Obama chief scientist cools on climate crisis news coverage

Article originally published at CFACT.org

President Barack Obama’s Energy Department Chief Scientist Steven Koonin’s soon-to-be-published book will discuss information that the public really needs to have regarding grossly overheated “climate crisis” media hype.

Titled “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What it Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” a preview of it’s contents is provided in an April 16 Wall Street Journal interview with the author posted by Holman Jenkins, Jr.

Jenkins’ piece is titled “How a Physicist Became a Climate Truth Teller,” and I recommend it to readers who are interested in a fuller book content and author background account.

Having followed the science over more than a decade — and written a couple of pretty good books and likely a hundred or so articles on the subject — I find Koonin’s descriptive accuracy and candor enormously refreshing.

Sadly, few — if any — others in the Obama-Biden White House really cared about facts, paid attention, or learned anything from him at all.

First, because this is particularly relevant to me, Steven Koonin’s background as a physicist combines his technical understanding of applications and limitations of computer modeling of complex systems and practical experience in dealing with real-world realities such as assessing how we can most effectively and efficiently apply fundamental energy principles to meet complex human conditions and requirements.

Koonin taught physics at Caltech for nearly three decades, where he also served as provost; was recruited by the non-profit Institute for Defense Analysis which provided advisory services to military and congressional leaders; worked at JASON, another private scientific organization where he conducted and supervised cold-fusion energy and human genome mapping research; and later worked as chief scientist for British Petroleum (BP) which was later rebranded as “Beyond Petroleum.”

While at BP, Koonin created the multidisciplinary Energy Biosciences Institute at Berkeley which studies a wide range of scientific issues ranging from the isotopic composition of micro-fossils in the sea floor through regulation of industrial power plants.

Steven Koonin’s research into the world’s energy system led him to become convinced that the only “real climate crisis was a crisis of political and scientific candor,” and that the world “isn’t going to be able to reduce [greenhouse gas] emissions enough to make much difference.”

Koonin argues that while he supports responsible climate science, his issue is that what media and activist say about climate science has drifted so far out of touch with the actual science as to be absurdly, demonstrably false.

With reference to a 2019 report by presidents of the National Academy of Sciences which asserted that the “magnitude and frequency of certain extreme events are increasing,” for example, he notes that the “United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is deemed to compile the best science, advised that all such claims should be treated with “low confidence.”

The U.S. government’s 2017 Climate Science Special Report had claimed that, in the lower 48 states, the “number of high temperature records set in the past two decades far exceeds the number of low temperature records.” On closer inspection, Koonin points out, “that’s because there’s been no increase in the rate of new record highs since 1900, only a decline in the number of new lows.”

A 2018 U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment which relied on such “ovegged” worst-case emissions and temperature projections, Koonin concludes, “was written more to persuade than to inform.” He says, “It masquerades as objective science but was written — all right, I’ll use the word — propaganda.”

Koonin emphasizes the absurdity of basing climate change alarm on century-long forecasts claiming to know how 1% shifts in poorly understood variables will affect a future global climate that we don’t understand with anything even resembling that precision.

Nevertheless, the IPCC will issue a report next year that will purport to determine how much warming to expect by the end of this century based upon 40-plus computer model simulations which have been diverging in projections — not converging — coming together — as one would hope to enable determination of which one should be trusted.

Without tweaking, the modelers can’t even agree on a current simulated global average surface temperature — varying by 3 degrees Celsius – three times the observed change over the past century.

Koonin, both an experienced computer practitioner and modeling enthusiast, recognizes that they are wonderful where the simulation variables and their interactions being projected are well known and results can be empirically tested.

“But these are more controlled, engineered situations,” he adds, “whereas the climate is a natural phenomenon. It’s going to do whatever it’s going to do. And it’s hard to observe. You need long, precise observations to understand its natural variability and how it responds to external influences.”

