Honestly, I had reservations before reading this book.  I first heard of Unsettled when its author, Steven Koonin, appeared on The Joe Rogan Experience, which I’ll be the first to say is not the best forum for hard science.

As I listened to Koonin speak, however, I realized that I had blindly followed “The Science” of climate change.  I had always dismissed any arguments that countered even the most inconsequential points, oftentimes not even willing to hear the “other side.”

To be clear, Koonin is not necessarily on this “other side.”  He agrees that human activity has contributed to the warming of the climate.  He primarily blames carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuels, in addition to other greenhouse gasses like methane.

Where he diverges is on the definitive, settled nature of “The Science” itself.  We are preconditioned today to refrain from challenging any part of it.  For example, look how warm it is this summer across most of the Northern Hemisphere as I write this book review.  

Must be climate change, right?  

In Unsettled, Koonin paints a much more complicated picture of a complex biosphere.  His overarching goal is a healthy Earth.  He’s not a climate change denier.  But he is someone who wants practical solutions based on what we know and what “The Science” actually tells us.

With experience in academia (previously CalTech, now NYU), the Obama Administration, and in the private sector with BP plc, Koonin has seen it all.  He does not appear to have an agenda or any motive for being intellectually dishonest or disingenuous.  All of which make his book, Unsettled, a refreshing and interesting read on a topic that is very unpopular to challenge.  

In this review I’ll highlight some of the main points I thought Koonin articulated well, in addition to what he could have done better.  

Good organization between what The Science says and why it’s “unsettled”

The overall organization of Unsettled makes it easy reading for a layperson like myself.  Koonin summarizes what The Science of climate change currently says, and then highlights the areas that – from his perspective – are unsettled.  He then proposes how society should respond.

So the book not only focuses on the problem areas, but on how we can fix them too.  Some of his proposed solutions like solar geoengineering are fascinating.  He may not have come up with them himself, but he has unique thoughts on their application.    

In the areas where he sees The Science as unsettled, he gives examples and substantiates his points.  His primary targets are climate change data and models.

Climate change data and models are uncertain

From the outset, Koonin highlights the challenge of untangling the climate’s response to human influences from poorly understood natural changes.  Climate models are generally inconsistent, often contradictory, and almost always based on varying – and at times arbitrary – assumptions.

To prove his points, Koonin uses the same data and models used by other climate scientists and highlights their uncertainties.  He includes a wealth of charts and graphs in the book for illustrative purposes.  He also highlights factors like the Earth’s albedo or aerosols that have reflective qualities, which were not always accounted for in some of the data and models.

One good example he used was the variations in the climate pre-1950 when human influences were relatively small, and how the Earth actually cooled between 1940 to 1980 even as human influences grew.  Also, the warming of the past 40 years has not been uniform globally.

Some critics of Koonin argue that he cherry-picked the data and is muddying the waters of climate science.  Again, I tried, but could not find a good motive for why he would try to mislead anyone, especially after a career working for a liberal administration.  Furthermore, the data doesn’t seem cherry-picked.  Koonin is not trying to tell a specific narrative apart from pointing out issues that make The Science uncertain and potentially flawed.

In particular, Koonin found that the quality of current data and models make it almost impossible to make useful projections.  This is obviously problematic if governments want to invest trillions of taxpayer dollars into projects like the Green New Deal.  Koonin is not opposed to those initiatives in principle, but The Science should be a little more settled before we pour money into solutions that require international cooperation and investment. 

Many climate change report summaries are flawed

These vary from press releases drafted by government agencies or international bodies like the United Nations, to standard media reports on climate change.  Koonin pointed out multiple examples where governments and even the UN summaries did not accurately reflect the reports themselves.

I’m guilty of relying on these summaries.  In fact, I’ve even written about them in the past.  All the while, I never read the underlying data and literature, which is oftentimes hundreds if not thousands of pages.  I’m sure the same is true for many people reading this article.  Who has time for that? 

Koonin describes the media summaries as even worse.  Whenever new data or information comes out from climate scientists, media outlets have the tendency to sensationalize their work (surprise, surprise).  He went through multiple examples of media latching onto isolated instances of warming but omitting perhaps broader evidence of cooling.  

What will readers be more likely to click?  An article about how the world is burning or a nuanced discussion about warming and cooling trends?  I know where I would bet my money.

If politicians, policymakers, and the general public simply rely on these types of summaries, Koonin thinks we’re in big trouble.  He even quotes a few unnamed colleagues in the climate science community who acknowledge these inaccuracies but contend it’s the only way of communicating to the public.  In their view, nothing will spur change otherwise.

The impractical solution of lowering emissions worldwide

Koonin describes how in order to stabilize current carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, global emissions would have to vanish.  Otherwise, human influences on the environment will continue.  And even if global emissions did vanish, it would take years for the carbon dioxide currently in the atmosphere to disappear.  

He finds that many policymakers do not consider the global nature of climate change.  What we do in America may be negated by the developing world, and places like India and China, as they continue to grow and pollute at higher levels.  There is something to be said for leading the way and becoming a first mover in a burgeoning industry, but simply lowering emissions in one country alone will not change the effects on an entire biosphere.  

As developing economies continue to advance, they will likely have higher emissions unless the international community focuses on reducing emissions from the start.  With China in most of the developing countries already, that policy objective is far from certain given China’s history of not prioritizing climate initiatives.    

Criticism: Koonin is too dismissive of lowering emissions

He basically sees it as an impractical fool’s errand for many of the reasons I described.  Why can’t we have more of a hybrid approach?  Creating incentives and encouraging countries to lower emissions while simultaneously devising solutions for the problems we’ve already caused (and are likely to continue causing) seems like the best approach.  Whether solutions involve solar geoengineering or some other innovative method.  

Criticism: Koonin missed major climate change topics

One in particular is ocean acidification.  I would have been interested to know his take on increasing amounts of carbon dioxide in the world’s oceans.  He really only focused on sea levels rising and oceanic temperatures.  

Anyone who has merely snorkeled around some of the world’s great reefs has probably seen all of the bleached and dying coral.  It’s depressing and seems to continue unabated.  

So while many of his societal responses were interesting as it relates to the atmosphere, the oceans make up most of the world.  We can’t forget about them. 

Other Criticisms

Some reviewers took issue with the fact that Koonin is not a “climate scientist.”  Studying the climate is an interdisciplinary endeavor, which includes an understanding of physics.  Koonin is a trained physicist who studied at some of the most respected institutions in the world (CalTech and MIT).  He’s also focused on climate science issues in government (under Obama) and in the private sector (at BP).  So I think it’s safe to say he has sufficient expertise to opine on the topic.

With that expertise comes very technical writing.  As I mentioned before, prepare for lots of charts and graphs.  Warning: it’s not the easiest read in the world if you’re not used to that type of writing.

Closing Thoughts

Despite its technical nature, this is a book everyone should read.  Although it may unsettle you as it challenges much of what mainstream outlets regurgitate like dogma.  But Koonin is just pointing out issues with the data, models, assumptions, and yes, The Science.  It does not appear crafted into any sort of narrative or in the furtherance of some agenda.

I found it refreshing.  Not because it downplayed some of the doom and gloom, but because it was a seemingly genuine – albeit unpopular – take on a complex topic that somewhat counters what most people accept as absolute truth.

When in reality, we need to sidestep our hubris and not shy away from tough – perhaps unsettled – questions.