What is Reddit's opinion of
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
20 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
You should consider including arguments for both sides. There’s a book called unsettled that covers this topic really well. I’m not going to claim to summarize this or that I agree fully with him. But I definitely try to seek as many perspectives as possible especially with something as difficult as climate change. It’s a great read that even covers how governments go about making decisions related to this topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
"The Guardian" is a warped eco-Marxist modern media manipulation operation. I've read some of the actual IPCC report...the one that has very specific scenarios for future models. The one that readily admits, the worst case scenario is extremely unlikely.
Steve Koonin wrote a brilliant synopsis of the IPCC reports. This is not a "denial" of anthropogenic climate change, it is a realistic examination of what is actually going on vs the hysteria being stirred up by "The Guardian".
I read this book and found it pretty convincing. You might be interested, but it doesnt sound like you have an open mind on the topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
I also read Bill Gates book, who has a much more level headed approach than the mainstream climate movement.
TLDR: Climate change is real and it is is a problem. It is dramatically overstated, largely due to the belief that unless people act like its the end of the world (it's not) then no one will do anything about it. Lying to get the behavior you want is not how you influence change.
Google e5 tornadoes and find they happen every 8 to 10 years and rate of tornadoes has not increased. Do the same for hurricanes over the last 100 years. Then read a book that challenges your understanding and you might learn something Unsettled: What Climate Science... https://www.amazon.com/dp/1950665798?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_share
An interesting book on that topic:
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters
I’m just starting this book. I try my best to avoid alarmism and those who are 100% certain.
Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn't, and Why It Matters https://www.amazon.com/dp/1950665798/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_XZTZYVBTW0H01F0PSZPH?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
This is a book by Steve Koonin about climate change. He's an ex-obama official. I have not read it and only recently heard of it, but it seems like something relevant to your question. He's obviously not "right wing".
Interesting upcoming book where the author was just interviewed in WSJ.
Steven E. Koonin Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Pre-order here: https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.
I do. I read this book about a year ago https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
I also read Bill Gates book. https://www.amazon.com/How-Avoid-Climate-Disaster-Breakthroughs/dp/059321577X
Both are pretty convincing and well sourced. TLDR: Climate change is a real problem that needs facing. It is not "the end of the world" and we have valid strategies to combat it without destroying economies. Nuclear power is the bridge to more sustainable energy.
Another good recommendation is Unsettled by Steven Koonin. It has a number of sections about science communication.
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
I hate casting pearls to swine but maybe crack open a book.
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
You're being misled, and you're doubling down on your ignorance. Literally the worst kind of person in this debate.
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
>I am a successful scientist so I think I have this covered. My point was that every way you control for a confounding variable has error bars around it and sometimes it's just not feasible. When you're trying to make claims that are based on fractions of a degree at a worldwide level, any systematic or even random error can throw off your core data to the point that it's unusable.
If you have doubts about the methodology there’s a section for it in every study.
>On the rest, you seem to be sidestepping my main points or not understanding that you asked me how people were incentivized to support the climate change narrative.
I asked what the incentives were. As an economist I don’t view anecdotal accounts of bias as evidence of a financial incentive.
>For example, I wasn't arguing that squirrel mating deserves more funding. I was arguing that researchers benefit from linking any research to supportive evidence for global warming and they suffer personally and professionally if they argue that climate change isn't an existential threat.
I’m sure if they provided sufficient evidence they would be respected. So far there hasn’t been any credible evidence of such so I don’t think that’s a good example. You’re making a claim that the evidence for climate change is insufficient and you’re not substantiating it.
>It's treated as a foregone conclusion
No it is not. There is sufficient evidence to confirm anthropogenic climate change is real. Dumping of waste, plastics, sewage, industrial runoff etc. contributes significantly to ecological decline. Clear cutting and encroaching on forests does the same, while also reducing the number of carbon sinks. Even if you’re skeptical about the degree of warming you cannot deny that humans are destroying our natural environment.
