Obama’s Chief Energy Scientist Disputes the Climate Change Propaganda Peddlers

Beyond the Hype

Please consider the Wall Street Journal report How a Physicist Became a Climate Truth Teller

Barack Obama is one of many who have declared an “epistemological crisis,” in which our society is losing its handle on something called truth. 

Thus an interesting experiment will be his and other Democrats’ response to a book by Steven Koonin, who was chief scientist of the Obama Energy Department. Mr. Koonin argues not against current climate science but that what the media and politicians and activists say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.

Mr. Koonin is a Brooklyn-born math whiz and theoretical physicist, a product of New York’s selective Stuyvesant High School. He would teach at Caltech for nearly three decades, serving as provost in charge of setting the scientific agenda for one of the country’s premier scientific institutions. Along the way he opened himself to the world beyond the lab.

From deeply examining the world’s energy system, he also became convinced that the real climate crisis was a crisis of political and scientific candor. He went to his boss and said, “John, the world isn’t going to be able to reduce emissions enough to make much difference.”

His thoughts seem to be governed by an all-embracing realism. Hence the book coming out next month, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters.”

 “I’ve been building models and watching others build models for 45 years,” he says. Climate models “are not to the standard you would trust your life to or even your trillions of dollars to.” Younger scientists in particular lose sight of the difference between reality and simulation:

For the record, Mr. Koonin agrees that the world has warmed by 1 degree Celsius since 1900 and will warm by another degree this century, placing him near the middle of the consensus. Neither he nor most economic studies have seen anything in the offing that would justify the rapid and wholesale abandoning of fossil fuels, even if China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and others could be dissuaded from pursuing prosperity.

The public now believes CO2 is something that can be turned up and down, but about 40% of the CO2 emitted a century ago remains in the atmosphere. Any warming it causes emerges slowly, so any benefit of reducing emissions would be small and distant. Everything Mr. Koonin and others see in the science suggests a slow, modest effect, not a runaway warming. If they’re wrong, we don’t have tools to apply yet anyway. Decades from now, we might have carbon capture—removing CO2 directly from the atmosphere at a manageable cost.

Even John Kerry, Joe Biden’s climate czar, recently admitted that Mr. Biden’s “net-zero” climate plan will have zero effect on the climate if developing countries don’t go along (and they have little incentive to do so). Mr. Koonin hopes that “a graceful out for everybody” will be to see the impulse for global climate regulation “morph into much more impactful local environmental action: smog, plastic, green jobs. Forget the global aspect of this.”

Slow Modest Impact

The above article is right in line with my stated belief all along. 

I do not doubt the temperatures have risen a degree. I do mock the associated fears.

I am highly skeptical of radical models and I also mock the notion that the world as we know it will soon end and that climate change is the “existential threat of our time” as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has stated.

I am not at all convinced that climate change is totally or mostly man-made but actually that is irrelevant. 

Science suggests a slow modest impact. The models anticipate another rise in the oceans of 1 inch by 2050. Heck call it 3 or 4 inches and expect a foot by 2099 if you like.

50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened

Let’s review 50 Years of Dire Climate Forecasts and What Actually Happened

2014 John Kerry: “We have 500 days to Avoid Climate Chaos” discussed Sec of State John Kerry and French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabious at a joint meeting.

I list 21 predictions and what actually happened. 

What Happens When Ice Melts?

Please factor in the cooling impact of melting ice on ocean temperatures. No one has decent models of ocean cooling.

Nature Magazine reports Melting Ice Could Slow Global Temperature Rise.

If there is a solution, it will be a free market solution not a solution by politicians hyperventilating about something that is now too late to stop and would be worth the cost even if we could stop it.

Name Calling Coming Up

Note that if you Don’t Accept 100% of the Climate Change Story and You Get Labeled a Racist

Koonin knows he will get an avalanche of name-calling that befalls anybody trying to inject some practical nuance into political discussions of climate.

The article had a nice finishing touch: “My married daughter is happy that she’s got a different last name,” said Koonin.

To finish on the practical side, barring a major technological breakthrough,  Global Net Zero Climate Change Targets are ‘Pie in the Sky’

Don’t worry, the world will still be here 50 years from now.

Mish

Subscribe to MishTalk Email Alerts.

Subscribers get an email alert of each post as they happen. Read the ones you like and you can unsubscribe at any time.

