{"id":99009,"date":"2023-04-02T14:04:00","date_gmt":"2023-04-02T18:04:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=99009"},"modified":"2023-04-13T09:12:13","modified_gmt":"2023-04-13T13:12:13","slug":"steven-koonin-climate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/steven-koonin-climate\/","title":{"rendered":"Steven Koonin: Climate Science Needs a Serious Overhaul"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Is the state of climate science<\/a> worse than the state of the climate itself? How could it be made more useful?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Steven Koonin, climate science is in big trouble. He argues that climate science is frequently misconstrued, and he attempts to diagnose the root of this problem and propose a remedy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Continue reading to learn Koonin’s suggestions for repairing climate science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

Steven Koonin on Climate Science<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to Steven Koonin, climate science is knowingly misrepresented by several parties out of their own self-interest. These parties include the media, politicians, and climate scientists themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Koonin argues that, despite the grim state of climate science, it\u2019s possible to improve scientific reports on climate change and their portrayal to the general public. In particular, he proposes concrete strategies for making climate science more transparent and accessible to the layperson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To begin, Koonin advocates third-party review of climate reports themselves\u2014specifically, the US\u2019s NCA reports and the UN\u2019s IPCC reports. In order to strengthen confidence in these reports and expose possible flaws, Koonin recommends a \u201cRed Team review,\u201d in which an external group of scientists scrutinizes the reports and presents possible counterarguments to their findings. Such a review, Koonin notes, is common practice in national security reports, so it has precedent in other consequential fields.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: In addition to Red Team reviews, government proposals are also subjected to several other reviews<\/a> as the proposal nears completion. For instance, Blue Team reviews occur around the outline phase, making sure that the outline is complete and doesn\u2019t have any obvious flaws. Next, a Pink Team review examines a more fleshed-out document, looking for factual errors and red flags not found in the previous review. Traditionally, the Red Team review only occurs after these previous reviews.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

With respect to climate reports, Koonin argues they have two features that justify a Red Team review. First, climate reports are written under the auspices of self-interested governments, which suggests that bias could infiltrate them; a Red Team review could help mitigate this concern. Second, unlike papers published in academic journals, the NCA and IPCC reports aren\u2019t reviewed by a referee who can require changes\u2014although referees do review the reports, the original authors have the authority to overrule referees\u2019 comments. So, a Red Team review could help check the authors\u2019 unrestrained authority.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: While Koonin\u2019s concern about authors\u2019 unchecked authority is valid, similar concerns have been voiced about the anonymous referees of academic journals; some argue that anonymity leaves referees free to make arbitrary requests without accountability<\/a>. Nonetheless, anonymous review remains the norm in academic publishing, though the British Medical Journal <\/em>abandoned the practice in 1999<\/a>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond improving climate reports themselves, Koonin also suggests ways to increase public understanding of climate science. Because most laypeople learn about climate change from the media, Koonin argues that they need to learn to distinguish between reliable and unreliable climate reporting. He lists various warning signs indicating that a particular climate story in the media is unreliable:<\/p>\n\n\n\n