From You’re The Voice | by Efrat Fenigson
Co-hosted by Tom Nelson & Efrat Fenigson
🎙️ My guest today is Prof. Steven Koonin, co-hosted with Tom Nelson – host of The Tom Nelson Podcast. Prof. Koonin is an American theoretical physicist and former director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at NYU, as well as a professor in the Department of Civil and Urban Engineering at NYU School of Engineering. In the past he was the Chief Scientist of BP’s oil and gas division, served as Under Secretary for Science in the Department of Energy, in the Obama administration, and was the vice-president of Caltech, one of the most prestigious scientific institutes in the world.
Steven is the author of the book “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”, where he argues that while there are some basic facts about climate change that experts agree upon, the meaning of those facts is not so settled, and mainstream scientific studies do not support the notion that there is any kind of climate crisis at all.
This conversation discusses Climate Realism – the sane approach to the “Climate Change” alarmism, and the role of media in shaping public perception. We touched on topics such as the use of the term ‘climate denier,’ bias in the energy industry, the challenges faced by young scientists who question the climate narrative, the role of journalists in spreading misinformation, and the influence of organizations like the UN and Covering Climate Now. We talked about the viral documentary ‘Climate the Movie’ and censorship attempts. Lastly we touched on the funding dynamic in climate research, and geoengineering / chemtrails. Steven emphasizes the need for open scientific discussion and the importance of prudence in considering these interventions. We end with the challenges & optimism in maintaining integrity and truth-telling in a corrupted world.
“For young scientists, speaking out against the climate narrative can be a career killer” — Prof. Steven Koonin
This episode is on Twitter, Spotify, Fountain and more.
Got value? please like, comment, share, subscribe & support my work!
We talked about:
00:00 Coming Up
01:14 Introductions
03:54 Challenging the Term ‘Climate Denier’
06:43 The Climate Discussion “Silence”
09:03 Impacts on Those Speaking Out
10:53 Steven’s Evolution to Climate Realism
16:33 Misrepresentation of Facts
21:37 Organized Online Propaganda
27:34 Climate – The Movie
32:03 Geoengineering & Chemtrails
41:10 Red Team, Blue Team
44:33 Dating CO2 in Deep Ice
45:55 Playing Bongos with Richard Feynman
49:06 Message of Hope
My takeaways:
- The term ‘climate denier’ is offensive and misleading, as sceptics like Steven Koonin base their arguments on scientific evidence.
- Experience in the energy industry can provide valuable insights into how to effectively change the energy system.
- Speaking out against the climate narrative can be a career risk for young scientists due to funding and publishing challenges.
- According to Koonin, misinformation in the media is a result of journalists not digging deeper and scientists not correcting the misrepresentations.
- The UN’s claim to ‘own the science’ and collaboration with Google to control search results proves bias and censorship.
- The documentary ‘Climate the Movie‘ faced attempts at cancellation but gained widespread attention and support from viewers. It has been well-received and has sparked open discussion about climate change, unlike platforms such as Facebook that label it as misinformation.
- The funding dynamic in climate research is discussed, with the observation that adding climate speak to a project can qualify it for climate-related funding. This raises questions about the integrity of research and its bias.
- Geoengineering, such as stratosphere aerosol injection and cloud seeding, is a topic of interest and debate. While it may be technologically feasible to lower the surface temperature of the globe, there are concerns about unintended side effects and the long-term viability of these interventions.
- There is a need for a red team, blue team approach in climate science to encourage open and rigorous scientific discussion and challenge the consensus. However, this approach is not currently favored by the Biden administration.
- Maintaining integrity and truth-telling in the face of corruption is a challenge, but it is essential for scientists to lay out the facts and let people decide for themselves.
Watch on YouTube:
Watch/listen on Spotify:
Follow Prof. Steven Koonin & Tom Nelson:
Prof. Koonin’s book | Tom’s Twitter | Tom’s links
The above interview is archived on our ClimateTV page
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hillary Clinton newly wants people like these jailed.
DHS Sec Mayorkas wanted them silenced via a ‘Disinformation Board’.
Australia has a proposed law that would criminalize them and banish their channels from Australia.