This post originated on MishTalk.Com

Thanks for Tuning In!

Mish

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

47 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RayLopez
RayLopez
2 years ago

Mish says: “I am not at all convinced that climate change is totally or mostly man-made but actually that is irrelevant. ” – no it’s totally relevant. If global warming is not man made, then whatever humans do to mitigate greenhouse gases won’t stop it. I would push for carbon credits, and ‘geoforming’ the earth using CO2 getters (since I do believe the models that says CO2 gas is trapping heat on the earth) and also Co2 sequestering in the deep sea (best) or land (second best). As for damages, it’s basically beachfront property and polar bears, the latter less valuable than the former, and food prices going up (until they develop drought resistant strains). Long term, getting off of carbon is a good thing since fossil fuels are limited (even Peak Coal, at best a 300 year supply).

Eddie_T
Eddie_T
2 years ago

A balanced view from a smart Brit who knows how to think critically……Mallen is the only media figure who talks about climate (that I know of) whom I trust to take on the hype and reveal it for what it is. He is not a climate denier by any stretch fo the imagination.

But the discussion has been thoroughly muddied by false claims that are being touted as reality…but they don’t stand up to reasonable scrutiny.

Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago

You can run but you can’t hide.

Climate Change Will Force a New American Migration
Wildfires rage in the West. Hurricanes batter the East. Droughts and floods wreak damage throughout the nation. Life has become increasingly untenable in the hardest-hit areas, but if the people there move, where will everyone go?
by Abrahm Lustgarten, photography by Meridith Kohut Sept. 15, 2020, 5 a.m. EDT

Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago

This is reality.

Sea level rise is increasing fastest in populous coastal areas, study says
By Jackson Dill and Brandon Miller, CNN
Updated 8:12 PM ET, Tue March 9, 2021

(CNN)Coastal communities are experiencing sea level rise four times worse than global water rise, according to a new study released Monday.

Groundwater pumping, extraction of materials from the ground and sediment production are all happening near the coasts and that is causing the land to actually sink — compounding the effects of a rising sea level.

It is no coincidence that these are the same locations where people live, worsening the impacts and increasing the vulnerability.
….

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago

The free market isnt going to come up with a solution because it is only looking for profits. Sustainability isnt a profitable thing. It actually involves taking less profit and using profits for sustainability. The free market does the opposite. It extracts the most profit irrespective of all others things.

Mish
Mish
3 years ago

Realist, about all that’s changed with me is how I phrase the debate.

I stay away from all the manipulation charges that have and still occur (where and how we measure temperatures and how much of this alleged crisis is man-made).

It is a religious debate path to nowhere.

It’s easier to focus on how much the models disagree with each other while also pointing out decades of horrendous predictions as to what would happen.

If you want a bone, I have changed a bit on the possible percentage man-made CO2 goosed the problem, but even then I cannot put a reliable factor on it. I do not know, nor do I believe anyone else does either. The models vary widely. And attempting to model the last 100 years when climate has been changing for billions of years is more than a bit problematic but that is a religious debate I choose to stay away from.

Instead, I accurately point out it’s irrelevant. Moreover, and all along I want to end pollution for pollution’s sake and I do not call CO2 a pollutant (no chaange)

I would do away with coal (no change dating all the way back to high school) but still have no problems with NG other than fracking in places where it causes problems (again, no change).

China is poisoning its people (no change) and needs to get rid of coal to produce energy (no change).

The oceans have risen an inch (no change) and this is easily measured.

The oceans might rise another 3 inches (no change) and so what (no change).

Governments will not do anything reasonable about this (no change). If there is a solution it will come from industry (no change).

We should not subsidize anything (no change). In short I have hardly changed at all, if at all, other than to stop the attacks on the science manipulators.

Instead I make fun of 5 decades of bad predictions.

Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago
Reply to  Mish

Well said.

Lance Manly
Lance Manly
3 years ago

BTW: I don’t see the Under Secretary of Energy for Science job description to have anything to do with climate change.

