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….
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.