. That fact alone shows there were warmer periods and cooler periods on earth, but they are not the only ones.
Diatoms. Now it’s oil and surfactant pollution of water surfaces with poor farming practices, and sewage dumping. All that run-off feeds diatoms and together this oils the water surface.
Look for the end result by ggling Black Sea surface temps and Sea of Marmara sea snot.
JF
You are not allowed to ask such questions now . . . except on a few remaining websites, such as WUWT, Climate Etc (Dr. Judith Curry), and joannenova.com.au (Jo Nova).
He’s an Aggie. What did you expect?
As an old Aggie, unless he got an undergraduate degree there, he’s just a ‘professor.. Even older Aggies were worried about what would happen when they let in girls.
As an ‘old aggie’ (class of ’73) I have to say I am embarrassed that he is a professor at Texas A&M.
I have no ties to Texas A&M, but I’m embarrassed he’s a “professor” at ANY supposed institution of “education.” In fact, I’m downright alarmed, especially since he indoctrinates, er “teaches” in the study of “science.”
Dessler is no Aggie. His BS is physics from Rice University, MS and PhD in Chemistry from Haavaad. He is not a climatologist, and he is definitely not an Aggie.
He was a climate alarmist almost from the get-go. He is an activist among the geosciences faculty and even has his own .com website. Cut from the same cloth as Mikey Mann. They even look alike, soft and squishy.
Sounds like the consistency of their withered brains.
or sea snot.
One huge problem is that there is such a vast gulf between what “scientists” know and what journalists write in the media about what they think they heard when they interviewed the scientists. I have many times read the science paper that is the basis of a magazine article, and wondered how the journalist ever came to the conclusion that ended up being published in the media….once in a while the total opposite of what the scientist actually reported.
Add to that scientists who are so invested in their predictions of future disaster as a vocational enhancement for their publish or perish career.
Both Koonin and Dessler probably agree that there has been a degree of warming since the Little Ice Age, and they likely agree on how much IR will be absorbed in 2 meter long tube of CO2 in a laboratory. Those can be shown by scientific investigation. But Koonin and Dessler have very different views about whether CO2 is a problem in Earth’s atmosphere by 2100 or not. I wouldn’t hold out much hope for them being civil with each other in that debate.
And they are both smart enough to get a Ph.D. but can’t actually tell us the answer, because they don’t know.
Scientists are more often wrong than right. If that were not the case there would be no need for experiments and we could go straight from hypothesis to theory, skipping out all those inconvenient bits of the scientific method.
Prof Dessler is too arrogant to admit that climate science, from both sides of the debate, is mostly wrong and climate prediction is nothing more than guesswork (hypothesis) which has time and again over the last 50 years proven to be a fools errand.
Like Pfizer and Moderna doing away with the control groups.
Now why do you stir up a hornet’s nest 😉
Maybe does’nt like the sting of the jab?
They always fail to admit the following observation made by some sage a while back: “in theory, theory and practice should be the same. In practice, they’re not.”
Yep.
Who needs a public humiliation in a debate with Koonin when you have a complicit mainstream media who will unquestionally publish / broadcast every alarmist utterance you make, and even sex it up for you.
Did you not read the article?
Boff Doff Foff
Yup, watched the Dessler vid, the Joe Rogan interview with Koonin, and read Koonin’s book too. If you have a diff interpretation maybe write more than 6 words explaining your POV.
>> One huge problem is that there is such a vast gulf between what “scientists” know and what journalists write
This scientist sounds exactly like what you read in the papers.. the science is settled 99.9% have no doubt.
The problem is this is not the whole truth and he should be exposed for his omissions, becasue unlike a short-lived journalist, Dessler has a scientific code and ethic or should be removed from his position!
I’m pretty sure there are people on this forum who would be willing to chip in to finance the debate!
Nope, not me.
It would never be reported honestly in either the media or the scientific press. Any kind of debate between fanatics and sceptics is a hiding to nothing for the sceptics no matter how successful they were.
The one and only thing that will severely damage the alarmist’s position is happening right now; it’s hitting people in their wallets right across the western world thanks to Biden and Boris’ zeal to deliver NetZero.