“The under secretary serves as the Secretary of Energy’s Science and Technology advisor, monitors the Department of Energy’s research and development programs, and advises the secretary on any gaps or duplications in them. The under secretary advises the secretary on the management and the state of the national laboratories overseen by the department.[2]

The under secretary also advises the secretary on the department’s educational and training activities. Other aspects include advising the secretary on the coordinating and planning of research activities, advising the secretary on financial assistance for research activities, and carrying out additional duties assigned by the secretary, including supervising and supporting the lower-ranking Assistant Secretaries’ research activities. In the words of the Act, the under secretary is required to have “extensive background in science or engineering fields,” and to be “well qualified to manage the civilian research and development programs of the Department.”[2]”

Lance Manly
Lance Manly
3 years ago
Reply to  Lance Manly

BTW: The maintenance of the nuclear stockpile dwarfs any other aspects of the Energy Department.

Mish
Mish
3 years ago

“By the way the WSJ isn’t exactly an unbiased news source with no agenda. The name of the paper is the WALL STREET JOURNAL for those that don’t know.”

Stop this sort of ad hominem attack nonsense
What in the article do you disagree with?

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago
Reply to  Mish

The fact they didnt disclose that the guy is a political hack that was aligned with the Trump admin.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago

See lance manly post below.

Lance Manly
Lance Manly
3 years ago

How the WSJ has fallen. Let’s leave this out

Steven E. Koonin

Views on climate science
The Trump administration proposed creating “red team” exercises in the EPA to challenge the scientific consensus on climate. Koonin was proposed to be involved in these exercises.[13]

The Trump administration proposed to create a presidential committee in 2019 that would conduct an “adversarial” review of the scientific consensus on climate change. Koonin was actively involved in recruiting others to be part of this review.[14]

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago
Reply to  Lance Manly

How convenient.

Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago

The coasts are going to experience continual sea level rise and related erosion. The area bounded by TX/KS/CA south is going to experience more desertification with the temperate growing area moving northward.

Siberia and Canada are going to become a lot more hospital in terms of weather. Canada could well become a top world power 100 years from now with a warmer climate.

Jojo
Jojo
3 years ago

It’s not just CO2. As permafrost melts away, stores of methane are being released and methane has more than 80 times the warming power of CO2.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago

By the way the WSJ isnt exactly an unbiased news source with no agenda. The name of the paper is the WALL STREET JOURNAL for those that dont know.

Lance Manly
Lance Manly
3 years ago

WSJ used to have a top notch news side and a ridiculous opinion side. Under Murdoch that line has been blurred and it has become the Fox news of Wall Street.

Mish
Mish
3 years ago

What in the article do you disagree with?
Sheeesh

Lance Manly
Lance Manly
3 years ago
Reply to  Mish

The full article is behind a paywall so I can’t really comment on it in total. But the excerpts provided say that we have been pumping out CO2 and that is something that we are going to have to live with. They leave that stopping it now will save the world from the worst effects of climate change. I don’t see any facts, just opinion, aka, the new WSJ. There is nothing of value rather than a grumpy old man

“Younger scientists in particular lose sight of the difference between reality and simulation”

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago

The same WSJ :

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago

Whatever you think, it is happening in front of our very eyes. Prepare for a long fire season Mish. It is worst in Utah, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona.

njbr
njbr
3 years ago

The guy is basically saying is “humanity is screwed”.

He’s of the camp of it’s too late anyway, so “party on, Garth”

That’s a clever jump because it relieves all responsibility.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  njbr

I didn’t see any part where he said humanity is screwed.

Some people will be screwed (if your land becomes desert/you go under water etc), some people will vastly improve (your land becomes arable due to warming/increased rain) and others will stay the same (no real visible effect).

That’s one reason why there will never be a global consensus because not everyone loses.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65

I dont see much increased rain or precipitation anywhere based on the winter data. About half of the country is under drought conditions not seen since 2000.

njbr
njbr
3 years ago
Reply to  TexasTim65

…(your land becomes arable due to warming/increased rain) and others will stay the same (no real visible effect)….

Hmmm, what part of the world becomes more fertile with warmer climate and more rain? Do you think the tundra soil profile is amenable to industrial agriculture?

How many millenea does it take to buildup a soil profile that would match the richness of the midwest?

What part of land fertility has to do with sunlight hours–moving hundreds of miles north would seem to affect sunlight density. There is an association between latitude and crops.

TexasTim65
TexasTim65
3 years ago
Reply to  njbr

They have begun growing grapes and vineyards in Scandinavia now. Similar things are happening in the northern part of the UK.

