Amazon.com: Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters eBook : Koonin, Steven E.: Kindle Store

Kindle Price:	$12.99
Sold by:	Penguin Random House Publisher Services Price set by seller.

You've subscribed to ! We will preorder your items within 24 hours of when they become available. When new books are released, we'll charge your default payment method for the lowest price available during the pre-order period.

Update your device or payment method, cancel individual pre-orders or your subscription at
Your Memberships & Subscriptions

There was an error. We were unable to process your subscription due to an error. Please refresh and try again.

Follow the Author

Steven E. Koonin

Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters Kindle Edition

by Steven E. Koonin (Author) Format: Kindle Edition

4.7 4,815 ratings

Editors' pick Best History

See all formats and editions

Price

New from

Used from

Kindle

"Please retry"

$12.99

—

—

Audible Audiobook, Unabridged

"Please retry"

$5.95

$7.95 with discounted Audible membership

"Please retry"

$7.53

$8.86

Kindle
$12.99 Read with our Free App
Audiobook
$5.95 $5.95 with discounted Audible membership
Hardcover
$14.29

58 Used from $8.86 48 New from $7.53

Great on Kindle

Great Experience. Great Value.

Enjoy a great reading experience when you buy the Kindle edition of this book. Learn more about Great on Kindle, available in select categories.

"Unsettled is a remarkable book—probably the best book on climate change for the intelligent layperson—that achieves the feat of conveying complex information clearly and in depth."
—Claremont Review of Books

"Surging sea levels are inundating the coasts."

"Hurricanes and tornadoes are becoming fiercer and more frequent."

"Climate change will be an economic disaster."

You've heard all this presented as fact. But according to science, all of these statements are profoundly misleading.

When it comes to climate change, the media, politicians, and other prominent voices have declared that "the science is settled." In reality, the long game of telephone from research to reports to the popular media is corrupted by misunderstanding and misinformation. Core questions—about the way the climate is responding to our influence, and what the impacts will be—remain largely unanswered. The climate is changing, but the why and how aren't as clear as you've probably been led to believe.

Now, one of America's most distinguished scientists is clearing away the fog to explain what science really says (and doesn't say) about our changing climate. In Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters, Steven Koonin draws upon his decades of experience—including as a top science advisor to the Obama administration—to provide up-to-date insights and expert perspective free from political agendas.

Fascinating, clear-headed, and full of surprises, this book gives readers the tools to both understand the climate issue and be savvier consumers of science media in general. Koonin takes readers behind the headlines to the more nuanced science itself, showing us where it comes from and guiding us through the implications of the evidence. He dispels popular myths and unveils little-known truths: despite a dramatic rise in greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures actually decreased from 1940 to 1970. What's more, the models we use to predict the future aren't able to accurately describe the climate of the past, suggesting they are deeply flawed.

Koonin also tackles society's response to a changing climate, using data-driven analysis to explain why many proposed "solutions" would be ineffective, and discussing how alternatives like adaptation and, if necessary, geoengineering will ensure humanity continues to prosper. Unsettled is a reality check buoyed by hope, offering the truth about climate science that you aren't getting elsewhere—what we know, what we don't, and what it all means for our future.

Print length

316 pages
Language

English
Sticky notes

On Kindle Scribe
Publisher

BenBella Books
Publication date

April 27, 2021
File size

26346 KB
Page Flip

Enabled
Word Wise

Enabled
Enhanced typesetting

Enabled
See all details

Due to its large file size, this book may take longer to download

Guy K Mitchell Jr.
166
Kindle Edition
$9.99
Judith Curry
134
Kindle Edition
$17.99
Lars Schernikau
94
Kindle Edition
$8.95
Michael Shellenberger
5,331
Kindle Edition
$13.99
Dr. Patrick Moore
3,120
Kindle Edition
$7.49
Alex Epstein
1,578
Kindle Edition
in Energy Policy
$9.99

Customer reviews

4.7 out of 5

4,815 global ratings

How customer reviews and ratings work

Reviews with images

Sort reviews by

Top reviews from the United States

There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.