None of which ‘works’ in the real world. All of which proves skeptics are slowly winning the climate war and the warmunists know it. It is very difficult when scientists the caliber of Koonin and Clauser call out ‘climate science’ as unsettled or worse—when the warmunists assert it was all settled long ago. Except—-
their climate models are provably wrong (in several ways), their past disaster predictions didn’t happen (sea level rise did not accelerate, summer Arctic sea ice did not disappear), and their ‘solutions’ (grid renewables, EVs) are physically impossible at scale.
Warmunists have long ignored reality. Now they face the real consequences of ignoring reality for so long. And cannot shut down the global internet highlighting those consequences.
They had almost all information under their control during covid. Radio, print, TV, internet. The only site with 1+ million that didn’t fold was Substack. That was enough to break the scam. If they ever do buy or shut down Substack we have the peer to peer networks like TOR & Qortal.
They will never control it all. We will find ways around their censorship. It’s what we do.
“skeptics are slowly winning the climate war”
Maybe, but it’s way too slow- certainly not in ultra woke areas like Wokeachusetts.
Example, in a local paper in western Wokeachusetts:
State climate chief hears from area farmers on putting climate-resilient methods into practice
https://www.recorder.com/State-climate-chief-hears-from-area-farmers-on-putting-climate-resilient-methods-into-practice-57024302
Very nice.
I’d like Koonin’s opinion on why the American Physical Society has been so adamant about colluding in what is obviously pseudoscience.
This betrayal has been the biggest conundrum for me.
If the APS had spoken out about the CO₂ hysteria the same way they’d jumped on cold fusion, we’d not be in the situation of today.
Thousands of people would be alive who have instead died from Winter fuel poverty, jobs would not have been destroyed, families not disrupted, the middle class would be larger because of the entry of the poor in a more prosperous economy, and trillions of dollars would not have been stolen from the productive population.
Good job, APS. I’ve written to the APS (and the ACS). The response has always been silence.
Koonin knows these people, What could they possibly be thinking?
The APS backstory is revealing. When the ‘top’ issued their original ‘climate policy’ alarmist statement, it triggered not one but two APS physics Nobel prize winners to resign APS with scathing letters. So some years latter, they recruited Koonin to do a ‘science’ review. He held a balanced all day hearing, the 600+ page transcript of which is still available over at Judith’s. APS rejected his recommendations, which led him as an honest scientist to write Unsettled. And nothing thrown at him since has gotten him to change his mind.
Thanks, Rud. I read some of that report, and recall Koonin talking about the need to pay attention to physical uncertainty. Evidently, no one paid attention.
He’s a good scientist, a good writer, and a gentleman.
For the majority of people, employment is a greater priority than integrity. The majority of active deniers like Koonin are retired or tenured professionals.
Look no further then APS funding. Where do members and directors come from. Academia is the dominant source of members. The current president is a climate physicist. Do you think he will do anything that reduces government support for academia.
Academia relies on government bankrolling them. Are there any truly independent universities in the USA? Meaning those not dependent on student loans and/or research funding for economic viability.
Still and all, Rick, they’d have sold their integrity for a mess of pottage — to use an ancient analogy. The reality remains a shock.
It would be an interesting discussion to have with disgraced scientist Peter Ridd and renowned climatologist Michael E Mann.
The current record favours those who side with the government. It is government that has the power to take everything from you.
The choice is really between integrity and poverty in the current world.
The fellow who awakened me to the Global Warming™ science fraud was sacked from a good paying research role in Australia’s CSIRO and ended up lecturing in a second rate technical college to make ends meet.
Galileo died while under house arrest. The church won but admitted their mistake 350 years later. I expect it will take a similar duration to recognise that we are nearing the end of the present interglacial and Mann was a buffoon and data fiddler.
I take your point, Rick. The fellow you mentioned was alone, and relatively powerless.
The APS is a prestigious organization. It the officers held a press conference, and spoke publicly as leaders of a national physics organization, they’d be less likely to suffer personal retribution.
Especially, if they organized the other scientific organizations to join with them. And the heads of the national labs. One voice would have them very powerful.