Koonin, who has been building models and watching others do so over 45 years, cautions that climate models “are not to the standard you would trust your life or even trillions of dollars to.”

For the record, Koonin agrees — as many of my well-informed climate scientist friends also do — that the world has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius since 1900, and it will likely warm by another degree by the end of this century.

There is no dispute I’m aware of that temperatures began warming at the end of the last “Little Ice Age” in the mid-1800s — before the Industrial Revolution — and will likely continue to do so in fits-and-starts with little or no influence from us until Mother Nature once again changes her mind.

Neither Koonin nor any real-world scientific climate or economic studies, however, have seen anything in the offing which he says “would justify the rapid and wholesale abandoning of fossil fuels, even if China, India, Brazil, Indonesia and others could be dissuaded from pursuing prosperity.”

Even John Kerry, Joe Biden’s “climate czar,” recently admitted that the current administration’s “net-zero” climate plan will have zero effect if developing countries don’t go along, and as Koonin notes, “they have little incentive to do so.”

In any case, Koonin believes that any warming that occurs will emerge slowly and with modest effect — not a runaway crisis that alarmists such as Al Gore and John Kerry hype. To the extent that reduced CO₂emissions will make any measurable difference, the solutions should let technology and markets work together at their own pace.

“The climate might to continue to change at a pace that’s hard to perceive, but society will adapt.”

Konnin adds, “As a species, we’re very good at adapting.”

Perhaps the biggest challenge will be to survive the current political climate crisis.

Author: CFACT Advisor Larry Bell heads the graduate program in space architecture at the University of Houston. He founded and directs the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture. He is also the author of “Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind the Global Warming Hoax.”

Article originally published at CFACT.org

In 1985, the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) was founded to promote a much-needed, positive alternative voice on issues of environment and development. Its co-founders, David Rothbard and Craig Rucker, strongly believed the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world’s most pressing concerns. A number of leading scientists, academics, and policy leaders soon joined them, along with thousands of citizens from around the U.S. and around the world.

Today, CFACT is a respected Washington D.C.-based organization whose voice can be heard relentlessly infusing the public-interest debate with a balanced perspective on environmental stewardship and other important issues. With an influential and impressive scientific advisory board, effective collegiate program on U.S. college campuses, CFACT Europe, official United Nations’ NGO representation, Adopt-A-Village project, Global Social Responsibility program, and “Just the Facts” daily national radio commentary, CFACT continues to offer genuine solutions to today’s most important global challenges.

CFACT has been termed “invaluable” by the Arizona Republic, it has been lauded for its “effort to bring sound science to the environmental debate” by a former president of the National Academy of Sciences, and has been praised by a respected Boston Herald columnist for “a record of supplying absolutely solid information.”

Related Topics:#CFACT #ClimateChangeScience #StevenKoonin #UnitedNationsIntergovernmentalPanelOnClimateChange climatechange IPCC

Up Next

Equalization Program grows to record $20.9 Billion – Fairness Alberta looking to Ontario and BC for support

Don't Miss

45th annual highway cleanup will take place on Saturday, May 1st

Duane Rolheiser

After 15 years as a TV reporter with Global and CBC and as news director of RDTV in Red Deer, Duane set out on his own 2008 as a visual storyteller. During this period, he became fascinated with a burgeoning online world and how it could better serve local communities. This fascination led to Todayville, launched in 2016.

Follow Author

Carney Wins: What now Alberta?

Dan McTeague / 2 weeks ago

My fellow boomers, Carney’s ‘Green’ obsessions are bad for all of us!

2025 Federal Election / 2 weeks ago

Polls say Canadians will give Trump what he wants, a Carney victory.

Business

Ottawa foresees a future of despair for Canadians. And shrugs

Published on May 8, 2025

Todayville

This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Lee Harding

A government report envisions Canadians foraging for food by 2040. Ottawa offers no solutions, just management of national decline

An obscure but disturbing federal report suggests Canadians could be foraging for food on public lands by 2040.