This book is an honest discusson about Climate Change, without the hype.

Reviewed in the United States on October 8, 2023

Verified Purchase

“Unsettled? What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” by Steven Koonin. Dr. Koonin (Ph.D.) is very qualified to write such a book as this. He Served as Undersecretary for Science in the U.S. Dept. of Energy (Obama Administration), and he has written more than 200 peer-reviewed papers in the fields of physics and astrophysics, and many, many more entries on his resume.

Let me first mention that “Unsettled?” is a page turner. I am not a fast reader, but I am a persistent reader. It took me two days to read it, because I didn’t read for speed but I read for understanding. He had me captivated, right from the beginning. I started reading his book and turned the television and radio off, for two days. Reading his book was better than watching a movie.

His book is about Climate Change and it about what we should have been told all along. He could have written it in highly technical language, but he didn’t. It is easy to understand and he makes his point quite clear. Every point he makes in his book he has references to back up what he writes. He put the science back into ‘Climate Change.’ He condemns those that use such derogatory terms as ‘climate denier’ and ‘climate skeptic.’ He repeatedly talks about the difference between “weather” and “climate.” Weather is what we get every day. Climate is the average of the weather we get for decades. He points out the differences.

He pointed out why is “dismayed” at what so called experts say and write: ““First by the willingness of some climate scientists- abetted by the media and politicians- to misrepresent what the science says, and then by the many other scientists who are silently complicit in those misrepresentations. The public deserves better. By demonstrably misinforming non-experts about what we know and don’t know aobut the changing climate, they deny governments, industry, and individuals the right to make fully informed decisions about how to respond.” (Pg 249)

Dr. Koonin does have a hope and that hope is; “…that decision makers, journalists, and the larger public will find some surprises as they read this book, and that they’ll then turn to scientists and say something like “I’ve checked some of the things that guy Koonin says are in the assessment reports- and he’s right. How come I haven’t heard those things before? And what else am I not being told?” This could be the start of many awkward, but ultimately essential, conversations.” (Pg 250)

He plainly makes it clear, and I whole heartedly agree with him; “…we need to reduce the hysteria in climate journalism. Journalists themselves need help to better understand the material they are presented with, and the public needs the tools to become more critical consumers of media coverage of climate (and many other topics, for that matter).” (Pg 252)

Dr. Koonin does an excellent job of talking about both natural and anthropogenic causes of “global warming,” or should I say “climate change.” When you are finished reading the book you will wonder why more aren’t being as informative and honest about “climate change,” as Dr. Koonin is. There needs to be more, like Dr. Koonin, that takes the hype out of climate change. This is one author that is very deserving of a review.

2 people found this helpful

Points to flaws in climate strategy, but doesn't move us forward much

Reviewed in the United States on January 26, 2022

Verified Purchase

Review of Unsettled—Steven E Koonin
The puzzle of climate change has the following questions:
1. To what degree can we expect temperatures to increase in the future
2. What are the causes of such change
3. What are the consequent effects –for example,
a. Sea level changes and consequent
i. Economic effects
ii. Population dislocations and migrations
b. Crop impacts
c. Disease prevalence
d. Etc.

4. What should we do, if anything, to mitigate/avoid those effects given the costs of alternatives, and probabilities of various scenarios, and ability to motivate, finance and coordinate mitigating strategies

Koonin’s take is that:
1. There are inadequacies in the climate models that make the possible range of climate change, and their impacts, large—and therefore not useful for planning purposes
2. Some of the “Science” has been misleading for venal purposes (getting funding for research, advancing the cause of certain pet climate projects, for example), and therefore is distorting the urgency and supportable magnitude of responses. Koonin cites as examples apparent overstating of the dependence of hurricanes on ocean temperatures, or the misrepresenting as fact increasing number of record high temperature days.
Koonin suggests that because of these misrepresentations, not caught by the peer review process, there needs to be an additional adversarial process to challenge climate ‘dogma’, which he calls “the Red team”.
3. Because there are questions about some of, say, IPCC’s conclusions, we should make investments only where there are clear signals that they are required and effective
4. Because the likely investments to reduce carbon emissions to zero by 2050 are large, technically difficult, and difficult to motivate and implement (as they must be) worldwide, they are very unlikely to occur
5. Civilization has shown adaptability in the past, and likely will overcome the problems. Further, adaptation can largely be done on a “local” level without substantial overarching planning or control
6. Because of 4 and 5, drastic action is not appropriate or recommended now because

