Very surprised at this review. I read Koonin's book and about all your posts here on substack. It would have thought that you two were pursuing the same goal. A lot of your posts debunk what is said in the IPCC Summaries. This is what Koonin does as well. As for critiquing what is NOT in the book, I agree with one commentary below: it would have been too long. What I come back with from your critique is that you would have hoped Koonin to comment on political policies and what to do with this whole warming and mitigating CO2 projects. I am not sure that would have been a good thing since the morale of the story is exactly that for him: That the science is NOT settled. Anyway, reading Shellenberger, Lomborg, Koonin and you gives a pretty good picture of the ensemble of topics. Thanks for doing your part and so well.
One of the benefits of a price mediated market economy is the capacity for 'incremental substitution'. So, if one input becomes more expensive, you try to reduce the amount of it that you use, substituting now relatively less expensive inputs, and just to the extent that is most efficient - as opposed to having a command economy bureaucrat decree that 'Input X' is bad and must not be used at all. When he says "I would wait until the science becomes more settled... before embarking on a program to tax or regulate greenhouse gas emissions out of existence or to capture and store massive amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.", Mr. Koonin seems not to understand that a program to tax greenhouse emissions fits the incremental substitution model rather than the banning by decree model.
Thanks for this review. It's thoughtful and helpful to the ongoing climate debate.
I think that overall, Koonin's book is a net benefit to the debate in spite of some of the short comings you callout.
As far as the red team blue team approach I believe that Koonin first heard it at the APS meetings he chaired. As I recall it was John Christy who raised the subject. It's an approach that was supported by both Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen at those meetings as well as other reputable people. The negatives you point out about this approach are the first reasonable ones I have seen. Whether they can be effectively dealt with is another question. Your alternative approach has merit as well.
I don't think characterizing Climate Change as an "extreme left vs extreme right issue" is accurate. Most would not think that pbs is an extreme left organization. Nonetheless they do stuff like this". https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/weather-forecasters-increasingly-address-climate-change . The left/progressives are all over Climate Change as an existential issue that they mean to exploit in the name of creating a "fairer" society. I certainly don't classify myself or Judith Curry or Steve Koonin or Richard Lindzen or John Cristy or Roy Spencer or Michael Shellenberger or Bjorn Lomborg or Pielke Sr. as extreme right. It's politicized but not really along the simplistic lines of extreme left vs extreme right.
I agree with some of your criticisms but disagree with others. Koonin has had a more varied career - academic scientist, energy company executive, and high-level government official - than you. That may have led him to how he structured the book, especially in how he hued to official document citations and views.
Had Koonin addressed all the topics and issues you suggest he avoided, no one would have read the book because it would have been a tome of thousands of pages. You may actually have provided Koonin with the outline for his next book.
Not the only issue to become black and white ized, with good guys and bad guys and middle ground being overlooked or dismissed. The question is “how does this framing catch hold?” Has that kind of framing ever been broken apart to a focus on legitimate disagreements, if so, how did that happen?
Very surprised at this review. I read Koonin's book and about all your posts here on substack. It would have thought that you two were pursuing the same goal. A lot of your posts debunk what is said in the IPCC Summaries. This is what Koonin does as well. As for critiquing what is NOT in the book, I agree with one commentary below: it would have been too long. What I come back with from your critique is that you would have hoped Koonin to comment on political policies and what to do with this whole warming and mitigating CO2 projects. I am not sure that would have been a good thing since the morale of the story is exactly that for him: That the science is NOT settled. Anyway, reading Shellenberger, Lomborg, Koonin and you gives a pretty good picture of the ensemble of topics. Thanks for doing your part and so well.
I've been asked to do a "reader mail" post ... so if you have Qs for me, feel free to enter into the comments
One of the benefits of a price mediated market economy is the capacity for 'incremental substitution'. So, if one input becomes more expensive, you try to reduce the amount of it that you use, substituting now relatively less expensive inputs, and just to the extent that is most efficient - as opposed to having a command economy bureaucrat decree that 'Input X' is bad and must not be used at all. When he says "I would wait until the science becomes more settled... before embarking on a program to tax or regulate greenhouse gas emissions out of existence or to capture and store massive amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.", Mr. Koonin seems not to understand that a program to tax greenhouse emissions fits the incremental substitution model rather than the banning by decree model.
Thanks for this review. It's thoughtful and helpful to the ongoing climate debate.
I think that overall, Koonin's book is a net benefit to the debate in spite of some of the short comings you callout.
As far as the red team blue team approach I believe that Koonin first heard it at the APS meetings he chaired. As I recall it was John Christy who raised the subject. It's an approach that was supported by both Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen at those meetings as well as other reputable people. The negatives you point out about this approach are the first reasonable ones I have seen. Whether they can be effectively dealt with is another question. Your alternative approach has merit as well.
I don't think characterizing Climate Change as an "extreme left vs extreme right issue" is accurate. Most would not think that pbs is an extreme left organization. Nonetheless they do stuff like this". https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/weather-forecasters-increasingly-address-climate-change . The left/progressives are all over Climate Change as an existential issue that they mean to exploit in the name of creating a "fairer" society. I certainly don't classify myself or Judith Curry or Steve Koonin or Richard Lindzen or John Cristy or Roy Spencer or Michael Shellenberger or Bjorn Lomborg or Pielke Sr. as extreme right. It's politicized but not really along the simplistic lines of extreme left vs extreme right.
I agree with some of your criticisms but disagree with others. Koonin has had a more varied career - academic scientist, energy company executive, and high-level government official - than you. That may have led him to how he structured the book, especially in how he hued to official document citations and views.
Had Koonin addressed all the topics and issues you suggest he avoided, no one would have read the book because it would have been a tome of thousands of pages. You may actually have provided Koonin with the outline for his next book.
Not the only issue to become black and white ized, with good guys and bad guys and middle ground being overlooked or dismissed. The question is “how does this framing catch hold?” Has that kind of framing ever been broken apart to a focus on legitimate disagreements, if so, how did that happen?