>that it's real,
Stop fam. GHG emissions increase global temperature. This is such an undisputed fact that the majority of research is on the specific GHG impact of specific activities.
https://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18354
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/15/7192
Do you dispute that it was hotter at the time of the dinosaurs? This is elementary thermodynamics.
>it's man made,
It’s a combination of natural forces and human intervention. We’re disrupting climate cycles that provided us with the necessary conditions for homeostasis.
>it's preventable, and the price of preventing it is less than the price of letting it go.
The price to whom? Russians will get a lot of real estate. My African family will most likely become refugees as the dry season is already getting too long to grow food. The cost of climate change, if not mitigated, will undoubtably fall on those who live near the equator. The refugee crisis that follows will fall on everyone.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-17001-1
>In fact, this is exactly what you're doing throughout your post. The science is NOT "settled" on this topic.
>https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
This book is terrible lol is this what you’re basing your argument on? This guy is a professional skeptic, and he doesn’t even agree with half the things you’ve said. He agrees that temperatures are rising, but claims that our temperature variation is in line with natural variations, a claim that’s easily disproven. The problem isn’t the absolute temperature it’s the rate of increase, a problem Koonin fails to address.
>Solyndra: The investors gave money to Solyndra BECAUSE it was going to be getting money from the Govt or because it got money from the Govt. Most of them wouldn't have touched Solyndra if you take away the Govt funding.
True, I just don’t think you can pretend investors were wiser. I thought they did their own research?
>Regardless, my point (that you're ignoring) is that con-artists are drawn to climate change opportunities because it has all the right elements . . . it's complicated, it's scary, and it's extremely well funded by people who aren't protective of the funding (i.e., politicians/bureacrats).
Not ignoring it, just don’t see what it has to do with the credibility of climate science. There will always be greedy people vying for money and power. If we ignore climate change because of grifters we deserve to go extinct.
>If I say, "Devastating Wildfires Caused by Climate Change" with no supporting evidence, I can't prove my argument, but I'll get people's attention.
Again, your assumption that there’s no evidence to support that claim makes you seem ignorant.
>Do you notice how I say, "can't prove argument" and you say that I'm assuming "there's no evidence to support . . ."?
You said “with no supporting evidence”. Stop twisting my words. If someone is writing articles about climate change with no supporting evidence they are a terrible journalist.
>To be clear, you can't prove that Climate Changed caused the wildfires but saying that it does gets people's attention. The media wants to get peoples attention so they are incentivized to link things to climate change regardless of whether the link is accurate.
There is a statistically significant link between average temperature, droughts, and wildfires. The media doesn’t have the power to link anything as they don’t conduct scientific studies or research. Again, if they’re reporting without evidence they’re bad journalists.
>Yes, it is. You are not the arbiter of truth. Well, for yourself you can be, but not for the rest of us.
I never claimed to be the arbiter of truth. Do you honestly believe that you know better than people who are devoting their entire lives to climate science?
>One of the initial videos that made me realize how debatable it climate change is can be found here.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY
I remember watching this. Good debate. Excellent moderator. Based on outdated knowledge. Climate science has advanced a lot in the last 10 years.
>Fission/Fusion/Pollution, etc. This really confuses me. I'm basically trying to find obvious common ground and you're essentially saying, this sounds hard (paraphrasing).
No, I’m saying it’s not reasonable for us to expect the private sector to take on those costs. It’s just not what our financial system is set up to reward.
>It is hard. Do you have a plan or are you just here to argue against my arguments for clean energy and less pollution.
I never said it was easy? I pointed out that your stated solutions are insufficient, not that we shouldn’t do anything. For the trash example we should stop putting single use plastics in every product, improve our recycling infrastructure and create better guidelines for plastic production. There’s a company working on methods for trawling plastic waste from the ocean that I thought was pretty impressive. On a larger scale I think we need to shift away from a culture of constant consumption and waste.