When the middle class struggle to heat their homes and run their cars there will be hell to pay.
Yes, hell to pay.
I was at Costco the other day, nibbling on free samples, and I happened to notice that a 2 lb package of king crab legs was about 80 bucks.
Frozen I hope.
At that price, they’ll be there for the rest of Brandon’s term, and if they’re not frozen, they’ll be smelling like him and just as unappealing.
Lamb meat is up to about $25 per pound, about a 3x increase in less than a year.
Let’s Go Brandon!
I was off a bit, only $18/lb for lamb; still is 300%.
Looked at ribeye steaks the other day at the grocery store. $28 per pound. Four steaks were packaged together at $115.
Rogan should find three people to debate it – alarmist, luke warmer, and an Earth scientist such as Steele.
Three kinds of people back this monstrous fraud: scumbags, fools and programmed children who grow up to be fools. It’s settled science.
And, of course, this sorry POS wears a shirt adorned with the insignia of my alma mater.
UGH
Although I have three degrees from it, and both my kids went there, I disavowed mine a decade ago. Not a cent until they act to disavow their warmunists as I have requested. The U major gifts team finally got the message and stopped visiting me annually at my potential donor dinner expense.
You have to get over your allegiance to schools. You are not smart because of them.
I really appreciate this comment. The continued support for this a$sclown embarrasses me. This used to be the most conservative school in Texas. Maybe it still is…maybe they need token liberals. I don’t know anymore, but the disappointment is real. The school I used to know prided itself in promoting traditional family values and rational, critical thought…unlike the liberal cesspool 90 miles west.
Dessler must be desperate he is stealing Barbara Boxer’s line: “we just need to look out the window to see climate change impacts” Barbara Boxer 2014.
People are not stupid, I’m not sure inanities on that level work.
Works for Greta though 🤣
I just looked out my window and all I saw was white stuff that they said would never happen again…Does that count as a failed prediction?
The corollary is it only counts what is going on “outside your window” when it’s “bad.” None of the nice days are climate related. /sarc
Too many people aren’t looking out their window at all. Hell, for two years some didn’t even leave their house. But they are flooded (no pun intended) with images on their screens of fires, drought, earthquakes, constant storm warnings, floods, etc.
First thought, is there a record of the debate between Dressler and Lindzen? I suspect that would be informative and entertaining.
Looked it up, haven’t viewed it yet, 2 hrs long.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l9Sh1B-rV60
I posted it in another comment. Here it is again https://youtu.be/l9Sh1B-rV60
It is on YouTube. I tried to post the link but got flagged awaiting approval. I was able to post it in another comment.
I listened in FULL to both Podcasts ….. Never listened to Rogan before !!!
I really tried to be fair to Dressler but it is just not possible to deal with these Climate Energy Religious Loons ……. He was just determined to close down the argument with Koonin in the usual way these idiots always do ……. They will never debate anyone !!!
Dessler types…..They follow the philosophy that a public debate between a religious person and an atheist is just giving far too much pulpit time to an incorrect viewpoint.
In other news Neil Young has threatened to remove his music from WUWT. Probably. 🙂
Can’t wait! Self-reverential stoner twit.
And most people didn’t know until he remembered it, that Joe Biden used to be the other half of the Neil Young Brothers.
He clearly failed to see the needle and the damage done.
Who is/was Neil Young?
Of CSNY, which then became CSN when Young stomped off in a huff after his fine plumage got ruffled. He has a long history of being a self-absorbed jerk.
Dessler has agreed to debate Alex Epstein. And he did debate Richard Lindzen at UVA Law school years ago. Link below.
https://youtu.be/l9Sh1B-rV60
During a hot and dry spell in 2011, Dessler predicted that Texas would be hot and dry for the rest of century. That prediction has not aged well.
When Dessler debates Epstein, be sure to let us know. Epstein once debated Bill McKibben and mopped the floor with him. It’s on YouTube. Epstein is extremely intelligent and I bet can easily do the same with Dessler.
It will be at this event on March 11 and 12. Not sure which day the debate is.
http://www.steamboatinstitute.org/event/the-nexus-of-u-s-energy-policy-climate-change-freedom-and-prosperity/
That’s a star studded cast there….
