On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:37:34 PM UTC+11, Flyguy wrote:> On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 5:59:37 PM UTC-8, bill....@ieee.org wrote: > > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 2:20:19 AM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whi...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 8:40:54 PM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: > > > > > > > >> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. > > > > > > > >No, it doesn't. > > > >Lots of folk, however, WERE dead 20 years ago; maybe you've just mistaken > > > >which group 'we' are in? > > > The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but > > > still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot > > > more. > > > > > > Has anyone driven the west side highway in Manhattan lately? In a boat? > > > Not since Hurricane Sandy (when it did get submerged). This does seem to be the sort of thing that Hansen has predicted (in broad terms) back in 1988 and some reporting clown had misunderstood to be a prediction of a persistent state. The climate change denial propaganda machine does seem to have latched onto this misrepresentation ( and others). > > > > John Larkin is much too vain to admit that he has been conned. > > Hey Sloman, Hansen wasn't talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.That's what the reporter may have thought, but Hansen is rather too good at his job to have said anything that silly, though jdiots like you and John Larkin may chose to believe otherwise. Hansen has - much more recently - suggested that the IPCC is being a little too optimistic about sea level rise there is something like ten metres of sea level rise tied up in the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets, and when they sllde off into the sea this may happen quite fast, but there's no sigh that it has started happening yet. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
Started by ●November 29, 2021
Reply by ●December 2, 20212021-12-02
Reply by ●December 2, 20212021-12-02
"the concepts "male" and "female" are essentially social constructions" (Bill Sloman) "the Mueller investigation was about Trump only because Trump made it so" (Bozo paraphrased) A chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with... -- Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:> X-Received: by 2002:ad4:5aa4:: with SMTP id u4mr10715778qvg.7.1638411677273; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 18:21:17 -0800 (PST) > X-Received: by 2002:a25:4cc5:: with SMTP id z188mr12115575yba.248.1638411677077; Wed, 01 Dec 2021 18:21:17 -0800 (PST) > Path: eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail > Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design > Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST) > In-Reply-To: <fosfqg967q60iiuvmsruoi2hr1mp1a9sg7@4ax.com> > Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=203.213.69.109; posting-account=SJ46pgoAAABuUDuHc5uDiXN30ATE-zi- > NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.213.69.109 > References: <mf6aqglflu5p82tes7o9okm5f24c0dcpna@4ax.com> <e4021b5b-7ddf-4433-a1a4-f52db4b547een@googlegroups.com> <evbdqgtbekp55jap43pdknpp7pa377r5te@4ax.com> <34bd9b74-d38c-41f7-bc97-84ec89b9c936n@googlegroups.com> <fosfqg967q60iiuvmsruoi2hr1mp1a9sg7@4ax.com> > User-Agent: G2/1.0 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Message-ID: <ff6ee458-3eb5-4680-9f66-30c1b31747f8n@googlegroups.com> > Subject: Re: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters > From: Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> > Injection-Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2021 02:21:17 +0000 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Lines: 110 > Xref: reader02.eternal-september.org sci.electronics.design:654063 > > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interes > t. >> >> >> >> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book: >> >> >> >> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-cli > mate-11619383653> >> >> >> >> >> >> "� ~Unsettled� T Review: The � ~Consensus� > T On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P. >> >> >> Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon: >> >> >> >> >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/d > p/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why > It >> >> >> Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover � " April 27, 2021, by St > eve E. >> >> >> Koonin, 320 pages. >> >> >> >> >> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original > >> >> >> literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from > >> >> >> those claims. >> >> > >> >> >From the Amazon reviews >> >> > >> >> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Glo > bal fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. " >> >> > >> >> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propag > anda machine. They do seem willing to pay well. >> >> >> >> You are actually making Koonin's point. >> > >> >Far from it. >> > >> >> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of > points, some material context has been omitted: >> >> >> >> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and > >> >> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating. >> > >> >Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda mach > ine. >> >> Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning. > > I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry, > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt > >> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings. > > > And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in. > >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the >> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source >> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary >> left much context and perspective out. > > But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail. > >> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get th > e rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles. > > A heroic task. Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now > > https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm > > starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous. > > Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's. > > -- > Bill Sloman, Sydney > >
Reply by ●December 2, 20212021-12-02
jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> John Doe <always.look@message.header> wrote: >> whit3rd <whit3rd@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote: >>> >>>> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago. >>> >>> No, it doesn't. >> >> "US shivered through its coldest February in more than 30 years" (USA >> Today, March 2021). > > What's different from 30 years ago, and from 100 years ago, is pervasive > 24/7 instrumentation everywhere. Of course we set records.They are talking about same-place records in over 30 years.