Warmer weather = longer growing seasons because you need frost free days. The amount of light in the north is plenty because you get sun for many more hours but at lower intensity obviously.

There will be some soil issues as you’ve noted. But humanity has solved a lot that with potash (fertilizer) without which modern agriculture wouldn’t exist.

threeblindmice
threeblindmice
3 years ago
Reply to  njbr

Within a few thousands years earth will either spin towards the Sun, scorching all life altogether, or spin out of its orbit going into a deep freeze making life impossible. So be of good cheer. Nothing we can do.

Quatloo
Quatloo
3 years ago

One interesting way to look at whether people believe the earth is warming in a way that affects us dramatically and irreversibly is to ask this question: are people fleeing lowland areas like coastal Florida for higher ground? Are they selling their homes at sea level?

Weather is so complicated as it is, that it is almost impossible to accurately predict where and how weather in different locations will change. But the coasts would be the most dramatic change; the value of Miami Beach homes should be plummeting in price. Cape Cod, Nantucket and other islands would have similar problems. The more homes that go underwater, the higher the prices of the homes that don’t.

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago
Reply to  Quatloo

Actually I think Florida has experienced increased population. And nearly all of Florida is low lying. It will be interesting to see how bad hurricane season is because the ocean currents have slowed dramatically again in the Atlantic. I wouldn’t want to live anywhere near the gulf coast as theyve seen severe flooding and hurricanes. Humans always learn the hard way and few are prepared for it.

Sechel
Sechel
3 years ago

Not a ton of difference between fighting climate change and lowering your utility bill

davebarnes2
davebarnes2
3 years ago

So, don’t talk about “climate change”.
Talk up the need for clean air, water, and land.
Making the air pollution of Los Angeles equal to that of northern Canada would go a long ways towards ameliorating climate change effects.

Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago
Reply to  davebarnes2

Only way that’s happening is if somebody drops a nuke on LA.

Doug78
Doug78
3 years ago

After WW I the German noble Junker class though that could ally themselves with the new Nazi party to counter the communists. They thought that they could control the Nazis because they held industry and finance firmly in their grip. It didn’t happen that way and the Nazis rolled over them. The Democrat leadership is in the same situation having nurtured and promoted these groups over the years for political reasons and are now finding that they do not control them and that they in fact control the Democrats. Lately the Democrat leadership has awakened somewhat to the danger but it just might be too late.

Zardoz
Zardoz
3 years ago

” climate change is the “existential threat of our time”

Maybe not our time, but within the next generation or 2. And he’s right… we won’t do anything meaningful about carbon emissions. We’re all too selfish and shortsighted for anything like that.

I don’t have any descendants, so I don’t have a dog in this fight, but it does seem stupid, selfish, and wasteful….I guess those are primary characteristics of humanity.

CoxSwane
CoxSwane
3 years ago

Great stuff, @Mish. Thanks for continuing to stick to realism instead of fear.

Jmurr
Jmurr
3 years ago

So, it’s not about the environment, it’s just about control.

Sechel
Sechel
3 years ago

I’m convinced the biggest part of the problem is the destruction of the world’s forests which serve to recycle and recapture carbon

Carl_R
Carl_R
2 years ago
Reply to  Sechel

They also do other things to weather, affecting humidity and wind. I agree that it is the biggest problem.

threeblindmice
threeblindmice
3 years ago

You should know never to question people’s religious beliefs. Heretics are never celebrated.

numike
numike
3 years ago

The Problem With Paper’s Climate Impact
The CO2 emissions are bigger than you think, even when it’s recycled. link to treehugger.com

numike
numike
3 years ago

got water? US West prepares for possible 1st water shortage declaration link to apnews.com

Dutoit
Dutoit
3 years ago

Now we see in the MSM here in France that anything happening about climate : very cold or very hot weather, droughts or big floods, this is a consequence of climate change. This becomes more a more like a religion, with skeptics treated as heretics.

Sechel
Sechel
3 years ago

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer
3 years ago
Reply to  Sechel

Is that a double of Lindsey Graham?

Sechel
Sechel
3 years ago

I couldn’t believe it myself at first. Lindsey us the Leonard Zelig of politics however. His opinion probably changed 5 minutes later after he met the next guy

Stay Informed

Subscribe to MishTalk

You will receive all messages from this feed and they will be delivered by email.