From 10 years ago… https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/13/dessler-paying-the-price-for-climate-change-or-a-case-of-flawed-statistical-analysis/
Does Dessler vote Democrat?
Settled.
I listened to the podcast and pretty sure my IQ dropped a couple of points as a result.
So full of contradictions, circular arguments and general BS.
Watching the two podcasts, one sees the difference between a physicist, and a climatologist. One is dedicated to understanding nature, the other is dedicated to research grants.
Dessler is NOT a climatologist. He is a chemist.
A more accurate description would be “He is a closed-minded idiot.”
“This activist has pure scorn toward his intellectual and scientific doubters.”
************
The way Dressler and Mann treat their peers and others over this climate issue tells us much about what we need to know here. We are dealing in a sacred religious orthodoxy, not science.
Those who are questioning “The Faith” should be thankful we don’t burn heretics at the stake anymore. The Spanish Inquisition keeps coming to mind. Tomas de Torquemada Dressler.
“I actually hate to weigh in on Koonin’s book …. Here are a few thoughts. First, Koonin has a track record of making dumb, over the top, exaggerated arguments.”
Jesus Christ, if that invalidates people from being taken seriously, then 30 years of outrageous claims about the world ending should have this guy embarking on a never ending rant about warmistas!
`
It became settled exactly on January 20th, 1993. That’s when Bill Clinton was sworn in as US President and Al Gore was sworn in as US vice President. They turned on the NSF money spigots to those who proclaimed climate change gospel, and turned off the grants to folks like Bill Gray who they deemed deniers.
No more real debate was allowed from that point forward. #43Bush Jr was just a speed bump for them, slowing down their effort, but too steeped in the Swamp to care. Al Gore of course never recovered his political footing.
Unfortunately, I think you nailed it.
To anyone confused …
I accidentally replied to Dean, then moved my comment to below.
I would like to see a response to the question from people like Dressler & Mann. Unfortunately, if they see discussion like this ahead of time, they will have a pat answer to to weasel out of the question. It would be nice to catch them off guard.
Most people, they look out their window and they can see climate change is real.
Funny, I have been looking out of my window for more than seventy years and do not see it. All I see is recurring weather patterns.
Some politicians can sense it with other parts of their body.
Senator Debbie Stabenow, in 2009, exclaimed, “Global warming creates volatility. I feel it when I’m flying. The storms are more volatile. We are paying the price in more hurricanes and tornadoes.”
I listened to both episodes. I thought Koonin’s delivery was terrible, but spot on with the facts. Dressier was just awful – awful in so many creepy ways.
He spent basically the entire show making backhanded comparisons of Koonin to lawyers representing tobacco companies. Very creepy. What’s even worse is you could tell this was his strategy going in. It was a theme he repeated endlessly.
His arguments that wind and solar are cheaper than fossil fuels beggars believe. It takes about five minutes of research to destroy that story. And his argument that 100% of increased temps is caused by CO2 was ridiculous. Anyone who knows temps dropped from 1940 to 1980 can obliterate that so-called argument. Unfortunately, most people don’t know this.
His refusal to debate the science of climate change backfired big time. Joe is always respectful and pleasant with his guests, but you could clearly see he was not impressed with Dressler. Rogan pressed him on the issue with multiple questions.
JOE ROGAN,
When someone tells you the Science Is Settled, you nicely tell them:
“I have been hearing that the ‘science is settled’ for the last 15 years. I didn’t really give the statement much thought, I just figured that saying ‘the science is settled’ was just a weaselly way to get out of true discussion or true debate. So, I guess I was wrong … tell me then, just exactly when, what year, did the science become settled?”
follow up: “Well, since there really isn’t a month or year when it became officially or unofficially settled, what was the main event, idea, or proof that produced the settlement agreement across the board?”
follow up: “I do realize that it would be tough for you to answer for others, but it seems that you would have at least discussed with others in your field, and you would have an idea. At least, maybe, you can tell me what year and month it became settled for you personally; and what was the final impetus for you, as a climate scientist? (wait … wait … before you answer, take a little time to think about your income string over the last 25 years)”
“Most people, they look out their window and they can see climate change is real. Given the fact that what’s happening is exactly what was predicted by scientists decades ago.”