Especially if they were pointing out tax money spent on pseudoscience.
For this to work, you would need a new bogeyman more powerful than Climate Change™ for the governments to fight in order to make us safe.
Covid took the stage for a while but Climate Change™ is currently the main cause to fight. I doubt wars will get to that level of engagement because the ultimate weapons already exist. The war against terrorism is doing OK as a cause but sort of run its race. Esafety™ is a an emerging cause but a reactively narrow war on the owners of the social media platforms. And it supports the government agendas of silencing anyone countering government propaganda.
Climate Change™ is inspired because every weather event that is outside of average gets labelled climate change and the only way tio fit it is to reduce carbon emissions.
Academics have to make a living and supporting government initiatives are the best way of being financed.
I hope someone does a good job of documenting who all the cowards in “climate science” are- for that future when it’s revealed to the masses, living in poverty and hunger.
But we will be happy, according to the WEF.
About 35 years ago, Rustum Roy, a material scientist at Penn State Univ., who
was highly critical of the US government programs for funding academic research, coined the term “welfare queens in white coats” for the scientists who were always soliciting the government for research funds.
Now adays any scientist who blurts out “global warming” or “climate change” gets showered with funds from the “Global Warming Research Gravy Train”!
Somebody should do a fake climate research funds request- something absurd- ask for a ton of $$$.
One of these crazy projects is a scheme for removing CO2 from the air. If CO2 is removed from air, CO2 will bubble out of the oceans to replace it.
There’s a new movement- to end all forestry- and all tree cutting everywhere- so that all trees will serve only one function- to sequester carbon. Presented to us by people who already own a nice wood home loaded with nice wood furniture. One of the forestry haters here in Wokeachusetts was a piano teacher. She has several pianos made with tropical hardwoods.
They’re cowards, IMHO. Especially those at the top of the profession. If they had guts, the rest, mostly cowards, would follow.
Other than your used of the derogatory “active deniers” a well though out response.
We are not deniers. We are pragmatics and skeptics who seek the true reality.
Unfortunately alarmism is not pseudoscience; it is just wrong. There is complex evidence for skepticim and for alarmism. The alarmists accept the latter, especially the models, and reject the former. A big part of the problem is that the weight of evidence is relative to the observer (Wojick’s 2nd law). Reasonable people in complex cases can look at the same evidence and come to opposite conclusions. Prolonged scientific debates are as old as science. When you add huge policy implications the liklihood of polarization is increased.
There isn’t any physical evidence for alarmism, David.
It’s all climate models, and their air temperature projections are physically meaningless.
One would think the physicists of the APS would be able to figure that out.
It’s fraudulent pseudoscience when they pretend that tree rings are thermometers.
pseudoscience:
“Pseudoscience consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method.”
That rings of fraud.
Or delusion. Or incompetence.
Pat,
Similarly, the formerly highly regarded Australian Association for the Advancement of Science has been captured by radical activists whose lack of proficiency in Science is shown in their recent publications.
We need bodies like this to exist as exemplary to guide those youngsters seeking ideals as they commence a career in Science.
They do not need poor Science examples or propaganda.
Geoff S
I used to think I understood something of Australia, Geoff. But their acceptance of tyranny in the name of safety during the Covid execresence shocked me into another view..
“I’d like Koonin’s opinion on why the American Physical Society has been so adamant about colluding in what is obviously pseudoscience.”
Scientists, like everyone else, can be stupid and selfish and fearful.
One would have thought that most would have the courage of their convictions. But evidently not.
You’re the voice.
The power of propaganda is pretty amazing. It can bamboozle an entire population of people with just words and numbers. When you think about Dr. Koonin and Dr. Happer, as just two examples, the Physics of radiation and energy balance, of this planet, it becomes clear these two know nothing about “the science”. /s
Never mind physicists, statisticians should be pointing out that any model of a non-deterministic system with so many variables cannot possibly predict outcomes to the levels of accuracy claimed by climate scientists.
This fact alone should be voiced loudly and clearly but isn’t because people are too worried about losing their jobs if they speak out. It’s an appalling situation, which reveals how the entire field of climate is now about politics, not science.