Policy Horizons Canada released the dire forecast on Jan. 7, 2025, in a report entitled Future Lives: Social Mobility in Question. It went largely unnoticed at the time, but its contents remain deeply concerning and worth closer examination.

Policy Horizons Canada is a little-known federal think-tank within the public service that produces long-term strategic foresight to guide government decision-making. Though not a household name, its projections can quietly shape policies at the highest levels. It describes itself as the government’s “centre of excellence in foresight,” designed to “empower the Government of Canada with a future-oriented mindset and outlook to strengthen decision making.” Its current head is Kristel Van der Elst, former head of strategic foresight at the World Economic Forum.

The report warns that the “powerful promise” that anyone can get an education, work hard, buy property and climb the social and economic ladder is slipping away. Instead of a temporary setback, the authors argue, downward mobility could become the norm. They liken Canada’s future to a board game with “more snakes than ladders.”

“In 2040, upward social mobility is almost unheard of in Canada,” the report states. “Hardly anyone believes that they can build a better life for themselves, or their children, through their own efforts. However, many worry about sliding down the social order.”

While these scenarios aren’t firm predictions, foresight reports like this are intended to outline plausible futures. The fact that federal bureaucrats see this as realistic is revealing—and troubling.

Post-secondary education, the report suggests, will lose its appeal. Rising costs, slow adaptation to labour market needs, long program durations and poor job prospects will push many away. It predicts that people will attend university more to join the “elite” than to find employment.

Home ownership will be out of reach for most, and inequality between those who own property and those who don’t will drive “social, economic, and political conflict.” Inheritance becomes the only reliable path to prosperity, while a new aristocracy begins to look down on the rest.

The gap between what youth are told to want and what they can realistically expect will widen, fuelling frustration and apathy. As automation and artificial intelligence expand, many traditional white-collar jobs will be replaced by machines or software. “Most people (will) rely on gig work and side hustles to meet their basic needs,” the report warns.

This leads to one of the darkest predictions: “People may start to hunt, fish, and forage on public lands and waterways without reference to regulations. Small scale agriculture could increase.”

The authors don’t propose solutions. Instead, they ask: “What actions could be taken now to maximize opportunities and lessen the challenges related to reduced and/or downward social mobility in the future?”

That question should concern us. Policymakers aren’t being asked how to prevent the collapse of social and economic mobility but how to manage its
fallout. Are those envisioning Canada’s future more interested in engineering a controlled implosion than fostering hope and opportunity?

Yes, artificial intelligence will bring challenges and change. But there is no excuse for despair in a country as rich in natural resources as Canada. Besides, the 2021 income data used in the report predates even the release of the first version of ChatGPT.

If policymakers are serious about restoring upward mobility, they must prioritize Canada’s resource economy. Ports, pipelines, oil and gas development, and mining are essential infrastructure for prosperity. When these sectors are strangled by overregulation, investment dries up—and so do jobs. The oil patch remains one of the fastest paths from poverty to wealth. Entry-level jobs in the field require training and safety courses, not four-year degrees.

Similarly, post-secondary education doesn’t need to be as expensive or time consuming as it is now. We should return to models where nurses could earn certification in two years instead of being funnelled into extended university programs. And if governments required universities to wind down defined benefit pension plans, tuition would fall fast.

Unfortunately, there’s a real risk that policymakers will use reports like this to justify more wealth-killing socialism. A home equity tax, for example, might be pitched to avoid future tensions between renters and homeowners. Such a tax would require Canadians to pay an annual levy based on the increased value of their home even if they haven’t sold it. These policies don’t build wealth—they punish it, offering temporary relief in place of lasting progress.

Unless we choose a more sensible path, the controlled demolition of Canada will continue.