Reply by ●December 2, 20212021-12-02
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:20:55 PM UTC+11, John Doe wrote:> Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > > On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman > >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> > >> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > > > >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman > >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > > > >> >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653><snip>> >> >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover " April 27, 2021, by Steve E. Koonin, 320 pages. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from those claims. > >> >> > > >> >> >From the Amazon reviews > >> >> > > >> >> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. " > >> >> > > >> >> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well. > >> >> > >> >> You are actually making Koonin's point. > >> > > >> >Far from it. > >> > > >> >> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted: > >> >> > >> >> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and > > > >> >> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating. > >> > > >> >Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine. > >> > >> Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning. > > > > I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry, > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt > > > >> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings. > > > > > > And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in. > > > >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary left much context and perspective out. > > > > But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail. > > > >> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles. > > > > A heroic task. Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now > > > > https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm > > > > starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous. > > > > Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.<snipped John Doe's usual irrelevancies>> A chronic liar who cannot be reasoned with...Not that John has ever made a specific c;aim about where I might have lied, or tried to reason with me - not a task for which he is well-equipped. He's just a nasty example of the right-wing lunatic troll, without anything useful to say. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 2, 20212021-12-02
The John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sdhn7c$pkp$4@dont-email.me>:> The troll doesn't even know how to format a USENET post...And the John Doe troll stated the following in message-id <sg3kr7$qt5$1@dont-email.me>:> The reason Bozo cannot figure out how to get Google to keep from > breaking its lines in inappropriate places is because Bozo is > CLUELESS...And yet, the clueless John Doe troll has itself posted yet another incorrectly formatted USENET posting on Thu, 2 Dec 2021 05:20:49 -0000 (UTC) in message-id <so9l3g$ve9$4@dont-email.me>. gHxlyeyWQOEW
Reply by ●December 2, 20212021-12-02
On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 7:20:19 AM UTC-8, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:> The great thing about climatology is that you can be all wrong but > still have a lucrative career for 20 years or so, sometimes a lot > more.Lucrative? In Earth sciences, other than prospecting, nothing of the sort is seen on this planet. Where are you from?
