Koonin’s Sociology of Climatology
Koonin answers “yes,” suggesting the culprit is: “not some secret cabal, but rather a self-reinforcing alignment of perspectives and interests.”
He then walks us through his “multiplicity of stakeholders.” Climate apocalypticism attracts politicians wishing to keep the public terrified and clamouring for safety.
The media disseminates climate horror because “news is a business” and “if it bleeds it leads.” As newsrooms shrink overworked journalists, sans science degrees, cannot properly research climate stories:
“…the general lack of knowledge of what the science actually says, the drama of extreme weather events and their heart-rending impact on people, and pressures within the industry all work against balanced coverage in the popular media.”
Governments, businesses and NGOs have “messages” that employees must deliver to stay employed or to attain promotions, tenure etc:
“…more than a few climate contrarians have suffered public opprobrium and diminished career prospects for publicizing data that doesn’t support the “broken climate” meme.”
NGOs like 350.org, Union of Concerned Scientist, and Natural Resources Defence Council solicit donations with scary distortions of climate science. (This is off. Climate NGOs draw funds from Big Green philanthropies, vested corporate interests, and captured government agencies.
Climateworks and Energy Foundation boast annual receipts, respectively, of $425 ml and $230 ml. Neither solicit from the public.)
According to Koonin:
“individuals and organizations in the scientific community are demonstrably misrepresenting the science.”
Scientific institutions:
“seem more concerned with making the science fit the narrative than ensuring the narrative fits the science .”
Regarding climate:
“…institutions that prepare the official assessment reports have a communication problem, often summarizing or describing the data in ways that are actively misleading.”
Scientists hype research, fudge uncertainty, and covet publicity. The public believes whatever science authorities say, and presumes journalists know what they’re talking about. Authorities oblige the public’s abhorrence of gray areas by keeping them wholly in the dark.
As evidenced above, Koonin references mostly generic social phenomena. Financial pressure, groupthink and hype underly all discourse, not merely climate science. Koonin doesn’t adequately distinguish climate from other overegged topics, nor explain why climate is even on the agenda.
Aware of this defect, he offers glimpses into the unusual treatment given Climatology; particularly the fear-borne ignorance exhibited by scientists whenever the topic arises. Climatology generates:
“an eyes-shut-fingers-in-the-ears position I’ve never heard in any other scientific discussion.”
And:
“otherwise rigorous and analytical scientists abandon their critical faculties when discussing climate…”
Koonin rebukes the National Academies of Science for publishing reviews of climate assessments so lacking in objectivity as to betray an intent to manipulate. A 2019 joint climate statement, freighted with misinformation, signed by each NAS academy president, bewildered Koonin:
“I’m quite sure that this personal statement of the presidents in a news release was not reviewed by the usual Academies procedures; if it had been, its deficiencies would have been corrected.”
Climatology also receives unique treatment from politicos and journos. Politicians must pitch renewable energy as the only way to solve an urgent crisis; because the Energy Transition won’t sell if framed as one option for solving some distant problem.
Politicians won’t discuss climate science uncertainties, nor admit the true cost of the Energy Transition. Thus, when crafting climate messaging:
“…the science is jettisoned in favour of The Science, and “simplified” for use in the political arena, which allows the required actions to be portrayed as simple as well – just eliminate fossil fuels to save the planet.”
Alarmist media articles aren’t just the result of overloaded, undereducated journos. A legion of “Climate Reporters” zealously monger doom.
Koonin understands that the Energy Transition is the dog wagging the Climate Change tail:
“Science should not be partisan, but climate science’s intersection with energy policy all but guaranteed that it would become so.”
“…as alternative energy grows, there is financial incentive for politicians to hype climate catastrophe.”
Unsettled is a naïf’s confession. In 2004 Koonin thought Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming was a legit hypotheses sincerely held by honest scientists. Few climate contrarians, under 50, can say the same.
Koonin’s main claim is that the actual scientific literature doesn’t jibe with what alarmists call The Science. His testimony resonates because he’s a top-tier scientist who’s actually read the national and international climate assessments.
