Tom Nelson points out quite an admission:
“Blogging is affecting me profoundly. Obviously, Mr. McIntyre has profoundly affected my life”.
That’s from this video:
The General Public: Why Such Resistance? (to global warming)
(February 25, 2010) Ben Santer, a research scientist from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, discusses the recent problems with the use of the freedom of information act for non-US citizens to demand complete records, including emails, on scientific research projects. Santer posits that this is a dangerous dilemma that will ultimately inhibit scientific research.
This course was originally presented in Stanford’s Continuing Studies program.
The video and several key points of interest in the video follow.
Nelson writes:
The video is 1 hour 46 minutes long. Ā The best stuff is around 42:30 to the end.
Santer uses words like harassment, frivolous, nonsense, hatred, bullies, “forces of unreason”, abuse, and McCarthyism. Ā He’d like to get some support/protection from the Obama administration.
Santer at 1:26:37 “Blogging is affecting me profoundly. Obviously, Mr. McIntyre has profoundly affected my life”.
More interesting stuff from Santer re: establishing human culpability, professional PR help, and nearly two dozen workshops (funded by NSF?) bringing together climate scientists and the media
ā¶ Chris Mooney and Dr. Benjamin Santer on Communicating Climate Science – YouTube:
“[Uploaded Sept 2010] Climate Science Watch spoke with climate scientist Dr. Benjamin Santer and Chris Mooney, a science and political journalist and author, about how climate scientists communicate complex research findings to the public in an atmosphere of fierce politicization and competing demands.”
At 1:38, Santer says “I had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science. It was enough to publish high-quality papers, to establish some human culpability in observed climate change, and that ultimately that would be good enough, and that policymakers would take the right decisions based on the best available scientific evidence.”
At 11:08, Santer says Lawrence Livermore National Lab has a “high-quality very professional public affairs department. Ā They’ve been extremely helpful in my interactions with the media…They’ve given me a lot of advice and guidance…I’ve been very grateful that I haven’t had to face this on my own.”
At 12:40, Santer mentions “series of workshops organized by Bud Ward, a journalist who’s brought together the leading climate scientists with people from the media world-newspaper editors, news anchors, TV weathermen and women…a series of probably nearly two dozen workshops organized that enable each side to understand the problems of the others.”
Thanks to a series of workshops funded by the National Science Foundation, journalists and climate scientists have been able to address these barriers and develop recommendations for effective communication. These highly interactive workshop dialogues formed the basis of a new resource guide on communicating about climate change for editors, reporters, scientists, and academics.
It’s only cretins and fraudsters who can think they are paid but don’t have to share all of their work with the people they get paid from.
In other news, Santer doesn’t look like a fraudster.
ps I work in a heavily regulated industry and know perfectly well that each and every one of my emails and any other writings and phone conversations can appear in a court of law, one day, for whatever reason. Rather than demanding protection from any of that, I do my work to the best of my abilities.
“Heād like to get some support/protection from the Obama administration.” Yeah, I’d like some protection from them too. Oh, maybe he meant get assistance in getting protection from the rabble.
Maybe I should watch the video and then snark. Nah….
“If you like your lies you can keep your lies.” Ain’t it the truth.
Is Santer jealous of the notoriety of his colleagues Schmidt, Hansen and Mann? He’s just as militant and just as wrong-headed, but not as famous. It just doesn’t seem right.
How could McIntyre profoundly effect Santer with a blog if the blog is just full of nonsense? Indeed the wording itself is typically fuzzy. I guess he assumes that we will understand that the effects were uniformly bad. History will ultimately recognize that the internet has greatly improved science, let light and air into the unhealthy culture of modern science. Such a reaction! Mobilize the media and PR specialists to get the half-baked, undisciplined, unreviewed and finally falsified stuff across. Dr. Santer, what the blog has done, particularly the likes of Steve McIntyre and WUWT is provided the kind of filter that you guys need to convert a love-in to a science. Yeah, good science is hard, frustrating, punishing. It’s so much easier to put dreams down on paper.
Santer: “I’d really like to talk to a few of these “Auditors” in a dark alley.” Now that’s good science communication which the public can understand.
It would seem that it is auditors who need protection from Santer.
Like the rest of ‘the Team’ Santer is only affected in the first place thanks to their own poor behaviour and lack of scientific rigour . No matter how much he ‘believes’ and no matter how much he ‘cares’ , he is making great demands so rightly great proof is asked for , and in supplying this they total fail.
Ben Santer:
Please explain why there is need for “professional PR help” to promote scientific findings which are so clear that you assumed “policymakers would take the right decisions based on the best available scientific evidence”.
Richard
Is this the same Ben Santer who emailed Phil Jones on 09/10/2009 and stated:
“Next time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.Very tempted.” – charming – resort to violence when your arguments fail.
Didn’t he also say
āI looked at some of the stuff on the Climate Audit web site. Iād really like to talk to a few of these āAuditorsā in a dark alley.ā – not sure why we wants to meet people in a dark alley – presumably for further violence or perhaps sex?
If I ever meet Ban Santer at a scientific meeting I shall tell him I think he is a sycophantic pseudo-scientist! Go and get a real job Ben!
It’s worth reviewing Santer’s haughty response to McIntyre’s polite request for data.
Santer is one of the most objective scientists we have ever seen. He doesn’t go into any high quality research with any pre-conceived idea or worried about policy. Policy if for policy makers so policy does not concern him at all. Well done Dr. Santer, you are an ‘arset’ to the Climastrology community.
17 years to distinguish noise from the human ‘fingerprint’ of catastrophic no warming.
Santer says āI had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science.”
Calling Captain Obvious: Yes, Ben, you all and the Climate Clowns had to do was provide credible climate science. After three decades of ‘research’ and trillions of wasted dollars, we can’t even trust our historical temperature data. Good job ‘Team’, keep up the good work!
I wonder if the PR geniuses at Livermore were the onest that got him this gig.
For those of you who haven’t seen this one discussed before, stay with it for at least the first 30 seconds and then take a look at ~ the 7 minute mark. Pretty much says it all with regard to Santer’s PR savvy.
‘Climate communication’ = vainly hoping that new lipstick will beautify the same old and ugly climate pig.
Well said! They want us to overhaul the entire energy infrastructure of the planet by giving policy makers what they want to see, afterall the policy makers paid the piper. They want us to pay higher energy bills. Yet they want protection and the ability to hide from the cold hard disinfectant called the internet, aided by Google cache and the Wayback Machine.
“if the science was credible…”
Need we say more?
Ah Benny, legend in his own mind, delusional fool in reality, significant amusement factor on the Web.
Ben,
Go write better papers. Steve will leave you alone.
Policymakers are taking the right decisions.
After being briefly seduced by the ever-attractive idea of ‘Saving The World’, they’re increasingly choosing to ignore his scaremongering.
Why don’t thy just make their datasets public, wouldn’t that just solve the problem?
“Thanks to a series of workshops funded by the National Science Foundation, journalists and climate scientists have been able to address these barriers and develop recommendations for effective communication. These highly interactive workshop dialogues formed the basis of a new resource guide on communicating about climate change for editors, reporters, scientists, and academics.”
a.k.a Propaganda
To paraphrase Alexi Sayle (English comedian / writer / actor) – “Anyone who uses the word workshop outside of light engineering is a twat.”
Quote, not paraphrase…..
Colin Indge:
This is only a tip.
In the minds of some who frequent WUWT, it is bad form to quote a self-professed communist such as Alexi Sayle even when he is right. But I take this opportunity to repeat your quote because it is right
Richard
Why donāt thy just make their datasets public, wouldnāt that just solve the problem?
That is exactly Santer’s point: making the data sets public would not solve his problems with hyping global warming.
If one makes big accusations ( like AGW ), then they should not cry when we want to examine all the evidence and reasoning that went into it.
If Dr. Ben Santer is actually making remarks about talking to people in a dark alley; if he was the author of the infamous ‘beat the crap out of him’ email to Dr. Phil Jones … then there isn’t much to be gained from responding to him. In fact, we should pretend like we didn’t notice, and let him continue the ‘performance’.
Most scientist realize all-too-clearly, that to indulge tough-guy talk with the public is beyond stupid. The idea that (small numbers of) pencil-pushers and egg-heads are going to physically challenge (large numbers of) construction workers & military vets … indicates that Santer is laboring under a serious self-awareness problem, etc.
No wonder Lawrence Livermore PR are johnny-on-it.
Obviously, Lawrence Livermore is alarmed at Santer’s antics, and heading the dude off at the pass before he gets them all … dragged into a (political) dark alley.
“At 1:38, Santer says āI had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science. ”
Well, Ben, we completely agree: If the science were credible you could do that, indeed. Too bad that it isn’t and you can’t.
richardscourtney says:
…it is bad form to quote a self-professed communist…even when he is right.
I dunno Richard, I’m pragmatic enough to steal from their art when I think it’s effective:
The politicians have merely changed the world; the point, however, is to improve it.
Santer’s apparent hubris in response to being caught out leaves me wondering if there’s any credibility at all in academia. Disgusting.
A workshop is called a workshop because you don’t have to work and you can’t buy anything.
Chris Mooney, the deceptive political hack posing as a journalist.
Santer, whining about being caught lying.
Nothing new here except the appeal to our self-appointed Big Brother to turn lose the government to help make certain scientists he approves of are not bothered by pesky questions in the future.
Ben,
Have you entertained the possibility that you may just simply be wrong?
D
He’s just whingeing in advance because all his juicy research funding is coming under the chopper.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/the-coming-shape-of-2014/
Pointman
Why such resistance? Because the public isn’t as stupid as these people think we are. The GW crowd needs to cork it and go home.
Mmmmm…
There is a misguided belief that those who earn their living as research scientists have aĀ sense of vocation that leads to total objectivity, Ā regardless of the personal consequences.
In realty they are, too often, seekers after personal glory, competitive, bitchy, back stabbing, secretive and pretend to objectivity only in so far that it produces results that meet their, and their paymasters, Ā predjudices and objectives.
Put simply, research scientists are not saints but human beings, like any others, fighting to earn a living and to further their careers.
Therefore, even if the infamous “97% concensus’ figure were valid, it would be a concensus of scientists who all share the above human traits and therefore could not be taken as objective proof of the existance of CAGW.
This may seem a cynical view but it is based on experience gained managing an international research programme many years ago and I doubt that today’s climate researchers, for example, behave any differently.
whoops – realty=reality
If you know the history here, Santer’s tropical troposphere temps were clearly off by a mile from the real data. Call it what you whatever you want.
The climate models have the tropical troposphere increasing at 0.30C per decade.
The actual trends are spectacularly low. Just 0.07C per decade in UAH and 0.107C per decade in RSS.
I mean it is only one-quarter to one-third of that projected. There is not a tropical hotspot, there is a tropical cooler-than-every-else-spot. Santer’s analysis is completely inconsistent.
Check out the up-to-date tropics troposphere temps versus the ENSO and the lack of any real warming trend.
http://s9.postimg.org/punbg644v/RSS_UAH_Tropics_1979_2013.png
Seek truth
The best solution for Ben Santer is to read, digest, and follow Richard Feynman’s 1974 Caltech Address “Cargo Cult Science”. Feynman highlights the importance of applying the highest levels of integrity in science.
Jesus’ statement “the truth will make you free” also applies to science.
I note that nowhere was there any acceptance that their so called objective science and models if implemented have incalculable economic effects and therefore peoples lives off the very people that fund them.. Arrogant, superior and damn right ignorant IMHO.
As for Chris Looney? Anyone noticed how young and cock -sure all these AGW fanatics are?
Louis Hooffstetter says @ January 18, 2014 at 6:42 am;
What Dr. Santer is sidling up to here, intimating, is Scientocracy.
We have Democracy, Autocracy, Aristocracy, Theocracy, and several others. We don’t have Scientocracy, and all the data & anecdotes say it ain’t gonna happen.
Although Santer is clearly-enough a special, isolated case, as a visible emotionally unstable scientist, he is not isolated in his nascent perception that the acumen of scientists and the power of their methodology ought to translate into actual societal authority.
It is also clear enough that in the near-universal case, scientists inclined to this perception stop well-short of what is plainly its goal or conclusion. To actually ‘go all the way’ with this thinking illuminates confrontations & conflicts that inhibit ‘fully-blown’ forms of the affectation.
And Climate Science is not the only field that harbors the feeling that professionals in the discipline ‘really should’ wield more ‘actual authority’ than they are currently allowed. This is a process or shift that began in the late 1960s, and became the norm in various sciences & semi-sciences (and not in others).
There is an upcoming painful era, in which Science divests itself of this ‘implied-Scientocracy’ delusion.
Oops that was crap.
I note that nowhere was there any acceptance that their so called objective science and models which if implemented, would have incalculable economic effects and therefore on peoples lives; the very people that fund them . Arrogant, superior and damn right ignorant IMHO.
.As for Chris Looney? Anyone noticed how young and cock -sure all these AGW fanatics are?
What is it with the pro-warmist agitators that they are all running around now bleating to the first media they can find about how they feel ‘bullied’ by sceptics? Is it perhaps anything to do with the fact their CAGW religion is failing to perform as predicted? Are they seeking tea and sympathy with their common purpose chums in the ‘meeja’ long before what they now understand will the inevitable, unstoppable collapse of the entire CAGW edifice they have wasted so much money over so much time building up to fail?
Funny how spineless, uninquisitive media trolls are so willing to listen to the crocodile tears of these warmist dissemblers, yet never seem – then or now – to have the time of day for legitimate climate sceptics who were, almost from the very start of this wretched farrago, trying to warn a wider public about the organised scam slowly unfolding through every branch of government in just about every nation gullible enough to fall for the deception. The sums involved – basically stolen from the public purse for no good purpose – are mind-boggling.
When will ABC, BBC or any of the major media outlets start investigating The Greatest Heist of Modern Times? When will they actually start doing their job?
Diddums, Benny-boy. Your response to any criticism or disagreement appears to be some sort of threat. You’re a bully, and in allowing that to taint your professional life, you lose any credibility you may have had. Behave like a grown-up rather than a pocket money stealink punk, and people might actually have time for you. Otherwise you’ll reap just what you sow.
As for Chris Mooney? Hah! I assumed he’d tired of ending up with a wobbly bottom lip after saying something inane in public.
Does he have good days too. Or is this one of them?
John Norris says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:51 am
Ben,
Go write better papers. Steve will leave you alone.
well and succinctly said, John Norris.
The fallacy in all this is that “the smartest ones” should have the say-so for public policy.
Unfortunately, just because A is smarter than B does NOT imply that A’s ideas are correct.
Smart people have this tendency to value their abilities to such an extent that they are susceptible
to making really big mistakes, usually because they assume something that is not, in fact, true. In the case of climatology, a fairly primitive science that deals with a rather complicated system, it’s very easy to latch on to an easily understood phomenon (greenhouse gas warming) to explain most everything, including, in a bizarre fashion, cooling.
Poor Benny. He’s a legend in his own mind.
This is the same Ben Santer who instigated this infamous warmy catchy phrase:
1997: 2nd UN IPCC report – Scientists: a) no clear evidence of recent changes due to greenhouse effect b) no studies show man made climate warming c) uncertainites too big d) donāt know if/when a human effect on climate can/will be found.
Changed by UNās IPCC scientist Ben Santer to ā āā¦ a discernable human fingerprint on Earthās climateā. Hmm … š
Phil Ford says:
January 18, 2014 at 8:10 am
“When will ABC, BBC or any of the major media outlets start investigating The Greatest Heist of Modern Times? When will they actually start doing their job?”
______________________
If past is prologue, then one could say: “they never have, they never will”.
Just in case Ben Santer does not know,” Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent”
Isaac Asimov (fondly remembered)
Phil Ford says:
January 18, 2014 at 8:10 am
__________________
To be fair, in the US, CBS news has recently done a little bit of actual/factual journalism.
Resistance is futile. Stop thinking and start doing exactly as you are told, i.e. “making the right choices.” Of course, our President and his underlings are making these choices for us, everyday, with the lack of Keystone XL, opposition to fracking, offshore drill bans, etc.
Again, resistance is futile. But it is more fun than capitulation! Fight on brothers and sisters.
If you click through to the Metcalf pdf, you will find Michael Mann listed as an attendee at the November 2003 original meeting and the June 2005 one at Columbia University. Stephen Schneider is also at several.
I have been pointing out the media need not write alarming stories on CAGW now as they have K-12 and university education right where they want them as indoctrination zones. Having Andrew Revkin listed at several workshops was disturbing since he is also listed as involved in the Garrison Institute’s Behavior and Mind Change work called “Hope for the Future of Climate Change.” It’s going invisible where it becomes memes acting at unconscious but influential levels.
The strategies laid out in those workshops are exactly what the new K-12 science curricula being pushed by the Smithsonian and National Geographic among others are designed to do. Create influential worldviews that alter prevailing perspectives in ways that have everything to do with social and political change and little with hard science.
To: Dr. Benjamin Santer
Re: Protection
Please wear a condom.
0.42:20+ “They got a result they liked and they published it.”..
“We has met the enemy and they is us”…
OK Ben, let’s try it the other way round – you hand over your wallet to ME and watch while I help myself and see how long YOU keep quiet.
Robin says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:14 am
________________________
Thank you for that glimpse into the depths…
Santer says āI had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science.ā
Ben’s use of the word “credible” makes me think of Inigo Montoya: āYou keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it meansā
A timely message for Ben from Tim Robbins:
“For most people, self-awareness and self-pity blossom simultaneously in early adolescence. It’s about that time that we start viewing the world as something other than a whoop-de-doo playground, we start to experience personally how threatening it can be, how cruel and unjust. At the very moment when we become, for the first time, both introspective and socially conscientious, we receive the bad news that the world, by and large, doesn’t give a rat’s ass.”
You can’t trust the news in China because the government controls the journalists.
In my politics, work and life I have always kept to one simple premise.
Never do anything in private you are not prepared to defend in public.
Would it be churlish of me to point out that Mr. Ben Santer and his pals have profoundly affected my wallet?
āI had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science. It was enough to publish high-quality papers, toĀ establish some human culpability in observed climate change, and that ultimately that would be good enough, and that policymakers would take the right decisions based on the best available scientific evidence.ā
Santer says:
āOur results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.ā
Since RSS now has 17 years and 4 months of no warming, does that mean that policymakers should do nothing, or have many of us totally misinterpreted this statement?
mrmethane says: @ January 18, 2014 at 7:29 am
Santerās apparent hubris in response to being caught out leaves me wondering if thereās any credibility at all in academia.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There isn’t and that is what they are really worried about.
As Richard Courtney has said several times, Copenhagen was supposed to be the time and place where an international agreement was signed that wiped out what is left of our freedoms. China put a spoke in that wheel. link
The climastrologists are not stupid. They know the run of warm weather can not continue and now they have a real mucked-up mess on their hands with China walking off with western manufacturing and jobs.
People in the UK are in “fuel poverty” and dying because “Green Energy” is very expensive and worse will never work. The deep pockets of tax payers are running empty as the real unemployment has skyrocketed to ~23% here in the USA. The money printing press will have to stop soon or you will get hyperinflation especially if China and the rest of the BRICS countries demote the USD from world reserve currency status. The biggest fear though is the internet is letting the unemployed college grad and his dad, Joe Plumber know EXACTLY who is to blame for the entire mess and who is ripping off the money and who has help in the rip-off. During 2011, 53 percent of all Americans with a bachelorās degree under the age of 25 were either unemployed or underemployed. (Article is worth a read)
I am sure Santer and his buddies are thinking of 2011 London riots and wondering if universities might become a target down the road. University riots are not unknown. Heck Michigan State University students celebrating their football teamās first invite to the Rose Bowl in decades by rioting and burning trees and furniture just this December.
Ted Clayton says: @ January 18, 2014 at 8:03 am
…What Dr. Santer is sidling up to here, intimating, is Scientocracy….
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reportedly at the Bilderberg/Trilateral meeting in 1991 in Baden Baden, Germany, David Rockefeller made the following statement:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.” ` excerpted from the book, The Bilderberg Group by Daniel Estulin
Rockefeller does say in his book Memoirs on page 405,
“Some even believe we (the Rockefeller family) are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.”.
Now I need to go take a shower. How do these people stand themselves?
Phil Ford says: @ January 18, 2014 at 8:10 am
….When will ABC, BBC or any of the major media outlets start investigating The Greatest Heist of Modern Times? When will they actually start doing their job?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NEVER!
They have been “In on it” from the beginning. See: Who Owns The media
Ugh! At 5 minutes in, that talking pratt was still introducing Santer… and my gorge had risen to dangerous levels. I’m going to take a shower, go for a looooong walk on this sunny but cool (36F) day, and perhaps pick this up again later….
Robin says:….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Robin I love your information but it is so depressing.
Thanks for all the research you have done on the trashing of our education system.
To others if you haven’t looked at Robin’s site it is worth a visit: http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/
troe says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:57 am
“You canāt trust the news in China because the government controls the journalists.”
What have the words “in China” for a purpose in that sentence?
Phil Ford says:
January 18, 2014 at 8:10 am
“When will ABC, BBC or any of the major media outlets start investigating The Greatest Heist of Modern Times? When will they actually start doing their job?”
They’ve been doing what is their job all the time. (German ARD and ZDF as well).
troe says: @ January 18, 2014 at 9:57 am
You canāt trust the news in
Chinathe USA because thegovernmentbankers control the journalists and Congress.There fixed it for ya. :>)
Ben Santer wishes that science operated on his terms. That scientists could write papers and make claims without ever having to provide data or assist others in replicating results because that might lead to criticisms of the methods used or even the discovery of errors. Pons and Fleischmann probably wished the same thing after the reaction they got to their announcement on the discovery of cold fusion. I bet they wished they could have just rested their case on the science without providing any data or answering any questions. But while such a scientific method, which relies on trust without verification, would undoubtedly be beneficial for the careers of individual scientists, it would be udderly disastrous for the advancement of science.
Prof. Santer’s got a product he will sell you but he doesn’t want you to see how it is produced. He seems to cue off of mushroom growers. However, they have a better product.
Hi Ben,
It’s refreshing to see you have recognized how profoundly affecting the truth can be.
Regarding your life being affected by the truth. Perhaps if you cannot deal with the heat of truth you should avoid the kitchen of science and trying to cook it.
Your life and activism may be a better fit for the Joe Romm or Bill McKibben approach.
I live next to Livermore were the ‘good’ scientist works. He is employed at LLNL, this prestigious institution filled with prestigious scientist doing prestigious things all the time… If LLNL is so good and filled with all A+++ prestigious players then why can’t the prestigious one question there own LLNL weather stations.
(http://www-metdat.llnl.gov/cgi-pub/index.pl)
As of 8AM this morning (PST): Site LLNL ~ 36.716F, Site 300 ~ 54.896F, Sandia Livermore ~ 45.5468F, My home ~ 5 miles from LLNL 30.2F with frost. Huge difference in air temperature. So who are you going to believe your frozen butt or our thermometers? If the ‘good’ scientist is so concerned that he would threaten physical violence for the ’cause’ then why would he not pay attention to his own charge ie… the LLNL weather station accuracy.
‘good’ = sarc/
Prestigious = self important.
73
Michael
I’m hardly a Warmer, but Santer makes some good points (watched about thirty minutes starting from the ~42:30 mark) in regards to his time getting monopolized in bureaucracy of FOIA requests.
A fix for such monotony is a streamlined bureaucratic flow in how these virtual experiments (the vast majority of Warmer science these days in done in the office on a computer) are made available to the world.
For instance, the Climateers could quite easily document their virtual experiments’ computer code, datasets, etc. in an HTML document with links to respective files on the Livermore FTP. There would be then no need for an FOIA request at that point, from either Santer’s detractors or supporters, who want to analyze his scientific output.
Gail Combs says @ January 18, 2014 at 11:10 am;
My hunch is that Mr. Rockefeller and his fellow World Government travelers take nationalistic identity (Nationalism) as having arisen after/as a consequence of Nationalism. Nations as they define regions today are a thing of relatively recent history … and so (the thinking evidently goes) the ‘problem’ of national identity (which stands in the way of (an obviously superior [sic]) Globalism) … is one merely of modifying group-identification processes.
Actually, I will guess that easily-recognized ‘Nationalism’ predates the Middle Paleolithic. That what the Globalists really know about what they’re really up against here, will fit in the recess beneath the edge of a fingernail, and will be worth about as much as what we normally find there, in the service of their fondly imagined Conquest of Everything.
… about as likely as society being run from a scientific Ivory Tower.
Not that they can’t – either one of them – make a mess worthy of the History books, trying.
HAL-9000 says:
January 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm
“Santer makes some good points…in regards to his time getting monopolized in bureaucracy of FOIA requests.”
______________________
I disagree.
Santer is stuck in a mudhole of his own making. The signature activity of climate science has been to hide all references to actual work and data which might lead to the falsification of their pronouncements.
I disagree.
Santer is stuck in a mudhole of his own making. The signature activity of climate science has been to hide all references to actual work and data which might lead to the falsification of their pronouncements.
I guess I should qualify my above statements that if Santer’s motivation is to hide references, work, data, etc. than he has nothing to complain about – i.e. he’s getting what he deserves.
āClimate scienceā? More like āClimate sĆ©anceā for the āhuman-caused-global-warming fraternityā.
Poor Santer, crying his crocodile tears as he makes such scientific pronouncements as āNext time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, Iāll be tempted to beat the crap out of him.Very tempted.ā and āIād really like to talk to a few of these āAuditorsā in a dark alley.ā He made his own cesspool, now he can sleep in it.
HAL-9000 says: @ January 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm
Iām hardly a Warmer, but Santer makes some good points (watched about thirty minutes starting from the ~42:30 mark) in regards to his time getting monopolized in bureaucracy of FOIA requests….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry HAL you have it completely WRONG. If you publish your result you include ALL the DATA and the method and everything else.
Science is about being able to validate and verify the results. The criminal sloppyness in Journals and science is starting to have a major effect and it is comming back to BITE SCIENTISTS in the arse!
A few samples:
Re: Latimer Alder says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:47 am
“āClimate communicationā = vainly hoping that new lipstick will beautify the same old and ugly climate pig.”
The “climate pig” always squeals the loudest, when it feels cornered, and can’t see a way out.
Can you imagine then how peer review would affect Sensitive Ben if peer review were actually critically meaningful in some little way – on par, say, with that Canadian blogger.
troe says:
January 18, 2014 at 9:57 am
You canāt trust the news in China because the government controls the journalists.
========
And in the UK the politicians – some of whom were caught defrauding the tax-payer for personal gain, in the expenses scandal, unveiled by a newspaper – the politicians, the self-same politicians, want to control the press.
Well, we all know politicians – left or right, or muddle-in-the-middle – all of them, are saints, with immaculate judgement, and perfect timing, utter devotion to those they serve – and to their spouses.
[Sarc. – might a few have guessed?]
So, if they think global warming causes floods (and we’ve had a few), they’re obviously entirely correct – even if their degree is in Politics, Philosophy and economics – not physics or meteorology, or statistics
HAL-9000 says @ January 18, 2014 at 12:19 pm;
I would agree that his irritation is ‘understandable & human’, but whether he is soundly based on a “point” that will support his protests & complaints is a different thing.
What it looks like in this case, is that his time is being monopolized by his own efforts to resist, obstruct and fight (legal, legitimate) FOIA requests. If he simply provided the requested materials, it would be only a passing matter. Really, those materials should be posted already.
FOIA and those who use it don’t seem to be the cause of Dr. Santer’s trauma & turmoil. He appears to the author of all that drama, himself.
Michael,
Your thermometer vs LLNL?
What are the altitudes of these thermometers?
US and EU media occasionally run pieces on how the media in China among other places is controlled or manipulated by the government. The implication is always that they stand as our guardians against such practices.
The Metcalf Institute program and its alumni list look like something you would expect to see run by a guy in a silk Mao suit.
That was my point and I know most here got it.
troe says:
January 18, 2014 at 1:17 pm
US and EU media occasionally run pieces on how the media in China among other places is controlled or manipulated by the government. The implication is always that they stand as our guardians against such practices.
The Metcalf Institute program and its alumni list look like something you would expect to see run by a guy in a silk Mao suit.
That was my point and I know most here got it.
__________________
Bears repeating.
Without climategate, we would not know about the disturbing background of Santer et al 2008..
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html
It is actually one of the all time classics of the failure of peer review,and obstruction of science.
Without climateaudit.org, we would not know about Santer’s disturbing tricks.
http://climateaudit.org/category/modeling/santer/
Ted Clayton says: @ January 18, 2014 at 12:32 pm
…Actually, I will guess that easily-recognized āNationalismā predates the Middle Paleolithic….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes. A version of see the stranger, hate the stranger, kill the stranger. (And take all his women.) Thanks to the horse and wheel the small tribes just got bigger.
They are trying to erase that reality from the textbooks of course.
“Santer says āI had always assumed that if the science was credible, we could just rest our case on the science. It was enough to publish high-quality papers, to establish some human culpability in observed climate change, and that ultimately that would be good enough, and that policymakers would take the right decisions based on the best available scientific evidence.ā”
1. Structured scientific revolution in which a community of experts and researchers develop a new paradigm, check
2. Universities, Unions, Societies and Journals world wide adopt new paradigm in a remarkable international lock-step, check
3. Well funded and hand selected scientists get all the evidence to fill in the paint-by-numbers scientific paradigm, because “the evidence matters,” check.
4. Publish the paradigm in high-quality journals with peer review by those who share the paradigm, check.
5. Call politicians by any other name. “Policymakers.” check
He’s right. They followed protocol, what on earth could have gone wrong?
Trying to see both sides of the argument, my line of thought goes like this : If you have done good honest science, and it is being countered in the public arena by an ideological pressure group, then it would be reasonable to be upset about it. But surely the first thing to do would be to revisit your science and make absolutely sure that it is in fact good. And the public, before accepting the counter arguments, need to check them carefully too. The point of this is that in other similar situations the ‘Ben Santer’ could be right and the vocal opposition wrong.
So thanks, David L. Hagen (Jan 18 8:01am) for your Richard Feynman quote “itās this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing“.
John F. Hultquist says:
January 18, 2014 at 11:51 am
“Prof. Santerās got a product he will sell you but he doesnāt want you to see how it is produced. He seems to cue off of mushroom growers. However, they have a better product.”
Sausage-making comes to mind, as well.
“Heād like to get some support/protection from the Obama administration.”
Santer is meant to be doing science. Do the experiment, share the method and data. Let others replicate your work. If it’s right it will replicate, if it’s wrong it will not. In what way is this process personal? It’s not, it’s science.
People say all sorts of stupid crap on the internet but if it is demonstrably reproducible then it’s not crap. What can the Obama administration possibly do to help?
The bloggers hurt the establishment because the scrutiny is valid.
Re: Latimer Alder says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:47 am
āāClimate communicationā = vainly hoping that new lipstick will beautify the same old and ugly climate pig.ā
The “climate pig” is happiest when its “snout is in the trough”. But it is also the most dangerous. Climate pigs will not share, and any attempt to question the quality of its fertilizer production, can result in a violent outburst. They jealously guard their trough, and their wallowing hole, and will attack anyone trying to “clean up the mess”.
“For instance, the Climateers could quite easily document their virtual experimentsā computer code, datasets, etc. in an HTML document with links to respective files on the Livermore FTP.”
Real programmers would have a wiki and an SVN (or similar) code repository. But I’m guessing only Harry even knows what that means.
Russ R. says: @ January 18, 2014 at 2:10 pm
You are insulting pigs who are actually clean and intelligent. How DARE you compare the poor animal to Climastrologists.
(and yes I have owned pigs)
I am an engineer who designs things that people are in and on and in sometimes very harsh environments. I expect that every page of notes, every email or letter , every drawing, calculation, working paper etc etc of mine will be ‘discovered’ should some event occur that warrants the legal system getting cranked up. I live with it and do my work carefully and rigorously. I don’t employ PR people. WTF is Ben Santer on about?
Gail Combs says:
January 18, 2014 at 2:22 pm
Gail: sorry to offend your respect for pigs. I also am a “pig fan”, but felt it was necessary to let everyone know of virulent strain known as “climate pig”. They are the “killer bees” of the pig family, and are using their “pile it higher and deeper” skills to starve, other, more docile pigs.
MarkG says:
January 18, 2014 at 2:15 pm
Real programmers would have a wiki and an SVN (or similar) code repository. But Iām guessing only Harry even knows what that means.
You’re absolutely right about that, and frankly I would be surprised (despite how jaded I already am about the competence of the Church of Carbontology) if they were not employing those kinds of tools somewhere, somehow.
But when they publish their stuff, a dumb HTML doc with links would be easy resource for journalists, blogs, curious laypeople, etc. to easily acquire the relevant information. To extend the analogy to software, such a paper could even be viewed as a versioned ‘release’ where the relevant information is frozen-in-time in context to the paper.
Seriously, there’s a million technical fixes to Carbontology’s publishing process that would ‘solve’ their dilemma for FOIA requests and so on taking up a lot of their time. Of course all of them involve a dissemination of information outside their immediate control, and maybe deep down that’s Carbontology’s problem they cannot admit – even to themselves.
J,
Sorry about the delay…
I know OT…
The elevations are as follows:
Home: 400 feet
LLNL: 572 feet
Site 300: 1270 feet
Sandia Livermore: 647 feet
If I look at the temperature record from 5:30pm 1/17 to 8:00AM 1/18 for ‘Site 300’ it is all over the map (5 ~ 6 degrees F swings through the night) link: http://www-metdat.llnl.gov/cgi-pub/reports/current.pl?tower=SITE301&detail_level=0. The same for ‘Sandia Livermore’ but not as extreme. I have to ask questions, why the wide swings in the middle of the night? Heaters turning on, fan / blowers? Site 300 is in the middle of no-ware.
Living in the area my temperatures differ substantially to that of LLNL, granted my measurement are not calibrated measurements, but ice is ice.
73
Michael
HAL-9000 says:
January 18, 2014 at 2:35 pm
__________________
Every time I see one of your posts, I start hearing: “Daisy, Daisy…”
I can’t help it.
Every time I see one of your posts, I start hearing: āDaisy, Daisyā¦ā
Yeah, I get that a lot. In the real world, my name is a famous person which brings up a whole different category of distractions, so my online avatar persona is just different flavor of my life.
All I can say to Ben Santer is, ‘boo hoo.’ I listened to about an hour of the first video. First, it starts with the lead-in from the late Stephen Schneider wherein he warns of the trillion dollar corporate fossil fuel interests out to sabotage their work and then it sashays into Ben Santer producing not one single shred of evidence of personal destruction from nefarious fossil fuel interests. No, the damage to his pursuit of pure science (at taxpayer expense) comes from … a single individual, McIntyre, and his blog, Climate Audit. Where’s the fossil fuel interests? Oh well, it’s just a good opening line.
Now, back when I was working, any outgoing calls I made on the company phone were logged for both the destination phone number and the duration of the call. Could that be because they owned the phone? And, my e-mails, and anything on the computer, and its use, were also in their domain. They owned it. We all knew this. Planet Earth to Ben Santer; while you’re employed by a branch of the U.S. government your phone at work, your computer at work, your lab, your office, are all owned by the U.S. taxpayer – not you. So before you think that someone should show cause for FOIA requests (as you did in this weepy video) brush up just a little bit on law. Your right to be secure in your papers and effects apply only to your personal papers and effects, not those generated during the time in which you are paid in the employ of the taxpayer. We own those. Get it!
And, before boo hooing too much about requests for e-mails that include the word, ‘delete.’ Let us not forget what the IRS has done recently to others concerning certain words to be flagged.
Now, Mr. Santer, as far your statement, ‘no good deed goes unpunished,’ may I advise you that in my experience the people who have made that exact same statement are always those who think they know what’s best for others. But never do. Which is, perhaps, why those deeds, only ‘good’ in either a self-serving or illusionary sense, manage not to go unpunished.
But I’ve saved the best for last from that video where I noticed that Santer refers to models as experiments and states that if you run several of these experiments you can then get an average. Does anybody hear something very very questionable in that?
I basically agree with you Tom J, but one nitpick. Lawrence Livermore Lab isn’t a branch of the US government. It is primarily funded by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) and managed and operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC (LLNS), a partnership of the University of California, Bechtel, Babcock & Wilcox, URS, and Battelle Memorial Institute in affiliation with the Texas A&M University System. (source: Wikipedia)
Re: Latimer Alder says:
January 18, 2014 at 6:47 am
āāClimate communicationā = vainly hoping that new lipstick will beautify the same old and ugly climate pig.ā
Climate Pigs love to take turns producing vast quantities of excrement. The highest ranking climate pigs then gather together, and roll around in it, and proclaim it the highest quality excrement ever produced. There are no standards for the quality of their excrement. If it comes from a climate pig, then it must be high quality excrement. They never let any excrement, that does not come from a climate pig, off the farm. Their motto is: All pigs are equal, but climate pigs are more equal.
And now, Mikey Mann has accused Dr. Curry of…wait for it….being anti-science
http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/18/mann-on-advocacy-and-responsibility/#more-14347
Among all the hustlers, con artists, cranks and cronies making a buck on the back of climate change I find it very very sad that a decent person like Curry gets smeared along the way. Not only a decent person, but a very bright bulb that writes about Science and the uncertainties within.
But I guess if you live in a time where online journals can be terminated at will for publishing the incorrect articles of the likes of Willie Soon (who had already been punished once)…I guess one more smear is just another day’s work
Who attracts FOIA requests? Secretive incompetents and manipulative a-holes. Ben is doubly qualified.
I think he meant to say he assumed it would be enough to beat the crap out of anyone who disagrees with you.
The right word for the likes of Santer can’t be spoken in polite company.
Edward de Bono called this “the intelligence trap.”
Sowing the wind . . .
People should also understand just how far off the real data was compared to what Santer was trying to show in this paper.
He had one dataset at the 200 hpa level (about 10 kms high) increasing at 0.6C per decade, a huge trend.
But this level is equivalent to the TTS level in RSS. Here is the actual data that RSS is recording for this level. 0.005C per decade and literally 120 times lower than Santer’s paper was saying the newest best dataset RaobCore 1.4 was showing.
http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TTS/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TTS_Tropics_Land_and_Sea_v03_3.png
This paper was very highly touted at the time and cited as proof that the tropical troposphere was increasing in temperature just like the climate models said it should. Technically, an extremely important issue. How could one not want to see what data that he was using when it was so far off what every other dataset was showing.
The 200 hpa is also a very important one for the science. It is the top of where CO2 is the most active in emitting radiation to space. If the level was increasing in height (warming up in fact) it would be just as important as the lower troposphere warming up. But clearly, RSS shows that nothing at all is happening here.
John M
January 18, 2014 at 6:45 am
I watched that attached video you supplied and all I can say is that no one (i.e. Santer) who took part in that patronizing, agenda driven, sophomoric, piece of crap of a video has any right whatsoever to call himself anything approaching a serious scientist.
“…Santer:
Now thatās good science communication which the public can understand…”
Ooooh, I could hope for that too. I’ve met some of the FBI auditors, they’re not the small timid kind. Think over six feet, athletic, trained and not easily bluffed. Oh, and they’re always armed.
[Blockquote added. Mod]
My error, must’ve mistyped the quotation closure bracket.
I couldn’t watch beyond where he mentioned “human culpability”
Nothing new here. Years ago Santer’s friends were blaming the breakup of his marriage on me. I dunno, but my experience is that femmes really don’t like hanging around guys that whine all the time.
Phil Ford Says: …”When will ABC, BBC or any of the major media outlets start investigating The Greatest Heist of Modern Times? When will they actually start doing their job?”
Indeed! I would like to see a histogram of these monetary amounts per capita arrayed in ascending or descending order for all countries of the world who are fleecing their sheeple.
Tom J says:
John M
January 18, 2014 at 6:45 am
“I watched that attached video you supplied and all I can say is that no one (i.e. Santer) who took part in that patronizing, agenda driven, sophomoric, piece of crap of a video has any right whatsoever to call himself anything approaching a serious scientist.”
Nor a teacher. And yet there he is, twisting young people around to fear and hate cows, and all the food they eat. Now we need a video response showing the toxicity and stench of their language. That is the real pollution, so thick it may leach the light out of the day.
Ben Santer, a research scientist from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, discusses the recent problems with the use of the freedom of information act for non-US citizens to demand complete records, including emails, on scientific research projects. Santer posits that this is a dangerous dilemma that will ultimately inhibit false scientific research.
Only lies require such obfuscation.
What, pray tell, is “light engineering”?
And there you have it, whiny self justification, projection of own faults onto doubters and the slide into self agrandization.
What he has sown..is his to reap.
Funny how truth speakers really frighten this gentleman off.
Knowingly promoting falsehoods for “the cause” must be very corrosive to the soul.
Travesty Trenberth, Mighty Mann and Ranter Santer?
The 3 amigos of climatology.?
Mind you I can understand his being intimidated by Steve McIntyre, being gently questioned by a man of integrity must be terrifying for any team member.
Dear Ben,
There are many disgruntled people who will affect you profoundly in a dark alley, so do be careful what you wish for.
Funny how the mainstream media and climate scientists have been in lockstep along their vastly profitable but misled journey, and are falling into disrepute at the same time. Could it be that “just the facts, please” discipline gave way to “this is my interpretation” in both sectors at about the same time, the 1970s?
“Unfortunately, just because A is smarter than B does NOT imply that Aās ideas are correct.”
Neither does it imply that C, D, E, etc. are not smarter than A.
PR firms will instruct their clients to paint themselves as the victim.
M Seward says:
January 18, 2014 at 2:25 pm
I am an engineer who designs things that people are in and on and in sometimes very harsh environments. I expect that every page of notes, every email or letter , every drawing, calculation, working paper etc etc of mine will be ādiscoveredā should some event occur that warrants the legal system getting cranked up. I live with it and do my work carefully and rigorously. I donāt employ PR people. WTF is Ben Santer on about?
Exactly Right, M. Seward!
I’m an engineer as well. Hail Fellow Pragmatist and well met! I have been a party to several ‘legal discoveries’, as ne’er-do-wells were brought to justice or simple (but expensive!) mistakes were legally resolved. As serendipity would have it, I was a key ‘player’ in discovering inappropriate actions by folks that should have known better. My emails, spreadsheets, and even paper copies with hand annotated notes in the margins became required disclosures… and I had to defend those communications as an engineering ‘expert’.
I understand the mewling and puking by Santer and Friends to be another blatant ‘hopey/changey’ attempt to get dictatorial exemption to open disclosure US FOIA law from Our Dear Socialist Leader, an executive and administration that is the most secretive and deliberately opaque since Woodrow Wilson.
“If you like your climate change fraud, you can conceal your climate change fraud!”
Mac
noaaprogrammer says: @ January 18, 2014 at 6:41 pm
….Indeed! I would like to see a histogram of these monetary amounts per capita arrayed in ascending or descending order for all countries of the world who are fleecing their sheeple.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh it gets better than that and it is something all of us missed. (Anthony please take note)
Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions 2013
(Other similar books are linked at bottom of page. Robin take note they have a report: A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas)
On November 01, 2012 Fox had a story Eco-Taxes? Study Financed by U.S. Treasury Will Link Tax Code to Carbon Emissions
The Project has been completed and can be seen here: Effects of U.S. Tax Policy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The link to people involved in the project is now dead but the finished report lists as authors
William D. Nordhaus, Stephen A. Merrill, and Paul T. Beaton, Editors; Committee on the Effects of Provisions in the Internal Revenue Code on Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP); Policy and Global Affairs (PGA); National Research Council
As Fox News said:
I think I am going to be ill.
As a professional burglar the Police and their interference wirh my work is a dangerous dilemma which will eventually affect the work I do.
mareeS says: @ January 18, 2014 at 8:12 pm
……. Could it be that ājust the facts, pleaseā discipline gave way to āthis is my interpretationā in both sectors at about the same time, the 1970s?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NO!
1915
NOW:
You can see the rest of my research into who controls the media HERE
Top Senate Democrat Dick Durbin: āAnd the banks ā hard to believe in a time when weāre facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created ā are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place.ā
We lost control of our federal government in 1913.
1. The Federal Reserve Act gave control of money and therefore the economy to private bankers.
2. The 16th amendment took the Senate away from state legislatures and gave it to the general population now controlled by the propaganda printed in the MSM.
3. The 17th Amendment allowed the federal government the right to tax individuals. Citizens are now giving up about three quarters of their wages or more via various taxes. That does not include payments on all the fraudulent bank ‘Loans’ (As Justice Mahoney stated in the case of First National Bank of Montgomery vs. Daly (1969): Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,… did create the entire $14,000.00 in money and credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry…A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. so that makes bank loans fraud.)
The last blow was the reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause allowing its use for control of everything including the tomato plant in your back yard.
Another comment elsewhere stated that as soon as a bureaucracy is formed it immediately becomes the target for takeover by the Cabal it is supposed to control. Think John Taylor, lawyer for Monsanto controlling the FDA and ruling GMO is the same as natural and therefore requires no testing. There are plenty of other examples of the Corporate-government Revolving door
And if you have not figured it out by now big corporations lean left. They LIKE government control. See: E.M. Smith’s āEvil Socialismā vs āEvil Capitalismā
ed mister jones says:
January 18, 2014 at 8:33 pm
āUnfortunately, just because A is smarter than B does NOT imply that Aās ideas are correct.ā
Neither does it imply that C, D, E, etc. are not smarter than A.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Those that can do, those who can’t teach, those who can’t teach teachers.” seems that old saying is truer than ever.
Although perhaps it should be changed to:
“Those that can do, those who can’t face reality teach teachers.”
Time to revisit this gem. I understand the “one single study” was Ben’s
http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=1939.txt&search=wealth+of+others
“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest.”
Mr. Santer could fix this problem by coming on this blog and answer questions. Oh, by the way Ben is that alley idea open to anyone who disagrees with you?
We have a name for people like Santer in the UK!…WANKER! stop moaning and man up
Ben Santer seems to [ or pretends to] have absolutely no conception of the fallout that occurs when governments around the world take his findings and those of his fellow warmists as unassailable truths —as some sort of gospel that must not be questioned, as has happened with the former government in Australia.
Economies and livelihoods are seriously damaged if not destroyed on his word and that of his fellow warmists, with no alternative science tolerated at all—with politicians intimidated into public acceptance because to question the ‘consensus’ invites political annihilation—and questions from the public, even to a Climate Council whose brief is supposed to be to take their questions and inform them on the subject, are met with sneers , angry reminders that the ‘science is settled’ , ‘over’ , accepted by 97% of scientists worldwide etc, and with an aggressive shutdown of questioning.
In Australia we have had all of this and more—a shutdown and manipulation of information by warmist true believers in the claims of Ben Santer and his colleagues, warmist zealots who run the show in our mainstream media—a carbon tax that has decimated manufacturing in our country—a former government that is obstructing the new government’s policy to repeal the defeated former government’ s 23% and rising carbon tax that cascades through our economy damaging industry and business and costing jobs——obstruction that’s in defiance of the will of the Australian people who voted that carbon-taxing government out in a landslide.
All of this happens because Ben Santer and his colleagues demand to be free of normal scientific scrutiny, and to be the gatekeepers of climate science , as they showed in their Climategate emails—– and here in Australia, as is shown by the treatment of dissenting scientists in our universities and science institutions.
We even have the aforementioned Climate Council, made defunct by the new government, setting themselves up with crowd funding in parallel to the democratically -elected government , to ensure that their warmist dogma, channeling Santer and colleagues —–is the only story the Australian people get via their 100% supportive MSM ‘journalists’.
Such is the influence of the disingenuous Santer and his cohort who demand freedom from scrutiny as they orchestrate the rejigging of world economies and global politics—and people’s lives.
Show me the science!
“Ben,
Go write better papers. Steve will leave you alone.”
Good advice. Ben should take heed.