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.

Joe Gwinn

Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in
news:mf6aqglflu5p82tes7o9okm5f24c0dcpna@4ax.com:

>
> 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-cli
> mate-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/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
> 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.
>
>
> Joe Gwinn
>

I had a NASA LaserDisc decades ago that showed where a very early
space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We
helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest of
the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLOiGEDPJQ>

<https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone>

On 30/11/21 6:05 am, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
> Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:mf6aqglflu5p82tes7o9okm5f24c0dcpna@4ax.com:
>
>>
>> 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-cli
>> mate-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/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
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Joe Gwinn
>>
>
> I had a NASA LaserDisc decades ago that showed where a very early
> space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We
> helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest of
> the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLOiGEDPJQ>
>
> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone>
>

All of which has almost *nothing* to do with climate change.

I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole, having
lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but pray tell why
it is relevant to this discussion, please?

Clifford Heath

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 18:03:35 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@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.

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.

Joe Gwinn

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..

John Larkin thinks very highly of climate change denial propaganda that endorses his enthusiasm for denying climate change - it is called confirmation bias - and people who share his silly (if comforting) ideas do tend behave this way. You seem to be one more of them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Tuesday, November 30, 2021 at 11:41:13 AM UTC+11, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 30/11/21 6:05 am, DecadentLinux...@decadence.org wrote:
> > Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net> wrote in news:mf6aqglflu5p82tes...@4ax..com:
> >>
> >> 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.

Of course it would. The Murdoch media gets a lot of advertising income from the fossil carbon extraction industry, and keep them sweet by hyping climate change denial propaganda.

The Murdoch media in Australia recently promised to stop doing it, but didn't look all that sincere about it their resident right-wing lunatic denialists weren't told to shut up.

> >> 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
> >> 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.
> >
> > I had a NASA LaserDisc decades ago that showed where a very early
> > space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We
> > helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest of
> > the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).
> >
> > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLOiGEDPJQ>
> >
> > <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone>
> >
> All of which has almost *nothing* to do with climate change.
>
> I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole, having
> lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but pray tell why
> it is relevant to this discussion, please?

The ozone hole was discovered shortly before anthropogenic global warming (in terms of newspaper coverage). The reaction to the existence of the ozone hole was a rapid phasing out of the chorofluorocarbon refrigants that were doing the damage.

The people who made money out of making and selling them didn't like it much, but they weren't making as much money as the fossil carbon extraction industry does, and couldn't afford an ozone-hole denial propaganda machine.

That makes it a very relevant observation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:28:58 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
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.
>
>
>Joe Gwinn

Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Wednesday, December 1, 2021 at 3:40:54 PM UTC+11, jla...@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2021 13:28:58 -0500, Joe Gwinn <joeg...@comcast.net>
> 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.

More climate change denial propaganda,

> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.

John Larkin is a sucker for climate chance denial propaganda.

No climate scientist has ever said anything of the sort. The climate change denial industry trawls old newspapers for reporters mis-understandings of what scientist have said which they can tout as false predictions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_in_the_Balance

is a respectable sample of what was being forecast back in 1992. Everybody being dead by now isn't in there.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> wrote in
news:16bc2c1d1c6cae61$1$3588101$26dd2c6e@news.thecubenet.com:

> On 30/11/21 6:05 am, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org
> wrote:
>> Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:mf6aqglflu5p82tes7o9okm5f24c0dcpna@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>> 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-c
>>> li mate-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
>>> /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 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe Gwinn
>>>
>>
>> I had a NASA LaserDisc decades ago that showed where a very
>> early
>> space shuttle crew observed a huge Ozone hole over Antarctica. We
>> helped to stop it by banning CFCs in the US but much of the rest
>> of the world still uses tons of it (Mexico).
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaLOiGEDPJQ>
>>
>> <https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/WorldWithoutOzone>
>>
>
> All of which has almost *nothing* to do with climate change.

You are an idiot.

Did you get birthed through the same decending colon as John Larkin
did?

>
> I have more reason than most to care about UV and the ozone hole,
> having lived my childhood under the strong southern sunshine, but
> pray tell why it is relevant to this discussion, please?

So, in other words, you did not even watch the videos. Pathetic.

You're a real piece of...

jlarkin@highlandsniptechnology.com wrote in
news:15vdqgpe0gsiokeh89lffugap3c318fag5@4ax.com:

> Climate Science tells us that we were all dead 20 years ago.
>

You were certainly brain dead that long ago or more even.

Larkin science tell us... fucking nothing... ever.

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?

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 00:31:29 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <whit3rd@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?

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

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.

Not to a revisionist historian.

"February 2021 is seen to be the coldest February in Texas in the past 43
years" (NASA).

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).

On Wed, 1 Dec 2021 16:03:30 -0000 (UTC), 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.

--

Father Brown's figure remained quite dark and still;
but in that instant he had lost his head. His head was
always most valuable when he had lost it.

On Tue, 30 Nov 2021 15:56:58 -0800 (PST), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@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.

The book is short and well written, which might help with star
ratings.

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.

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.

Joe Gwinn

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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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 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.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

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.
>
> --
> SNIPPERMAN, Sydney

Hey SNIPPERMAN, Hansen wasn't talking about a brief flooding, he was talking PERMANENT.

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

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

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

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?

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_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.

>> 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