Reply by ●December 2, 20212021-12-02
On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:>On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman >> >> <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: >> >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest. >> >> >> >> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book: >> >> >> >> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653> >> >> >> >> >> >> "�Unsettled� Review: The �Consensus� On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P. >> >> >> Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon: >> >> >> >> >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1> >> >> >> >> >> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It >> >> >> Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover � April 27, 2021, by Steve E. >> >> >> Koonin, 320 pages. >> >> >> >> >> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original >> >> >> literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from >> >> >> those claims. >> >> > >> >> >From the Amazon reviews >> >> > >> >> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. " >> >> > >> >> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well. >> >> >> >> You are actually making Koonin's point. >> > >> >Far from it. >> > >> >> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted: >> >> >> >> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and >> >> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating. >> > >> >Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine. >> >> Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning. > >I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry, > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_DoubtThe original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500 reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.>> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings. > >And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in.Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin's claims.>> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the >> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source >> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary >> left much context and perspective out. > >But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail.Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.>> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles. > >A heroic task.Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is immense, which makes such an approach impossible. One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every five years or so.> Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now > >https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm > >starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous.Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks. Arrhenius solved it: .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>>Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change. Joe Gwinn
Reply by ●December 2, 20212021-12-02
On Friday, December 3, 2021 at 11:37:57 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote:> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman > <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 9:31:13 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 10:24:51 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman <bill....@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 5:29:08 AM UTC+11, Joe Gwinn wrote: > >> >> >> I just finished reading the following book, which may be of interest. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The Wall Street Journal reviewed this book: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> .<https://www.wsj.com/articles/unsettled-review-theconsensus-on-climate-11619383653> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "‘Unsettled’ Review: The ‘Consensus’ On Climate", WSJ, By Mark P. > >> >> >> Mills, April 25, 2021 4:47 pm ET. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Which led me to buy the book on Amazon: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> .<https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> "Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It > >> >> >> Matters", BenBella Books, Hardcover – April 27, 2021, by Steve E. > >> >> >> Koonin, 320 pages. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> The author chases various loudly-made claims back into the original > >> >> >> literature cited in the IPCC reports, draining all the drama from > >> >> >> those claims. > >> >> > > >> >> >From the Amazon reviews > >> >> > > >> >> >"As more scientists look at Koonin's work, it is not faring well. Global fire decreasing? Apparently he is using figures that mostly measure man-made fires set by farmers, which are decreasing. Wildfire is increasing. Greenland not melting faster than 80 years ago? Well it is melting faster than 60, 70, 90 or 100 years ago. But there was a brief heat wave 80 years ago, making the statement true but irrelevant. It goes on an on like that. His claims are a mish mash of untruths, cherry-picked facts, misrepresentative claims and some actual truth mixed in. But it should not be taken as an honest review of climate science. " > >> >> > > >> >> >It looks as if he has been got at by the climate change denial propaganda machine. They do seem willing to pay well. > >> >> > >> >> You are actually making Koonin's point. > >> > > >> >Far from it. > >> > > >> >> While it's true that some of the one-star reviews made these kinds of points, some material context has been omitted: > >> >> > >> >> There are 2,533 ratings so far, with 82% of them being five-star, and > >> >> 2% being one-star. Few books get that high a five-star rating. > >> > > >> >Unless they are being hyped by the climate change denial propaganda machine. > >> > >> Ad hominem, a classic flaw of reasoning. > > > >I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry, > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt> > > The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500 reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.Clijmate change denial is well known, well documented, and entirely predictable. The logical fallacy here is to deny it's existence, and take it's predictable manifestation seriously.> >> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings. > > > >And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in. > > Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin's claims.And you ignored the specific ciriticism that I pulled out of the Amazon reviews, on the basis that it was a minority opinion - not on the bais that it was wrong. That's ad hominem.