Lee Harding is a research fellow for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

Economy

Canada’s Energy Wealth Is Bleeding South

Published on May 8, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

Without infrastructure, Canada is losing billions while the U.S. cashes in on our oil and gas

Canada’s energy wealth is stuck in traffic, and our American neighbours are cashing in. It’s worse than that. Canada is bleeding millions of dollars daily because it lacks the infrastructure to export its natural resources efficiently.

While our oil and gas continue to flow—mainly to the United States—provinces like Alberta and British Columbia are forced to sell at steep discounts. This isn’t just an economic inefficiency; it’s a structural failure of national policy. The beneficiaries? American businesses and their governments which pocket the profits and tax revenues that should be circulating through the Canadian economy. This is no way to achieve economic sovereignty for Canada.

With U.S. interests reaping the rewards, this should have been a central talking point when Prime Minister Carney met with President Trump earlier this month.

Ottawa often offers the recent completion of the Trans Mountain Expansion (TMX) pipeline as an example of federal support for the energy sector. But such claims are misleading. Kinder Morgan, a private enterprise, had initially planned to build the extension without a penny from taxpayers. It withdrew only after being crippled by federal regulatory delays and political uncertainty.

Ottawa stepped in not as a benevolent saviour to help Albertans, but to prevent lawsuits and save face—ultimately overpaying for the pipeline and watching construction costs balloon to nearly six times the original estimate.

To now declare this bungled project a “gift” to Alberta, as a recent op-ed in the Toronto Star did, is not only tone-deaf: it’s an insult. It ignores the fact that Alberta’s taxpayers helped finance the very project Ottawa botched. It also reveals an astonishing lack of understanding of the historical, economic and political dynamics at play between Ottawa and Western Canada.

The tragedy is that TMX, despite its importance, is insufficient. Our infrastructure bottlenecks remain. With each passing day, Canada forfeits wealth that could fund essential improvements in health care, education and national defence.

According to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, which has developed a real-time tracker to monitor these losses, the price differential between what we could earn on global markets versus what we settle for domestically adds up to $26.5 billion annually.

Ottawa’s reluctance to greenlight new infrastructure is a primary cause of this problem. Ironically, the losses from this reluctance in a single year would be enough to pay for another TMX, mismanaged or not. The solution lies in a national commitment to building utility corridors: designated routes that facilitate the movement of energy, goods and services unhindered across provincial boundaries.

Carney’s recent promise to remove all interprovincial trade barriers by July 1 is a nice soundbite. But unless it includes meaningful infrastructure commitments, it is bound to fail like every other rhetorical flourish before it.

Canadians should be rightly skeptical. After all, what Ottawa has failed to achieve in the 157 years since Confederation is unlikely to be accomplished in the next 60 days.

The political math doesn’t help either. The Bloc Québécois holds the balance of power in the 45th Parliament, and its obstructionist stance on national pipeline development ensures the advent of more gridlock, not less. The federal government continues to uphold Bill C-69—dubbed the “no-pipelines bill”—further entrenching the status quo.

Meanwhile, Canada remains in the absurd position of relying on U.S. infrastructure to transport oil from the West to Ontario and Quebec. This undermines our economic independence, energy security and national sovereignty. No amount of “elbows up” will correct this enormous gap.

If the prime minister is serious about transforming Canada’s economic landscape and making the country strong, he must bypass the Bloc by cooperating with the Official Opposition. A grand bargain focused on utility corridors, interprovincial infrastructure and national trade efficiency would serve Alberta, Saskatchewan, and every Canadian who depends on a strong and self-reliant economy.

The stakes are high. We need a more productive country to face challenges within Canada and from abroad. Billions in lost revenue could fund new hospitals, more schools and better military readiness.

Instead, along with the limited exports of oil and gas, we’re exporting great opportunities to middlemen—and greater economic strength—south of the border.

The path forward is clear. A strong, self-reliant Canada needs infrastructure. It needs corridors. It needs leadership.

Marco Navarro-Genie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. He is coauthor, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).