a. The temperature changes may not be significant enough to matter or
b. Temperature change consequences may not be significant to matter, or even if they do
c. Proposed solutions to mitigate temperature changes by controlling CO2 are not going to work
d. And, in any case, humans historically have adapted when necessary

7. But, there are geoengineering solutions that might work, which includes two alternatives

a. Increasing atmospheric reflectivity to lower the driving power caused by incremental CO2 (by dispersing particles in the upper atmosphere)
b. Increasing the conversion rate of CO2 to its constituent parts by more planting
These should be studied more.

Unsettled could also be titled “Unsettling” because the net impression from reading his book is that the climate change issues is the Climate version of “Y2K”---real, but blown way, way out of proportion. If readers believe this, they may tend to lower the priority of solving this very real problem.
Koonins arguments take the logically inconsistent view that the problem is difficult to solve, and therefore we probably shouldn’t put much effort into it.
The actual situation is that we won’t know, to the satisfaction of the most determined skeptic, with high probability, the true consequences of climate change until it is far too late to do anything about it. The only consequences that are indisputable are those that have already happened. We can’t wait that long because they’re irreversible. Eventually sea level increases beyond 2100 are almost certain to cause problems for coastal populations, and the CO2 will cause those increases are being put into the atmosphere, irrevocably, now. Recent satellite data shows that sea levels are increasing at an increasing rate—and there are reasons to believe even that increased rate will continue to increase (more rapid than though ice melting, possible methane releases from tundra that is currently unmodelled, changes in ocean current patterns).
Of course, there are strong incentives to deny the urgency of minimizing climate change because the cost of reversing it accrue now, whereas the benefit may be felt a century or so later.
Koonin cites some sources as saying the financial impact of climate mitigation would be about 3% of GDP. Common sense says that if major port cities have to be relocated, or surrounded by impregnable seawalls, of ever increasing height, the costs of this alone would be far more than 3% of GDP. And, there will be huge costs associated with refugee migration, and related international conflicts. It is DOD’s assessment that climate change related problems could be the biggest threat to national security. Additional costs may well include increased disease (we’ve seen those effects recently), and food shortages due to drought, or changing patterns of rainfall which inhibit optimum crop growth.
While Koonin takes shots at some of the inconsistencies in IPCC and other researchers data, he doesn’t mention some of the more convincing data like the disappearance of many glaciers, and the hockey stick temperature rises in the industrial era—both of which are unprecedented in their rate of change, and easy to spot without complicated analyses.
Koonin’s cheery attitude that humans are great at adaption is not an answer to a problem. As someone said, goals without actions are just dreams. Human civilized history is perhaps 5000 years—and has seen only a small percentage of possible problems. And, there already have been demonstrable failures—such as reprised in Jared Diamond’s Collapse. Most major problems require focused, sometimes expensive solutions. World wars are not won because cities decided to mount their own campaigns. Rockets to the moon weren’t developed by backyard scientists.
While I agree that world decarburization by 2050 is unlikely to occur with the default plan, that is not a reason to wait. It is a reason to redouble our creativity and effort. There is a maximum amount of carbon that can be put into the atmosphere without consequences. We’re very near that limit—and once we exceed it, our options will be severely limited—mostly to untried approaches such as geoengineering.
It is true that current default plans have flaws. For example, Europe’s plans include using massive forests to feed boilers for power when the sun/wind aren’t available (and capturing the released CO2). But those new forests will take years to grow, and require millions of square miles which probably won’t be available. The US’s plan will be difficult to get through a recalcitrant Republican party. And the developing countries don’t have the required financing, know how, or urgency.
It would be helpful to develop a default plan that was much cheaper, and didn’t force the rollover of power infrastructure (grids and natural gas piping). Possibly the simplest solution would be to use wind/solar to generate green hydrogen—accepting that, though the cost of this power would be higher, it would be available sooner, with confidence. Other possibilities include realizing new energy technologies that can be propagated well before 2050. Whatever the revised plan, there is huge urgency in transitioning to it. Only with a clear road map can ambitious programs be completed quickly, and with confidence.
Such plans require a clear articulation of the goal, a testing of plans against that goal, iteration to a successful strategy, and forceful implementation.