What?? What window is he looking out of? And which predictions have come true, exactly?? No part of that statement by Dessler is true.
I don’t know much about Mr. Dessler, but I emailed him today saying that “no science is settled”, “no real scientist would ever say so”, and “you are a fraud”. He replied with this question: “You don’t think it’s settled science that cigarette smoking causes cancer?”. I replied with many comments, including “no, the science of cigarette smoking and its effects on human isn’t settled yet”. I’m waiting for his reply and encouraged him to reconsider his debate rejection with Rogan. I was surprised that he replied with such a poor analogy to climate science.
Mr. Dressler,
“I don’t think the smoking of one cigarette causes cancer. There are lots of regular smokers that died in their 90’s from other causes … no cancer. Simple logic … smoking alone does not cause cancer. Not to say that smoking cannot cause cancer.
Smoking can trigger cancer. More smoking is more likely to trigger cancer … sure most agree that this is settled.
But the science of cigarette smoking/smoke, and its effects on human health, and cancer, isn’t settled.
Can you elaborate a little with your comparison/analogy please? I don’t understand how your question about the relationship of smoking to cancer has anything to do with our lack of understanding how the earths climates behave (eg. how clouds & water vapor moderate potential changes … I believe you are an expert on the subject and you were still dead wrong.)”
Errrr . . . make that Mr. Dessler, please . . . I’d like to avoid guilt by association.
🙂
Follow-up: Dr. Dessler did reply. And, his email was reasonable, well-thought-out, and made for a pleasant email conversation. Capturing the gist of his response, I found two main points: 1) He doesn’t enjoy debating, and 2) He recognizes that there definitely still exists uncertainty in the understanding of the science of climate and smoking, but thinks that the uncertainty in both are small enough to take action. Example: Banning the sale of cigarettes to minors. He believes that the debates about the uncertainty are debates about policy; whether or not to take action on the science. I disagree. Regardless, he expressed his views succinctly and politely in his email to me. I wish he would do the same in public – it would be of value to everyone.
I do believe that Andrew Dessler is free to post directly to WUWT if he chooses to do so.
No middle-man is necessary.
>> thinks that the uncertainty in both are small enough to take action
Well this is not a mater of believes, but facts and one fact is that Willie Soon for example has a peer reviewed paper disagreeing with him on that particular point, so until Soon´s paper is falsified, Dessler is just wrong on this point.
Not to forget, that McKitriick had a very critical paper out in 2021 also falsifying the “science is settled” meme.
It is a fact that CO2-feedback only exists in models and those models are not verified and tobacco studies have nothing in common, that discussion only serves as a distraction. We should only get back to it once the climate problems are all solved.
“He believes that the debates about the uncertainty are debates about policy; whether or not to take action on the science.”
and as such, debates about Policy are reasonably characterized as debates about uncertainties & the associated ignorance. The Uncertainty needs to be defined prior to follow-up discussion, let alone adoption, of Policy.
Mr. Dessler 🙂 wants to adopt policy without providing a clear picture of the associated Uncertainty. Cart before the horse type thing … his argument that we got to get there in a hurry, so how we hook up the horse doesn’t really matter is crap. I would rather walk than finagle some way to get the horse to push the cart up the hill.
Climate “science” is all about smoking, just not tobacco…..
\
“climate flat earther.””
Good to know.
Since we don’t fund “Earth curvature verification” teams to know if the Earth is flat, and since doing so would undeniably be considered misallocation of funds or plain robbery, we can’t accept funding of climate studies. In fact, anyone who did validate such funding should be prosecuted.
For those not from Texas: not a sippy cup, Whataburger.
So a few points:
1) He talks a lot about wind and solar and agrees they are not continuous power sources, but that we don’t need a large storage systems or grid wide battery systems because we can just have “dispatchable” power (nuclear /gas etc) ready to fill the gaps, but this only needs to be at around 25% of baseload grid requirements.
How does that work in a situation where wind and solar fail? Which will happen. How will 25% cut the mustard?
2) He also talks about “shifting” the load. So for example if peak generating power with renewables occurs mid-afternoon, but peak load occurs in the evening (when there is no sun), somehow we can “shift” the power generated in the afternoon to the evening. How does that work unless you have grid capacity storage system?
