{"id":9491,"date":"2021-06-06T18:28:33","date_gmt":"2021-06-06T17:28:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=9491"},"modified":"2021-06-06T18:28:33","modified_gmt":"2021-06-06T17:28:33","slug":"book-reviews-apocalypse-never-michael-shellenberger-and-unsettled-steven-e-koonin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2021\/06\/book-reviews-apocalypse-never-michael-shellenberger-and-unsettled-steven-e-koonin\/","title":{"rendered":"Book reviews: Apocalypse Never (Michael Shellenberger) and Unsettled (Steven E. Koonin)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a> \"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

So I’ve gone back to my old habit of binge reading on mostly unrelated topics to my main work in the genetics-social science cluster. Climate science is a long running interest of mine, why not read some more of it!<\/p>\n

Of the two, Koonin’s book will teach you a lot more about the data. It has a lot of figures, such as this one:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

All of his plots are well made and teaches you something important. Above, warming is far from equal in every place. As a scientist, I enjoyed the Koonin book a lot more. It walks the reader through important concepts such as black body radiation<\/a> and albedo<\/a>, as well as looks at the various computer models in climate science. They aren’t very good at predicting stuff, it’s kinda embarrassing. Predictions are better made using simpler time series analysis models on the longest running data series. Some interesting quotes. On lying to the public ‘for a good cause’<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Although Schneider later spent many words trying to explain his statement about the \u201cdouble ethical bind,\u201d I believe the underlying premise is dangerously wrong. There should be no question about \u201cwhat the right balance is between being effective and being honest.\u201d It is the height of hubris for a scientist even to consider deliberately misinforming policy discussions in service of what they believe to be ethical. This would seem obvious in other contexts: imagine the outcry if it were discovered that scientists were misrepresenting data on birth control because of their religious beliefs, for instance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This kind of lying is actively defended by some. Curiously, it is always in the context of their own favorite political beliefs (Nathan Cofnas has written on this at length<\/a>), which is a big red flag that something like this is never ever a good idea. On having too many plots:<\/p>\n

One of the advantages of writing a book as opposed to an Op-Ed is that it allows not only a deeper discussion, but also the more liberal use of graphs. Please take them in stride. Graphs are the language of data and data is central to both the science and how it is communicated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

On the media circus:<\/p>\n

It\u2019s clear that media, politicians, and often the assessment reports themselves blatantly misrepresent what the science says about climate and catastrophes. Those failures indict the scientists who write and too-casually review the reports, the reporters who uncritically repeat them, the editors who allow that to happen, the activists and their organizations
\nwho fan the fires of alarm, and the experts whose public silence endorses the deception. The constant repetition of these and many other climate fallacies turns them into accepted \u201ctruths.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I think this stuff is mainly about controlling the public perception of science. I think the proper solution so this is simple: do a lot of anonymous surveys of scientists. Do them often to see any changes in views over time. Right now, the practice is simply to declare any convenient position to be the scientific consensus. If one shames opponents too much, few will speak up, and those who do, can easily be branded as cranks or loners. Surveys make this an impossibility. We should fund a lot more surveys of scientists on pretty much every topic. Science is not decided by majority vote, but perception of scientific opinion is often decided by majority vote in the media. This is a way to attack back.<\/p>\n

Koonin’s background is pretty interesting combination of fossil fuel consulting and Obama politics:<\/p>\n

About a year later, I understood the science and the societal challenges well enough to see that a straightforward synthesis of a handful of basic facts led directly to the conclusion that even stabilizing human influences was so difficult as to be essentially impossible. Saying that directly and publicly while I was working for BP (and later the Obama Department of Energy) would probably have gotten me fired. But I was able to reconcile my organizational responsibilities with my scientific integrity by simply organizing and presenting the data and letting others follow the arrows for themselves.<\/p>\n

Humans have been inadvertently increasing the earth\u2019s albedo for almost two centuries, as the burning of sulphur-laden coal produces tiny particles (aerosols) in the lower atmosphere that enhance the planet\u2019s reflectivity. One of my first calculations upon joining BP in 2004 had to do with that aerosol cooling. The company was embarking on a campaign to brand natural gas as \u201ca bridge to a low-carbon future,\u201d as it produces only half as much carbon dioxide per unit of energy as coal. However, I quickly estimated, literally on the back of an envelope, that a sizable portion of that CO 2 reduction would be negated by the loss of aerosol cooling from the coal. BP management was not pleased when I pointed that out.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Koonin’s book is lighter on the politics. Shellenberger’s book is the opposite. It is heavy on the history and politics, and features no plots at all, even when talking about quantitative topics. This is a major weakness in my opinion. Nevertheless, it teaches a lot of interesting things. Some quotes:<\/p>\n

\n

Nuclear is thus the safest way to make reliable electricity.22<\/span><\/a><\/sup> In fact, nuclear has saved more than two million lives to date by preventing the deadly air pollution that shortens the lives of seven million people per year.23<\/span><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

For that reason, replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels costs lives. A study published in late 2019 found that Germany\u2019s nuclear phase-out is costing its citizens $12 billion per year, with more than 70 percent of the cost resulting from 1,100 excess deaths from \u201clocal air pollution emitted by the coal-fired power plants operating in place of the shutdown nuclear plants.\u201d24<\/span><\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The safety of nuclear was recently promoted very well by Kurzgesagt:<\/p>\n