115 people found this helpful

Investigate Truth

Reviewed in the United States on October 8, 2023

Verified Purchase

This is the book that the alarmist do not want you to read. This contains objective truth and scientific rigger. I have researched and read many research papers that are taboo on the subject. There indeed exist a serious laps of evidence from Climate Alarmist. This book does an excellent job at countering and pointing this out. The reason there is a taboo is because one side's arguments and claims start falling apart quickly when examining further knowledge on the subject. There is no settled science. In fact, claiming this flies in the face of the scientific method. Questioning, researching, experimenting and deep thinking is always a part of rational reasoning and science. I too am a scientist with degrees in mathematics, physicist, philosophy, and humanities. Intellectually, I am able to understand the science, math, chemistry, and quantum mechanics of complex systems. This book was very useful in lighting the path of deeper knowledge of the subject. This book is compelling and a must. I highly recommend anybody to read this.

One person found this helpful

Top reviews from other countries

Translate all reviews to English

Lucullus

Was die Wissenschaft sagt

Reviewed in Germany on October 12, 2022

Verified Purchase

Kaum ein Thema hat die Politik in Europa und Amerika in letzter Zeit so stark bewegt wie der Klimawandel. Die journalistische Berichterstattung darüber bleibt jedoch oberflächlich und lückenhaft. Wer sich eine fundierte Meinung bilden will, ist gezwungen zu Analysen aus Expertenhand zu greifen. Eine der aufschlussreichsten jüngeren Veröffentlichungen ist das 2021 erschienene Buch „Unsettled“ von Steven E. Koonin.

Koonin war fast dreißig Jahre lang Professor für Physik am California Institute of Technology, hatte anschließend die Position des Chefwissenschaftlers bei BP inne, war in der Obama-Administration Unterstaatssekretär im Energieministerium und arbeitet gegenwärtig als Physikprofessor an der New York University. Er ist Autor von über 200 wissenschaftlichen Artikeln und eines klassischen Buches über die Entwicklung von Computermodellen zur Simulation komplexer physikalischer Systeme. Mit dem Klima beschäftigt er sich seit 2004.

Koonins Motivation zur Abfassung des Buches entsprang der Beobachtung, dass die Medien ein Bild des Klimawandels vermitteln, das in vielerlei Hinsicht von den Ergebnissen der Forschung abweicht. Besonders augenfällig sei dies bei folgenden Punkten:

- Es wird der Eindruck erweckt, dass die Modelle zur Simulation und Prognose des Klimas verlässlich sind. Nennenswerte Meinungsverschiedenheiten soll es in der Klimaforschung nicht geben.
- Jedes extreme Wetterereignis wird als Beleg für den Klimawandel gedeutet.
- Regelmäßig werden neue Rekorde präsentiert: Der heißeste Juni, der stärkste Anstieg des
Meerwasserspiegels, die größte Eisschmelze in Grönland, die längste Dürre, usw.
- Nachdrücklich wird versichert, dass wir auf eine globale Katastrophe zusteuern.
- Gleichzeitig ist zu vernehmen, dass wir es durch drastische Maßnahmen noch in der Hand hätten, das Klima zu „retten“.