3) He somehow tries to justify “climate models” by saying “economic models” don’t work (he lost me there). Having said that, I am, pretty sure Koonin used economic modelling based on the IPCC data, and even that was pretty conservative (I could be wrong on that)
4) He admits he does not know a lot about battery technologies (when he was pushed on it) but admits we don’t currently have the resources in the ground to go full electric, but that does not matter, we will work it out.
No wonder he won’t debate, too much Magic Bean Stuff going on in his head.
Poor old Joe R, the price you pay trying to keep the lefties onboard.
Dressler says he won’t argue the science, the science is set. What an utter coward. If the science is set and Dressler supports the science then he should be chomping at the bit to debate Koonin. If Dressler were correct then he could rake Koonin over the coals and make a fool of him. Why would he pass up an opportunity like that? I can tell you why, it is because the science isn’t set and I would bet money Koonin would take Dressler to the cleaners and all of the other lazy inept climate scientists with him.
Errrr . . . make that Mr. Dessler, please . . . I’d like to avoid guilt by association.
My apologies.
Dressler thinks CO2 gas can be safely sequestered in deep wells, but fracking water cannot.
Dressler thinks CO2 is 100% responsible for warming, but the IPCC AR5 says CO2 was not high enough to affect the climate until about 1950 … yet sea level rise is recorded back to 1850. Apparently the future controls the past.
Dressler harped over and over that Koonin is a ‘merchant of doubt.’ Yet Dressler was the author of ad hominin attacks, and refused to debate.
The date at which CO2 warming became detectable used to be 1975. I didn’t realise it had changed.
JF
Errrr . . . make that Mr. Dessler, please . . . I’d like to avoid guilt by association.
Your name really is being dragged through the mud, isn’t it! I wouldn’t want to be “associated” with that idiot either!
It’s easy to “doubt” something for which there is no evidence. No “merchants” are required to instill such “doubt.”
Over the top claims?
You mean like:
When Andy D shows up on public display, he is representing himself and his opinions alone. He does not represent the views of his employer, Texas A&M University. Yet he foolishly showed up wearing a Texas A&M shirt as though he is a spokesman for the university. This is a clear violation of the university’s ethics policies and he should be disciplined.
When an employee of the State of Texas speaks in a political forum, he or she speaks as a private citizen unless specifically authorized to represent the views of his employing entity. That is his/her free speech right. But that person has no right to openly associate his private views with those of his employer, the people of the state of Texas.
Andy D is an embarrassment to the state and to his university.
Dessler couldn’t have embarrassed himself any more if he’d tried.
According to Wikipedia, Andrew Dessler “… received a B.A. in physics from Rice University in 1986 and an M.A. and Ph.D in chemistry from Harvard University in 1990 and 1994.[2][4]”
Therefore, following the diktats of Climate Science, he is not a climate scientist -has no degrees in climate science. Therefore, we don’t have to listen to him.
Surely, if the science is settled and 99.9% of climate scientists believe in the climate apocalypse, Dessler would welcome a chance to nail his opponent and expose his falsehoods. Yet no. I wonder why?
Dessler: the science is settled. So now I as a scientist suddenly become qualified to direct “policy”.
Know how to rig the science qualifies me rig the political debate. Let’s get to it.
Richard Feynman said “If you think that the science is settled that is merely an error on your part”.
Sugar Poisoning. Mentally he is just as big a train wreck as Jogo Brandon.
Dessler should be put on sabbatical for at least 2 years and indefinitely until he loses some weight, gets his diabetes under control and quits drinking and all other recreational drugs – for his own sake equally as much as everyone else’s.
Until and when he gets his thought processes sorted out, keep him away from all politicians, media, climate scientists and other children
What was Joe’s reaction to Dessler’s bluster? I’d listen, but I’d be frustrated because I wouldn’t be able to reach over and punch Dessler in his cake hole.
Same as it ever was. Alarmists refuse to open debate because they’ll lose control over the narrative and get exposed for the shysters they are. Actual scientific positions welcome debate, and if they are sound they’ll survive scrutiny.