The thought-fields Koonin wonders onto, however, are Climate Change Communication and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. These too are sciences, complete with literary canons to which Unsettled’s 200+ footnotes make nary a reference.
Koonin apologises for, and defends, the science establishment. He fears a corrupted Climatology undermines public confidence in the entire scientific project. He prefers “misinformation” but describes “disinformation.”
Connecting his own dots, its obvious key US government agencies, and leading US scientific institutions, are instruments of hostile forces.
This, added to the Energy Transition’s hobbling of the American economy, warrants designating climate alarmism as treason.
Koonin ain’t there yet.
Header image: Medium
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
“Airmen of ASHRAE, Enter the Fray” at CanadaFreePress, Aug 07, 2010 sent to the leading authority on heat transfer in the atmosphere, in buildings and in refrigeration equipment. Their collective reply, “we get too much funding from the Dept of Enegry, to oppose their directives”
ASCE gets to much funding to challenge the government on WTC skyscrapers collapse on 9/11.
“ASHRAE Cargo Cult” coming to PSI will explain decades of professional societies duplicity
Reply
William Kay
| #
So I take it, you did not read the attached article but thought this would be an opportunity to advertise an upcoming piece that you are working on. That’s fine. Greek democracy began when citizens could vow to stick to the point during public discourse.
Constructive criticism: you’re 2010 article seems unfocussed and rambling. Good points are lost in digressions.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
‘Their collective reply, “we get too much funding from the Dept of Enegry, to oppose their directives” ’.
This is a clear indication that the spender are too far removed from the tax payers. The only permanent solution to this malaise – which manifests in many seperate arenas – is to reboot the US constitution. My suggestion for how this might be done is at https://bosmin.com/ICS/CIR-USA.pdf
Section 8 concludes: ‘A future opportunity will occur when the next Presidential election campaign starts in 2024. Before that time, the proposed changes to the constitution should be carefully studied by a small panel of nine selected experts. The critical inputs will come from a noted Swiss national, and eight Americans including, a taxation lawyer, a constitutional lawyer, and six balanced representatives from ‘we the people’.
Any volunteers for this panel?
Reply
William Kay
| #
Again, no indication that you’ve read the article to which you have commented. Perhaps, my articles are a new type of message board. Perhaps, I should be flattered.
Gave your piece a scan. Constitutional law is something I’ve formally studied. I presume you’re talking about some form of military coup preceding these changes. There are, as you know, procedures for amending the US constitution and the likelihood of these changes making it through that process, rounded to the nearest whole, is zero.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi William,
I did read your article about global warming and other ails, but I looked in vein for any reference to Henry’s Law. You might not be aware of HL, but if you were, you would know that anthropogenic global warming fits into the category of ‘a crock’ for those who understand that part of scientific law.
The US constitution is another matter which has been altered in the past as detailed in reference https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States That was not a zero response, it met a current need.
No, I certainly do not propose a military coup, or a period of anarchy, which could undermine economic stability as discussed by Ray Dalio in his book “The Changing World Order”.
Anarchy has been the course over several such changes to systems of government. A peaceful way of changing a country’s system of leadership is by revising from a Top-Down form to the more stable Bottom-Up alternative, and openly discussing the suggestion in a public forum such as during a Presidential election contest.
The US has a unique opportunity to provide the discussion draft in the time available. The rest is up to the people.
Reply
William Kay
| #
I knew the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis was a “crock,” thanks anyways. I don’t see how Henry’s Law by itself defeats the hypothesis but I doubt if the comment board is the correct venue for that sort of discussion. I recommend you draft a brief article to that effect and submit it to John. There are many cogent rebuttals of CAGW such as Koonin’s which points to corruption and misinformation within the scientific community.
Yes, if the American people elect the right President and enough Senators and Reps they can indeed change their constitution. Easier said than done, Robert.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi William,
You can get up to speed on HL at https://bosmin.com/HenrysLaw.pdf
And get the full discussion here https://bosmin.com/SeaChange.pdf
“Yes, if the American people elect the right President and enough Senators and Reps they can indeed change their constitution. Easier said than done, Robert.”
That will be too late. You will get another term of Top-Down government and “we the people” will be effectively ignored again.
Good luck with that.
Reply