Um den Stand der Klimaforschung einzuschätzen, ist es Koonin zufolge nötig, sich zu vergegenwärtigen, dass die heutigen Klimamodelle das Ergebnis von Computersimulationen sind, bei denen die gesamte Erdatmosphäre in dreidimensionale Blöcke mit einer Seitenlänge von 100 km eingeteilt wird (S. 80). Die Forscher legten die Ausgangsbedingungen in jedem der Blöcke fest und ließen den Computer berechnen, wie die Verhältnisse eines Blocks sich auf die der benachbarten in Zeiteinheiten von zehn Minuten Länge auswirkten. Wiederhole man die Berechnung millionenfach, erhalte man Werte für die Klimaentwicklung eines ganzen Jahrhunderts (S. 81).

Was sich einfach anhöre, stoße in der Praxis auf enorme Schwierigkeiten, da ausreichende Beobachtungsdaten für die Ausgangsbedingungen der Blöcke fehlten (S. 83 f.). Dazu gehörten z. B. die Menge des Eises und Schnees, die Ausdehnung der Wolkendecke, der Verdunstungsgrad des Wassers, der Pflanzenbewuchs, die Durchmischung der Ozeane, usw. Hier komme ein starkes subjektives Moment ins Spiel: Jeder Wissenschaftler lege die Größe der Faktoren nach eigenem Ermessen fest (S. 81; S. 84).

Darüber hinaus berücksichtigten die Klimamodelle viel weniger Faktoren als in der Wirklichkeit vorkämen. Außerdem wüssten die Forscher nicht genau, wie diese Faktoren miteinander wechselwirkten und welche Rückkoppelungseffekte dabei aufträten (S. 85). Infolgedessen würden die Ergebnisse der Modelle bezüglich des heutigen Klimas weit von den gemessenen Werten abweichen, „that is, theyʾre right in a few ways, but wrong in many others“ (S. 11).

Die Modelle wichen aber nicht nur von der Realität, sondern auch voneinander ab (S. 11; S. 81). „One particularly jarring failure is that the simulated global surface temperature ... varies among models by about 3°C ..., three times greater than the observed value of the twentieth-century warming theyʾre purporting to describe and explain“ (S. 87).

Die offiziellen Klimaberichte würden daher die Durchschnittswerte der Vorhersagen mehrerer dutzend Modelle angeben (S. 86). Da den Modellen aber ganz unterschiedliche Ausgangsbedingungen zugrunde lägen, kombinierten die Klimaberichte Modelle, die eigentlich unvereinbar seien.

Hinzu komme, dass kein Modell in der Lage sei, den starken Temperaturanstieg zwischen 1910 und 1940 zu erklären. „And thatʾs deeply unsettling, because the observed early twentieth-century warming is comparable to the observed late twentieth-century warming, which the assessment reports attribute with ʿhigh confidenceʾ to human influences“ (S. 89).

Nun sollte man annehmen, dass die Modelle ungeachtet dieser Schwierigkeiten mit der Zeit genauer würden. Tatsächlich sei jedoch das Gegenteil der Fall. „In other words, as our models have become more elaborate, their descriptions of the future have become less certain“ (S. 11).

Erschwerend komme der Umstand hinzu, dass der menschliche Einfluss auf das Klima sehr gering sei. Lediglich 1 Prozent der Energie des Klimasystems werde vom Menschen erzeugt (S. 58). Um die Wirkung dieses Faktors zu ermitteln, wäre extreme Genauigkeit vonnöten.

Aufgrund dieser Probleme gebe es zur Zeit nur wenige gesicherte Resultate in der Klimaforschung. Dazu gehöre die Erkenntnis, dass zwischen 1750 und 2019 eine menschengemachte Erhöhung der CO2-Konzentration in der Atmosphäre von 280 ppm auf 410 ppm stattgefunden habe (S. 51). Außerdem bestehe Einigkeit darüber, dass die globale Durchschnittstemperatur von 1880 bis heute um etwa ein Grad gestiegen sei (S. 44). Wie weit das Eine vom Anderen abhänge, lasse sich jedoch nicht angeben, denn die gegenwärtigen Klimamodelle seien zu unpräzise, um die Einwirkung des Menschen auf das Klima zu quantifizieren (S. 24; S. 91). Es wäre also möglich, dass der Temperaturanstieg der letzten 140 Jahre weitgehend natürliche Ursachen hatte.

Im Übrigen könne man Modellen, die das Klima der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart nicht korrekt simulierten, keine große Prognosekraft zuschreiben (S. 4; S. 91; S. 96). Wir müssten uns eingestehen, dass wir weit davon entfernt seien, das Klima und seine Mechanismen wirklich zu verstehen (S. 85; S. 96; S. 254).

Die Schöpfer der von den Medien verbreiteten Katastrophenszenarien ignorierten diese Fakten. Sie billigten den heutigen Modellen mehr Verlässlichkeit zu als sie verdienten und fütterten sie mit völlig unrealistischen Ausgangsdaten (S. 167). Gehe man von plausiblen Voraussetzungen aus, komme man hingegen zu dem Ergebnis, dass weder die landwirtschaftliche Produktion (S. 176) noch das Wirtschaftswachstum (S. 179-183) bis zum Jahr 2100 durch den Klimawandel nennenswert beeinträchtigt würden. Die Zahl der Todesfälle durch Klimaeinflüsse könne sogar sinken (S. 171).

In diesem Zusammenhang sei es aufschlussreich, sich vor Augen zu halten, dass die CO2-Konzentration in der Atmosphäre sich immer noch auf einem erdgeschichtlichen Tiefststand befinde. In den letzten 400 Millionen Jahren sei sie fast immer höher gewesen, zeitweise sogar um das fünfundzwanzigfache des heutigen Wertes (S. 67).

Auf den ersten Blick scheinen die Wetterberichte, die permanent auf den Klimawandel verweisen, dieser Einschätzung zu widersprechen. Allerdings machen sie sich Koonin zufolge einer schwerwiegenden Verwechslung schuldig. Der Ausdruck Klima bezeichne das durchschnittliche Wetter mehrerer Jahrzehnte. Kein Wetterereignis erlaube für sich genommen Rückschlüsse auf das Klima (S. 31; S. 128). „It takes at least a decade of observations to define a climate, and so two or more decades to identify a change in it“ (S. 28).

Die häufig zu hörende Behauptung, ein bestimmtes Wetterereignis sei durch den Klimawandel hervorgerufen oder intensiviert worden, beruhe auf sogenannten „Attributionsstudien“. Koonin zufolge sind diese Arbeiten schlichtweg unwissenschaftlich. „A hallmark of science is that conclusions get tested against observations. But thatʾs virtually impossible for weather attribution studies. Itʾs like a spiritual adviser who claims her influence helped you win the lottery – after youʾve already won it“ (S. 99). Es sei schockierend, dass derartige Studien von den Medien ernst genommen würden.

Vermeintliche Wetterrekorde stellten sich bei genauer Überprüfung meist als falsch heraus oder als Einzelereignisse, denen keine langfristige Tendenz zugrunde liege. „Observations extending back over a century indicate that most types of extreme weather donʾt show any significant change – and some such events have actually become less common or severe – even as human influences on the climate grow“ (S. 97).

In den USA, die über die umfangreichsten und verlässlichsten Wetterdaten der Welt verfügten, sei keine Tendenz zum Anstieg der Höchsttemperaturen feststellbar. „The record highs clearly show the warm 1930s, but there is no significant trend over the 120 years of observations, or even since 1980, when human influences on the climate grew strongly“ (S. 106). Eher habe es den Anschein, dass extreme Temperaturen seit dem Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts weniger häufig und weniger extrem geworden seien (S. 107).

Das Gleiche gelte für Stürme. Laut Datenlage habe weder ihre Zahl noch ihre Stärke zugenommen (S. 112). Für Tornados könne man sogar feststellen, dass die stärksten in den letzten Jahrzehnten seltener geworden seien (S. 123). Zwar seien die von Stürmen verursachten Schäden gestiegen, doch liege das an dem Umstand, dass immer mehr küstennahe Gebiete besiedelt wurden (S. 120).

