@Sharptonguedwoman
As promised yesterday, here are some further details of some useful academic sources that help give some perspective to the current anthropogenic climate catastrophe narrative.
I have recently read three publications, written by academics that pull together a great deal of the peer-reviewed scientific research on this topic:
1. Dr Judith Curry ‘Climate Uncertainty and Risk: Rethinking Our Response’.
A review of her book by Michael Kelly (Emeritus Prince Philip Professor of
Technology, University of Cambridge) supports it being an intellectually robust
assessment: "With climate models running too hot by a factor of 2 for 30
years, with everything that used to be called a weather event now a portent of
climate change, and with billions being invested against this as opposed to
other more pressing world needs, Judith A. Curry provides us with a much-needed and convincing rethink." She has taken part in plenty of online interviews/discussions - for example:
2. John A. Kington ‘Climate and Weather’
This is a* *survey of the climate history of the British Isles over the last 2000 years that “puts our present experience of weather into striking perspective”.
3. Dr Steven Koon ‘Unsettled - what climate science tells us, what it doesn’t and why it matters’
Again, Koonin has given plenty of overviews of his academic position online - for
example:
https://www.google.com/search?q=steve+koonin&sca_esv=b809e87fd372fe48&sca_upv=1&tbm=vid&prmd=nivmbtz&source=lnt&tbs=qdr:y&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVmfbbpMuGAxWFT0EAHfvOB8YQpwV6BAgBEBI&biw=1920&bih=912&dpr=1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:a6f98766,vid:acyErLNL7kQ,st:0
However, with respect to Dr Koonin’s work, it is worth noting that if you
Google him, the results, in typical fashion, are biased to first return those
that are aimed to discredit him. So, it is useful to keep in mind his scientific credentials: he served as Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy under President Obama; he has more than 200 peer-reviewed papers (in the fields of physics, scientific computation, energy technology and policy and climate science); he was a professor of theoretical physics at Caltech for thirty years and is now a professor at New York University. One of the principal critical reviews of his book was published in Scientific American. Despite the fact that Koonin was quick to publish an unequivocal rebuttal of the critical Scientific American piece (https://steven-koonin.medium.com/my-response-to-a-scientific-american-hit-piece-7b5811141137),the original flawed review still comes close to the top of any internet search for Koonin. Interestingly, Koonin had the opportunity to directly challenge a co-author of the Scientific American review. This features towards the end of a debate recorded between Koonin and one of the climate scientists whose name was listed amongst the article’s contributors. This academic was completely unable to defend the criticism -indeed, initially he tried to deny having contributed (until he was shown his name in the list of contributing academics!) … skip to the closing comments (at 1 hour 25 minutes) for the relevant exchange, if you don’t want to watch the entire debate:
As Dr Koonin states in the above debate, the critical review in no way reflects the actual content of his academic work, but Scientific American has refused to publish his rebuttal. In reality, Koonin’s position is extremely difficult to criticise because he only draws upon the actual scientific, peer-reviewed data that informs the main body of the IPCC's official reports. However, he notes that there is a significant disconnect between the science contained within the main body of successive IPCC reports and the summary documents that are subsequently released for the media and policy-makers (which tend not to accurately reflect the scientific findings).
Perhaps what we have most to fear is the fact that the climate narrative is being massively spun to serve a political agenda that is out of control, and now has the backing of an eco-industrial complex that is worth billions!