> >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the > >> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself cited as the source > >> for this or that summary chart, while pointing out where the summary > >> left much context and perspective out. > > > >But the Amazon review I cited pointed out where Koonin had left out context and perspective. If you concentrate on areas where text-chopping will work well, you can produce a short and ostensibly well written book. It's easier to be deceptive when you can leave out most of the detail. > > Even if true, irrelevant. Check the cites and know the answer.More work than the subject deserves.> >> Given those cites, one can go back to the underlying articles and get the rest of the story, and verify or refute Koonin's take, without resort to ad-hominem arguments. You do not need to trust him, or care about his motives, however evil. Just check the cited articles. > > > >A heroic task. > > Not at all. One need not read the entire literature, which is immense, which makes such an approach impossible.Climate scientists do have to read the entire literature, or at least a representative sample. Getting a Ph.D. in a subject involves writing a literature review, which takes a lot of work - mine certainly did,> One need only randomly check the cited articles and decide if the cited summaries are in fact a correct summary. And there are not all that many to check, and these are precisely those chosen by the IPCC , as supporting various points in the big summaries that come out every > five years or so.But first I'd have to read the book, and the critical Amazon review makes it fairly clear what I'd find.> > Climate change has been an interesting topic for more than a century now > > > >https://history.aip.org/climate/timeline.htm > > > >starts off with Joseph Fourier in 1824. Voluminous collection of data didn't really get under way until computers became ubiquitous. > Not to mention observation satellites and weather radar networks. > > Arrhenius solved it: > > .<https://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf>And if you had read a bit more, you'd realise that Arrhenius came up with a correct hypothesis, but not one that was supported by what was known about the infra-red absorbtion spectrum of CO2 in the gas phase at the time, which wasn't up to resolving the rotational fine structure of the spectrum - each vibrational absorbtion line can be resolved into a series of sharp lines - the P, Q and R branches - and those sharp lines have much higher extinction coefficients than the unressolved vibrational absorbtion appear s to have at lower resolution. Arrhenius's hypothesis didn't fit the data that was available at the time.> >Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's. > > Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.Global Cooling wasn't a "worry". It was just something journalists - and occasional scientists looking for attention - speculated about. Global Warming superseded it as more data began to accumulate. Even in the 1980's it was more a speculation than any kind of warning, but as the data built up it got to the point where Al Gore could put together the story he was getting from his scientific acquaintances and publish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance in 1992. You want to equate the occasional speculations about global cooling with what we now know about anthropogenic global warming, which is a typical denialist device to minimise the extent of our current knowledge, not to mention the seriousness of the problem. -- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply by ●December 3, 20212021-12-03
On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote:> On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 18:21:16 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman > <bill....@ieee.org> wrote:> >I'm not saying anything about Koonin. I'm talking about the well known and well documented activities of the climate change denial industry, > > > >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt > The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500 > reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem.Oh, no, that's an unacceptable slur; the '2500 reviewers' claim is clearly snake-oil, on a par with the famous 'Hundred Authors Against Einstein'; if the book's claims were really sound, it'd convince experts rather than volunteer reviewers. Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record.> >> The book is short and well written, which might help with star ratings. > > > >And it provides a comforting message for anybody who fancies climate change denial, which is where confirmation bias comes in. > Even if true, irrelevant. The question is how to assess Koonin's > claims.Not at all. Koonin didn't do any of the research, he just collected it.> >> What I like about Koonin is that he provides detailed cites to the > >> same peer-reviewed articles that the IPCC itself citedwhile not coming to the conclusions that IPCC reached? Then either a large international conclave, or a lonely individual, has missed something. I'd distrust the individual first.> >Climate change denial - as a reaction to the more detailed and worrying data - didn't get under way until the 1990's.> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later > gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change.False claim, there. In the 1970's, cooling was an hypothesis, not trusted nor a prediction, just a reasonable place to put some prove-or-disprove resources. By the early 90s, climate change basically stopped having any scientific holes, was a solid prediction. Warming versus Change are just distinction in labels, not differences.
Reply by ●December 3, 20212021-12-03
On 03/12/21 07:09, whit3rd wrote:> On Thursday, December 2, 2021 at 4:37:57 PM UTC-8, Joe Gwinn wrote: >> The original ad-hominem was directed at the bulk of the ~2500 >> reviewers. This is directed at Koonin. But it's all ad hominem. > > Oh, no, that's an unacceptable slur; the '2500 reviewers' claim is clearly snake-oil, > on a par with the famous 'Hundred Authors Against Einstein'; if the > book's claims were really sound, it'd convince experts rather than volunteer reviewers. > Some deep pockets are involved if 2500 reviewers write for the record. > > >> Yeah. In the 1970s, the worry was about Global Cooling, which later >> gave way to Global Warming, which gave way to Climate Change. > > False claim, there. In the 1970's, cooling was an hypothesis, not trusted nor a prediction, just > a reasonable place to put some prove-or-disprove resources. By the early 90s, climate change > basically stopped having any scientific holes, was a solid prediction. Warming versus Change are > just distinction in labels, not differences.Those are three solid observations. Of course they won't convince someone whose beliefs are base on emotions and/or their pay packet.