For the energy example I think nuclear is a good option, but it’s almost always necessary for it to receive government funding. Fusion would be an incredible investment, but nuclear and solar are already efficient enough to meet our current needs, they just need to be adopted more widely.
>If you're not going to be happy until you convince me, you're not going to be happy. You could, however, get me to agree to support activities that will help regardless of whether climate change is real or not.
Ignore advertisements. Homestead. Grow all your own food. Become entirely self sufficient. Reject modernity. Return to nature.
>Is that not a win for you?
We’re all in this together. I’m not thinking about winning.
>You have no concept of the scientific process.
I am a successful scientist so I think I have this covered. My point was that every way you control for a confounding variable has error bars around it and sometimes it's just not feasible. When you're trying to make claims that are based on fractions of a degree at a worldwide level, any systematic or even random error can throw off your core data to the point that it's unusable.
On the rest, you seem to be sidestepping my main points or not understanding that you asked me how people were incentivized to support the climate change narrative. For example, I wasn't arguing that squirrel mating deserves more funding. I was arguing that researchers benefit from linking any research to supportive evidence for global warming and they suffer personally and professionally if they argue that climate change isn't an existential threat. It's treated as a foregone conclusion that it's real, it's man made, it's preventable, and the price of preventing it is less than the price of letting it go. In fact, this is exactly what you're doing throughout your post. The science is NOT "settled" on this topic.
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
Solyndra: The investors gave money to Solyndra BECAUSE it was going to be getting money from the Govt or because it got money from the Govt. Most of them wouldn't have touched Solyndra if you take away the Govt funding. Regardless, my point (that you're ignoring) is that con-artists are drawn to climate change opportunities because it has all the right elements . . . it's complicated, it's scary, and it's extremely well funded by people who aren't protective of the funding (i.e., politicians/bureacrats).
>If I say, "Devastating Wildfires Caused by Climate Change" with no supporting evidence, I can't prove my argument, but I'll get people's attention.
>Again, your assumption that there’s no evidence to support that claim makes you seem ignorant.
Do you notice how I say, "can't prove argument" and you say that I'm assuming "there's no evidence to support . . ."? Those are two different things. In other words, you're trying to put words in my mouth and then arguing against those words. I understand why you might do that if you're trying to win a debate because my point is accurate and really can only be refuted if you try to change what I'm saying. To be clear, you can't prove that Climate Changed caused the wildfires but saying that it does gets people's attention. The media wants to get peoples attention so they are incentivized to link things to climate change regardless of whether the link is accurate.
>Its not a debate. Yes, it is. You are not the arbiter of truth. Well, for yourself you can be, but not for the rest of us. One of the initial videos that made me realize how debatable it climate change is can be found here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwayalLpYY
Fission/Fusion/Pollution, etc. This really confuses me. I'm basically trying to find obvious common ground and you're essentially saying, this sounds hard (paraphrasing). It is hard. Do you have a plan or are you just here to argue against my arguments for clean energy and less pollution. If you're not going to be happy until you convince me, you're not going to be happy. You could, however, get me to agree to support activities that will help regardless of whether climate change is real or not. Is that not a win for you?
The pandemic that originated in a Chinese laboratory... that is racist to even suggest that.
Climate change rhetoric that is heavily biased? Flat earther! https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
>because weather patterns that people have relied on up until recently are being disrupted
Yeah, not so much. That is a liberal Democrat talking point. Check this:
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798
Don't need solutions to problems beyond man's control.
No, it’s not. The desert has always been hot in the summer. This isn’t “news”.
In this recently published book, Dr. Stephen Koonan, who was President Obama's Chief Climate Change Scientist, points out:
“The data and academic research actually show - unequivocally - that: Heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900. The warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years. Humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century. Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago. The net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.” https://www.amazon.com/Unsettled-Climate-Science-Doesnt-Matters/dp/1950665798/ref=sr_1_1
Popular alternatives to Unsettled: What Climate Sci...
Come as You Are: The Surprising New Science that Will Transform Your Sex Life
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion
