Hopefully someone will be able to publish a point by point refutal, though getting something printed by the WSJ or other outlets is the hard part, not deconstructing his piece.

Koonin is counting on most readers not really being able to know, for instance, where to find actual sea-level rise data for the 20th century.

He is also counting on people not being able to follow a shell game (as in street magic.) He mentions the variability in surface temperature rise as something that ought to dissuade from taking any action regarding climate change, but that is very subtly mixing two different questions. He also knows most readers don’t understand what is and what is not to be learned about natural variability.

And so on.

The problem here is that the professional obfuscator can accomplish his task in far fewer words than someone who is actually informing on the subject will take, given the complexity of the subject.