Strange, neurotic dude. And sloppy, in appearance and in thinking. His twitter threads are loaded with basic errors of fact. His go-to argument is to slur the opposition.
This is a guy who has said that climate change will force humans to migrate underground. that’s a howler if ever there was one.
Presumably he thinks we would be much better off with the Little Ice Age climate, under which billions would probably be starving for lack of ability to grow sufficient food.
Maybe he should go tell all those New York to Florida transplants how much better the climate is in New York, and see what THEY have to say about that.
At least he was honest at the end with the email exchange. It’s all about more money.
I wonder if we need all these words and comments on someone who is just simply a LOSER.
Now, some may consider my statement to be an ad hominem attack, but I think it is pretty objective based on the evidence presented.
Guys like Dessler are the same type who play video games but think they’re actual killer commandos.
And I’ll say this as someone who will never be mistaken for a GQ cover guy: why do these guys all look the same?
Dessler is a big neck guy. Hypothyriodism?, iodine deficiency? cretinism?
>> anyone arguing that the science is too uncertain
and
>> virtually all experts in the area ARE convinced
and many more arguments like that should consider
– that the biggest change for the latest CMIP 6 model generation was the improved
simulation of local clouds.
This massively impacted the simulated CO2-feedback.
I believe this is an undisputed fact.
It does not mean that CMIP6 models have proven to be a reliable representation of the real world, however, it does show that all older models are missing something relevant.
Which means that those 99.9% cited scientists drew conclusions using an incomplete picture, which is very unscientific and should be rightfully criticized.
Not to mention a still missing rebuttal of McKitrick´s critique on attribution, after all he has shown nothing less than the current process is mathematically wrong.
This affects millions of papers and articles over the last 23 years and I think it should be put on any sceptical webpage with a counter.. so far about 6months have passed since Ross invalidated attribution from model results to the real world.
These two easy facts alone put the climate science in a very bad place and this argument from authority Dessler is trying to make here seems just hot air and very unconvincing.
He was given a chance to present facts, but choose not to do so.
In the current state any month delay in an open discussion means another fat paycheck for him and the likes of him.
A pillar of the Scientific Method: debate.
Pro AGW will not.
Point that out every time.
The first five minutes did me. Ad hominem, strawman arguments, sliding away from koonin’s science to talk about values. Lies about the usefulness of renewables, only needing 25% dispatchables, 200 billion of damage from freeze he said was caused by natural gas system incompetence, pipes “bursting “.
Texas A&M is dependent on climate change for funding, Dresser in particular. He is an activist.
As for the 50 grand …. that could be crowd sourced for sure. Then what would he say?
I suggest asking for a Committment in writing if you can get the 50 grand. Full plan for debate recorded live.
I stopped when Dessler debunks Koonin by claiming that he uses the same old tactics.
It would be like a prosecutor telling a jury that they all claim that the evidence is circumstantial, like Ted Bundy’s lawyers did, so it mustn’t be true.
Every scientist, before their work was debunked or accepted, has had to deal with criticisms that there was too much uncertainty for it to be convincing. Deal with it like all the good ones did as well as the tobacco companies.
Everybody who is to be punished, including tobacco companies, have a right to contest the reasoning for it. That they’re motivated because they want to make a profit is irrelevant.
Hmm it would be nice to have a transcript with fact checking comments..
I thought his rebut of Spencer-Braswell was lame. As far as debates, the IQ2 debate between Lindzen and Gavin showed the weakness of the pro-catastrophe argument, Gavin and Co. got wooped.
He claimed 50% of Texas power comes from wind. It’s actually 20% at peak.
He claimed “people are dying by the tens of thousands from coal burning every year”. It’s actually estimated to be 13,000. I do give him credit for pointing out to Joe Rogan that the “smoke” billowing from the stacks in the picture is actually condensation.
Also, almost everything Koonin cites is in the IPCC reports, so he must not agree with the IPCC. Or maybe they’re cherry picking too.
And it’s a mushy estimate just like he was talking about in the beginning.
Dressler was the used car salesman he was talking about. His knowledge was weak, and he spun a lot of obvious bs. He used a lot of the same strategies he criticized. My belief level kept declining with him.