- Steve Koonin is a highly regarded theoretical physicist and a leader in science policy in the US. He served as Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy under Obama. His book, published in May this year, has caused a lot of controversy and debate. Climate Scientists, who zealously guard their patch, don't like it. Climate denialists do.
- In my view it's a pity that he titled it Unsettled. His principal argument is not that the science is unsettled, it's that the science is constantly being poorly communicated and misrepresented. It's not just the media who are to blame. The summary documents and assessment reports from the IPCC and other bodies too frequently gloss over the fine print in the interest of infusing their key messages with a bit of popular appeal. And the fine print is never as dramatic, challenging or frightening.
- Koonin's argument is you can’t be a scientist and an activist at the same time. Many climate scientists are ‘…overwilling to persuade rather than inform’.
- Is this naive? Is it sophisticated denialism? Or is it an informed critique of apocalyptic media messaging. In my view the latter. It's a very measured and sobering account of complex issues. He doesn't deny climate change is happening, and that human influence is a key contributor. What we get is a very clear presentation of the key issues: what is natural versus what is human caused. We should pay more attention to the science than what he labels ‘The Science’, an entity constructed mainly by the media. He labels his work as ‘accurate, frank, and accessible’.
- The first few chapters cover the basics of the science. There's nothing new here, but his ability to write clear English definitely helps. The chapter on climate modelling is a little too technical for the average reader but it's definitely worth persevering with. Koonin wrote a classic textbook on statistical modelling in the 1980's. He's very enlightening on how it all works, how long it takes to do, its structural weaknesses, and how accurate it's likely to be in the end.
- Then come the controversial chapters. Temperature increase: no significant trends over the last century. Hurricanes, twisters, floods, droughts and fires: modest changes with little significance. Rising sea levels: no evidence of human contribution being significant. Climate related deaths, agricultural disasters, enormous economic costs by the end of the century: ‘apocalypses that ain’t’.
- He quotes Leo Tolstoy: The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.
- He then addresses in Part Two of the book 'The Response'. Here his manifest scepticism is clear. He considers the Paris Agreement's goals of limiting warming to 2 degrees, or preferably 1.5, by 2050 totally unrealistic. As for net zero carbon emissions by 2050 that is 'highly unlikely'. Even by 2075. Even if the developed countries succeeded in their ambitions, the developing world’s economic growth makes it virtually impossible. He argues that ‘adapting’ is the only way to go.
- As the book progressed the more disappointed in it I became. He’s a bit of a fossil fuel advocate (not openly but by inclination). He's conveniently pessimistic about renewables and their commercial potential. He barely mentions solar, or wind turbines, or government incentives. He's not keen on a carbon tax or government regulation. He's lazy in ambition, his complacency is evident, and there's always a distinct lack of urgency. Of course he settles for adaptation. It's far easier. It's almost as if he lives in another universe. '...the US accounts for only some 13% of global greenhouse gas', so why bother?
- His final, totally uninspiring, thought is this:
‘I believe the socio-technical obstacles to reducing CO2 emissions make it likely that human influences on the climate will not be stabilised, let alone reduced, in this century’.
- So let's all live for today for tomorrow we die.
No comments:
Post a Comment