Bei den Niederschlägen zeigten die verfügbaren Daten keine nennenswerten Veränderungen, weder in den USA noch global (S. 147). Über die Entwicklung von Überflutungen seien derzeit keine verlässlichen Aussagen möglich (S. 138).

Dürreperioden scheinen in der jüngeren Vergangenheit nicht häufiger gewesen zu sein als im Durchschnitt des letzten Jahrtausends (S. 138-140). Dagegen habe die weltweit jährlich von Waldbränden erfasste Fläche zwischen 1998 und 2015 um 25 Prozent abgenommen (S. 142).

Der Anstieg des Meeresspiegels habe seit 1990 drei Millimeter pro Jahr betragen, was zwar mehr als in der Mitte des 20. Jahrhunderts sei, aber genau dem Wert entspreche, der zwischen 1925 und 1940 gemessen wurde (S. 155). Dabei gelte es zu bedenken, dass der Anstieg vor 22.000 Jahren begann und anfänglich Werte um bis zu 12 mm pro Jahr erreichte, bevor er sich vor 7000 Jahren dramatisch verlangsamte (S. 151).

Erdgeschichtlich gesehen falle der heutige Stand des Meeresspiegels nicht aus dem Rahmen. Während der letzten Zwischeneiszeit habe er um 6 Meter höher gelegen (S. 151).

Einer 2020 in „Nature“ erschienenen Studie sei zu entnehmen, dass die Eisdecke in Grönland heute nicht schneller schmelze als 1935 (S. 160; S. 274, Anm. 14).

Diese Tatsachen sollten, so meint Koonin, den Blick auf die Pariser Klimaziele von 2015 schärfen. Bedenke man, dass 80 Prozent der heutigen Energie aus fossilen Brennstoffen stamme (S. 217), der weltweite Energiebedarf bis 2050 um 50 Prozent zunehmen und der größte Teil davon auf Entwicklungsländer entfallen werde, die sich keine teuren Energiequellen leisten könnten, sei es völlig illusorisch den CO2-Ausstoß bis 2075 oder gar 2050 auf Null reduzieren zu wollen (S. 216). „ ... under current trends, every 10 percent reduction that the developed world makes in its emissions (a reduction it has barely managed in fifteen years) will offset less than four years of growth in emissions expected as the developing world improves itself ...“ (S. 220).

Wer die Situation realistisch betrachte, müsse einsehen, dass die Menschheit sich auf den Klimawandel primär durch Anpassung einstellen werde, nicht durch eine Reduktion des CO2- Ausstoßes (S. 224; S. 245). Halte man sich vor Augen, dass selbst ein Anstieg der globalen Durchschnittstemperatur um 5 Grad vermutlich keinen nennenswerten wirtschaftlichen Schaden anrichten würde, sei dies kein Grund zur Verzweiflung. Ein Anstieg um bis zu 2 Grad könne sich sogar positiv auswirken, indem er den landwirtschaftlichen Ertrag erhöhe und die Heizkosten senke (S. 215).

Der Leser von Koonins Buch fragt sich unwillkürlich, warum er von vielen der dort angeführten Fakten noch nie gehört hat. Wie kann es sein, dass die Medien ein so einseitiges, ja verfälschendes Bild der Klimaforschung zeichnen? Koonin sieht die Antwort in dem Umstand, dass der Kampf gegen den Klimawandel für die meisten Journalisten zu einer Glaubensfrage geworden sei. Ihnen gehe es nicht mehr um Aufklärung, sondern um Bekehrung (S. 187). „ ... in an effort to persuade rather than inform, the information presented withholds either essential context or what doesnʾt ʿfitʾ“ (S. 7).

