In 2021, the physicist Stephen Koonen, who served as undersecretary for science in the Obama Administration Energy Department, published the best-selling, Unceddled. What climate science tells us, what it doesn't, and why it matters. The book attracted extremely negative reviews, filled with ad-hominant attacks, such as a short statement appearing in Scientific American, signed by 12 academics. That instead of dealing with the substance of the book, calls the author, a crank who's only taken seriously by far-right disinformation peddlers, hungry for anything they can use to score political points, and just another denier trying to sell a book. I couldn't find a single negative review of Unceddled that disputed its claims directly, or even described them accurately. Many of the reviewers seemed to have stopped reading after the first few pages. Others were forced to concede that many of Koonen's facts were correct, but objected that they were used in the service of challenging official dogma. True statements were downplayed as trivial or as things that everyone knows, despite the extensive parts of Unceddled that documented precisely the opposite, when dissenting scientists are implicitly compared to Holocaust deniers, or their ideas considered to be too dangerous to be carefully considered, it undermines public respect for the field, and can lead to catastrophic policy mistakes. It's human nature to favor evidence that confirms our biases and leads to simple conclusions, but for science to advance, it's essential that moral certainty not override objective discussion, and that personal attacks not replace rational consideration of empirical evidence. In a review of Unceddled in Scientific American, Gary Yohe, an emeritus professor at Wesley in University, gives the impression that he didn't read past the first few pages. The book has nine chapters filled with examples of exaggerations and outright falsehoods in both scientific and popular accounts. Yohe mentions just four claims taken from the first two pages, plus one from a chapter subtitle, and manages to refute none of them. He seizes on the assertion, which appears on page two, that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past 50 years. According to what measures Yohe writes, highest global averages? Absolutely not. If he had bothered to keep reading, Yohe would have found a detailed account of precisely what measure Conan was using, and the evidence that record high temperatures in the US are no more common than they were in the 1970s. Yohe attacks Conan's assertion that heatwaves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, claiming that this is a questionable statement depending on the definition of heatwave, and so it is really uninformative. Heatwaves are poor indicators of heat stress. If Yohe had read carefully, he would have found the official heatwave index used in why it matters. He offers no evidence that heat stress, something even less well-defined and hence less informative than heatwave, is greater than in 1900. Yohe also focuses on the first word of the book's title, unsettled. He claims that Conan deploys that highly misleading label to falsely suggest that we don't understand the risks well enough to dig action. Actually, Conan's argument is that claims of harm from human climate impacts have been exaggerated and are misrepresented in the press, and that we should undertake more sensible and longer-term policies than many activists and politicians currently advocate. In another article, published on the website of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Yohe writes that although Conan is a very skilled and well-respected physicist, he should follow the approach of those on the front line. People who know what they are doing because they have been doing this for 15 years. Conan has been attacked by others for not being a climate scientist by trade. In mostigmatic religions, only the anointed are granted the authority to speak, but science is supposed to be a discipline that's open to anyone who can interpret the relevant material. Unsettled is a book you can accurately judge by its cover, wrote Mark Boslow, a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry, in Yale Climate Review Connections, and it seems as if he barely read further. He denies that anyone in the media, politics, or otherwise of prominence has claimed that climate science is settled. He ignores all of the book's substantive points because the cover was the only part worth reading. Conan is accused of having cherry-picked and carelessly misrepresented many of his sources. By Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the London School of Economics grant them research institute on climate change. Though his refutations are weak, at least Ward does seem to have read the book. In one chapter, Conan takes the media to task for its overheated account of the link between human CO2 emissions and hurricane frequency. Such as a USA Today article had lined, global warming is making hurricanes stronger study says. The article states unequivocally that human cause global warming has strengthened the wind speeds of hurricanes, typhoons, and cyclones around the globe. Conan points out that the study on which that article is based doesn't make that claim with such certainty. Conan quotes directly from the study, but Ward accuses him of having omitted another excerpt from the same paper which reads, From a storyline balance of evidence or type 2 error avoidance perspective, the consistency of the trends identified here with expectations based on physical understanding and greenhouse warming simulations increases confidence that TCs have become substantially stronger and that there is a likely human fingerprint on this increase. Ward must be confused about what that sentence means because it doesn't support the USA Today article or undermine Conan's point. That passage is saying that although there is only suggestive evidence the tropical cyclones have gotten stronger, we're better off assuming that they are and that humans are partly responsible. Conan likely agrees with that statement and he's certainly correct that it doesn't justify an ambiguous headlines like global warming is making hurricanes stronger study says. After Conan wrote a Wall Street journal op-ed entitled Greenland's Melting Ice is No Cause for Climate Change Panic in February 2022, an organization called Climate Feedback which calls itself a worldwide network of scientists sorting facts from fiction and climate change media coverage published a response it labeled Conan's article cherry picking flawed reasoning lack of context misleading the point of Conan's op-ed was straightforward and illustrated by this graph while Greenland is losing ice the main driver cannot be anthropogenic climate change because there is no steady increase in line with either human CO2 emissions or atmospheric concentrations of CO2 carbon dioxide emissions and warming may be important but other factors were clearly more important in the past. Conan also acknowledged that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projects that for the most likely course of greenhouse gas emissions in the 21st century the average annual ice loss would be somewhat larger than the peak value shown in the graph. How is it cherry picking to show all the data? Columbia University's Marco Tedesco claims that the article picks only the last ten years excluding the remaining time series for the context and yet the graph published in the op-ed clearly shows the data since 1900 and addresses all of it. Ironically the climate feedback review is guilty of cherry picking. It claims to rebut Conan by stating that a 2015 article in Nature found that the ice loss between 2003 and 2010 not only more than doubled relative to the 1983 to 2003 period but also relative to the net mass loss rate throughout the 20th century. In other words climate feedback picked the fastest eight-year increase over the 121-year span shown on the chart and compared it to the lowest 21 years. That's the definition of cherry picking. It's also irrelevant for the climate change debate because both periods occurred in the time period of rapid global warming generally taken to have begun in 1970 or shortly before. Eric Rignacht of the University of California Irvine who contributed to climate feedbacks attempt to rebut Conan disposes the op-ed by claiming that it's rehashing the old argument that the 1930s were warmer than the present which is false. When in fact that's not the argument and has nothing to do with Conan's point. In another climate feedback article, this went a review of a video that Conan made to summarize his book, Southern Illinois University's Justin Schooff disputes Conan's claim that the US heat waves are no more common today than in 1900. The 2018 US climate assessment shows that heat wave season United States has increased in length since the 1960s he writes. This is doubly irrelevant since it refers to a different metric and a different time period than Conan referred to. To make matters worse, Schooff is citing precisely the data that Conan explains are misleading in his book. Why does it matter that Conan's critics don't want to bother responding to his arguments? Substitutive debate is how science advances. If climate science is just an echo chamber, we may make perverse short-term overreactions to the data that have large costs and possibly even negative environmental consequences. Many historical policy disasters have been caused by people claiming they shouldn't have to engage with informed critics. Uncettled is about more than just climate policy. It seeks to free science from the shackles of organized dogma, the sole domain of an anointed elite who feel justified in calling their critics, cranks, deniers, and disinformation peddlers. Why engage with a heretic when he can be banished from the church altogether?