Auch bei Wissenschaftlern sei diese Haltung anzutreffen. Viele seiner Kollegen, berichtet Koonin, hätten mit Empörung reagiert, als er die Probleme der Klimamodelle öffentlich ansprach. Einer von ihnen habe Koonins Universität sogar aufgefordert, ihn zu entlassen. „It seems that by highlighting these uncertainties so plainly and publicly, I had inadvertently broken some code of silence, like the Mafiaʾs omerta“ (S. 5). Manche Wissenschaftler hätten angesichts dieses Konformitätsdrucks nicht mehr den Mut, ihre Meinung zu äußern. „As the chair of a highly respected university told me privately, ʿI agree with pretty much everything you wrote, but I donʾt dare say that in publicʾ“ (S. 5). Der Konsens der Klimaforscher dürfte um einiges geringer sein als es nach außen hin den Anschein hat.

Selbst in die Klimaberichte der amerikanischen Regierung und des IPCC sei der missionarische Geist eingedrungen (S. 4). Dutzendfach kann Koonin zeigen, dass die Zusammenfassungen der Berichte irreführende oder falsche Behauptungen enthalten, die durch den Inhalt des Haupttextes nicht gedeckt sind (S. 87; S. 101; S. 107; S. 121; S. 158; S. 171; S. 175; S. 177). Eine besonders dreiste Falschaussage charakterisiert er als „a disturbing illustration of how non-experts are misled and the science is spun to persuade, not inform“ (S. 101), eine andere Behauptung erscheint ihm „shockingly misleading“ (S. 107).

Mit ihrer Parteilichkeit treiben Journalisten und Wissenschaftler ein gefährliches Spiel. Sie berauben die Bürger nicht allein der Möglichkeit, sich ein selbständiges Urteil über den Klimawandel zu bilden, sie riskieren auch, dass ihr Fehlverhalten durchschaut wird und das Vertrauen der Öffentlichkeit in Medien und Wissenschaft nachhaltig beschädigt. Für die westlichen Demokratien wäre das eine schwere Hypothek. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass Koonins Buch diese Gefahr verringert.

38 people found this helpful

Translate review to English

charles whitworth

Unsettling

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 6, 2023

Verified Purchase

An easy enough read, it tries to take an honest approach to the climate science, using data from real publications. This includes IPCC reports, that most people don't bother read, or at least not the detailed scientific sections. The conclusion of this is that, whereas Co2 is a green house gas, and the planet has warmed, many of catastrophes that are being predicted either are not happening, or we don't seem to know as there isn't the data. He also gives a good overview of climate models, which have grids that are way too big to be that useful, and that it is very much a computing power issue (but also a data issue to initialise the models). Finally, the last few chapters are about how easy it is going to be to get to Net Zero, and how the Science for climate science needs to be fixed. Overall, and honest book of science, although a bit dry, and with most of the data based on the USA.

Jonas Rabe

If you should only read one book on this topic, this is it!

Reviewed in Sweden on December 17, 2022

Verified Purchase

Great explanations and analysis with nice examples including references to all mentioned mainstream media articles and scientific papers used in the examples, excellent and transparent work!

Meg learner

Excellent and Interesting Book

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on October 13, 2023

Verified Purchase

Very readable and everything he has to say is supported by data from the ICC report. He makes no unsubstantiated claims. Anyone seriously interested in the climate should read this.

M. Caxton

As it is

Reviewed in the United Kingdom on September 8, 2023

Verified Purchase

You have to admire the author for almost certainly damaging his career and having to experience the behaviour of some people who will not accept that there are other opinions and that The Science may not be as settled as people are made to believe. Steven Koonin has clearly outlined both sides of this argument and in so doing highlighting the issue surrounding being a scientist and therefore impartial and being an advocate who is not.

A well written and thoughtful review of Climate Change that explains clearly, to ordinary people, the uncertainty around the science. The title is succinct and says it all.

2 people found this helpful

See more reviews

Get to Know Us

Make Money with Us

Amazon Payment Products

Let Us Help You

English $USD - U.S. Dollar United States

© 1996-2023, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates